My mind is reeling with several things this morning. And it all involves things from the random to the profound, or the at least less random. Let’s start with the story about the trial of Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Dr. George Tiller. As far as I can tell, Mr. Roeder killed Dr. Tiller. He has confessed. End of story. He will now be judged in court and have to face the consequences of his actions. But of course it’s not as easy as all that. You see Dr. Tiller performed abortions when he was alive. Mr. Roeder shot him in the head, in cold blood, apparently to save unborn babies. See how it’s getting complicated now? Hmmm, I don’t. Mr. Roeder is a murderer. Dr. Tiller is dead because this self-righteous man decided to play God or something to that effect, and thought it was his job to decide just whose lives are more or less important than others. It’s really bothering me, this whole story. There are pro-life voices out there who think that by letting the defendant explain why he murdered the doctor it will somehow help their cause to stop abortions. A couple of bothersome quotes I heard on the radio this morning (although I can’t recall who said them) include:
“This shows that unborn children need to be protected.” Really? I think it shows that some people think that two wrongs make a right. Or that it’s OK for some people to be killed (doctors) and not others (fetuses.) “If it weren’t for abortion, Dr. Tiller would still be alive.” Really? I think if it weren’t for a crazy man with a gun Dr. Tiller would still be alive. All these thoughts aren’t my way of saying abortion is ok. I don’t want to get into the issue at the moment. (however it is the law at this time that abortions are legal and homicide is not.) I know abortion is a very sensitive topic and I don’t want to discount that. I don’t want your opinions about the subject to not be validated or heard. I think many out there think that what Dr. Tiller did by providing abortions was not different than what Mr. Roeder did by shooting him. However I just had to get this off of my chest. I am frustrated by the seeming hypocrisy of people. I am frustrated by killing and death. I am frustrated by people justifying murder, war, fighting, violence, death. I am frustrated.
And now on to a quote that always makes me wonder, and shake my head with confusion. “There but for the grace of God go I.” When people say it after a tragedy, a disaster, after something bad or sad happens, it seems like a blessing. Like a relief. Like they are thankful for God’s grace, right? Who wouldn’t be comforted by the thought that God is taking care of them-He is covering them with His Grace-protecting them. What does it imply, though? To me it implies that people who go through a tragedy, disaster, difficult time, DON’T have the grace of God with them. That those who died in Haiti didn’t have God’s grace and those who lived had it. That the man who went bankrupt didn’t have God’s grace, but the woman who managed to pay off her debt had it. From what I understand the quote was spoken by John Bradford, (1510 - 1555) who “was a prebendary of St. Paul's. He was an English Reformer and martyr best remembered for his utterance, "'There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford." The words were uttered by Bradford while imprisoned in the Tower of London, when he saw a criminal on his way to execution.” (from wikipedia-always the MOST reliable source ;p) Do people who say this think that God’s grace only brings good, happiness, providence? Is there grace in the seeming negative things in life? In death? In pain? In sorrow? I really have no idea. I don’t want you to think you shouldn’t say this phrase. I don’t want you to think I don’t want you to walk under the grace of God. I just got to wondering, and so I wondered out loud-lucky you.
And that's all for now. More random to come :)