Posts tagged ‘Life’
Nice, Turkey, and Baton Rouge
Baton Rouge police block Airline Highway after a sniper kills three and wounds three officers. Credit: AP Photo/Max Becherer
In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve eat from the fruit of a tree about which God had said, “You must not eat…for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17). By Genesis 4, death has already had its way as Cain kills his brother Abel.
That didn’t take long.
The grim efficiency of death has loomed large over these past few days. First, word came from Nice, France last Thursday that 84 people had been killed when a terrorist drove a large, white paneled truck at high speeds into a crowd of revelers who were celebrating Bastille Day. Then, on Saturday, we learned that around 290 people were killed in a failed coup against the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has now arrested over 6,000 people and has vowed to root out what he calls the “virus” that is plaguing his country. Then, yesterday, tragedy hit Baton Rouge as three police officers were killed and three others were injured when a sniper ambushed and shot at the officers who had responded to a report of trouble near the Hammond Aire Plaza shopping center.
Three stories of death in nearly as many days. And these come on the heels of another week before this last week that was also packed with three stories stories of death from Saint Paul, from Dallas, and, again, from Baton Rouge. Yes, death is grimly efficient.
These are terrible times. There was a time when weeks like these – with so many major stories of unrest and death – were nearly unthinkable. But in the summer of 2016, weeks like these are becoming all too predictable. Indeed, I can sometimes struggle with how to process all of these types of tragedies precisely because there are so many of these types of tragedies.
In processing this week’s worth of carnage, I would point to what I have already pointed to in the past. After the tragedies in Baton Rouge, Saint Paul, and Dallas, I pointed people to the importance of being empathetic with those who grieve, of receiving Christ’s peace in the midst of unrest, and, most importantly, of remembering that death does not have the last word. Christ does.
As I look back on this week of tragedies, all of these reminders still hold. And yet, I wish I didn’t have to remind people of these reminders – again.
Even though I feel a little overwhelmed by so much death in such a short period of time, I am not particularly surprised by it. After all, death, as Genesis 3 and 4 teach us, is indeed grimly efficient. It works fast and it works tenaciously. And it has no intention of giving up on its prey.
What is most striking to me about Abel’s death in Genesis 4 is that even though God condemned Adam and Eve to death because of their transgression against His command, it was their son, Abel, who first suffered under the fruit of their sin. It who their son, who, ostensibly, did nothing particularly wrong who dies. Indeed, the reason Abel’s brother Cain kills him is because he did something right. He made an offering that was pleasing to God. Cain became jealous of that offering and murdered him.
The first death in history, then, was that of an apparently innocent person. This is why, when God finds out what Cain has done to his brother, He is furious and asks Cain, “What have you done?” which, interestingly, is the same question God asks Eve when she eats from His forbidden fruit. God continues by answering His own question: “Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10).
Ever since that moment, the blood that cries out to God has been getting deeper and deeper as death has been spreading farther and wider. Nice, Turkey, and Baton Rouge have now added their blood to Abel’s.
Finally, there is only one way to stem the flow of death and blood. The preacher of Hebrews explains:
You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12:23-24)
Just like Abel, there was a man who was not only ostensibly innocent, He was actually innocent. Just like Abel, this was a man who did what was pleasing in God’s sight. And just like Abel, this was a man who had His blood spilled by those who were jealous of Him. But Jesus’ blood, the preacher of Hebrews says, is better than Abel’s blood. Why? Because Jesus’ blood did what Abel’s blood could not. Instead of just crying out, as did Abel’s blood, Jesus’ blood saved us. By His blood, Jesus solved the problem of Abel’s blood…and Nice’s blood…and Turkey’s blood…and Baton Rouge’s blood. For by His blood, Jesus said to death’s grim efficiency: “Your reign will end. My blood will overtake all the blood that cries with a blood that can save all.”
In a week that has seen far too much blood and far too many tears, Jesus’ blood is the blood that we need. For Jesus’ blood is the only blood that doesn’t wound our souls as we mourn loss; it mends our souls as we yearn for salvation.
