For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. - Psalm 139:13-14

The Senate has passed a bill that will approve over-the-counter sales of the "Plan B" pill, also called "the morning after" pill, to women 18 or older; or to younger women with a prescription.

This pill, if taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, is intended to have one of three effects in a woman's body: preventing ovulation or fertilization, or possibly preventing implantation of a fertilized egg on the uterine wall.

In the first two cases the egg would not become fertilized. In the third case, a successfully fertilized egg would be unable to implant itself in the mother's body to become established and grow.

It is estimated by proponents that the availability of this pill could prevent about half of the 3 million unwanted pregnancies in the U.S. each year.

Plan A, which is not available in pharmacies and is often abandoned for convenience or in the heat of the moment, would be for 3 million women and their partners each year to make choices that avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Idealistic, maybe, and this doesn't address cases of rape or incest, but Plan A is really not a bad plan. It's a good plan. Unfortunately, it involves personal discipline and responsibility. And planning (thus the name).

I don't have a strong opinion about Plan B, because in my opinion it's more of a peripheral issue than a core issue. Plan B is misnamed because it's not a plan, in most cases it will probably be used as a response to the consequences of the absence of a responsible plan.

Much of a debate like this one ends up being about semantics, emotions, attitudes of judgement, and entrenched groups who are sworn opponents, duking it out. I'm not discounting the place of morality in this case, nor implying that it's irrelevant.

Making a "morning after" pill more available is not an ideal solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies, because it also opens the door to new problems. Problems such as making the possibility of casual sexual relationships (at ever younger ages) more convenient, yet with higher (if hidden at first) risks of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, and higher rates of relational fallout in the long term.

And making this pill less available (or not at all) might be one legal approach, but offers no solution to an issue that really should be addressed at a prior, deeper level. In America, our society on the whole has created a context where young people are enabled and in some ways encouraged by the broader culture to experiment sexually, without responsibility, guidance, planning, appropriate relationships and moral frameworks.

If we made all heavy pointy objects illegal, maybe they would never be used as a weapon to end someone's life. If we made televisions illegal, they would never contribute to the mal-nutrition of healthy families or the negative influences that lead to serious real-world problems.

But far better than officially banning heavy pointy objects or televisions (or even banning "sin") is for people after God's heart, in trusting relationships, to influence the places where these unwanted outcomes get their start - in the heart, mind, body and soul of each one of us.

While I do want our state and federal governments to exercise wise leadership and pass good laws, I also think that there are more important prior places where we who follow Jesus should focus our energy when it comes to encouraging moral, safe, healthy choices and behaviors.

I'm not particularly for or against Plan B.

I am for the sanctity of every human life created by God, and for the (finite, fragile, fallen individuals who make up the) Body of Christ to be salt and light in our world. This should be our main focus, more than external methods that amount to padlocks or bandaids.

I'm in favor of learning how to radically imitate the love of Jesus, not concentrating on laws and rules, which is not a Christlike approach to influencing the world around us.

And if we believe life starts at conception, we should remember it also continues after birth. There are so many places where the value of each human life needs to be protected and honored throughout each person's lifetime. This has to do not only with laws about certain pills and surgeries, but with justice, empowerment, dignity, meeting basic human needs, and living out agape love just like Jesus modeled throughout his life.

Having the mind (spirit) of Christ - maybe we could call this "Plan C."

Spiritually alive, we have access to everything God's Spirit is doing, and can't be judged by unspiritual critics. Isaiah's question, "Is there anyone around who knows God's Spirit, anyone who knows what he is doing?" has been answered: Christ knows, and we have Christ's Spirit. - I Cor. 2:18 (MSG)

This morning I heard an interesting story on NPR, about a town in China, Qiaotou, where according to the report around half of the world's clothing buttons are manufactured. There are about 200 button factories in and around this town.

The story touched on how the social changes in China are leading to worker shortages in industries like this, because the growing middle class is aspiring to employment opportunities that afford greater challenge and compensation.

The thing that caught my attention was the comment of one of the factory owners. He said that societies that are more "open" use less buttons, and societies that are more "closed" use more buttons.

He gave Iran as an example, where most women wear clothing that almost completely covers them, and -- guess what -- more buttons are needed to keep this clothing on and properly closed. This is good for button factories.

