Binary Opposition in the Comedy of Errors

An Actor's Analysis of Shakespeare's First Play

By GJ Gillespie

As members of the species called the "story telling animal" we long to enhance our sense of self and society through hearing tales that provide templates for thinking about our place in the universe. Shakespeare's ability to tackle profound psychological and existential questions that haunt humanity has long made him a celebrated literary prophet.  Performed for centuries his cannon of tragic and comic plays are as popular as ever.

Over the years I have seen most of Shakespeare's commonly produced plays -- some plays multiple times. So it was a delight when I had a chance to act in a production at our university. The experience of moving from fan to actor provided new insights into the brilliance of the literature. A record of these musings may help others appreciate the power of story to reshape human identity.

Prof. Gillespie as Egeon, father of the twins

Isaac Asimov calls the Comedy of Errors, thought Shakespeare’s first play, a “total farce”.  The play tells the story of one day in the life of a separated family of twins who happen to arrive at the same city unaware.

(Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare: A Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare, Wings Books, New York, 1970. P. 169.)

Audiences laugh at the characters' implausible mishaps and mistaken identities and are warmed by the happy ending when the family is re-united. Surprisingly we are not only entertained but aesthetically elevated. We leave the play house with a renewed faith in the possibility of reconciliation. We are moved beyond what we would expect from witnessing a series of jokes by laughable characters.

Because the play, perhaps more than others, ideally models the binary structure of drama it is worth a closer look.

By pairing contrasting images in sequences Shakespeare orchestrate a story of salvation, culturally familiar to original audiences but neglected by us today.

Uncovering rhetorical meanings beneath the play's surface is best achieved by focusing on the character of Egeon, father of the twins, who appears in act one to present his apology and explain how the family was separated, then again in act five in a final defense awaiting execution.

The lines for the "hapless Egeon" are tragic and his tone serious. His pleas are juxtaposed with the silly jokes and slapstick banter of the other characters. We could explain his melancholy as foil to amplify the overall hilarity.  Or we could see him as the scapegoat of the story, a Christ figure, who fulfills the mythical aspirations of the viewers that the conflicts and confusions of the human condition might find happy resolution.

In what follows let me call attention to key contrasts that amplify the humor of the plot and set up the pleasing denouement in the final act.

First I will sum up comic devices used in the play, second reveal the structure of binary oppositions that make up the conflict, finally examine the meaning of key metaphors, devices and props that are imbibed with theological meaning.

There are two theories that explain humor, incongruity and superiority.

First, when a person recognizes that two states are out of sync or contradict one another he or she experiences the pleasure or delight of knowing. This "now I get it" or appreciation of the joke, permits the conscious mind to rise above the irony and gain, what Kenneth Burke calls, a perspective by incongruity.

(Kenneth Burke, Attitudes Toward History: Third Edition with an Afterward, University of California Press, Berkley, 1984.)

The enjoyment of the incongruous humor -- signaled by an outward laugh or inner delight -- bridges the kind of mental gaps that the mind faces daily in trying to grasp recognizable patterns in the chaos of the world.  Humor makes the world feel connected. The knack for amusement in all things, not taking the absurdities of life too seriously, to laugh and enjoy even in the face of hardship, is a life skill aided by playwrights like Shakespeare who understood our need to experience the gestalt of psychological wholeness.

Irony is the comic device in which the recipient is meant to believe the opposite of what is said. Throughout the play the audiences see what the character’s miss. The characters say one thing, but we know that the opposite is true. Adrianna calls Antipholus of Syracuse “husband” when we know that Antipholus of Syracuse just arrived in town.

The second way to explain humor is showing superiority over a victim. Much slapstick humor is funny because we tend to laugh at the plight of characters who suffer indignities or unlikely hardships. Usually the victim’s plight is exaggerated to the point of absurdity. The Three Stooges, a popular 1940’s film series about three goofy friends who constantly get into trouble, illustrate this second device. Unlike our normal reaction of seeing a person physically hurt, the context of the farce causes amusement. When Mo pokes Larry in the eyes with his fingers we laugh. We enjoy our position of superiority over the poor sap who is the brunt of the joke. 

The amusement of feeling superior is the basis for jokes that make fun of people in other groups from our own and is the basis for sexist or racist humor. We may make fun of people who live in another city or who have a different occupation, language or social standing. The comic television series Portlandia constantly makes fun of people who live in Portland, showing the viewer’s superiority of living in their home city that isn’t “crazy”.  In the same way, we may make fun of people or classes who have power over us. Our boss, professor or the ruling political party may have power over us, but we compensate by laughing at them. 

