The Abortion Issue

One strategy the Republican party has used to secure the loyalty of committed Christians is to advocate for a complete ban on abortion (and to label Democrats as "baby killers").

The cry goes out, "We must protect unborn babies!" This appeals to people who paint all abortions with the same brush, as infanticide by selfish women who want to enjoy sexual freedom without facing the consequences. From this viewpoint, the Democrat message is, "Have fun! Don't worry about getting pregnant! You can just get rid of the problem."

Let's look at this more closely. There are at least three types of abortions. 

   a. spontaneous -- the fetus is expelled by the woman's body prior to full development. (Is this an act of God?)

   b. elective -- a woman who finds herself pregnant requests that the pregnancy to be terminated. This generally happens as soon as possible after the pregnancy is confirmed so the woman can get on with her life with as little discomfort as possible.

   c. medical issues -- early delivery of a baby because of severe health issues involving either the mother or child. These are the late-term abortions that get so much press. Women in this last group have accepted, even embraced and celebrated the pregnancy until something dreadful changes their course. This dreadful thing comes in many forms and each case needs careful counsel by professionals.

Anti-abortion laws tend to be a blunt force solution aimed at women in the second group, but they also affect those in the first and last groups. Offering medical care to those experiencing some form of spontaneous abortion can be a liability under strict anti-abortion laws. Inducing labor for a fetus that has died in utero or been shown to have abnormalities incompatible with life is also a liability. Sacrificing the life of the baby in order to save the mother is a tragedy for all involved, as is sacrificing the mother's life in order to save the baby. These scenarios involve excruciating choices far more complex than any law can anticipate.

A recent advertisement for a pregnancy test shows the relief women experience when seeing their results. As viewers, we are not shown the results and don't know which women are overjoyed by a negative result -- 'Whew! I'm not pregnant!" -- and which are overjoyed by a positive result -- "I'm pregnant! How wonderful!" Nor do we see the tears when the result is the opposite of what is hoped for. But we get the message that pregnancy is a big deal! Barring complications, it is the beginning of nine months of major physical changes followed by the bittersweet trauma of childbirth and the emergence of a helpless human baby bearing the combined DNA of both partners.

It interests me when people say, "If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, she should simply give it up for adoption." This is where cultivating empathy can help us. This choice requires the woman to set aside nine months of her life nurturing and birthing a baby she doesn't want or is maybe unable to care for. How will she explain to her family, friends, coworkers, and curious bystanders the circumstances of her pregnancy and her choice to give the baby away? Instead of explaining, will she drop out of life and "disappear" when her condition can no longer be hidden? Will she then let go of the baby she has birthed at such cost as though she were simply a surrogate? Few of us have walked that road. Can we imagine what it is like to do so? This "simple" solution is far more costly than we often acknowledge.**

One aspect of unwanted pregnancies that isn't often addressed is the fact that there is always a man involved. 100% of the time! No exceptions! That man may be a romantic partner or spouse, an acquaintance, a relative, or a stranger -- welcome or not -- but he is always present for the conception and is often more focused on his own desires than on whether the woman he is with would like to give birth to a child if he impregnates her. He is likely physically stronger than she is. We like to think unwanted pregnancies are the result of poor choices on the part of the pregnant woman, but how free is she to make good decisions in light of her relationship with and possible subjugation to the man?

What we need are better ways to avoid the NEED for abortion. The traditional Republican solution has been abstinence. Women who don't engage in sexual activities don't end up pregnant. This has not proven to be an effective method to avoid unwanted pregnancies, however. The human sex drive is incredibly strong!

The Guttmacher Institute reports that the U.S. abortion rate has increased slightly since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, even though many states now have strict laws against abortion. That number doesn't include illegal (unreported and unregulated) abortions. It seems to me that we really need to move beyond laws limiting access to safe and legal abortions and focus more on ways for young women to avoid unwanted pregnancies. After all, what woman would choose having her insides scraped out as her preferred method of birth control if she had a less risky and invasive alternative at hand?

