Sermon

What is Faith?

PastorPartridge Sermon , , ,


I have a faith problem.
    Don’t worry, I haven’t lost my faith.  Sure, I have occasional doubts, but wrestling with doubt is normal and even healthy.  No, the problem that I have with faith is with how believers and unbelievers misuse, misunderstand, misappropriate, and even abuse the word (and the definition of) faith.
    More than once, I have listened as atheists or others have mocked the followers of God claiming that having faith is belief in the absence of evidence.  Defined this way, faith becomes the opposite of rational thinking.  Believing with the utter absence of evidence is nothing more than wishful thinking.  If this were the definition of faith, then Christians (and other people of faith) would be held up as fools. 
Thankfully, it isn’t.
    Likewise, I have heard well-intentioned believers misuse, and even abuse, the word “faith.”  Far too often, when spiritual conversations get sticky and honest questions get difficult, Sunday school teachers, Bible study leaders, and even pastors have been heard to say, “Well, you just have to have faith.”  In some cases, this might be reassuring, but if a student or seeker has asked a thoughtful, although difficult, question this sort of answer is nothing short of spiritual malpractice. 
    Faith does not believe, “because I said so” or because God doesn’t allow difficult questions.  Our beliefs are both rational and explainable.  For a teacher to dismiss difficult questions by telling a student that “you just have to have faith” instead of finding a real answer is just lazy. 
    I admit that there are difficult questions that connect us to the great mysteries of Scripture.  But even in the mystery it is a disservice to put off those with honest questions by saying “you just have to have faith.”  An honest answer in these cases often means admitting that we just don’t know. 
So what isfaith?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it this way-
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
: belief in the existence of God: strong religious feelings or beliefs
: a system of religious beliefs
    While two of these are specific to the followers of God, I think that the first definition is entirely sufficient.  We shouldn’t think that faith is belief without evidence, but know that faith is the trust that one has in the unknown because of the knowledge and experience that one has in the known.
Here’s what I mean. 
    I trust (have faith) that my brother will pick me up at the airport even though he is over an hour late, not because of something mindless, but because he has never failed to do what he said that he would do.  In all the years that I have known, and lived with, my brother, in all the times that I have trusted him with money, with my most private secrets, with picking me up from the airport, or anything else, he has never (okay, rarely) failed to do what he said that he would do or to be where he said he would be.  If he is an hour late picking me up at the airport, I am far more likely to be worried that something has happened to him than to worry that he is not coming.
    Our faith in God is (or should be) like that.  We aren’t hoping that there will be pie in the sky by and by just because the preacher told us so.  Our faith in God comes from the relationship that we have built over time.  We met God, we spoke with God, we read stories that told us about his nature and his character, and we began to trust him.  As we began to trust God we began to witness and experience his grace, mercy, and love for us, and as we did, we began to trust him more.  Over time, many of us have seen some amazing things, we shared those experiences with others and our faith grew stronger.  I have seen God do things that medical doctors thought was impossible, I have spoken with those who have seen other impossible things, and I have also seen God open doors and change hearts so that we could adopt each of our children. 
    Those of us who believe, do so because we have, over time, developed a lasting relationship built on trust.  We trust God because he has proven himself to be trustworthy.  Because of the trust that we have built through the things that we have seen, we can trust God in the things that we have not yet seen.
This trust is what we call faith.  

Two Big Lies of Church Work – Whose Church Are We Building?

