My parents can tell you that I was a curious child. I'm sure in fact that they would confirm both implications of the previous statement, but I want to focus on the questioning nature of a curious soul. My mother used to say I could ask the same question in 20 different ways. I did ask a lot of questions, and often those questions were the same question asked in different ways, because I wanted to make sure that I understood what was being said. Maybe it was because I was a bit thick sometimes, but I know that often I asked questions because I wanted to understand, well, everything.
I think that same principle animates most of us. Not that we realize that we want to know everything, but that we will not do that which we do not see the purpose to doing. For instance, to this day, I rarely make my bed, because I figure I'm going to get back into it anyhow, why bother making the sheets nice just so I can mess them up when I sleep? Besides, I figure leaving the sheets open in a bit of a tangle helps to air out the bed from where I was sleeping on it all night. But, if I know that I have a guest coming, or that, for whatever reason, someone may go into my room or see my bed, I'll take the time to make it, so as to keep a presentable room when necessary. (Fortunately I am married to a wonderful woman who thinks much the same as me in this area.)
I think this is the way most of us live. When we understand the purpose of something, we are willing to do it, we may even embrace an action that we find particularly meaningful. But, when we do not understand we are less willing to do what seems to be a hindrance. Sometimes we skip over what we think to be minor steps in an order of operations, and sometimes that is okay. But, sometimes what appears to be a small thing turns out to be a major thing. The problem is that we cannot understand everything, and sometimes we have to accept that what we are called to do we must do based on our faith in the one who has commanded it, and not based on our own wisdom and understanding.
I think that is what has happened with church discipline. There was a time when we understood that discipline was necessary, and was an integral part of our faith and our walk with God. Now a days, when people can simply go to any church and can move from place to place quickly, it seems more of a hindrance for a church to worry about discipline. However, if we understood how serious discipline really was, perhaps we would be willing to do it. Perhaps, if we understood how serious discipline is, we would embrace it as part of our culture once again.
I want to take a minute to explain what I mean by church discipline. To be honest, until I went to seminary, that term was not one I was familiar with. I belonged to what I have come to think of as the typical Southern Baptist church, one that did not practice church discipline, and had ceased to even teach on the subject at all. Thus I think there is perhaps a large portion of this generation of Christians (in America) who have no idea what church discipline is. I'll try and explain it briefly.
Church discipline, most narrowly conceived, is that process by which a church attempts to correct a wayward member. Usually this starts with one person confronting another with some specific and public sin. After that person has been confronted with this sin, if he refuses to repent and turn from his sin, whoever initially confronted him will bring others with them to confront the person again. After this second confrontation, if the person who has sinned still refuses to repent, then after an appropriate season of prayer, the matter will be brought before the congregation, and the whole congregation will then join in asking the person to repent (often this is done through letter from the congregation hand delivered to the person in question, if they refuse to come to the meeting arranged for this purpose). After this, if the person remains disobedient, the congregation will then move forward to discontinue fellowship with that person, basically saying that the person's continuous disobedience brings their salvation into question.
The last point here addresses the seriousness of church discipline carried through to its end on an unrepentant person. The goal is to make clear that the behavior of the person in question is such that it cannot be tolerated by the church, and that no Christian should willingly engage in this behavior. Therefore, the response of the church, if fellowship is withdrawn, is not that the church is saying, "We don't like you" instead the church is saying, "We cannot discern that you really are a Christian, and because we do not want you to be confusion as to your eternal state, we are going to treat you as a non-Christian, so that you may realize your need for Christ and repent of your sin." Discipline is thus the most loving thing a church can do, because discipline takes seriously the question of a person's eternal fate, and encourages people to examine themselves before God that they may know if they are condemned.
But, because of the very serious nature of discipline carried out this far, it ought not be done for light matters. For matters that can be shrugged off the church should bear with, and bear up, the weaker brother, so that his faith may be strengthened. Judgment ought to be reserved for matters of clear sin, not for petty arguments and complaints. Moreover, discipline ought only ever be done for matters of public sin. "He said, she said" arguments ought never go to the point of discipline, because the matter is private, and ought to be resolved privately.
