Wisdom's Zen
To the Editor:
This is in reference to the letter, "Jo Ann Davis would take a stand for the unborn," appearing in the newspaper on October 11, 2000. Like the writer, I am also a Christian and am proud of my religious beliefs. I disagree with the writer's implied assertion that being both "pro-choice" and a Christian is incompatible. Many Christians, presumably including former Fredericksburg mayor Davies and others like myself, do not see this as a contradiction. I am not "pro-abortion" by any means, however, as many persons who term themselves exclusively "pro-life" contend. I agree that life, as a gift from God, should be honored and protected. So, in many ways, I am both "pro-life" AND "pro-choice." That is not to say that I am "straddling the fence" in some compromise situation. I simply cannot see myself in the role of deciding for someone else what is a very personal decision. And, I prefer to respect the values of individuals instead of allowing additional government interference. Of course, there are reasons against allowing the choice, namely the rights of the unborn, medical consequences, and moral/ethical dilemmas. I would, in fact, counsel against abortion in favor of adoption in cases where appropriate. Abortion should neither be a method of birth control nor an "easy" solution to an "unwanted" pregnancy. The writer is, of course, entitled to an opinion contrary to my own. I am grateful for differing views as they assist me to clarify my own. But, the writer's tone of apparent judgment of Mr. Davies' position as a minister is most disconcerting. Romans 15:7 states, "accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." I have always assumed that Christianity thrives on its diversity. The fullness of Christ is manifested in His church through a pursuit for Truth, whether or not we always agree with each other. Christians need to work together, refocusing on the causes of what we perceive as problems, instead of limiting ourselves to the effects.
Thom Armentrout
Top of Page
A person can have pro-choice views and be a Christian
This is in reference to the Oct. 11 letter, “Jo Ann Davis would take a stand for the unborn.” Like the letter-writer, I am also a Christian. However, I disagree with the writer’s implied assertion that to be both “pro-choice” and a Christian are incompatible. Not being “pro-abortion” by any means, I agree that life, as a gift from God, should be protected. So, in many ways, I am both “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Simply put, I cannot see myself in the role of deciding for someone else what is a very personal decision. I recognize the reasons against allowing choice—and I would counsel against abortion in favor of adoption in appropriate cases. Abortion should not be a method of birth control nor a solution to unwanted pregnancy. The Oct. 16 letter-writer is, of course, entitled to an opinion contrary to my own. But, the tone of apparent judgment as a minister in Lawrence Davies’ letter is most disconcerting [“Davies clarifies abortion position,” Sept. 28]. Romans 15:7 advises, “accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.” I have always assumed that Christianity thrives on its diversity. The fullness of Christ is manifested in his church through a pursuit for truth, whether or not we always agree with each other. Christians need to work together, refocusing on the causes of what we perceive as problems, instead of limiting ourselves to the effects.
Thom Armentrout
Fredericksburg
Top of Page
(Note: The following is a set of e-mails discussing an article appearing in Fredericksburg's primary newspaper, The Free Lance-Star, near the end of 2000. The first is an e-mail from a Spotsylvania County, Virginia, supervisor that was forwarded to members of my church by another member. I responded first, then I received another e-mail to which I also responded. The e-mails are quite informal and have not been edited for content. They appear here to provide a critical look at the difference of opinions and ideology that many people have on this controversial issue.)
Virginia Wright wrote:
This reply to our local newspaper's article is from one of our county's [Spotsylvania, Virginia] supervisors.
