How do we respond to the senseless mass murder of 20 innocent children in Newtown, Connecticut? 

Or the victims in Aurora, Colorado?

Or in Portland, Oregon? 

Please know your grief is remembered here, too.

How do we minister to those who grieve—whether those family members who must pass through the dark valley of personal grief or those across the nation observing the horror from a distance, but feeling the pain acutely nonetheless?

On Sunday, I offered to pray for a gentleman who came into the hospital chapel after the service.  He wanted me to pray for the victims’ families and all those who knew someone who died.  While ministering to him, I shared my personal journey of the peculiarly painful grieving process involved when a child has died.  I became convinced the Holy Spirit wants me to share the same with you.  While a child dying at birth and innocent children being murdered in a classroom might not seem to share the same magnitude, there are similarities regarding our search for answers on this side of heaven.

I’ve organized this into 4 pages so you can choose what will minister to you:

1. Page 1 appropriately attempts to console the grieving families. My heart goes out to you.
2. Page 2 offers encouragement for neighbors, friends, pastors, rabbis, and other religious leaders who desire to help.
3. Page 3 is a prayer similar to what I prayed on Sunday.
4. And page 4 is devoted to a short theology for those who are hungry to make sense of “Why God didn’t act to save the victims?”

To the parents and brothers and sisters, grandparents, aunts and uncles of the innocent six and seven-year olds who were killed, this type of grief is one we never “get over.”

 But the good news is that we do get through it. 

Hope can be found to sustain us as we drag ourselves, numb and empty, from sunrise to sleepless nights.  Eventually these feelings will be reconciled and a new normal will emerge.  Within the new normal, you will smile and laugh again (which I know seems nearly impossible right now). 

You will think of your child often—I still do daily nearly 14 years after the fact—but my hope is that when you do, the rawness of the pain you feel today will be replaced by the tender sentiment of a joyful reunion.  This has been my journey and being at peace about it, I wish the same comfort for you.

Each person—adult or child—grieves in his or her own way.  The grieving process takes a different shape depending on personality, age, and temperament.  I grieved by praying and thinking and talking.  My husband grieved by listening and finding activities to exhaust his emotions of sadness and anger.  My daughter grieved by crying, asking the really hard questions we all have, and by coming to grips with the feelings of betrayal by God and the dashing of her dreams.  My son grieved by playing a Star Wars computer game.  He’d play for a while, and then pause the game to ask, “Is Julia in heaven?”  We’d talk about it.  He’d play some more, pause, and ask, “Do you think she felt any pain?  Do you think she can see us?  Does she know that we were her family?  What happens when people die?”

Your questions and your children’s questions are likely to be similar.  But you will navigate them in a way uniquely personal to you.  Give yourself grace to be yourself.  It’s not a competition and the goal is not necessarily to get through it quickly.  The goal is to get through it well and emerge with new hope.

The truth is that grieving dead children is different.

I understand the void left behind when the person you loved has died.  Because you loved him or her, no one will ever fill that place.  No future children will ever occupy such hallowed ground of your heart as that bearing the footprints of your beloved child who died.  It is evidence of the depth of your love.

One might say that these feelings happen with any loss no matter what age.  But there aspects in which grieving a child is different.  Presumably among the seven adults murdered, they were children of parents who have survived them.  They were still children to someone.

The parent-child bond is powerfully strong and when broken by death, a part of us dies with our child.  That part was the innocent expectation of the cycle of life, like the sun rising and setting.   In the vast majority of instances, children someday bury their parents. 

It’s not supposed to be the other way around. 

For that reason, the death of children shakes us at our very core.  The adults who died, who were children yet to their own parents, have left that same bond broken and what remains is the associated shock at what we never could have imagined.

For the parents of the six and seven year olds, you know the grief in two additional aspects (the future dreams and the family dynamic).  You know the loss of future dreams in a more impactful way because they had lived so short a time in comparison to the life ahead of them.  You grieve the things your child would do as he/she became the young man/woman you dreamed they would be.  You grieve the birthday parties, ballet concerts, and soccer games.  You grieve the prom pictures and the graduation days from high school and college.  You grieve walking them down the aisle when they would get married.  You grieve the memories you wanted that will never be.  Making peace with this is harder because of the terrible unfairness of an innocent child being robbed of life at so young an age.

