I've decided to stir up the pot a bit.   I want to blog about a controversial, even divisive, issue.  I want to think with you about abortion.   Now, if you're reading this and you've had an abortion, please keep reading.   I do not write in order to make anyone feel guilt or shame.  Also, I have found that when we throw stones at others we always get hit by the same stones.  

Having said that, those of you who know me know that I am pro-life.   And this means that I am "for life."  I think life is a good thing, and believe that one of the reasons God put me here is to help others live good, fruituful, abundant lives.  Jesus himself said that this is why he came, "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10).    To be a follower of Jesus is to be a person who is on the side of life.

This, of course, also means that we are on the side of "all" human life.  Pro-life people are, if they are truly pro-life, concerned not only for the welfare of the unborn, but for the welfare of all humanity.  We are on the side of life for the poor and disabled, the immigrant and the alien, the widow and the orphan, young and old, the Iraqi and the American.  It seems to me that if we are truly "for" life, then we must work to help all people live as abundantly as possible.   To devalue the life of any human being, at any stage of development, is to devalue the life of every human being. 

However, to be fair, it's important to understand what the leaders of the pro-choice movement are saying.   The fundamental argument of people who support abortion rights, is that the abundant life of a woman outweights the potential abundant life of the unborn child or embryo.  Of course, "abundance" is understood in a specific way.  So for example, the new president of the Episcopal Divnity School in Cambridge, Katherine Ragsdale, can say the following, I quote:

"And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship, has every option open to her, [and] decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight - only blessing.  The ability to enjoy God's good gift of sexuality without compromising one's education, life's work, or ability to put to use God's gifts and call is simply a blessing.  These are two things I want you, please, to remember - abortion is a blessing and our work is not done."

Note the premise, abortion is a blessing because it enables a woman (and the man!) to seek to live a more abundant life by pursuing "one's education and life's work."   Now let's really stop to think about this.  If an unborn child can be sacrificed for my "education and life's work,"  what about a new born child who has severe disabilities?   Or, for that matter, an infirm and elderly person who cramps my abundant lifestyle?   This is a very slippery slope.

Katherine Ragsdale is not talking about a worman who is raped, or who is trapped in a horrible cycle of sexism and abuse, and who becomes pregnant.  Nor is she speaking of those terrible situations in which a woman's life may be threatened or the unborn child has disabilities incompatable with life.  This is no longer a question of "tragic options".  No, the question of abortion is now framed in terms of "blessing."   It is a blessing (according to people like Ragsdale) because it gives a person the opportunity to seek personal abundance.  

Katherine Ragsdale's attitude is that of the ruling classes in America and other modern western nations.  The power to choose personal abundance over sacrifice - even the sacrifice of an unborn child - is enshrined in our laws.  Over the past gereration it is an attitude that has filtered down into the masses.  Now we have a society which largely believes that it is always better to choose abundance (of a certain kind) over sacrifice.  Deadbeat dads are off the hook.  After all, she had a choice!  "For the first time in history," writes Richard Stith of Valparaiso University, "the father and the doctor and the health-insurance actuary can point a finger at her as the person who allowed an inconvenient human being to come into the world." 

Someone might ask me what I think of changing laws or overturning Rov v. Wade.  To this person I quote what one wise Benedictine Priest told me, "Changing laws won't change anything.  We have to change hearts."  So I pray that this little essay may change a few hearts - and minds.  

     If you missed it in the Post-Gazette, here's my article about our sons, Paul and Tristan, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Please note, this is a blog and these are my personal opinons, ideas, and observations. 

     On Monday, July 20th, our youngest son left for Afghanistan.  Tristan is 21-years-old, and he joins his brother Paul who is finishing a tour of duty in Iraq.  So now we have two sons serving in two different countries during two wars.  These wars have become deeply personal.  When we read about the increasing number of casualties, when we consider the families of every young serviceman or servicewoman killed or wounded, our hearts break for them - and for ourselves.  Each story causes us to ask the most haunting of questions: "What if?"

     Tucked away in a photo album, we have a picture taken years ago which shows two little boys standting at attention with coon skin caps on their heads and muskets at their sides.  Christmas gifts purchased at Ft. Ligonier.  In those days, they couldn't get enough of cowboys and Indians and GI Joes.  They were two little boys who dreamt of becoming heroes and saving the world from the bad guys.

     Now, years later, we have pictures of two handsome young men in uniform who, in their own way, still want to save the world from the bad guys.  Undoubtedly, maturity has brought some ambiguity to their dreams.  Exactly who the bad guys are, and how we can save the world from them, is much more difficult to discern.  What I do know is that our two boys (they are always "our boys" to me), want to serve nobly in a virtuous cause.  Their hearts are true.

     But what about the hearts of those who send young men like Paul and Tristan into harms way?  I came of age right after Vietnam.  My wife's uncle, Michael Stoflet, was killed there.  One thing we learned from Vietnam is the importance, even the necessity, of questioning the wisdom, judgment, and integrity of those who decide to make war.  To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, we have learned that there is no inherent contradiction between being a successful politician and an ass.

     As hard as it is to fathom, we all know that our national leaders have in the past, and are capable today, of sending young men and women to die in wars that are unnecessary, unwinnable, and unjust - but politicaly expedient.  Often, these decisions are made by those who have never fought in a way (Dick Cheney had five college deferments), and who make certain never to have one of their own children do the fighting.  Before a political leader decides to vote to send someone into harms way, he or she should ask themselves if they would be willing to send, and perhaps sacrifice, one of their own sons or daughters in the conflict.  If the answer is questionable, then so is the war.