PastorPartridge Sermon


    I’ve seen it before in all kinds of churches.  It seems to be everywhere.  “It” is the attitude that many Christians have about our most basic purpose, about why we are here, and why we do what we do.  We agree that it all belongs to God and we are building God’s church, but that isn’t what I’m getting at.  What I’m asking is why do we bother investing our time and effort?  Many Christians believe one of two lies and although no one would admit it, our actions betray us.
    The first lie is that we are building our parents’ or grandparents’ church.  Again, we would deny it if you asked, but you will notice that we invest our effort in building an edifice that looks and feels just like the church we grew up in.  Nothing changes and everything looks like it always did because this makes us feel all warm and cozy and comfortable inside. 
    The second lie is that we are building a church for ourselves.  This church may not look like the one we grew up in, but this is the church we always daydreamed about when we were kids.  We didn’t like the music that our parents sang; we didn’t like the rituals that they used, or whatever.  In our daydreams we imagined what it would be like to go to a church had our music and ourrituals.  And so now, as responsible adults, we set out to build the church that we imagined.
These ideas are wrong.
    Remember Moses?  Moses went to Egypt, brought freedom to his people, and led them for forty years in the wilderness.  Moses spoke with God and brought the law and the commandments.  
But the goal was to enter the Promised Land. 
    Moses never made it.  Moses watched as the people he taught, and the leaders that he trained, left to take possession of the land.  Moses’ entire life was dedicated to building something that he never saw with his own eyes.
    What about King David?  David brought the Tabernacle home and desired to build a Temple for God.  David’s was known as a “man after God’s own heart,” and wanted to build a Temple where God could take up residence. 
But God refused. 
    And so, instead of building a temple for the Lord, David planned for the future.  He purchased and stored building supplies, sought out the world’s best artisans, hired the best architects and builders that could be found, acquired rare and valuable building materials, and stockpiled precious metals.  All for a project that he would never see.
David’s efforts were intended for future generations.
    These examples mean something.  When we work in the church, we must remember that the goal is not our own comfort.  Our mission is not just to bedisciples, but to makedisciples. We are not called to build a place where we will feel comfortable.  We spend ourselves for those who have not yet heard the Good News.  We are building a place of healing and hope for outcasts, strangers, and foreigners.  Our church must be a place where the least and the lost can feel welcome and at home. 
No, we are not building our grandparents’ church.
We are building a church for our grandchildren.

Answer the Phone!

PastorPartridge Sermon , , , ,


    What would you think if one of your friends complained that you never called or spent time together?  Even though you saw this friend on the street or at work, both of you felt that you needed more.  But now, whenever you saw one another, you heard complaints.  Finally, encouraged by the complaints, you called your friend and there was no answer.  You sent a text message, but received no reply.  Still hearing complaints, you eventually begin calling and texting at all hours of the day and night (sometimes knowing that your friend was certainly at home) and still, there was no answer.  During this time, you set aside money so that you could take your friend out to eat… but there was no answer.
What would you think of your friend?
What would you thing of their complaints?
    Often we complain that we have not heard from God, that God seems far away, or that we have not seen God at work.  But despite our complaints, we fill every waking hour listening to music, radio, watching television, playing video games, with Facebook, Twitter, and all manner of other distractions with no time left for silence.
The psalmist wrote, “Be still, and know that I am God.”
How often do we embrace the silence?  
How often are we simply still?  
When God calls, are we so surrounded by noise and distraction that we don’t even notice?
How often do we listen?
Are youthe friend that isn’t answering the phone?

Don’t Be Insane – Do Something

PastorPartridge Sermon


What will make this year different from last year?

You.

It has often been said that the definition of insanity is continually doing the same thing and hoping that we will get different results.  Corporations make things that they’ve always sold but fewer people are buying and just hope that it will come back in style.  Our government does it when they spend more money on programs that didn’t work the first four times.  Churches do it when attendance is shrinking and all that anyone wants to do is remember the good old days and hope that things will change without actually changing anything.

And as individuals, we it too.  We hope that we will make more money this year, or will be more productive this year, or lose weight, or be more spiritual, or spend more time with people we care about, or a million other things, but our “plan” is to do the same things we did last year and hope that we get a different result.
This is insanity.
In a few months, many of us will complain that this year is too much like last year.  And it will be entirely our fault.  If we want a different result, we must do something different.
We can change the world, but we must first change ourselves.  This is my challenge: Spread your wings.  Try something you haven’t tried before. Do things you haven’t done before.  Be bold. Take risks (even small ones).
Choose one thing.
What is it that makes you angry?