There’s also the family dynamic of trying to be strong for your surviving children and helping them in their grief.  Trying to explain what you have no answers for.  Children ask insightful, probing, and downright blunt questions that lack the niceties of beating around the bush of ambiguity.  There’s a straightforwardness about children that can catch you off-guard.  Don’t be afraid to say, “I haven’t really thought about that enough yet so I don’t have an answer now.  Let’s write that one down and agree to think about it and talk about it, OK?” 

Some questions don’t have answers and ironically, kids are often more accepting of fewer answers to “Why” questions than adults are.

Just as you will not want to compare your grieving process to others you know, your children will appreciate the grace and the freedom to grieve in their own way.  That said, as parents, I know you’ve already been talking with psychologists who specialize in this kind of thing.  Being observant of your children’s progress through grieving can allow timely professional help.  We appreciated the assistance of a Christian counselor and did not consider seeking help to be a sign of failure on our part.  It was an indicator of the trauma inflicted when a child dies and represented our best attempts at good parenting.

One final note to the parents on the role of faith: while I didn’t want a theology lesson at the time, my faith did play a large role in my reconciling what happened.

If you as parents would like to talk privately now or years down the road, please feel free to write to me if I can be an encouragement to you.  I have a ministry of comfort because I have received comfort in my life. 

You are in my prayers for an outpouring of peace to cover you at this difficult time.

Are you a neighbor or friend or religious leader who wants to be an encouragement?  Please join me on the next page.

One of the saddest statements in the Bible is found in John 19:15– 

“But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”

“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

We have no king but Caesar.” 

It’s the grim echo of 1 Samuel 8:7 “And the LORD told [Samuel]: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. “

I recently had a respectful discussion with someone who asserted that one political party in the United States was more in line with biblical teaching, especially with respect to care for the poor and issues of social justice.  

I answered the assertion with this statement:

But the result of political social tinkering is that masses of people no longer seek God or the Church to care for the poor…where they might find Jesus in the process. The government drives a wedge between people and their God.”

In my book, good and evil don’t fall along party lines.  As I see it, both parties agree that caring for the poor is a good thing to do.  We may disagree about what truth we’re seeking or what true justice is.  And I’d say that we definitely have a disagreement about the best way to go about truly helping the poor and the oppressed. 

Perhaps we have different goals in mind altogether.  Our solution for how to care for the poor is intimately related to the question of which god we serve?   Do we serve the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or do we have no king but Caesar?

This conversation started my prayerful thinking about what the Bible says about care for the poor and social justice as well as what it says about the purpose and role of human forms of government.

Are people in America looking to the government instead of to the Church in their times of need? 

Increasingly, that answer is “Yes.” 

 Is that the way God designed life to be?

I am personally convinced that God wanted His people to do the job of caring for the poor as a reflection of our faith.

I am drawn to the idea that God is looking for a big, brawny Church—working so hard spiritually—that it doesn’t have time to become rich, fat, or lazy, waiting for people to enter the opulent, architectural wonders to be fed off the pastor’s spiritual plate, along with everybody else.

The Church is not supposed to be a feeding trough with clever branding and nice carpeting. 

Isn’t God’s intent that the needs of people draw them to…God…who provides for every need? 

Then God’s Church does what He designed it to do: be a place where people have come (on account of their physical, spiritual, and emotional needs) but in the process of being satisfied, they will meet God, learn about Him, and find salvation in Jesus Christ–and also satisfy their greatest need for all eternity.

What, then, is the role of government?

The Bible is clear on this.

Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

The government protects the public interest by maintaining law and order, bringing punishment upon wrongdoers, and being the human instruments of God.  Government is completely legitimate.  But note that while it is legitimate and an instrument of God, (1) it is not the Church, (2) its role is not to care for the poor, (3) it is not to substitute as Messiah, and (4) it is not to separate people from their God.

When we see the limits, we can embrace a lean and muscular government—one like a marathon runner—an institution so focused on the finish line of civilization, humble restraint, and shepherding law and order that it has neither the time nor the desire to grow fat and lazy.  A Jabba the Hutt government with an insatiable appetite for power and money isn’t what God had in mind.

What did God intend in giving us both a Church and a Government?  Two institutions, each doing their job and not trying to do each other’s job, forsaking their own job in the process.

Sadly, as people look to the government as a place where all their needs are met, the Church’s unique role is diminished and people no longer seek God.  The consequence of this is hardening of people’s hearts toward helping the poor as a reflection of their faith.  “Oh, let the government do it.  That’s why we pay taxes,” becomes the cop-out response of a people who have lost sight of God’s ability to provide for people.  “Take from the rich and give to the poor” becomes the mantra of those who have no king but Caesar, clearly not knowing that if God wanted the poor to be rich, He has wealth, power, and opportunity to accomplish it without human help.