But, church discipline should not really be that narrowly conceived. The fact is that discipleship is discipline. When we tell someone that God needs to be Lord of his life, and that God has certain ways he wants things done, then we are asking them to submit to church discipline. The goal is to get the person so disciplined in spiritual matters that he can go on to train and discipline others, creating a cycle of discipleship and discipline that glorifies God through many lives. Everything the church does, from encouraging prayer and bible reading, to practicing witnessing and faithful living, is discipline. That means that we need to always be open to rebuke, to correction, and to encouragement, in every aspect of our spiritual lives.
Hebrews says that our fathers punished us for a time as they saw fit, and that no man enjoys discipline while he is going through it. But, the end result of discipline is that a man is better prepared for life, discipline is good. Likewise Hebrews says our Father does the same for us, that he disciplines us for our good. Therefore, the teaching of Hebrews is that discipline from God, when rightly understood is for our benefit. Thus, though it is painful, we should embrace it, because it will bring us glory on the day that Christ is revealed.
Often I have read this verse and thought of the discipline that I have gone through in various trials and troubles in life. From learning to do with little do to unemployment and poverty, to learning to enjoy the simple of things of life through having possessions stripped away from me, I thought this was discipline. It has taken me a long time to realize that God does not just discipline through these events, but also through the church. Those who have come along beside me, my brothers who have prayed for me, my sisters who have shared with me, my family who has taught me and walked with me in good times and bad, they have been the discipline of God in my life, and that discipline has been good for me, and good to me.
Discipline, godly discipline, is good in every way. We ought to embrace discipline, training one another, correcting one another, loving one another enough to share not only in the good, but in the bad as well. We think of discipline as only the hard times when a brother or sister refuses our correction, and we forget that the one who hardens his back is the one who is not being disciplined, because he will not submit. We, who remain pliable clay in the hands of God, are the ones who are disciplined, and we find joy because of that discipline. Sometimes we must disassociate with someone, because we want to love the stubborn soul. Embrace discipline when it first comes upon you, and discipline others as well, because we are the tools of God, his hands and feet in performing his will here on earth.
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morality. Show all posts
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
What Really Matters?
One of my favorite books in the Bible is the book of Job. There is something about the way that Job suffered despite his righteousness that appeals to me. The sovereignty of God, the antagonism of Satan, the desperation of a man attacked by forces he cannot control or understand, the misery of that man as he finds himself forsaken by friends and family, and the confusion of that man as he isn't even sure whether his God still cares for him or not, all wrapped up in the beauty of poetry. The book of Job talks about the events of life that all of us face, just as the other wisdom books in Scripture, Proverbs, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes, but with one major difference. The difference in the wisdom of Job is that it is not just songs or sayings or a thought out dissertation on the importance of wisdom, it is the story of a man's life and the wisdom gleaned from that life as it was lived in history.
One of the lessons I have been thinking about lately from the book of Job comes from an old insight that was brought to my attention. I honestly cannot remember who brought this particular point to my attention. Most likely it was my father. While he did not teach me everything I know about theology and Scripture, he certainly taught me a great deal. The insight was simply this: Job was never told why all of his misfortunes came upon him.
Often people make this point as they seek to illustrate that Scripture does not apologize for what God does. They are right about that, of course. Scripture never seeks to defend God from the charge that he allows evil or does evil. Scripture simply presents the reality that God does what he wants to do and is sovereign over all things. Thus, while the writers of Scripture are certainly aware of the problem of evil, that seemingly wicked things happen to seemingly righteous individuals, their answer is only that God is control of all things. Job definitely agrees with this perspective, as God's final interaction with Job reminds Job that he is but a man, and should not question the sovereign will and authority of the one who made him.