Hunger?  Poverty?  Children without families?  Human trafficking? Politicians?

Pick one.
And then DO something about it.
If hunger and poverty bother you, volunteer at a food pantry or buy five bucks worth of extra groceries when you go shopping.  I once took a group of Cub Scouts to the grocery store for a program called “Scouting for food.”  We stood in front of the store (with permission) and asked patrons to buy one extra can of something to feed the hungry. 
One – extra – can. 
In three hours we packed a minivan full of food.
If politics bothers you, do something about it.  How often have you written (or called, or emailed, or faxed) your Congressman?  Shared your feelings with your city council representative?  Protested?  Voted?  Heck, if you have the time, why not run for office?  Get out and do something you haven’t done.  
If children without families, or children in foster care, or abused children make you angry, then do something about it.  Why not be trained as a foster parent?  Even if you don’t want to be a full time parent, there is always a need for licensed foster parents to provide respite (which could be as little as a day or as long as a few weeks, but it’s up to you) for others who need a break.  You could take in college-aged, former foster kids on holidays when they get kicked out of their university dorm-rooms.  If you are retired and past the age or parenting why not volunteer as a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA)?  With a little bit of training, you would meet children involved in the legal system and speak for them in legal proceedings.  Instead of complaining, do something.
If you wanted to be more spiritual or grow closer to God, did you think that’s going to happen all by itself?  The Bible won’t soak into your head if you leave it under your pillow any more than your history book did when you tried it in High School.  Join a Bible Study.  Commit to praying or reading the Bible more than you did last year.  Commit to pray, or read, or listen to an audio Bible, for five minutes a day.  
Doing the same things you did last year and hoping this year will be different is insane.
Don’t be insane.
Do something.
You can change the world.
You can make the world a better place.
Maybe not for everyone, but for someone.

Problems with an Early Definition of Life

PastorPartridge Sermon


     In an earlier post, I wrote that I favor an early legal definition of life and explained how I logically arrived at that position.  I did not say that I would define life as beginning at conception because, to me, the issue is not entirely clear.  While I believe in an early definition of life, doing so causes problems.  If we hold this position, then we must wrestle with the challenges that it creates.  I don’t have all the answers, and so this blog is not about answers, but questions. 

    Miscarriage – If we define life as early as possible, how will we deal with miscarriages?  On the surface this is easy.  Miscarriages are, obviously, tragic and sad, but also a natural process.  Life doesn’t always work out the way we want it to, accidents happen, and all that.  But realistically, when women know that they are pregnant, the “normal” rate of miscarriage is 10-20 percent. Testing has shown that the actual figure, if we include miscarriages that happen before the mother is aware of the pregnancy, is probably a little more than 30 percent.   If life begins at fertilization, or even at implantation in the uterus, then how do we legally define miscarriage?  Is it an accident or a tragic natural process? Or was the mother, somehow at fault?  If life has already begun, must we worry about who, if anyone, is “at fault” for the miscarriage, and is that person therefore guilty of murder?  Our initial reaction is to dismiss the possibility, but given the legal lunacy that happens every day, it is not difficult to imagine that charges could be brought against parents who drank, or smoked, or failed to obtain good prenatal care. 
    If we accept a definition of life that begins at fertilization, this becomes the issue of miscarriage is even more complex.  If a single fertilized cell is a human being, then we must acknowledge that we have no idea how many human beings pass out of the body without ever implanting in the uterus.  The numbers are certainly huge.  And so, how are we to understand God?  Can a good God doom hundreds of millions of children to death, by natural causes, without ever even having the slimmest chance and developing beyond a handful of cells?

