Life Heritage Perspectives

No empire in history has matched the grandeur of Britain in its heyday. With its superior navy and steady supply of adventurous colonizers, Britannia did indeed rule the waves. Her empire included scores of nations in Africa, Asia, the Americas, and Australia.

In these conquered territories, the brown skinned aboriginals were lorded over by lighter skinned transplants. These British settlers were many and varied. Some were criminals serving out their prison sentences. Some were religious minorities who sought opportunities to be the exclusive majority. Some were representatives of wealthy landowners who sought to increase their estate with pilfered land. Whatever there reason for relocating to these new lands, all were symbols of Empire.

Imperial Coalition
Among the colonized territories, the ones that appealed most to the folk in the motherland were North America and Australia. Hundreds-of-thousands braved the turbulent seas in search of new opportunities on swindled shores. Although separated from its satellite states by vast oceans, the British crown maintained control of its far flung citizens. To this day the British monarch is still the head of state in Canada and Australia, and even in “independent” America the majority of those who have occupied the “White” House are firmly rooted in British soil.

With the strong tie that binds these colonies together, one should not be surprised that the leaders of Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom did not think twice about going against the desire of their people and contributed troops to America’s misnamed “Coalition of the Willing.” After all, this war is just another attempt to reestablish the “Empire,” and everyone knows that empires are run by emperors. Everyone knows that emperors have no regard for democracy. Everyone knows that those who have no regard for democracy become a law to themselves. Everyone knows that those who become a law to themselves inherit a false sense of power and impregnability.

The Real United Kingdom
Buoyed by this notion of invincibility, the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia have recently garnered the courage to involve themselves in the affairs of others. Australian Prime Minister John Howard is unapologetic about his transparently racist remarks directed at presidential contender, Barack Obama. He will do everything in his power to thwart the Illinois Senator’s quest to become the nation’s first President of obvious African descent. The thought of a dark skinned person running the Empire has made him forget that other candidates have also proposed exit strategies. And just this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of sparsely populated Canada, had the nerve to reprimand Pakistan for its perceived lethargy in fighting the Taliban.

It seems to me that these foolhardy confrontations betray an air of superiority that is directly linked to Australia and Canada’s association with the latent Empire. Britain may have deferred leadership of the Empire to the United States, but ideologically the four independent nations are still a United Kingdom.

The Eternal Empire
Even as Canada and Australia test their newly defined strength, I’m reminded of the scripture that warns against placing confidence in secular institutions. They may think that their security is guaranteed by those with whom they share common genes, however history has shown us that no earthly power is indestructible. Further, prophecy has shown us that every earthly empire will eventually crumble under the eternal weight of the Kingdom of God. Friends, if you desire true security, don’t be beguiled by those seeking to reinstate a bankrupt empire, look to the Messiah who has promised to establish an Eternal Empire of peace. Until then, always remember that ‘a tree is known by its fruit.”

On Tuesday January, 23, President Bush is scheduled to deliver his annual State of the Union Address to Congress. Along with addressing other issues, this obstinate President is expected to use his speech to garner public support for the war in Iraq. He may pay lip service to the three-thousand plus members of the United States military who have died in Iraq.

He probably won’t mention the thirty to fifty thousand who have been seriously maimed for life, and the hundreds of thousands who have been psychologically damaged. And don’t hold your breath if you expect him to mention the tens and thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been murdered, and the millions more whose lives have been forever altered as a result of his imperial ideology.

Possessed?
Interestingly, the same President who appears to be in competition with the Angel of Death, addressed another audience on Monday morning. This audience comprised tens and thousands of pro-life advocates who embarked on the capital to protest the 34th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. When Bush rallied the faithful, he didn’t sound like a man who has saturated the soil of distant lands with the blood of God’s children. He didn’t sound like a man whose chess board is so big that it can accommodate over one-million pawns. He didn’t sound like a man who stood in the sidelines cheering as Israel devastated Lebanon.

When Bush opened his mouth, it was as if some other soul had possessed his body. Here was a man heralding life as a universal right of humanity. Here was a man who was so committed to preserving life, that he even opposed the use of fetal tissue for medical research. Here was a man who passionately spoke about promoting “the culture of life.” Could this really be the President?

Schizophrenic Rhetoric
I’m sure others are confused by this apparently schizophrenic rhetoric. Maybe the President and his supporters have a different understanding of “life.” Does their understanding of life apply to the children of Chicago, but not the kids of Kirkuk? Does their understanding of life include the sons of Senators, but not the members of the military? Does their understanding of life embrace the women of Wyoming, but not the men of Mogadishu? Who is included in the President’s culture of life, and what is the basis for inclusion?

Ironically, if we accept the stereotypes, many of those who marched under the “pro-life” banner on Monday, also supported the President’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq. They probably affirm his view on capital punishment, and would have been among those who celebrated the news of President Hussein’s hanging. When you consider their diametrically opposed positions, it causes one to wonder if they have fully considered what it means to promote a “culture of life.”

Promoting Life
Those who truly promote a “culture of life” will understand that an unborn American fetus is just as valuable in God’s sight as a fully grown Iraqi father and husband. Logic demands that one who is truly “pro-life” will also be “anti-war.” The missiles showered on Mosul are just as lethal as the instruments used to perform abortions. Promoting a “culture of life” necessitates critiquing the culture of death, and Christians should be at the forefront of this campaign. After all, didn’t God send Jesus to inject new life into a dying world? Didn’t Jesus declare that he came to make an abundant life accessible to all? If life is indeed a gift from God, then Christians have a responsibility to champion the right of all to live.

I’m not sure how successful the President will be in changing opinions in his State of the Union Address. Some Congressmen from his own party have already broke rank and have chosen to listen to the voice of the Spirit in their denouncement of the war. I only hope that professed people of God will listen to the same Spirit and make the decision to support life as they oppose the escalation of confrontation. As you wrestle with your own political positions, always remember that “a tree is known by its fruit.”