But, this point, that Scripture does not seek to defend God against the charge of evil, and the way that Job's problem is eventually resolved, simply by God's choosing to bless him at the end of the story, brings another point to mind. That point is best addressed by the question, "What really matters?" Was it Job's possessions, his health, his friendships or his family that really mattered at the end of the book? Yes, Job got all of those things back, and in the case of his possessions he received double, but was that the point of the book?
The real point of the book is not Job's suffering. It is not Job's loss or his righteousness. All that Job suffers and endures is but the backdrop for the conversation, which builds to one specific point: the glory of God. What really matters in Job, the crucial point that we must grasp, is that no matter what happens, God is worthy of worship and praise.
Consider why Elihu was angry with Job. Job sought to defend his own righteousness instead of God's. Elihu was not concerned that Job might have sinned in some way, Elihu was not concerned that Job might be accusing God of some wickedness or misbehavior. Elihu was concerned that the righteousness of God was not being proclaimed by a suffering Job.
Think of that. Elihu wanted Job to put aside his own pain and suffering and give God glory for who he is. Elihu waited patiently before saying anything because of the wisdom of his elders, but finally his patience gave way as the older men became silent. Consider how the text introduces Elihu to us: But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. (Job 32:2) Elihu understood that what was really important was not that Job's integrity should be defended, but that God's character should be declared.
What is really important is not that any of us are ever vindicated in this life. We may be persecuted, rightly or wrongly. We may be poor, or we may be rich. We may suffer, or we may seem to pass through life with ease and comfort our consistent friends, but what does any of that matter? Our lives, if we live one hundred years or one thousand years, are still brief, and not worth comparing to the history of the world. What really matters is that we proclaim the goodness of God, the glory of God, and the character of God, so that he may be made known throughout all the world.
We are not seeking to defend God, he is not in need of our weak protestations. We are seeking to justify God in our lives, to give him the glory of his work on our behalf. We seek to vindicate God before those who would question his justice or his integrity, not by mere arguments, but by acknowledging that all that is done is done according to his wisdom. Job failed to do this in his arguments.
Job argued that he was righteous, he argued that if he could bring his argument before God, then maybe he could convince God to let him alone. But that mode of thought fails to realize that God knows full well what he is doing, and does not need to be counseled or advised in any way.
Does God not know our predicament? Is he ignorant of our plight? Is our suffering somehow lost on the God who created us and who acts with all righteousness? Why then would we think that we could bring argument against him to make him change his mind? Instead of thinking we can advise God, we ought to tell everyone of how good God is, even in the midst of our pain and suffering.
Perhaps Job began with some understanding of this reality. When Job lost his children and his possessions he tore his robe, shaved his head, fell to the ground and worshiped God. Even when Job lost his health and his wife turned on him advising him to curse God and die, Job said to her, "Should we accept good from God and not evil?" (Job 2:9) And though Job never sinned against God or accused God of anything improper, in the midst of the accusations from his friends, Job seems to have forgotten the goodness of God and that he is worthy of worship, no matter what happens in our lives.
Is it enough to be righteous? No matter how good we may be, we will never be pure and holy as God is pure and holy. No matter how just and righteous we may be, we will always be filthy compared to the spotless person of our God. Because of this, ought we not give God the glory in every situation? No matter what we suffer, it cannot diminish the wonder of God, so do not be overcome with evil, but overcome every evil situation with good, remembering the God we serve will vindicate us at the coming of Christ, so we do not need to vindicate ourselves, especially not before him.
One of the lessons I have been thinking about lately from the book of Job comes from an old insight that was brought to my attention. I honestly cannot remember who brought this particular point to my attention. Most likely it was my father. While he did not teach me everything I know about theology and Scripture, he certainly taught me a great deal. The insight was simply this: Job was never told why all of his misfortunes came upon him.
Often people make this point as they seek to illustrate that Scripture does not apologize for what God does. They are right about that, of course. Scripture never seeks to defend God from the charge that he allows evil or does evil. Scripture simply presents the reality that God does what he wants to do and is sovereign over all things. Thus, while the writers of Scripture are certainly aware of the problem of evil, that seemingly wicked things happen to seemingly righteous individuals, their answer is only that God is control of all things. Job definitely agrees with this perspective, as God's final interaction with Job reminds Job that he is but a man, and should not question the sovereign will and authority of the one who made him.
