Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice — A Way Forward1
The central issue of Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice is human abortion. The Pro-Life contention is that abortion of an unborn living fetus is homicide (murder of a human life). The Pro-Choice position contends for the human freedom of a pregnant woman to choose abortion, difficult as that choice may be. Common to both arguments is “human” reality.
The Nature of Reality
The West, with its Greco-Roman heritage, mirrors the Grecian view of ultimate reality as substance and essence. It has been observed that religion gives birth to culture, which gives birth to civilization. Consider the following examples:
1. Religion and Reality.
Despite the contributions and impressive scholarship of Catholicism, an example of the view of ultimate reality in Western religion as substance and essence is the doctrine of the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper as “transubstantiation” (emphasis supplied). In the Roman Catholic mass the bread and wine of the Eucharist are believed to become the “Real Presence” of the actual body and blood of Christ (trans-substance).
Lest non-Catholics discount this as an aberration, consider the religious view of the human “soul” or “spirit” as the divine “spark” or “essence” that distinguishes a human from an animal. Thus, if the unborn fetus possesses the human characteristic of “soul” or “spirit,” is not abortion a form of homicide (human murder) that should be subject to the judgment and penalties of God and government?
2. Culture and Reality.
Despite human insights, imaginative storylines, and landmark directing, acting, engineering, music and special effects, the popular Star Wars movies are an example of the view of ultimate reality in Western culture as substance and essence. Here the god-equivalent is the “Force.” Like the “Spirit” of Western theology, the Force is omnipresent — in and through all. And like the self-divinizing Gnosticism of the American religion, the Force is a pervasive essence that uniquely possesses and/or is possessed by spiritual elite called “Jedi.” The Jedi goal is to surrender to the Force’s control — notably useful for superior wisdom, to successfully wield a lightsaber, and to guide an advanced warplane. This reflects possessive “let go and let God” Quietism, also linked to self-divinizing tendencies.2
3. Civilization and Reality.
An example of the view of ultimate reality in Western civilization as substance and essence is the scientific search for the ultimate “particle” (substance). In that search particle physicists employ enormous financial investments in ever-larger “atomic colliders,” also called “atom smashers” or “particle accelerators.”
Western religion, culture and civilization are predominantly based on the Grecian worldview of ultimate reality as substance and essence. Is this the fundamental truth of human existence, or in the words of C. S. Lewis, is there a “deeper magic” — a deeper, more fundamental truth that undergirds human existence and challenges existing views of ultimate reality, including the issue of human abortion?
Reality and Relationality
Emerging from cultural Hibiru of the 2nd millennium BCE was the nomadic patriarch Abraham, whose Hebrew lineage in Matthew 1:1-16 is traced through the Judean tribal chieftain David (reigned c. 1010-970 BCE). In retrospect, King David’s life is central, not only to Hebrew history, but to all mankind’s (male and female) history in the amazing journey of becoming “human.”
Self-Consciousness and Relationality.
David is the first recorded human being to exhibit genuine self-consciousness (c. 1000 BCE). Thus, the “Psalms . . . are filled with I’s: the I of repentance, the I of anger and vengeance, the I of self-pity and self-doubt, the I of despair, the I of delight, the I of ecstasy.” 3
Mounting evidence indicates that David gathered a team of scholars to assemble existing records, oral traditions and legends in the first effort to address relational self-consciousness.4 The result was the Tetrateuch — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. This document was designed to show that God had granted mankind self-consciousness in order that humanity might mutually relate to each other as God intended to relate to mankind. David understood that the divine I preceded the human I. So in the Tetrateuch God employs the I whenever he enters into relationship with mankind — the Thou.5
Genesis and Relationality.
In celebrating their new self-consciousness, David and his scholars introduced the monumental advance of a historical perspective. This is because relational self-consciousness requires the relationality of time and space, cause and effect, before and after, and thus sequential events with past, present and future.
The Davidic effort of assembling the Tetrateuch began with two separate and distinct accounts of Creation (Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a; 2:4b ff). These accounts were never meant to be a scientific description — with literal time periods, Garden of Eden, etc. — although this distortion is common because of our Western mindset. Genesis is an Eastern document, and its Creation accounts are a theological statement in the framework of a Hebraic worldview.