Texas, Abortion, and the Terrible Triumph of the Human Will
Credit: Associated Press
Along with the headline, there was an infographic with this caption: “The Supreme Court Drifts to the Left.” Sadly, this is the way the abortion debate is often now cast: conservative versus liberal, right versus left. But there is far more at stake in this case than just political or ideological points. What is at stake in this case is human lives.
Yes, the lives of the babies lost to abortion are at stake. But so are the lives of the women who suffer through the loss of a child to abortion. Abortion can change profoundly the lives of the women who endure it – and not necessarily for the better. Indeed, some studies have shown that women can suffer under a crushing weight of hidden hurt and regret after obtaining an abortion.
Yet, regardless of its mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual tolls, many in our society continue to fight for the widest possible access to abortion and, as the Supreme Court ruling symptomizes, raising any concerns about the way the abortion industry operates is regularly met with little more than scorn and skepticism. The right to abortion, in this view, is sovereign.
The problem, however, with making the right to abortion sovereign is that it makes physical reality subservient to the human will. The physical reality of life in utero becomes becomes dependent on a person’s choice. To borrow a quip from 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark: it means that “life begins with the mother’s decision.”
Except that it doesn’t. Life begins in spite of a person’s choice. But life, tragically, can be ended by a person’s choice. To try to make the physical reality of life subservient to the human will is to deny that physical reality really matters at all. But the denial of physical reality in light of human decision seems to be en vogue – not only with babies in wombs, but with people in their lives.
Several weeks ago on this blog, I wrote about the connection between transgenderism and Platonism. Just like Platonism sees that which is non-corporeal as more important and, in some sense, more real than the physical, transgenderism gives preference to a non-corporeal inner identification over a person’s physical biological sex. Sherif Girgis made a similar observation about the relationship of the physical to the internal in an article for First Things:
The body doesn’t matter…Since I am not my body, I might have been born in the wrong one. Because the real me is internal, my sexual identity is just what I sense it to be. The same goes for other valuable aspects of my identity. My essence is what I say and feel that it is…
On the old view, you could know important things about me unmediated, by knowing something about my body or our shared nature. And our interdependence as persons was as inescapable as our physical incompleteness and need: as male and female, infants and infirm. But if the real me lies within, only I know what I am. You have to take my word for it; I can learn nothing about myself from our communion. And if I emerge only when autonomy does – if I come into the world already thinking and feeling and choosing – it’s easy to overlook our interdependence. I feel free to strike out on my own, and to satisfy my desires less encumbered by others’ needs.[1]
Girgis’ final line is key. If we are fundamentally defined by our internal wills rather than by our physical bodies, our wills must be held as sovereign and defining. Anything and anyone that would encroach on our wills – even a baby growing inside of us – must be put it in its place.
In this way, everything from same-sex marriage to transgenderism to abortion is of one piece. It privileges the human will over everything else. I can choose who I want to marry without any regard for a created complementarianism. I can choose my gender quite apart from what are, in most cases, very clear biological markers. And I can choose to keep a baby inside of me or to rid myself of it.
I understand and am sensitive to the fact that, in each of these cases, there are strong stirrings that can lead to difficult decisions. The stirring of affection for someone of the same-sex can lead to a same-sex marriage. The stirring toward the lifestyles of the opposite gender can lead a person to live as transgender. And the stirring of fear over what it takes to raise a child can lead to an abortion. But even when these stirrings are strong, I think it is worth it to at least ask the question of whether or not it is wise to make human stirrings so defining that they can eclipse and even try to deny actual physical states of being.
According to the Supreme Court, the stirring of a person’s choice in pregnancy is defining. And if anything – even a raising of medical standards for abortion clinics in Texas – impedes that choice, choice must have its way. So it will. And with deadly results.
_________________________
[1] Sherif Girgis, “Obergefell and the New Gnosticism,” First Things (6.28.2016).
Terror Hits Brussels: How Should Christians Respond?
It happened again.
Just four days after Paris terror suspect Salah Abdeslam was captured by Belgian law enforcement officials, two coordinated attacks – one at the airport and another on a subway – were carried out in Brussels at approximately 8 am local time. ISIS is taking responsibility for both.