As a Christian from the Baby Boomer generation, I value marriage and sexual fidelity, but I know many in our nation make different choices in terms of sexual relationships than I do. Expecting the risk of pregnancy to rein in people’s passions has resulted in far, far too many unwanted pregnancies and resulting abortions, particularly since men often push for and even demand sex while women are the ones who end up pregnant. A vote to ban abortion does not lead to greater morality. What it does is disproportionately punish impoverished and oppressed women who have less independence and access to all forms of birth control by forcing them to bear babies against their will while those with more resources enjoy sexual freedom. That is not righteousness on the part of those passing laws (which seldom effect their own lives). Nor is it the path to every child being welcomed and treasured by their parents. It is oppression of poor women. 

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I want to vote for the oppressed to be set free not further oppressed. (See Luke 4:18) How can we legislate less and care more for the well-being and freedom of every woman, rich or poor, to choose if and when she will lovingly welcome an infant into her arms? How can we best make sure that every newborn baby is enveloped in love?

——- **If you would like to step into the story of a pregnant teenager and the difficult choices she faces, I recommend the movie "Juno" from 2007. It is rated PG-13 and currently available on Hulu. A good book from the Christian fiction shelves is The Atonement Child by Francine Rivers.

The Making of a Christian Democrat

Becoming a Republican

When I first registered to vote at age 18 in 1976, I was surprised to be asked what party I wanted to join. After a flash of panic, I remembered my parents were Republicans. That must be our party. 

It took several more years to gain enough knowledge about the respective platforms of Republicans and Democrats to feel a true sense of loyalty to one party over the other. Democrats were in favor of social programs to share the wealth. The idea was to tax people in proportion to their income and provide support to those less willing or able to find and keep a job. In contrast, Republicans valued individualism and low taxes. Each citizen needed to support themselves and their family, lifting themselves up by their bootstraps, if necessary. Republicans were willing to fight for our freedom. Republicans had strong moral values and respect for law and order. Yes, I could sign on to that. It was obviously the best fit for a Christian like me.

Evolving views

Despite being a card-carrying Republican, I wasn’t one to vote “straight ticket” over the years, often splitting my ballot. After all, Indiana Democrats such as Evan Bayh, Indiana’s governor from 1989-1997, tended to land on the conservative end of their party on social issues. However, it wasn’t until Barack Obama came along in 2008 that I first cast my ballot for a Democrat to be President of the United States. That choice had less to do with well-studied political views than simply liking what Obama had to say and how he said it. And I liked the idea of electing a Black man as President. That year, Indiana’s electoral votes went to Obama. Looking back from 2025, it’s hard to believe Indiana went blue in 2008, but I was part of it.

After voting for Obama again in 2012, I was less Republican than I had ever been. It didn’t take much exposure to Donald Trump to decide I would not be voting for him. I was shocked when he won not only the Republican nomination in 2016, but enough electoral college votes to move into the White House. I was even more startled to learn that friends and family I thought shared my values voted for him. Over time, many became passionate defenders of him. I have seen people from less conservative areas suggest that voting for Trump is a sign one isn’t a “real Christian” (while my more conservative friends and neighbors often have the opposite view), but these were indeed “real Christians” — pastors, church leaders, people who study the Bible and know it well, committed followers of Jesus Christ. I couldn’t understand it.

When, after a four-year respite under Joe Biden, Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2021, I realized that I no longer wanted to be associated with the Republican party. If Republicans support what Trump stands for even after lengthy exposure to his bully tactics, I need to find a new party. But am I ready to call myself a Democrat?

Considerations

One motivation to reconsider my politics was observing how the Republicans have changed over the years to the point where they support the policies of the current administration. We are far from the days when President George W. Bush talked about “compassionate conservatism.” 

Another consideration is how I have changed over the years. I am no longer convinced that people who have better jobs or more money are somehow of better moral character than those who have less. I have realized that not everyone has bootstraps with which to pull themselves up. In short, I have more empathy for those who have been pushed aside by society. I care about those who struggle to catch up from a disadvantaged starting place. The idea of offering such people tax-funded assistance has a lot more appeal to me than it once did.

Another attractive aspect of the Democrat party is how much more diverse its leaders are in gender, religion, and cultural heritage. DEI – diversity, equality, and inclusion – has become a concept openly rejected by Republican leadership. But I want to be inclusive. I love the diversity I find in all of creation, including within humanity. I regret the fact that some people have fewer open doors in their lives than others based on differences having to do with gender, socioeconomic level, culture, skin color, country of origin, age, sexual identity, or disability.

