Following a channel 4 documentary last week on the topic of medical advances which mean we now know more about foetal pain during abortions, and viability is moving constantly younger, there is an increasing sense of feeling that abortion time limits should be reduced.
I welcome his news, in a sort of “I told you so” manner.
I went on the Channel 4 website to send in my approval of the programme, and got embroiled into a massive debate (who, me?) with the baying foaming-at-the-mouth pro-choice fundamentalist feminists.
Normally when I get into this sort of thing I lose sleep fretting about it all night. This time, the programme was good and I felt I was doing well in the debate, so I slept OK. Until Sunday morning that is – after a late night when I was already desperately tired and looking forward to my first lie-in in months. I was jolted awake at 5am by a random thought about the debate. No chance of falling asleep again – give up on the lie in and go downstairs for breakfast.
But at church 6 (SIX!) hours later, God spoke to me. Not quite my ‘Samuel-in-the-temple’ moment, but approaching it. It goes like this (bear with me):
Somewhere in Macabees there is apparently a story about men returning from battle, who offer sacrifices for the dead. I am told Roman Catholics take this as justification for their doctrine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead. But it actually stems from Old Testament law and practice. The 10 Commandments say “Thou shalt not kill”, and yet God sent the Israelite army into Canaan to commit genocide. When the soldiers returned from battle, they had to offer sacrifices, not for their dead comrades, but to cover their own blood-guilt from having killed in battle. So, even though God had instructed them to kill, it was still deemed to be a breach of the law, a sin, requiring a sacrifice. So the first thread of my thoughts is that there are times when killing is the best thing to do, but it is still deemed to be sin, and still needs a sacrifice.
The second thread is that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their attitude, tithing mint and dill and cumin but neglecting the weightier matters of law such as justice, and also because the Pharisees would place the burden of the law on the people but not lift a finger to help. They were right about the tithing, but the emphasis was wrong. So, even in my most rabidly anti-abortion moments, I have been acutely aware of the needs of desperate women needing help. I have always felt that there needed to be a solution for them, based primarily in a fairer society where they would not feel the need to abort. I did not see abortion – the murder of the child – as a solution. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and all that. But I was troubled that the solution I sought was Utopian, and would never provide the relief I proposed. I felt that I was being strict on the matters of the law (ie no killing) but was unable to lift a finger to provide genuine alternative.
The third thread, though of less importance and weight, goes like this… you are enjoying a day in the park when the park keeper says “Oi, you, can’t you read? It says keep off the grass!” So there you are, 40 metres from the nearest path, with a law that says you must not walk on the grass. How do you get back to the path? Fly? No, you walk back to the path…breaking the law as you do so. Similarly if you are in a pond and the sign says ‘no swimming’ you still have to swim to the side. And if you are a drug addict, cold turkey does not work for everyone and sometimes it’s a slower path of reducing usage. So, once we are in a position of sin, sometimes we have to continue sinning even while on the way to repentance.
So God spoke to me with these things saying basically:
I welcome his news, in a sort of “I told you so” manner.
I went on the Channel 4 website to send in my approval of the programme, and got embroiled into a massive debate (who, me?) with the baying foaming-at-the-mouth pro-choice fundamentalist feminists.
Normally when I get into this sort of thing I lose sleep fretting about it all night. This time, the programme was good and I felt I was doing well in the debate, so I slept OK. Until Sunday morning that is – after a late night when I was already desperately tired and looking forward to my first lie-in in months. I was jolted awake at 5am by a random thought about the debate. No chance of falling asleep again – give up on the lie in and go downstairs for breakfast.
But at church 6 (SIX!) hours later, God spoke to me. Not quite my ‘Samuel-in-the-temple’ moment, but approaching it. It goes like this (bear with me):
Somewhere in Macabees there is apparently a story about men returning from battle, who offer sacrifices for the dead. I am told Roman Catholics take this as justification for their doctrine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead. But it actually stems from Old Testament law and practice. The 10 Commandments say “Thou shalt not kill”, and yet God sent the Israelite army into Canaan to commit genocide. When the soldiers returned from battle, they had to offer sacrifices, not for their dead comrades, but to cover their own blood-guilt from having killed in battle. So, even though God had instructed them to kill, it was still deemed to be a breach of the law, a sin, requiring a sacrifice. So the first thread of my thoughts is that there are times when killing is the best thing to do, but it is still deemed to be sin, and still needs a sacrifice.
The second thread is that Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their attitude, tithing mint and dill and cumin but neglecting the weightier matters of law such as justice, and also because the Pharisees would place the burden of the law on the people but not lift a finger to help. They were right about the tithing, but the emphasis was wrong. So, even in my most rabidly anti-abortion moments, I have been acutely aware of the needs of desperate women needing help. I have always felt that there needed to be a solution for them, based primarily in a fairer society where they would not feel the need to abort. I did not see abortion – the murder of the child – as a solution. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and all that. But I was troubled that the solution I sought was Utopian, and would never provide the relief I proposed. I felt that I was being strict on the matters of the law (ie no killing) but was unable to lift a finger to provide genuine alternative.
The third thread, though of less importance and weight, goes like this… you are enjoying a day in the park when the park keeper says “Oi, you, can’t you read? It says keep off the grass!” So there you are, 40 metres from the nearest path, with a law that says you must not walk on the grass. How do you get back to the path? Fly? No, you walk back to the path…breaking the law as you do so. Similarly if you are in a pond and the sign says ‘no swimming’ you still have to swim to the side. And if you are a drug addict, cold turkey does not work for everyone and sometimes it’s a slower path of reducing usage. So, once we are in a position of sin, sometimes we have to continue sinning even while on the way to repentance.
So God spoke to me with these things saying basically:
“Yes Simon, you are right, abortion is indeed always a sin. But sometimes it is the least sinful option, the best way forward. Sometimes you have to do it, and accept the sacrifice of my Son to cover your sin”
That was God’s word to me, and it is a pivotal moment in my life. A burden has been lifted from me. I can now keep my strict interpretation of scripture, AND help women in need, and let God sort out the contradictions and mess.
Now if there is a similar solution for the homosexuality debate……?
Now if there is a similar solution for the homosexuality debate……?
And one of the paradoxical consequences of that is that 'everything is permitted' - which is a teaching that got the Corinthians into all sorts of bother, of course. I wonder if you read this post of mine, especially the bit about the Fall?
ReplyDeleteHi Sam,
ReplyDeleteYes, I did read it last year, but a memory refresh was good. That was a real humdinger of a post!
Your argument about the necessity of sin is very good.
I think Peter getting his feet washed since he inevitably gets dirty walksing in the World is also relevant.
Not sure 'everything is permitted' is a consequence of this (though related). I saw this as more 'we are no longer under law but under grace. therefore, what is right is based on our sonship, knowing what will please the father, as opposed to a slave who obeys by compulsion. the son can do what he wants with his father's estate, but through love follows the family tradition.
Simon