Most of the scenes on the news right now are coming from the airport attack, and the pictures are ghastly. Physicians treating the wounded are describing severe nail injuries, indicating that the explosives were packed with materials designed to inflict maximum injury. As of the posting of this blog, CNN is reporting the provisional death toll at 34: 14 dead at the airport with 20 people killed in the subway bombing. We do not know whether or not the toll will rise.
At a time like this, it is always worthwhile to pause and reflect on how we, as Christians, are called to respond and react to a tragedy such as this. Christians are, after all, in a unique position to respond and react to tragedy, for our very faith was born out of tragedy, as this Good Friday will remind us. Our faith is rooted in “Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2) – a gruesome thought if left by itself. So here are a few things to keep in mind.
Pray for Brussels
When terrorists attacked Paris, I wrote, “Pray for Paris.” The first thing we should do in an event like this is pray – always. For the vast majority of us, there is no help we can offer Brussels physically – we are not omnipresent. And there is no way we can thwart another attack in this beleaguered city – we are not omnipotent. So we must entrust Brussels and its future to the One who is omnipresent and omnipotent. We must entrust Brussels and its future to the One who can actually help. Such is the power of prayer. It not only offers real help to hurting people because it turns to a God who is in the business of helping hurting people, it also grows our faith when we cannot take charge of a situation like this because it teaches us to trust the One who is in charge of every situation like this.
Mourn for Brussels
The old saying goes, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” We have become all too familiar with terror attacks. With another one in the news this morning, although we may not be tempted to become outright contemptuous of what has happened, we may be tempted to respond to it with a mild dismissiveness. We see. We react with a bit of a groan. And we move on. I would encourage us to saunter at the scenes from Brussels for a bit. Look at the damage done at the airport. Look at the horrified faces of the people escaping from a bombed subway car. And grieve. Terror may be common nowadays, but that shouldn’t make it any less tragic in our hearts and minds. What has happened in Brussels is worth our grief. It is worth our sadness. It is worth our pain. We worship a Savior who shares in all our pain. He never passes us by “on the other side” (Luke 10:31). We should be willing to share in each other’s pain as well. For when we do, we “carry each other’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2).
Hope for Brussels
Christianity may have been borne out of the tragedy of death, but it is carried forth by the glory of life. This is what this Holy Week is all about – death on a Friday followed by life on a Sunday. The hope we have for Brussels, then, is the hope we have for all the world – that no matter how many people terrorists may kill, they cannot win by death because “death has been swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:54). Christ portended our ultimate ends when, on Easter, He conquered His would-be end by walking out of His grave. We now share in the promise that our graves will not be our ends. Resurrection is coming.
One of my favorite Bible stories is the story of Armageddon – that great cosmic battle between good and evil at the end of days. The reason I love it so much is not just because of who wins, but because of how the battle is fought. The forces of evil, John says, are gathered “to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon. The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘It is done’” (Revelation 16:16-17). And that’s the end of the battle. There are no swords drawn. There are no bullets fired. There are no bombs dropped. The forces of darkness combine to bring their worst. But they are no match for God’s simple declaration: “It is done.” In Greek, the declaration is just one word: gegonen. It turns out that even just one little word, to borrow a phrase from Martin Luther, really can fell Satan and his sympathizers.
We live in a world where deranged terrorists wage twisted jihad. But as Christians, we hope for a kingdom where battles are not won by an armed detachment, but by a divine decree: “Gegonen.” “It is done.”
And it will be.
Reverse-Engineering Your Life
The other night, I, along with three other pastors, had the pleasure of meeting with a group of seminary students for an informal discussion about life and ministry. I cherished my time with these guys. Even though we were with them for only a short time, it quickly became apparent that they are theologically curious and nuanced and have a deep passion to serve in Christ’s Church as pastors. I am excited to see what the future holds for these men.
Our discussion took on an informal Q&A feel, with seminary students asking any questions they wanted. One question particularly struck me: “What goals do you have for ministry and how do you work backwards from those goals to develop a plan to reach those goals?” This is a great question. It’s a question of reverse-engineering. You start with the end in mind and work back from that to get to that. But this question also took me aback a little bit. Because I do have goals. And I have done my share of reverse-engineering to try to reach these goals. But my goals are not particularly inspiring, captivating, or scintillating. I simply want to love Jesus, love my family, and be a faithful pastor.