Another factor of humor is exaggeration. Jokes may be overstatements, in which something is said that is far more than it actually is and understatement in which something is said to be far less than it actually is. Because we know that in actuality reality differs from what is stated exaggeration feeds our sense of irony.

In The Comedy of Errors Shakespeare utilizes all comic devices, especially exaggeration.  In Act one Egeon is brought before the Duke of Ephesus, charged with the crime of trespassing. We learn Ephesian law forbids any citizen of Syracuse from setting foot in their town. Egeon, a citizen of Syracuse, is on a journey searching for his lost twin sons. The punishment is a large fine or death. Although formally wealthy, Egeon has spent all of his money on his quest, and because he has no friends in town to pay the fine he faces execution at sundown. He seems resigned to die, preferring death to his unresolved hardships.

The Duke is curious what those hardships might be and asks for a defense for why he came to the forbidden town. Egeon then goes into a long monologue providing the audience with the backstory. He explains how he became separated from his wife and one of his twin sons in a shipwreck. It turns out that each twin son was paired with a servant who also had a twin brother.

We could find humor in his unlikely hardships, but the tone of the text doesn’t seem funny. The tone and length of the monolog is problematic for the actor who must win the attention of the audience. An exaggerated delivery with vocal variety and sensory showing is key.

Perhaps the original audience would find humor in an old man telling an absurd story of heroically surviving a shipwreck. Exaggerated travel tales would be common entertainment in pubs in the 16th century. A modern comic parallel could be how we might laugh at an old man saying “young people have it easy today. In my day we had to walk five miles to school barefoot in the snow….” We put ourselves in contrast with the person with whom we laugh at.

Humor is pleasing because discordant neural synapses are connected by a joke. It is mental stimulation. The opposite is boredom. The elevating mental connections that occur in irony are similar to the engagement of dramatic storytelling.

In his study of cultural myths anthropologist Levi Strauss discovered the basic structure of binary opposition between opposing forces and people in any good story. He theorized that in order to make sense of the world human beings notice what is familiar and contrast accepted, comfortable assumptions with what is foreign and abnormal. Binary opposition forms the basis for cultural values. We know what is bad by contrasting it with what is good. Stories follow a structure in which conflict between two forces is resolved, thus providing the needed mental glue to bind together what would otherwise be inscrutable.
(Lévi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. Trans. Claire Jacobson. New York: Basic Books, 1963.)

The Comedy of Errors has binary opposition between all levels possible dramatic conflict. There is struggle between social class, social order, societies, nature and supernatural forces, between family members, siblings, between agents of commerce, slave- master, husband-wife, male-female romance, and sacred order versus the profane order. By the end of the play all of these factors of disorder are resolved.

In Acts Two to Four we find other contrasting images that form the basis for dramatic interest as well as humor.

Antipholus of Syracuse vs Antipholus of Ephesus.

Dromio of Syracuse vs Dromio of Ephesus.

Merchant demanding payment vs unwilling customer

Antipholus of Ephesus vs his wife Adrianna (who each suppose the other is unfaithful.)

Adrianna vs both Dromios.
Antipholus of Ephesus vs both Dromios.

Servants inside the locked house vs Dromio of Ephesus outside

Sacrilege of magic vs sacredness of holiness.

Besides dramatic contrasts that demand action to achieve a sense of resolution, key devices, metaphors and props in the play also reveal a binary structure. The subject of a play about two sets of twins is itself binary. Identical twins are two distinct persons who appear exactly alike. The presence of twins invites us to consider what makes up personal identity. When we can’t tell the difference between the two we laugh at the limitations of our perception. How do we know what is authentic reality when we can’t trust even our eyes?

Shakespeare’s choice in naming the sons is a binary pun. The Greek word alludes to equal weights set on a scale. “Antipholus” means "opposed in balance". 

(Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare: A Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Works of Shakespeare, Wings Books, New York, 1970. P. 174.)

One of the most common questions for dramaturges and audiences of the Comedy alike is why the twins – as well as the twin servants -- share the same name? A line by Ageon states that as babies the twins were indistinguishable “but by names”. That implies that the names should differ. But, throughout the dialogue both brothers are called Antipholus. 

