SERMON: "The Sacredness of Life"

Rev. Paul Beedle

July 19, 2009

Last Monday I saw part of the round of Senators' opening statements that began the confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. As Senator Dianne Feinstein was making hers, she was interrupted by a demonstrator who shouted “What about the unborn?” The demonstrator was removed, and Senator Feinstein continued her remarks. Later I learned that this was part of a campaign of public demonstrations orchestrated by Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue – which he abandoned when it was sued by the National Organization for Women. In the wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller a few weeks ago, he has launched a new organization called Insurrecta Nex – Latin for “rise up against murder.” The use of Latin is a sign of his conversion to Catholicism. The poor Catholics!

There seems no intentional meaning in interrupting Senator Feinstein in particular. There were two interruptions of this kind during the opening statements: one about halfway through, as Senator Feinstein spoke, and another toward the end, as the last senator on the roster, Al Franken, spoke. And I understand there were more such incidents later on. But I can't help but see meaning in that moment. Randall Terry was a catalyst and instigator of harrassment and ultimately of deadly violence against Dr. Tiller. He persists in this role and has by now alienated most of the anti-abortion movement. His tactics incite troubled individuals to commit murder, and far from rising up against it, he calls it justified. Here was one of his activists interrupting a public figure who rose to prominence when a troubled individual murdered the mayor and a city supervisor of San Francisco. She became the acting mayor and the reassuring presence and the voice of the city's grief. Thirty years later, here she is being harrassed by an unrepentant accessory to a similar murder.

A few days after Dr. Tiller's murder, President Obama gave his address to the Muslim world in Cairo. A number of voices in the media wondered whether his critics, calling him “un-American,” were implying by that that it would be OK to kill him. The same day as Obama's speech, Sarah Palin was talking about how the government wants to “get in there and control the people.” She said: “Friends, we need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population and of fearful lawmakers being led to believe that big government is the answer. ” Amazing. The creation of a fearful population happened eight years ago this coming September, and fearful lawmakers were led to believe that a big-government military response was the answer. Many said – quietly – that that was un-American, too.

A few days later, a disturbed and elderly man opened fire in the lobby of the United States Holocaust Museum in Washington.

This is just a sequence of events, of course, not a chain of causation. But it gives a portrait of a dangerous state of affairs in our public discourse. I agree with Sarah Palin that we need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population. And I think we need to stop being afraid. We need to get out of that habit. I was so glad to hear that the Department of Homeland Security – itself a product of fear – is re-thinking the color-code system of announcing the “threat level.” What better way was there to reinforce the habit of being afraid than to announce a “condition orange” over and over?

I hope they're not looking for a better way to keep us afraid. If we're all numb to and ignoring the color-code system by now, it's because we recognize that it's different from the similar system used in national forests and parks to show the danger of forest fires. If we see that it's a “high-risk for fire” day, it doesn't make us scared, it makes us responsible. We know what we should be doing to prevent forest fires, and the danger level reminds us to pay attention. But with terrorism, what are we supposed to do? what are we supposed to pay attention to? This system never did anything to reinforce our habits of being responsible citizens. It just made us afraid – because we don't know what to do to prevent a terrorist attack. Witness Dr. Tiller, and the guard at the Holocaust Museum, and Harvey Milk and George Moscone, and the thousands who died on September 11th, 2001, and the one not so long ago in Knoxville.

So what do we do to get out of the habit of being afraid? How do we escape this cycle of fear in our public discourse?

Back to Randall Terry: a Gallup poll conducted in early May found that 51% of Americans are now calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority has identified as “pro-life” since Gallup began asking in 1995. Some explain this as a reaction to “radically pro-abortion President Obama,” but this poll, taken before Dr. Tiller's death and Randall Terry's resurgence, more likely indicates a change in how Americans understand the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” It's been more than 35 years since the Roe v. Wade decision. A generation and more has passed. When those terms were coined in our political vocabulary, “pro-life” meant “make abortion illegal,” and “pro-choice” meant “make abortion legal.” But now, it seems, many are looking at the opposition between “life” and “choice” and asking – quite apart from abortion – which is more important? which is more fundamental? I would suggest that the poll result says nothing about abortion and everything about this sort of discernment. And that, I guess, is why Randall Terry is back, talking about abortion as murder. He always did see it that way. “Pro-life” or “pro-choice”? Well, you can't make a choice if you're dead. You can't have freedom if you don't have life.