    Birth Control – If we accept that a fertilized egg is a human being, then most methods of birth control become a real problem.  To its credit, the view of the Catholic Church is consistent in this regard.  If life begins at fertilization, then any chemical or mechanical method of birth control (pills, injections, IUD’s, etc.) that inhibits the ability of the egg to implant in the uterus and therefore pass out of the body, is, by definition, murder and must be prohibited.  Likewise, any method of birth control that causes an egg, which has already implanted in the uterus to be expelled, is also murder.  How would we even keep track?
    Assault – If a pregnant woman is assaulted, perhaps in the first trimester, and later miscarries, is that murder?  If the “normal” rate of miscarriage is 20 percent (or higher), how could blame be assigned?  Is the assailant at fault, or was it a naturally occurring miscarriage?
    Birth defects – If testing in the first weeks of pregnancy (or even later) indicate that the fetus/baby has genetic defects that are inconsistent with survival, let alone leading a normal life, what options are there?  If we decide that the fetus is entitled to all the rights of a human being, then must the mother be compelled to carry the baby to term?  If this pregnancy ends in miscarriage, how will we decide if it is due to the genetic defect or somehow the fault of the mother?
    Rape/Incest – The same problem arises in cases of rape and incest.  If any and all fertilized and/or implanted embryos are legally defined as human beings and granted rights, then on what basis can we allow an abortion?  Would we require every pregnant victim of rape or incest to carry the child to term?  How do we choose between the life of the child and the mental health of the mother?  What would be the physical and emotional cost to those women?  Are we willing, as a society, to bear that cost?
    While the logic of an early definition of life seems inescapable, I recognize that making such a legal definition would create difficult moral problems.  Certainly, I do not have all the answers but I have to ask the questions because anyone who argues for an early definition of life must be prepared to wrestle with the consequences of doing so.

—–
Earlier posts in this series:

Abortion: Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Both Right? 

 
Abortion: Why Both Sides Will Lose in the Supreme Court (Again)
Why I would Argue for the Earliest Definition of Life

A Great Cloud of Witnesses

PastorPartridge Sermon , , , , , , , , ,


What does it mean to be surrounded by a “cloud” of witnesses? 
    Not long ago I was preaching on Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees in regard to the existence of life after death.  In Luke 20:27-38, Jesus reminds them that Moses called God, “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”  Jesus implies that it would be foolish to say such a thing in the present tense if they were not, presently, alive.  Jesus said, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”
The Apostle Paul described life as a sporting event in which we are called to give our best, saying,
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us…” (Hebrews 12:1)
    Paul expands on the idea of resurrection and the afterlife to remind the church that those who are alive in the next world are watching those of us who remain in this one.  Paul specifically refers to the prophets, saints, and martyrs but it isn’t difficult to imagine that this also includes all of those who have always loved us and cared for us, but who no longer remain among the living of this world.  I know that my grandmother prayed for me nearly every single day of her life and I have no reason to imagine that she has stopped doing so today.
Let me share a mental picture that I have found meaningful.  Have you ever held a newborn baby, yours, or your grandchild, niece or nephew for the very first time?  Do you remember how that made you feel?  It is a magnificent feeling.   Hold on to that feeling.  Now, imagine the moment when you first arrive in the next world, right after you have “crossed over” and passed through Saint Peter’s pearly gates, right after you’ve met Jesus face to face, or however you might image your arrival.  Now, you see, standing before you, a group of people.  Some you know, but many you do not.  In the front are your parents, lost children, and dear friends, but there are many more, perhaps hundreds, even thousands of faces that you do not know.  As you embrace your family and your friends, your father, or perhaps your grandfather, takes you by the hand and says, “There is someone here, that I have wanted you to meet for a very long time.” And he turns to a an unfamiliar face and says, “This is myfather” or “This is my grandfather.”  And then, for hours on end, they in turn introduce you to their fathers, and their wives, and their children, allof whom have known you since you were born, and have been watching you grow, and have been praying for you that Jesus would watch over you and guard your steps. 
    And the feeling that you have is the feeling of holding that newborn child in your arms, multiplied by ten thousand, or more.
    Every moment of your life that you were in trouble, every moment when you faced difficult choices, every moment when you needed prayer, all of these hundreds and thousands of friends and family who love you, were watching and praying for you.
   Think of this, when we walk outside in a heavy fog, that moment when the clouds lay upon the surface of the earth, we are not near the cloud, or next to the cloud, we are completely engulfed and surrounded by the cloud.
    This is the picture that Paul draws for us.  With every choice that we make, with every success or failure, with every crisis or ordinary day, we can imagine that this cloud of people who love us, family and friends, surround us, watch over us, and pray for us.
    Because our God is the god of the living and not the dead, we are constantly watched over by those who love us, care for us, and who are, even now, praying for us.  Paul says that because we are surrounded by this “great cloud of witnesses” we should cast aside everything that is holding us back and have the confidence to forge ahead into the unknown toward whatever God has placed in our path.  