I used to have other goals. More exciting goals. Once upon a time, I wanted to build and pastor the largest congregation in my church body. Once upon a time, I wanted to become a renowned and respected spokesperson for orthodox Lutheranism. After all, it seems like on the broader stage of Christian dialogue, Lutherans are all but missing in action. Once upon a time, I wanted to be an esteemed public scholar to whom people would turn for insight. Once upon a time, I wanted to be a pastor who would change the world. Now, I just want to be a person who finishes life well.
As I ultimately wound up telling the student, long before you worry about reverse engineering your goals for ministry, you need to begin by reverse engineering your goals for life and, specifically, for your family. After all, if you change the world as a pastor but forsake your family as a husband or father, you have failed miserably because prior to your vocation as a pastor is your vocation as a husband and father.
The New York Times recently published an article on the state of today’s family. Its title sums up its mood: “Stressed, Tired, Rushed: A Portrait of the Modern Family.” Clair Miller, writing for the Times, explains:
Working parents say they feel stressed, tired, rushed and short on quality time with their children, friends, partners or hobbies, according to a new Pew Research Center survey …
Fifty-six percent of all working parents say the balancing act is difficult, and those who do are more likely to say that parenting is tiring and stressful, and less likely to find it always enjoyable and rewarding. For example, half of those who said the work-family balance was not difficult said parenting was enjoyable all the time, compared with 36 percent of those who said balance was difficult.
This is sad, but it is also not surprising. As workplace demands continue to rise and the line between company time and personal time continues to blur, time to invest in family inevitably suffers.
Being a pastor carries with it many demands, which are often difficult – and, quite honestly, sometimes impossible – to juggle well. There is no doubt about it. But this is why, long before you sketch out goals for ministry, you do need to set out goals for your marriage and your family. Goals of time together as a family. Goals of date nights with your spouse. Goals of daily expressions of love and affection. Before you worry about what is outside your home, tend to who is inside your home.
Jesus once asked, “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul” (Mark 8:36)? It may behoove us to ask similarly: What good is it if a man changes the world, yet forfeits those closest to him? This question good not only for pastors, it’s good for everyone.
I hope you’re asking it. The people closest to you will thank you if you are.
What Planned Parenthood Wants You To Believe About Sex
“Planned Parenthood.” “Selling.” “Aborted Baby Parts.” When a friend first texted me a link with these words in the URL, I knew I was in for a wild ride. The Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group, released a video, recorded in 2014, of two of their operatives, posing as employees from a biotech firm, having a discussion over lunch with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Research. The Center for Medical Progress claims the video blows the whistle on the trafficking of aborted baby organs. Planned Parenthood disputes these claims. Eric Ferrero, Planned Parenthood’s Vice President of Communications, issued this statement:
In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does – with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.
In the video, however, Ms. Nucatola seems to contradict Mr. Ferrero’s statement when she explains:
I think every provider has had patients who want to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate them. They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, “This clinic is selling tissue, this clinic is making money off of this.” I know in the Planned Parenthood world they’re very, very sensitive to that. And before an affiliate is gonna do that, they need to, obviously, they’re not – some might do it for free – but they want to come to a number that doesn’t look like they’re making money …
I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a non-profit, they just don’t want to – they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that.
Ms. Nucatola’s slippery language is striking. She never asserts that Planned Parenthood is not, as a matter of fact, making money off organs from abortions, she just says Planned Parenthood doesn’t want it to “look like they’re making money.” She even admits, “If they can do a little better than break even … they’re happy to do that.” In other words, Planned Parenthood does make money off selling organs from aborted babies according to Ms. Nucatola, they just don’t make a lot of money off it.
It sounds like Planned Parenthood may be gaming federal law. 42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce … [which] does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.
Selling fetal tissue for profit is illegal. Getting reimbursed for expenses associated with shipping and processing fetal tissue, however, is not. It seems as though Planned Parenthood will take any money they can claim as reasonable reimbursement for the costs of transporting and processing aborted organs, and if these monies are slightly more than what the actual costs are, so be it – as long as they’re not exorbitant enough to look like “profit.”
