Conspiracies Uncovered ...

It is really hard to watch the news (pick any channel) for any length of time, and not begin to see a conspiracy behind a given event.  We used to call those folks conspiracy theorists (or nuts), now we just call them uncle 😊.  But where once we believed in the “good” of our institutions, or at least in the attempt to do good by our institutions; now we lose faith them in from the barrage of what we see on any news channel at any given point in the day.  Happy stories on the news are hardly even imagined.  If it bleeds, it leads, is still the mantra (perhaps a horrible reflection of who we are).  And this has never been truer since the advent of cable news (thanks Ted).  So to join the ranks of the conspiracy “team” (trying to be polite uncle), all you really need to do, is connect some of the relatively obvious dots.  Getting anyone to admit there actually was a conspiracy; or trying to prove one in the face of constant denials, keeps most of this stuff where it started out – in the backrooms, and dimly lit nocturnal abodes of the less-than-savory. 

And frankly, there has been a lot of practice to get a conspiracy right since the first one launched in heaven itself more than 6,000 years ago.  Imagine a pristine environment where a lie had never been told.  Imagine having the complete trust of anyone you came in contact with, because they did not know even what a lie was.  This was the condition, when Lucifer invented lies and began to dabble to perfect his new craft.  Before you know it, nearly a third of the heavenly angels (his peers), were convinced that God was an ego-maniac who would kill you for disagreeing with Him.  The first conspiracy was to overthrow God and take His place running the universe.  It failed.  But it has taken nearly 4000+ years for the Truth to come out to the rest of the universe, and the clock is still running here on planet earth for humanity.  The universe has made up its mind about the character of God.  We can’t seem to get our act together on that topic.  We are not quite sure Satan is wrong.  Just look at the imagine of God most Christian churches present when they talk about hell fire and eternal torture.

Assaulting God’s character and trying to overthrow Him may have been the first conspiracy against God, but it would not be the last.  Oh sure most of us have heard about the one at the Tower of Babel, when man decided the first time, to take his salvation in his own hands and build a tower so great not even God could flood it again.  Yeah, that one did not do well either.  But then comes one of the most dastardly conspiracies of all time against God.  The one where the religious leadership of His church, decided (under Satanic inspiration, but not much needed there), to kill Jesus Christ – just not on feast day – in case the people might get a little upset.  Yeah, it sounds a little crazy on a lot of levels.  But it was a conspiracy.  And of all things, Jesus knew every detail.  He did not nothing to stop it.  But He did unmask it, and try to warn the ones who would be impacted by it, perhaps to offer a last hope of salvation for them (even if it would be rejected again).

Matthew records this conspiracy for us, in his gospel, picking up in chapter 26 and verse 1 saying … “And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said unto his disciples, [verse 2] Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.”  Catch the key word there that reveals the conspiracy, the word betrayed.  Someone Jesus trusted was going to turn Jesus over to someone else who hated Him and had in mind to kill Him.  Where there is more than one person working towards a nefarious goal, you by definition, have a conspiracy.  But here is the kicker, Jesus knows it is coming.  He even knows when.  Not because He has a spy keeping Him up to date, but because you simply cannot do anything that God is not aware of, even if it is still just an intent in your heart.  That’s scary.  At least, that is scary for those of us who think we actually have “secret” sins.  The only thing secret about them, is that for a while they may still be in dark from our peers here, but eventually the Truth will out.  And for God, even before we take action, our thoughts, and our motives were known.

Matthew is not subtle about it as he continues in verse 3 saying … “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, [verse 4] And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. [verse 5] But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.”  This just blows my mind.  It was NOT the Romans who started this conspiracy.  Everyone likes to conveniently blame them because eventually they played a role in it.  But that is just convenient memory.  The truth is that the head of the religion handed down by Jesus Himself to Israel, to Moses, to David, to Solomon, to all the Prophets and Kings that preceded Him – that One true religion – was determined to kill its Author.  Can you imagine the Pope, and the archbishops of the Catholic church, just determined to kill anyone that ever disagreed with them?  Too soon?  Or can you imagine on a more personal basis, what the leaders of your church might do to hang on to power and money even today?  People have always killed to hang on to power or money.  We just seem to forget when they do it to the least of these, they do it to Christ.  However in this case, these Pharisees were just “actually” doing it to Christ.

Matthew wastes no time connecting the dots of the warning of Jesus, with the reality of what followed it.  Even though Jesus had unmasked the conspiracy, that conspiracy formed, and continued to plan and carry out its goals.  Notice too, they were not out to just assassinate Him, instead they wanted to take Him with subtlety (and not on feast day).  Hypocrites to the end.  We must kill our God, but not on one of His special days.  Not much different than folks today I know of, who have no love of the poor, and would be happy to see them go anywhere “else”, even if that means they go away to die in hunger.  As long as they are not here in our church on our “holy” day while we are trying to get our worship on.  We are busy “worshipping”, we have no time for the inconvenient distractions of people who are hungry.  We have on our “good” clothes, and don’t want to get messy.  Get a job.  Go away.  Anywhere else.  Just don’t disturb us while we worship.  And we have the audacity to call what we are doing “worship”.  But it is so easy for us to see the “least of these” and just not see Christ.