In recent days, empathy has been described as a weakness and even a sin by some Republicans. But I actively cultivate empathy in my own life by exposing myself to the stories of people not like me through books, movies, social media, and a variety of cultural experiences. I am willing to walk into those stories to become more aware of views other than the one being born white in rural America gives me. I still discover prejudices within myself, but I am trying to set them aside rather than embracing them.

Does that make me a Democrat in our two-party system? This is a question I have wrestled with as Trump’s second term has threatened the very foundations of the American experiment.

Faith and politics

Republicans like to think of themselves as the Christian party, based, as much as anything, on being against abortion and homosexuality, but Jesus never addressed either issue. Instead, he called us to a life of love and compassion. He reached out and drew in people whom others excluded. He treated women as worthy partners in conversation. He asked questions and listened to people. He touched the untouchable. He offered healing rather than harm. He told us there is blessing in being merciful, in being peacemakers, in humility. He called us to a life of generosity; to give food to the hungry, care for the sick, and welcome the stranger. He offered grace to those others pushed aside.

It is not in spite of my Christian values that I can no longer be associated with the Republican party, but because of them. Compassion and grace toward the poor and oppressed are virtues I seek to cultivate, not devalue.

It took a while to get here, but I truly believe that, as a whole, the Democrat party values are more “Christian” than those of the Republican party. That doesn’t always come through in individual leaders. Power and authority in this world have never meshed well with the values of the Kingdom of God. And I know many good Christian people remain loyal to the Republican party. Still, I feel like the pressure on the Republican side is to be less compassionate, less merciful, to emphasize the “Thou Shalt Not” of the Ten Commandments while pushing aside as weak and impractical Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, whereas the pressure on the Democrat side is more toward the compassion and generosity Jesus taught.

Beyond the question of which political party in the U.S. is a better fit for me as a follower of Jesus Christ is the question of whether I should align myself with any nation or political structure in this world. IF I am going to do that, however, I want to choose the one I feel has a better grasp of Christian values. And right now, I am convinced the values of the Democrat party better reflect the life of mercy, compassion, and grace to which Jesus calls us.

I'm Ag'in' It!

 "I'm ag'in' it!"

My first memory of encountering this colloquialism was years ago at a school board meeting. An improvement to the school facilities was being discussed and one board member made his opposition clear. The phrase struck me as useful. Clear, settled opposition, not open to discussion. I tucked it away to pull out as needed.

As it turns out, I haven't found much use for the phrase. Unlike that old farmer, I don't find all that many situations where I am inclined to firmly set my jaw and declare my opposition to a proposal for change.

In the past few months of attending Democrat party meetings in my area, I have been reminded of that phrase again. Democrats are an endangered species locally, and I appreciate those trying to breathe new life into the local organization, but the main rallying message I have heard thus far revolves around being against what is happening around us. The current administration? We're ag'in' it. The conservative evangelical director of a local after-school program? We're ag'in' 'im and don't want public funds to go to his program. Businesses failing to hang onto their DEI initiatives under pressure? We're ag'in' 'em.

When a proposed highway through our part of Indiana came up as the latest target for our protests at a recent meeting, it was too much for me. The meeting had lasted plenty long already when the topic was introduced. I decided I was done for that round and left.

Since when do Democrats take a uniform stand against infrastructure improvements? Wasn't President Joe Biden's infrastructure plan a major accomplishment for his administration?

I know the issues involved with the proposed highway. They are the same ones I heard against the I-69 extension through southwest Indiana three decades ago. Among them: Highways consume private property and destroy farms. They bypass small towns and their struggling business districts. They cost millions or even billions of dollars. These are valid points. But they aren't the only factors involved in the road decision and don't represent one political party. If they did, I would expect the Republicans to be the ones taking the position of less government interference and greater concern for individual rights, not the Democrats.

The role of government is to collect resources and provide goods and services for their citizens. Where would we be if transportation depended on individual landowners laying asphalt on their own property and tying their section of roadway in with their neighbors' roads? As it turns out, the only way to have roads is for the government to acquire lengthy ribbons of land and bring in construction crews.

The question then is, "Do we need another road?" Apparently, the answer is "no" for my Democrat friends. They are "ag'in it" and that is fine. I just wish they would conduct their anti-road protests apart from the Democrat party. I have no strong opinion on this latest road project, but generally see good transportation options as a positive thing. However, discussing the Mid-State Corridor project is not the purpose of this post, so I will move on.