The Free Lance-Star, Monday, December 4, 2000
I normally don't respond to articles in the paper, I felt the need to this time. I don’t know how many of you read Ms. Catherine Schaffner’s article in Sunday’s Free Lance-Star, but I feel it merits some type of comment or response. In it she attempts to reconcile the Bible and abortion. She bases her case on the fact that the Bible does not explicitly condemn abortion and states that “… the Bible contradicts itself” when in some cases God uses Israel to execute His judgment upon rebellious nations. Obviously anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Bible will tell you that you can make the Bible seem contradictory if you take passages out of context. In making her case, Ms. Schaffner seems to be doing what she accuses pro-life Christians of doing, that is arguing from silence. Her assumption is that if the Bible does not explicitly condemn abortion, it must be ok. There are numerous sins that are not explicitly condemned in the Bible, however they are condemned in principle.
Several passages refer to unborn children as just that, CHILDREN. Since the Bible refers to the unborn not as things or tissues but as children, it is reasonable to infer that the unborn child is in fact
just that a CHILD. As such the child is due the same rights and protections of children who have been born.
Ms. Schaffner then cites Exodus 21:22-25, which deals with the accidental harming of an unborn child. The passage is as follows:
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, strip for stripe.” (KJV)
I was surprised when Ms. Schaffner cited this passage to defend her position because I have used this very passage in Sunday school to defend the sanctity of life for unborn children. There are basically two ways to interpret this passage. First let me give you the more conservative interpretation. It says that if someone strikes a woman with child, and causes her to give birth, but no real harm is done to the woman or the child, then the guilty party must pay a fine agreed to by the husband and the judges. However if either the woman OR the child is harmed, the guilty shall pay “life for life”. This interpretation is entirely consistent with other passages that refer
to the unborn child as a child. The other more liberal interpretation is what Ms. Schaffner seems to be using to support her argument. It is that if a man strikes a woman with child and causes her to miscarry and lose the child, but the woman is unharmed all he has to do is pay a fine. In her mind this would invalidate the personhood of the unborn child and thereby make her pro-abortion position consistent with the Bible.
But would it really? In either case the passage requires that the person who caused the death of the unborn child to be punished. One more severally than the other no question, but in either interpretation causing the death of an unborn child would be illegal.
The fact is that the pro-life position is entirely consistent with the Bible and traditional Christian beliefs. Those who attempt to reconcile the pro-abortion position with the Bible must perform logical gymnastics and explain away various passages.
Mark L. Cole
Courtland District Supervisor
Spotsylvania County, Virginia
Virginia,
Thanks for sending us this e-mail. It is a very important issue that continues to take precedence in the minds of many as far as the “problems facing our country" are concerned. In fact it has become a singularly determinant issue for many on deciding which political candidates to support or to reject.
For those of you who may have read my letter to the Editor of The Free Lance-Star recently, you know my position on this matter. I stated that I am both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" simultaneously. As I tried to establish in my letter, this is not a contradiction in terms to me, and I am not using it to justify abortion at all. I simply cannot see myself making a decision like that for someone else anymore so than I could for making other decisions for others. (That includes the right of others to worship as they see fit or not to worship at all. Of course, I want others to believe in Christ, but I cannot force them to do so. The same is true with abortion and my belief that it should not be used as an easy form of birth control.)
I have been told that it is never a choice to do something wrong. But, it is. I do not agree with it, but I must accept that. In the Creation Narrative God gave Adam and Eve the CHOICE to accept or to reject His Laws. They CHOSE to reject His Will and had to face the consequences. Yet, He allowed them to make the choice. Anyone today must be granted that choice in a similar way, even if I disagree vehemently with it. So, with abortion, the issue for me is not whether or not the abortion constitutes killing a "fetus" or a "child;" it is whether or not the government should interfere with this choice. To some it is murder and that needs to be considered by anyone who would CHOOSE abortion. But, I am content in the fact that the person should be allowed the choice, even in error.
Thanks again!
Peace,
Thom
Tom [sic],
I appreciate your opinion on the abortion issue. Contrary to what you
said, though, I do think the issue is "whether or not the abortion
constitutes a 'fetus' or a 'child'.” If that which is growing inside a pregnant woman is no more than a mass of tissue, then you're right in saying a person should be allowed to choose. But if it is in fact a child, a living although helpless person growing within the woman, then that person deserves protection under the law just as much as you or I!