The disciples just seem oblivious to what Jesus said.  It’s like they went deaf for a few sentences or something.  There is no record of any reaction to it.  They don’t start buying swords to defend their Lord, (but perhaps Peter did, or at least he got his sword out of storage).  They don’t start looking to find the culprits and reason with them, perhaps diverting them to another course of action.  They don’t start praying for them.  Just nothing.  Life goes on, like if no warning had been given.  How eerily familiar.  But someone heard what Jesus said.  Someone who was listening, like perhaps what all women do, even when men think they don’t.  Matthew continues in verse 6 saying … “Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, [verse 7] There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.”

How incredible.  We would like to think this woman was Mary Magdalene.  It is convenient for men, that all the heroic things that take place in the New Testament scriptures are done by Mary Magdalene, that way there is only “one” exception to rules.  But Matthew (who knew Mary Magdalene) does not name her so.  Ok so if not Mary Magdalene, then perhaps it was Mary or Martha one of the sisters of Lazarus who were also devout followers of Jesus.  But Matthew knew them as well, and did nothing to call either by name here.  Which by process of elimination, means this woman was a devout follower of Jesus, and unnamed to history – that would mean there is more than one exception to the rule, or perhaps better still there was never any rule in the first place where it comes to the roles of men and women as they follow Jesus Christ.  Perhaps the Holy Spirit is in charge of that, or should be.  Nonetheless, this woman was listening to the sad proclamation of Jesus, and she did something about it.  She did all she could.  She likely spent as much as a year’s wages (maybe more).  In short, she gave everything she had.

But no good deed goes unpunished, even within the church it seems, even the new church.  Matthew continues in verse 8 saying … “But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? [verse 9] For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.”  Given what will follow with Judas in only a few verses further, it is easy to assume this was at his instigation.  Judas was likely the one who carried the money for the poor, so putting a few gold coins in his purse might have appealed to him.  Again convenient memory.  Matthew is careful to use the word “disciples”.  When there is more than one person engaged in a nefarious action there is by definition a conspiracy.  If it were only Judas, everyone would have been all too happy to cast the blame solely on Judas.  Keep in mind this gospel was written well after the facts.  But it was not just Judas.  Peter, Matthew, perhaps John and yes, perhaps Judas too – were ALL too happy to complain about this woman’s good deed.  They were collectively guilty, not singularly so.  And they had the nerve to be angry about it.  Here is the “new” leadership of the church angry with a woman, for giving all she has to Christ.  How eerily familiar. 

Matthew continues in verse 10 saying … “When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. [verse 11] For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. [verse 12] For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. [verse 13] Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”  Jesus defends the woman, and her act of love.  He testifies that this act should be remembered as the gospel itself is remembered (and so Matthew records the entire incident, even to his own shame).  Jesus also calls out the hypocrisy of false motives if “anyone” intended to pocket some of the gold coins in a purse they might be carrying for the poor.  The leadership of the new church is rebuked for criticizing the act of love a woman has done for our Lord.  So strange that our modern churches remain so steadfast on a course of criticizing any woman for how she may be gifted to serve her Lord through love.  We still do it, and read these passages as if they are nothing more than history – no lesson for us here.

Matthew again is not too subtle about connecting the dots as he continues in verse 14 saying … “Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, [verse 15] And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. [verse 16] And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.”  People have always killed to hang on to money or power.  If Judas must bear the rebuke of Jesus over a few coins this woman wasted, there are other ways of making money, money he will not have to share with the poor either.  And here is where our hearts should break.  Judas cast out demons.  Judas healed the sick.  Judas was a missionary in partnership with one of the other twelve, commissioned by Christ to spread the gospel in earlier days.  That means Judas was a witness, who spoke, who healed, who had the Holy Ghost within him while engaged in these actions.  And yet it is Judas who throws his whole relationship away, and for what?  A few coins?  A perception of an insult or rebuke?

Judas would rather give up his role in church leadership and join a conspiracy to kill his Lord and ask yourself for what?  What would you give up a close relationship with Jesus over?  What conspiracy would you want to join?  Is it a conspiracy for wealth that drives you.  Would you focus more on career to bring you what you think you need (like Judas may have done) – than to sacrifice your job, or your promotion, or your career trajectory - in favor of time with Jesus Christ, even if only revealed through the least of these?  Judas is a cautionary story for us.  Not of betrayal, that’s too easy.  It is of forsaking victory in favor of self-service.  Even when he was directly warned by Jesus that “someone” close to Him would “betray” Him.  The conspiracy was already unmasked.  There was already a light shining in the corners.  Yet Judas ignores the warning and joins it anyway.  As usual this conspiracy against God did not work out well, nor would any other.  They may have appearance of success in some limited fashion.  But in reality, they continue to fail.  Because to fight God, is by definition, to fail.