May we all have the courage to “run with perseverance the race marked out for us…”

Why I Would Argue for the Earliest Definition of Life

PastorPartridge Sermon , , , , , , ,


    In my last two blogs, “Abortion: Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Both Right?”and “Abortion: Why Both Sides Will Lose in the Supreme Court (Again)” I explained why the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was not a clear win for either pro-choice or for pro-life supporters and why I thought that both sides would once again be disappointed if a modern Supreme Court consented to review the case. 
    But while my reading of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, modern medicine, and our current political climate lead me to believe that a review of Roe would not be substantially different than it was in 1973, I do think that there are compelling reasons that argue for a dramatic change.  Instead of beginning with biblical, theological or doctrinal reasons (which I obviously have), let’s begin with reason and logic. 
    As I have explained, Roe v. Wade was a decision that attempted to find a balance between two rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a right to privacy on the part of the mother, and a right to life on the part of the infant.  In my reading of the court’s ruling, it seems that there was never a question that both rights existed and the both deserved to be protected.  The question was, if two rights are in conflict, which has a superior claim and when (or if) does that superiority change?  I have a right to privacy in my own home, but if I were to commit criminal acts, particularly those that harmed other human beings, my right to privacy is superseded by the other person’s right to life and liberty.  This delineation is well accepted as both moral and legal.  This same question, when brought into the realm of abortion, becomes a question of a) is a pre-born infant a human being, and if yes, b) when does it become one?  The Supreme Court answers to these questions in 1973 were a) yes, and b) at the earliest point at which the infant is viable (with medical intervention).
    In 1973 the womb was something of a “black box.”  We knew that an infant developed in the mother’s womb and developed from a fertilized egg, we had all sorts of microscope slides and fetuses in jars that had been aborted at various stages of development.  What we didn’t have were the spectacular images that we have today.  Today expectant parents can sit in the office of their OB/GYN and see live 3D images of their child.  They can see that preborn infant scratch its nose, cough, sneeze, and suck its thumb.  So real are these images, that 78% of women who were considering abortion changed their minds after they had seen them.
    I’m not saying we were ignorant in 1973 and we are now “enlightened,” but what we know and what we have learned, seem to make it much harder to draw a line in the sand and say that “this” is a person with Constitutional rights, and a moment earlier “that” was not a person.  Does an infant become a person because it’s larger than it was yesterday?  If so, do tall people have more rights than short people, or do adults have a stronger right to life than children?  Does it suddenly become a person because it is no longer in the womb?  The human rights of any other “person” do not change based on location.  A person in Detroit, Michigan has no more or less rights than a person in rural China.  Location cannot, logically, convey basic human rights or take them away.  Is a preborn infant not a person because it is dependent upon its mother?  If so, then do adults on life support surrender their right to life?  We are all, in one way or another, dependent upon others for our lives.  Simply because an infant needs its mother cannot imply that it somehow has fewer rights than an infant only days or weeks older.  At other times in history, groups of people were declared a separate “class” of human being so that their rights could be denied, Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, and others.  Can we, in good conscience, declare a group of human beings, with measurable human DNA, to be a separate “class” of humans that are not entitled to human rights? 
    Biblically speaking, we know that God loves all of his children equally.  All human beings are of sacred worth.  The redemption of every person on earth was purchased by Jesus Christ at the cost of his own life.  We cannot gamble that God cares more about an infant more today, simply because yesterday it was in the womb and today it is not, or because today it is one day older than yesterday.
    I have heard various arguments from the position that Old Testament references did not consider an infant to be a “person” under the law until after it was born.  While this is arguable on a number of points, it assumes that people who lived four thousand years ago could have known any differently.  Asking this question would seem to place an unfair moral burden on ancient cultures.  How would any culture with little understanding of fetal development, no ability to detect a fetal heartbeat, no ultrasound, and no modern medical understanding of neural development have fairly ruled that a preborn infant is equal to one who independently draws breath?  Their decision on personhood was, much as it was in 1973, based upon viability.
    Please understand that I value my privacy as much or more than anyone, but regardless of my feelings or personal opinion, privacy has always taken a backseat to more important rights, and the right to life is among these.   Legally, I understand that declaring an infant to be a person too early can create other difficulties, such as the potential for criminal investigations against women who have miscarriages and certainly I understand those who struggle with knowing at what point an infant ought to be considered to be a person, especially in the earliest stages of development.    For me, however, I have few such doubts.  I believe that morals, logic and scripture declare in chorus that an infant is a person, and if an infant is a person at any point, it must be one from the very beginning.
To me, these arguments seem reasonable and logically sound.  If you can find error in the logic, I am interested in hearing your viewpoint.
———–
Next: Problems with an Early Definition of Life