Because Genesis is not a scientific description but a theological statement, it is almost entirely written in future tense. Genesis
opens . . . in past tense, ‘Bereshit Bara Elohim . . . ’ (Initially created God . . . ) but immediately . . . adopts a present continuous tense ‘ . . . veRu’ah Elohim merahefet al pnei haMayim’ (and the spirit of God is hovering over the face of the Deep . . . ). And from there onwards . . . the writing is future tense, ‘va ’yomer Elohim . . . ’ (and God would say . . . ).6
Genesis thus addresses God’s continuing Creation (creatio continua) — past, present, future. This makes it possible to address the nature of “origins” from scientific and biblical perspectives without conflict or exclusion.7 Moreover, since Genesis is mostly written in future tense, it is a covenantal (relational) promise of mankind’s fully “human” destiny of which initial birth marks only the beginning. And since the initial Genesis covenant is with A-dam — the Hebrew word for “humanity”8 — it is the foundational covenant from which all other Old Testament covenants spring.
Ultimate reality is not some substance or essence, as in the Grecian worldview. Rather, ultimate reality is historical relationality, as in the Hebraic worldview. That worldview was developed by David and his scholars in the Tetrateuch — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.
Man as a Living “Soul”
The second Genesis account of the creation of man declares:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7, emphasis supplied).
Note that the “soul” or “spirit” (cf. John 3:5-8) of mankind is not some Grecian substance or essence. Rather, the human “soul” is a (1) historical and (2) relational reality. Thus, the sequential relationality required to become a living “soul” includes:
(a) God’s active Creation of form that is wholly “other” than God (e.g., a fetus)
(b) Followed by “breath” (a metaphor for God’s gift of relationality or presence)
(c) Followed by a living “soul” (a metaphor for relational “human” personhood or being (cf. NRSV)
Before birth, life-giving oxygen is channeled to a womb-encased “form” or fetus through the mother’s blood, while the unborn has not yet entered the world of distinctly separate existence. Mother and fetus exist in internal symbiotic association. If the mother should die before birth, the fetus dies. And if the fetus dies before birth, the mother also will die if the fetus is not aborted. Although the human fetus is the promise of a relational existence of distinctly human “otherness,” it is only proleptically (anticipatorily) human and yet awaits its new life.
Then, in the miracle of birth, the babe is gifted with the “breath” of a new life characterized by developing “human” relationality. That “breath” marks the beginning of heretofore inaccessible internal relationality (the self-consciousness I) that is grounded in external relationality (the other-conscious Thou).
Yet the new relational life of birth is but the beginning of being and becoming an “other” truly “human” person. For the mutual relationality of “self–other” consciousness is an emerging, progressive reality throughout human existence, both individually and collectively.
Thus, a human “soul” is more than a genetic entity little different from a chimpanzee. It is the historical consequence of a miraculous birth that values form but celebrates the function of the uniquely “human” relationality of being and becoming. “Breath” is a metaphor for the divine gift of such relationality, and its consequence is relational human personhood, called “soul.” Elsewhere, the metaphor of “wind” is used for the gift of God’s relationality or presence, and that presence and its effect of human personhood is called “spirit” (cf. John 3:5-8). Thus, “soul” or “spirit” is not some substance or essence, as in Grecian thought. Rather, “soul” or “spirit” is human relationality, as in Hebraic thought.
Man in the “Image of God”
The Hebrew worldview of man (male and female) as a living soul created in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:27) is introduced in the first Genesis account of Creation. This is consistent with the Hebraic view of God as Ultimate Relationality.