I have concerns about a lot of things happening in our world, but my preferred stance is to highlight and support the good rather than highlighting and protesting the bad. If I manage to make any contribution to the local Democratic Party organization with my limited resources, I hope it will be to support initiatives that will bring positive changes. I would like to see more support for local immigrants and minority groups, more DEI initiatives, more support for literacy and educational initiatives. These are goals that stand in opposition to our current President and his administration, but I see them as having more opportunity for local initiatives that make a difference.

On a recent trip to Washington, Indiana, I saw a sign promoting the Rotary Club, highlighting their positive contributions to the community. I just caught a glimpse of it in passing and didn't catch all it said. I hope to revisit that sign soon and snap a picture of it. Positive community involvement is a goal I would like to pursue, valuing and uplifting all people in the community. Maybe the best way to do that is to join the Rotary Club, but I don't live in Washington and have limited time and energy. I still have hope that involvement with the Democrats can bring similar opportunities, both locally and on a broader basis.

That Sinful Woman

Recently, the Lectionary calendar brought us to John 12:1-8 about Mary of Bethany pouring nard on Jesus' feet and wiping them with her hair. For our Sunday School discussion about it, I did a side-by-side comparison of the four gospel accounts of this event -- from Mark 14, Matthew 26, Luke 7, & John 12. It seems obvious to me that this is one happening and, like other gospel events, the story just varies in each. However, the conventional interpretation seems to be that there were two events -- one in Bethany involving Mary, the godly sister of Martha & Lazarus, and the other in another time and place involving an unnamed woman "who lived a sinful life" One source suggests that John confuses the two events and brings details from the "sinful woman" into the Bethany story. That writer says that someone as respectable as Mary of Bethany would never let her hair down in public.

My question is: Why? Why don't people simply accept that Mary of Bethany was the woman "who lived a sinful life" and wiped Jesus' feet with her hair? Is it because they can't accept that Jesus' best friends might have had scandal connected to them?

I mean, the parallels are too many to discount so easily. Let's look at them:

Mark, Matthew, & Luke all identify the host as a man named Simon. Mark & Matthew identify him as "Simon the Leper" from Bethany, Luke says he was a Pharisee named Simon. John just says the dinner was given in Jesus' honor in Bethany and that Lazarus was there and Martha served. In all cases, a woman anointed either Jesus' feet or his head with perfume. Mark, Matthew, & Luke all say the perfume was in an alabaster jar. Mark & John identify the perfume as nard. Only John identifies the woman as Mary, but both Mark & Matthew tell us it happened in Bethany. How many women were there in Bethany who would do such a thing?

If I let my imagination go, I wonder if there is something beyond the small-town connection between Jesus' sibling friend group and Simon the Leper/Pharisee's household. If Simon had leprosy, does that mean his wife might have moved back home with her siblings? Could Martha have been that wife? Was there something wrong with Lazarus that precluded him from having a family? Was Mary a social outcast because of her sinful past who lived with her brother and sister? Was she able to let her hair down at Simon's house because she was with family there? Is that the reason she was able to show up at the dinner in the first place? (And, yes, I've heard about the public nature of these events and that anyone could enter certain areas, but the family connection idea seems to fit better.)

When I shared these thoughts with my seminarian daughter, she offered a new perspective. Traditionally, we have seen the "sinful woman" as sexually immoral. But then and now, women have been categorized as "sinful" for so many other offenses. Think of all the things that bring rebuke to women and girls even in our current society. Interrupting men. Being 'bossy.' Dressing in ways others find offensive -- and there are SO MANY ways to offend others by what women wear or don't wear. Acting "uppity." Taking on leadership roles in the church. Not being submissive enough to authorities. The list goes on.

Moving back to Jesus' day, there would have been many more ways for a young lady to be condemned. Maybe Mary declined to enter the marriage her parents arranged for her. Maybe she sat in the room with the men instead of working in the kitchen. (Oh, right, we already know that is the case from Luke 10.) Maybe she spoke when women were supposed to keep quiet. Maybe she didn't keep her hair up. Maybe she insisted that the expensive perfume she somehow acquired was hers to use as she pleased.