Some suggest that most of the jokes in the farce would be impossible if the brothers had different names, so that we must suspend disbelief and suppress our desire for a reason. It could be that the brothers were known by a common last name, such as “Jones here did this…”

Perhaps an internal rationale for the shared names came about from the confusion of the shipwreck. If the babies were identical, how would the parents know the difference, especially in a crisis? When Amelia bound one son with his servant pair to one end of the mast -- and Egeon did the same with the other children -- each parent could have thought that they cared for the same twin. Egeon seems to have figured that because his wife favored “the latter born” that she chose to bind herself to him. But, what if Amelia chose the other twin (we don’t know his name) and Egeon had custody of the twin named Antipholus? After the separation the babies grew up using the same name. That could explain why the two leading characters are called by the same name.

A shipwreck mix up might also explain why the twin servants are both called Dromio, except that Egeon tells us specifically that the servant of the Antipholus in his care was “reft of his brother, yet retained his name.” Why the twin servants had the same name is left unanswered in the text. It could be that either the twin servants were called by their common last name or given the same first name as a joke or for some other reason. There are modern examples of parents who chose to name identical twins by the same name. In one example the parents named the sons after the father and gave each a different middle name.

(Allison Hurtado, “Twins given same name choose similar careers”, Ahwatukee Foothills News, Phoenix, AZ  September 26, 2010. Date accessed February 11, 2014. < http://www.ahwatukee.com/ahwatukee_medical/article_2ee564ca-c764-11df-a768-001cc4c03286.html > )

All identical twins share hilarious stories of being mixed up with their sibling. Twins who share the same name report that they are constantly mistaken for the other and usually assume middle or nick names.

That two people who look alike might also share the same name is humorous because it violates our expectations of reality. We expect that brothers, especially twins, will have different names. Encountering twin brothers who share the same name jolts our comfortable ways of thinking.

The main question behind the conflict, what dramaturges call the Point of Attack of the Major Dramatic Question, centers on reconciling identity in a confused and displaced world.  This central question is expressed directly by Antipholus of Syracuse who says: 

"To me she speaks; she moves me for her theme. What, was I married to her in my dream? Or sleep I now and think I hear all this? What error drives our eyes and ears amiss? Until I know this sure uncertainty I;ll entertain the offered fallacy."

Then again in Act 2, Sc 2:

“Am I in earth in heaven or in hell? Sleeping or waking mad or well-advised? Know unto these and to myself disguised? I'll say as they say, and persevere so, and in this mist at all adventures go."

Act 2. sc 2. Later he questions his grasp on reality in a musing to himself. "The fellow is distract, and so am I, And here we wander in illusion." Act 4. Sc 3. Each of these sentiments show the kind of rising action that perplexes each character.

Moreover, we can identify crucial props used or referred to in the play that illustrate the binary structure between opposing forces and strategies. We find these objects mediate binary conflict experienced by characters.  

The spare mast that is used as a raft after the shipwreck and the rescue ships and ship quartered by Antipholus and Dromio of Syracuse away from the wicked city are instruments of salvation throughout the play that to take agents to safety. The characters caught in the middle of conflict look for the raft or ship to save them.  

The 1000 marks and gold coins illustrate conflict over economic power.

The chain and ring symbolize familial commitments that are quested.

The rope used by Antipholus of Ephesus to beat Dromio symbolizes class stratification between master and servant.

Probably the best symbol of the play’s main dramatic question is the locked door keeping Antipholus of Ephesus out of his house. It is a physical obstacle to resolution of all conflict and best illustrates the drama’s binary structure.

He demands a crow bar – symbolizing the conflict of using physical power -- to break down the door, however is diverted as the play’s conflicts rise.

More than any other character, the concept of binary opposition defines the patriarch of the Comedy of Errors. Egeon might seem more of a tragic character than a comic one, except that he lives in a world of highly implausible contrasts.  In Act one we find incongruity between the following elements.

The powerful Duke and the hapless Egeon

The feuding cities of Ephesus and Syracuse

Egeon pleading for mercy and his resignation to death

Egeon and his wife separated during the first two thirds of her pregnancy.

Wealthy Egeon’s twin sons and the twin sons of a poor woman

Stormy sea and calm sea

Half of the mast split into two by the mighty rock and the other half

His wife picked up by fishermen of Corinth and his own rescue ship headed in an opposite direction

Egeon and natural and supernatural forces that cause him trouble

The choice of Egeon for the father of the twins is also relevant to the theme. Egeon's name is associated with the Aegean Sea. According to Greek Myth Aegeus king of Athens gave his name to the sea. The etymology of the word means "of a goat".  

