Let me tell you what you need.
Working in a homeless shelter has led to a lot of interesting experiences and observations. Four months in I feel like I could write a book on the subject. Maybe that book will be written someday, who knows. But for the time being, I thought I’d herald my return to blogging with some observations about our perceptions of other people’s needs.
I came across this odd phenomenon through working with the homeless, but honestly I’m noticing it now everywhere. I’ll start with a fairly inocuous example: some guests needed winter clothes. We had a grant for after-hours care to provide them with winter clothes. A discussion arose over how we’d go about meeting that need. Do we take them to Wal-Mart? Sears? Macy’s? The high-end resale store downtown? There’s a limit to how much money we can spend, but we want them to have good things. We also want to demonstrate that one should think critically about how one spends money. Is anyone noticing the problem, yet? It’s a little sneaky, but somewhere in the conversation, we went from talking about meeting the guests’ needs to talking about changing them. We want to change them, but honestly they don’t want to be changed. Is there really anything wrong with buying a coat from Wal-Mart (where all of our guests are comfortable shopping and feel at home and unnoticed) when you’re on a budget and are hoping to get pants and sneakers too? Maybe a middle class person would approach the problem from a different angle (wanting the coat from Macy’s and hoping they could find it gently used at the resale store thus allowing them to get jeans and sneakers, too) but the fact that a middle class person would approach it from a different angle doesn’t mean that the choices made by a person in poverty are inherently wrong. In most cases, the choices made by a person in poverty are made from a survivalist standpoint. I need a coat, now. I need a CHEAP coat, now. I need a cheap coat, now, and the bus stops in front of Wal-Mart so I won’t have to bum a ride. No one in Wal-mart will notice that it’s mid-November and all I have to wear is a mini skirt. Score. I am shopping at Wal-Mart.
The internal dialogue that guides my choices isn’t even on the radar for them, so why judge them and try to force them to change based on my own experiences? Just because my experiences are different and were fulfilling to me, that doesn’t mean that their experiences are worthless or ought to be devalued in favor of inserting my own will.
Faithful readers- you may be wondering what any of this has to do with the normal tone of my blog. Hopefully that last line reassured you that the old Lindsey is still here plugging away. See, we all have experiences. Many of us have a lifestyle and worldview that is fulfilling to us. Some of us want to spread our contentment with our choices by trying to force other people to make the same ones.
We really are very silly creatures.
If I, as a person who once experienced poverty but is making a successful transition to “middle class”, try to force my lifestyle and choices on the homeless, I’m making a huge mistake. I can model my own happiness, but if I try to force my hand I alienate the people I’m trying to help. The same thing goes for Christians trying to evangelize to people who really don’t want to hear about God’s love (but could maybe use a free ham for Christmas or help fixing their car) and heterosexuals who decide that what lesbians really need is to hear how awesome the penis is.
Seriously, folks- we can model good choices all we want. That’s life. You can radiate your own happiness. But don’t assume that your brand of happiness will taste the same to everyone else. For some people, it’s going to taste awfully bitter.
And that’s okay.
Learn Tolerance, or Die Alone.
(For Kelly.)
Ever had a conversation like this?
Man: Tolerance is a destructive force. It erodes true belief.
Girl: If you never tolerate the other side’s point of view, how can you expect to have an honest debate about the issues?
Man: I’m not going to tolerate false beliefs. How can you ask me to debate the truth? The truth harbors no debate.
So… Maybe I’m watering down the true content and exaggerating the real words said for dramatic effect- but the principle remains true to form. One person takes deep offense at tolerance because in their mind it means allowing an offense to the truth to continue. Yet, simultaneously he is asking that his own views be tolerated and accepted. (Or even affirmed.)
Here is the question to ask that man: Would you rather be right and alone, or tolerant in the company of others? Because to be so unnassailably intolerant means a life of isolation. Why? Because when we go to the grocery store, we are practicing tolerance. We are offering up money to corporations who do not necessarily support our point of view. (If you are conservative, check the amount of stores who offer money to left-wing political lobbies- if you are left-wing, check the amount of stores who offer money to right wing political lobbies. Most corporations do both.) It is nigh near impossible to live in the United States of America without corporately endorsing tolerance. Paying our taxes is also an act of tolerance- as I can guarantee that no matter your affiliation, politically or religiously, our government acts on behalf of those you disagree with.