Therefore, both miss the point that sometimes people have needs SO THE CHURCH WILL MEET THEM with the goal that they’ll meet Jesus and be fed spiritually for eternity.  Some people are designated “grace recipients” …if the Church is doing its job (and not submitting to the concept of government enablers to do our job for us) or shirking its God-given role.

Yes, I believe the government drives a wedge between people and their God.  Because one thing is for sure: a government without limits is a counterfeit king with an appetite that is never satisfied.  Tragically, those who are hungry will never be satisfied in the long haul, if they seek to be filled by mere government hands.

Isaiah 55:1 “Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. 2 Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare. 3 Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David. 4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples. 5 Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor.” 6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. 7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.”

Have we rejected God as king? 

 Do we have no king but Caesar? 

For a wide swath of America, sadly, the answer is a grim resounding, “Yes.” 

Not for me.  My King is still on the throne.

I find it instructive and quite horrific that a handful of Muslim extremists around the world are zealously protesting (not with mere placards and raised voices, but with flag burning, violence, and killing) their prophet Mohammad being portrayed in a way they alone consider blasphemous.   All this they justify by some obscure video that would not receive any attention were it not for the Internet which—just about everyone knows—is filled to the brim with hate, lies and deception against every group known to man.   Going viral sounds like a sickness and indeed this situation bears all the hallmarks of something truly sick.

The low budget and now high profile clip has been glommed onto by the mobs looking for an excuse to denounce their enemies–particularly America and Israel–and engage in some holy war, all ostensibly to defend their prophet.  To these extremists, their prophet needs defending, I guess.  Mine doesn’t.

But they now have a pretext, a convenient excuse.

An excuse is nothing more than the skin of a reason, stuffed with a lie.

The skin of a reason is easy enough to discern.  What is the lie?  The lie is that innocence may be found among any Muslims, people of any other religious group, or humanity period.

In all earthly history, there has only been—and will only be—one innocent human being. 

Only one innocent Prophet. 

That Prophet was the person Jesus of Nazareth.

Ironically, as Christ, Jesus was exposed to ridicule, charges of blasphemy, and died a cruel death on a cross to purchase our souls.  He was ridiculed, blasphemed, persecuted, mocked, stripped, beaten, and crucified in His lifetime, not after His death.  Of course, after His death and resurrection, Jesus’ followers—the Christians—have certainly experienced their share of persecution.

Persecution happened to Muhammad too—at least that’s what some supporters of Islam assert.  It’s a religion of peace, they cry.  David Wood writes, http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/two_faces.htm

“Islam has never been able to decide whether it wants to live in peace with unbelievers, or to pile their severed, unbelieving heads into a giant pyramid. I’m sure many would disagree here, but they would be disagreeing with one of the most empirically verifiable facts in the universe. Think about it. One Muslim beheads an innocent woman to protest the war in Iraq, while another Muslim curses him for slaying the innocent. One group of Muslims flies an aircraft into a building, while another group condemns the attack. One Muslim detonates a bomb on a bus filled with passengers, while another Muslim says on the evening news, “Islam is a religion of peace.” Each side quotes the Qur’an to support its actions. However, it may be even more important to note that each of them is following the example set by Muhammad.”

The italics are original to the piece and highlight something truly interesting.  Muhammad did set an example of both violence and peace in his lifetime.  Does Muhammad truly need defenders within Islam?

Well, the strong Messiah—true Prophet—needs no defenders.  That’s the lesson Jesus teaches.  He needed no defenders at all.

The proof is in the Resurrection.  The proof is in His present sitting at the right hand of the Almighty in heaven.  The proof will be case-closed when He returns to judge the quick and the dead.

Muhammad died either in what is claimed to be a natural death in the arms of his wife…or a death from poison, proving that he was a false prophet.  But frankly, how he died is immaterial.  Muhammad died.  He is still dead.

Jesus, on the other hand, rose from the dead. 

The strong Messiah, the true Messiah, the innocent Prophet needs no defenders. 

His life both in the past, but importantly—in the present—is all the proof one needs. 

How He lived set an example. 

How He died changed the world as we know it.

Why are these Muslims so upset about the ridicule of their prophet?  The Bible tells of Jewish prophets being persecuted throughout Scripture.  Is anyone defending them by killing those prejudged to be infidels?  Nope.  With the exception of Elijah, all of Israel’s prophets died.  Why defend the man Muhammad?  What makes the human prophet of Islam different? Whether Jewish or Muslim, a dead human prophet is still dead.