Planned Parenthood may not have gamed federal law as well as they thought, however. In the video, Ms. Nucatola links Planned Parenthood to an organization called StemExpress, a company that bills itself as providing “qualified research laboratories with human cells, fluids, blood and tissue products for the pursuit of disease protection and cure.” StemExpress also explains to potential allies that “by partnering with StemExpress, not only are you offering a way for your clients to participate in the unique opportunity to facilitate life-saving research, but you will also be contributing to the fiscal growth of your own clinic.” I’m not sure how “the fiscal growth of your own clinic” can be construed to be anything other than profit for your clinic. And considering the prices StemExpress charges for their fetal organs, if StemExpress does indeed share some portion of their proceeds with Planned Parenthood for the “fiscal growth” of their clinics, it seems awfully shady for them to claim they are not, at least indirectly, profiting, perhaps handsomely, off fetal tissue.
This is really bad. But it gets worse.
In the conversation, Ms. Nucatola also talks about intentional steps clinics will take during abortions to keep a baby’s organs in tact so they can be sold later:
You’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.
This is all deeply disturbing. What is allegedly happening is not only potentially illegal; it is profoundly immoral. In what world is it okay to turn a baby breech so you can smash its legs, kill it, and then harvest its organs for profit? Is there any conceivable scenario where this is okay? Have we decided that a baby, growing in its mother’s womb, is so devoid of any rights and is so unable to be considered life in any meaningful way that it can be stripped of its dignity limb by limb – literally? This is self-evidentially morally repugnant. And if you can’t see that, we no longer need to have a conversation about abortion. We need to have a conversation about nihilism.
This is not to say Planned Parenthood doesn’t have its supporters, even if supporting the organization is a little untenable right now. Amanda Marcotte, writing for Slate Magazine, admits:
As someone who is squeamish, it was extremely difficult for me to listen to Nucatola talk about extracting liver, heart, and other parts to be donated to medical research. (I nearly fainted when a friend showed me the video of her knee operation once.) But people who work in medicine for a living do, in fact, become inured to the gore in a way that can seem strange to those of us who aren’t regularly exposed to it. She also thought she was speaking to people in her profession who would be similarly accustomed to this sort of thing.
Abortion is gross, no doubt about it. It becomes grosser the later in a pregnancy it gets. But so is heart surgery. So is childbirth, for that matter.
Behold, the fallacy of false equivalence. How one can equate the grossness of abortion to the grossness of heart surgery or birth is beyond me. Two of these things sustain life. One of these things, as more honest abortion supporters will admit, ends life. As any child who watches Sesame Street could tell you, “One of these things is not like the other.”
In researching for this blog, I went to Planned Parenthood’s website. I was greeted by a banner that said, “Worried? Had unprotected sex?” It is here that we find the real reason behind Planned Parenthood’s existence. This organization exists to promote sex-on-demand, divorced from any of the entailments that come with it like, in this instance, children. Sex with whom you want, when you want, and how you want is Planned Parenthood’s holy grail. And it is so sacred that they will kill for it – again, literally.
In other posts on this blog, I have painstakingly sought to not flippantly dismiss or diminish the desires and struggles people face when it comes to sexuality. I want to be as sensitive and empathetic as possible. These are, after all, confusing issues that deserve compassionate thought rather than self-righteous ire. But this is not about these issues. In fact, this is not about individuals and abortion. This is not about the woman who has suffered through the trauma of an abortion, though I grieve for you and, I am afraid, many times, with you. This is not about the woman who went too far and is now pregnant and scared and is contemplating an abortion, though I would encourage you to seek guidance and help from people committed to alternatives to abortion. You are in genuinely confusing and painful situations and have my concern, my compassion, and my prayers. This is not about you. This is about Planned Parenthood and their pack of twisted lies that unashamedly promotes the sacrifice of life for sex, which, I should point out, is the precise opposite of what sex is meant for and, by its very nature, is designed to do. Sex is not meant to take life. It’s meant to give it. This is not about personal sexual confusion. This is about an organization’s out and out corruption that has expressed itself again and again in the most macabre of ways – this time, in the sale of aborted organs.