You may say, okay, this kind of tolerance-by-six-degrees-of-separation is impossible to avoid and thus must be accepted. But let’s take this a step further. Let’s look at humanity as a whole. Have you ever (even once) met someone with whom you fully agreed? We can all find people who agree with our most closely held beliefs, but at some point every relationship experiences differences. My spouse is someone who I agree with eighty percent of the time- but don’t for a second believe that the other twenty percent is insignificant. When it’s things like how to best make eggs, you can roll your eyes and let go. But sometimes in even the best relationship there is serious disagreement. What do you do then? Demand the other person agree with your point of view? Tear them down until they are forced to capitulate? Scrape away at them day after day, trying to win them to your side by hook or crook no matter what the cost?
At some point, isn’t the cost of relationship tolerance? Don’t we all have to love and accept each other despite disagreement, or never know love and acceptance at all?
Christians shouldn’t be afraid of Gay Pride.
So yesterday my online world is all a-Twitter with news that Obama has officially named June LGBT Pride month. I heard this news almost entirely from other Christians who were concerned about what this news means for them and their families. I saw things like, “I’m disturbed,” and “Obama is pandering to the left again”, and “it’s a sad day for traditional families.” Even though I’m a heterosexual wife and mother, solidly in the world of mainstream Christianity and living an oh-so-traditional family life, I still find reactions like those of my contemporaries disturbing.
I wanted very badly to respond to all of the comments I was reading as fully as possible, but Twitter’s 140 character limit was painfully constrictive.
So today I write a blog post, and I hope it reaches the right eyes.
Should Christians be disturbed by the Gay Rights and Pride movement? Should we reject our American President if he affirms it?
No.
My reasons?
- Assuming that God “does not intend for anyone to be Gay”, the argument that God is offended by living a gay life only holds water for those who wish to please God. America isn’t made entirely of Christians, and those who disagree with the tenants of our beliefs should still be protected by societal laws while they lead the lives they wish for themselves.
- A gay person being protected while living their life with their partner and family does not impugn on my right to live my traditional life with my “traditional” family.
- No matter what one’s reason, when you have a negative emotional reaction to a gay person being happy and proud of their life, what they read into that is that you don’t want them to be happy. When we, as Christians, say we are “disturbed by”; “upset at”; or “disgusted with” our President showing fidelity to his gay constituency the message the world gets is that we Do Not Like The Gays. This is killing our ability to show them God’s love. I cannot be okay with that.
- No matter how legitimate one’s complaint may be, when one makes a public declaration as a Christian, one must consider the affect that declaration will have on perceptions of Christ and God. Our first duty as Christians is NOT to eradicate sin or make sinning more difficult, but to demonstrate God’s love. We should be showing the value of true discipleship, the fruit of good lives, the happiness and transcendent joy that comes from knowing that Jesus calls us friends. Showing disgust with sin as a primary reaction negates, in the eyes of those who hear it, our greater message. It says, to put it plainly, “you’re not good enough for me.” Is that really the message God would have us get across?
- When making a public declaration our concern must not only be with what we want to say but with how it is heard. You may want to say you’re disappointed, but if what people HEAR is “I hate Gays”, perhaps you should share your disappointment privately and say, “I don’t hate gays” instead.
Christianity looks really selfish at times like these. We look as we need to be protected from sin and we’re offended that more people aren’t thinking about OUR needs, instead of the needs of our gay neighbors. If we are truly Christian, then we know that Jesus is our strength and our shield. We don’t need to be afraid. Our fearful reaction to gay pride shows a lack of faith.
And that is what I wanted to say.
Militant Homosexuals
Lately I’ve been hearing a lot about “militant homosexuals” who have a “propensity for voilence” and are a “threat to society.”
I’ve been having a hard time really verbalizing my feelings about this. But I will try, for your sake.
Remember the peace movement? I’m talking Vietnam War here. There you saw a movement for peace, and it started out with people sitting around on laws. Having “lay-ins” in the streets, peaceable obstruction, quiet protest. They tried to fight fire with love, and they were largely ignored. Then you saw an escalation. People started chanting, yelling, holding more boldly worded signs. There started to be an energy, an anger. A bitterness. And still, the war raged on. That’s when you started seeing riots and broken windows and things that escalated beyond “civil disobedience” to violence and terror.
Why?
Because no one really listened. They were written off as selfish and naive at first, and misinformed to the last. The government ignored them and would have continued to do so indefinitely if public opinion had not changed as a whole.
Now we are seeing the same thing.