(K. M. Sheard. Liewellyn's Complete Book of Names, Liewellyn Publications, A Division of Likewellyn Worldwide Ltd. Woodbury, Minnesota. 2011. 35)

The sea is a symbol of chaos and suffering. His raft is split by the mighty rock, from which the name of the Aegean sea is derived. As a symbol of the fallen world of human suffering, Egeon is father of the twins. Other sources claim that the Aegean derived it's name from a island -- The mighty rock -- that split the mask -- looked like a goat and the Greek root for goat is agea.

Egeon is the play's scape goat. He faces execution similar to the crucifixion of Christ. He is placed in tragic opposition to the other farcical characters.  In act five the play’s characters gather to witness the execution in what would be an expiatory, sacrificial rite.  In The Rhetoric of Religion literary theorist Kenneth Burke explains one mode of human motivation as the need to transfer guilt onto a scapegoat who must be destroyed so that the community might experience the bond of collective redemption. Egeon’s plight as a displaced parent searching for lost sons makes him an innocent victim whose death would be all the more pitiful.

While Aegean is a symbol of the human condition, and tossed about by the chaos of suffering and powerlessness, the Duke is a symbol of social order, civilization and divine justice.

More binary dramatic action is revealed in Egeon’s view of himself as in opposition to natural and cosmic forces. Egeon personifies the heavens, the sun, time, fortune and the gods as all conspiring against him. The Duke refers to the old man’s plight as a result of the fates. “Hapless Egeon, whom the fates have mark'd to bear the extremity of dire mishap!”

Egeon is the victim chosen in the plot to bear the burden of death to uphold the social order. Egeon’s plight gives the play’s beginning and end symmetry.  The drama begins with Egeon’s defense before the Duke and it ends with his last plea before the Duke. Egeon sees who he thinks is his lost son and asks permission to speak to him, hoping that his son will pay the fine and save his life. But, when he speaks to Antipholus of Ephesus he is un-recognized and rebuffed. In a climate of rejection the Duke concludes that the old man must be senile.

Egeon 's sufferings are varied. He faces execution, is unable to pay his ransom because he spent all of his money searching for his lost sons, he is un-recognized by his son who is his last hope of redemption. The ravages of old age he endures with its afflictions and mental collapses seems oddly paired with the farcical speech of Antipholus of Syracuse in the final act raging against his comrades of falsely accruing him of madness.

After hearing the accusers and defenders of Antipholus of Syracuse the Duke concludes that everyone has lost the ability to reason. “I think you all have drunk of Circe's cup.”  This is an allusion to the drink of a monster in the Iliad that turns men into animals, so we see the binary pair of the irrationality of animal contrasted with sober reasoning of a human, such as the Duke.

In act five we learn that the mother of the twins, Amelia, was separated from her son and servant child soon after being rescued. She assumed the position of Abbess of a convent in Ephesus. The biblical city of Ephesus was said to be a place of sorcery and Antipholus of Syracuse tells us that he fears the power of witches and spirits present there. Here we find another feature of binary opposition in the plot – the contrast between profane sorcery and the sacred realm represented by the Abbess and her effort to give sanctuary to Antipholus of Syracuse and Dromio of Syracuse who flee to the convent for protection.

The climax of the play occurs immediately after Antipholus denies knowing Egeon three times. His denial might remind the audience of Saint Peter’s thrice denial of knowing Christ.  Egeon is left in despair. From his perspective he has been betrayed like Christ was by Peter. But, he is soon relieved when both sets of twin brothers appear together on stage and are recognized. Then to his delight the Abbess arrives to bring happy news that the entire family has actually been re-united. The Abbess banishes confusion that has caused everyone trouble to announce salvation.

Misunderstandings are mended and the Duke, who we learn was the benefactor of Antipholus of Ephesus, is overcome by the reunion and pardons Egeon who rejoins his wife. Egeon’s defense in act one begins by telling the Duke that he lived in joy with his wife before the separation. Now the play ends with his joyful reunion. Ideally following the arch of dramatic structure, the play returns us to a new state of equilibrium.

Finally the Abbess Amelia invites everyone to a reunion feast. In the last lines the two Dromio’s share jokes and circle each other as if looking into a mirror. The character’s exit in joy. The story ends with a feast, symbolically alluding to the idealized order envisioned by the biblical prophet Isaiah and the writer of the Book of Revelation who speak of a divine meal awaiting the righteous in heaven. The audience is warmed by the archetypical hope that one day humanity will celebrate victory over displacement, confusion and evil by joining together in a heavenly meal. The lost have been found. Everyone is safely home. The theme of the play that celebrates reconciled relationships turns the tragedy of our broken world into a comedy of joy.

