As it was in the Days of Noah: On Violence

Violence & Ignorance

Noah's flood came in the midst of unprecedented violence against the law of God. There were no guns, yet violence against the truth of God, which also led to violence among people in all relationships, reigned, and to such a world God brought a disastrous flood and grieved that He had made humans.  Jesus lived in 1st century Israel, He lived in a violent time. Even with primitive weapons, it would be unsafe to travel the roads for fear of bandits; human hearts did not know God or His Son Jesus Christ. The Lord spoke much about peace and violence in the book of Matthew. The Lord said that we should expect violence on this earth in these dark and evil days. If every gun is removed from the hands of every human on earth (and the only people to own these guns are our trustworthy leaders who are not corrupt and who never lie and who have no interest in coercive power-tongue in cheek) there will still not be peace on this earth. No complete peace will be found until Christ comes again revealing himself and taking His visible reign as king. Full peace will never exist among humans who do not have Christ, who do not have new life.                                                            

There certainly are times in history when one might experience greater amounts of peace in one's surroundings, city or country. Yet now that instant communication has shrunk our world, we know that there is always strife, war, persecution, or genocide happening somewhere. There are also hidden and approved forms of violence as with abortion. Strife exists in families, at work, in our social circles--everywhere. The Bible makes it clear that there is violence in every human heart; the disciples themselves wrestled with this. A true believer who has turned toward Christ must wrestle with violent tendencies of sins both great and small-no matter in what docile forms they may appear-until the day of the Lord's appearing. So while we are peacemakers by the definition that Christ gives: of bringing the gospel to people without coercion or physical force, settling arguments peacefully rather than violently and without litigation,  doing good to those with whom we come in contact, whether we agree with them or not: our spouses, our neighbors, our friends, our enemies, no matter what their worldview, or what their struggles are, we should not have any illusions that we will live in a complete reign of peace by any human effort. Even if all nations ceased their wars we could not say that peace had triumphed over the human heart while wars are waged in our homes and in our backyards or our neighbor's home, until Christ visibly reveals himself. The Lord has promised that the days before His return would be dark, there would be hardness of heart toward Himself. Premillinialists and Amillenialists agree on this one very important point - the world will get even more evil, and to such a world Christ will return.

There are also very "nice" forms of violence. Jesus said that out of the heart wickedness springs. The most violent people on earth can be those who appear the nicest, kindest, and most docile, but they can be schemers of all kinds of ungodliness. They can thirst for power while clothing themselves in humility; or, they can simply scorn the Word of God, by living as if it doesn't exist, by living as if Christ were merely one voice of wisdom among others and not the definitive likeness of the Father. They can twist the truth of God with the best and nicest of intentions, so nice, in fact, that they themselves are fooled. This predicament would happen to every believer except that anyone who has the Holy Spirit remains in God's Word, both the reading and preaching through His biblically sound church, as well as, careful study and examination using proper hermeneutics and catechisms to determine the meaning of God's Word, along with the acknowledgement that it is a demonstrably cohesive Word that spans 44 authors over a period of roughly 1500 years, telling one story without contradiction. It is the Holy Spirit working through God's Word alone that can renew the mind, and we must be under constant renewal in this life.

 Ignorance as Violence

    Adam was the first priest whose duty it was to desire full comprehension and obedience to the words of His Creator and communication of those words in the garden. Adam and Eve together failed their priesthood, their highest calling, to keep God's Words ever before them, clinging to them, taking refuge in them, understanding them, when they fell into temptation. Eve knew God's Word, but paying lip service to God's Words was enough to cause grief for the entire human race; lip service and knowledge of Words were not enough, a right understanding that led to right action, was needed.

   Counterfeit truth is not always easy to discern, we may easily find ourselves exchanging fake dollar bills in our financial exchanges; it is not until the bill is held up to the scrutiny of the magnifying glass or a special light, that the counterfeit can be ascertained. Before eating the fruit, Eve should have held up the serpent's argument to scrutiny, she should have gone back to what God had actually said and taken refuge in it despite nagging desires to believe that God had actually meant something else. She willfully refused to have a right understanding, that she might justify her own desire: "What harm could there be?" she thought, "I am not a bad person. Surely the Lord will overlook any indiscretion for I have no ill will,  I simply desire and no harm has come from my previous desires." In fact, it appeared as though Eve was harming no one! She was simply fulfilling her desires. Without knowledge of God's Word, that is, God's desires, there was nothing perceptibly evil about her desire or the action that she eventually took. To Eve and to us it appeared a neutral act, but, not according to the Word of God.