I can tell you what makes Jesus different:

• He wasn’t just any prophet.  Jesus is the innocent Prophet because only He is the Son of God. 
• He is the innocent Prophet because He never sinned, not even once.
• Nor did He ever shed blood, except His own on the Cross at the hands of others. 
• In His entire life, He never encouraged His followers to pursue violence in His name, to defend Him, or to save His reputation. 
• Not even in his early days. 

On the contrary, He said this, Matthew 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

Jesus is the innocent Prophet because He told us to love our enemies.  He is the innocent Prophet because even when people tried to take defense of Him into their own hands and solve things in a violent or political way, He reacted thusly: 

Matthew 26:49 Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him. 50 Jesus replied, “Friend, do what you came for.” Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him,

for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

55 At that time Jesus said to the crowd,  Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

Jesus is the innocent Prophet because He is God and knew every detail of the past and foresaw that true prophets of God will get persecuted and He would be sending prophets, wise men, and teachers whose role would involve persecution:  their own persecution, not persecution of others.

John 15:18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’

Violence—as a holy war—is the path of those who do not know God.

The strong Messiah needs no defenders. 

Matthew 23: 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

The violence we see today piles up as accumulated signs of the end of the age.  Whether today or tomorrow or the next, the Gospel of Peace—the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ—will be preached until He returns.

This Messiah–Jesus Christ–is not dead.  He is alive!

Dead men cannot get out of their graves!  But Jesus, the Son of God and Son of Man, rose from the dead.  This is how He—and He alone—can return as the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.

 The strong Messiah, the innocent Prophet, Jesus Christ needs no defenders. 

He is God and one can’t get any more powerful than that.

Whatever happened to shame?  I was listening to oldies radio the other day and Love Child by Diana Ross and the Supremes was playing.  As I reflected again on the lyrics, I became aware that it was written in a different age: 

Don’t think that I don’t need you
Don’t think I don’t wanna please you
No child of mine’ll be bearing
The name of shame I’ve been wearing

Love child, love child, never quite as good
Afraid, ashamed, misunderstood

There was a time in America in which shame still existed, wasn’t there?  When there were things people were ashamed about?  People hid events and histories, behaviors, beliefs, and life circumstances from public view because they brought a name of shame upon the person or their family—a sense of guilt—as though the public understood a generally-agreed-upon-wrong to have occurred.

Shame.  It’s not usually viewed as a good thing. 

But I miss it, perhaps because shame served a purpose. 

It reflected a collective conscience that said we still cared about right and wrong.  Truth and lies existed and weren’t muddled into some collage of my-truth-your-truth in every shade of dark but never black and white.   Right and wrong, good and evil have been lost among the 50 shades of gray and are no longer prominent in the American spotlight, although some of us still cling to the idea.  I remember a day when good and evil still mattered.  Or was it a dream gone by?

Shame has disappeared down the same path as truth and conscience.  What used to be a source of shame is now the substance of celebrity, heading off to rehab with 15 minutes of fame, fodder for the nightly news, the ticket to getting on the front page of tabloids, or getting someone a book deal.  Baby bumps are everywhere, far more prevalent than wedding rings or golden anniversaries.

This is what Diana Ross sang about as part of raising the social consciousness regarding unmarried teenage mothers. One blogger writes about Love Child:

 In 1960, approximately 15 percent of teenage women who gave birth did so out of wedlock. In 1970 that number had doubled, to 30 percent. Teenagers began marrying less, too…A 1985 version of the NCHS study noted the following: “Teen parents . . . tend to have larger numbers of children, to face a higher probability of being a single parent, to experience poverty more frequently, and to be disproportionately represented on welfare.”

These are the facts that underscore the song’s urgency. The song isn’t about the rejection of childbirth–it’s about the avoidance of having kids out of wedlock. It’s about not wanting to raise your children single, to avoid poverty and welfare, about not getting locked into a cycle of having even more kids you can’t take care of as well as possible.

But then came Madonna’s Papa Don’t Preach and People Magazine (which is singularly kept in business by parading an endless stream of those who are pregnant out of wedlock, who are going to rehab this week for drug or alcohol abuse, who cheated on whom, who killed whom, and who are getting divorced and battling over custody of their child).

Wasn’t there a time not too long ago when these things above—though they were a sad reality—were not considered socially promising and therefore remained quiet, private matters?  Fearing they’d make for embarrassing gossip not a cause de célèbre, they were hung in the closet, never on a flagpole.