Wow. I guess it makes sense that more comprehensive clothing would require more buttons than, say, a bikini. I don't know if this factory owner's theory is indeed factual, but this is an interesting comparison, and it's an interesting cross-section of the forces of globalization, the liberal-conservative spectrum of cultures, and issues of modesty and sexuality... all affecting jobs in a town somewhere in China.

And since we're on this topic, a little tangent: I have often wondered something about the world's societies where women are required to be the most covered up. One example: Muslims in Saudi Arabia, where women are even required to wear the "burka" face mask (which I do believe requires at least one button!). I wonder if all this covering-up actually decreases curiosity, desire, attraction, lust, preoccupation, temptation (or to use yesterday's theme, "fixation") on the part of men.

This is not necessarily about forced modesty of women (and I'm not discounting the appropriate place of modesty), but it may be as much or more about the challenge of self-control for men.

How much covering-up of women's bodies would be sufficient so that the men of a society are protected from having improper thoughts or temptations? I somehow feel that this is putting a piece of tape over a bucket's holes instead of addressing the actual leaks. Weird metaphor maybe, but you get the idea.

(The Apostle Paul does say that women should cover their heads... oops, looks like I'm out of time, we'll have to come back to this topic some other day. ;-)

I wonder why we individuals and our societies sometimes fixate on certain things and allow them to disproportionately consume our attention. I wonder what it is that makes a story take center stage in "the news" and hold the spot for as long as it sometimes does.

Today I'm thinking primarily of Americans but the same question could be asked of other societies and the "news" they produce and consume. Sometimes big news is obvious. But often it's out of place.

Today, the fixation on the Jon Benet Ramsey and John Karr news story goes far beyond what is warranted. I feared this might be the case as soon as this story resurrected itself on the weekend. I remembered how excruciatingly long the American media had their experts and pundits and anybody's third- cousin lawyer- thrice- removed commentating 24x7 on this for days on end ten years ago. The actual amount of information amounted to a tiny sliver of the news coverage devoted to it, not to mention (and they didn't) the other things going on in the country and world, then as well as now.

I'm not minimizing the tragedy of this real story. But do we really need to know what this John Karr ate and drank on his plane flight from Thailand to his U.S. jail cell? Or how many times he got up to go use the bathroom while in flight? Sigh. If this is "the most trusted name in news" then we're in trouble.

I'm curious about why American media and society fixates on things this way when there are so many other things happening in the world with much wider impact and import.

I guess the blame can go around, and we news consumers can always change the channel or turn the page. We can vote with our dollars, our feet, our eyeballs. But I have never bought the line that "the media is simply giving the public what the public wants to hear." That is a cheap excuse for not doing the job a news editor (and an entire news establishment of any merit) should be doing by definition.

Now beyond so-called journalism: I guess it's not a surprise that we as human beings and human communities are quite capable of fixating on things that don't warrant the amount of attention we devote to them.

We might for example fixate on ourselves instead of others. We might fixate on safety rather than sacrifice. Pleasure rather than holiness (not that the 2 are mutually exclusive). Gratification rather than obedience. Greatness rather than servanthood. Power rather than empowerment.

One way of recognizing idolatry is when we place ANY value higher than the greatest commandment, which is to love the Lord our God with all we've got. And the close second to this is to sacrificially love our neighbor.

So whether it is "the media" that might be guilty of idolatry, or the society around us, or we ourselves, or our communities / churches; if we find ourselves fixating on things that are not the most important things of the day, we become living examples of idolatry. Thankfully God is generous with grace and forgiveness.

When it comes to the media, I vote for holding journalistic entities (including CNN) accountable to doing good journalism, and giving them clear signals when they don't. That will mean asking and expecting them not to fixate on stories just because people will watch for hours on end. This of course has an economic consideration. My cynicism and realism converge in cases like this, and I think, "yeah, we can try to hold them accountable but they're going to do whatever makes the most money and wins the most eyeballs, even if it has the least journalistic integrity."

What do you think about this?

Let your eyes look straight ahead, fix your gaze directly before you. Make level paths for your feet and take only ways that are firm.
- Proverbs 4:25-26

To cease fire or not to cease fire, that is the question. To cease fire when it's convenient, or when it's forced, or when the fight is costing too much, or when it's simply an excuse to regroup...

I imagine there are multiple motives at large in the Middle East's latest cease-fire. (What about "because it's the right thing to do" or because "killing is wrong?")

