Category: Issue

Posted on

a time to remember

“Quick!  Turn on the TV!”

 

Aware that I rarely turn on the television in the morning, a friend called urgently, knowing I’d want to be watching.  An approximate hour later, witnessing the South Tower fall, the concept of “want to be watching” was furthest from my mind.  Each of us remembers what we thought, felt, and did that fateful day.

 

In anticipation of today’s 11th anniversary, my young son asked me over the weekend if I thought 911 could ever happen again.  “We’ve learned from it, right?”  Great question, he asked.  Some days I wonder what we’ve actually learned.

 

Besides learning we need to allow for a little more time getting through airports, we’ve learned a few things that seem incredibly monumental…

 

… like how when push comes to shove, Americans will work together…

 

(Then again, with push actually coming to shove in each of the succeeding elections, it seems even our leaders only push and shove harder — especially with their language.)

 

… like how it’s important that we refrain from ramping up the rhetoric and utilizing words of war or terror when the situation is not about war or terror…

 

(I heard that once after Arizona’s Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot, although with the so-called, ongoing rhetorical “war on women,” we haven’t exactly learned that yet.)

 

… like how within the radical branches of Islam, there exists a significant people group that desires the destruction of both America and Americans…

 

(Oooh… I used to believe that, although it’s fascinating to me that in the Fort Hood shooting — where the murderer was a 39 year old devout Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” — “God is great” — before opening fire — our U.S. Justice Dept. still identifies the incident as “workplace violence” as opposed to “domestic terrorism.”)

 

… like how evil exists on planet Earth…

 

(Not sure we’re good at this one; we don’t like to acknowledge evil… except sometimes, in leaders who seem intelligent but who totally disagree with us…)

 

“We’ve learned from it, right?”

 

I’d like to believe that we have.

 

I’d like to believe 911 could never happen again.

 

But I couldn’t look my young son in the eye and answer him as affirmatively as I desired.  I have no wish to damper the hope and confidence of our younger generations going forward.

 

Yet our challenge is obvious…

 

The more time that passes after a traumatic event, the more numb we become to the profound learnings.

 

No wise man wishes for tragedy; but all wise men learn from tragedy.

 

From 911 we learned about the preciousness of life, the beauty of self-sacrifice, the attractiveness of heroism, and the gift of a nation that loves each other well… in how they act and how they think and how they treat one another.

 

The challenge is that the learnings don’t always stick.  We forget what we have learned.

 

“Have we learned from it, son?  Yes.  We have learned much…”

 

But do we remember what we’ve learned?  That is a far better question.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the moving process

[Note:  Today is day 6 of 10 in our annual Guest Blogger Series.  Please remember:  the Intramuralist may or may not agree with the opinion(s) expressed.  The goal is respectful articulation.]

 

 

After over 30 years in a home that had seen the rearing of children, the hospitality of neighbors, the hosting of family gatherings, I engaged in the daunting task of MOVING.  Oh, it was time, and I was excited about the new home we had purchased.  Even the term “downsizing” was appealing. Nevertheless, “daunting” was the right word.

 

Closets held too much clothes; shelves held too many books; storage areas contained too many long unopened boxes; furniture was unusable in the new house.  But where to begin?  Sorting, pitching, saving I knew, but what should go into each category?  Goodwill and I became personal acquaintances.  Chin families needed clothes and linens.  Salvation Army picked up furniture.  Records and books went to the Half-priced store (for little in return).  My piano went to grandchildren.  (Notice, no garage sales… that’s not for me.)  High school and college papers and classroom lesson plans I purged… with some reluctance.  At times I did feel as if I were “downsizing” me.

 

But I saved other treasures of sentiment as well… gift books with special notes written in the cover by the giver, my dad’s violin, my mother’s dresser, dishes that were their wedding gifts, the first dress I sewed for a 4-H project at age 12 (white fabric with frisky pink lambs on it), pictures and professional recognitions.  Items likes these are touched with love and memory of events and people dear to me.  I’m not saving just the item, but the warmth therein.

 

However, I have discovered that often a process has many other applications.  I wonder if it would not be wise to evaluate just what intangibles we are hanging on to, that which has no real value and should be  purged as well:

 

— a self-regret based on “woulda-coulda-shoulda”

 

— a resentment that others have achieved what we have not

 

— an ego which prevents us from seeing the good in others

 

— a prejudice that blankets collectively people we don’t even know

 

— an anger that we nurse and rehearse because we won’t admit we might be wrong

 

— an unwillingness to forgive because that might give a gift to one who doesn’t deserve it… when it really is a gift we give ourselves

 

— an excuse to live not as we are called to by serving and loving others

 

Yes, I found the moving process though laborious, yet liberating as well.  Shedding “stuff” simplifies life.  But wouldn’t letting go of negative attitudes and hostilities be even more simplifying?  More freeing?  Wouldn’t each day be more peaceful without carrying around a load of burdensome feelings and inner turmoil?