Wasn’t there a time when a person would have experienced–at the very least–the tapping of their conscience upon their heart if they contemplated telling a lie to a good friend or the public at large?  I want to believe there was a time when a speaker taking the public’s podium treated the microphone with a modicum of respect, understanding the heavy responsibility for telling the truth. To tell the truth that a public once expected from its leaders instead of half-truths, self-serving spun statistics, or bald-faced lies.   Now, we don’t know if they will even feel guilty for lying or if it’s just another day at the office.

Shame.  There was a perfect time in which shame did not exist:  before sin entered the world.  Genesis 2:25 tells us, “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”  There was nothing to be ashamed of, for there was nothing but good in all of creation.  There was a time when we were not ashamed of good, to be called good, or to pursue social good.

Then sin came along.

But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” (Genesis 3:9-10)

Shame and hiding used to go hand in hand. 

But now, the list of generally-agreed-upon-wrongs has been stripped down. 

Don’t get me wrong: 

I don’t like the idea of people being ashamed or experiencing public humiliation. 

I like the idea of shame (as a possible outcome) deterring people beforehand from doing shameful things.  I like shame’s giving people incentive to be responsible today for doing good since it will benefit them tomorrow.  Fear of shame (and sucking up my pride, frankly) kept me from doing many things.  When I was in college and others around me were signing up for charity and public assistance, I said, “I can’t.”  You see, shame limited my seeking charity that I didn’t truly need, though there were times that a little charity would have helped.  But I feel better today knowing it likely helped others–ones who needed it far more than I did–by my sacrificing then.  Shame played a positive role.

Without shame we have lost the positive deterring effect, but we have also become nothing short of shameless in other areas.

It’s like a storehouse of truth that’s being looted and we’ve been watching the whole thing unfold on the footage from the security camera.  We see the truth disappearing right in front of our eyes, but it doesn’t seem to matter.

We’re just gawkers of reality TV…and reality isn’t what it used to be, unless the reality is happening to us personally.  Only then do truth and lies, right and wrong seem to matter.  When you’ve been bilked out of your fortune, had a spouse cheat on you, been served divorce papers, found a + on a pregnancy test and an inconclusive minus for whose paternity, purchased a product on empty promises, or had the theft, home invasion, or murder affect you personally.

It’s a crying shame that only when reality hits us squarely in the head, do we see how we’ve been led along the garden path, waving good-bye all the while to both conscience and truth.

As far as I can tell, for a huge swath of the American public, there is no scarlet letter for anything anymore.  And I wonder if that special time I remember…was it just a dream?

I’m coming off a long stretch of women confessing abortions to me.  They are confessing because they are scared…and looking for hope.

I know some of you may be thinking that I’m hitting on a bunch of political topics these days.  Yes, I am.  But in this article you will not find photos of unborn children or the usual pro-life message. My thoughts go soul deep.  You will not find guilt-tripping or politics-as-usual because it’s not just usual politics in the lives of women I meet.  It’s personal to them.  They’re frightened because it’s their story and they’re looking for answers to questions.   They’re looking for hope.

I’m writing about this today because good politics arise out of good theology.  If one’s worldview is to be consistent, that is.   Whether your worldview is one that includes God or not, it’s not a cafeteria where you choose some from each group, a knife and a fork, and head to the cashier.   

Presently, the Democratic National Convention is underway in the United States.  Numerous women are scheduled to speak, ostensibly on behalf of American women. 

* * *

They do not speak for me.

They do not speak for me because I hold a well-developed theology on the Image of God.  These women, because of their views, simply cannot speak life to any woman who thinks theologically as I do.

In the previous article, Asking All the Wrong Questions about Discrimination, I outlined the necessity of holding a high view of the Image of God and asserted that this is our way to solving the racial divide.  Likewise, a well-developed understanding of the Image of God ought to inform our views on abortion.

There is a wrong question out there:  Should there be limits on a woman’s right to choose?

There are many reasons this is a wrong question.

