Wednesday, November 6, 2024

One of Them

Dear women, POC, immigrants, LGBTQIA+ folks who are feeling the impact of being disenfranchised and distanced today, please know that there are still people who see you, still people who support you, still people who love you, still people who are your allies, and still people who will fight for you. 

I'm one of them.

I say that as an old, white, straight man who personally loses nothing thanks to the election. Technically, I'm still golden. 

Except I'm not because it's not about me. It's about you. 

#TheEnemyWithin

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Church History, Abortion, and Ensoulment


It's sad that for so many of us religious people, we have so little knowledge of the long history of adaptation within our beliefs. We tend to focus on the way our church or temple has been since either The Great Awakening of the 1700s or the Revivalism of the 1900s that led to the growth of Pentecostalism and a settling in of Dispensationalism. We have thousands of years of theological history prior to those events that are equally valid as the "faith and message" doctrines of today. 

Among those is the idea of ensoulment, or when the soul and the body join together, particularly in the area of abortion and how the church understands it, which, like all theological understanding has a larger scope and understanding in the faith at large and beyond merely what you denomination or church stance it. 

For reference, here's just one article about church history on the matter.  Apologies. It's quite long. 

From: "The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and Ensoulment" by Lindsey Disney and Larry Poston 

But the conviction that “human life begins at the moment of conception” is not the historic norm among religions in general. Even in the history of Christianity, there has never been a united voice on this issue. In actuality, neither the Christian Scriptures nor modern science provide sufficient data to enable us to draw indisputable conclusions regarding this topic. Much of our confusion may be attributed to our failure to distinguish between the concepts of “life” and “ensoulment.”

Distinguishing Between “Life” and “Ensoulment”

Our first order of business must be to define and discuss the distinction between “life” and “ensoulment.” There are several extant definitions and lists of criteria for establishing what comprises “life,” but a comprehensive definition may be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states that “living entities [are those which] metabolize, grow, die, reproduce, respond, move, have complex organized functional structures, heritable variability, and lineages which can evolve over generational time, producing new and emergent functional structures that provide increased adaptive fitness in changing environments.”

Using such a definition leads to the conclusion that “life” is certainly not exclusive to human beings. The term “living” may be just as applicable to animals or even plants. Cows and owls, dogs and frogs, mice and lice; all are “alive” according to science. Until quite recently, however, no non-human creature has been accorded the same status as a human being. Each lacks “something” that distinguishes humans from all other living forms on the planet. Philosophically and religiously speaking, this distinctive aspect is called “the soul”: an immaterial “something” that endows a human being with an intellect, emotions, a will, and an autonomous “sense of self.” This “something” cannot be identified under a microscope; it cannot be described in terms of size, shape, texture, color, or the like. But it is presumed to exist nonetheless.

It is the matter of “ensoulment”—of when a soul becomes present in a human—that most concerns us in this essay. For it is one thing to speak of “when life begins,” but quite another to speak of when “the soul” enters or is present in a human body. These are entirely distinguishable items, and though they may be simultaneous in their origins, they are not necessarily so. One can maintain that “life” begins at the moment of conception without holding that “ensoulment” occurs at that same time, and such a distinction could potentially lead to very controversial convictions regarding various moral and ethical issues extant today.

Ensoulment in the History of Religions

Christianity

We will begin our study of ensoulment with the Christian religion. Views regarding the time and means of this phenomenon vary greatly even within this single religious system, and so Christianity’s theological considerations of this subject will provide us with a template for classifying the views of other religious systems of thought, both Eastern and Western.

It is important to note that when dealing with the topic of “ensoulment” within the parameters of Christianity, we will mainly be examining “Christian,” not necessarily “biblical,” views. Despite claims to the contrary, the canonical Scriptures of the Christian faith do not directly answer the question of when “life” begins or when “ensoulment” occurs. To illustrate: Psalm 139:13, which contains David’s conviction that “you [God] created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb,”6 is often used as a model verse for Christian pro-life activists. But what does this passage actually teach us? The literary genre of the Psalms in general, as well as the context of this particular psalm, are not scientific in orientation. The intent of the psalmist is to praise God, and David is using the forms that are appropriate in a psalm—poetry and metaphor—to get his point across: that God is to be praised because God cares enough to know David intimately.

Even if for the sake of argument we were to consider Psalm 139:13 literally rather than metaphorically, the passage could still be construed as saying no more than that God sovereignly brought about the life of David, one of God’s closest followers and “a man after his own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). The passage does not necessarily imply that God “creates the inmost being” of every fetus in every womb; it could well be that God sovereignly chooses to “create the inmost being” only of those that he knows through his foreknowledge will reach full-term in their development. Neither does the passage address the issue of when such an inner-being creation occurs for those in which God does choose to do so.

