On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States voted to reverse Roe Vs. Wade. What happened in the aftermath was intense on all accounts. The social media outlets went full bore on both sides of the issue, as people tried to process what was happening in their hearts and in their minds. I was asked to weigh in. I did so in the following open letter. I have chosen to hold this letter until the dust of the immediate shock settles. I did this in the hope that in the aftermath of the decision, people would stop and carefully consider what I wrote, rather than skimming through it for the bullet points.
This issue touches every American life - even those who would think otherwise. You simply do not know the pastor the people who surround you. You only think you do. I encourage you to read all of this - carefully and thoughtfully. For the believer, also read it prayerfully. Because of your relationship with God, you are the ones who have the greatest capacity to offer healing in seasons such as this.
An Open Letter About June 24, 2022
Dr. Timothy Byler
June 24, 2022 was an historic day. It represented a reversal to what is perhaps one of the most divisive issues our nation has ever faced - the Supreme Court’s ruling that federalized the right of a woman to choose what happens in her body - the right of a child living and growing in a womb to live.
That was yesterday. Yesterday was a day spent thinking…and observing. I have a wide array of friends with greatly varied political and cultural views. I am graced with a specific reach into many of their lives - not because of my silence on key issues, but because of my determination to respect others and to demonstrate love by how I communicate regarding my beliefs, and theirs.
June 24 was an emotional day. For many, it was a day of rejoicing. For many others, it was a day of sorrow or anger. Where an individual came down in that spectrum was determined by their personal beliefs. Or was it? The problem surrounding this issue is that “belief” has been cluttered - by politics, by media, and by culture. At the root, most people see the issue as Manichean - a clearly defined duality between what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. And at the root, you are dealing with life -
the sanctity of life; for both a child and for a mother.
The problem is that though the arguments from either side are trumpeted that simple,
the surrounding beliefs are far from a simple duality.
They are far more complex to the point that a few minutes of conversation with the average person generally reveals that those beliefs are convoluted and even conflicted. The issue of life has been used as such a political football that the definition of what people are supposed to believe has been defined, redefined, rewritten, and rebroadcast at every opportunity to gain a political advantage - by both the left and the right. The flagrant exploitation of the issue for political gain has devalued in the minds of people the root issue. Such devaluation is a travesty. An equal travesty is the wedge that was allowed to be created. That wedge divides and separates families, friends, cultures, and a nation.
I heard from both sides of the argument on this historic day. Of the ones who have long prayed for this turn in history to occur, there was rejoicing. For those who dreaded this turn, there was sorrow and anger. The division reared its ugly head. The divisive nature of people was on full display. My friends on the right (and as I believe in the sanctity of life, I was included in this stereotypical classification) were labeled “extremist”. That is a word that is politically and culturally defined as “one who holds to a fringe belief(s) with an anarchistic mentality that promotes an agenda to wield power and the control of others.” Called into question at the beach where I did my thinking, my friend said, “Well, I didn’t mean you - just people LIKE you.” Strike a blow against inclusiveness.
My friends on the left had it just as bad - and in my opinion, far worse. I watched in horror as some people on the right who went online crying, “Victory! To God be the glory!” and in the next instant turned and maliciously and unabashedly railed on those who opposed their victory, posting,
“Stop whining! You still have the right to murder your babies!”
(Caution: Sarcasm alert.) THAT is God’s love and grace in motion right there.
Societal culture has tried to teach the next generation of believers that they should be ashamed to be a Christian. I will NEVER be ashamed of the Gospel, nor the fact that I am a follower of Christ. But if I have ever come close, it has been in moments when those who call themselves God’s people spew rhetoric that is laced with hostile animus. If the left believes that those on the right are power hungry, right-denying extremists, and the right believes that those on the left are self-chosen murderers who do so in the name of convenience and personal satisfaction, then the reality of who we really are has dissolved in the acid of political manipulation.
“What is MY position?” That is the question I have been asked repeatedly. I have also been asked why I refuse to engage in the social media “badminton” in the name of standing up for what is right.