1. The first one is grammatical.  “To choose” –a verb—typically needs an object for the sentence or question to make sense.  One needs “to choose” something whether it is a choice to do or not to do, or a choice among alternatives.  The implied object in the question above is abortion.  If the object were different (substitute anything you choose and see for yourself), the whole question changes.  As does the answer.  The meaning and the value given to the object are what determine the rightness of the choice.
2.  Sometimes the word choice just reflects a manner of choice as in “Choose wisely.”  But even Indiana Jones knows the choice is among alternatives (e.g. to drink from the Holy Grail or select a different cup).  The alternatives have consequences, if the choice truly makes any difference.  What are the implied options in the question above?  Choose what?  You know the two answers.  There is no half-life or anything in between.
3. Then, there’s the issue of whether it’s any person’s right to choose.  At present, Roe v Wade has been a turning point, giving a woman a right to choose an abortion because it’s her body in which the baby is formed.  This is the legal premise on which a woman has a choice.  What our wrong question presumes is that we can discriminate in favor of one party.  No wonder it’s a coveted “right” for so many women.  I know some of you will find this offensive, but it’s the same selfishness behind slave owners having liked the choice–the right–to have Negro slaves, even though it would have not been the choice of the person enslaved nor those who sought emancipation for them.  If the object of the question were “to choose gradual eradication of black Americans,” a woman’s right to choose seems significantly less noble and far more horrific, does it not?  Consider this: “Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, says Centers for Disease Control data,” according to published news reports.  BlackDignity.org writes:

In America today, almost as many African-American children are aborted as are born. A black baby is three times more likely to be aborted as a white baby.

“Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent. Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.”

“80 percent of abortion facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. About 13 percent of American women are black, but they receive over 35 percent of the abortions.”

4.  A fourth reason (and there are many others) that this is a wrong question is that a society without limits, by definition, exhibits anarchy.  There must certainly be limits and laws to keep our society from becoming a lawless place where one person’s right to choose results in the extermination of other people.

Let me say this differently: When a choice involves one class of people’s “right to choose” and results in selective and intentional elimination of another class of people because the powerful choosers have determined that the vulnerable have little or no utility, this is not a social good.

In China, the death toll among girl babies has been astronomical.  According to researchers, this year alone perhaps a million have been aborted and tens of thousands abandoned.  As the BBC captions this photo of a boy, “Boys are considered much more useful than girls” and quoting a Chinese mother, “Boys are best, because they can work.”

Boys have utility.  Girls don’t. 

In America we might do fewer gender-selective abortions, but perceived utility for the chooser is the driving factor nonetheless.

So the debate becomes focused on when life begins. 

If the embryo has fullness of life and a woman were to choose to abort it; if she doesn’t want it to live or be a burden to her, this is no mere choice.  It’s like what’s happening in China.  But if it’s not life, then it’s like removing a wart.  A choice between a woman and her doctor.  It explains why the Supreme Court doesn’t want to weigh in on when life begins because then another person’s choice might come into play.  These people are judges not biologists and sadly, everyone has their own political interests.

I want to tell you my personal journey.  Please consider joining me on the next page to read how it applies to the Right Question about Abortion: 

How well do we see the Image of God in the unborn?”

I can’t tell: am I angry or grieved?  Maybe both.  Both, I suppose, are suitable responses to Discrimination.  In my recent series of Asking All the Wrong Questions, I’ve stated that Good Theology Must Answer Hard Issues…and it does so with the redemption of the Gospel.  It does so with Truth and Love.

In the last few weeks I’ve seen television coverage of the shootings at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the carnage at a movie theater in Colorado, Trayvon Martin’s death, Chicago gang shootings, and even an act of violence against the American Family Institute.

I’ve been comparing and contrasting what drives the American curiosity and concern.   It’s not good.  And I’m appalled.

On top of that, out of the blue I’ve encountered people who are unabashed segregationists and separatists who believe that desegregation has only contributed to problems.  Furthermore on TV, we have witnessed an increasing number of self-proclaimed supremacists—and that makes me angry.

What happened to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? 

(Click here to listen to the full audio of this powerful speech, excerpted below)

“And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Regarding that dream, there are those who say, “We’re already there.  We are completely desegregated.  Racial discrimination is a thing of the past.” 

I would disagree.  Rather, I’d say that over and over again, we’ve traded one form of discrimination for another and yet in America, we haven’t really dispensed with any.

It’s why—in a shameless act of indifference—the news media gave a giant yawn over the Sikhs and don’t even blink an eye at the ongoing violence in the City of Chicago, but can’t get enough of Trayvon Martin, the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants, or throwing down “the race card” whenever it might possibly deflect responsibility from those who don’t want to accept legitimate criticism or when racial guilt or fears of being called the epithet racist might fill in the gap for insufficient qualifications.  No person of color I know wants lower or higher standards set for someone basis skin color alone.  This is at the heart of racial discrimination and it is not good.

Diversity, however, is good!  We see the beauty of human diversity throughout Scripture. 