(Go back to the beginning – “Abortion: Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Both Right?”)

Abortion: Why Both Sides Will Lose in the Supreme Court (Again)

PastorPartridge Sermon , , , , , , ,

    As I stated in my last blog (Abortion: Pro-Life/Pro-ChoiceBoth Right?), many people on both sides of the abortion debate would like to see the Supreme Court revisit their 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion in many states.  Some hope that the court would ban abortions altogether and others hope that the court would clarify and broaden Roe v. Wade so that all abortion is legalized.  At the same time, others would prefer that this not happen because, as is often the case, once the court opens the case for arguments, anything can happen.  Based on what I have read, I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  I think that if the Supreme Court is ever willing to reconsider Roe v. Wade, both sides will be unhappy with the outcome.

Why?  
     In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the court affirmed that a woman had a constitutionally protected right to privacy until the second or third trimester[i].  The court later abandoned the trimester “framework” but affirmed that a woman had a right to abortion until the infant was viable.  Wikipedia says that “The Roe decision defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”, adding that viability “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”[ii]
    For the court, the argument was never whether or not a woman had a right to abortion, but about how to discern when one right can be superior to another when two constitutionally protected rights, life and privacy, are in conflict.  For the court, there was never really a question of whether or not there was a right to life or a right to privacy.  The question was how to choose which holds a superior claim and when.  For the court in 1973, viability was the measure that worked.  When the baby was developed enough that it could survive, even with “artificial aid,” then the right to life held the superior claim.
    Neither “side” could declare a clear victory in 1973.  Abortions could be performed but could still be restricted and regulated by the states after the point of viability.  If the court were to reconsider Roe, I suspect that both sides would again be unsatisfied with the results.  Here’s why I think so: Science.
    In 1973 the court chose to use viability, even with artificial aid, as the point at which an infant secured a right to life, but the tools available to the courts, and to medical science, were limited.  It wasn’t until 1975 that ultrasound technology began to be introduced to obstetrics.  At that point, two years after Roe, a fetal heartbeat could be detected and ultrasound could show the skull and a general body shape.  Today, the available technology is dramatically different.  Now, ultrasound technology can provide three dimensional images of the fetus and parents can go home from the doctor’s office with “photographs” of their baby months before birth and long before “viability.”  While the 1973 court looked to viability as a means to determine when life began, medical science is now pushing against that boundary.  While infants in 1973 were considered viable at 28 weeks and possibly to 24 weeks, infants today routinely survive at 25 weeks and as early as 22 weeks.  While there were limited options in determining the beginning of life in 1973, today’s technology can detect a fetal heartbeat at 22 days gestation, brainwaves at six weeks and a fully functioning nervous system at 20 weeks (and some argue for an even earlier date).
    Based only on the court’s 1973 ruling, the present capabilities of medical science, and the current political winds, I think that it is very likely that a rehearing of Roe v. Wade would uphold a right to privacy (and thus a right to choose an abortion) but would also uphold more restrictive definitions of what constitutes life, when life begins, and the point at which an infant secures a right to life. 
Once again, both sides would win…
…and lose…
…and neither side would be happy with the outcome.
Next: Why I Would Argue for the Earliest Definition of Life

