Here’s the premise of the conversation.
Previously in the conversation: I honour and cherish those who take time to consider a question I ask and process it carefully and answer accordingly. I often find the considered response of greater worth than a glib throwaway response that happens to sound right. Hesediah cannot disrespect a question however much he could. When he considered the question of morality and being a good person the level of respect he gave was top-notch. That can be seen in the hugely considerate response. And check the answer carefully you know, check it and then view for yourself the lens you would use to approach the issue. As if that wasn’t good enough, he goes even better with the exploration of what it is to reason. Trust me, it’s not just the dictionary or textbook definition, it’s a fascinating examination of it that I’d commend to anyone to read and nod in acknowledging some good words on a very important matter. It is masterful writing. Then he reserves something special for his answer on putting convicted criminals in prison. The job he does is superb by holding up the question and removing some fundamental assumptions made in it and taking that as the tack to make a strong case for something even greater than I ever imagined in asking him. Excellent writing overall and I don’t have to be the only one to appreciate it – get in on it by reading it here and then sharing the good stuff with others.
Thus my brother has laid yet another standard of question-answering for me to consider carefully. That consideration is put to the test immediately in engaging with the following questions he’s posed to me, will I be up for the challenge? Here goes:
Q – Have you noticed the increase in the size of televisions in the homes of the lower classes of people and retail stores? I’ve noticed it in my own home. I hope you have or this will be a waste of a question. What does its increase in size suggest about society and television watching? Go deep.
The first part of the question. I haven’t taken a survey of the homes of those in the lower classes, but I get the point and can see that it can be true. That is to say, it would not surprise me at all if the homes of those who theoretically aren’t in the position to have much in the way of “disposable income” had large-screen televisions. I know that compared to the size of television that featured in the home that I grew up in the size of the televisions are a lot larger/wider/bigger. The issue is why. And the invitation is to go deep into the question and so allow me to posit the following as a considered musing.
Why do we have a television? What role does it play in the home? What are we saying about ourselves with a television? I used to be somewhat dismissive of some who thought that television was an idol. I used to … but then I thought about it. There is this place called the living room in the house and the shape of the room tends to be geared around the position of the television. People aren’t naturally disposed to put the television in a position to give the impression that it’s a side-thing in the space, even when the screen was made flat and placed on a wall – everything and everyone is directed to the television. Why? Because the television would entertain and inform, the television would emit. Back in the day, the case for parents was to just leave their children to be entertained and occupied by the contents of the television.
Now, of course, things are different because children can be entertained and occupied by devices far more portable than the television with a lot more resources to keep them that way. But that still leaves unanswered the issue of the larger screens in those living rooms. Allow me to suggest that the space that the screen is taking up in the room is a reference to its place in the space and the attention its contents should take in the life of those who own it. The marketing around such products is a bid to get a cinema experience in your own home as though there’s something great and brilliant about a televisual experience that is “immersive” and “engaging”. Its message is directed in many ways to give the impression that the bigger the screen the better experience and the more it’s worth spending your time and money so that it will be impressive to you and it will be impressive to those who come by your yard. And if you have it, you might as well watch it and make the most of it. And if you’re going to watch it and make the most of it, there’s no point in just watching it for a half-hour or so, you gotta dedicate some hours to it. Devote quality time because there’s plenty you can put on the screen to entertain and inform you. You don’t have to go anywhere again and if you must, at least you know you can come back and devote some quality time to all the wondrous things that can keep you well entertained and informed and look how big and great it is. Look at the quality of the image ever-improving almost as though it’s more realistic than what you can see without it. Get involved. Get immersed. Get engaged. Get it and then get it larger/wider/bigger next time to honour and dedicate your life to it. Not just you, but the whole family. Not just the whole family, but all the guests who happen to come along. Oh come let us adore it – the large screen TV.
Am I saying that everyone who has or looks to get a large-screen TV is an idolator and we need to start a bonfire of all the large-screen TVs? Well. Maybe. It’s just good to ask questions about why we have what we have in our homes. It’s good to think about what the function and purpose are for the home and the rooms in the home? I’m saying that as a man who lives in a house with more than one large-screen television. Having said that, it wouldn’t affect me if all the televisions in the house were put on the large screen TV bonfire that you’re going to start. It wouldn’t affect me, firstly because television is not even a secondary source of information and entertainment for me. Secondly, I recognise that just as with other devices it can be designed to make us primarily consumers rather than creators and products rather than producers. I have got to confess and admit at this juncture that the example of my Dad has a lot to do with this perspective as well. My Dad could never be called a telly addict. He could comfortably live without it and it would not affect his life at all. So where I would spend hours and hours watching the idol – and I watched it enough to call it idolatry – my Dad would watch two or three programmes a week … if he wanted to … but otherwise would be more interested in other things like reading and learning that way or occupying his time with things that he was called to nurture and cultivate.