   On the other side of the story we know that God's Word was there as love and protection and life, not just for herself, but for all the world. God's word would protect Eve from a multitude of grievous consequences; living accordingly would also demonstrate her dependence on God and her love for Him, which bears life. The forbidden tree was a test of faithfulness: faithfulness bears life, unfaithfulness, death. For we do not have merely the laws of nature to which we and creation must bow, but we also have the law of God for our hearts through which Eve had access to a beautiful relationship with her Maker, a beautiful uniting with all the perfections of God that is love, lived through a life of faith-faithfulness. After the fall, the law could no longer bring people all the perfections of God that is love, it only brought grief and death, for it could not be fulfilled-until Christ. The law finds each of us from that moment on, unfaithful. Which is why Christ became the one through whom fallen man could be united to God. Christ fulfilled the law for Adam and Eve and their progeny. Adam and Eve chose to fulfill another law, the one that put them against the Maker and Creator, at enmity with Him, and caused them to exit their perfect union with the wonderful perfections of God in their hearts, minds, and spirits. It was a millenia long example that not every desire was worth following; hearkening forward to a Proverbs mentality, there is a road that leads to life and a road that leads to death. The warning is necessary because the road to death, just as the fruit of that one tree, carries desirability firmly in its grasp and can grip us with it.

   As a result, our own desires daily take us away from the perfections of God. Our response is to be washed by the Word, reminded what is required of us- those who belong to Christ are no longer condemned by the law, but instead are guided by the law- so that we can confess our sins, practice obedience, worship the Lamb who was victorious over sin and who achieved full obedience on our behalf, which is why we worship! Where you find Christians, there you should find much singing. "Worthy,  worthy, is the Lamb who was slain," and the Lamb who lived a perfect life, the life that we could not live, who now enables us to practice that living, walking in the Spirit of God according to the Loving Law and Word of God, as was intended for us from the beginning of Creation.
 

Dead Moths: Dark Deeds of Design? III

We need the Psalmists' God, a God who overcomes; no more death in design.

