Seems I picked an interesting week to have this conversation

Eugene has a good, heart-felt post over on his blog today, on the pressures of loving people even when fundamentally disagreeing with them on truly deep, anguishing issues. I think I understand his angst.

This Sunday I'm beginning a new sermon series. For the next three months or so we're going to work through the Covenant Affirmations - six statements that help to define and center the Covenant Church. We are a little bit odd in being a non-creedal Church; there is no "creed" but the scriptures. And yet, there must be some definition, some point of general agreement, and so we hold to these six affirmations.

One of those affirmations is the reality of freedom in Christ. It is the recognition that men and women who call Christ 'Lord' still disagree over a host of issues when it comes to how we read the scriptures, and how they play out in our lives. But we take seriously the Unity of the Church, and would rather live in the tension of disagreement than divide the Body over secondary issues.

It's not a perfect system, but so far, it seems to have worked out rather well. I've sat in on some intense theological discussions where important issues were debated heatedly, only to see those discussions break up so everybody could go out for pizza and share in each other's lives. There are Covenant churches that lean in 'conservative' directions and Covenant churches that lean in more 'liberal' directions, but we remain committed to each other and the overarching mission of God to liberate this world from the Kingdom of the evil one. It is true of the Covenant Church that the need to liberate the prisoner and break the yoke of oppression is more important than the need to have a single definitive stance on baptism or the end times.

As such, the Covenant can be a lively place for discussion, and, for the most part, healthy discussion, where differences are respected and persons valued more than positions.

The Covenant Church truly seeks the third way in these things.

Unfortunately, I sometimes forget that not everybody operates with those same values. Eugene gave a couple of examples of being shot at from both sides for attempting live in the tension, to stay true to his interpretation of the Word while loving the wide variety of humanity in this world.

It seems most live by the "you're either with us or against us" mantra. If you don't condemn gays as hateful to God, you have no backbone. If you don't instantly throw 100% support behind gay marriage, you're a bigot. Or. . .if you don't call out abortionists as murderers, than you're culpable of the unborn holocaust, or if you don't stand 100% behind the right of women to have full freedom to abort their pregnancies, you're no different than the Taliban. (note: that Taliban comment didn't come from the previous comment threads; I've simply read it in a host of other web forums and comment streams).

And then there's this: I'm becoming more and more convinced that the internet is the absolutely worst place to carry on this discussion. It may be one step up from putting tracts on car windshields, but not much. Because, in the end, these issues are intensely human issues and they affect people at their deepest levels. And our lenses have all become so blurry through the past decades of debate and entrenchment, and our lists of bullet points so long that nobody really listens to each other, nobody hears the beating heart that is so passionate about the issue. It's all so much shouting and posturing.

Somewhere Wendell Berry once wrote a screed against revolutionary movements. His point was that true change happens when people decide to behave differently. Individual people. And those people influence the people around them. And from the ground up, change begins to come about. But top-down, it never works. I know he tries to ignore the internet, but I think his wisdom applies here. We affect change when we sit down with people, when we share our lives with the people in our communities, when we truly take the time to understand the people around us, when we can commit to care about each other, even when we disagree with each other. Which is why, in general, I don't tend to get into the Big Controversial Topics on this blog - because I'd rather sit down with someone on 'the other side' and talk it through, than try to sort anything out hidden behind an electronic wall.
____

Still, since for whatever reason this whole conversation came about this week, of all weeks, let me add my voice to the chorus: Victory is never ultimately won through violence. Our weapons, if weapons they be, are prayer, fasting, worship, seeking the Lord. Rhetoric, for sure, and the power of public persuasion. In a democracry no voice need be silenced; our voice belongs in the public sphere. But I am reminded of the words of 1 Peter: "Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." I'm afraid the Church has not understood this message very clearly. In the end, love and forgiveness win, not violent acts of retribution.

IF we take the message of Christ seriously, then our call is non-violence. Name-calling, demonizing, and certainly murder are not the answer. In fact, they are wrong, they are sin, they are an offense to God. I read Hugo's eulogy to Dr. Tiller, and I wouldn't agree with his saintly portrayal of the man. But in the end Dr. Tiller's will stand before the Lord, who alone will make final judgment of good or evil. And that should have been left in the hands of the Lord, not another human. Murder is murder is wrong. Killing in the name of Jesus is wrong. So hear me say this: yes, I am pro-life. Which means I believe all life ought to, except in the most extreme cases, be left in the hands of God to give or take away. And we all ought to grieve when life is snuffed out at the hands of other humans, rather than celebrate. Our call is to faithful living, representing the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of light and life, living lives marked by compassion, mercy, humility, justice, and a knowledge that it is God alone who rewards, and God alone who punishes.