First the gays quietly protested, they kept to themselves, they stood peaceably on street corners, put gimmicky bumperstickers on their cars and wore rainbow tshirts. They tried to mobilize- but let’s be honest: they are a minority. Even in California there are rainbow colored pockets on the coast, but the state as a whole is farmland. Conservative. “Family Values”. So the minority lost it’s voice, as always happens in these cases.
They lost their voice.
I can’t even imagine how it must feel, to be doing everything you can to fight for what you believe is right, and then to simply have it all silenced. The media says, “well, now that’s over”, and you are expected to go home to your wife who is no longer your wife, to your children whom you are no longer legally entitled to, and to simply shut up.
Of course the demonstrations escalated. In ANY case where a minority tries to vocalize and are cast aside, the demonstrations escalate. And gay people are no more prone to voilence than peace protestors, blacks or latinos. In every case where once peacable demonstrations take a turn for the bitter and evocative it is not done because they WANT to be voilent, but because they see NO OTHER WAY for their voice to be heard.
Not that I approve of voilence- of course not- but I understand.
I understand that this is the way the world works, and unless the government takes actions to protect the rights of a minority from the subjugation of the majority, in EVERY SINGLE CASE the minority will turn to civil disobedience and eventually voilence.
And in every case, while there are pockets of anger, the greater sum of people simply suffer voicelessly, dependent on someone else to take up their cause.
You shouldn’t be afraid of “militant homosexuals”. You should seek to hear the subtext- to truly understand what is happening. Just as I seek to be the voice for the voiceless, believing that Christ would do the same were he still in possession of a physical body.
Oh, wait, he is: me and you.
Me, and you.
In defense of Gay rights- Civil Law and God’s Law
Note: this is a strategy for subverting the argument that Biblical law bans homosexuality, not necessarily a full portrayal of my own personal beliefs. This argument allows for homosexual acts being sin but still not being a significant argument that society as a whole should adhere to moral law.
_ _ _
In 1st Samuel 8, the people of Israel demand a King, so that they can “be like the lands around them”. This request grieves Samuel, who asks God what is to be done. God responds that Samuel should tell the people what having a King means. So Samuel goes, and tells the Israelites that a King means that their sons will be taken to serve in the army, that their daughters will be taken for the King’s household, that their money and their fields will belong to the king, and so on and so forth.
The Children of God, like all rebellious and donkey-headed children, respond that they still want a king.
God responded, “give them what they’re asking for.”
And what did they get? A king who did not govern according to God’s heart.
So begins the saga of the separation of civil and Godly law. The Bible is clear on the fact that the governments of this world are not appointed by God nor are they God’s intention. God did NOT want Israel to have a king- but humanity is given free choice, and if we ask for government we’ll get what’s coming to us.
As Israel’s history progressed so did periods of Kings who were anointed by God and kings who were not, periods of abundance and periods of drought, times of happiness and times of exile. These lead into the Roman occupation, which is where the New Testament comes into play. “The Kingdom of God is near”. Now, most of the time you see those words what is really being referred to is nothing more than people who adhere to God’s rule. It’s not an “earthly” Kingdom even though it is one that is seen on this earth. It doesn’t have borders, it doesn’t have an earthly ruler- what it has is the hearts of the faithful who truly desire to have God as their ruler. The rules of this kingdom are not like earthly laws, either. They read more like “Render unto Caesar what is Caesars”, “Judge not lest ye be judged”, “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto others…”
I write this post to set the framework for a very simply concept:
The separation of Church and State is a concept found in the Bible, and is part of the cornerstone of understanding what God requires of us. We, as the Kingdom, are meant to be a separate people. This concept comes up again in 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul chastises the Corinthians for allowing internal legal disputes to be settled by civil government. Paul puts forth that it would be better to have a Christian of “no account” settle a dispute than a stranger. Earlier in Corinthians he had also stated, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Cor. 5:12) Again, clearly showing a line of separation. We, as Christians, are called to a separate standard than the world. And we are not to judge the world by our own standard.
Even Jesus himself avoided judgment, despite his divinity, saying “As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.” (John 12: 47)
The world is left to the world, and God’s law is reserved for the faithful.
I have even gone as far as to use this clear separation to say that a gay person’s right to marry is one that Biblical concepts SUPPORT, because civil marriage is the province of Caesar, and who are we as Christians to judge the ways of the world? We must keep our rules as sacred to we, the Kingdom, and allow the world the right to govern as it will.
Honest Conversation: for sale now!
40 days ago I embarked on a strange journey. Given the content of the story, I find it ironic that my artificial deadline of 35 days ended up turning into a forty day journey… but that’s a story for another time.