Transcendentalism vs. The Rock of the Psalmist

     Yet, what if Dawkins’ pessimistic darkness is not our cup of tea? What if we are instead drawn to Emersonian-like optimism and see only perfection in Nature: “I am not impressed by solitary marks of designing wisdom: I am thrilled with delight by the choral harmony of the whole!  Design! It is all design. It is all beauty.”? We may be drawn to the idea that "god" is indistinct from ourselves and Nature. This is coupled with a romantic notion that everything in Nature is as it should be. 
   Tragedy, then, is merely our experience. We can call it "good" if we want or "bad," these are simply names we give an experience, but no higher authority can confirm or challenge us in our judgments, for they are based on our individuality. If the Divine is impersonal and nebulous, it would certainly remain above indictment for the presence of evil.  No one is present of whom we may ask our questions; we may find ourselves helpless before a nameless silence, like the the fatherless Ishmael at the end of Moby Dick, whose ship has been destroyed and was found alone in the middle of a large ocean. Frost's sonnet in such a view would be futile, his dark lament mere sentiment. This view teaches us to forget or even embrace the fate of the moth; there is no negativity in death; everything simply "is." We have nowhere to go with our "negative" experiences. We may not be certain what to do with our pain.  
   On the flip side, we may view ourselves the source and sole engineer of our own destiny, and believe that there are no heights that we cannot reach when we put our minds to it.  We may feel free and light as a result, not burdened by expectations, unencumbered by morality, the essence of Emersonian “Self-Reliance.” "Trust chiefly in self," was central to Emerson's philosophy. Such a view places us opposite the position of the Psalmists in the Bible, who were moved by God's Spirit in God's law, so eloquently praised for its virtue and beauty in the longest Psalm-119. The description of the Hebrew God's ways which are higher than humankind's, are but a trifle of history, unsustainable amidst morphing and ever changing intuitions. 
  Such optimism toward every aspect of Nature with its emphasis on self as the highest form of knowledge, makes one fatherless.  It places one opposite to the Psalmists' steadfast God who desires His creatures to bring cries of lament in the face of senseless evil. The Psalmists' God is certain enough to identify evil, big enough and steadfast enough to hold our fears, doubts, deep depression and rage; powerful enough to stand with us in the tidal wave of evil and to overcome it.  Without the Psalmists' view of God, we will not be able to point to the Divine to help us discover what is good or evil, to help us recognize or even protest evil. Worse yet, there is no one who is able to overcome it. 
   If the Divine is a force that absorbs both light and darkness into itself, then it’s anyone’s guess how the universe or our small lives will or even should pan out, or what, if any, purpose there is in life or death. (Now I feel like I have just reiterated Frost's lament in his sonnet.) "What had that flower to do with being white, The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?" A beautiful, sensuous flower led a moth to its death; evil can be good, good can be evil-distinctions break down. Like atheism, the impersonal Divine or the unnamed Transcendent, fits nicely with evolution, which also recognizes a breakdown in moral distinctions; what is known is that the strong will win. One looks to the physically and genetically fit, the other looks to the spiritually fit. There is not only physical evolution, but evolution of the soul; what we once thought was evil has now become illusory or a matter of individual experience- "if I mean to do good, then I have done good.” If I am motivated by love, my actions are always right.  It is up to me if I decide to shed the inhibitions of the past. No one can challenge us by any authority. 
     Neither can anyone contain us when we falter or find ourselves in a deep pit and our spirits give way. Or when we are either the authors of evil as David was in Psalm 51, when he cried out to God, "Create in me a clean heart, Oh God," or the recipients of evil: "Deliver me, O God."

     

The Lame & the Blessed/The Moth Released

     Another possibility remains; that God, who is wholly other, is mysteriously intimate with His designed world. What if God calls creatures to the love and knowledge of Himself, who are in the world of sin that they willed, having traded love for God for hatred of Him?  What if, though man could never fully understand all the reasons for the suffering they would endure, God purposed to remain faithful and true to those who love Him, actively making provisions for the world's restoration? This is the story that the Bible unfolds. The recognition of evil fits with the Bible's proclamation that there is a personal God in whom there is no darkness, whose first and last intention is a good design. Who makes claims on us because in His wisdom He wants to guide us into heavenly love. The God who visits us, Jacob's God, values the weak, the unfaithful, the addict, the narcissistic, the challenged, the inconvenient, the frustrating, the sin-prone, the lost, the depressed, the ship-wrecked. He values all who are living, and He quickly comes to those who call on His name. And promises that He will complete His action of creation by restoring it to a world without evil and evil’s effects, not letting evil have the final word. Not letting death continue to grip the moth. And how has the God who is named chiefly come to us? By His Son the Christ as he has been revealed by His Word, whose life and death overcame the power of evil, cancelled our sin, and released our souls from death.
   We can be “appalled” by evil if we are made in the image of a God who recognizes and hates evil. It is in this sonnet that Frost's flirtation with skepticism fails: Frost’s recognition of good and evil confirms the design of a benevolent designer in that he is appalled by the entrance of evil into a fair, well-orchestrated world. One day perfect optimism will flourish for sin and death will be finally put away. Father, Son and Spirit will be known and exalted by all; no more death in design, only fluttering wings.
   

Dead Moths: Dark Deeds of Design? Reflection II

Frost's sonnet reveals a noteworthy pattern.