Getting political for a moment

A week or so ago, Hugo wrote on his blog the story of a group of anti-abortion protesters on the campus of Pasadena City College. In that entry, he asked the following:

So the question I would have for my pro-life friends is about policy. What specific policy recommendations do you call for? If doctors continue to perform abortions once it has been made illegal, what charges do you intend to bring against them? What crime do you think a woman ought to be charged with if she seeks an abortion? If you believe that women are “victims” of abortion, do you see them as emotional children who cannot be held accountable for their actions? Do you think penalties should be enhanced for women who seek more than one abortion over the course of their lifetimes?

It's a good series of questions, questions we don't seem to talk about very much. In my experience, the push is all toward repealing Roe v. Wade and then outlawing abortion. But supposing that succeeded - what then? And why isn't this part of the conversation?

Perhaps it is, and I've missed it. But, as a pastor, I receive a fair amount of literature in the mail regarding abortion; as a reader of Christian newsmagazines and websites, I certainly hear many who labor tirelessly to 'end abortion,' mostly by working to have abortion made illegal in the U.S. But, honestly, I think this is the first time I've ever been asked "and then what?"

These are questions I admit I haven't really thought through, and questions for which I'm not sure I have any good answers.

Let me be clear about this: I am of the firm belief that life is a gift from God, be it life in the womb or life in a convalescent home, and that life ought only to be taken by God except in the extreme necessity of self-defense (even then I'm not so sure, thanks to those Mennonites. . .). I've read most sides of this debate, and, in the end, I believe that a human fetus is still human, and thus, killing it is wrong. Again, lest there be any confusion: abortion is a sin. Having an abortion is the wrong choice. Performing abortion is the killing of a human. So, yes, you could say I am against abortion, and would gladly vote for laws curtailing abortion rights, even making it illegal, just as murdering somebody on the street is illegal.

But Hugo's opened up some interesting questions. If we were to see abortion outlawed in our day, what, then, should be the consequence of having an abortion? Of performing abortions?

Just the other day I heard of a young woman, barely a teenager, who became pregnant; uncertain what she should do, she followed her mother's advice and had the baby aborted (the mother, btw, does consider herself a fine Christian woman, or so I am told. . .but felt her daughter was too young for this responsibility, so abortion was the 'sensible' choice). And this story is told time and again across our nation. Place that story into a world where abortion is illegal. What would we expect as a proper consequence? Prison? Paying a fine? Community service?

With the doctors, I suppose it may be an easier call. If abortion is illegal, and one performs an abortion, if one profits from performing abortions, I personally wouldn't have trouble with mandating jail time. Immediate revocation of one's medical license. Paying fines, doing community service.

Except. . .would it be equitable to give one set of consequences to the doctor, and another to the woman who sought the abortion in the first place? Would we think it fair to imprison the abortionist, while only giving a slap on the wrist to the one who wanted their child aborted? Because if not. . .then are we ready to start putting 14-15 year old girls into prison for this? Or 26-year old women, or 35-year old women who may just happen to have other kids at home for whom she is caring?

And what about the mother who pressures her teenage daughter - is she guilty? And what about the boyfriend/husband who pushes his girlfriend/wife into this decision?

In a moral universe, all share some of the guilt - the doctor, the pregnant girl/woman, the person pressuring them. None can claim complete innocence for causing the end of a baby's life.

But in a legal universe, are we ready to charge them all with the same crime? Are we ready to call these women "murderers"? (Okay, I know some are; I've seen the signs and bumper stickers. That's not primarily the crowd I'm addressing here). Do we want to make the case that aborting a baby is the same as murdering a child or adult? If so, do we want the same set of consequences?

Viscerally, when one hears of a woman throwing her child off a bridge, or a man murdering the little girl next door, we instantly think "lock them up," or at the least "stick them in an institution somewhere so they can get help." But what about our next-door-neighbor, the PTA president, the woman who volunteers at Little League, what about our teenage daughters - otherwise normal kids or upstanding adults, who just happen to have had an abortion.

Are we ready to lock them up? To institutionalize them?

So we have Hugo's question. What should be the penalty for performing abortions? What should be the penalty for seeking an abortion. If we were to see abortion outlawed. . .what then?

(final note: the assumption of this discussion is that pro-life people ought to have a discussion about the far-reaching consequences of acheiving their goals. It's not to have a debate on whether or not abortion is wrong/a sin. Please remember that, should you choose to leave any comments.)