Today I want to talk about my novel- my brave little book that is finally written. It has all of the things that a novel should have- a start, a middle, an end. It has them in the right order, as well as being possessed of a single cohesive storyline and a subplot that involves kissing.
I’ve discovered something. Fiction is dangerous- it’s dangerous because you don’t always notice that you are being taught a lesson when you’re reading a story. When someone is simply schooling you, you notice immediately. And if they tell you something you don’t want to hear, you get defensive. But when reading a story it feels safer to allow yourself to be questioned. So while I was working on this book and realizing how many things I was saying that some Christians might find offensive, or flat out wrong, I decided I would change things up a little. I’d say all of the words that I wanted to say, but I’d cleverly hide them in a story that forced them to look at the humanity about which the words are intended.
So instead of me, as the author, saying that I find it hard to believe that God would reject the service of a gay man who honestly believed that God had created him to love other men, those words are spoken by a character. And throughout the story there are moments of revelation, tenderness and tolerance. All of it to forward a single message:
The big question isn’t one of sin, it’s one of mission. It’s one of God’s love.
So pop this subversive little story of gay acceptance and hetero romance on your coffee shop trade table, slide a few editions into your local church’s resources library… You never know.
A good book can save a life.
Available on CafePress
::For people who want a personalized copy, contact me at linkees@gmail.com- the price for a single book will be $16, including shipping. Bulk discounts and discounts for books that are to be donated can also be negotiated through me::
The other side of the coin (About Prop 8)
I’ve read a lot of posts over the past few days written by gay people who are seeing their hearts ripped to shreds.
And my heart breaks for all of you, it really does.
But as a hetero girl raised in the church and brought up side by side with the kind of mentality that led to “YES on 8!”, I want to talk about the other side of the coin. I just think it’s so important that people understand how this measure was passed, and what was likely on the heart and minds of the voters that passed it. I want you to understand that they don’t hate you, they just don’t understand.
They are scared. They are seeing their kids being raised in a world full of things that they don’t want their kids exposed to. They are fearful that they farther the apron strings stretch the more their kids may find themselves enticed by shiny evils that seem innocent at first. They think about things like “what if my babies are exposed to drugs or alcohol?”. They are offended when they realize that things that they, as conservatives, believe to be lies are being taught in a way that confuses their children and threatens their beliefs. When their child comes home talking about evolution, for example. It makes them feel threatened, because they feel that their voice of authority in their families life is being questioned. This is doubled if their kid is the kind of kid that gets pleasure from goading them. I saw this with my own brother, who would cackle as he said things like, “well, the text book says you are wrong. Can you prove you’re right?”
And as they see their kids being pulled away from them into this huge and frightening world (this world some may see as their enemy) they struggle for any way they can maintain their control and influence. So when someone tells them that their kid may be taught that marriage is between “any two consenting adults” and that some men want to marry other men, they worry. When they consider that perhaps sex ed classes might start talking about things particular to men sleeping with men or women sleeping with women, they feel their hackles rise.
It’s not that they hate any single gay person, honestly- they are just concerned about an entire world that is full of things they don’t agree with. A world that often treats them as ignorant imbeciles, a world that portrays them as buck toothed hicks with a gun and a battered Bible, a world that acts as if they are nothing but watered-down Nazis.
A lot of these people are good loving people with only the best of intentions, people who would probably gladly loan you a twenty or cook you a meal or give your kids a box of their kids old clothes. They just don’t want other people acting like they have a right or obligation to “enlighten” them or their children, they don’t like being patronized, and honestly a lot of times they allow themselves to be manipulated by people with worse intentions than they have.
And they are scared.
Because it’s frightening, as a parent, when you realize that your kid may grow to hate everything you hold dear. It’s hard to bear when you realize that you are no longer the source of their knowledge and security.
So please- don’t be tempted into using the same sort of hateful and judgmental language that some are accusing the other side of using. Don’t speak in broad terms that are cruel to decent people. And remember- if you show people on the other side of the coin uncommon compassion, if you react to their anger with love, if you soften the tone of the conversation you will quiet the shouted arguments.
Perfect love casts out all fear.
Convicted (and forgiven)
One of my role models growing up was convicted of manslaughter. I say “convicted” in the sense of tried, and convicted, in the judicial system. While in jail he experienced God’s forgiveness and became “on fire” for God, as Evangelicals like to say. He was so convinced that everyone he knew needed to experience God’s love that he would literally grab men by the ears and beat their heads against the wall screaming “ask God to forgive you!”