We as a society certainly do not allow a parent a choice in whether to allow an infant to live or die (at least not yet); simply because the child remains in the womb, why would it be treated differently. Unless of course the child is really only a "fetus" and nothing more. So the real issue is indeed, is it a child, or a fetus. And that is why this issue arouses so much passion on the part of those who believe it an obligation to protect innocent life.
Thanks,
Eddie (Smith)
Eddie,
This is a difficult issue. Perhaps my statements were not made clearly enough to be understood fully. I am in no way advocating the right of anyone to murder, although that is a choice that many people make. It is not right, as God's Word clearly tells us. I suppose that my biggest objection to the so-called "pro-life" movement is in its extreme, where abortion for any reason is not permitted. Personally, this is not an issue that affects me (or probably ever will, for that matter), so my opinion is based simply upon the understanding I have gained through reasoning from God's Word about information I have gathered about the
issue. (I have no direct experience with which to gain further insight.) I would wholeheartedly advise against abortion in cases where it was clearly a matter of "simplifying" one's life by "getting rid of
the problem." I figure that one must take responsibility for his actions, and promiscuity (which is often the cause of the need for abortions) is something that cannot be tolerated. And, yes, as a
society we should not tolerate it. However, we do, unfortunately. The concept of maintaining chastity until the time of marriage anymore is in the minority view. As Christians, we may accept this ideal of sexual morality for ourselves. But, others choose differently. It's not right, again, but that's how it is.
I simply cannot see how a blanket restriction of abortion is acceptable in all cases. Perhaps you will understand my view better after I tell you this story. I personally know of a couple who went through the pain
of the stillborn "birth" of a child because of a malady. This condition could have been tested for quite early in the pregnancy (prior to any argument for viability, even with today's medical technology). The child was born without a fully developed (actually not present) brain stem, basically not a "human being," even in the potential sense, and not ever having the chance to survive outside of the womb. Their child (yes, "child," as that's what he was to them) was, in fact, a lifeless mass of tissues. (That's not meant to be hurtful, by the way.) For whatever reason, God gave them their child in this way. I am not sure if they are better people for it, but that is something only they understand. Perhaps they are. Fortunately, they are parents to two very healthy, happy children now.
My view on permitting abortion revolves around conditions similar to the one I have mentioned and includes allowances to save the mother's life. But, SHE must be free to make that choice, with her doctor, her
partner (in the ideal sense, her husband), and God. Most who have abortions do not do this, perhaps, but I am not supporting that kind of a view of abortion. That is an unfortunate and grave consequence of this view, and I understand how many, including possibly yourself, cannot and will not accept it.
I cannot rule out abortion for cases like the one I mentioned or for cases of rape or incest. But, I would argue that they should be performed as early as possible in the pregnancy. That's why I support the so-called "Morning After" (Plan B) pill, which, if used properly (and hopefully rarely), would make later-term abortions (a gross misuse of the procedure, in my opinion, by the way) unnecessary. This is not some "liberal" idea that I have. It's simply a pragmatic view in my mind that is based upon reason. The world we live in is not the ideal world that God created. It is distorted. Part of this distortion causes cases like I have mentioned. We should protect innocent life, but should we hurt others (i.e., the parents or family members) in this process, even when we are not directly involved? Perhaps my view is not something with which you can agree, but I see it as compassion for people who cannot bear the pain of loss or the pain of problems they did not create for themselves. Now, that's not to say that we should avoid anything painful. But, I think we can have the choice. I am not sacrificing the life of the unborn. I am supporting life itself. As members of the Lord's church, we need to start focusing more on the causes of the problems in our society (e.g., "why" abortions are necessary) instead of simply the effects of the problems (e.g., the abortions themselves) in order to create a world more in line with God's Will.