 Read the play here. 

What part of Innocent Don't You Understand?

Taking a Stab at Abortion and Capital Punishment

by G J Gillespie


HAVE YOU EVER been at the beach and noticed when the tide changes? The water ebbs out for a few hours then a tipping point occurs and it begins to flow in. As we mature we may notice tide changes in our lives as well. 

A sea change occurred for me in November of 1985. I think of it every year. The shifts were occurring before then to be sure. I had just completed a Masters thesis on abortion rhetoric. It examined metaphors on both sides of the issue. It was well received by my committee.

A social movement study of abortion was a topic suggested by an advisor. I was determined to treat the issue fairly and with open mind and began heavy research. After reading hundreds of articles and dozens of books on both sides of the issue my desire for neutrality crumbled. The stories, statistics and mounting data drew me to the conclusion that mass abortion was a social evil.

It was then that I began to doubt my liberal outlook. My professors, role models and politicians who I had admired were defending aborting the lives of unborn children as a civil right. Now I was sure that they were wrong. I remember thinking: if the liberals are wrong about abortion, maybe they are wrong about Nicaragua? Maybe they are wrong about economics?

In the years previous, I had studied feminism and made fun of President Reagan. For some reason I wanted to gain the favor of liberal professors mentoring me. I certainly didn't want to let them think that just because I held to Christianity meant I ranked among the despised conservatives. I wanted to be cool. And enlightened. For my first presidential election in 1984 I chose to support liberal third party candidate John Anderson. I told surprised friends that I disagreed with him on some issues, but didn't like Carter and couldn't vote for Reagan.

Then the tipping point occurred. Newly hired at my dream job to teach at a small college near Seattle I received a phone call with bad news. My close friend Jeff Putnam, who I had been corresponding with while he lived in Mexico City with his sister and brother-in-law, had been murdered. I cried on the floor of my apartment, contemplating all the joys of life that Jeff would miss.

Grief was like entering an encompassing black abyss. It didn't seem real that such a good, vivacious person could suddenly be no more. Jeff who kept a notebook of his prayers so that he might marvel at checking off the answers. Jeff who had written about how disturbed he was to see poverty. He daily fed peanut butter sandwiches to two neighborhood boys, Jose and Lucio, because he couldn't tolerate living next to hungry children.

Jeff was out walking at 11:30 PM on November 9th (we don't know why) when he was confronted by a thief who stabbed him deeply in the abdomen. When the robber discovered that Jeff didn't have any money or wrist watch, he took the only possession of value he could find. His pair of glasses. Laying on the concrete sidewalk, covered in blood and in terrible pain, Jeff was able to give a passerby the phone number of his brother-in-law who reached his side in minutes. An ambulance was called. But, he died on the street at 12:15 AM. He called out for his mother as his last words. "Mom, mom."

Jeff and I shared a similar world view. We were idealists. Typical sophomores (literally "wise fools").  Outraged by the injustices and materialism of our elders, we spoke and wrote about creating a better world. We agreed with author G. K. Chesterton who said: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." If only we could follow the example of Christ. He accepted death on the cross rather than fight back. Shouldn't we? We became dorm room pacifists. No true follower in Jesus Christ, we reasoned, would go to war. He called us to take up our cross and follow him. Jesus wouldn't want us to resort to violence.

Based on the result of my graduate studies, I confided with him my new zeal against abortion. We laughed at the list of names I collected for the fetus used to justify "terminating" the life of the unborn. The dehumanizing labels sounded familiar to other acts of historic genocide.

My list of euphemisms straight from the pages of pro-choice literature included: "tissue, fetal matter, fetus, embryo, parasite, the feto-placental unit, mass of cells, fetal wastage, ejaculated-leavings-swelling-up-in-utero and -- my favorite -- the Products of Conception or POC for short. Jeff even had a tee shirt made for me as a gift for when I attended pro-life rallies. The back read: "Product of Conception." I loved wearing that shirt.

We desired to be consistent. So in addition to the wrong of abortion we equally objected to capital punishment as well. We concluded that capital punishment was a barbaric act of violence. It was wrong to kill unborn babies. It was wrong to kill criminals. We took as wisdom slogans like "Why should we kill people who kill people to show people that we shouldn't kill people?"

I spent a lot of time with Jeff's family in the weeks after the murder and even had the privilege of speaking at the funeral. None of us, as far as I knew, desired that the killer be executed. We had learned that the murderer had been caught and was in prison. We were glad that he was being punished. I don't know if he was executed.