But, this point, that Scripture does not seek to defend God against the charge of evil, and the way that Job's problem is eventually resolved, simply by God's choosing to bless him at the end of the story, brings another point to mind. That point is best addressed by the question, "What really matters?" Was it Job's possessions, his health, his friendships or his family that really mattered at the end of the book? Yes, Job got all of those things back, and in the case of his possessions he received double, but was that the point of the book?
The real point of the book is not Job's suffering. It is not Job's loss or his righteousness. All that Job suffers and endures is but the backdrop for the conversation, which builds to one specific point: the glory of God. What really matters in Job, the crucial point that we must grasp, is that no matter what happens, God is worthy of worship and praise.
Consider why Elihu was angry with Job. Job sought to defend his own righteousness instead of God's. Elihu was not concerned that Job might have sinned in some way, Elihu was not concerned that Job might be accusing God of some wickedness or misbehavior. Elihu was concerned that the righteousness of God was not being proclaimed by a suffering Job.
Think of that. Elihu wanted Job to put aside his own pain and suffering and give God glory for who he is. Elihu waited patiently before saying anything because of the wisdom of his elders, but finally his patience gave way as the older men became silent. Consider how the text introduces Elihu to us: But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. (Job 32:2) Elihu understood that what was really important was not that Job's integrity should be defended, but that God's character should be declared.
What is really important is not that any of us are ever vindicated in this life. We may be persecuted, rightly or wrongly. We may be poor, or we may be rich. We may suffer, or we may seem to pass through life with ease and comfort our consistent friends, but what does any of that matter? Our lives, if we live one hundred years or one thousand years, are still brief, and not worth comparing to the history of the world. What really matters is that we proclaim the goodness of God, the glory of God, and the character of God, so that he may be made known throughout all the world.
We are not seeking to defend God, he is not in need of our weak protestations. We are seeking to justify God in our lives, to give him the glory of his work on our behalf. We seek to vindicate God before those who would question his justice or his integrity, not by mere arguments, but by acknowledging that all that is done is done according to his wisdom. Job failed to do this in his arguments.
Job argued that he was righteous, he argued that if he could bring his argument before God, then maybe he could convince God to let him alone. But that mode of thought fails to realize that God knows full well what he is doing, and does not need to be counseled or advised in any way.
Does God not know our predicament? Is he ignorant of our plight? Is our suffering somehow lost on the God who created us and who acts with all righteousness? Why then would we think that we could bring argument against him to make him change his mind? Instead of thinking we can advise God, we ought to tell everyone of how good God is, even in the midst of our pain and suffering.
Perhaps Job began with some understanding of this reality. When Job lost his children and his possessions he tore his robe, shaved his head, fell to the ground and worshiped God. Even when Job lost his health and his wife turned on him advising him to curse God and die, Job said to her, "Should we accept good from God and not evil?" (Job 2:9) And though Job never sinned against God or accused God of anything improper, in the midst of the accusations from his friends, Job seems to have forgotten the goodness of God and that he is worthy of worship, no matter what happens in our lives.
Is it enough to be righteous? No matter how good we may be, we will never be pure and holy as God is pure and holy. No matter how just and righteous we may be, we will always be filthy compared to the spotless person of our God. Because of this, ought we not give God the glory in every situation? No matter what we suffer, it cannot diminish the wonder of God, so do not be overcome with evil, but overcome every evil situation with good, remembering the God we serve will vindicate us at the coming of Christ, so we do not need to vindicate ourselves, especially not before him.
Friday, September 10, 2010
The Right Thing for the Wrong Reason?
By now, if you've been watching or reading the news, you should be aware that the pastor who was going to burn Qur'ans tomorrow has decided to call off the event. Unfortunately his reasons for canceling the event were not due to concern for his fellow Christians who are serving as missionaries over seas. Nor did he call of his plans because he saw the offense it would cause within the Muslim world and the way it would negatively impact the spreading of the gospel. His reason, according to the news, was because he claims the Imam who is building the community center and mosque at Ground Zero promised him that the mosque would be moved.