Peace,
Thom
Top of Page
Brothers in Christ,
Recently, I received another copy of The Spiritual Sword, the quarterly publication from members of the Getwell, Tennessee, congregation of the church (of Christ). This issue’s contents were most disturbing to me, as its writers seemed to go beyond discourses on Biblical passages and principles and into the realm of personal vendettas. Particularly, blatant attacks on noted figures such as Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado were made. Although I understand the need for defending one’s interpretations of Scripture, which is tantamount to defending God Himself for some conservative circles, I fail to see how the name-calling and insinuations promote or foster growth in the church (Ephesians 4:11-13). In fact such ideas of apparent condemnation are, more than likely, contrary to the spirit of the Law of Love under which we are asked to live (Galatians 5:6).
I feel that I may somehow be promoting intolerance if I do not speak against The Spiritual Sword and its myopic sense of who and what a Christian is. After all, one of the prevailing themes of the Restoration Movement, through which the organization we call the “church of Christ” today owes its present existence, is the acceptance of diversity in the pursuit of Truth. The slogan that we are “Christians only, but not the only Christians” comes to mind. Scripture itself supports this concept (John 10:16; Mark 9:40-41). Articles appearing in The Spiritual Sword often portray the “my way or no way” proposition as both permissible and God-ordained, although the basis for which runs contrary to what God has told us. The Bible is clear that acceptance is to be promoted as a means to allow for growth and development (Romans 15:7). At times the simple act of reading such literature has made me feel disenchanted with the church in general. In many ways I feel that I, too, am being criticized indirectly and would not be recognized as part of the “brotherhood” by the authors. This is not an issue that would destroy my beliefs, though, because I know that my status in the church is grounded in Christ, not in men and their traditions (Mark 7:13). But, others who are not equipped for such insensitivity may find the words not just divisive, but destructive to their faith system (Romans 14:16; I Corinthians 8:9).
Discussions of differences in the church are often beneficial, and I encourage opinions that are contrary to mine. These assist me in validating my positions or in modifying my own in the pursuit of Truth and service to God. However, I work under the presumption that others can accept my ideas without judging my motives and me. After all, if we really are the Christians about whom we read in the Bible, we are part of the same Family and should be able to be ourselves (Ephesians 4:25). With most articles that I have read in The Spiritual Sword, I have concluded that I may not be correct in this assessment. Every issue seems to “draw” yet another “line in the sand.” Most of the writers, at least from my evaluation, would have the “circle of fellowship” that we espouse to grow ever smaller, basing it upon what one does or does not believe at a certain point in his Walk. It seems as if studying the Scriptures and making conclusions based upon them is not enough anymore. It appears that there is a highly detailed, unwritten, but generally accepted, standard (dogma) that everyone must embrace in order to be acceptable. Granted, there are very clear teachings in the Bible, but to read of “wayward brothers” with “false teaching” and motives to “lead the flock astray” can only make me think that the authors themselves are taking up the task of judging. Moreover, I feel judged at times. It makes me wonder whether or not I can even live my faith commitment apart from criticism. And, if I cannot, then how can I learn to see God’s Love through the church itself? How can I feel that I am part of the church if I must constantly monitor and be fearful of expressing my own ideas, those gained and tested through study of the Word, simply because they may disagree with another set of opinions?
I am not sure of the complete intent of the The Spiritual Sword. Its authors would probably argue that it serves to dispel error. It seems to me to be no more than a backlash against what many perceive as a change occurring in the church currently. And, the authors appear to make no consideration to ensure that the articles are edifying or otherwise uplifting. Instead of celebrating the Freedom we have in Christ in knowing the Truth (John 8:32; Galatians 5:1), the authors are content only when they are telling others why they are “wrong.” Perhaps at some point in one’s spiritual development, the constant reiteration of fundamentals is useful. However, true spiritual development comes when one pursues perfection in Christ (Hebrews 6:1-3), seeking “meat” instead of “milk” (Hebrews 5:13-14). Building upon the basics is essential; condemning those who are simply “working out their own salvation” (Philippians 2:30) through trust in Christ is not. If Grace is not sufficient to allow us to pursue God from our own frames of reference, then the validity of the Christian Faith itself must be questioned. I am sure that none of us could accept that.