It is also worth noting that “group think” does not make you right.  There was an entire array of church leaders engaged in the same conspiratorial plot, the same ideas.  They may have had varying motives, but they nearly all wanted Jesus dead.  And the ones who might have disagreed with this stance were certainly quiet about it before time.  Having your entire church leadership of one mind on any given topic is great for unity, until they are united in doing the wrong thing.  To try to determine the right or wrong of a thing in our by-design very-gray-world, ask yourself – what love will this thing show to the least of these, or what love might it take away.  Don’t try to hide insults and hate speech behind the wall of doctrines, claiming you are merely doing God’s work.  That same excuse came right out of Caiaphas’ home that night word-for-word in the matter of trying to kill Jesus to protect the church and “save” the people from His incessant focus on love.  If you find yourself already in the conspiracy, drop out.  Look up.  Go back to Jesus and ask Him what He would do.  Then try to listen and do what He leads you to do.  That might be the distinction to tell if you are in a conspiracy or not – are you following Jesus’ lead; or are you deciding what must be done next.

 

A Biased Media ...

What happens when the messenger wants something to be true?  Is the message corrupted by desire, or is the audience simply more skeptical of the messenger?  How could desire not impact what is said.  In this election cycle, there are strong opinions on either side.  But then, listening to those with strong opinions is not quite the same as listening to the source.  Once upon a time, our country had a news media not obsessed with corporate profit.  News organizations were largely loss-leaders for the entertainment divisions.  The news was considered a public service, mandated by the FCC to serve that interest.  To do news properly, one had to be extremely vigilant not to insert opinion, or preference, but to be devoid of it.  News was supposed to be a recitation of facts in order that an informed public could create its own opinions.  But today, news has become a corporate machine designed to create our opinions, providing only enough select information to do so.

Media itself has changed as well.  The internet has offered an explosion of personal opinion, bias, and anonymity.  Being responsible for the words you say in a face-to-face conversation, is a far cry from what is typed on a screen in absolute solitude.  Electronic friends are not the same thing as ones who could reach out and touch us in person.  Electronic friends are those of like mind, like preference, like bias on a particular topic.  Those of like mind congregate together reinforcing each other’s opinions but considering no new information that might alter them.  It would seem in our age, the only delivery system capable of offering information in a format we might consider when different than our own, are the comedy shows that focus on news related topics, despite the bias.  If we can laugh at reality, perhaps we can accept reality may not be exactly as we imagine it.

The world faced no such dangers in the time of Christ.  For news to travel it had to be face-to-face, or carrier pigeon mail to its recipient.  There was heavy responsibility for what words you said, for the person you said them to, knew it was you, and remembered what you said.  Bias still existed.  Preference still existed.  But friends in that day, had the luxury of knowing each other, understanding the history, putting the bias in context.  And so, news, while not centrally distributed, was still effective face-to-face despite the bias.  But stories of the impossible are still harder to believe, even when you know the source of the story.  To overcome common sense, takes great faith.  To believe what history, logic, and common sense say is impossible takes greater faith.  This is what our God asks.  He asks it still.  His messengers face this résistance still, because in addition, they want what they say to be true.

Good news, may represent the only time, when bias and truth align.  When something we have waited for, longed for, and hoped for becomes our reality; this is when bias and truth align without negative side effects or consequences.  A Father and a mother wants to see their children live, not just exist, but live.  Our Father wants this for us.  Our parents want it too.  To offer news in this regard is a great story, a happy story.  Peter recalls one to John Mark that formed the basis for the gospel story.  While Peter and John Mark wanted it to be true, it was true, bias and truth aligned.  The story begins in the Gospel of Mark in chapter sixteen, picking up in verse 1 saying … “And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.”

Peter opens with a declarative whose significance cannot be overstated … and when the Sabbath was past.  Christ has finished resting from the work of our redemption, to now begin the work of our re-creation.  Without having paid this price, we could never be reconciled to God.  But a new day has dawned.  The first day of the week has arrived.  The first day of a new week, of a new phase of our reconciliation process.  The week is not at an end, but at its beginning.  And what happens now, is about what happens when something new has started.  Women of extreme courage are present once again.  The first ministers in the new covenant, in the new testament, in the new gospel, are to be women.  A hooker (now former), a mother, and a sister of Jesus with a famous name, have all come to anoint a dead body, which will never be found dead again; for death will hold no sway ever again.

Mark continues in verse 2 saying … “And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.”  Before the sun has arisen to start the day, the Son of God has arisen to start the new day of our reconciliation.  Those pagan cultures that worship the sun in our solar system, will have no event to further commemorate their misguided beliefs.  For while it was still dark outside, in the dark of morning between midnight and before the crack of dawn; something wonderful has already occurred.  The tomb was enlightened with the light of many suns, the entire Roman garrison was laid back in the dirt at the brilliance of God emerging from this tomb.  All of these events having already transpired before the dawn.  This sunrise will not light the events of the resurrection, they have already occurred.