Of course, they would. John was a strong man, and sort of frightening when he got his fires up. He was that way even later in life when he understood love and mercy. I can only imagine what he was like when he was still young and DIDN’T fully grasp the concept of God’s love.
Over time he changed. He started to understand our own free enterprise and our personal rights to remain in sin if so desired. You can’t FORCE repentance out of anyone. So over time John grew to understand a better way, and once he was out of the system he started traveling the country from jail to jail, talking about what forgiveness is and isn’t and how important forgiving yourself and accepting God’s forgiveness is in growing past the temptations of sin and becoming a productive member of society. Regardless of what one may or may not believe about God, seeing this man whose face was still hardened from years of hatred and greed tear up while talking about the beauty of forgiveness is a powerful thing.
Everyone respected him, even the ones who disagreed with him.
I bring this all up because my current church has ties with a halfway house for people moving out of the jail system. So from time to time we’ll have people come join our church who accepted Christ while behind bars. And there are people who get very uncomfortable around them. They wonder what they were in jail for. The only time I really care to know what they were convicted of is if it’s pedophilia. I think there’s a certian amount of pragmatism that needs to be involved- I’ve heard of churches being grafted by groups of users who claimed to want to kick the drug habit but actually used the church as a shell for their drug activities- but that isn’t every single person and you shouldn’t expect the worst out of someone who says they wish to change. Be prepared in case the worst should happen, but don’t expect it.
Churches often confuse compassion and naiveness. Compassion doesn’t mean you give a homeless man fifty dollars to get a hotel room, not if he smells like Vodka. Compassion is taking him to get a sandwich and letting him talk to you. Compassion isn’t giving a drug addict a blank check and hoping they use it for something good, it’s putting them in contact with people who can intervene and get them cleaned up. Compassion isn’t bailing out someone who constantly abuses their finances, it’s giving them a place to land when they destroy themselves and then teaching them better patterns. And there ARE times when people MUST suffer the earthly consequences of their sins. If a man beats his children, he SHOULD lose all rights to them. Should we still show him compassion if he claims repentance? ABSOLUTELY- but compassion isn’t giving his children back, it’s teaching him to cope with the consequences of his failings.
And when it comes to the people in the halfway house, we have to understand that our attitude towards them helps feed into how successful their reentry into society will be. If we expect that they should fall, we heap fuel on to a fire that is already burning (as most of them are afraid of falling already, and some of them have established that pattern firmly). Yet if we call out the good in them, affirm their best intentions, and help to give them tools to break the negative patterns in their lives- we can be an integral part of their recovery.
They may have been convicted, yes. But we should trust in God’s forgiveness and power to redeem.
(This one goes out to Amber, who mentioned the fact that I’ve never posted on this particular subject)
Random Monday
- In family life: I suddenly understand why men calls tears “emotional blackmail”. My son has started to have these violent tantrums in which he and others can get seriously injured (Picture a thirty five pound toddler bucking, kicking, punching, screaming, rolling, and throwing large objects), and about three seconds after the screaming, biting and hair pulling is done, he starts crying and saying “mommy cuddles mommy cuddles I need I need I need”. Yes, so I get it. It doesn’t seem fair if one minute someone is trying their best to hurt you, and the next minute they are crying and you feel as if you HAVE to hold them because you love them. But- I hold him, because I love him. And I suspect he knows this is the case, otherwise he wouldn’t push the boundaries constantly.
- In Religion: I recently wrote a “highlights” version of Ecclesiastes, which goes as follows: “Everything human is futile. Careers, politics, trying to stay ahead of the Joneses. We work all day long and what do we get? Broken backs and sweaty faces and barely enough food to get us through the day. All of our effort adds up to nothing but pain. So what should we do? Enjoy what we can, make love to our spouses, find pleasure in things before they fade away.” I once heard an Atheist call Ecclesiastes the “most honest book of the Bible”. I agree.
- In Politics: In case anyone has forgotten, there are perfectly valid reasons to support either candidate. For instance, one might support John McCain because they feel that his promise to regulate the Medical Industry more fully is more practical than Obama’s promise to work towards government sponsored health insurance. Or they may want to make inroads towards privatized social security, or a revamping of the Veteran’s Administration. People may support Obama because they want easier vouchers for childcare, a revamp of Federal Education grants, work towards a balanced budget or a quicker withdrawal from Iraq. Keep in mind that there are actual issues at stake and talk about those. For the love of all that is holy- DO NOT ALLOW the conversation to devolve to a “he said, she said” playground squabble. We’re all better than that.