Logically correct, but not the makings of a consistent pro-life position. If I'm reading the Gallup poll aright, Americans are groping toward a more consistent position. “Pro-life” in the broader sense, as more people are thinking about it today, would imply that you can't be against abortion and for the death penalty. So where does that leave Randall Terry's assertion that Dr. Tiller's murder was justified? “Pro-life” in the broader sense has to mean opposing war. “Pro-life” probably means support for something like universal health care.

But then, given life, a lot more than 42% would probably say they were “pro-choice” in the larger sense: most of us are “pro-freedom.” But just because you're alive and free, that doesn't mean life doesn't hand you hard choices. One of the favorite passages in the Bible that anti-abortion activists cite is the last verses of the 30th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy. God is speaking to the people through Moses: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendents may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days...” But it doesn't mean what they want it to. “That you and your descendents may live” – not all children are descendents. Life hands us tragedy and hard choices. This passage leaves room for considering the life of the mother.

And it is set up that way in the text: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. ... For this commandment ... is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' ... But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.” [Deuteronomy 29:29, 30:11-14] Yes, it says “therefore choose life.” But this text is all about making choices, and having the freedom to make choices. God doesn't say, “Choose my way or I will smite you!” God says, “Here are your choices – and if you choose life, good things will follow. But you can't know it all, so just do your best.” That's really what this text is saying.

And that's the basis of a consistent pro-life position. Also this: we cannot directly choose life. Life is created and sustained through us, not by us. Ask any couple who are trying to get pregnant – it doesn't just happen because they want it to. There's some mystery in it. What we can choose is that which supports the creation and sustenance of life. So in telling us to choose life, which we cannot really do, the text means to say that we should choose blessing rather than curse. That's the basis of consistent pro-life action.

Fear and violence are curses. They do not create or sustain life. Some say that we need to choose violence because there are violent people in the world “who don't share our values.” To say this is to choose fear – to choose curse rather than blessing. In a world where the strong overpower the weak, the many oppress the few, the wealthy mock the poor, the honored disdain the humble, and the cunning deceive the simple, is it really best to repay evil for evil? It is one thing to be prepared to protect yourself; it is quite another to be belligerent. To be strong is not to choose violence, but the capability to resist it. Resistence is a blessing, belligerence a curse. Yes, we should choose to resist, to be strong. And yes, we should choose something other than fear and violence.

What should we choose?

“And after a long, lonesome and scary time, the people listened, and began to hear and to see God in one another, and in the beauty of all the Earth. And Old Turtle smiled. And so did God.” [Douglas Wood, Old Turtle] “When all the people of the world love, then the strong will not overpower the weak, the many will not oppress the few, the wealthy will not mock the poor, the honored will not disdain the humble, the cunning will not deceive the simple.” [SLT #601] This is wisdom. This is truth: that love casts out fear. And this is the only sure foundation of a consistent pro-life position: to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly. [Micah 6:8]

If there is fear and violence in the world, there is fear and violence in the nations. If there is fear and violence in the nations, there is fear and violence in the cities. If there is fear and violence in the cities, there is fear and violence between neighbors. If there is fear and violence between neighbors, there is fear and violence in homes. If there is fear and violence in homes, there is fear and violence in the heart. We must not be in the habit of harboring fear and violence in our hearts. We must resist public discourse that instills and incubates it. Resistance does not mean railing fearfully and violently against fear and violence. It means modeling and offering something better. It means choosing that which creates and sustains life and love. So may it be, so may we do. Amen and amen.