On that score, the way media has devalued our understanding of who we are has been to remove the development of our population’s beliefs from real contemplative thought (don’t THINK!). and replace it with easily digestible, microwaveable sound bytes. Some people will respond to this open letter with the comment, TLDNR (Too Long. Didn’t Read). THAT limits your education to the canned soup makers who spoon feed you - no matter what side of the aisle you stand.
I am vocal about my position. But I am so in a manner that will allow for thought, contemplation, context, and mutual respect… particularly for those who disagree with me. Except for the religious Pharisees who acted similarly to some of the aforementioned people on the right, this is EXACTLY how Jesus handled the public. He did not approach them with a sarcastic, “Go ahead and wallow in your miserable sinful mess.” He met them where they are and offered them better, with a grace that enticed them to truth.
My position? Life is unimpeachable.
Every beating heart is a soul - the beating heart of a child AND the beating heart of a mother carrying that child. BOTH have an investment. Sometimes - too often - that investment comes through unexpected and even malicious, evil circumstances. That does not negate the fact that a woman’s life is a life, and a child’s life is a life.
Does life begin at conception? According to scripture, life begins BEFORE conception. In the first chapter of the book of Jeremiah, God made it clear:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you…” Jeremiah 1:5
He did so again in the Psalms:
“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. Your eyes saw my substance,
being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me,
when as yet there were none of them.”
Psalms 139:13, 16
Even if a person is born in the direst of circumstances, every believer should understand that God has strengthened mankind to not only survive those circumstances but to overcome them and be stronger for it. Those who do not adhere to a belief in God have still witnessed and testify to the strength of the human spirit. And, they have trumpeted and drawn mentorship and strength from those who have not given up, but thrived through pain and adversity.
A Woman’s Right to Choose:
I believe that every person has a right to make their own decisions regarding their own individual life. Scripture has made it clear that God gave free will to mankind. Our founding Constitution clearly defines that unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to every living person.
The first word of that is LIFE. In the moment that my freedom from turmoil or pain comes at the expense of ending another’s life, that right to freedom loses priority. EVERYONE is in agreement in that fundamental truth and the evidence is found in that if my neighbor infringes on my freedom and happiness, and I take his life and end it, I am going on trial for murder. No level of inconvenience or even pain is going to negate that life is unimpeachable.
Unalienable Rights
Consider this statement from a publication of the Annenberg Classroom: The Annenberg Public Policy Center: https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/rights-or-individual-rights/
In addition to political rights, the constitutions of democracies throughout the world protect the rights of people accused of crimes from arbitrary or abusive treatment by the government. Individuals are guaranteed due process of law in their dealings with the government. Today, constitutional democracies protect the personal and private rights of all individuals under their authority. These rights include:
- freedom of conscience or belief
- free exercise of religion
- privacy in one’s home or place of work from unwarranted or unreasonable intrusions by the government
- ownership and use of private property for personal benefit
- general freedom of expression by individuals, so long as they do not interfere with or impede unjustly the freedom or well-being of others in the community
“So long as they do not interfere with or impede UNJUSTLY the freedom or well being
of OTHERS in the community...”
It has taken our nation a long time to iron out what the founders intended. Like the phrase, “Out of the mouths of babes…”, our founders created a document that reached depths far beyond the scope of their imagination. The level of the lives we live were not even imagined, much less invented when they penned the document, yet that document has held the foundational truths that have stood solidly through the invention of our current lives.
A woman’s “right to choose” must consider the following truths that we hold to in every other aspect of our society.
First: Your choice for freedom and happiness cannot be realized at the expense of killing another person. Even with regard to Capital Punishment, the individual sentenced to have his or her life terminated must first be found guilty of a crime and second, be declared mentally competent enough to have committed that crime with the ability to act with intent. A child in the womb does not have that right.
For a mother to choose to terminate the life of a child in her womb infringes upon the right of that individual child to purse happiness, liberty, and life.