We were simply stunned by the loss. One afternoon, I agreed to help his mother Billy clean up his room. It was strange to put familiar items of clothing that he wore into boxes for storage or for giving away. I was given some boxes of his writings -- notebooks of essays, poems and musings -- to take home as a caretaker.

We never thought that we would know the pain of families and friends of murder victims. But, we were not alone. That year 18,960 other American families also received the bad news that changed their lives forever.  18,960! 11,11980

Philosopher Emmanuel Kant argued that the only just punishment for taking a life is execution by the state. Any other punishment is of less value than the life taken, so to apply the lesser penalty is unfair. He may have been right. To execute a killer sends the message that murder is the ultimate crime because each human life is of utmost value. Capital punishment then does not devalue human life -- it upholds it.

Some proponents of capital punishment argue that a greater number of murderers should receive the ultimate punishment. Opponents take the opposite view saying that the punishment can never be fairly applied and should be abandoned entirely.

After thinking about these issues for a while now, my take is that both extremes are in error. Maybe we shouldn't execute every killer, but there are a few cases when capital punishment is most certainly just. (It doesn't take a lot of research to learn about these cases).  While capital punishment and abortion both take a life, the two are hardly equivalent.

Who are Innocent?

To clarify my position let me ask two questions: Who are the most innocent members of a society and who are the most guilty?

It would seem that by far the most innocent members of society are those people who are incapable of defending or taking care of themselves. These people cannot be held accountable for wrong doing based on a lack of physical power. Unborn children, babies, young children, and the mentally handicapped. These people have done nothing at all worthy of guilt. They are unstained, morally pure and blameless.

Now who are most guilty among us?

Well, that would be murderers, especially those guilty of premeditated murder in the first degree. Here a criminal did not act in a moment of passion, but deliberately planned to kill their victim and to escape detection. Sometimes murderers torture their victims. There are cases that include rape, torture then murder.

While we would like to believe that anyone who commits a viscious murder is insane, as is certainly the case at times, there are many examples when murders are carried out by people who are not technically insane, but are acting with the full resources of a sound mind.

While opponents of capital punishment argue that the possibility of executing an innocent person is justification for banning the punishment altogether, DNA evidence now makes proof of guilt extremely reliable.

And there are cases when murderers admit that they committed the crime. In cases when DNA or other evidence is ambiguous, the death penalty is rarely applied. In the vast majority of executions in the United States there is no doubt of the murderer's guilt.

In fact, only about one percent of people who commit murder are executed. Our society reserves execution for the very worst cases. It is reasonable to defend that system.

If capital punishment is unjustly applied, or is the result of racism, that is an argument against the justice system, not capital punishment itself. It would be like saying that since police radar is inaccurate 30 percent of the time we should refrain from giving anyone a ticket. No, that is an argument to fix the radar detectors. In the same way if a court is corrupt or racist, we need to correct the corruption and ban the racism.

If we haven't heard stories of horrendous murder crimes that cry out for the most severe punishment possible we are either uninformed or naive to the extent of evil in our world. To refuse to face the reality of evil is a serious flaw of imagination.  Adam Lanza murdered 20 children, ages 5 to 10, in their Connecticut school classroom. (It is true that he was mentally ill, but an example of evil is harder to find.) Timothy Mc Veigh killed hundreds -- including a day care full of children -- in the Oklahoma City bombing. Ted Bundy sexually tortured up to 100 women before killing them. There are cannibal murderers. Child murderers. Murderers who are imprisoned then released only to kill again.

While most murderers are rightly given life in prison as punishment, there are cases of murderers given prison terms who continue to kill -- fellow prisoners or guards or others when released early or while on parole.

Society has a right to protect citizens from these extreme killers. In fact, not to prosecute -- and in some cases execute -- murderers would be immoral. Just as most people fail to object to the right of police to use deadly force to stop violence against citizens or the right of our nation to send in the military to kill an enemy attempting to cause wide spread death and destruction, so capital punishment is moral.

Often the existence of capital punishment on the books is used as a bargaining chip to elicit those complicit in a murder case to cooperate and turn in accomplices. "If you cooperate and help us solve this crime, we will not press for the death penalty." With out this chip, many murder crimes would go unsolved, adding more pain to families of those killed.