Design

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth --
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth --
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
                                    If design govern in a thing so small.             ~Robert Frost

Reflection II on Robert Frost's poem Design
Deism/Malevolence vs. Hopeful Imagination

     If there is a Designer what sort of design is this that includes both beauty and tragedy? Is the Divine Maker that of the distant clock maker who has wound the world up and let it go to run its course? Or one who has set everything in motion by good design but then lost control of his creation unable to “steer” it unto a good end?  If so, then God would be impotent and unworthy of praise; design exists, but it doesn’t “govern” as hinted in the last line of the sonnet.  If good doesn’t “govern” then tragedy can only have the final word.  If we believe this way, our lives should look something like this: when bad things happen, tragic things, we throw our hands up in the air and say: "Well, things operate by the laws of nature alone. We must be prepared for good and bad according to nature's laws." We may succomb to a kind of Stoicism. What appeared to be good and innocent, however, was really in the end evil, because eventually all is lost. The anthropods in the sonnet are cruelly lured into a nefarious fate through an innocent looking flower, ironically called "heal-all." "Heal-all" was originally meant to help and to heal, but instead it destroys. If all we have is Nature to read and not God's revelation of Himself to us via a written and spoken word, we are left with simply Nature's Laws and nothing more. If our worldview does not contain the revealed character of the God of the Psalmists, our observations of nature could lead us down this path of living with a remote God, so we too, would keep our distance and bother not God with our small or large joys and sorrows. Neither would we sing praise of the Psalmists, for we do not experience God at work with purpose in our lives or in the greater world.

    Perhaps we are not as docile as the those who keep their distance from God. Maybe we come at God by way of different approach as Captain Ahab in Moby Dick-with a spear in our hand, ready to accuse and destroy, for we have wrestled with the cruelty that we have experienced or that close loved ones have experienced. Like Ahab in Moby Dick or Captain Dan in Forrest Gump, we may have lost limbs, physically or emotionally. Or in observing the horrors of nature, we forget the unexplainable wonder and desire for goodness and order in things both great and small.
   Right on the heels of the distant god of Deism, is the assumption of a malevolent Designer. In this interpretation of nature God is the ultimate stoic fiend, who “steered the white moth thither” and cared not for it’s snuffed out life, who employed a “design of darkness to appall.”   Hence, Dawkins, the infamous atheist, would be justified in his conclusion that any idea of a personal God could only be identified as a bully who sets arbitrary limits on human behavior.  Or consider these words from a Facebook page entitled Malevolent Design: The death of a loving God: "Through logic, you can see that the church concept of an all-loving heavenly father doesn’t hold water. If a divine Maker fashioned everything that exists, he designed breast cancer for women, childhood leukemia, cerebral palsy, leprosy, AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and Down’s syndrome. He mandated foxes to rip rabbits apart (bunnies emit a terrible shriek at that moment) and cheetahs to slaughter fawns. No human would be cruel enough to plan such horrors. If a supreme being did so, he’s a monster, not an all-merciful father," James Haught, (humanist agnostic, quoted from blog post). The presence of evil can drive a wedge for some into the very heart of the idea that there can be a God who brought a good world into being, and that He has good intentions. And those who give this argument often feel obliged to throw spears at the character of the God of the Bible, to literally "hunt" Him down and destroy any positive assertion that the Bible makes about God. Agnostic arguments like these are feeling Frost's question.
    But Frost reaches a little more into the possibility of paradox-can there be a designer when a wondrous world exists but with death and tragedy?  Like Blake's famous poem, Tyger Tyger "Did he who make the Lamb make thee?" Is this the same God to soothe and to terrify? Frost reflects much more imaginatively than the agnostic. He cannot seem to get away from design, but he can't answer directly the question: Is it random or is it cruel, because I cannot as yet declare that it is all completely good? But Frost's spider web gives us a glimpse of a noteworthy pattern, hinting for us that we, in experience, distinguish between "good" and "evil."  What if the fact that we can imagine a world without suffering, violence, disease or futility, leads us to a different kind of God than either distant or malevolent? 

                                            