At the risk of being offensive, I think it’s time for us to ask ourselves a few frank questions: Is indulging every sexual impulse in ways that transgress the sanctity of marriage and the security of family really our best strategy for intimacy? Is this really the legacy we want to leave our children, our children’s children, and so on? Is this really the evolutionary ethical curve we want to ride? Is it really beneficial for us to do what we want, when we want, and with whom we want and then use any means necessary to impede the entailments of our actions, even when impeding the entailments of our actions includes ending lives in utero? Is sexual self-control – even when it is difficult and involves some emotional pain – really that out of the question? Have we become that banal? Is Planned Parenthood’s view of human sexuality really the banner we want to wave and the worldview we want to adopt? And does it really take deceitful operatives from an anti-abortion organization secretly videotaping a conversation with Planned Parenthood’s Senior Director of Medical Research, which itself presents us with a whole other set of legal and ethical difficulties, to get us to ask these questions? Shouldn’t we be thinking about the weighty ethical implications and aberrations of abortion even when there’s not a titillating video making its rounds on the Internet?
Ms. Marcotte was right about this much in her article for Slate:
This latest attack on Planned Parenthood is not just about abortion, but about demonizing an organization that makes sex safer and easier, while making it possible for women to plan when they have children.
This is exactly what Planned Parenthood is all about. They’re all about “safe sex,” which, if we’re honest, is just a euphemism for what Ms. Marcotte refers to next: “easy sex” – sex without responsibility, commitment, or offspring. So really, Planned Parenthood is about easy sex – even when easy sex involves dismembering babies and selling their organs. So let me ask:
Is the easy sex worth it?
Beyond the Pale: What UK Hospitals Are Doing With Aborted Babies
Moral standards are moving targets. Ask three people for their thoughts on a contentious moral or ethical issue and you’ll get four opinions. But there are some things so unequivocally horrifying – so undeniably mortifying – that they command universal and reflexive shock, outrage, and revulsion. Enter an exposé by London’s Telegraph newspaper on what’s heating some UK hospitals:
The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.
Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning fetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.
Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr. Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’
At least 15,500 fetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone …
One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’[1]
No matter how many times I read this article, it still makes me sick to my stomach. And I’m not the only one who finds this story nauseating, as the comments posted under the story indicate. One reader comments, “I think I am going to be sick.” Another writes, “The horror of it … what has our country become folks? This is just too much.” And still another existentially inquires, “Dear God, what have we become?”
Though much could be written about this story – and, I would add, I hope much is written about this because this is a story that needs to be thoroughly vetted – I want to offer two initial observations about this terrible, tragic report.
First, it must be admitted that here is an unabashed display of human depravity at it most dreadful depths. Just the thought of treating fetal remains so carelessly and callously should turn even the most hardened of stomachs. In Western society, we pride ourselves on making moral progress. We trumpet our advances on the frontier of human rights. A story like this one should give us a gut check. Moral progress is never far from moral regress. Indeed, even secular theorists are beginning to realize that humanity is not on an ever-improving, ever-increasing moral arc. Alan Dershowitz, one of the great secular thinkers of our time, admits as much in an interview with Albert Mohler when he says:
I think the 20th century is perhaps the most complicated, convoluted century in the history of the world perhaps because I lived in it, but it had the worst evil. Hitler’s evil and Stalin’s evil are unmatched in the magnitude in the world … On the other hand, it was the century in which we really ended discrimination based on race and based on gender. We made tremendous scientific progress … So I think the 20th century has really proved that progress doesn’t operate in a linear way … We don’t evolve morally, we don’t get better morally as time passes.[2]
Morally, we must be continually careful and endlessly vigilant. We will never become so good that we are no longer bad. To quote the caution of the apostle Paul: “If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall” (1 Corinthians 10:12)!
The second observation I would offer on this story is that we are sadly deluded as a society if we decry the burning of fetuses on the one hand while supporting abortion on the other. There is a reason incinerating fetuses to heat hospitals has raised so many moral hackles. And it’s not because these fetuses are nothing more than “tissue.” Indeed, I find it quite telling that The Telegraph refers to these fetuses as “remains.” A quick perusal of a dictionary will find that the noun “remains” refers to “dead bodies,” or “corpses.” In other words, dead people. This is not just aborted tissue. These are aborted people. Aborted babies. But now these babies have passed. And to treat the dead in such an undignified manner as these UK hospitals have is unconscionable. The difference between the passing of these babies, however, and the passing of others who die in hospitals is that these babies have died intentionally at the hands of abortion doctors.