Life sized model of a fetus at 12 weeks

When we think of abortion we discover that more than 30 percent of all pregnancies are aborted. Most abortions are done in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, but even at early stages there are recognizable anatomical features and brain cells developing. Unborn children routinely killed in abortions have finger nails, eye lashes, and a beating heart. Hundreds of thousands are performed in the later terms when the there is no doubt that the child feels pain. Abortion for these babies is truly violent and cruel.

Why do some people have more compassion for serial murderers than they do for innocent unborn children? It is illegal to cruelly kill a kitten or destroy the eggs of an endangered bird. Yet it is legal to destroy unborn children for any reason that a woman chooses. Women may be pressured into the decision by boyfriend, parents or ideologically driven counselors and later come to regret the choice.

Founding feminists knew that abortion is a false solution for women. Susan Anthony, in her publication The Revolution, observed:


"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

                      (Anthony, Susan, The Revolution, 4 (1):4 July 8, 1869)

In response to the pro choice chant, "Not the church, not the state, let women decide their fate!", pro-lifers shout: "Not the woman, not the state, let unborn children decide their fate!"

Where one group sees a choice, the other sees a child. When it comes down to a choice or a child, I will side with the child.  Seen this way opposition to abortion must become a civil imperative.

It is a biological fact that the human fetus is not part of the woman's body, since it has its own set of organs and unique DNA and sometimes a different sex or blood type. To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

The unborn child is as human as you or I and in a just society would receive full rights as a person. We know that the worst crimes of history -- slavery, genocide, death camps -- were based on the premise that there are some human beings who are not fully human and thus expendable. Labeling the pre-born as non-persons in order to justify killing them is the crime of our generation. No, the pre-born child is human. These fellow human beings are completely helpless and worthy of our compassion.

If a woman is in a difficult place and feels abortion is the only solution, we need to help her -- as the thousands of pregnancy help centers operated by abortion opponents across the nation tirelessly provide.

So, convicted murderers are guilty and unborn children are innocent. It is wrong to kill the innocent and it is right to punish the guilty. Therefor abortion of unborn children should be illegal in the vast majority of cases, just as capital punishment of killers should be legal in extreme cases.

I could be wrong. Perhaps another sea change of opinion is in store for me someday. If my friend Jeff were around, I sure would like to ask him what he thinks. I miss those discussions.






___________________________________
Postscript: In this personal essay I share why I became a conservative. 

Now I see everything though a different filter. Human dignity and freedom is harder to defend than we might think.

Ronald Reagan said it best in this 1983 article which I invite you to read: Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.

Organizations Focused on Capital Punishment

Down and Deep

Souls descend beneath slabs of rationality

Through fathoms of subterranean silt

To granite caverns dark and still

Where headwaters seep and 

Streams immortal brew

Up and far

From secret plots of solitude 

The living cast their prayers 

Past clouds of bronze

To quench desperate desires 

and wash troubled brows 

By and by

Dreamers sleep

and rest their heads on rocky beds

Dampened by rain and sleet

Where roots grow thick in sweet earth

And eternal boughs do shade 

-- GJ Gillespie

Fearful Symmetry

by G J  Gillespie


Go tell of symmetry
Ringing in the world
How it slips down the slough 
Spinning tentatively

Gasping with excitement
Spurred to reach the gate
We lift our heads to see
Final complementarity

A hundred bright spots
Burned up today
Leaving gray the sky
Balancing night with light

And with each sigh
Sings a somber lullaby
Longing too intense to taste
Music to fill empty space

Hear now this stellar narrative
Bringing mystery inside
To drive away dust and decay
In time to meet the dawn

Then hands will join
With hugs of kin
Lost centuries ago
In sunny contemplation

Away into a snow storm
Feathers beat in peace
Until all hope is made secure
And comfort sits like kings

 

 

 

 

Uncovered Dreams

Bare branches twitch
Narcissus break ground
Yellow tips like pursing lips
Struggle to speak

Eyelids spread in gleamer
Decrepit dreams yearn again
To balance between stone pavers
Like bags of rags in dirt

Covered in thick mulch
Frost bitten fingers
Clinch where rain steeps
Longing to burst with tongues of fire

Decaying debris stick together
Beneath the boxwood hedge
Limbs of purple crocus
Crack the mud patina

Bulbs swell in black beds
Blind stems stretch
Up from shallow pits
Of forgotten desires

Divinity of Christ 3. The Scriptures declare: His sinless life -- Universal Brokenness has its Root in Flawed Human Consciousness.