The breakthrough for me was the first year I was at university and I didn’t have a television. I didn’t have one in the room I stayed in. Access to one was too awkward for me. So I was left with this gaping chasm of time and wondering what on earth could I do. That year of detoxification helped me to get some idea of how my Dad existed without television. My rate of television consumption dropped drastically after that.
I am not suggesting at all that I don’t consume content – that still happens and I have to check myself often to see if I’m consuming too much and not cultivating/creating enough. There is, however, a degree of simplicity in me that says that I will not bow down and worship the television.
One of the things I love about the home I live in is the position of the table. It’s in a position for people to sit around it and it’s close to the set of settees in the living room area. I can be at the table and engage with people on the settees and my focus doesn’t have to be on the widescreen television. My delight is when I’m in a setting where the focus is on the people being together around each other and what we can cultivate and create together. Not necessarily what we consume and devote ourselves to what is on a screen that looks to take up as much space in the place as possible.
Is there something going on in the entertainment business that puts more and more large-screen televisions in the stores for people to gape at in awe and purchase? Is there something that they’re looking to do for the consumer mindset with these practices? Is there something they’re targeting by giving the impression it’s in reach of those in the lower-income ranges? Of course. This isn’t coincidental. The message is clear – to be a person of worth in the world you better make sure you have the best entertainment experience possible and that only comes by having this monster of technology taking up the space in your place so that all can come and adore it.
Those are my musings on the matter for what it’s worth.
Q – Give your insights into the Roe vs Wade initial ruling and its overturning recently, as well as the public reactions. Do you have any personal feelings about the act of the slaughter of the unborn? Or is it academic for you? What role, if any, should the government have in abortion?
The year is 1995. The location is a classroom in a school’s sixth form area. I am 17 years old and the class is on American politics at A-level. The teacher mentions Roe vs Wade in passing and when asked about it, gives a rough overview of what it’s about in terms of the abortion debate and what the court ruling meant for those who thought it was a woman’s right to choose what she did with her body. Indeed the overview acknowledged the contention of the decision in America, but it didn’t appear to be an issue that would get sufficient traction to make any changes in the foreseeable future. Interestingly, I recollect that the teacher did not express or look to impose a stance to take on the matter of abortion or the decision. He was just outlining what had happened and the position it held in the American political culture of the time.
I will not do as good a job in talking about the making of the court case in the first place. There’s an excellent summary of how things came about thanks to this account that I commend for your reading. (Especially the part about what happened to the “Roe” in question.) What’s fascinating about the matter as a whole is that it is an issue of the interpretation of the Constitution. It might be an issue for some on morality, but as a legal issue, the basis was always on what was protected by law what was a constitutional right and what wasn’t. That was all in the hands and the interpretation of the Supreme Court. As it was in 1973 and as it is in 2022. In that perspective, I shrug my shoulders. I shrug my shoulders because it is largely arbitrary. 9 judges decided in 1973 that the constitution gave the woman the right under some article and in 2022 9 judges decided that the same constitution with the same words was not to be interpreted as it had been for the previous 49 years. If you live by what judges interpret about the document you hold to be of great value then you have got to take their interpretation either way and … shrug shoulders … that’s just the way it is. Let’s be clear, abortion was in operation before 1973 – legalised abortions. The decision made does not outlaw abortion. Even in the scramble of states to look to make decisions on abortion and abortion clinics, the decision does not make abortion illegal and those women in America who want an abortion will still get one.
Returning to my school days, as well as politics, I took Theology which continued from my studies of Religious Education. Both subjects broached the topic of abortion from an ethical/moral perspective. I recall how emotive the topic was even in our class, which comparatively was hardly the heart of vigorous debate and discourse. The teacher I had was someone who referred to himself as a Roman Catholic by religion (because it would be awkward if he referred to himself as that as if that was his name). He was a fairly liberal kind of Roman Catholic, but even he had reservations on when abortion should be permitted and if it was ever right. Funnily enough, back in those school days, the argument wasn’t really about rights as it’s often referred to now, it was more about what was right (funny that isn’t it – morality considering what’s right. What a quaint notion to consider). There were some strongly emotional as to why abortion should be permitted and that there was such a range of exceptions to arguments against abortion – rape, incest, disability, the threat of life to the mother – that the idea of going against abortion appeared perverse. The rights language applied just adds another layer where there’s almost a sanctity to exercise the option of having an abortion.
My stance at the time – without too much in the way of thinking it through – was that abortion was wrong … all the time. Yes, even if the birth would be a threat to the life of the mother, it would still be morally wrong to kill the child. That was my position back then – and that was because I believed that life started from conception and anything done to that life to end it was as good as murder to me. That was my reading. I didn’t buy into the thinking that there was a point that what was developing in the womb turned from some things stringing themselves together to now becoming a living being. That seemed to be something of a loophole that people wanted to use along with others in terms of how life is defined that would, in their eyes, justify the active removal of what I perceived to be life. Or murder as was my belief.