John Mark continues in verse 3 saying … “And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? [verse 4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.”  Upon arriving at the tomb, the Roman garrison has fled.  They are alone at this site, no soldier stretched out to meet them or offer assistance to them.  They begin to ask how three women will be able to move a stone at the entry of the tomb that it took nearly a dozen soldiers to place there?  If they cannot move the door, they will not be able to get to His body.  They persist in their mission, not realizing there is no need for it anymore.  And as they arrive, the stone is already moved.  This makes no sense.  The Romans have no interest in this Jew.  They resent guarding Him, and surely would have not wanted anything more to do with a rotting corpse.  Something is wrong, wonderfully wrong.

Peter continues the recollection to John Mark in verse 5 saying … “And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.”  Entering the tomb they encounter an angel, who remained for just this mission.  Humanity fears the divine when it is encountered.  It could be the sin in us.  It could be the realization of what true purity is when it touches the likes of us.  We recoil.  We wonder if judgment is upon us now, without further time for repentance, or reformation.  Our fear is instinctive as it comes from the deceiver of souls who also fears what true purity looks like now.  We are too akin to darkness than to light.

Mark continues in verse 6 saying … “And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. [verse 7] But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.”  Before the gospel can be heard, or understood, we must lose our fear.  We must put aside our instinctive fear, and pay attention to something greater than our fear.  The first message of the gospel is herein defined.  The angel said it directly to these women.  The angel spoke the words of the gospel, the hope of the gospel to these women of extreme courage.  You seek Jesus.  He is NOT here.  He is arisen.  That is the gospel.  That is the good news, the great news.  It is both what we long for, what we want, and it is the truth.  Bias and truth aligned, as it can, ONLY when good news is spoken.

But beyond the angel’s declaration of the gospel itself.  He gives a command, a commission … to these three women.  They are to go to His disciples (and Peter) and tell them Jesus plans to meet them in Galilee as He had said to them before His death.  This is a specific message to be delivered to the people of God.  This is the first sermon to be spoken on earth.  It is to be short.  It is to be directly to the point.  It is to be directed at those who claim to follow Jesus the Christ, those who say they are His followers.  The first sermon is to be preached by women, by these three women of extreme courage.  The spices for this body will never be needed, but the message about a resurrection will never stop being needed.  It is not His death on the cross that is to be celebrated, but it is His resurrection from that death which is.  Those who wish to honor Jesus would do better to wear a stone rolled away from a tomb around their necks, than a wooden cross that commemorates only His death, not His victory over it.

And still the stubbornness of the men in our age is willing to proclaim that women should not preach.  Yet our God plainly thinks differently.  The prologue also being less than ideal as Mark concludes these thoughts in verse 8 saying … “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.”  The word of an angel was enough to make them tremble and fear.  But in these women of extreme courage, this was enough fear to make it fail.  Fear overcame commission.  Fear has always overcome our ability to spread the gospel.  Fear of our reputations being held in even less regard.  Fear that our sanity may not actually be quite intact.  Fear that our fondest hope is nothing more than self-hallucinations.  So these women believe what they have been told, but are unable to speak about it for fear.  Imagine how disappointed all of heaven must have been.

But where the words of an angel were not enough to conquer fear, this was a gospel that must get out.  The message could not be left unsaid.  The fear of messengers could not stand in its way.  The bias of believers could not stand in its way.  The limitations of the media could not stand in its way.  The gospel must be preached.  It must be heard.  It must have its chance to get right to the heart of one in need, right to you, right to me …

 

Abortion ...

What is life?  How do we define its value?  Should we even try?  Perhaps the biggest political debate that conflicts with popular Christian philosophy centers around the origin and value of human life.  Most Christians feel strongly that the lives of the innocent should be protected.  In a bit of irony, most Christians also support the death penalty.  But are we looking at this issue in the proper context?  Or have we been forced to see this debate as the choice to respect the privacy and rights of a woman over the rights of the unborn to live?  This is how the issue is framed for us in the media and by most all the political pundits and candidates of the day.  But perhaps there is another way to examine this perplexing issue that might bring together those with opposing views.

First one must examine the most fundamental question; who is the author of life?  As Christians we believe this is God.  But what role God delegated to man in the pro-creation of life is something that must also be considered.  For a child to be born at all, a man and woman (without using the aid of modern cloning, or advanced fertility techniques which we will discuss later) must consent to having intercourse.  This was intended to occur within the marital relationship as God setup in the Garden of Eden before sin ever existed.  The intimacy shared between husband and wife on the most profound physical level would result in the “multiplying” of our species.  If man and wife abstain entirely, no child is born at all.  Man makes a choice.  That choice has consequences.  It was not God’s design that only one sex could spontaneously decide to have children.  It was supposed to take the union of both man and wife.  Two people deciding to join, and in so doing, to pro-create.  We cannot originate life on our own.  But in union we are able to.

