Personhood and Abortion (and Mississippi)

In case you haven't heard, legislators in the great state of Mississippi want to define "personhood" so that abortion is deemed illegal. I'm not particularly interested in discussing abortion - not today at least. What I want to discuss is the merits, or lack thereof, concerning this amendment.

The problem is that the legislators equate "person" and "life" and "human." Philosophically, I do not.

A strong case can be made that human life begins at the time of conception. Indeed, that is one of the strongest arguments made in support of the amendment. But so what? This doesn't mean that a fertilized egg is a person.

At that point, at conception, there is nothing near what we would call a human being. There is life. There is something that will - or at least has the potential to - develop into a human being. But there just is not a person.

To help clarify the issue, I propose that we distinguish between three terms. One, obviously, is "person." The other two are "human being" and "human life."

So, how will this help? Well, for a Mississippi legislature, it probably won't, because they'd have to start over. But for those of us who truly want to define the issue, it really will help.

Okay, so what are we talking about?

Let's start with "human life." As stated above, I actually think these Mississippians have a strong case when they argue that life begins at conception. Thus, I don't have a problem calling an embryo a "human life." But it doesn't make sense to me to call an embryo either a "human being" or a "person."

Next is "human being." The beginning point for this category can lie at several different places; it's a bit subjective, depending on what you consider to be a "human being." At the very latest, it begins with birth. However, I would push strongly for beginning this category no later than that point where a fetus can survive outside the womb - somewhere in the range of weeks 23-28 of pregnancy, toward the end of the 2nd trimester or the beginning of the 3rd trimester. I can accept this as a "human being." Still, though, I can't really call this a "person" yet.

The last category, then, is "person." Where this category starts is not entirely clear either. Some would say that it begins with birth, and I am okay with that. But, really, I would prefer to attach "personhood" to a certain level consciousness. To me, it is our level of consciousness, our level of awareness - this is the human characteristic that sets us apart from other animals.

Clearly, these categories overlap. "Person" is always added to "human being," which is always added to "human life," although the reverse is not true. Thus, all persons are human beings, but not all human beings are persons. And, all human beings are human life, but not all human life is a human being. And, all persons are human life, but not all human life is a person.

Now, "human life" obviously ends with death. Likewise, death is also the end of a "human being." However, while death may be the end of a "person," it is not necessarily so. Since "personhood" is attached to a certain level of consciousness, "personhood" can leave when that level of consciousness leaves, which may actually be before death.

I hope it is clear why we would want to make these distinctions. I think these categories make sense. And there are several ways they can be applied. However, for our current discussion - the Mississippi "Personhood Amendment" - you can see that "personhood" is the wrong category for their purposes. You can't abort a "person," according to these categories.

More Human Than Human

Jesus is, to me, "more human than human," to quote Rob Zombie. Although I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about Jesus.

Our lesson this morning was on who Jesus is, using Mark 8.27-31 as the text. That's where Jesus asks his disciples who people say that he is - and then turns the question on them. So, today, we discussed who Jesus is to us. I have a fairly unorthodox view of Jesus, so get ready. (I'm warning you ahead of time, so it's not my fault if you get offended.)

I've mentioned before that I don't find a sinless, divine Christ very satisfying. I think Jesus is human, which is to say just like me and you. But it is pretty obvious that, actually, Jesus is not really like us. I think that's why we are so quick to assign divinity to him. Since I don't find that helpful, I have to figure out another way to explain why Jesus is so different from us.

And that's where Rob Zombie comes in. If we are human, Jesus is more human than human. But what I really mean is that Jesus is the most human person who has ever lived, whereas we are actually less than human. Let me state that another way: Jesus seems divine because he is human, which is more than we can say for ourselves.

So, now, let's flesh that out a little. What does it mean for Jesus to be the most human person to ever live? Well, to answer that, we first must address the question of what it means to be human. If you want to get all fancy, we have to do some theological anthropology. And that's where things get interesting to me.

I look to Genesis 1.27 to find out what it means to be human. "God created humankind in God's image," it reads. So, what does it mean to be human? It means to be the image of God. Now, when someone says that my son looks like the spit and image of me, what they mean is that he looks just like me. I think that's what it means to be human - to look just like God, to be so at one with God that God shines through you. That's what I think it means to be human, and that describes Jesus perfectly. And it also explains the tendency to ascribe divinity to Jesus.

But what about us? Aren't we human? Well, let's look back to the definition of human. Are we the image of God? At times, I would argue, yes. On the whole, however, absolutely not. Today, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, is the perfect day to reflect on that. Just look at the violence and death that cause us to remember this day - and look at the violence and death that is still ongoing ten years later in response.

So, are we human? No, we aren't worthy of the name. The image of God does not kill, does not accept such social stratification, does not turn a blind eye to exploitation, does not allow millions of children to die of starvation and curable diseases.

God is Love. And so the image of God must reflect the Love that is God. We don't do that.