It's one thing to feel helpless yet affected by the resurgent conflict half way around the world between nations and armies, and perhaps to adopt an attitude of resignation like I am sometimes tempted to do - enemies will be enemies, what can we as far-removed individuals possibly do to end peoples' fighting like this?

But while we wrestle with the tension of that question, there's always something personal we can learn from the world's conflicts, by turning a lense inward and examining the ways we might be capable of the same essential attitudes that are responsible for the suffering and bloodshed that conflict brings about on a large scale.

A cease-fire is a good thing but it only barely qualifies as an accomplishment in that it ends the outward signs of fighting. When friends, or spouses, or family members, or neighbors, or members of some community agree to "cease-fire," they're doing the same thing.

A cease-fire is a change of outward activity with no relation necessarily to whether there is a change of attitude in the heart and mind.

The temporary absence of fighting can be an unconvincing imitation of peace.

My wife and I had a discussion with friends this week about one-on-one forgiveness and reconciliation between individuals who have experienced some rift or wrong, and circumstances that can sometimes make it extremely difficult for either of those things to happen in a way that feels complete.

Most people can probably think of someone sometime in their past with whom they have never experienced full forgiveness (giving or receiving it) or reconciliation.

We had a discussion with some other friends this week about how it is easier to suspect, dislike, discriminate against, and even hate a person or a group of people with whom one has no relationship.

I imagine this is how Hezbollah fighters can hate Israelis so much that they will intentionally kill children, then turn around and do it again; or how an Israeli soldier can fire on an apartment building even when there are surely going to be civilians inside who are likely to die.

It would be very different to have an ambivalence toward the sanctity of human life if the people on the other side were known rather than anonymous.

So back to the (micro) personalization of the big external questions that are prompted when we see nations spar on a (macro) global scale.

• Do I hold hatred in my heart for others with whom I have no relationship? (Hating out of ignorance and fear as much as anything.)
  
• Does the anonymity of my perceived enemy end up being an excuse for me to dehumanize them? (Eg. fighting someone because "they hate freedom and democracy," which I heard one of our leaders say again this week. There's a lot more ignorance than there is human relationship at play, when words like this are used.)
• If estrangement and the absence of relationship with others makes negative attitudes toward them more likely, am I willing to at least make a decent attempt at empathy? The ultimate empathiser is Jesus - another word for his empathy is incarnation. The Word became flesh.
  
• If I claim to be a follower of Christ, do I go out of my way to forgive others and reconcile relationships -- even if I still feel wounded, or even if the problem remains? ("While we were yet sinners Christ died for us..." -- not waiting until after we had gotten our act together.)
  

There's so much more to unpack and to say about this, but I'm just rambling a bit around the edges of things. No, not rambling.... blogging. Yeah.

So I'll end with this:

Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.
- Psalm 139: 23-24

The way everlasting this Psalm writer spoke of, whatever it is and if we sincerely want for God to lead us in it, cannot possibly involve hatred, suspicion, judgementalism, animosity, warfare, deception, self-righteousness, torture, or preemptive violence toward others who are made in God's image.

If anyone thinks otherwise, I sincerely want to hear a scriptural basis for an alternate perspective. Comments?

Technorati, which is a blog aggregator, states in a new report that new blogs are being added to the internet at the incredible rate of 2 new blogs every second!

This is about the same as the approximately 2 new human beings born every second (according to a few Google hits on my quick search).

Good thing there is room for both blogs and people - they're not in competition.

What a very different world it is, than the way word travelled -- word of mouth -- in Jesus' day or in the early church. Now, two new bloggers every second have a worldwide platform to share their fancy, whether they amount to deep thoughts or the mundane trivia of life.

I wonder if Jesus, when he was still on earth and as a human being, had a foreknowledge of what today would be like, when he instructed the then-disciples to show and tell the good news as wide and far as possible. If the disciples had blogs, what do you think they would write?

And I wonder, if Jesus did have this type of foreknowledge, whether he pondered how well we'd do with these overwhelmingly powerful forms of communication today - AND their limitations.

It's one thing to write things in a blog, it's quite another to incarnate those ideas and and truths -- to "flesh them out" -- into one's own life, community, and world.

That is what is meant for us when we think of sharing the good news. Making spaces for the Word to come alive in tangible ways, even in and through fallen, finite people like us.