First known by the title El (singular)/Elohim (plural), meaning “gods,” “judges,” “great,” “mighty,” “very great,” God adopted the name of the well-known desert god YHWH (’eheyeh ’asher ’eheyeh), with the relational meaning “I will be for others, I will become for others, I will effect (create) for others.”9 In English the name is translated I AM WHO I AM (Exodus 3:14), and God then uses I AM — ’yahweh in the third person form of ’eheyeh — when telling Moses to say to Israel, “I AM has sent you.” YHWH or YVWH, known as the Tetragrammaton, is a name considered so sacred that, although it appears over 6,000 times in the Bible,
The Hebrew scribes were very careful to neither say aloud, nor fully spell out the holy and sacred name of God, Yahweh. Instead they would put it in all capital letters, and say Adonai. They put the vowels of Adonai into the consonants of Yaweh to get YAHOWAH, which English Christians translated into Jehovah. Today, any time a translator wants to acknowledge where YHWH is in the original Hebrew text, they use the word LORD in all capital letters.10
Because God is Ultimate Relationality, man in “the image of God” means that man was created with a relational “soul” or “spirit” that reflects God’s relationality. Because God is an I who covenantally (relationally) promises to actively be, become and effect for his created “others,” he has purposed that his created “others” reflect his relationality (“soul” or “spirit”) of being, becoming and effecting for “others.” This is the mutual I–Thou relationality of “human” personhood. However,
the mere existence of the twofold “I” and “Thou” is insufficient to establish human relationality. God’s name in Hebrew, ’eheyeh ’asher ’eheyeh (Exodus 3:14), includes the sense of acting (’eheyeh, from the verb hayah) . . . for mankind. Furthermore, since his name indicates “on behalf of,” God himself is kenosis — self-emptying, self-limiting, self-giving . . . compassion [toward mankind]. And since his name indicates “because of,” God himself is, becomes and effects as mankind’s authoritative “Other.” God is our reference and standard — our “Third Voice.”11
Thus, God himself is the creative bridge that is essential for “human” I–Thou relationality. In view of its bridging relationality, the “Spirit” (relationality) of this Unseen Presence has been called God’s “intermediatorial” presence (see 1 Corinthians 15:45-47; 2 Corinthians 3:17; cf. Matthew 18:20). That is, God reaches us through our neighbors. We reach him through each other. We reach each other and our own objective selves through him.12 Thus, “that which is born of the Spirit [bridging Spirit of “intermediatorial” relationality] is spirit [human I–Thou relationality]” (John 14:16-18). This constitutes man in “the image of God.”
In the Hebrew worldview God is Ultimate Relationality for others. For man to be created in the “image of God” means that man is created with a relational “soul” or “spirit” that reflects God’s relationality. This mutual I–Thou relationality of mankind requires the bridging relationality of God’s unseen “intermediatorial” presence. Thus, man’s relational “spirit” is born of God’s “Spirit” of relationality (cf. John 14:16-18). Because YHWH promises to be, become and effect (create) for others, man in the “image of God” means creative being and becoming for “others.” This is truly “human” personhood.
Yeshua (YHVH Saves) and Relationality
The startling historical fact is the subsequent New Testament appearance of YHWH (or YHVH) — a reality that the Christian community is still struggling to grasp after 2,000 years. The Jewish
Talmud (Pesachim 50a) made it a requirement not to pronounce the Tetragrammaton . . . (the Hebrew name of God consisting of the four letters, yud-heh-vav-heh), which is usually rendered in English as ‘Y-H-V-H,’ ‘Yahweh,’ ‘Jehovah’ or ‘the LORD’) . . . and this remains the rule in most modern Jewish settings.13
The early Christians also refrained from using the Tetragrammaton in referring to Jesus. Nevertheless, the New Testament explicitly applies to Yeshua (Jesus) such Jewish euphemisms for YHVH as “Adonai” and “HaShem” as well as the Greek equivalent of “I Am.”14
Yeshua (Jesus) repeatedly refers to himself as the “I AM” in the Gospel of John15 — for example:
But I know him: for I AM from him, and he hath sent me. — John 7:29, emphasis supplied.
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I AM from above: ye are of this world; I AM not of this world. — John 8:23, emphases supplied.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. — John 8:58, emphasis supplied.
As the embodiment of YHWH (emphatically identified as “all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” by the apostle Paul in Colossians 2:9, NKJV), Jesus becomes the ultimate kenotic (self-limiting, self-emptying, self-giving) human manifestation of YHWH. This understanding is derived from God’s kenosis (to empty), found in Philippians 2:5-8, where Paul writes: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who . . . made himself of no reputation [kenoo] . . . humbled himself, and became obedient unto death . . . ”
God is considered as absolute letting-be, as self-giving, as self-spending. Kenosis is understood as the way God relates to the world; creation is a work of love, of self-giving.16
The same relational God of the Old Testament appears again in the New Testament, but now as the human manifestation of YHWH. The axial Christ event thus establishes the kenotic (self-limiting, self emptying, self-giving) nature of the One who is Ultimate Relationality for and with all humanity. The Gospel of John and the apostle Paul both explicitly affirm Jesus as the One-and-Only God.