Atheism/Indifference vs. Nature as Symbol

     Frost even entertains the atheist’s assumption that God is non-existent: “If design govern in a thing so small.”  In Frost's day Darwin's ideas had given society the theory that they needed to embrace a world without God or design.  Richard Dawkins, who embraces both Darwinism and atheism, surmised that the “universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference,” (River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, 1995.)  Dawkins seems to leave out the possibility that if man feels his purposelessness, it alludes to the existence of "purpose." Many today who accept Darwinism or evolution cling firmly to the belief that life has meaning and purpose, because they feel it, see it, and experience it in their everyday lives. They see the intricacy and design of life and take pleasure in so much good. They experience the spiritual aspects of life like love, hatred of evils and feelings that they cannot see. Yet, it seems that many have never explored the consequences of evolution as a philosophy, what does it mean? What is its influence on the human heart? Dawkins is honest and right about a world of evolutionary origin- one who sees a Godless, random world cannot truly claim to discern the presence of evil or even the good; they cannot make moral claims absolutely, or at least they should not. 
   Thankfully, Frost finds evidence that is contrary. Although the poem experiences darkness, it cannot seem to resign itself to that darkness based on the evidence of nature to contain both good and evil, that cannot be so easily dismissed. Frost is aware that to not ask the question about what sort of design this is, is to resign oneself to “pitiless indifference,” but he feels too much the lack of perfection to remain unperturbed by it. Frost sees "good" and "evil" and seems to imply that he would rather that one prevailed over the other. That is why his last line is so ambiguous. 
   He is at least looking at the natural world to gain a clue of what it represents, like his Puritan-tainted forebear, Melville, for whom nature points beyond itself. In Design, Frost has picked up a little of Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, only less angrily and more playfully, in suggesting that God is in some way culpable for evil. He does not want to "destroy" God, he wants to wrestle. This might get us somewhere beyond indifference, to at least a God whom we can approach. 

A Wrestle with the God Beyond our Own Experience

   The God of the Psalmists is also the God of Jacob. We can ask questions of the God of Jacob; ultimately, the God of Jacob approaches us. Jacob wrestled with God's angel in the middle of the night in order to receive a blessing. Jacob sought to know- "If there is purpose in life, bless me with its revelation." But in order to receive this blessing he, as all humans do, needed a touch and a revelation from God. It couldn't be discovered by Nature or by the human mind unaided. The touch of God wounds. The touch of God exposed Jacob's frailty, his "lameness" or "pitifulness" before the perfect, Holy God, before receiving the blessing of God who is Christ, the fruit of repentance. The God of the Psalmists and of Jacob is never indifferent, but indeed shows pity on those who have lost their way because of sin, who walk in darkness, unable to find life's purpose without God intervening, unable to overcome the effects of evil in the world on their own.
   But repentance is not something that those who take a deistic, agnostic, or atheistic approach to God and the world, can experience. Jacob himself couldn't experience it until he "knew" the very personal God, the God who came to Him: until he knew God beyond his own experience, until he knew God as God chose to reveal Himself to Jacob, until he knew his own position before God, his utter inability to make things go his way in the presence of the Divine One. Up until this encounter with the angel, Jacob had manipulated every other situation in his life for his own advantage. This time he accepts God's provision, with a heart humbled by God, by asking and receiving.
                             

Dead Moths: Dark Deeds of Design? Reflection I

                                                

 

 

 

Design

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth --
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth --
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small. 

                                                             ~Robert Frost

Dead Moths: Dark Deeds of Design? 

    Does nature have any business being so beautiful and alluring when its characters are full of the propensity for ruin and destruction, “death & blight”?  Entering our fair early morning forest we find a dimpled, white spider and a delicate moth; white tells of innocence, but the tale becomes unexpectedly devilish, for we immediately discover a grim sight not of fluttering wings, but a “rigid satin cloth,” a dead moth carried like a “paper kite.” Frost sees Eden, but with a blemish. 
   Frost is spinning his own thread of paradox, but we, too, often have much cause for questions, confusion, and a desire for some sort of reconciliation. How in the reality of our relationships gone awry, natural disaster, or suffering and innocence lost, are we to accept that there is benevolence in the design of all things? What wisdom should we seek amidst the beauty and the tragedy that Frost artfully spits and spins with both venom and spider silk from the same sonnet? Frost tells us that our questions are worth asking, our moth worth contemplating. 
   We are presented in our encounter of the good and the evil several ideas about God, all of which have direct effect on how we will live our lives. Does God exist at all, or is He rather distant and detached from our lives? Perhaps "god" is simply a part of everything, not a distinct being or Person? Thus, "god" would be known more through one's own self discovery. Yet, perhaps God is a distinct Being who desires to reveal His nature-even as we desire our own selves to be revealed in relation to others-to those whom He has created in His image. How could we know if He, a personal God, was intimately involved in His design and actively revealing Himself throughout history and in the present moment to us humankind, drawing humans to Himself? By bringing us up close to a dead moth, Frost uses careful design to reveal the skeptic's question. Does skepticism have the final word in this sonnet? What can we do with the problem of the good and of the evil? Does the spider art poison the argument for the personhood of God like the kited moth? Or can the "moth" and our faith be wriggled from the silken web?