This brings up the issue, of how much of a role do we play with respect to the choice to procreate.  To the best of our knowledge there has only ever been ONE virgin birth, that of Christ.  Every other birth (short modern medicine) has occurred the traditional way.  God has not intervened and granted the desire of a single person absent a partner to spontaneously create a new life.  Therefore men and women play the MOST pivotal role in our species propagation.  It is not a matter of luck.  It is not a matter of fate.  It is a matter of choice, physical interaction, and the biological systems our God has created in us.  Engage in physical union and the results can be procreation.  No union – no children.  So when a husband and wife come together as God ordained, a child is the likely outcome.  It takes preventative measures to interrupt what would otherwise occur.  Today women take a pill, or couples use condoms, or other measures to disrupt what might otherwise occur as a natural result of their unions.  The entire birth control industry is built on preventing the likelihood of pregnancy.

It is natural, or by design, that procreation occurs from physical union.  It takes deliberate effort to prevent it.  Unless a couple suffers from medical inabilities of some sort, a series of physical unions will produce offspring.  Therefore it is a choice of man – whether a new life enters the world or not – as his actions can predict the outcome of that choice.  God does not create life absent the choice of man.  God has instead delegated this decision, and this process to man, for us to exercise as He has outlined.  Most every ”dilemma” that accompanies pregnancy occurs when physical unions happens outside of what God intended and ordained.

Rape and incest in our modern age were NEVER a part of God’s plans or intentions.  Teenage pregnancy was not either.  Pregnancy that comes from irresponsible decision making is not the fault of God.  To believe that God “wants” a teenage unmarried girl to become pregnant from engaging in sex outside of what He intended is to make God a sadist interested in punishing the guilty rather than redeeming them.  God does not “want” the teenager to be engaging in premarital sex in the first place.  This evil causes us to lose our self-respect, lose the ability to truly understand intimacy, cause undo emotional hardship as our transient relationships begin and end without commitment.  The pain that is caused to the teenager even if she never gets pregnant is damage enough.  Her life is already being ruined, even if she is unable to see it from lack of immediate consequences, as is the life of her partner who too suffers all these losses.  This says nothing of the risks that are taken from sexual diseases that can permanently alter our lives.  None of this was God’s intent.  But ALL of this is inevitable if premarital sex is embraced.  Pregnancy too is a natural consequence.  Not something that God ordained, or otherwise “blessed”.  It is simply another consequence to the actions and choices a teenager has made, or for that matter people of any age who engage in the same actions and decisions.

Forced sexual interaction was also NOT something God ever intended.  It is an abomination to Him.  And He does NOT intend that a woman becomes pregnant through the violent domination of a man who simply overpowers her in pure selfishness.  Pregnancy in these situations is not about what God intends, as if it were up to God, no sin like this would ever exist or be carried out.  Pregnancy in these situations is the natural results of the biological systems we were created with.  The only specific life that God ordained and intended was the birth of His son Jesus.  All other lives that have entered this world came through the natural results of men and their actions and choices.

So while the secondary origin of life may rest in the hands of men as God has created us with this ability.  The “value” of life is another matter entirely.  Each soul is precious to our God.  Each life is one in which He calls us His children.  Each of us unique by design.  Each created for a singular purpose that no other man or woman will ever be able to completely replicate for all eternity.  These are the teachings our Bible gives us.  Our existence may have been known to God in advance of our entering the world, but this is simply because He knew the choices our parents would make, and when they would make them.  When in scripture He says … I knew you in the womb … He is making a statement about His own omniscience, not about when cells dividing reach the point of life beginning.  To that end, each cell is already a “living” organism.  God knew the lives of all of us from before Adam and Eve were created.  He did not intend for Adam and Eve to break trust with Him and fail.  He did everything He could to prevent them from the choices they made.  But He could not force them to comply.  Nor can He force us to make better decisions.

Foreknowledge does not equate to predestination.  God does everything He can to save us from ourselves and the evil we embrace.  But He cannot compel us to choose Him.  This is the very nature of the freedom of choice He created.  He asks us, but does not force us.  Therefore man must be made responsible for the decisions he makes.  When we choose God, and submit our will to Him, He reforms our thinking and our desires and the consequences that come from evil outside of His intentions are removed from us through His grace.  When we forget to submit, or choose to follow our own path, we destine ourselves to the pain that comes from turning away from God.  When sex is engaged in outside of what God designed the natural results of the biology will also be inevitable.  Our choices may be foreseen by God, but they remain unknown to us.  We remain free to choose Him, or choose to forsake Him.  Only He knows what we will inevitably choose, but as we do not, we must turn our hearts and minds to Him daily.