In all this, I am always asking the question: Why does this matter? It seems much of the cultural background and language study that people love to insert into Bible study isn't all that important to the overall message of the gospel. But if Mary was the woman Luke tells us "lived a sinful life," that strikes me as huge! It means Jesus didn't just interact with "tax collectors and sinners" in a ministry role, but that he counted broken people who were social outcasts among his closest friends. He liked them better than more socially acceptable people. They were the people he turned to at the end of the day when he wanted to just relax and not be "on." He was so non-threatening to Mary that she could let her hair down in his presence. Simon the Leper/Pharisee may not have been thrilled having her around and wondered why Jesus let her touch him, but Jesus did let her touch him and let her sit at his feet while he was teaching and Martha was so busy with lunch preparations. As someone who struggles to fit into the traditional roles of women, I love the idea that Jesus loves spending time with outcasts.

The World Before Me . . .

It has now been years since the day I changed the words to the old song “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus.” One of its multiple repetitive verses says: “The world behind me, the cross before me.” As we sang it one day during a church service, my evangelical training kicked in and I wondered, “Why have I turned my back on the world again? Shouldn't I care about 'the lost' out there? Shouldn't the “cross” (i.e. the church) have my back as I head out to make a difference in my world?” So I sang instead, “The world before me, the cross behind me.” It was a spontaneous thought, but one I haven't changed my mind on since. It is so much more appealing to head out into the world to make a difference than to turn my back on all the blessings, opportunities, and even the dangers to be found there.

More than a decade ago, I posted to a forum that no longer exists some words I titled "A New Direction." Having struggled with ministry options in the church, my proposal was to seek alternative opportunities out in the community. I was working at a small public library where I had contact with many people in need of God's touch on their lives. I did my best to meet them where they were, but dealt with a continuing lack of encouragement and support for such efforts. From the viewpoint of church leaders, all my efforts at the library and in the community were of little or no consequence, and I faced relentless pressure to better support church programs planned by other people. For someone raised in evangelicalism, the crippling blow of being dismissed as lacking commitment and being unsupportive is powerful. None of my attempts to make a difference in people's lives came up to the standards I was being measured against.

A few years later I added Reggie McNeal's 2015 book Kingdom Come: Why We Must Give Up Our Obsession with Fixing the Church – and What We Should Do Instead to my to-read list. The list is long and my reading progress slow, but eventually I procured the ebook and, after even more delay, started reading it. It always amazes me when others can take what I think and turn those thoughts into marketable words. McNeal's answer to furthering the Kingdom of God is for Christ's followers to go out into the world and find ways to connect with people and make a difference in their lives. Not to leave the church behind, but to work in the world while drawing encouragement and spiritual nurture from the church.

Meanwhile, my church setting has changed, and I no longer work at the public library. Even if I did, the dynamics there have changed with evolving technology. Consequently, my own community connections are weaker than they once were, but still there.

At one level, I wish I had read this book back when I was more connected, but less supported. But that was then, and this is now. I am not without opportunity. And I am in a better place to value the connections I have left and can continue to form in the community.

The world truly lies before me with countless opportunities to show kindness and compassion to those hungry for the love God offers. For my own spiritual well-being, I need frequent reminders to turn my face to the needy people outside the church doors. I am thankful for the times I find support and encouragement from the church behind me as I strive to make a difference in the world before and around me.

On "Lars and the Real Girl"

I am not one to watch a lot of television series or movies. If my entire viewing time in a week adds up to three or four hours, that is a lot. Which, of course, leaves me way out of the loop on shows others are binging. One series from fifteen years ago that I am finally slowly watching is NBC's Parks & Recreation. After all, it is set in Indiana, which gives it a little extra appeal.

One of the supporting cast members in the first two seasons of the show is Paul Schneider. I wondered what else he has done and did a Google search. When I found a movie from 2007 with him and Ryan Gosling as brothers, that was enough to pull me in. It took a few sessions to get through it, but I have found myself mentally revisiting the plot since I finished it.

In the show, Ryan Gosling plays the part of an extremely socially awkward young man. A co-worker is looking at life-size sex dolls on the internet and tries to interest "Lars" in them. Lars then secretly orders one and when it comes introduces "Bianca" to his brother and sister-in-law as a missionary from Brazil whom he met online. He asks if she can stay in their guest room while they are getting to know each other and if she can borrow some of the sister-in-law's clothes. They, of course, are concerned about him treating this doll as a real girl and immediately make an appointment with a doctor/therapist for him. The doctor advises them to go along with Lars's delusion that Bianca is a real girl and schedules regular sessions to treat Bianca for some health problems, sessions Lars attends as well, chatting with the therapist during Bianca's treatments.