I respectfully request that the delivery of The Spiritual Sword to my home be terminated immediately. Additionally, I propose that the Elders consider the selection of an alternative periodical (in addition to or in replacement of The Spiritual Sword) for distribution to members of the congregation. I will be glad to research the possibilities to find literature to edify and encourage. And, should such an acceptable periodical be located, I would be interested in financing its cost, as I have been told is being done now by a member of our congregation for The Spiritual Sword.
Peace,
Thom Armentrout
Top of Page
Candlelight tour helps fund historic preservation
A recent letter to the editor [“Christmas Candlelight Tour didn’t live up to billing,” Dec. 21] lamented the value of this year’s Christmas Candlelight Tour. As a member of the Historic Fredericksburg Foundation Inc., I am disappointed that the letter-writer had the experience that she had.
I thoroughly enjoy the tour each year and look forward to this special event to help me to get into the holiday spirit. However, I can empathize with the writer. I have been attending the tour for several years and know that some years are better than others.
Each year, certain homes are decorated more abundantly or creatively than others. But, I believe that the letter-writer has failed to recognize a few things. The homeowners of the sites donate the use of their homes; the designers donate their services and decorations; the hosts donate their time; and the cost for those participating is, yes, also a donation.
Proceeds are used to finance the operations of the HFFI, including its most challenging endeavor, the restoration of the Fielding Lewis Store. I am content with my contribution as a participant in the tour, regardless of the cold weather, long lines, or styles of decoration. The tour is an important way to help our community, and it is not a “big” mistake to attend.
Thom Armentrout
Fredericksburg
Top of Page
Bush's tax plan could be made more fair
I have read with great interest the many recent letters about President Bush's proposed tax cuts. I agree with the president that taxes should be reduced and that one should not necessarily be penalized simply because he makes more money. However, a tax reduction should be designed fairly to provide assistance where it is most needed.
Why has the President selected $6,000 as the "magic" boundary for the lowest bracket instead of simply reducing the rate in the current bracket? It seems to me that a level commensurate with minimum wage would be more appropriate. There must be some reason for the President not wanting to alter the lower rates as much as the upper ones. If he were to explain this honestly, perhaps I could support the plan more.
Yes, I understand that everyone will get at least a $300 reduction. But, looking at it in a different way, the President's "huge" tax cut for a single person making about $27,000 annually amounts to just a bit over 1 percent. That hardly seems fair at all, considering the huge percentages elsewhere.
Thom Armentrout
Fredericksburg
Top of Page
Forced Pledge violates our freedom
I find the recent furor over requiring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance quite ironic. Often it seems that in desperate times when we really need understanding, we divide over issues without seeing the bigger picture.
I consider myself very patriotic and loyal to our country, and I proudly fly the flag every day. However, I recognize that it is just a symbol for the truth it represents. It is, after all, only cloth.
Thus, as a Christian who just happens to be an American, I do not believe that I can pledge my allegiance to this inanimate object, even this important one that many consider "sacred." This is not some "liberal" idea or some "rejection of national pride." In fact it's quite the opposite. Our freedom allows me not to say the pledge as much as it allows others to say it.
We should support the rights of others, even if we disagree with them. That is what the flag means to me. Many may think otherwise, but, frankly, I am glad for that. It is in this "unity in diversity" that we find our strength, purpose, and direction.
Thom Armentrout
Fredericksburg
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
Top of Page
An essay is coming soon...
An essay is coming soon...
An essay is coming soon...
Copyright © 2000 - 2005, Thom Armentrout. All rights reserved.
This page was most recently updated on December 10, 2005.