Yes, I am well aware of arguments for abortion that center on a woman’s right to do with her body as she pleases. But if she can do with her body as she wishes, I’m not sure why a hospital can’t do with its procedural remains as it wants. If it can throw away fluid drained from someone’s lungs in a biohazard bag, why can’t it burn a baby? Yes, I am aware that some may accuse me of making a fallacious “slippery slope” argument and they would counter-argue that you don’t need to ban abortion to decry the burning of fetal remains. But this counter-argument intimates that abortion is somehow a lesser evil than burning aborted corpses – an assumption I do not share. Indeed, I think abortion is a great and deep evil – but not just because I believe it deliberately ends the life of a child, but because I hate what abortions do to the women who suffer through them. Case in point: a recent study in The British Journal of Psychiatry shows that women who undergo abortions have an 81 percent higher risk of subsequent mental health problems.[3] Nevertheless, proponents of abortion could claim that one can support abortion without sliding all the way down the slope into the moral morass of these UK hospitals. But I would point out that we already have, in fact, slid all the way down this slope. The charred now non-remains of 15,500 babies testify to it. So perhaps it’s time to repent and, by the grace of God, start scaling the slope – and not just halfway up the slope, but all the way off the slope. Human depravity warns us that if we don’t, we’ll slide right back down again.
______________________
[1] Sarah Knapton, “Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals,” The Telegraph (3.24.2014).
[2] Albert Mohler, “Moral Reasoning in a Secular Age: A Conversation with Professor Alan Dershowitz,” albertmohler.com.
[3] Priscilla K. Coleman, “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009,” The British Journal of Psychology 199 (2011), 182.
A Life That Ended Too Soon…At 116 Years
Besse Cooper (Photo: David Goldman, AP)
Last Tuesday afternoon, Besse Cooper of Monroe, Georgia passed away peacefully. She was 116 years of age. She was also the world’s oldest woman.[1]
I was doing the math in my head. And though I don’t know her birthday so my I may be a year off on some of my calculations, I’m still pretty close. Besse Cooper was born in 1896. This means when the Titanic sank, she was sixteen. When the United States entered World War I, she was twenty-one. When the stock market crashed the Great Depression hit, she was thirty-three. When Pearl Harbor was bombed, she was forty-five. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated, she was comfortably settled into retirement at sixty-seven. When Apollo 11 landed, she was seventy-three. And when 9/11 rocked our nation, she had passed the century mark at one hundred and five.
As I thought back over all the events to which this woman had been witness, even if only from afar, I stood in awe. A lot of history happens in 116 years! And yet, even a life as long and robust and Mrs. Cooper’s is hardly a hairbreadth long in the eyes of the God who gives it. The Psalmist puts it bluntly: “Man is like a breath; his days are like a fleeting shadow” (Psalm 144:4). On the stage of history as a whole, 116 years occupies nary a dark corner.
Though the biblical writers may look at life as fleeting, they nevertheless do not resign themselves fatalistically to its end. Instead, they kick mightily against the truncated span of life. The prophet Isaiah notes that a life that lasts a mere century – or perhaps a little more – has not lasted nearly long enough! He yearns for a world where “he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth” (Isaiah 65:20). Even one hundred years is not enough for Isaiah. He wants more.
Finally, the problem the biblical writers have has nothing to do with when life comes to end, but with that life comes to end. A life that ends – be that at ten days, ten months, ten years, or ten years times ten years – is a life that ends too soon. And indeed, this is true. For God, when He gave us life, intended life to be a gift we keep. He intended life to be a gift that lasts.
Sin, of course, had other plans. But this is why Christ came on a mission – to recapture and raise, by His resurrection, people who die way too soon. To recapture and raise, by His resurrection, people who die at all. Like Besse Cooper. May she rest in peace. But better yet, may she wake at the telos’s trumpet.
[1] Associated Press, “Woman, 116, listed as ‘world’s oldest’ dies in Ga.,” USA Today (12.5.2012).
Pastor Zach's Blog 