Here is where the plot gets interesting. The brother is greatly embarrassed by this odd behavior on the part of his brother, but agrees to follow the doctor's advice. Not only do he and his wife accept Bianca into the family, but Bianca also goes to church and the entire congregation cautiously welcomes her in. When Lars's office has a social event, he takes Bianca in her wheelchair and everyone has been clued in ahead of time and treats her like a real person. The church ladies find opportunities for Bianca to do volunteer work, including as a reader at the local children's hospital (with a "talking book"). Some take an interest in styling her hair for her. As time goes on, thanks to the church ladies, Bianca slowly develops a social life of her own while Lars is at work. And when Bianca has a severe health crisis, the ladies bring their needlework and sit with Lars to comfort him.

Of course, this is a completely unrealistic plot. There is no world in which an ambulance would be called for a life-size doll and take her to the hospital where doctors and nurses would install her in a room and pretend to take her "health crisis" seriously. Nor is everyone associated with an office environment likely to go along with it. Someone will surely feel obliged to speak the truth.

More than the coworkers and the health professionals, however, my sense of realism completely balks at the idea of a congregation playing along with this delusion. Church people, of all people, would insist that Lars face the facts: his girlfriend is NOT A REAL GIRL!! She is a doll! A sex doll, no less. Maybe a subgroup of compassionate people in the congregation could be persuaded to go along with this delusion, but not the entire church. I kept waiting for that one person to show up who would insist that Lars face the reality of his "relationship," but no one ever did. Every single member of the community allowed Lars to live in his alternate reality for as long as he needed to do so.

I don't know how I feel about this. "Bianca" is obviously important to Lars in overcoming a difficult childhood. By allowing his therapy to proceed unhindered and extending extraordinary Christian charity, the church congregation played a major healing role in his life. Bianca's "charity work" through the church gave her a dimension beyond Lars' personal therapy doll, rounded her out as a "real girl" with a life beyond being Lars's girlfriend.

Anyway, like I said, I don't know how I feel about this, but it is at least a little sad that I find the church's support for Lars and "Bianca" the least believable aspect of the movie.

On God, Flag, and Country

Someone recently told our new pastor I would not be at church for the Veteran's Day service. I was a little surprised since I had forgotten Veteran's Day was approaching and no one had said anything to me about it. How did someone else know the plans I had yet to even consider? I guess they were looking at my history. I did miss the Sunday closest to Veteran's Day a year ago because I was at a conference that weekend. The conference had nothing to do with Veteran's Day, but I will admit I wasn't disappointed by the timing. I tend to miss Memorial Day weekend because my mother was born on May 30th (Memorial Day's date before the Monday Holiday Bill set it adrift in 1968). We have a long family tradition of gathering for her birthday. This year I could have left after the Sunday morning service to visit her for her 92^nd birthday celebration, but chose to miss. I was at church for the Independence Day service in July, but apparently my absences for “God, Flag, and Country” Sundays speak louder than my presence. As they probably should. The unnamed person making a definitive statement concerning my plans for this fall was perhaps a bit presumptuous, but not far enough off base for me to take offense. And there is a possibility the second-hand version of the statement that came back to me contained more certainty than the original.

Will I be at church for Veteran's Day? I don't know, but probably. Church attendance is a habit for me whereas conflicting conferences are rare. I have concerns, but probably not enough commitment to them to make alternative plans for the day.

My concerns:

1. War is ridiculous. The leaders of two or more countries find themselves in conflict so they gather up a large number of young men in the prime of life, give them weapons, train them in the art of death and destruction, and see who can inflict enough death and destruction to prompt the other side to give up. How is this still happening in our times?

But, wait, there is more. The warriors, along with their parents and grandparents and lovers, are persuaded that God is on their side of the conflict and that they are defenders of righteousness, truth, and freedom. They must inflict death and destruction for the sake of their families back home, for God, flag, and country. The parents and grandparents and lovers lift up their young men as heroes as they dish out death and destruction on those on the other side of the conflict while the leaders who initiated the military action sit safely in their war rooms. Sometimes civilians are also killed in this process, but this is accepted as a cost of conflict. The young fighters are still heroes. This is seriously messed up!!