“Hey yo, Christopher,” you might ask me, “you’re speaking in the past tense as though your position has changed. Has it?”
Good question. Which I will answer just as soon as I share my views on the response to the news of the Supreme Court’s latest decision to overturn the Roe v Wade ruling.
My understanding of the response to the decision is that there has been a furore. Outrage in certain circles. Jubilation in smaller circles. There has been a typical separation of people into one of two groups – the pro-life or the pro-choice. Those labels are “helpfully” adjusted depending on which side of the argument you fall on to demonise the opponents. Thus those who are not for the wonderful pro-choice movement are “anti-abortion” types (that’s the polite term apparently). Those who are not for the wonderful pro-life movement may be referred to as the “anti-life” types (that’s a polite term apparently). The tendency is to pick up on the views of those on the extreme ends of those positions and get the antagonism that goes with it as though you have to be someone from the Dark Ages to believe that you should touch a woman’s right to choose. Or that you are close to Satan if you happen to not adhere to the tenets of those who are “pro-choice”. The rage and invective and the other highly charged emotions attached to the reactions and stoked by certain aspects of the mainstream media highlight just how pathetic humanity can be. Just as I’m uneasy about one-issue people, so I’m uneasy about the elevation of one issue to the degree that evokes the passions and emotions. It’s sad to observe.
So we come to the issue of what you so delicately referred to as the “slaughter of the unborn”. My brother, I was brought up to value human life. I was brought up to value it by parents who clearly valued it and referred to the ultimate source of life who clearly wanted those He created to value life. I have had a few experiences relating to the death of the unborn. I can tell you those experiences were harrowing for me.
Oh, and while I’m there a word on those who suggest that if you’re not a woman you’re not really in a position to make a judgement on that which primarily affects women. Whenever I hear that, I always wonder if people think about the logical implications of that. If only women can judge things that happen to women why not make that a consistent policy on which decisions are to be made. That only those who can experience it can judge or legislate on it. If we follow that then only black men can judge me … but then I also have to consider that no black man is like me and so shouldn’t have a say about me. By dint of that logic only I can judge and legislate for me. And that will be a problem when it comes to relationships and bringing up children because I don’t have the right to judge or legislate for them because I’m not them. I am rather confident that the wisdom necessary to judge and legislate (whether we want to attribute it to God or not) is capable of coming from someone even if they are not the same gender, ethnicity, age, weight, or follower of the right football team or consumer of the same detergent product. It’s an insult to the capacity of humanity to suggest that only women can make a judgement on the things that affect women. I say that in the knowledge that some people are more than happy to go along with that insult and proclaim that no man should be making a judgement on the matter. (Even if it was a group of men who made that judgement in the first place which is conveniently overlooked by those who fly that flag.)
Where was I, oh yeah, the harrowing experiences of the death of the unborn. I stress the death of the unborn, not the murder. I heard people around me look to console me with rationalisations about the frequency of such occurrences and how things would be better going forward and there’s no harm done. I remember hearing those things being said and genuinely taking them to God to see if I really should be reassured by their efforts. Al I came up with was that if I could celebrate the life to be, then surely I should mourn the loss of it if it was lost. Surely that made sense. Even after successfully observing the entrance of three human beings on the earth through the connection of my seed and the womb of my wife (well, I was told it was my seed, we never did the paternity tests) it only heightens my sense of just how valuable life is even from the point of conception. One of my favourite Christian recording artists is called Keith Green wrote a song mourning the plight of the murdered unborn children and whenever I hear that song and that lyric I consider what God says about the value of life and in as much as I do sympathise with the traumatic issues of rape or discovering the child in you has complexities which might not lead to a long life after leaving the womb, it just does not sound like valuing life to terminate it. The reasons those give for it have to circumnavigate the value of that life. They have to do that because in the light of the honour and respect that we give to the Creator of life we cannot justify the termination of it unless He allows it – and as yet I haven’t seen His allowance for that.
Having said that, I’m in an even more “compassionate” position concerning those who feel the need to do it or have done it. As with most other sins – oh yeah I’d refer to abortion as a sin – it’s not something that would make me think less of a person or look to demonise them. That’s why I don’t see abortion as being a single issue to focus on when it takes place in a context of other issues that have to do with what life is about and requires addressing in that context rather than just honing in on the one as though dealing with that is the victory we should be banking on.
Then we come to the role of the government on the issue of abortion. Well. Wowsers. That’s not a small question to ask at all. Especially in the light of just how much is given in the governmental sphere. For example, an abortion might be classed as a medical procedure.