So the simplistic answer is that were we to follow the designs of God and His intentions, the entire debate about “unwanted” pregnancies goes away.  Within the marital relationship, modern medical science offers us both ways to overcome our inabilities to procreate, as well as ways to keep from procreation.  Couples are able to make informed decisions about when to have children.  Should a married couple engage in physical union without precautions, they should expect pregnancy to result.  You cannot go back and hit the delete button.  One shouldn’t complain that they are unprepared or financially not ready to have children as a result of the irresponsible decisions we make even inside of a marriage.  If it matters, fix it.  If we intend to take risks, we should be responsible when the risks do not have the outcomes we wanted.

But what happens when evil is embraced and through sexual unions outside of God’s intentions a pregnancy results?  The salient question is what is to be done with the new life?  True freedom of choice, as God outlines it in scripture, is the freedom for a mother to “choose” to carry the pregnancy to term.  Then to decide whether to raise the child or not, which may well reflect the realities of her life and circumstances and what is in the best interests of the child at that time.  No mother should ever be criticized for the choices she makes in this regard whatever they are.  But what of those who choose not to carry the pregnancy to term?  Is that “against God”?

The Bible speaks of God breathing into man the breath of life.  It is at this point that man “became” a “living” soul.  We are not immortal.  We did not originate ourselves to begin with.  When that first breath was taken, we “became” a “living” soul.  Until then, we were a collection of dirt, water, and a few trace elements.  We did not spontaneously spring into existence through a selection of random events.  We were created by design.  Our creation was not complete until our first breath was taken.  We may have had hearts, brains, blood, bones, and the systems we needed in place to sustain life; but without God breathing into us, we were still NOT alive.  The same is true in the delivery room.  Until the child takes his first breath, he is not considered to be alive.  If he never breathes he is considered still born.  But when he takes that first breath on his own, a new life has entered the world.

When a mother suffers the loss of a pregnancy before it comes to term, it is a terribly sad event.  It is not that we miss a life we knew.  It is that we miss the life we wanted to know.  The life that might have existed, even if it never saw the light of day.  But in truth what was lost was not a new life, but the potential for a new life.  There is a difference between a pregnancy that terminates before birth, a child who is still-born, and an infant who dies of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).  Forgetting for a minute the intentional early termination of a pregnancy; prior to taking that first breath, a new life does not yet exist.  Once that first breath is taken, a new life has entered the world.

Those who believe “life” begins at conception are correct.  “Life” in so much as every single cell in our bodies is already alive and functioning as it should, begins even before conception.  Sperm too are alive.  As are the eggs they fertilize.  The process was created by God and was not intended for early interruption.  Death was never supposed to be part of our reality.  Neither was sickness or pain.  These things come as a result of the evil we embraced.  But our reality reflects the fact that not all pregnancies make it to term successfully.  The process is cut short from time to time.  When this occurs, it is the potential for life that has died, not life itself.  Perhaps in heaven the lost potential will be restored to us.  But while we remain here, we have to contend with the most unfortunate of circumstances that sometimes accompany a pregnancy lost.

It is the intentional disruption of the process of life that so grates on our hearts and our conscience.  Perhaps it is because most of the time when choice is exercised to terminate our normal process of life, it is done for reasons of pure selfishness.  When the decision to engage in sex was not forced, it is usually our other “priorities” that outweigh the potential life we choose to forego.  We put our own interests ahead of the interests of another.  Sound familiar?  It is the very core of evil itself – self-ish-ness.  We do not wish for our lives, our dreams, our desires, or our goals to “suffer” from our bad decisions.  When infidelity was the culprit behind an unwanted pregnancy, termination is sought to cover up our misdeeds.  When unwanted pregnancy occurs in the life of a teenager unprepared for the consequences of raising another life, we think our own needs outweigh those of another.  When casual sex is engaged in, we ignore our own irresponsibility and attempt to negate the “consequences” of our actions in order to avoid life-long financial responsibility or inconvenience.  In short, we take the risks, but refuse to embrace the natural consequences of our actions when they turn out to be not what we wanted.  This line of reasoning is entirely based in the same self-motivation that is at the root of every evil ever perpetrated in the history of our world.  It is why the idea of choosing early termination rubs us the wrong way.  It defies our ideas of right and wrong, because ultimately we know our choices are based in our own self interests.

But in cases where the choice to engage in sex was not one of informed consent; the idea of early termination of pregnancy by choice is only one of sadness.  Already a crime against a woman has been committed.  Now it is complicated by a result not of intent but of victimization.  What a woman chooses to do in a situation like this should be a matter of true choice between her and her God.  Should she choose to carry the pregnancy to term, she should be supported and embraced by those who claim the name of Christ.  Should she choose to end the pregnancy before an independent life is formed she should be supported by the same Christians who would have loved her if the outcome were different.  Obviously it is not a casual decision.  And the longer one waits the closer the life becomes from one of potential to one of reality.  But the motivation of a victim is entirely different from the motivation of one who has simply made a “bad” decision (which is actually taking a risk with an undesired outcome).  A victim makes a choice as to how to “deal” with the evil that has been perpetrated upon them.  There is no such equivalent for errant decisions.