A parallel example would be that of Jeremiah 1:5, which says: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Some have concluded that this verse proves that God considers fetuses in the womb to be human beings, loved and known by him. Others, however, are persuaded that the passage says only that God knew that this particular fetus in this particular womb would become Jeremiah—an important prophet—and indicates that God in his sovereignty planned the creation of Jeremiah even before his conception, just as Ephesians 1:4 indicates that all of God’s elect were chosen “before the creation of the world.”

Because of the ambiguity of these and other scriptural passages, the history of Christianity has seen the development of three distinct views with respect to ensoulment: Pre-existentianism, Traducianism, and Creationism.

Pre-existentianism. 

Pre-existentianism is the belief that souls are preexistent entities who await bodies to enter. According to this concept, the body is essentially “accidental” and relatively unimportant; a human being is complete without a physical body. Historically, very few within Christian circles have held or taught this view, though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints adopted it in the nineteenth century...

Traducianism. 

The doctrine of Traducianism teaches that the “soul” is present in both the sperm and the egg when they unite. The combination forms a new “soul” automatically and immediately. Traducianism has been held by at least some Christians since the church’s earliest years. Tertullian (c.160–c.225), for instance, wrote that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.”7 

Clement of Alexandria presented a much more detailed description: The embryo is a living thing; for that the soul entering into the womb after it has been by cleansing prepared for conception, and introduced by one of the angels who preside over generation, and who knows the time for conception, moves the woman to intercourse; and that, on the seed being deposited, the spirit, which is in the seed, is, so to speak, appropriated, and is thus assumed into conjunction in the process of formation.8

The Traducianist view was also held by Gregory of Nyssa (335–c.394) and Maximus the Confessor (c.580–662). The latter’s argument was based on the example of Christ, who had been pronounced by the Ecumenical Church councils to be fully human and fully divine from the first moment of his conception—implying that he possessed a spiritual soul from that instant. If, as the Bible teaches, Christ was like us (humans) in all things except for sin, then it must be true that all human beings receive a spiritual soul at conception as well.9 

Some scholars hold that the Traducianist view best explains the transmission of original sin. Bruce Waltke, for instance, concludes that “on the basis of inherited sin, . . . man’s spiritual element is passed on mediately from Adam and not as the immediate creation of God, who does not author sin.”10 If the soul is automatically generated by the joining of sperm and egg, God avoids the accusation that he has indirectly been party to the transmission of sin. But here a question arises: if the soul is brought forth by the union of the parents, then are they to be seen as the true creators of life and God only an interested (or even disinterested) observer? Traducianism is essentially deistic in that God’s creative powers are held to have initiated life—including the soul—only in the case of Adam and Eve. Since that time, the generation of “life” and “soul” has been the prerogative of humans alone.

Creationism. 

The doctrine of Creationism maintains that the “soul” is created and introduced into a fetus by God at a point of his choosing, either at the time of a fetus’s first breath, as was the case with Adam in Genesis 2:7, or when God in his sovereignty knows that a fetus is not going to be spontaneously (meaning “naturally”) or intentionally aborted.

Theologian Louis Berkhof—a staunch proponent of Creationism—sees a marked distinction in the Bible between the body, which is taken from earth, and the soul, which is given by God. Significantly, the creation story is the first example of this distinction. Genesis 2:7 says that “God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Ecclesiastes 12:7 adds the comment that “the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” And Hebrews 12:9 makes the distinction between “human fathers” and the “Father of spirits,” concerning which the seventeeth-century Swiss Reformed clergyman Francis Turretin comments, “Why should God be called ‘the Father of spirits’ in contradistinction to ‘the fathers of the flesh’ unless the origin of each was different?”11 While these passages are not sufficient to bring us to a conclusion as to when the soul is introduced into the body, they do allow us to conclude that “body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins.”12 

Physical substance comes from physical origins, and spiritual essence from a spiritual source. Berkhof maintains that Creationism is the most biblically-based view, claiming that “it is more consistent with the prevailing representations of Scripture than Traducianism.”13 

Berkhof is just one of the more recent representatives of a stream of thought that is rooted both in ancient Hebrew beliefs and in Aristotelian philosophy, a stream that is shared today by rabbinic Judaism and by much of Islam. Aristotle equated “life” and “soul,” but described different kinds of the latter: vegetative, sensitive, locomotive, and intellectual. 