Plenty of people purportedly want a “color-blind society.”  I want a “color-full society” in which each person’s beauty shines in a biblical kind of diversity.  Yes, with every skin tone, a “color-full” display of moral excellence and accomplishment in advancing truth, love, knowledge, and faith.

But for far too many Americans, this diversity has become diminished in quality, filtered through the lens of racism.  It’s a thin diversity.  And it only goes skin deep. 

If so many people want discrimination to end, why is it still an issue?

Because racism and discrimination sell–that’s my guess.  Perpetuating division sells newspapers, gains fundraisers, secures votes, increases viewership, and employs special interests.  Do we see it in the unwillingness of certain television networks to show political convention speeches—even little soundbytes from these quite eloquent speakers—because they are people of color who believe differently than the stereotype?

That’s discrimination, is it not?

What would Martin Luther King Jr. say about the ongoing trumpeting of our President’s being the “first black President?”  I can only imagine both he and our President would want his legacy to reflect better things than just being born of a darker skin color, as if melanin might constitute his highest and greatest achievement on behalf of the American people.  Celebrate a milestone, yes!  But as one who had a milestone event of my own, rather than rest on that rock forever, I pray for God to use me to change our culture in the best possible ways: stopping evil’s insidious creep, and seeking God’s favor to advance truth and love. A turning point, not a journey’s end.

Discrimination—whether in favor of one or against another—is wrong.  It matters little whether it’s racial or gender discrimination.  If it grieves the heart of God who created this glorious diversity, shouldn’t I be angry or grieved, or both? 

If civil rights marches and media coverage can’t change this problem, how can it be changed?  Good Theology Answers Hard Issues when we see each other through the Gospel’s truth and love.

It clearly has not.  Skin color, race, or ethnicity trumps character in so many ways.  Polls, crime statistics, educational standards, affirmative action, the Census, and an administration that “looks like America”:  these determinations are almost always basis characteristics that are skin deep.

That’s why the Right Question—for changing a culture—is, “How well do we see the Image of God in our fellow man?”

Or as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dreams, have we ceased judging others—favorably or negatively—by skin color and are we free at last to judge by “the content of their character?”

A deep understanding of the Image of God ought to inform our judgments.  Seeing the Image of God in our fellow man ought to make issues of race disappear.  Let’s go beyond skin deep on the next page.

When my daughter was stillborn in 1998, I learned something: Good Theology Must Answer Hard Issues. No glib word, Christian cliché, or reassuring pat on the back can ever put a new frame around what is bad and make it good, make the hard easy, or turn any wrong into a right.

Good theology meets us in the hard places, in the hard issues, and in the cold hard realities of life.  And it offers the Gospel as an answer.  It offers Compassion in the form of Love.  And it offers Truth.

With that in mind, I want to confess up front that my “Wrong Questions” series began in my mind with the one I’m going to answer today, Asking All the Wrong Questions about Homosexuality.  Over the past 3 months, a daily series of events has kept this issue in front of my eyes.  I know I need to answer it because Good Theology Answers Hard Issues…and it does so with the Gospel’s Truth and Love.

The Gospel enters another person’s pain.

When you’ve been in the waters of deep pain, you are in a unique place to see the pain of others up close and personal.  Many people preach from the glassy-walled observation room.  I preach the Gospel from the deep waters of the ocean of pain.

From the depth of pain, I know the topic of homosexuality hits people in their hearts much like the women-in-ministry debate hits me in the heart. 

For those of us affected by topics in a direct way, it’s not just a theological plank in a platform.  It’s personal.

For the homosexual reading this, I want you to know that I understand.  For you, it’s personal.

Over the course of the past decade, on AllExperts, a few brave souls publicly solicited my view of homosexuality.  The questioners have been sincere and kind—as most homosexuals I know are.  Note, however, that the vast majority of questions I’ve answered were flagged as private—private, because homosexual thoughts and tendencies are a source of deep confusion.  It’s very personal to them.  My answers remain between the questioner, myself and God.  I bring my thoughts about the topic out of the closet today because I have something to say:

The question that I’ve been asked in a hundred different ways is the same, “Who made me homosexual: God or me?”

I’ve grown to see that this is the wrong question.  The right question is “What will be my response?”

“Who made me this way?” is a question designed to affix blame—on God or on self.  But the blame squarely rests with the broken world in which we live.  It’s like my asking, “Who killed my daughter?”  Do I blame God for why this happened…or me?

Pain looks for someone to blame.  The Gospel ministers a response of hope.

