Three Kings and a Baby


I am pretty certain that the title fooled you. Change that, I am completely certain that the title has fooled you. The odds are I have you thinking about a star, three Wise Men from the East plus gold, frankincense and myrrh as recorded in Matthew 2: 1-12. With Three Kings Day approaching, you are even more certain to assume that this well known story is the subject of this piece. However, if age and experience tell us anything, it is that one should not judge a book by its cover or an article by its title. In fact, the only judgments that get us anywhere in this world are those that bring us closer to God, and the only judgments that bring us closer to God are those based on His Word. All other so-called judgments are at best trivial fool’s gold and at worst damning decisions with eternal consequences. No, as you may have guessed by now, this article has nothing to do with the Three Wise Men who traveled long and far to adore a newborn King born in poverty. Rather, it has everything to do with three other kings, each of whom made a fateful decision involving a baby. Each of these three decisions tells us much about the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the majestic heights, and despicable depths, to which human decisions can reach.

The First Pro-Life Decision

1 Kings 3:16-28 tells us the story of two prostitutes who ask King Solomon to settle an argument between the two of them over who is the mother of a particular baby. The wise king asks for a sword to divide the baby in half so that both can have part of the baby. One woman, brimming with selfishness and arrogance, has no problem with this decision. The other, consumed by love and despair, has every problem with it. The first woman may rightly be called an early radical feminist. The only thing on her mind was so-called justice and political correctness. Better to cut a baby in two than offend any woman. Easier to offer apparent fairness signed in blood than risk possible protest clothed in true justice. More convenient to appear unbiased and concerned with all sides of an issue with only one side, life.
Unlike the first woman, the second woman cared little about herself, about her so-called rights
or about any politically correct drivel. The only thing on this woman’s mind was the great love she
had for that child, and how that love even meant losing that child forever in order to save him.
In a way, this second woman was willing to leave that baby in the hands of God rather than seek
some twisted or self-absorbed brand of justice or convenience. Are not the radical feminists of today the
torchbearers of that first woman so consumed with selfishness, arrogance and defiance so as to
trample life for the sake of some distorted sense of privacy, property, autonomy or whim? Is not
Mary the torchbearer of the second woman, ready to give up her son to the Will of God?
The radical feminist and pro-abortion advocate thinks nothing of putting a baby to the point of
a blade to make some point. This person is willing to sacrifice God’s greatest gift to preserve some diabolical aberration dressed in euphemistic garb of “reproductive freedom” and “choice”. The true, loving mother, on the other hand, thinks nothing of herself, of her convenience or of her whimsical choices. Her only code is unconditional love ready to defend the life held so dear and near. Now the lesson of Solomon is not about true mothers and false mothers. Rather, it is about mothers driven by love and held by faith versus poor, confused and perhaps even desperate women victimized by greedy opportunists and
manipulating frauds pretending to care anything about the mother rather than their wallet. Loving
mothers are not immune to doubt, fear and even despair. However, their trust in God and motherly
instinct allows them to eschew convenience, comfort or selfish motives to become the tools by
which God creates life. What a great honor bestowed exclusively on women by God!

A King’s Right To Choose

If wise Solomon showed us the majestic heights to which noble rule can rise, then Herod
demonstrated the pathetic depths to which ignoble rule can sink. Consumed by insecurity and doubt,
this fool chose the convenience of mass murder in a vile and feeble attempt to maintain a grasp on
a temporary throne. His was an arrogant, selfish and mad escapade defending his right to choose,
his administrative rights and his control over his own body politic. Like present-day abortionists, Herod was caught in the most absurd of ironies. Those who would argue that the unborn are unhuman still find the need to make sure that the unborn never see birth. So too Herod argued that the uncrowned had
no right to his throne yet still found the need to make sure that the uncrowned never saw the
throne already slipping from his fingers. With all of its vile treachery, one might ask
which crime is worse; the slaughter of innocents ripped from their mothers’ arms by a stranger
only thinking of his own interest or the slaughter of innocents ripped from their mothers’
wombs by strangers at the request of the mothers themselves?

Buffet Morality

The history books tell us that King Henry VIII murdered a number of women out of lust and a
twisted desire for a male heir to his throne. Like Herod, Henry’s respect for life did not
extend beyond the tip of his crown. Both kings made fateful, tragic decisions guided only by
their own arrogance, selfishness and blatant defiance of all that is decent and honorable.
Henry twisted the sanctity of marriage to fit his whimsical desires just as he twisted the sanctity
of life to conform to his whimsical notions of loyalty and royal divinity. Likewise, Herod
twisted the sanctity of life to conform to his own paranoid insecurities and pathetic cowardice.
Similarly, the woman who had no problem dividing the baby twisted the sanctity of life to conform
to her distorted notions of justice, fairness and personal rights. Like Herod, Henry chose a buffet morality wherein he could pick and choose what morality comfortably fit within his selfish, arrogant and
depraved interests. The irony of all of this is that such choices made in the name of freedom,
choice, rights, privacy and self-interest invariably lead to moral slavery, a loss of rights and oblivion.

Conclusion

The cases of Herod and Henry, two kings who made fateful decisions involving a baby, remind us
that having the ability to make a decision does not give one the moral right to make that
decision. Likewise, these two men became so drunk in the brew of their own self-interest and
convenience that they trampled the sacredness of life and marriage in the process. Their only
prize for this abuse of power was moral oblivion and historical infamy. King Solomon was also a king who made a fateful decision involving an infant. However, this wise and holy king made his decision in the direction of preserving life rather than ignoring it. In ignoring the superficial conventions of fairness
and justice, Solomon achieved the greatest fairness and justice imaginable. In turning his
back on political correctness and cowardly rule, he rose to majestic levels of noble leadership and moral courage.

Solomon, Herod and Henry…three kings with just two standards. Solomon’s standard was The Will
and Word of God. Herod and Henry’s standard, however, was nothing more than their own
self-interest. One sought to respect the sanctity of life. The other two trampled on that sanctity.
Two very different paths with two very different results.

Copyright 2011  Gabriel Garnica

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s