Second: The decisions of the adult are weighed differently than the decisions of the child. Whether in the womb or in the nursery, the child cannot be expected to make the same level of decision that an older person is expected to make. Regardless of your belief in God, any parent will hold their children - and any adult who violates this principle to a hard standard. That means that the parent, the more mature in the relationship has a responsibility to make the right decisions for the less mature in the relationship. In any other circumstance, the parent has a moral and even legal responsibility to do so.
Third: Is the life in the womb a life? According to Scripture, yes. According to the one who wants a child, yes. According to science, yes, there is a living being in that womb. We can hear the heart beating. If the heart quits beating, we call it dead.
Fourth: A artful look at all of the above demands that those who claim to hold life sacred need to do just that - hold life sacred. Pro-lifers are quick to fight for the right of an unborn child to live. They should be equally proactive in finding better ways for that child to live. Adoptions, while they still should be vetted at the highest level.should not be as difficult - or as expensive. Currently, adopting a child in the United States costs between $15,000 and $40,000. There should be more who are willing to what needs to be done to achieve betterment for a child who under other circumstances would lose his or her life in an abortion. THAT is just as important a sanctity of life issue as ending abortion.
A few days before this historic moment, I encountered my own. My son and daughter-in-love showed me sonogram images - pictures of my new grandchild at eleven weeks. They do not refer to the child as an “it” because their child is a living being. It is too early to know the child’s gender so in lieu of referring to their child as “it”, they nicknamed their child, “sprout”. I was touched because during the sonogram, my daughter-in-love became very concerned. Sprout wasn’t moving. The technician told her, “Do not worry. They rest too!” A moment later both she and my son were greatly relieved when Sprout started dancing around in the womb. I think the poetic term for the mother’s response would be, “her heart skipped a beat.” Two hearts - really three - intertwined. My son already has “Dad Shirts”.
A pregnancy terminated in the name of justice may be just for the mother. It is not just for the child…
anymore than ending the life of an orphan or a developmentally handicapped child.
Fourth: Is it about power? To return to the “extremist” concept, the argument has politically shifted to a determination of the “pro-lifers” agenda to control and dominate everyone. While a few errant evangelical denominations and fringe groups may feel that way, the vast majority do not. A true look at the decision made by the court actually considers this power issue. As our Constitution was written to insure freedom, our government was designed with checks and balances - to insure great limits on the Federal government’s ability to have absolute power and say with the force of the rule of law. The Executive Branch (the President) is the weakest in the trinity of government. The Legislative Branch was designed to be the voice of the people - who’s members were not brought together to promote political agendas but to represent what the individuals in their states wanted as a rule of law. The intent in both of those branches of government has shifted for the purpose of political power - on the left and on the right.
The Judicial Branch was designed to be the arbitrator, protecting the rule of law and maintaining order that holds our founding truths - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - to continue unimpeded by political domination.
The left side of the social media frenzy is now touting, “It’s not about children. It is about power.” That is far more accurate than people realize. While the June 24th decision dealt with the rights of a woman and the rights of a child, it dealt more with the authority of the Federal government to superimpose its leadership - leadership that is too easily influenced by the few and the rich - upon the people of the nation.
The court handed the responsibility of governing their people back to the States. Individuals have a far better chance to affect local and state government than they do at a federal level. I can’t get on the phone with my President. But I have sat down with my State Representative, my Congressman, and even my Senator. They heard my arguments face to face and even the ones who largely oppose my political leanings have asked me to join them in efforts that I have been able to affect.
Keeping this issue Federal also keeps this issue in the hands of the controllers, the political lobbyists, the media “spin doctors”, and those who through social and other media outlets do the thinking for the much of the American people.
Lastly, if the moral high ground of this issue is about the sanctity of life, that sanctity only begins with the protection of that life from death. The true sanctity of life has to consider that no one has the right to devalue the life of another. When your disagreement manifests into belittlement of another, regardless of where you stand on your belief, you undermine everything for which you say you stand.
Life IS unimpeachable. That is a reality, scientifically and morally. Life is unfair and even cruel at times, but it is still - LIFE! You cannot simply eradicate one life to resolve the conflict of another. There has to be a better way.