Frost & the Psalmist    

Frost's skepticism about the existence of design does not appear uncontested. He is aware of its self-refuting nature, for he knows how scrupulously he chose every word and syllable for his poem.  In fact, one poet analyst (Academic) says, “Few poems by Frost are more perfectly and surely composed, few where the figure in the mind and in the ear are better matched.” If one can believe it, he calls Design Frost’s greatest poem! He argues that Design could be the best sonnet ever written by an American poet. Frost knows that he cannot put a bunch of words in a hat, shake them up, throw them into the air and expect them to fall into the form of an earth-shaking sonnet. 
   If we were to describe the smallest aspects of nature, like a spider and a moth, we’d be foolish not to conclude that creatures were  “perfectly and surely composed” and well-matched to their environments! If one can gush about a 13 line poem and speak of its greatness and praise its creator, one might understand a little better how the Psalmist could go on and on about the majesty of creation and praise its Maker.  The heavens aren't just there, they tell forth the majesty of their Creator by way of secrecy, they don't proclaim in words, they proclaim by their existence and by their excellent and praiseworthy design:  "One day tells a story to the next day, one night tells its secret to the next night, without words, without their voices being heard: The heavens declare the glory of God and the skies proclaim what His hands have made/Their sounds going out to the entire earth, and their message is heard to the ends of the earth,"(Psalm 19). If the Psalmists are true in their proclamation that the natural world reflects the character of God as a great designer, perhaps they are also true in their revelation of other spiritual realities of the human heart in relationship to his or her God. 
   The Psalmist addresses God as Creator, Sustainer, Judge and Redeemer, bringing to God every concern, observation of evil, personal sin, feelings of abandonment, and every praise for blessing and what is good in life.  The Psalmists tell the story that God is in relationship to those who call on His name. But perhaps we are not familiar with the God of the Psalmists. If not, Frost's reflections ask us all a very important question of what we believe. Is it worth exploring with as great an attention to detail as Frost the smallest aspects of nature from which arise the biggest questions of life? What secret does death and evil hold in our fair world? And which views of God do we wrestle with and how do they determine our response or lack thereof, to Him?