     I was not a supporter of Barack Obama, but always agreed with, and admired, his opposition to the war in Iraq.  After his election I breathed a sigh of relief.  It relieved me to think that we had a person in the White House who was going to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home as soon as possible.  As a father of two sons in the military, I was naturally relieved.  This was change I could believe in.  Now I shake my head in disbelief.  The man who promised to bring home the troops in a timely fashion, is sending 24,000 more troops into a questionable war which many experts believe is militarily unwinnable.  Even the venerable editors of the Post-Gazette who were ardent Obama supporters during the campaign, now questions the sending of more troops.

     This month (July 2009) has been one of the deadliest months for Americans fighting in Afghanistan.  Behind each of those deaths is a family whose hearts are breaking.  These families are proud of their sons' and daughters' service for our country, but they, and all Americans, want to know that these sacrifices were absolutely necessary in the struggle for a just cause.

     The Obama Administration has put on a full-court press for passage of a bill which will overhaul America's health care system.  President Obama spent time on television explaining what must happen and why.  The same full-court press needs to occur in order to explain why we must be in Afghanistan.  Anything less than this is a disservice to our nation and to those who serve this nation in our military - and their families.

     Our sons, like hundreds of thousands of others, are serving their country with honor and integrity.  We support our troops.  They want to stop the bad guys from doing greater harm in this world.  And there really are some nasty people hellbent on furthering their purposes.  They must be stopped, but exactly how fighting a war in Afghanistan will keep us safe from terrorists in Pittsburgh or Peoria or Pasadena needs to be clearly explained.  Is this war absolutely necessary for our freedom and well-being as a nation?  Will this war keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists?  Will the world be a safer place because of the sacrifice of so many?  Mr. President, this is your war now.  You must explain.

Sex sells.   I read somewhere recently that there are more websites on sex than there are on God.  I have not googled to verify this, but so I've been told.  Our denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has recently conducted another major study on human sexuality.  You can read it for yourself at the ELCA website.  Of course, the Big Issue is about homosexuality and whether or not to allow people who are in "committed, life-long, covenanted, same-gender" relationships to be rostered as pastors.  We would also develop rites to give public sanction to couples living in these relationships.  Obviousy this is a hot button issue.  What do you think about this?

A related topic arose this week with our confirmation students.  I'm teaching the older students, and the topic of Miss America came up.  You remember that there was a tie between Miss North Carolina and Miss California.  Miss California was asked about homosexual marriage and she said that she was not a supporter.  Wrong answer!   It is not a stretch to say that her answer cost her her crown.   So again,  what do you think about this?

Since this is my blog, I'll tell you what I think. 

First, I do not think that conservatives have a corner on intolerance.  So often, and sometimes with good reason, conservatives are painted as intolerant bigots who just barely know how to read or reason.  This is a gross injustice to thoughtful, articulate, and compassionate conservatives.   The very liberal Perez Hilton simply could not tolerate the fact that Miss California had a different opinion.   

Second, the word liberal means that we draw a larger circle in order to embrace more people and more concerns.  Does anyone else think that it's a little odd that conservatives are often those who draw the circle larger than liberals?  For example, conservatives tend to include the unborn in the circle of humanity.    However, to be fair, sometimes conservatives draw the circle smaller to exclude others - like homosexuals.  Then again, sometimes liberals draw the circle smaller to exclude others - like those who don't agree with homosexual marriage.

As Christians, somehow we must communicate the gospel truth that God's love encompasses "everyone," but God's love does not encomppass "everything."  Or perhaps it would be better to say that God's love never excludes, but it does purify.  For example, there will be no bigots in Heaven because all bigotries will be purged.  Or, there will be no tyrants in Heaven because all tyranny will be turned to love and service.  There will be no lust in Heaven because all lust will give way to true love.

Now here's the hard question, does God's love encompass homosexual sex and marriage?   Note please,  it is not a question of God's love encompassing a  homosexual person.  God loves us all with all the sin and disorder in our lives.  As mentioned above, I will not throw stones at another broken person.  In doing so I always hit myself in the back of the dead!  God loves homosexuals and heterosexuals and divorced people and illegal immigrants and the unborn and Iraqis and Muslims and Jews and Christians, etc. etc.  I hope I'm making myself clear!

Therefore, it seems to me, writing as a Christian, that God's love encompasses everyone, but God's love also shows us what is best for us.   Someone will surely say that even people who believe in God don't always agree about what God's best is.  Most committed Muslims would say that God's best would be for all of us to become Muslims.  And most Christians would say that it's God's best for us all to become Christians.  That's for another blog.  But, what is God's best for us regarding sex and marriage?

I'm a pastor.  When I was ordained I vowed to teach and teach according to the Bible, the ecumenical creeds, and the Lutheran Confessions.  I also vowed to strive to "adorn the gospel" with a certain kind of life.  I have always tried to do this, and have often failed in many different ways.  However, it seems to me that the Bible and the Christian Church have unanimously taught for  2000 years that our lives are "rightly ordered" and best lived within a lifelong covenant of marriage between one man and one woman.  I do not expect those outside the Christian faith to necessarily  agree with me.  Unfortunately, many within the Christian faith, and especially many within my own denomination, do not agree with me.   But this 'is' what the Bible teaches and has been echoed in the teachings of the Church for 2000 years.  Like it or lump it, it's just a fact.

Someone might say, "Well the Bible is wrong!" and then launch into a litany of all the places where the Bible is supposedly wrong.    I can understand people outside the Church making this argument, but today we have many people making this argment from within various Christians denominations.  So....while I hate to say it because I really have some great homosexual friends....but if the Bible can be so wrong about something so fundamental to human life as sexuality; then can we trust it to tell us the truth about God?  Are we flirting with disaster?  What do you think?

Okay, let's see if anyone's reading this.  Do you think the stimulus package will work?  Why or why not?