“We cannot grasp the true meaning of the divine holiness by thinking of someone or something very pure and then raising the concept to the highest degree we are capable of. God’s holiness is not simply the best we know infinitely bettered. We know nothing like the divine holiness. It stands apart, unique, unapproachable, incomprehensible and unattainable. The natural man is blind to it. He may fear God’s power and admire His wisdom, but His holiness he cannot even imagine.”

- A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

That we live in a broken universe is a physical fact. After the Big Bang when time, space and matter began to cool, different features we observe cascaded into existence. Once everything existed in a microscopic super hot primordial. As things cooled, each of the fundamental forces were formed -- gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetism. Each force "broke off" from a more unified state before, putting us in the middle of a physically broken universe.

In the same way, human society and psychology is broken. 

The brokenness may go deeper. It seems that human consciousness may have contaminated the universe with a backward in time effect that limits the potential that the Creator intended.  Flawed human consciousness -- that is there is something quite wrong with how we observe, think about and then act toward the world, ourselves and other-- is the source of all suffering, hurt, conflict, war, alienation and even death itself. 

Sin is a word that means offense. It is an attack upon God's inner observation of the outward expression of reality. 

A world without sin would have harmony between this inner observation of information and its outward expression. The idea and its expression fit together to form something beautiful. For example, a great work of art inspires awe in the mind of the observer. The inner aesthetic observation is perfectly tied to the artifact.  In a similar way, the act of seeing natural beauty -- an orchid, mountain lake or child's face -- is ennobling.  

The experience of seeing the perfect connection between the act of conscious observation and the reality observed produces a feeling of harmony. There is no information that is disconnected. This harmony is what sinlessness is like. 

The reality of the world that we live in differs from the ideal such that we are surprised by brief episodes of beauty that we do encounter. To see beauty we need to turn our attention to unspoiled natural landscapes or to great works of art or literature to get glimpses of perfection. 

Ultimately we encounter perfect holiness when we encounter the person of Jesus Christ.  He embodies sinlessness. By getting to know Christ we find that some of his holiness rubs off. By identifying with his life, death and resurrection we over come the effects of sin and begin the process of being changed into his likeness.  

Teologian A.W. Tozer refers to the quality of holiness almost as a luminous presence or fire that we can enter. We can gain knowledge of the holy. 

"The original root of the word holy was of something beyond, something strange and mysterious and awe-inspiring. When we consider the holiness of God we talk about something heavenly, full of awe, mysterious and fear-inspiring. Now, this is supreme when it relates to God, but it is also marked in men of God and deepens as men become more like God. 

"It is a sense of awareness of the other world, a mysterious quality and difference that has come to rest upon some men - that is a holiness. . . . Theologians long ago referred to it as the numinous, meaning that overplus of something that is more than righteous, but is righteous in a fearful, awe inspiring, wondrous, heavenly sense. It is as though it is marked with a brightness, glowing with a mysterious fire." ( I Call it Hersey, Chapter Five, "Holiness is Not an Option", by AW Tozer, 1974)

The radical brokenness of the universe -- which affects our own ability to think -- cuts us off from experiencing the presence of holiness. We are blind to the light of God's moral perfection and may not even realize that our existential nature is offensive. When we do approach his awesome presence we rightly experience mystery and overwhelming awe.

We sense a disconnection between our own "ought" and "what is". We aspire to live up to certain ideals, but fall short. We experience alienation from our own set of values. That which we know is right and desire to do, we do not do. 

Saint Paul, author of the book of Romans in the bible, put it this way:

"I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. . . . What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Romans Chapter 7: 15 - 17, 24a - 25. 

Beauty of the Lilies by GJ Gillespie

The holiness of God mends the brokenness and begins to conform the inner information that makes up who we are -- the genetic,  linguistic and cultural information pattern -- with the reality of our lives. The Holy Spirit fills the gap and applies the redemptive work of Christ on the cross to abolish the effects of sin. We must bask in the gaze of God. When we permit his consciousness to observe our inner being, our sin is burned away and we are transformed into his image. 

As the "new man" to replace the "old man", the mind of Christ makes up for the universal contamination of Adam's sin that spreads to all known reality both before and after. Christ is the first person born without sin and he himself never sinned. That is because the inner information of his being is in perfect harmony with God's observation of the outward expression of his life. Christ has led the way into a new kind of human existence marked by holiness. With God's help we are able to take this holy path towards Christ-likeness. We have hope to live without the effects of sin. In part now and fully one day. 

Back

Divinity of Christ 1

Divinity of Christ 2

Divinity of Christ 3

Divinity of Christ 4

Divinity of Christ 5