In short it appears that the right thing is being done, but the reasoning behind these actions is all based on worldly concerns. It ought to always be the goal of the Christian to glorify God and to spread the gospel. This pastor seems to confuse American with Christian.
Too much has been made of this event by the media, so that a fringe lunatic became an international sensation. But, one thing that has come out of this event is that we were able to be reminded that there is a stark differences between what concerns the world, and what concerns the church. While the world was concerned about social and political unrest, and rightly so, what they missed was the profound spiritual impact of this event. The cross of Christ truly is nonsense to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God to salvation. Let us always remember that our focus needs to be different than the world's.
In short it appears that the right thing is being done, but the reasoning behind these actions is all based on worldly concerns. It ought to always be the goal of the Christian to glorify God and to spread the gospel. This pastor seems to confuse American with Christian.
Too much has been made of this event by the media, so that a fringe lunatic became an international sensation. But, one thing that has come out of this event is that we were able to be reminded that there is a stark differences between what concerns the world, and what concerns the church. While the world was concerned about social and political unrest, and rightly so, what they missed was the profound spiritual impact of this event. The cross of Christ truly is nonsense to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God to salvation. Let us always remember that our focus needs to be different than the world's.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
A Missing Conscience
Most people don't think they are evil. I can't remember where that quote came from, but I find it to be true. Usually a thief will have some reason he steals, that is he justifies himself by saying that he has no choice, or he needs what he takes, or something of that nature. Likewise with almost anyone who commits a crime, and likewise with us too. We find plenty of reasons to excuse our actions, our thoughts, and our attitudes, after all, we're only human, right?
I worry that this generation seems to be even worse than previous generations at justifying nearly every act imaginable. I know that every generation seems to be the worst generation ever. I'm sure that 1500 years ago someone somewhere was making comments about how the kids don't respect their parents any more, hanging upside down half-naked from the pear trees in the yard instead of dutifully doing the chores they were assigned. But, we really do seem to have a moral disconnect in this generation, where people just don't understand that there are such things as good and evil. If I'm right, then that poses a certain difficulty for the church, because now we have to train people not only in Christian behavior, but in thinking about morality in general.
Don't get me wrong, this generation, the one I belong to and the one right after mine (I shudder sometimes when I realize that I am now old enough to note that there is a generation after mine, I suppose it is the inevitable result of the passing of time, but one does not think of that in youth) aren't complete moral anarchists. We still understand that stealing is wrong, usually. We still understand sleeping with another person's spouse is wicked, most of the time. We still get the fact that there are others around us and we should be considerate of them, with exceptions. I guess the real problem is that we've learned (wrongly) that nothing is really absolute, and so everything becomes relative, even morality.
Living in such an age isn't an entirely bad thing though. The truth is that for Christians we live in perhaps a better time than our parents grew up in, because of immorality. When we live and act according to the way Christ has commanded us, we really can be radically different. That doesn't mean that there are no good people left in the world, that only Christians have ethics, but that our ethic is distinct in this time and age. Our ethic is different because it calls upon us to consider others as better than ourselves, it requires us to be sacrificial in how we treat those we do not know. We live in a great age to demonstrate the difference between Christ and the god of this world.
I know some will ask, "What commands are you talking about?" Christ makes clear that love is the defining principle behind all the law and prophets. He says, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and and with all your soul,' this is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" He also says, "Whatever you would have someone do for you, do that for them. Upon this hangs all the law and the prophets." (Pardon if I messed up a word there, I'm quoting off the top of my head and I get my translations mixed up, sometimes combining them.)