 

Consider trying it. This is a process that doesn’t require a change of address… only a change of heart.

 

 

P.S. Thanks, Intramuralist… and I don’t miss a thing I left behind.

 

Respectfully,

DL

 

 

[Intramuralist Note:  DL has poured insight into me for decades; most of the time, I listened.  Well done, Madre… well done.]


Posted on

a little kid with some big beliefs

[Note:  Today is day 4 of 10 in our annual Guest Blogger Series.  Please remember:  the Intramuralist may or may not agree with the opinion(s) expressed.  The goal is respectful articulation.]

 

So, I’m pretty much just a kid. I just graduated from high school in May, and now I’m gearing up for college in the fall. I’m buying sheets and a Brita filter and all this grown-up stuff I always took for granted. It’s a weird time. What’s even weirder was when the Intramuralist asked me to be a guest blogger on her blog. She told me she’d had a few thousand hits on her blog, so people would actually be reading it. My first thought was, “oh hey! I’ve had 3,000 views on my blog. That’s not that big of a deal.” Then my second thought: “Oh wait, this week alone you say? Most of mine were probably my mother.” Needless to say, I’m honored to write for the Intramuralist. I’m honored to be included in such an exciting blog with so much discussion (and so many readers… I’m starting to feel stage fright), especially at such a young age. You all have probably had your Brita filters for years.

 

While I may feel like a little kid most of the time, I’ve got passion to make up for it. This passion started 3 years ago while I was writing a research paper my freshman year. My teacher assigned me a paper on a woman named Margaret Sanger. I researched the heck out of that paper. While I did find the topic interesting, I felt drawn to the subject in an unprecedented way. Sanger and her life work, an organization called Planned Parenthood, are interesting. But what caught my attention the most was abortion.

 

Abortion was so much bigger than me. The more I research it, the bigger it seems to get. I started as a 15 year old with no personal connection, and now I’m 18 and starting to understand how abortion has changed my life. Abortion has changed everybody’s life. No matter the side, pro-life or pro-choice, rights are threatened by the opposing side. Either you’re pro-life and you believe abortion is legalized murder, or you’re pro-choice and you believe abortion is a vital step in the emancipation of women. The sides are becoming fierce. You could be called “anti-women,” “anti-women’s health,” or “anti-choice” for opposing abortion. You could be called “pro-death” or “anti-life” for supporting abortion rights. It’s fierce because both sides realize that not only rights, but our very lives are at stake.

 

If what pro-life (or anti-abortion) people say is true, then 1/3 of my generation has been aborted and is thus dead. If what they say about “Post Abortion Syndrome” is true, then 1/3 of my parents’ generation is mourning the death of a child. If what pro-choice people say is true and thousands died obtaining illegal abortions, then reversing abortion laws would kill thousands more. Abortion effects everybody.

 

So here comes the big question: Which side is right? Should abortion be legal and on-demand, or should it be criminalized?

 

There is so much to consider when speaking about abortion. Rights of the woman, rights of the man involved, and rights of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus. There are privacy rights, conscience rights, right to life, equality between men and women… the lists go on and on. So what is the heart of the issue? Is there one question that goes deeper than the rest, that would determine the rest of the issue?

 

I believe there is, and that question is simply when life begins. The law largely exists to protect life. That’s why we have laws against murder, mugging, and rape. We have traffic laws to prevent car accidents, hospitals to protect life, and firemen to save lives. We have gym memberships and vitamins to take care of ourselves, doctors to help us stay healthy, and we give special honor to people who have saved lives. I’d even say that’s why we all love superhero movies. All that to say, if we can determine when life begins, then we will protect it from that point on.

 

People have different beliefs as to when life begins. Some say conception. Some say fertilization. Some say when the heart or brain or when vital organs begin working. Some say life begins when the baby could survive outside of the womb. Legally, life begins when the mother chooses to keep the baby (which explains why the murder of a pregnant woman is double manslaughter). One of the most common stances is that the beginning of life can’t be determined, so it doesn’t matter. If a person gets thrown from a car in a car accident, the rescue workers will absolutely check the person to see if they are alive. Even if there is little hope for the person to survive, they will do everything to preserve that life. Why cannot we do the same for potential life?

 

Scientifically, the beginning of life has already been determined. Life begins at fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg and creates a new cell with complete DNA that is unique from every other DNA that has ever or will ever exist. There are some objections to this claim. Some say that even a hair has DNA in it, but that doesn’t give it life. However, the incredible process of implantation disables the woman’s immunities so that her body will nurture the baby. This wouldn’t be necessary if the baby was just another part of the woman’s body.

 

The second common objection is that identical twins share DNA because when the fertilized egg begins to split into multiple cells, it divides completely and becomes two separate organisms. However, saying that life begins at fertilization does not say how many lives begin at fertilization; it may be more than one life.

 

A common way of showing that life begins at fertilization is called the SLED argument —size, level of development, environment, and dependency. It compares the differences between a fetus and a human already born. Beginning with size, every organ in an adult human being is already developed and functioning in the fetus just 8 weeks after fertilization. The level of development — just as an adult is more developed than a teenager — a newborn is more developed than a fetus. As for the environment — going down the birth canal does not transform a potential human into a human, just as moving from one country to another does not give humanity. Lastly, the level of dependency — a fetus depends on his or her mother, just as a baby depends on his or her parents. Since when does dependency determine value?

 

People are beginning to agree that life begins early on in pregnancy, but “personhood” begins later on. When it becomes evident that someone is alive but people do not want to give him or her the same rights as themselves, they decide to make a distinction between life and personhood. This means they are claiming the right to take value from some people. The exact same thing happened in the U.S. in 1857 when the Supreme Court ruled that a slave named Dred Scott could not have the rights of a citizen because of his race. While they admitted he was alive, he was not given the same rights, or personhood, as the whites because of his race. The same thing happened in Germany when Hitler created the “Final Solution,” his attempt to exterminate the Jewish race completely. He convinced a nation that the Jews were less human and needed to be killed.

 

Saying that life may begin during pregnancy but personhood begins later is no different than taking away somebody’s rights in order to legally kill them. Most people are horrified by comparing abortion to the holocaust or slavery, because we are horrified by genocides against humanity. I believe everybody does value life to some extent, but our culture is just losing sight of how much value life deserves. What person would not protect themselves when put in harms way? What person would not attempt to save loved ones in danger?

 

So here I am. A little kid with some big beliefs about some big things. I have my little blog, the book I’m writing about abortion for teenagers, and my passion, all for the sake of defending life. Abortion has been said to be the dividing factor of our nation. While it becomes muddled with politics and slogans and rallies, it effects every one of our lives. I believe that one day the “abortion problem” will be faced head-on and resolved. I believe this day is soon, and we need to be ready. We need to think through these questions, research our answers, and act on our conclusions.

 

Respectfully,

Becca

 

 

[Intramuralist Note:  More thoughts from Becca and the hope-filled, wise perspective she represents can be found at http://beccafrench.blogspot.com/.  Way to go, girl.  I’m proud of you.  You are brave.]

Posted on

partaking of fiction

[Note:  Today is day 3 of 10 in our annual Guest Blogger Series.  Please remember:  the Intramuralist may or may not agree with the opinion(s) expressed.  The goal is respectful articulation.]

 

Numerous parents over the past two decades have approached me with grave concerns over what their children are reading. Their concerns are wide-ranging and unpredictable.

Some say that their children should only read ethically solid or specifically Christian literature; anything else would be too morally relative, as moral standards in this country continue to digress. In fact, I taught for a year at a Christian school whose curriculum oversight committee refused to allow its students to read anything besides specifically Christian literature. To repeat, I taught there only a year.

Some parents allow their children to read a small selection of secular fiction, but they fret over it. (“Should they really read these books with obviously sinful or ‘ethically-challenged’ characters?”) Others take a very relaxed stance, allowing their children to read whatever their hearts desire, but not helping provide any kind of filter through which to read and understand this literature.

Same goes for movies, only more so. Since it is such a visual medium, movies are more scary to parents, who approach them with fear and caution — and rightly so.

This all begs an important question: What standards can we apply toward viewing/reading fiction?

The obvious answer is biblical: “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”  Then they look at the work of fiction to see what is lovely, honorable, and just.

This is an excellent standard for a start. Let’s consider adding more to this list of criteria.

First, realize that “whatever is lovely” wants us to dwell on truth and beauty. Also realize that “whatever is true” includes not just beauty but also the whole truth about, well, truth. What’s true and real is that this world is full of sin. It’s ugly, and it warps everything it touches. And evil is evil; it is to be avoided, not desired.

How best to show that evil has consequences? Depict it in all its ugliness, and watch the consequences unfold. Well-written fiction will do just that. However, sugar-coating the truth provides an unrealistic picture of the “real world.” Does this mean that students should read every kind of pulp fiction out there? Absolutely not. Find good fiction that shows the true tension of good versus evil, that shows the repugnance of evil. Take a careful look at what happens when people give in to it.

Some of the dark literature of modernity will provide excellent examples. I want my students to read about the cry of man’s heart: “What do I do with the darkness I have inside me?” In realistically-depicted fiction, we can see what happens when man cries out for a savior and then tries to save himself, or invents his own savior, or destroys himself in pursuit of a better life. Perhaps he creates a whole new society in which everything can be manipulated so that human emotions and attitudes can be tightly controlled. We see how successful that is in Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, Hunger Games, Divergent, Anthem, and Atlas Shrugged, to name just a few. And can a student learn something from the failed experiment of the creation of a new society? You bet.

The naked, ugly truth is that deep down, man cries out for a savior. That heart-wrenching agony can be clearly seen in Romans, in which Paul tells the truth of man’s situation: the things I want to do, I don’t do; those things I don’t want to do, I do. Then Paul cries out “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”  Isn’t this what every person despairs of, at some point in his life? What kind of sugar-coated, romanticized fiction ever depicts ugly, unbearable truth like that? Rarely does Christian fiction do it well.

However, look at Picture of Dorian Gray, Heart of Darkness, and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, for example. The futility of trying to overcome one’s weaknesses by creating some sort of hero oneself is portrayed in all of its dark brutality. Did these authors know the one, true God? Some will argue the answer; however, it is clear that these authors realized the futility in their own lives and expressed it clearly.

Can a non-Christian depict the truth in his work of fiction? For an answer, take a look at Les Miserables or A Tale of Two Cities. (Some will argue that Dickens was a Christian; we will not take up that argument here — someone else can. We do know that Hugo was an avowed pagan.) What about revenge and its devastating results in The Count of Monte Cristo? The beauty of reconciliation and repentance is laid out clearly in all these books. Did God use these men? I would argue that yes, he did — and does.

So how do we approach literature with our children? Teach them the truth of the Law and the Gospel. Man is sinful and cannot save himself. He desperately needs a savior and tries to fill the void with his own works and inventions. Dead in his own sins, God reaches in and pulls him up out of the grave and into life. How tragic for those who have not been made alive by God!

Let’s see how this is played out in literature.

(For more reading on how to view literature from a biblical worldview, see Reading Between the Lines by Gene Veith, The Twelve Trademarks of Literature by Jeff Baldwin, and How to Read Slowly by James Sire.)

Respectfully,

Shaunna

[Intramuralist Note:  For more of Shaunna’s wit & wisdom — which she has long, generously shared with me, see www.writingrhetorically.com.  LOVE her emphasis on discerning rhetoric!]

Posted on

martyrs, anyone?

Nathan Hale…  the bold young captain in the Continental Army, who went behind enemy lines, hoping to gather intelligence in the American Revolution, who was then captured and hung by the British, whose purported last words were, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”

 

Saint Valentine… the Roman priest, who — absent the flowers and conversation hearts — was marrying persons within the Christian church at a time when the emperor was persecuting the church and prohibiting marriage, who was then imprisoned and tortured for his conduct, receiving a 3 part sentence of beating, stoning, and finally decapitation because of his stand for Christian marriage, with his supposed last words signed, “from your Valentine.”

 

And Joan of Arc… a onetime peasant girl who led the French army in several military victories during the Hundred Years’ War, known for her solid intellect, who steadfastly claimed to receive divine visions, who was burned at the stake at only 19 years old, charged with “insubordination and heterodoxy,” who refused to renounce her relationship with God.

 

Resolute.

Composed.

Committed to truth.

 

And one more powerful description…

 

Regardless of potential consequence.

 

Each of the above are identified as “martyrs.”  A martyr is willing to die instead of sacrificing truth.  Nothing matters more to them than what they believe to be true.  And the truth is never obscured.  It’s never veiled or debated or packaged publicly nicely so that no one will actually know what that truth is.  Everyone watching knows what the martyr believes in.

 

My sense, friends — and I could be wrong — but my sense is that we are in an age with few martyrs.

 

So many, so often, sadly it seems, are willing to compromise — at the very least conceal — even alter to the point of convenience — what they believe to be true.

 

The concept of being willing to actually die seems foreign indeed.

 

What do many willingly do instead?

 

… exaggerate…

… deflect responsibility…

… blame…

… engage in ad hominem attacks…

… change the subject…

… deceive…

… lie…

… utilize rhetorical spin…

… or perhaps arguably worst yet, alter the truth.

 

I’m reminded of Jack Nicholson’s infamous line in “A Few Good Men”:  “You can’t handle the truth!!”

 

Jack’s right.  Often we can’t.  That goes for many in public office… many of us.  We are more apt to change the truth, cover it up, or make it somehow more convenient.

 

Where are the martyrs?

 

… the historical Stephen’s? … the man who knew something so powerful, inspiring and real, that he refused to compromise his message?  Where are the humble and those always committed to truth?  Where are those public servants who refuse to compromise their message?

 

I’m afraid they may no longer be here.

 

Respectfully,

AR