I’d like to take this a step deeper as it relates to homosexuality.  If you’d like to see how Christians can understand the difference between the wrong question and the right question, please join me on the next page.

Asking the wrong question “Who can be legally married?” leads us to wrong answers.  Instead, we need to remember the original purpose and definition of marriage being one man and one woman becoming “one flesh” to the glory of God.  God both established and defined marriage.

Society now circumscribes–through a series of written laws–something like marriage, just without God.

The redefinition of marriage began.   

In Part 1 we traced the history of marriage from Bible times to the Middle Ages.  Now we will explore six of the watershed events resulting in the legal code that we see today in Europe and America.

1.  Ironically, the great concern over mutual consent was the first of six pivotal events that determined the course of Western marriage as we know it.  

Mutual consent can be considered pivotal because marriage shifted from a family-endorsed social structure with dual purpose (religious and social) to an individual decision apart from a religious framework or social benefit.  This was not a bad thing since many families arranged marriages for completely political or worldly reasons.  But a shift from community to individual paved the way for future changes.

Mutual consent was an issue because, under Germanic law in the 5^th to 9^th centuries A.D., marriage didn’t require the bride’s consent at all.  The families arranged a Brautkauf or bride-purchase agreement in which the groom consented and the bride was assumed to consent by her family.  Originally, a nuptial pretium (a certain amount of property or money) was contracted as the purchase price given to the father or guardian of the bride-to-be.  Eventually, to combat the idea of a wife as purchased property, the nuptial pretium became a sum given to the bride as her security should her husband die prematurely.

At this point, we’re in the central and late Middle Ages and the Catholic Church altered Germanic marital practice to insist upon direct, free, and fully mutual consent by both parties in the marriage.  To ensure that the union was by mutual consent, the Church established the suggestion that unions be blessed.

A religious blessing became part of the union and occasionally the Catholic Church threatened to excommunicate any persons who married without the blessings of the local priest.  Given that the position of women (prior to the Catholic canonists) was extremely low in Frankish tribes, the mutual consent aspect was a good development.

It took significant time for divorce—common in Germanic law—to be abolished by the spread of Catholicism.  In the Frankish tribes, legal matters (including marriage related issues such as adultery, divorce, etc.) were typically resolved by ordeal–an ordeal being by fire, water, combat, etc.  Eventually a system of compensation—the giving of money to satisfy grievances—was encouraged by the Catholic Church to curb violence and paved the way for the development of the system of indulgences.  For those of you who know Reformation history, the system of indulgences eventually became one of Martin Luther’s hot button issues.

Join me on the next page for the next watershed moment, marriage as a sacrament.

A recent Wall Street Journal article entitled “The Divorcé’s Guide to Marriage” opened with, “Want great marriage advice?  Ask a divorced person.”   I’d say “Ask History.”  After 30 years of marriage to my husband, I’m convinced it has much more to do with understanding what marriage is all about.

These days, the topic of marriage is getting confusing.

In American culture, a war has been escalating over the question, “Who is legally allowed to have something called a marriage?”  But we’re asking the wrong question.

The right question is “What was the original purpose of marriage as an institution?”

I’ve been wondering something for a while now.  Somewhere down the aisle it seems marriage has changed from a sacred institution of God (Genesis chapter 2) to something that courts decide as they subordinate the original religious ideal beneath an increasingly complicated legal code requiring decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It bubbles up from the oddest of places as even the recent Chick-fil-A vs. gay marriage controversy demonstrates.  Why is the definition of marriage so blurred?

In short, sin.  To counteract sin, the Bible outlined a few laws.  But for the past 250 years, we’ve added new laws upon existing laws to deal with problems with applying prior laws.

But what was the original purpose of marriage?

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Genesis 1:28).

In the beginning, marriage was intended as one man and one woman to be joined as one flesh by God, then blessed by God to be fruitful (literally fertile, hence increase in number); to fill and subdue the earth; and to rule over it all.  God’s design was for the image of God present in both man and woman to be multiplied by length of days and production of offspring.

Somewhere, though, we’ve gone off-track.  In the pages that follow, I will trace the history of marriage.  In Part 2, I will explain how 6 pivotal events have shaped marriage law–for better or for worse.  These 6 watershed moments–some of which represented progress at the time–had unintended consequences as they paved the way to a redefinition of marriage:

1. Mutual Consent
2. Marriage as a Sacrament
3. The Protestant Reformation
4. The Council of Trent
5. The Clandestine Marriage Act of 1753
6. Vatican II

Would you like to learn more about the history of this important institution called marriage?  Join me on the next page.