Postmodern Science and Relationality
Finally, the evidence of postmodern science establishes ultimate reality as relationality rather than substance and essence. Examples of this are Einstein’s “theory of relativity” (relationality) and, later, the dawning of quantum physics with its revolutionary understanding of the primacy of relationality rather than individual entities. For example, we now understand that observable or “particulate” entities emerge from relationality rather than observable entities creating relationality. To use a metaphor, this is like two tennis players (observable entities) who cease to exist if the exchange of the tennis ball (relationality) ceases. In this, quantum or relational reality (truth) is not self-evident but is, in fact, counterintuitive; yet it is still fundamental reality (truth). Here the American founding fathers, with their “self-evident” truth, needed a future update to relational or human truth.17
Relationality and Entities.
The primacy of relationality rather than individual entities is a counterintuitive concept that is difficult for our prehuman instinct and intuition to grasp:
. . . [C]ontrary to intuitive thought, relationality does not emerge from individual entities, but entities emerge from relationality.18
Fortunately, the created universe provides a metaphor for relationality. All matter and energy in the universe emerge from the quantum field (quantum vacuum) within the relational embrace of the cosmic space-time continuum. Every atom and molecule in the universe emerges from virtual photons (light waves/particles) that originate in quantum reality. Let us explain this further. Seventy-three percent of the observable universe is composed of the gaseous element, hydrogen.19 An atom of hydrogen is composed of a central nuclear proton (positive electrical charge) and a planetary electron (negative electrical charge). Because opposite charges (positive and negative) attract one another, it would seem that all hydrogen atoms should instantaneously collapse into some form of non-atomic neutrality (e.g., neutron). Yet the proton and electron that constitute the hydrogen atom not only are held apart, but they exist only because a virtual photon oscillates between them. That virtual (relational) photon brought the proton and the electron into existence and continues to maintain them. If virtual (relational) photons should ever be extinguished, hydrogen atoms and all other elements would collapse and cease to exist!20
From the perspective of postmodern science,
True reality is the complete opposite of traditional philosophic and religious assumptions. There are, in fact, no ultimate substances, essences or [Grecian] ousias! Ultimate reality is not matter. Nor does ultimate reality have relationships or relationality. Rather, ultimate reality is relationality. Furthermore, ultimate reality is active. It is not static being but dynamic becoming — not only as a procession or extension of relationships or relationality, but as the presence and manifestation of relational reality as “otherness.” For “otherness” is the disclosure of relational reality. As Sharon Bassett declared, “Otherness is not the alternative to being, it is the necessary circumstance of being.”21
The I–Thou and the I–It.
The renowned Martin Buber (1878-1965) focused on the relation between man and the world. In so doing, his landmark book I and Thou22 distinguishes two basic forms of relation —
the I-Thou and I-It, into which all man’s relations, both with other men and with things in the world, can be divided. The I-Thou relation is characterized by mutuality, openness, directness, and presentness; the I-It, by the absence of these qualities. The I-Thou relation is a true dialogue in which both partners speak to one another as equals. The I-It relation is not a true dialogue in that the partners are not equals . . . 23
[However,] the I-Thou relation between the individual and God is a universal relation which is the foundation for all other relations. If the individual has a real I-Thou relation with God, then the individual must have a real I-Thou relation with the world. If the individual has a real I-Thou relation with God, then the individual’s action in the world must be guided by that I-Thou relation.24
This has profound implications, not only for human I–Thou relationality, but also for the meaning, purpose and value of I–It relationality. For example, witness the progress of environmental concerns. Witness the burgeoning interest of business in “stakeholders” rather than mere “stockholders” (e.g., see especially the trailblazing work of Marc Benioff, founder, chairman and CEO of Salesforce, an enterprise cloud computing company). Witness, too, the increasing focus on the value (sometimes termed “humanization”) of pets.
Relationality and the I–It.
One day the now-famous British veterinary surgeon and writer, James Herriot (1916-1995), was visiting one of his clients, an elderly widow on her deathbed, surrounded by her much-loved pets.
“Before you go,” the elderly woman said to Herriot, “I want you to be absolutely honest with me. I don’t want reassurance from you — just the truth. . . . Will my animals go with me?”
