The Battle
Her Spirit Marches On.
(
|
Andrea Yates Goes to Jail |
According to the Associated Press, “The crime attracted widespread attention as a stunned public asked what could cause a mother to systematically kill her children.” Andrea Yates’ defense attorneys attempted to answer that question by calling attention to certain doctrinal conclusions she had adopted and incorporated into her Christian worldview; particularly one theological inference which (they argued) compelled her to methodically drown her little kids: |
“An expert for the defense told the jury that while Yates knew drowning her children was illegal, in her delusional mind she thought it was the only way to save her children from eternal damnation.” (AP Wire).
But is this an aberrant theological construct? Or is Andrea Yates’ paedicidal conclusion in synch with an existing American Christian consensus about life, death, and children? If we briefly indulge Twain’s maxim “when we remember we are all mad, the mysteries of life disappear and life stands explained,” we might be startled by the twisted, cruel face we see peeking out from under the mask of the “stunned public.”
Not Abortionists, But Christians Were Yates’s Role Model
No,
I am not trying to compare Andrea Yates’ psychopathos to that of American
abortionists or abortion advocates.
That characterization is ungainly
because Yates consistently granted the humanity of her children, which (at
least in public) abortion advocates consistently deny to unborn children. Instead she contended with her conscience
that by her homicidal actions she was delivering her kids from
Satan.
Rather,
it is craven American Christians who often use an identical theological
construct to justify our present homicidal inactions. Unborn children, to whom (in word) we are
willing to grant total humanity, are slaughtered every day in our nation by the
thousands. Yet we are not doing those difficult things which
would be necessary to arrest this wicked desecration today. It isn’t the highest priority, we say,
because we know that these little ones are going straight up to heaven to be
with the angels.
There
is a word for a man who fails to do everything he can reasonably be expected to
do in order to save the life of that which he percieves to be a baby. That man is legally referred to as an
infanticide. So it follows that every
Christian who affirms the humanity of the unborn, yet is unwilling to place
their defense at the top of his list of priorities is an accessory to their
ongoing slaughter; a willing accomplice to infanticide.
Shall
we then rationalize our infanticidal inactions by appealing to the same twisted
frame of reference that led Andrea Yates to commit her paedicidal actions? Andrea Yates killed God’s children so they
would go to heaven. Shall we then fail
to defend God’s children because they will go to heaven? Apparently we shall, whether some of us like
it or not.
According
to another defense testimony, Andrea Yates was “overwhelmed by the
responsibility” associated with childrearing.
The weight of that burden was so heavy, we are asked to believe, that
Yates developed a paradigm that would allow her to drown them without
abandoning her theistic construction of reality.
|
|
“Those unborn babies,” say the actions
of Christians, “do not demand my full attention as a Christian man because my
priorities should reflect those of Christ, and Christ is more concerned with
propagating the gospel than He is with saving babies who are being
slaughtered. After all, when they die
prior to the age of their accountability, it is a sure-fire ticket straight
to heaven for those little kids. So
I’ll defend them in principle, with moderation, saving my best efforts for
the real work of the gospel, and spiritual warfare. After all, they are God’s children, not
mine! Let Him deal with them. Am I my brother’s keeper?” |
In
the wicked machinations of the heart, mankind is capable of almost unlimited
spiritual synthesis. I recall trying to
convince my intellect that the word “fornication” referred only to sodomy,
adultery, or prostitution; in order to have pre-marital sex without abandoning
my biblical worldview. Such counterfeit
ethics are often referred to as “compartmentalization,” especially when
referenced to the pornographic antics of our devoutly religious former
President Clinton.
As
we go about reaching our conclusions about Andrea Yates, we would be wise to
look at how many babies not much younger than the ones she killed will be
legally slaughtered around us. What will
our reaction to the slaughter of those children today prove about our theology? Will we sow the seeds of Andrea Yates’s
deeds?