(What’s that, the profession that’s meant to be based on supporting life is the one used to kill it … eh? How does that work? What’s the thinking … oh stop right there, this is where we get in a lot of trouble if we begin to think about these things when our betters and greaters have already decided for us.)
As it could be classed as a medical procedure there could then be the issue of who is to oversee and regulate the functioning of medical procedures in any given jurisdiction? And the response from some might point to the governing forces of that jurisdiction. After all, who else would be equipped to carry out such a responsibility? Indeed the thing about the constitutional amendment that was used to “defend” and “allow” abortion was about property. Hence the championing of the slogan of the woman being able to do whatever she wants because her body is her property she can do whatever she wants with it. Yet, that approach of the governmental influence on the decision, tragically cannot just be a matter of clinically referring to property rights. It is still a moral decision. A decision to do with something that has implications on what is not primarily the responsibility of any government, but is primarily about our view of what it is to be human and who has the ultimate say on that issue.
This then brings into question what the role of government should ever be in the lives of individuals. At this stage of my thinking on government and those that are governed, I believe that the government should be those responsible for ensuring rightful and righteous standards of living are protected and evil practices are duly punished. Abortion is an evil practice. I did not write that statement glibly or easily. I have some awareness of how it can come across to some, but to me, it follows from what I’ve talked about valuing life. That means that the role of the government should be to duly punish those found to be practising such activities.
That’s where I am at the moment in my thinking on the matter based on the large swathe of biblical insights on the value of life that God has as I read it at this time. I’m not close-minded on the subject in terms of blocking out the views of others. I’m open to hearing reasoned responses to my take on the matter. I don’t see any need or benefit from demonising folks who hold a very different perspective. Although I do believe that the propagation and bandying of those views are at times nauseating and in themselves a candidate for the definition of the term, “wicked”. Although, I likewise find some of the simplistic takes on the matter as if it’s a victory can similarly be short-sighted to the point of blindness exactly because this is not a one-issue thing. As well as that, the context in which this issue is being determined is not one in which anyone should feel a sense of victory because the overturn of a decision that has only been hyped to be as important as it is.
Q – Was Solomon, son of David, son of Jesse, a wise man?
Yes. For the Bible tells me so. Good night everyone.
Wait, what’s that, you wanted more than that?
Well, of course, the Bible does indicate that Solomon was a wise man. He asked for wisdom. He received wisdom as exercised in a particular landmark ruling of two women and the case of the living and dead children. He exercised wisdom in the way he outlined his rule as seen in the building of his palace and the temple to God. He exercised wisdom by being a source for many from around the known world to gather with him and learn from him. He exercised wisdom in the writings he recorded that have been hugely influential from his time to today. According to the accounts that I read about him in the Bible there is no doubt in my mind that at some point in his life, Solomon was a wise man.
And that last sentence should be read for exactly what I mean. Clearly, in his latter days as he strayed from God and indeed in the decision-making that led him to be in a position where he could stray from God, he did not exercise wisdom at all. I often see the seeds of his downfall in marrying the daughter of Pharaoh from the start. The rest of his policy for political alliances as well as other issues that encouraged him to reportedly have more women accessible to him than there are days in the year was not an expression of wisdom at all. Not godly wisdom anyway, I reckon the likes of Hugh Hefner thought Solomon was very wise on that score.
“Hey Christopher are you seriously finishing a question about wisdom with a reference to Hugh Hefner?” Errrrrr … yeah.
OK, the question about being a wise man is important. For looking at wisdom is multi-faceted and I hope that one day I’ll be a wise man in many aspects of my life. That’s a lesson I get from the Solomon life. (See, no Hugh Hefner here, can I go now? What’s that, I’ve just mentioned him? D’oh.)
You give the impression to relish setting questions that require a great deal of my brain and heart to answer. I should have a problem with that, but I don’t because I find the process to be very beneficial to my development. Many thanks for that, bro.
Here are some questions for you:
Q – “The state is the problem. Yet such is is the firm entrenchment of it in the lives of people that we’ll never get rid of it, so we just have to do our best with it.” How do you respond and engage with this perspective?
Q – Linked is a 12-minute video that presents an approach to the concept of coincidence. It touches on intriguing themes of synchronicity and numerology. Please consider the video carefully and offer your review and perspective on its claims.
Q – Whether in medication or the processing of foods, the role of man-made chemicals is seemingly all-pervasive. Should this be a concern to anyone looking to live as clean and pure a life as possible? What are your views on the role of chemicals in day-to-day life?
As you might have gathered in your observations, one day we will die. I don’t know when that’s scheduled but until then I want to make the most of life and I find these conversations to be a great help in that regard, dear Hesediah. Thanks for your time.
For His Name’s Sake
Shalom
C. L. J. Dryden
Life With CD 
2 thoughts on “ADBC: 46 – Wisdom, Abortion & That Wide-Screen Idol”