Abortion: Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Both Right?

PastorPartridge Sermon


    For years I have watched as two sides of the abortion debate have battled one another in the courts and in the arena of public opinion.  In exchanges between the two, you would often think that they have no respect for one another, or at least that each thinks the other disrespects their position.  When one looks further however, both “sides” are not that far apart.  Each one simply places more weight upon one value, life or choice, than the other.  If you ask the supporters of each movement, I have no doubt that a great many pro-life supporters believe strongly in freedom of choice.  Likewise, many pro-choice supporters believe in a person’s “right-to-life.”  What is in question has never really been whether persons should have a right to choose or whether they have a right to life, but instead the argument has always been about the definition of a “person.”  

    If you asked a room-full of pro-choice folk if it was acceptable to murder kindergarten aged children, I doubt very much that you would find a single person in agreement.  Similarly, if you asked a group of pro-life folks if it would be acceptable for the police to forcibly give all women over 15 years old monthly pregnancy tests, there would be a similar lack of support.  The question isn’t whether or not people have a right to privacy, or a right to choose, or a right to life.  We all do, and few, if anyone, would argue that we do not.  The root of our argument is in “who” has those rights.  Does a fetus, an unborn child, have the same rights as its mother and if so, when does it have them?  When does an infant become a person?   And this is where the problem gets complicated.  The problem, when framed this way, is far more complicated, and this is exactly why Roe-v.-Wade ended up before the Supreme Court.
    As I considered this, I wanted to understand more about what the Supreme Court thought and what they decided in Roe v. Wade.  Without wanting to read through the entirety of their decision I instead found a case summary on lawnix.com, a site designed for use by law students and attorneys.  I learned that three of the main questions considered by the court in Roe-v.-Wade were these: 1) Do abortion laws that outlaw all abortions, except those required on medical advice to save the life of the mother, violate the Constitution of the United States? 2) Does the Constitution protect a person’s right to privacy, and does that right include the right to an abortion? 3) Are there conditions under which states can pass laws that prohibit abortion?  (Specifically, you can find the lawnix summary of Roe-v.-Wade here.)
    What the Supreme Court decided was not that the pro-choice position was right and that the pro-life position was wrong, but that both groups were right… and wrong.  The Supreme Court decided that an unborn child, at some point can, legally, be decided to be a person and from that point forward can be protected under the law.  Prior to that point however, when it seemed unclear as to whether or not a fetus could be defined as “alive,” then the mother’s right to privacy would be the supreme and deciding factor.  In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court said that a woman clearly has a Constitutional right to privacy, but also said that there is a point at which the infant’s right to life becomes the stronger right and supersedes the right of privacy. 
    In other words, the Supreme Court decided that both sides were right.
    Presently,  people from both “sides” would like to see the Supreme Court review their decision on Roe v. Wade but many others hope they do not.  Based on my reading of the original decision, I think that if this ever happens, once again both sides will lose.  But you will have to read my next blog to find out why.
Next: Abortion: Why Both Sides Will Lose in the SupremeCourt (Again)

Pain: Now or Later?

