Rape and aftermath: Where is God?

For the second time this political season, we have a politician making a horrible statement concerning rape.

Tom LoBianco of the Associated Press writes:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman becomes pregnant during a rape, "that's something God intended." 

Mourdock, who's been locked in one of the country's most watched Senate races, was asked during the final minutes of a debate with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest. 

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said.

The video and transcript has quickly spread nationally, with potential influence even on the presidential race:

Romney distanced himself from Mourdock on Tuesday night — a day after a television ad featuring the former Massachusetts governor supporting the GOP Senate candidate began airing in Indiana. 

"Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock's comments, and they do not reflect his views," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email to The Associated Press.

Mourdock later explained that he did not believe God intended the rape, but that God is the only one who can create life.

"Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don’t think that,’’ Mourdock said. ‘‘Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that’s not even close to what I said.’’

But this is a major problem with using the statement "God creates all life" as the ultimate anti-abortion argument that anything that prevents that life must then be "against God's will". The line of reasoning here is that if the rape victim gets pregnant, it must be because God intentionally decided to create life. It is a terribly flawed concept and leads to incredible guilt and shame for the victim: and an ultimate portrait of God who "does terrible things for a reason".

Human free will seems to be at issue here. Part of what has been given freely to human beings (and other animals, plants, and life as well) is the ability to potentially create in their own image (as we believe God originally did). We know from scientific fact that the relationship status the man has with a woman (life-long partner, casual lover, or violating rapist) or his motivation for sex (to create a child with his partner, expressing passion through consensual physical intimacy, or to dominate, control and abuse a woman) does not factor in to whether conception happens.

Isn't God's role here really relational more than anything? God's relationship with the victim of a rape seems primary. We proclaim a God who comforts, consoles, and even weeps with those who are afflicted. We proclaim a God that promises that life is not over even when we feel like it is, and that there is always a way forward.

That way forward may include choosing to embrace a new life created, but it may also include preventing a child from this act of violence: it is the victim's choice, not anyone else's.

What must be done to transform the conversation of God's role with us: one that explores the ongoing relational one, rather than the shut down argument "God does everything for a reason"?

This was the end of my Episcopal Cafe entry from yesterday.  Someone commented that I was focusing on the wrong argument.  He said:

Kurt, these are very charged topics, but I think you have a "straw man" of the argument (that is, a version nobody is really advocating). The stronger version that I hear in the argument at stake is not "God does terrible things for a reason," but "God can choose to intervene even in terrible things and bring good things out of them." 

I don't know whether/how that theology should be applied to issues of rape. But there are, as a facebook conversation on this topic has reminded me today, children who were born from these circumstances, and mothers who call themselves survivors.

To which I responded:

Of course there are. And the mothers are survivors, and the children who were born are blessed. But it misses the point entirely that it is up to the victim to decide if the potential "life" from rape might be seen as God bringing something "good from something terrible." 

If you legislate a law that prevents a victim from choosing abortion, a woman who does not see this as God "doing something good with something terrible" is in essence being told "God does terrible things for a reason." 

I am also challenging the idea that "conception" is the will of God here. As I said, human beings have already been given the ability to create new life. Insisting that it is God who is "bringing something good" by conception in the case of rape, rather than acknowledging the science that shows what potentially happens whenever sperm and egg meet, is in my opinion wrong EVEN IF some victims come to understand their situation this way. 

I stand by my argument.

Come and See: ("We are Able")

A sermon preached on Mark 10:35-45 at All Saints' Littleton on 10/20/2012

Most of us are now used to the disciples of Jesus not getting things in the Gospels.  

Having said that, is this the most outrageous, incredibly stupid disciple moment ever?

James and John’s impudence and lack of understanding seems beyond belief. How could two people who are so close to Jesus miss the boat so completely? Did they forget the encounter with the rich man that occurred just before their request? Or the encounter with the little children? And have they not heard Jesus’ own prediction of what was soon to happen to him? In light of all of this, their request appears truly astounding.

But perhaps we are the ones that are missing something...

James and John say to Jesus, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” In other words, promise to do what we ask before we ask it. Jesus says nope, I can’t make that promise until I hear the request. This reaction can't really be unexpected, as they make their request anyway:  to sit at Jesus' left and right hands, in his glory.

This seems like a grab for power.  The persons to either side of the ruler are the most trusted and the second in command.

However, before finalizing that opinion, consider the text that comes before this event.  There are three verses between the end of last week’s text (the account of the wealthy man) and this week’s passage.

They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid.  (Mark 10:32)

(What are they afraid of?  By going up to Jerusalem, Jesus was provoking a showdown with the temple leaders. They were right to be afraid.  Continuing...)

[Jesus] took the twelve aside again and began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”

This is the third time Jesus has said something like this. The first time was back in Chapter 8, just after Peter proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah.