Probably largely unaware of his wisdom, Herriot replied, “I’m a bit foggy about all this. . . . But I’m absolutely certain of one thing. Wherever you are going, they are going too.”25
The bridging “intermediatorial” Presence in all I–Thou relationships, and the consequent Presence in derivative I–It relationships, constitute a Living Presence and Relationality that is not terminated by what has been called “painted” death. Rather, that relational Living Presence assures and guarantees ultimate transformation (cf. John 11:25, 26).26 So it was, is and shall be with the Risen Christ (Revelation 1:17, 18). So it is and will be with his human family (John 15:15).27 So it also promises to be with all of the Its that were and are relationally loved and cared for by their human owners. And so it promises to be with all the unborn fetuses that, because of disease, malformation or often tragic circumstance, are aborted before birth into the external world of history and “human” relationality. While a fetus is “not yet” conscious of time and space, its derivative I–It relationality opens the promise of a “human” future and gives “it” relational significance. These conclusions are not mere conjecture. They are grounded in the protective and transformative reality of the Covenantal (Relational) Judge, who “calleth those things that be not as though they were” (Romans 4:17, KJV; cf. Hebrews 11:1).28
Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice.
While abortion of an unborn living fetus should not be regarded as homicide (“human” murder), neither should the unborn fetus be robbed of its proper significance. Tragically, in light of relational “human” reality, the issue of Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice is actually a “straw man.” For the issue is based on a faulty view of ultimate reality as substance and essence rather than relationality. It is grounded in an intuitive “self-evident” illusion rather than in counterintuitive reality as evidenced by history, by both Old and New Testaments, and by postmodern science. Thus, to be “Pro-Life” can apply equally to those considered “Pro-Choice.” And to be “Pro-Choice” can apply equally to those who are “Pro-Life.” All should regard life of both the I–Thou and the I–It as of meaning, purpose and value. And all should honor free choice as a universal “human” attribute. In the words of the Psalmist, “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Psalm 85:10, 11; cf. Matthew 5:9).
Being and Becoming “Human.”
Finally, the nature of ultimate reality as relationality challenges us to re-examine our assumptions and pre-suppositions with a willingness to modify and change our worldviews as needed. It urges us to courageously abandon the tragic societal crisis of inhuman epitaphs and vengeful insults, of crippling paranoia and delusional thought and action. Moreover, “human” relationality invites us to repent of inflexible ideology and an uncooperative spirit. It invites us to a truly “human” society characterized by genuine caring for the “other,” including acceptance of those who disagree with us and forgiveness of those who mistreat us (cf. Matthew 5:38, 39; Luke 23:34). And it invites us to a “human” future of faith, hope and love and thus true “freedom” for, to and with all “others.” In light of “human” relationality, may we heed the wise words of the poet Phyllis McGinley (1905-1978):
Ah, snug lie those that slumber beneath conviction’s roof.
Their floors are sturdy lumber, their windows weatherproof.
But I sleep cold forever, and cold sleep all my kind,
For I was born to shiver in the draft from an open mind.29
- For much of the material in this essay, the author acknowledges his profound indebtedness to decades-long friendship and association with the brilliant scientist, academic, Episcopal lay theologian, and editor/researcher for Worldview Publications, Jack D. Zwemer, D.D.S., Ph.D. (1924-2017). Dr. Zwemer received his degrees of D.D.S., M.S. (Pedodontics), and Ph.D. (Bacteriology, Biochemistry) from the prestigious University of Illinois, where he graduated first in his class in 1946 with the highest GP in the history of the school. He was on the faculty of the University of Illinois, Loma Linda University, the University of Kentucky, and the Medical College of Georgia, where before his retirement he was for many years Special Project Coordinator for the Office of Institutional Research and Information. The extensive research associated with his deep theological interest resulted in a quarter century (1990-2017) of prolific essays, now available online at worldviewpublications.org. Although Dr. Zwemer’s life here has ended, he yet lives through his writings, which develop a cogent and credible postmodern worldview that includes both scientific and biblical perspectives without conflict or exclusion. Unless otherwise indicated, the author of Outlook material referenced in this essay is Jack D. Zwemer, late editor/researcher for Worldview Publications. (go back)
- See Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “Quietism”; Wikipedia, s.v. “Quietism (Christian philosophy).” (go back)