Solomon's Hyperbole

 
Solomon's Hyperbole

Solomon in the days of old who said in Ecclesiastes, "There is nothing new under the sun," was judge over Israel. He presided over a case which was to choose which woman was the true mother of a claimed child.  Which mother has the right to this child? Should it be the mother with the most convincing claim to the child? The mother who is making the most noise; the mother who is most earnestly wringing her hands in desperation? Who is going to win? The woman with the most power and the best argument of fairness, or the rightful mother who gave birth to the child and who shares the baby's DNA? Without infallible proof, how shall such a choice be made when one woman, clearly deceiving through clever arguments, clearly bearing false witness to gain rights which do not belong to her, based purely on her own human desire, presented a challenge to truth; and the other woman, clearly telling the truth and making a rightful claim, without a foolproof way of convincing her case. Solomon, decidedly wise, used a clever tactic to reveal the truth-or the true mother.  "Let's be fair, for we are all equal under the law, since we cannot know the truth, because we do not have means to see into the heart of each woman or flawless evidence as to the true mother. We seem to have witnesses on both sides, willing to make their case regardless of whether or not their case is true. Let us cut the baby in two and give half to each woman, therefore, we cannot do injustice by depriving the true mother, at least she will get some of her child." Here, Solomon appealed to an ideal of "fairness," but we must ask ourselves, does fairness always represent truth, is truth always predisposed toward fairness? Put simply, do we want what is true, or do we want what is fair? Well, of course, Solomon desired no such action; he was hoping this hyperbolic judgement would expose folly and reveal truth; he desired true justice to be carried out for true justice is never divorced from truth.  But truth can be cleverly opposed.  But if truth can be cleverly opposed, it can also be cleverly revealed. The true mother would never want her baby to be cut by the sword, therefore, she would, in order to let the baby live, rather see the child go with the other woman than to be lost. So the real hope of this hyperbole is that the child will remain intact and be with his rightful parent.
   How is this story relevant for abortion today? Today we have a question pertaining to a "child." But who is making the rightful claim? How do we answer the question: "When does human life get protection of the right to keep that life? Or when does human life get to be loved, cared for, and protected from death?" Even though science has greater means to make the womb transparent and show us the beginnings of life in the womb, without an agreed upon compass of truth or an infallible word to tell us the exact day that a baby has a right to protection of life, we merely have two competing voices; this remains for some a tricky question to answer. Two people make two different claims, like the two mothers over which Solomon ruled, yet only one is right, and one bears false witness about life. One side attempts to use science as a guide to decide when life deserves love and protection, but science is really quiet when asked for the answer to this philosophical musing about the value of life, and we end up with human desire as the compass.  The other side uses God's Word which speaks of God foreknowing a person even before he or she has been conceived. While science may give one several options as to when we think human life is protectable, God's Word gives only one option-all human life is precious. As in Solomon's case, only one answer is right.Truly one answer is the word of humans and one answer is the Word of the Lord who made humans. One answer brings life, the other, literal death. Nevertheless, perhaps a parallel hyperbole can help reveal truth and find folly.  What is the hope of the hyperbole? That truth and justice will prevail, that the living will literally be seen as living and be spared, which will undoubtedly feel unfair to the side that does not perceive the rights of the most fragile living but only perceives the rights and will of the mother.  Yet fairness, as we have seen, does not always beget truth or true justice. 
   In the spirit of Solomon, to those who say baby has no right to life until after it is born, I offer a precarious scenario: what if the child is half way in the mother and half way out? Imagine its feet, legs and buttocks still fully in the womb, not yet seen the light of day, and the head and neck fully out of the womb in clear view of the world, its arms still squeezing through the birth canal; is the baby only half given the right to live at this point, since it is only halfway outside of the womb, still attached to its mother's body by umbilical cord? When I was giving birth to my babies, and their heads were pushed out, did they only then have half a right to live? Could I have changed my mind to keep their life in the few minutes that remained before they made their full appearance to parents, midwife, and nurse? Could I have claimed "my rights" over "my body" at that half way moment? Or did they have full right to life? According to the logic of "baby has no rights to keep its life until after it is born," no rights to "love, and safety until birth," in that scenario, baby truly only has half rights, for it is not yet fully born. But what are half rights, you may ask? What is half a child? There is no such thing, of course.

Further thinking: If we take the Word of the Lord of Life above Human desire, what do we do with other precarious scenarios? Of course there are real and rare cases where the life of mother or child or both are endangered during birth or prior to birth and decisions to preserve one life over the other must be made; but even in these rare cases, the life that is sacrificed is seen as just that, a loss of life, a tragedy, and a sacrifice.

There is an argument that a woman should not bring a baby into the world until she was ready to love or care for him or her, yet, there are options, without depriving a baby of his or her already in motion life, there are people waiting to adopt and love a child and to call that child their very own.

A woman may feel that she is doing the right thing by sparing the baby life because she has made a mistake or is not ready to be a mother, but in any other circumstance, it is not right to kill in order to have a good outcome at the end of it.  It is not right for me to kill a person just because it will make their life or my life easier or free from suffering.

Babies who are "born" alive during an attempted abortion. What do we do? Well, there is little left to do but to finish the job of ending its life. Does this sound moral, ethical, humane? Well, according the to the laws of evolution, it is actually a very acceptable thing to do. In an evolutionary stance, what law prevails against the will of a human being? Only the State's laws are higher, and it is the law to kill babies in the womb; but outside of the womb-I hope this sounds appalling. 

There is forgiveness for anyone who confesses to the Lord, who will grieve over their sin, who will turn to the living Lord and be washed and cleansed by His Son and seek to walk in His way thereafter. There is no sin so great that it cannot be forgiven.