“In general,” Aristotle believed, “soul is imparted to the body in stages as each part is formed, and the specific soul is not actually present until the form is complete.”14 This “completion of form” takes place on the fortieth day after conception for males, and on the eightieth day for females. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was a proponent of this view, and Thomas Aquinas (1205–1274) adopted Aristotle’s schema practically in its entirety. Aquinas held that the body was formed gradually through the power transmitted by the male seed but the spiritual soul was directly created by God when the body was ready to receive it. Thus the embryo was believed to live at first the life of a plant, then the life of a simple animal, and only after all its organs, including the brain, had been formed, was it given, by the direct and creative act of God, an immortal spiritual soul.15

The Creationist views of Augustine and Aquinas were the norm in the Christian West from the early fifth century to the late nineteenth century. The Justinian Code of the sixth century excused from penalty abortions performed prior to forty days after conception.

Pope Innocent III (c. 1216) and Pope Gregory IX (c. 1241) both affirmed the distinction between "vivified” fetuses (older than forty days) and those younger than so.16 Not until the Effraenatum of Pope Sixtus V in 1588 did the forty-day rule vanish and abortion was declared illegal at any stage of fetal existence. But this ruling was rescinded by Sixtus’s successor Gregory XIV, and this repeal lasted until 1869, when Pius IX reinstated the earlier decision. Even so, Pius’s decree did not become canon law until 1918—a mere ninety years ago.17

With respect to Protestantism, the writings of John Calvin and Martin Luther were interpreted by their immediate successors as supportive of the Traducianist position. Over time, however, many in the Calvinistic stream returned to the Creationist position, while Evangelical Protestants—derived mainly from Lutheran Pietism—have remained nearly unanimous today in their advocacy of Traducianism.

Judaism

In Jewish law, a fetus becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before that moment, the principle that applies is that of ubar yerekh imo: “the fetus is the thigh of its mother,” meaning that it may not be considered an independent entity but is instead a “partial life.”18 This view is based on Exodus 21:22, which says that if a woman miscarries due to being struck by men fighting, and she herself is not seriously injured, the offender is to pay the husband of the woman a monetary fine for the loss. What is significant here is that the Mosaic Law requires “life for life” (Exodus 21:23). The above scenario, then, implies that the fetus is of worth (since payment is required for its destruction) but not of equal worth to, say, the life of the mother (or the punishment of the offender would have been death). The distinction is made here because the fetus is not considered to be nefesh adam (“a man”) but rather lav nefesh hu (“not a person”) until it is born.19 

Philo (20 bce – 50 ce) was the first to address seriously the issue of ensoulment, using the scenario of Exodus 21:22 as his starting point. The Septuagint translation of the Tanakh had rendered the word ason in this passage as “form” rather than “harm,” thus changing the meaning from “if [there be] no harm [that is, death, to the mother], he shall be fined” to “if [there be] no form [yet, to the fetus], he shall be fined.... But if [there be] form, then shalt thou give life for life.”20

Whereas the previous (and correct) translation would require only a fine for an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, Philo makes a “before and after” distinction. He writes: If one have a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry; if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature—which was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being—from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived has assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, which had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent into the world.21

Philo held that the time of having assumed “a distinct shape in all its parts” was the fortieth day after conception, following the Aristotelian line of thinking.

Another context bearing upon this issue is that of the Sabbath laws, which contain no general permission for a violation in order to save a fetus. The wording of the Talmudic discussion of this issue suggests two conclusions: “The fetus is not a person, not a man; but the fetus is indeed potential life and is to be treated as such.”22 

One further illustration will serve to show just how complex this subject can actually become. There is within Judaism a factor known as “doubtful viability,” which holds that an embryo remains an embryo until thirty days after its birth, becoming only then a bar kayyama, a viable, living being.23 We find, then, in Judaism the same ambiguity regarding fetal life that we noted in Christianity. ...

First, we must teach in our classrooms and in other venues in such a way that the general public learns that the matter of ensoulment is an enormously complex issue. We must show by example that the implications of such an issue should not be undermined by denial or neutrality, but should be approached in a loving, fair, and nonjudgmental fashion. We must explain that religious beliefs regarding this subject—even within a single religion such as Christianity—span a very wide spectrum, and all attempts to simplify these matters in an unrealistic manner will doom us to continued misunderstanding and acrimony. Neither natural science nor revelation—natural or special— has produced sufficient data for surety regarding these issues. Consequently, discussion and debate regarding contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research must be brought to a higher level of sophistication than is currently extant.