And yet that image of God is still within us. You see it in every act of love. You see it in every act of hospitality. You see it when the Other is welcomed, when the stranger is invited in. You see it when forgiveness occurs. You see it when dialogue is chosen over violence, when the other cheek is turned rather than the fist raised. You see it when we raise up our voices instead of lounging around in apathy and complacency. You see it in the streets, when the people rise up in protest and demand to be treated as humans. You can see humanity, probably most of all, in children, which is why Jesus was so eager to welcome them.

Are we human? Yes and no. Already and not yet. Jesus shows us what is possible. In fact, Jesus said that we could not only do what he did, but that we could do even greater things. We should take that as a challenge. That's the way I operate - and that's the way I try to get my students to operate. If someone says that I can't do something, I want to prove them wrong. And if I can't do something right now, I will not rest until I figure out how.

That's is our goal, our purpose, our reason for being - to figure out a way to be human, to be the image of God, to be so transparent that the divine shines right through us.

Dr. King proclaimed, "I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land." Jesus allows us to look over, to see what is possible, to see what is promised

"I may not get there with you," Dr. King continued. And we may not reach the status of human, of image of God, in our lifetime.

"But I want you to know," Dr. King concluded, "that we as a people will get to the promised land." Yes, Lord, we will become human one day. We shall overcome, one day, the inhumanity, the less-than-human in us. We will grow into the humanity that is in us.

And here is where my French buddy, Jacques Derrida, may he rest in peace, starts getting antsy, excited, exclaiming, "Veins, Oui, Oui!"

Amen.

Holy Saturday: Will Death Have the Final Word?

Holy Saturday is the most intriguing day of Holy Week to me.

I love Maundy Thursday and the Eucharist meal, I love Good Friday and the cross, and I love Easter and the celebration.

But Saturday is the day of ambiguity, the day that interprets us as humans. We wake up this morning with the realization that death has won. Hope died on the cross. On Friday, it was just a person, a friend, who was executed. But, on Saturday, we remember the hope that was tied to this person.

And so we mourn, not just for the person who was killed, but also for ourselves, for we are now in despair, without hope.

That is the stark reality that is Holy Saturday.

Let that situation set in for a minute.

Now, let that situation interpret you. Are you one who gives up in the absence of hope? Or are you one who hopes beyond hope, who believes in the impossible, who refuses to accept the status quo no matter what?

It's easy to believe on Easter morning.

The question is, can you believe on Holy Saturday?

God and Natural Disasters

"Why do bad things happen?" asks David Waters, who is doing great things at the new Faith in Memphis website.

Actually, the question is as follows: Natural disasters like the earthquake and tsunami in Japan last week, the Haiti quake, the Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and so forth raise so many questions for all of us. Where is God? If God is good, and/or if God is in control, why do unspeakably terrible things happen to so many good people?

Read my response, which probably makes me a bit of a heretic, here. Seriously, church folks may not like it. Consider yourself warned.

First Responses in the News!

It's good to have friends.

After my last post, about teaching as a vocation, a calling in the religious sense, lots of friends shared the link and it became my most-read piece ever. One friend shared it with David Waters, religion columnist at the Commercial Appeal and editor of FaithInMemphis.com, who then contacted me about writing a story about my sense of calling and vocation. (It's here, in case you can't wait.)

David is a tremendous talent and has won several awards. I read his column religiously religiously for years when I lived in Memphis previously and, upon moving back, I missed his voice. It turns out that he had taken a job with the Washington Post. I was glad to hear of his return this past year.

In short, I am a fan of David Waters. So I was excited to learn that he not only read my piece, but also liked it enough to devote an article on it.

Anyway, after getting everything cleared through the school district, David came out to our school and interviewed me. I enjoyed meeting him and he was a great guy to talk to. At that point, the understanding was that the article would be on how teaching, as well as other "secular" endeavors, could be a religious calling. Before he left, he let me know that he would be sending a photographer out at some point.

Then, the other day, we made arrangements for the photographer to come out. David said he really wanted the photos to come from one of my classes, so I scheduled a time that would allow me to prepare my class prior to his arrival. The class is from 7:30 until 8:25, so I told him to come at 8:00.

It was my understanding that only the photographer would be coming, so imagine my surprise when David shows up at about 7:15, when all but a few of my students were still eating breakfast. I didn't get a chance to prepare my kids, so I was hoping (and praying) that everything would go smoothly.

Fortunately, it did. In fact, the class went so well that I considered asking David to be a permanent fixture in my classroom. It was definitely one of the best classes I have had during my time in the classroom. It must have made an impression, too, because, when the article came out this morning, a large portion of it was devoted to the classroom experience.

And that is just fine with me. Teaching is not about drawing attention to yourself. If I wanted attention, I should have stayed in academia. No, teaching is about placing the focus on the kids, which is why I was glad to see that the photo used for the article included a student at the board with me.

Last night, my wife commented that it was like Christmas Eve, knowing that the article would be published today, but not quite knowing what it would contain.

My daughter woke up at 4:00 this morning and, after getting her back to sleep in our bed, I reached for my phone on the nightstand to read the article.

"It must be good. I can tell because you're smiling," commented my wife.

And it was. It is.

I didn't even realize that a smile had cracked. That's not my style.

But take a look here at the photo, see the face of that student, and try not to smile.