If you don't believe me that this is messed up, check in on the mental health of war veterans. The survivors, of course. But not those who serve behind the frontlines. Look at those who walk away with indelible images of war carnage haunting their days. See how they are doing. After the American Civil War, they called such people “shellshocked.” After Vietnam, we just recognized them as messed-up Vietnam vets. Now we have letters to describe it: PTSD. It's still the same. Killing other human beings and watching people die violent deaths has a terrible impact on the lives of those involved. As it should. We are made for protecting human life not extinguishing it, and we overcome that natural bent to our own peril.

2. The glorification of war and war “heroes” bothers me anyway, but even more so when it enters the church.

When I was a young adult, I started my campaign to protect our worship services by taking on the Easter Bunny. Not because I dislike the Easter Bunny. I think colored eggs and candy and bunnies are delightful symbols for celebrating spring and fertility and new life. (Rabbits are my favorite animal!) Outside the church walls. Inside the church walls, Easter/Resurrection Sunday is only and always about the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Easter bunny can hop to and fro everywhere else, but can we keep this one sacred place sacred? It is the ONLY place where the focus is on God's power to overcome death with new life as demonstrated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why would we distract from that focus? There is wondrous beauty in the empty tomb that many struggle to grasp. Why would we interweave light-hearted myths and magic with it? Enjoy the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy! They are great!! But can we please refrain from inviting them into sacred spaces at the most sacred times of the church year?

I gave up on reforming the church long ago. Now I am content to simply not participate when secular interests get folded into worship. But even that is difficult. Even if I could close the church doors in the face of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, I wouldn't want to shut out those who have served in the U.S. military. And the idea that God supports America's warriors and we must do the same by honoring our troops, current or past, as part of our Sunday morning worship is drilled into us from a young age. It is almost sacrilegious to question it. I can disappear on such Sundays, but that exposes me as someone who doesn't support the men and women currently or formerly serving in our armed forces, a serious offense in the eyes of many! Or maybe someone who doesn't understand that the military invites God into the midst of war by means of chaplains and prayers.

The bottom line is that I find war disturbing beyond words. I wish there were alternative paths for serving God and country that didn't involve training young men to kill and maim. I wish we as a country supported and honored service in the Peace Corp and similar programs like we support and honor military service. I wish, if military service remains a necessary evil because our leaders find it impossible to come up with civilized means for conflict resolution, we could at least acknowledge each enlistment as a sign of unspeakable failure on the part of those leaders.

But that isn't where we are. My pastor reminded me that the military supports chaplains and prayer. I didn't remind him that, regardless of those prayers, causing the violent death of another human does permanent damage to the psyche of those doing it. The wreckage on both sides is beyond comprehension. But I had no words to convey that conviction, nor to explain why it bothers me so much to see those involved in the military put on a pedestal rather than wrapped in arms of healing and compassion and begged for forgiveness for whatever extent they were subjected to the horrors of war.

I don't have answers to the incredible puzzle of war still existing in these times. And I certainly can't change the mindset that God is honored when we honor those offering their lives to the service of leaders with such limited skills and imagination for peacemaking that they resort to sending “the boys” out to kill and maim each other in order to “settle” international conflict. I can't fix it. I just wish I didn't have to be part of celebrating it. But even those noting my opposition to such celebrations have shown no interest in hearing my concerns. So I share them here in the blogosphere. And so it goes. . 

Not that anyone has actually asked me, but again I ask myself: Will I be at church for the Veteran's Day service? Probably. I too am part of this country that believes more in military might than the peaceable Kingdom of God. And I am part of a congregation that supports this worldview by honoring war veterans on Veteran's Day. I am too worn down and worn out to stage a protest. And so we will have God, flag, and country. My convictions will be simply one more (admittedly minor) casualty in a long string of casualties. 

The flag I will be waving is the white flag of surrender and defeat. 

On Generosity

This week I added one more book to the backlog on my Kindle -- The Paradox of Generosity: Giving We Receive, Grasping We Lose by Christian Smith & Hilary Davidson. Even the little I have read thus far in the introduction says what I have already discovered with the help of the Bible and a few decades of living: a generous life is a blessed life.