Jesus proclaims he will be killed, and Peter openly rebukes this path, and Jesus in turn rebukes Peter with the powerful “Get behind me Satan.” (Mk. 8:27-33)

The second time Jesus says something like this is in Chapter 9, while passing through Galilee.  Jesus says, “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.” (Mk. 9:31)

This time, the disciples’ are more cautious.  The text says that they did not understand what Jesus was saying and were afraid to ask him.

The Gospel of Mark is all about threes: the third time is often the charm. Combined with the fact that they are heading towards Jerusalem, it is not unreasonable to conclude that James and John have figured out some of what is to come. So there request to sit at Jesus’ hands in his glory isn’t just about a heavenly place, like one might suppose, but a request to stand alongside Jesus as he squares off against the temple leaders. There is more than a bit of courageousness to their request.

“Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” The students James and John are saying to their teacher: “allow us to take our place standing next to you. We’re ready...you don’t have to protect us.”

Jesus’ response is with a raised eyebrow: “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”

They replied, “We are able.”

Jesus responds: 

“The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

I don't think this is a rebuke. In fact, it appears to me that Jesus is pleased with this answer, approving the enthusiasm and boldness of James and John, even if their request is a bit off.

The other disciples react negatively to James and John for their request, but Jesus does not affirm their anger.  Rather, Jesus again reminds them that they are to live by different standards:  not as wielding power to put one into submission, but using their power to be a servant...”a slave to all.”

James and John are willing to stand up and take on the power that Jesus calls them to. Perhaps they overestimate their abilities.  Perhaps they attempt to bite off more than they can chew.  Perhaps they don’t really understand what Jesus is asking of them, and what it means to wield power not in dominance, but as a servant.  But their willingness to try and put themselves forward is essential for us today.

Most of you are now familiar with All Saints' yearly ask for a commitment of time, talent and treasure.  It is a case we make each year in order to continue our ministry here in the Church, in Littleton, the North Country, New Hampshire, and the world.  I believe, as does your elected leadership, that our common ministry is worth your time, talent and treasure, and that we need your support for our future together.

This year, we are asking for something else:  something that's a bit scary, because it is beyond what we are used to.  We are asking that you commit to inviting people to "Come and See" All Saints' on a Sunday morning.

We are called to share the Good News:  that's what it is meant by evangelism.  But our fears, either in offending or in being associated with offensive behavior, keeps many of us from doing so.  We say "this Evangelism thing is for a different type of Christian. Episcopalians don't do that."

And so we have left it to others to talk about what it means to be a Christian, and that has come at great cost.  Many today now believe that being a Christian is about ignoring science and facts, believing impossible things to be true, being bias towards difference and stuck in the past, and blindly following a bunch of rules.   

Worse is the evangelism that goes something like this:  "I've accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior...and if you do to, you'll be saved."

This is not the Good News, but rather thinly veiled threat of damnation.  It counters the very spirit of the Good News.

For a growing number of people, these are the assumed messages that Christians are offering:  that you must believe the way we do.

This keeps people from the real Good News:  that God loves you.  That God cares immensely about every living thing.  That our relationship with God and each other is not based on making a wrathful God content, but to fulfill the hopes and dreams that God has for those made in God's own image.  That kindness, justice, and forgiveness matters.  And that, no matter how you isolated you may feel, that you are never really alone.

This is what Jesus embodied in his ministry, and he went to the cross for it.  James and John said that they were able to stand up as well, and eventually, they did so.

What about us?  We may not be risking our physical lives, but the vulnerability is nevertheless real.  Talking to someone about religion is one of those things that we are often taught not to do, because it is so often a source of conflict and abuse.

But talking about religion is also needed.  The world is full of brokenness and estrangement.  People feel isolated despise having all of today's technical advancements that are supposed to make us more connected.  As people struggle to find community, many are convinced, through assumptions based on media or bad experiences, that a Church community has nothing of substance to offer.  We here know that's not true, and the Gospel calls us to say so.

The pledge of people to Come and See is not convincing someone to become a Christian.  It might not even lead to someone walking across the church's threshold.  It is an commitment only to invite.  It is a pledge to offer someone you know an opportunity to see something important in your life.  There is no have to, and no veiled threat:  only gracious opportunity.

I hope that you will prayerfully consider making a pledge to invite people to Come and See.  That might be having one conversation, or perhaps more than a few.  There may be many people who come to mind, or you might think there is no one you know of.  I am asking you to be open to the possibility that God is calling you to invite someone to All Saints':  and that you might find, just as James and John realized, that you are able.

Leafy joy

Yesterday I was driving down from the house to W. Main Steet Littleton.  The wind was blowing good, and leaves were really flying.  

When I reached the street, I looked over into the cemetery.  There was a family there with two young children under a huge tree.  The kids twirled in delight, raising their hands into the air to receive the rainfall of brightly colored leaves.

I saw God...