In cases where the life and well-being of mother is put at risk from carrying a pregnancy to term, the decision again must be respected no matter the outcome.  Who would dare to criticize a woman who would willingly put her own life at risk to save another?  Is that not what policemen, firemen, EMT’s and our military servicemen do every day?  A mother will instinctively insert herself between her child and a predator determined to harm the child.  And a pregnant woman instinctively knows she is guarding the potential for life within her.  While our God values the life that exists in the woman who is already alive, He can also sympathize with her as she tries to fight for the life within her that puts her at risk.  She should never be condemned for trying to bring about the potential for life into an actual one.

Where a woman at medical risk makes a different decision in order to preserve her own well-being, no one should ever criticize this decision as well.  We do not criticize each other for changing our diets to preserve our health, or having a surgery, or taking advantage of modern medicine to extend our lives.  We do it regularly.  We do not criticize each other for defending our lives and those we love when they are threatened by the evil that exists in this world.  How many husbands would sit idly by and allow their wives to be harmed by another without stepping in harm’s way themselves first?  We take steps to protect ourselves and preserve our lives sometimes at the expense of another living person.  Why would we criticize a woman for doing so even before a potential life has transitioned to an actual one?  It makes no sense.  This is not a casual decision a person makes.  Organ donors take risks and we do not condemn the one who gives, or the one who is willing to receive what has been given.  We value the lives of them both.  We do not ask the donor to die, in order that the recipient live.  Instead we do everything we can to preserve both.  But at the end of the day, the life of the donor must be respected.  So too, the life of the mother must outweigh the potential for life she carries within her.  No man should judge her decisions in this respect.

No matter the circumstances the loss of a pregnancy that does not reach its fulfillment is a sad thing.  None of us are in a mood to celebrate, even at the potential lost life.  We may not hold funerals, or we may not feel the loss as keenly because we were unable to build a relationship with what would have been a new addition to our world, but we still feel the pains of sadness.  The loss deepens as time progresses.  Our own biological systems discard potential lives by the thousands in the form of sperm and eggs in early stages post copulation.  At this point we lack even the capability to know what is going on.  Once a pregnancy test comes back positive, changes begin to occur in the body, but more importantly in our minds.  We begin to accept the idea that life is coming.  We begin to anticipate it.  We start making plans around it.  We prepare, both physically and emotionally.  And we look forward to life.  When it is lost, no matter the reason, our sadness is experienced.

We must however make the distinction between sadness at the loss of potential, and sadness for the loss of an actual life.  We are sad when someone we love chooses to embrace an alcohol addiction and refuses to seek help.  It saddens us as we watch someone we love degrade themselves losing more and more of the things we value to the slavery of their condition.  People give up promising careers, financial stability, and finally even become willing to sacrifice the love of their families – all to pursue the next drink.  Everyone knows the futility of these choices.  Even the alcoholic can see the damage they inflict on themselves and those around them.  Yet they choose it anyway.  It is a terrible loss to watch the waste of potential.  But while life remains in the alcoholic, hope remains that reform can be sought.

When a person we knew dies, the loss is keener still.  When an aged parent or friend dies after many years of life, the loss is great as our relationships with them had time to mature.  Our love had time to grow and deepen.  When a young person dies we mourn both the loss of person we knew, and the loss of what they might have accomplished had they more time in this world.  When a baby dies, no matter how long they last after they take their first breath; the loss is heartbreaking.  The reality of death is keenly felt and the precious treasure is temporarily removed from our touch – to await a reunion in a more perfect world at the end of evil.  A parent truly mourns the loss of a child at any age.  It is the rest of us who mourn with them, the more we have time to build our own relationships with the children they have lost.

A Christian should have the clearest picture of what the loss of life, and the potential for life means.  We should do everything in our power to comfort those who have experienced this pain.  We should never do anything that might add to it.  It is unthinkable to go to a funeral and heap insults on the departed.  We would condemn the person who goes to such an affair and does everything they can to increase the pain of the survivors.  To go there and second guess them, to say “they” are at fault for the lost loved ones, blaming “them” for not doing enough.  It is unconscionable.  Funerals are a time for comfort and to express our grief and sadness, not a time for recriminations, blame, and second guessing.  The predominant emotion at a funeral is sadness, and for Christians, the secondary emotion should be hope.  But what is not needed at all is criticism.

When a woman seeks out a medical facility to terminate a pregnancy it is not the time for criticism.  It is akin to standing outside a drug rehab facility screaming at the patients leaving the building for ever being addicted in the first place.  If Christians wish to see better “choices”, we must begin by allowing Christ to change the desires we hold in the first place, and the values we choose to live by.  It must begin with the man in the mirror, not with the woman on the street.  When our own lives are reformed by His grace, we begin to love like He loves.  This is a compelling lure, and provides a reason for someone who is still caught in pain, to ask us how we found relief from our own pain.  It is then that we have an effective answer for them.  Submission to Christ cannot be taught in words.  It must be shown in the mirror of our lives.  We must be different people, not simply talk about aspiring to be different.  When we love without precondition our first concern is to alleviate the pain of others, not to increase it.

