Perhaps the greatest (or primary) tragedy in the drama of the abortion debate is not that millions of lives have been destroyed, but that we have apathetically allowed conditions in our nation to atrophy to such a point that abortion has become an issue at all; that many see it as a practical necessity in light of circumstances is a consequence of placing freedom of choice above God's standard of moral purity.
Let us remember that immoral sexual attitudes came first. When we strike out against abortion we are aiming at a symptom (albeit a tragic and horrifying one) of our nation's growing idolatrous fascination with the view that humanity's great compensation for the woes of this life is sexual gratification.
This view was legitimized by Freud, defanged by Kinsey, popularized by the media and canonized by that generation which is so proud of the accomplishments of the 1960's.
Struggling to make abortion illegal may not be harmful, but it may not be effective either; it is a symptomatic treatment at best, and unless something is done to eliminate sex-worship among all levels of society, our struggle will only be the stamping out of fires which will continue to arise straight out of human nature. History gives us no consolation as we consider the odds against us. Abstinence movements which depend on logical persuasion, trinkets or fear tactics may serve some good, but statistics are not encouraging. What is needed is not incentive to avoid wrong behavior, but a passion for godliness, and genuine morality for its own sake.
One thinks of the fame of pop-icon Brittney Spears. Her once-justifiable popularity is now destroying her like slow acting poison, while the eroticism she and countless others peddle as art eats away at our ability to comprehend purity. Our culture and the tragic heroes of excess we have created are like the new-age image of a snake with its tail in its mouth. What feels like a satisfying meal turns out to be our own annihilation. First the tail, then the body, then the head all vanish in the vulgarity of our appetites.
And in the meantime, we legislate...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Is it entirely possible that Christians have completely misunderstood how it is that Jesus accepted those around him? From my limited vantage point it appears as if most Christians (at least the most outspoken ones with the most media attention outside the Christian sub-culture) either do not accept or accept too liberally.
Some do not know how to "love the sinner but hate the sin". They define the sinner by the sin, and label him/her unworthy to approach the throne of grace until they uncloak the sin which "defines" them.
The pendulum swing finds the polar opposites clamoring for all-inclusive acceptance of anyone irrespective of lifestyle. Quite obviously both camps are wrong.
Looking at the life of Jesus, his inclusion of sinners and saints alike was always paired with a requirement for change. None who entered into friendship with Jesus was allowed to do so without the admonition of "Go and sin no more".
I used to find this a difficult balancing act, something that is becoming increasingly easier as I search for how Jesus balanced these 2 requirements.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment