Every minute of every day men, women, boys and girls are making decisions to do what they want regardless of the laws of the land.  People are running stop signs, exceeding speed limits, stealing, embezzling, murdering, raping, assaulting, and so on.  Are there laws against these things?  Certainly there are, but in and of themselves they do nothing to alter a person’s right to choose.  Consequently, the truth of the matter is women, men, boys and girls will always have the right to choose.  It is a God-given right, and the government cannot take it away.

Words are important—critically important—and in this abortion battle, close attention must be paid to the words that are used.  When it comes to the “right to choose,” abortion supporters use it within the context of a woman’s choice as it relates to her body.  They say that a woman should be able to choose what she does with her body.  There are bumper stickers and signs that command, “Keep your laws off my body.” 

Of course this sounds like a worthy fight, doesn’t it?  Who wouldn’t want to defend personal freedoms like what we do with our bodies, especially in America, where freedom is supposedly what makes this nation so great.  This so-called battle for a “woman’s right to choose what to do with her body,” however, is merely a smoke-screen to cover the real issue, which is the fight to enable a woman to terminate her child’s life at will with no legal consequence.  But no one is going to say that.  Who is going to publicly support the murder of a child?  So the wording has to be changed to make the act more palatable.  Thus, we end up with the fight for the “right to choose.”  We must not get caught up in the passion and the rhetoric, but step back and look at the real underlying issues.

The fight is for choice, but not necessarily for what a woman does with her body.  It is a fight to choose her consequences also.  With every choice or decision, there are results, repercussions, consequences.  It’s inherent in the decision.  It comes as a package. 

Not done yet--stay tuned for more. . .

I overheard a conversation in which a few of my friends were discussing how words and symbols that once had innocent or godly meanings are now used to represent various forms of ungodliness.  Take the rainbow, for instance.  God created the rainbow as a reminder that He would never again cover the earth with a flood as He did in Noah’s day.  Today, instead of this symbol reminding us of God’s promise, it is widely recognized as a symbol of lesbianism. 

A similar misrepresentation of words and symbols has infiltrated the abortion movement. What comes to your mind when you hear the words, “pro-choice?”  Do you think of someone who advocates the right to choose?  Or do you think of someone who supports abortion?  In this day and time, the term “pro-choice” automatically brings to mind someone who advocates abortion.  “Choice” or the “right to choose” has now been misconstrued and reduced to a term that is equated with murder.

To all of the aforementioned, no.  The right to choose, not how it has been redefined in this age, but in its purest sense is a gift given to mankind, both men and women, by God Himself and was exercised by the first-formed man and woman in the Garden of Eden.  Yes, contrary to what many may believe, God is pro-choice.  Please understand that I said God is pro-choice, not pro-abortion.  In and of itself, pro-choice just means “for choice.” 

God in His infinite wisdom gave us what no other earthly creature possesses a free will.  Unlike the rest of creation, we humans do what we do because we choose to, not because of some basic instinct or urge.   Despite widespread claims of the “I can’t help its,” we all have the right and the ability to make choices.  This right and ability originated with the Lord.

He is sovereign and powerful, so it would have been an effortless task for Him to make us automatons with no other desire than doing His will, His way.  But the pattern He chose from which to make us is His image and likeness, and this pattern includes a free will.  He desires worshippers who worship Him because they choose to, not because they have to.  We, as human beings, know that love and commitment is far sweeter when it flows to us out of hearts that willingly choose to love, as opposed to being coerced.  God certainly desires no less.

His desire for willing worshippers is seen in Joshua 24:15, where Joshua, the leader of Israel, set this ultimatum before the people:

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

This desire can also be seen in the ultimatum presented to Israel by the prophet Elijah in I Kings 18:21:

And Elijah came unto all the people and said, How long halt ye between two opinions?  If the Lord be God, follow him:  but if Baal, then follow him.  And the people answered him not a word.

His stance on choice is also seen with angels.  He created them, but in doing so, He also gave them the freewill to choose whether or not to serve Him.  Eventually, one-third of the angels in heaven exercised their freewill to rebel against God, pledging their allegiance to Satan and joining him in his fall.

Deuteronomy 30 further confirms the fact that God is pro-choice.  Verse 15 says,

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil.

On Valentine's Day 2007, my son proposed marriage to his girlfriend.  He's 22 and a senior in college and she's a 19-year old college freshman.  After their proposal, I heard others comment that they are too young to marry.  When they announced they'd like to get married in August, I then heard comments judging August as too soon.  I seriously began to wonder, how old do you need to be to get married?  How do you determine the "right time" or "right age" to get married? 

Let me say, in this day and time we're living in, I admire my son for even wanting to marry at his age.  I think it's...well...honorable.  I don't want to presume to talk for God, but I think He would think it honorable as well.  I base this on Hebrews 13:9 which says, "Marriage is honorable. . ."  Honorable means worthy of honor and respect.  These days, marriage seems to have lost its honor and is seen more of a bondage, a trap, and something of which we should be terrified.  But I don’t believe this is how God intended it to be.

Negative views of marriage lead to putting marriage on hold.  And I believe the postponement of marriage can open wide the door to sexual sin.  In 1 Corinthians 7:7, Paul says, “For I would that all men were even as myself.  But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”  It seems that he is saying that he preferred that people remained single as he was, but he recognized that not everyone has the gift of singleness or celibacy.  And don’t we know that!  It takes something special to be single and celibate, not just in this day, but obviously in that day as well.  He goes on to say in verses 8 and 9, “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.  But if they cannot contain, let them marry:  for it is better to marry than to burn.”  This is so interesting to me because some people maintain long lists of prerequisites and prequalifications for marriage, but Paul here boils it right on down.  If you can’t keep yourself sexually, then it’s just better to get married. 

Keep that in mind as we read what Paul says back in verses 1 and 2:  “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:  It is good for man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”  Again, Paul brings the timing of marriage right back to sex. 

I’m not saying this should be the sole guideline for marriage.  In this article, I’m dealing moreso with the “when” but there are scriptures where God issues guidelines for the “who.”  I’m just making a point that we attach more to getting married because of our own negative past experiences or the experiences of other couples than what I see in the Word of God.  And a whole lot on folks’ list of prerequisites and prequalifications for marriage deal with money.  Is that God?  Ironically, people are told to wait to get married based on things we are told NOT to worry about in Matthew 6.

I don’t believe that a lack of money has to lead to divorce.  If that was the case, I would’ve been divorced years ago; but my husband and I have a good marriage, despite the financial issues we’ve dealt with.  Again, it’s not a lack of money that causes divorce, but a lack of faith.  A couple can wait to get married until they have all kinds of good paying jobs and money in the bank, but if, let’s say, they work for Ford and all of a sudden have no job, then what?  Should they have not gotten married?  Should they now divorce?  No.  They just have to believe God together that He will do what He said in Matthew 6. 
 
Pre-marital counseling, formal and informal, is a good thing because the Bible says that in the multitude of counselors there is safety.  But my concern is that the counsel being dished out is more human than godly.  It emanates more from a standpoint of marriage as dishonorable than honorable.  I get concerned when people are told they “have to” wait, especially when there’s no discussion of whether or not they can contain themselves.  Should anyone tell a couple they can’t get married?  How does that fit in with 1 Timothy 4:3 that describes one characteristic of departing from the faith as forbidding to marry?

If you look at Paul’s advice on marriage again, you’ll notice that he said he preferred that all men were single like him (not based on the disrespect of marriage, but based on his experience of being able to serve God without distraction), but the next sentence begins with a “but”.  Again, he recognized that everyone was not like him.  We can have our opinion of when and how people should get married, and offer that counsel, but ultimately, they need to do what they need to do.  It’s unfair to ask them to delay marriage without understanding whether or not they can contain themselves.

My son’s desire to marry at 22, to me, reflects the honor his dad and I attach to marriage.  In the midst of our own troubles, we’ve still tried to focus on the fact that our marriage is a good thing.  So, it is disheartening to hear people—in the church and outside--advise him from a reference point of their own disappointments, fears, regrets, misconceptions and/or disdain for marriage, as opposed to God’s Word which says marriage is honorable.
 
In over two decades of talking and counseling with married people, I’ve come to realize that no matter how “perfect” the circumstances are when a couple marries, EVERYBODY has marital issues and challenges.  Pre-marital counseling is great in that it helps to identify areas that may or will be problematic.  However, I believe once an area comes out in counseling, it’s up to the couple alone to determine whether they will be able to deal with it. 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.  I’m teachable and open to differing opinions, as long as they are biblical.

For some time now, a close friend of mine has been urging me to set up a blog; but the thought of adding one more thing to my already seemingly never-ending to-do list was pretty repulsive.  However, after reading a recent article online, my tolerance for ridiculosity was pushed far beyond its capacity, and I now find myself with a burning need to blog. 

As a result of my procrastination, I feel as if I'll explode with all the thoughts and insights I have pretty much had to contain because of time constraints.  But I won't.  I will not explode and gush all over you, the reader.   I'll just begin with the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back that has thrust blogging to the top of my long list of things to do.

The pivotal article to which I am referring reported on South Dakota’s decision to outlaw abortion with the exception of the mother’s health.  I was extremely excited to see this progress in the movement to end the horror of abortion.  The article also conveyed Planned Parenthood’s expected dismay at the passing of this legislation.  Their dismay, however, focused on the fact that poor women would now be forced to drive to another state to have an abortion.  “Forced” to drive to another state?  Forced?  That’s ridiculous!

“Forced to drive …” makes it sound as if a poor woman has no other option but abortion.  Her only option is to make that trip.  But what about the option of actually having the baby?  What about the option of having the baby and putting it up for adoption?  Outlawing abortion does not “force” a woman to do anything.  She does what she does because she chooses to.

This issue may appear trivial to you, but for me, this was just the last straw in a series of pro-choice views that fall way too short of solving the issues women face in childbearing.  In future entries, I will discuss these views, and their inherent inadequacies.

Lastly, the article also spoke of an anonymous donor who offered one million dollars to defend the legislation passed in South Dakota.  While I was elated to discover that there are people willing to make such enormous contributions to stop abortion, I was also saddened by the fact that this donation and others like it could have been used to help the “poor women” referred to by Planned Parenthood raise their children.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:  If we could gather all the funds, time and energy that pro-lifers and pro-choicers commit to defending their side of the abortion battle to instead develop means (apart from abortion) of helping women overcome the obstacles they face we, as a society, would be stronger and healthier. 

The process of developing solutions to difficulties is always more efficient and productive when we join forces, as opposed to fighting throughout it.  The challenge, however, is accurately identifying the problem(s) for which we need to rally to solve.   We can begin with the process of elimination:  a woman's problem is NOT the child developing in her womb.

Look for more on this . . .