When our own lives reflect the work of submission to Christ, we finally and truly see the value in forsaking evil.  Our lives become a living example to our children of what marriage is actually capable of being.  We become more Christ-like in our role models as parents and our children see what the difference is, instead of just hearing about it.  Only then will teenage pregnancy rates begin to decline.  When our children witness for themselves the beauty of a marriage, instead of being subjected to the horror and pain of divorce, will we begin to see them cherish the ideas of fidelity and waiting for the “right” one to come along.  How can we ask them to wait for the “right” person to marry, when we ourselves trade in wives and husbands like so much candy?  If our relationships are transient can we not expect our children’s to reflect this also.  If our marriages are bad because we base them on our own abilities and selfish weaknesses can we truly expect our children to value marriage?  We must be different before the world becomes different.

Values cannot be instilled in another through well-crafted words.  They must be shown by a well lived life.  A living example is a powerful testimony.  If we wish to see a reduction in the choices to terminate pregnancies we must begin in our own homes.  As we become changed, and introduce change to our children, we raise up a generation who knows only how to love like God loves.  Teenage pregnancies will fall dramatically.  But to reflect the character of Christ is not to embrace evil, or to condemn and punish those who do.  It is to redeem those who embrace evil from the pain they bring upon themselves.  Instead of carrying placards in front of an abortion clinic, why not open, publicize, or volunteer to help out at an adoption services facility.  Open, volunteer, or contribute to a local day care facility for parents who do not have the funding to care for their children on their own.  Volunteer or teach in any facility that will have you that caters to the needs of the children who already exist in our communities.  Each of these acts of service will inspire others to believe that perhaps raising a child may be more feasible than they first thought.  Where no hope is offered to a person in need, hope is lost, and people make unfortunate and sad decisions.

Beliefs cannot be legislated into the hearts and minds of others.  Our country had national laws to set a maximum speed limit on its road systems of 55mph for many years.  Yet our citizenry routinely ignored these limitations despite the consequences.  The laws were enacted to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, a goal with which most agree.  But the inconvenience of driving at reduced speed outweighed the better goals of reducing our fuel consumption.  Eventually because so many ignored these laws, they were revoked.  The creation of laws does not change the minds of the governed.  Consequences for breaking our laws does nothing to deter a criminal bent on disobedience.  To truly change behavior, we must provide a living role model, that behavior can change, and that the values we live by help us avoid the pain and sadness that come with those who refuse these values.  A woman will forever carry the scars emotionally from choosing to terminate a pregnancy no matter when she decides to do this.  It will be a sadness that haunts her forever.  She needs no law to remind her of this, or to try to prevent her from this.  She needs a reason to avoid being caught in this decision in the first place.  And she needs hope to provide her with another alternative if she is found in it already.  To truly offer choice we must offer a real choice.

It is unrealistic to expect a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without the benefit of life long support for that decision.  Are we willing as Christians to go beyond preaching the evils of abortion and take up the cause of being in a child’s life from birth to tomb?  Instead of asking the person caught in sin to pay for it (as might rightly be asked of us for our own sins), perhaps we should offer the same kind of love that gets involved and stays involved that Christ offers us.  How many might turn away from the saddest choice a woman could make, if the alternative was a full community of people who would be there for her and her child for the length of their lives.  It is not because the new mother deserves this kind of support.  In fact she does not.  It is after all our own bad decisions that cause us to suffer the pain of the consequences of evil.  But if Christians are to value the lives of the innocent, perhaps we should commit to get involved on their behalf.  If we are to offer hope, we must find a way to make the hope tangible.  It is not enough to offer prayer for the fallen victim on the road, the Samaritan took action to save the victim.  So too should we Christians take action to offer a real alternative for the potential lives we value so much.

Salvation is not about crime and punishment.  Salvation is about being saved from our own evil choices.  It is about changing what we want, and therefore what we do.  To blame someone for making an evil choice is to blame a diseased person for their own conditions.  We already know we are at fault.  All of us make bad decisions.  Salvation is not about blaming, it is about reforming.  Abortion will not ever be required, let alone considered in the perfection of heaven.  Life was never intended to be prematurely interrupted.  It is a consequence of evil that this occurs at all.  And in this world, we are all steeped in the evil that accompanies this kind of result.  Knowing that abortion would not exist in perfection, perhaps Christians can begin to see it completely extinguished in the world around us, by seeking the perfection that comes from total surrender to Christ.  By complete submission to our Lord, the need, the desire, the sadness, all of it can be once and for all removed from our lives.  When we learn to love like He loves, we will finally change the world around us.  Not until.