- Thomas Cahill, The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels (New York: Doubleday, 1998), p. 93. (go back)
- See Gary A. Rendsburg, “Reading David in Genesis: How We Know the Torah Was Written in the Tenth Century B.C.E.,” Bible Review 17, no. 1 (February 2001): 20-33, 46. (go back)
- “The First Temple: United Monarchical Period,” Outlook (November 2001). See also “The Dawn of Self-Consciousness,” Outlook (October 2001). (go back)
- Yitzhak Hayut-Man, “The Book of Genesis as a Redemptive Scenario and Guide for Re-Biography,” at thehope.tripod.com/TORENOW0.htm. See also “The Fall,” Outlook (Prequel 2001.12). (go back)
- See “Origins,” Outlook (September 2001). (go back)
- See Scott Hahn, Salvation History: One Holy Family, at www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m2/slvhst1.html. See also “Contract versus Covenant,” Outlook (February 2002). (go back)
- See “Contract versus Covenant.” (go back)
- Bethany Verrett, “Why Does God Call Himself ‘I Am That I Am’?” at www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/why-does-god-call-himself-i-am-that-i-am.html. (go back)
- “The First Temple: United Monarchical Period.” (go back)
- See “The End of Human Alienation,” Outlook (Prolepsis 1994.7), originally published August 1994 under the name Quest and pending online publication as an Outlook Prolepsis. (go back)
- “Yeshua (YHVH Saves) — Digest,” Outlook (Prequel 2000.3): David H. Stern, trans., Jewish New Testament: A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness, available from Barnes & Noble at www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jewish-new-testament-david-h-stern/1111036127; David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, available from Barnes & Noble at www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jewish-new-testament-commentary-david-h-stern/1111036128. (go back)
- Ibid. (go back)
- See ibid.; “The Historical Jesus XVII: The Gospel of John: Jesus as the New ‘I AM,’” Outlook (October 2007); “The Gospel for the Postmodern World II: The ‘I AM,’” Outlook (December 2007). (go back)
- Lucien Richard, Christ: The Self-Emptying of God (New York: Paulist Press, 1997), p. 94. See “Kenosis and Creation” — Digest, Outlook (Prequel 2001.4). (go back)
- See Norman Jarnes, “Revolutionary Implications of Relationality and ‘Otherness,’” Outlook (Addendum 2016.1), esp. endnote 20. (go back)
- “Introduction to ‘Ye Shall Be as Gods,”’ Outlook (March/April 2004). (go back)
- “ . . . [The] universe . . . today is about 73% hydrogen, 24% helium, and 3% heavier elements.” — Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1995), p. 20. (go back)
- “‘Ye Shall Be as Gods,’” Outlook (March/April 2004). Cf. Larry M. Silverberg, “Fragments of Energy — Not waves or Particles — May Be the Fundamental Building Blocks of the Universe,” published December 9, 2020, by The Conversation at www.theconversation.com/fragments-of-energy-not-waves-or-particles-may-be-the-fundamental-building-blocks-of-the-universe-150730. Larry M. Silverberg is Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University. (go back)
- “The ‘Other’ Question,” Outlook (July/August 2004). (go back)
- Martin Buber, I and Thou (1923). Martin Buber, I and Thou, tr. Walter Kaufman (New York: Free Press, 1971) is available from Barnes & Noble at www.barnesandnoble.com/w/i-and-thou-martin-buber/1116688326. See “The Divine Struggle for ‘I’ and ‘Thou’: Prologue: I and Thou,” Outlook (October 2009). (go back)
- Encyclopaedia Judaica, CD-ROM ed. (1997), s.v. Maurice Friedman, “Buber, Martin.” (go back)
- Alex Scott, “Martin Buber’s I and Thou” (2002), at www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/buber.html. (go back)
- James Herriot, All Creatures Great and Small (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1972), p. 271. (go back)
- Creation is replete with metaphors for this transformative reality. For example, dinosaurs became extinct and reemerged as the wondrous birds of the sky; a wormlike caterpillar disappears in a chrysalis and reemerges as a gorgeous butterfly; “[If] a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, . . . it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:24). (go back)
- According to Jesus’ own words, he no longer designates his human family as “servants,” but he now calls them “friends.” This he can do because of his becoming the bodily Jesus of history through the adoption of creaturely humanity as his own reality. See John 15:15; Colossians 2:9; cf. Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 10:5. (go back)
- See “Sin and Atonement,” Outlook (March 2002). (go back)
- Phyllis McGinley, at www.goodreads.com/quotes/508910-ah-snug-lie-those-that-slumber-beneath-conviction-s-roof-their. (go back)
Permission to photocopy, fax or otherwise electronically transmit “Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice — A Way Forward” in unexpurgated form is hereby granted. Passages may be quoted within limits of “fair use.” Reprint permission is available on request.