Second, in the course of our discussions we should adopt a vocabulary that avoids hyperbole and unwarranted assumptions. Terminology that is brutal and accusatory, such as “murderers” and “baby-killers,” should be eliminated. After all, can we know with absolute certainty that the abovementioned activities do indeed involve “murder”? If there is no incontrovertible revelational teaching regarding this issue, might one not essentially be violating a moral requirement that is incontrovertible (for example, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”) by misinforming the public concerning “what God has said” regarding these subjects? Why not focus our attention and resources on larger issues, such as the spiritual, sociological, psychological, and physiological tragedies that give rise to the very ethical issues we are discussing?

...It is a tragedy that the church is often the last place a woman who has had an abortion will go. A simplistic judgmentalism will succeed only in polarizing individuals and groups. Anonymous letters such as one received by Dr. George Woodward that threatened, “If you continue I will hunt you down like any other wild beast and kill you,”54 are all too often highlighted by the media and do nothing to resolve the situation.

We believe that a majority of Christians do not condone such behavior. They are instead embarrassed by and apologetic concerning such fanatical attitudes. But separating themselves from extremists in the eyes of a watching world will require more from spirituallyminded persons than pink-cheeked apologies. Such separation will require patient listening, careful and thoughtful discussion, and selfsacrificing compassion. It will require a frank willingness to acknowledge a multitude of possible truths, and, therefore, a necessary change in the overall approach of opponents to abortion to these issues.

These are truly awesome responsibilities. As ambassadors of the kingdom of heaven, our words and our actions concerning these issues can have profound implications for social structures, for moral and ethical considerations, and for the psyches of both women and men. Let us therefore be “shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) in our stewardship of the concept of “ensoulment” and of its implications for humanity.

Friday, October 25, 2024

A Tribute to My Wife -- Lisa Taylor

I would like to go on record to say what a wonderful human being Lisa Teiliwr is. I gush often about how amazing she is as a wife and mother and a Gigi to our grandbabies, but just once, I want to brag on her for being one of the most admirable human beings I know. 

She is not only brilliant, with a sharp mind, speaking multiple languages and constantly pushing herself to study new topics deeply (from neurological issues to cultural and historical ones) yearly, but she is also one of the kindest and most service-focused people I know. 

She has willingly given up space in our home several times to those in need of a place to stay -- not family but often strangers to her. She has sacrificed her time for those needing language assistance and help becoming U.S. citizens. She often asks me how much can we donate money to a person we don't know personally online who needs to make a house payment or pay for an emergency room visit or medical care. 

Her first reaction is almost always that of "What can I do to help?" rather than "How bad will this inconvenience me?" Sure, her own issues may cause her to live in her own mind with her own demons 24/7, but she doesn't allow that to turn her into a self-focused or self-absorbed person. She always is concerned about the other more than herself.

In all of this, she is the most Christlike person I have ever known. Like me, she has struggled with how the church at large that she grew up in has changed from a place of "love your neighbor" to a place of "fight for political power," but that has never led her outside the family of God. She has kept her faith, she has run the race, and one day she will be told "Well done, my good and faithful servant." 

I love this woman, and I will defend her with every breath. You speak ill of her, and you answer to me. You come for her, and you find me in the way. You attack her, and you'll find me there to take the blows on her behalf as much as she'll allow me to. I say that because in spite of her worries and self-consciousness, she remains one of the strongest people I know. Period. 

Lisa, you are not weak. You have not been seduced by liberal evil. You are not brainwashed. If you avoid one side it is because you don't see Christlikeness there. If you favor one side, it is because you see Christlikeness there. You are the Christlike rock (Petra) on which our family is built, and you are the reason I can still believe as I do. 

Thank you for being here for me.

Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Warning: Religiously Political Content

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? -- Matthew 5:43-48

Let's bring that into today, shall we?

"You have heard people tell you, 'Love those who believe like you do, but hate those who don't or those who oppose you.' But I tell you to actively and wholeheartedly love and be kind to those who believe differently, behave differently, and even oppose you, so that you may be more like the God you claim you serve. Doesn't God send sun and rain down on everybody, both the person who believes like you and the one who does not? So, if you only treat fairly and lovingly those who love you back and act like or believe like you, what reward do you expect from that? Even the people you consider the lowest of the low do that. If you are kind and charitable only to your own group, what more are you doing than those you think are outside of God's plan? Don't even non-believers do that?

In other words, for today's American Evangelicals, it is precisely by your love, kindness, and acts of service to RINOs, Democrats, progressive non-fundamentalist Christians, liberals, migrants, Muslims, Roe V. Wade supporters, LGBTQIA+, BLMs, etc., that you will demonstrate how Christlike you are. 