- In Food: I have processed and canned over thirty jars of food in the past month. I’m exhausted. But I’m also looking forward to a very yummy winter. (Except… anyone want grape jelly? Five quarts seems excessive, and there are still grapes on the vine.)
- In Fashion: Leggings… are they really for people over the age of ten? Inquiring minds want to know.
- In Television: I’m getting tired of the comparisons between X-Files and Fringe. Just because they both involve a very attractive and brilliant FBI agent suddenly paired with a quirky and fast-quipping tall, handsome man whom people distrust and sometimes mock and they both involve “fringe” science, unexplainable phenomena and a vast conspiracy that involves a secretive government task-force doesn’t mean they are remotely the same. After all, X-Files respected the procedural aspect of the drama. And Fringe has more one-liners.
- In Bacon: I keep hearing about bacon covered chocolate. It’s heresy. Chocolate and Bacon are sacred, and should be kept separated with as much respect and trepidation as Church and State.
Final thoughts on abortion
So we’re bumping down off of five days of mostly abortion talk most of the time. And it’s been an interesting ride.
I’d like to wrap it all up now as tidily as possible when dealing with this kind of issue. First, I’d like to state again that I am personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice. My personal beliefs stem directly from my religion- and absent from that religion I would not have any reason to have the opinion I do. Respecting that fact, I will make no attempt to force my beliefs on someone who does not have the religious convictions I do. Because I could not expect a girl who was raped to carry that child to term without God to hold up her head. I could not expect a mother of four or five who is facing having another child with no money to support it and no way to pull herself up to have that child without God and a community of believers to support her. I do believe in what is best and what is holy- I believe in the honor one brings on oneself by choosing life. But that honor is there because it is a choice.
I believe that we all need to under stand the ethical and “natural” arguments used to counter our religious beliefs if we want to have meaningful conversations about the issue. We need to understand what the world at large believes and why. We cannot hope to inform the decisions of others if we do not understand the logic and thought that precedes those decisions. To put it flatly, it’s an issue of respect. We cannot expect someone to respect the value of our religiously informed decisions if we discount the value of their ethically informed ones. If you show courtesy and respect, if you seek knowledge and understanding, people will respond in kind. If you simply say, “my way is better” without even understanding the concept of any other way, people will view you as arrogant and ignorant. And rightly so. I am sure my way is better because I understand all the other options- and Christ and God’s love is what I have returned to. When I debate those who have secular beliefs or religious beliefs that stem from other traditions, I debate them understanding the value and logic of their own thinking- and they respect me, because they know that my faith doesn’t come from ignorance but from knowledge.
I pray that all Christians can seek knowledge without fear, trusting that if the God they love is the true one, they will return to him always.
And as the last lap of this rather circuitous road, let’s talk about our responsibility. I believe that as Christians we have a moral obligation to share God’s love and mercy with all whom we meet. I believe that we fail to do so at our own peril. I believe that when we put ourselves in God’s place and judge others we are judged in kind- and all of these beliefs stem not from my own heart but the Bible. I believe that the way in which Christians approach and handle the issue of abortion does far, far more harm than good. We cry out God’s love for the unborn, but in doing so we distance ourselves from the born. We seek to save the baby and we fail, and in that failure we lose any hope we may have had of caring for the mother.
We do so at our own peril.
I will say this once. And I will say this with all sincerity and conviction. If you choose to condemn a woman that has gotten an abortion, and your condemnation causes her to harden her heart towards God, and she dies and receives the punishment for her hard heart- her blood is on your hands.
I reject the basic premise that we are called to convict others of their sins and their hard hearts are not our responsibility. No. We are called to soften their hearts so that God himself can bring the conviction. We are going about it the wrong way.
I’ve heard the stories of women raped by relatives, raped by male friends, torn and bleeding and broken they go to get an abortion because they are suicidal and fear that if they attempt to bring the child to term they will end both their lives. I’ve heard the stories of these same girls being screamed at from the sidelines, called sluts and murderers.
It’s no wonder that these girls cannot accept the fact that God loves them. How could God love them if his family brings down such hatred in his name?
This is the cost of our stance on abortion. We do not save the child, because it is legal to end it’s life. No, all we do is throw away the mother like so many scraps, the collateral damage in our war on a legal and societally accepted procedure.
Shame on us.