Having just purchased the book, it was fresh in my mind today as my husband and I headed to WonderLab Science Museum in Bloomington, Indiana, with our grandchildren. We had never been there and took advantage of the availability of children during their fall school break to legitimize our visit. As one might guess from the name, it's a Wonder-full place, full of hands-on science of all types, from simple toy collections to the mystery of a mind challenge game where two people wearing headbands with forehead sensors compete to direct a small steel ball to one goal or the other using only their minds while their brain activity is shown on a screen. (The three-year-old won this game!)

One of the simplest stations was an area with a large collection of plastic cups donated by a local pizza joint. Our fifth-grader started stacking them into a tower, as did his little sister. Of course, they were frequently knocked over as kids came and went, but after a while it was just the two of them building and one kid, maybe 7 or 8 years old, who would periodically plow through the area knocking everything down. The grandkids were getting frustrated by this and my (grand)mother bear instinct kicked in, prompting me to position myself as a shield between this "wrecker" and the tower under construction. He then settled onto a stool at the station next to the cup area and didn't try to get past me as the project was completed.

After photographing the finished creation with its architect, I quietly asked my grandson if it would be all right to let this other kid knock it down. He was a little surprised by the suggestion, but his generous nature prevailed and he agreed. The "wrecker" was even more surprised when I asked if he wanted to knock it over, but after double-checking to see if I meant it, he sent the cups flying. My grandson then wandered off, but the 3-year-old and I stayed. The "wrecker" also stayed and started building his own tower, the first attempt to build instead of destroy I had observed.

A bit later, the other kid had moved on again and my grandson returned with the aspiration to build the biggest tower of all. He was a little discouraged, however, by how precarious all this building was. Then inspiration hit. We decided to stack the cups against the wall. Now both grandchildren started working together and soon the other kid came back and started to help. Being an oldest child, my grandson was a bit critical of the work of both younger children, but I persuaded him they were being careful and doing well and the project quickly grew to the point where I had to take over because it was above the reach of the children. The other kid pulled over the stool from the neighboring station and climbed on it to help me with the highest row either of us could reach. We took a photo and I started a search for a taller person to move us up further, having doubts about the acceptability of standing on the stool myself. Help arrived after a while in the form of an employee who stood on the stool and added two more rows before we ran entirely out of cups. (I had not observed it, but the kids noted that the "wrecker" had stomped on and broken several cups. It was fine, though. We had the exact number needed to do the highest row even the employee on the stool could reach.)

It was a wonderful accomplishment. Multiple people had a chance to admire the masterpiece before a toddler did what toddlers do. Moving faster than his mother could follow, he ran over and pulled a cup out of the tower at his toddler level, sending all the cups to the floor in a magnificent crash!

Such a simple building opportunity in a place with many more sophisticated stations. And such a simple act of generosity that turned our "enemy" into a coworker. Instead of ending the day thinking that kid did nothing but destroy our work, we became partners.

One thing that lay behind my decision to buy the book by Smith & Davidson was watching an example of the opposite of generosity. Someone left a faith community after a church vote didn't go their way and over the course of a few weeks collected up and carried out every item they had apparently "loaned," rather than donated to the church during their many years of membership, leaving empty spaces all over the church building. There was talk of changing the locks, but I was glad to hear later no such action had been taken. Responding to miserliness with heightened security simply spreads the lack of generosity. If someone excelling in the “rules” of Christianity as they understand them (including the commandments against theft) is that injured, they probably need to be allowed to do what they feel justified in doing. And as it turned out, someone else was in a position to replace many of the missing items. Both the congregation and the new donor enjoyed the blessing of generosity.

A quote I have seen phrased different ways and credited to different sources says, "We are not so much punished for our sins as by them." When I think of the former church members sitting in their home amidst the clutter of “undonated” items and think about the bridges they burned behind them as they exited, I am reminded again that just as generous, grace-filled living brings joy and blessing, miserly and graceless living brings misery.

Jesus once commented about how difficult it is for rich people to enter the kingdom of God. I think the difficulty of being generous is a big part of that. Being open-handed is especially difficult for people who excel at hanging onto money and material goods, generally a requirement for accumulating and retaining wealth. It is difficult to have the generous and gracious spirit that characterizes kingdom living while clinging tightly to material wealth.

Sometimes we are positive examples. Sometimes we are examples of where the wrong path leads. I don't always make the most generous choices, It is easy for me to cling too tightly to things I could easily give away. Because of this, I try to remind myself often (and find reading material to remind me) that I virtually never regret being generous.