PastorPartridge Sermon , , , , , , ,


    A number of years ago there was a television commercial that encouraged regular oil changes.  In it, a mechanic pointed to a car behind him that was having the engine overhauled and noted that failing to get regular oil changes can cause serious engine damage.  At the end of the commercial the mechanic said, “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.”

    With the Administration and Congress once again at odds over raising our nation’s debt ceiling I keep wondering why no one in Washington seems to understand why doing so only makes the problem worse.  I understand that we can’t just suddenly stop doing everything that we’re doing.  Calling an abrupt halt to projects that are already in progress would do great damage to the economy.  I understand that.  But Congress isn’t just continuing projects they’ve already started; they are creating new ones and expanding others so that our debt problem gets worse instead of better.
    Whenever anyone suggests making cuts to existing spending, particularly to welfare, Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security, there is an outcry because it is easy to see how people will be hurt when cuts are made to these programs.  A similar claim is made whenever cuts are suggested to our spending on national defense.  No matter what cuts are suggested, we are told that those cuts will cause someone pain. 
    The problem with pain, as it relates to our spending, is that it is very much like that oil change commercial.  A little pain now will almost certainly save us from much greater pain later.  Why?  Because right now our nation spends about $3.5 trillion per year but takes in only $2.5 trillion in taxes.  Obviously, you can’t, in the long-term, spend more than you earn, everyone who has ever balanced a checkbook knows that, but Washington has been doing it (more or less continuously) for more than sixty years.   So far we’ve accumulated a national debt of $17 trillion dollars… and, as bad as that sounds, that’s the good news.
    We hear that our national debt is $17 trillion dollars but we are not told that this does not include the money that we “borrowed” from Social Security and Medicaid.  Every one of us has paid into Social Security for our retirement.  While all of the Baby Boomers were working, the surpluses from these deposits were immense… but they were never saved in any kind of “savings account” or “lockbox.”  Instead, to cover the growing deficits our elected representatives… spent them.  Because we borrowed the money from ourselves, this spending isn’t really considered part of the national debt, but when the Baby Boomers retire they will, naturally, expect to collect from the system they paid into.  How much do we owe them?  At present, our borrowing from Social Security and Medicare amounts to an additional $85 to 95 trillion and our expected payments for the national prescription drug benefit add another $20 trillion.  All together that comes to an astounding $125 trillion in debt.  (That works out to over a million dollars in debt for every U.S. household!)
    Here is where things get ugly.  If we assume that over the next forty years, everyone who is currently working will retire, then we will have to repay most, if not all, of that debt over that same forty year period.  I know the math is more complicated than that, but this oversimplification will get us close enough to see the problem.  If we think of this as paying down a mortgage, we have forty years to pay back $125 trillion in debt with an annual “income” of $3 trillion. 
Do you see the problem?
In order to repay $125 trillion in 40 years, our annual payments will exceed our current income.
    If we start right now, and we could somehow stretch those payments out for a hundred years, we would still have to repay $1.25 trillion per year.  That would seem reasonable, but if we first balance the budget (so as to stop borrowing even more money while we were paying off our debt), we would still have to cut our current spending by fifty percent!
    Worse, none of this is theoretical.  This is money that we have already spent and which must be repaid.  Because we borrowed most of it from retirement plan, failing to pay it back will mean that Social Security checks don’t go out and retirees’ medical bills don’t get paid.  We complain that making small cuts causes pain, but how much pain will there be if we default and those checks don’t go out at all?
As the man said in the commercial, “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.” 
Either way, there will be pain.  The longer we put it off, the worse it will be.
Our only choice is whether we want to experience pain now or worse pain later.