And that means that every time you post mean-spirited memes calling the people you hate "evil" and "whore" and "slept her way to office" and "animals" and "polluting the lifeblood of America," you are moving further and further away from the very faith you still somehow believe you are defending. 

To be fair, the same goes for those progressive Christians who seemed to delight in belittling their opposition too. 

For those who don't claim a Christian-based belief system, your behavioral standards may vary. 😉


Friday, October 4, 2024

Foundations of My Politics

For those wondering, the foundations of my political opinions begin here: 

"What best benefits those in need and those abused or misused by our systems or society (or even other countries -- refugees, invaded countries, etc.)? And what rights might need to be seen in a new light to make the promises of the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness more equitable for all (not equal but equitable and accessible)?" 

 Not here: 

"What does my (me, me, me) wallet feel like right now?"  

As a person of Christian faith, that's just the way I see and understand Jesus, and if I'm to be a "little Christ" then I should want to strive to be like him. 

 My Bible says to die to self and to love and serve others -- even my enemies -- and even those who take advantage of that kindness (and go the extra mile and hand over my coat as well - Mt. 5:40-41). 

 Again, NOT A SLAM ON ANYONE ELSE, just explaining where my views are founded.

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Sharing Information Online with Moral Responsibility and Integrity

Here's your periodic reminder not to be irresponsible or manipulative when sharing links. Knowing is half the battle before you start spouting bad sources:




News -- This is news. It is fact-checked, verified, and references credible, relevant sources or interviewees specific to the story or event. It strives to be as objective as possible, sticks to actual data parsed by multiple experts, and always provides a counterpoint(s) for credible discussion (questioning an interviewee who claims the earth is flat or continuing to cite debunked theories about massive scale election interference isn't a credible opposing point, for example). It focuses on the who, what, where, and when of a story or event.

Analysis -- This is not news. This is someone's breakdown of what he/she/they feel are the takeaways from actual news or some event. This one confuses many people because the person presenting the opinions is usually some kind of expert in a matter related to what he/she/they are analyzing, such as pundits discussing a presidential debate or a legal expert discussing how a court case plays out. However, even though the analysts are experts , they tend to have a vested interest in promoting one side of an issue over the other side, such as a conservative pundit for a conservative news station or a climate change attorney for climate change rulings. The best examples of this include a variety of experts who can discuss and even disagree with each other, providing the experts are peer-respected, tenured, and credible (again, there's no point in including flat earth "scientists" for a credible discussion of geology or a pillow salesman or pop star for a discussion of world politics). 

Opinion/Editorial -- This is not news. This is someone's opinion (quite often a complaining, partisan one) about some issue or event. I'm surprised how often I see people reference these as facts or news because they are quite often clearly identified as just Op/Ed in the papers or sites they appear in/on. (Although some sources do incorrectly and irresponsibly let these appear alongside news stories as a counterpoint to news.) Sadly, this can often masquerade as Analysis and confuse those who are looking for quick, easy "facts" (not actually facts though) to support their preconceived beliefs.

Review -- This is not news. This is an assessment by a professional critic regarding (typically) some published media. 

Political Memes -- Not only are these not news, they are often flat-out lies and falsehoods. Unless they cite a credible source in the meme, these are typically unverified and intentionally misleading or designed to elicit an emotional, knee-jerk response. If it has no source, just don't share it. You could do more harm than good. If it does have a source, check it out before sharing it. Chances are the source is made up to provide false credibility or designed to take an actual quote or fact out of context. And trust me, we've all been fooled at least once by these pesky critters. 

Most YouTube sources fall under Analysis, Op/Ed, or Review. There are some that actually do the work of journalism to present news.

Most podcasters tend to fall under the Analyst-Op/Ed-Review category as well, though there are a few credible investigative journalism podcasts that report relatively unbiased news.

It's okay to share Op/Ed and Analysis articles. But please don't source it as news. Always be sure to explain that it is merely an opinion, albeit in some cases a more informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. If you intentionally imply that such a source is news or is a factual account of a story or event, you are irresponsible at best and outright spreading lies and trying to manipulate others at worst. 

Most partisan sources that identify as such promote bias and don't actually cover news. They inject a lot of Analysis and Op/Ed into so-called news stories.

Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Compassion Needed


"One of the biggest deceptions we fall prey to as Christians is believing that control is more effective in saving the world than compassion. This is to completely misunderstand the cross of Jesus." 

"Compassion will always look like weakness when you worship power." 

"Please remember: it’s always easier to say the world hates you because of Jesus than it is to admit how you are hating others in the name of Jesus. It is always easier to say the world is pushing out God than to admit how you are pushing people away from God."

-- Rev. Benjamin Cremer