But, I want to make clear my affirmation to what Paul says also, Christians are not under the law, we are under grace. We do not have to serve the law of love as though it will somehow make us righteous, rather because we are under the grace of Christ how we act ought to show that the law of love flows from us. We are no longer children, enslaved under the law so that love is a burden and a challenge, we are the children of God, coming to maturity in Christ, so that love is a gift given to us by our holy and righteous Savior. Why should we slave under the law, finding it a burden and a challenge, when we can embrace with great joy the opportunity to fellowship with the Spirit of God in doing good works?
Remember, we do those works which God has prepared for us to do, which he does through us. We are not struggling to be moral, we are righteous and forgiven, therefore how can we act in any way but that which is moral? To be immoral is to turn back to the flesh from which we were redeemed. Why should we now be enslaved again under that which we have been freed from by the awesome power of God?
We have an opportunity to live lives that really do set us apart from others. We can love like no one else. We can put others before ourselves and serve to the glory of God. We will be taken advantage of, we will be mocked and insulted, but we will also reach some who have been forgotten by a generation that no longer remembers how to think about morality. But, we need to think about what would do, we need to bring our minds under the control of the Spirit, that we might see how we can serve others, we need to be a people to whom morality matters.
If we would be a moral people, we cannot excuse ourselves or justify ourselves for anything, but we must acknowledge our failings. We have to reflect upon the fact that we do not always act morally, so that we can learn from our mistakes. Paul commands us to be not conformed any longer to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Unless we reflect upon our own thoughts and our own deeds, we can never fully reflect the glory of Christ as he would have us to do.
We are justified in Christ, so we have no need to condemn ourselves for our actions, but we also have no need to excuse our actions. We can face our immorality because we are forgiven. We can acknowledge our evil before God and pray that he will change us, so that an unjust generation might know the justification we have experienced. We can love because we are loved, and we must love or we make our God a liar. Let us contemplate in each action and in every situation, what does love look like in this situation; let us be consistent in loving God and loving our neighbor, not under the enslavement of law, but because we are free.
I worry that this generation seems to be even worse than previous generations at justifying nearly every act imaginable. I know that every generation seems to be the worst generation ever. I'm sure that 1500 years ago someone somewhere was making comments about how the kids don't respect their parents any more, hanging upside down half-naked from the pear trees in the yard instead of dutifully doing the chores they were assigned. But, we really do seem to have a moral disconnect in this generation, where people just don't understand that there are such things as good and evil. If I'm right, then that poses a certain difficulty for the church, because now we have to train people not only in Christian behavior, but in thinking about morality in general.
Don't get me wrong, this generation, the one I belong to and the one right after mine (I shudder sometimes when I realize that I am now old enough to note that there is a generation after mine, I suppose it is the inevitable result of the passing of time, but one does not think of that in youth) aren't complete moral anarchists. We still understand that stealing is wrong, usually. We still understand sleeping with another person's spouse is wicked, most of the time. We still get the fact that there are others around us and we should be considerate of them, with exceptions. I guess the real problem is that we've learned (wrongly) that nothing is really absolute, and so everything becomes relative, even morality.
Living in such an age isn't an entirely bad thing though. The truth is that for Christians we live in perhaps a better time than our parents grew up in, because of immorality. When we live and act according to the way Christ has commanded us, we really can be radically different. That doesn't mean that there are no good people left in the world, that only Christians have ethics, but that our ethic is distinct in this time and age. Our ethic is different because it calls upon us to consider others as better than ourselves, it requires us to be sacrificial in how we treat those we do not know. We live in a great age to demonstrate the difference between Christ and the god of this world.
I know some will ask, "What commands are you talking about?" Christ makes clear that love is the defining principle behind all the law and prophets. He says, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and and with all your soul,' this is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" He also says, "Whatever you would have someone do for you, do that for them. Upon this hangs all the law and the prophets." (Pardon if I messed up a word there, I'm quoting off the top of my head and I get my translations mixed up, sometimes combining them.)
But, I want to make clear my affirmation to what Paul says also, Christians are not under the law, we are under grace. We do not have to serve the law of love as though it will somehow make us righteous, rather because we are under the grace of Christ how we act ought to show that the law of love flows from us. We are no longer children, enslaved under the law so that love is a burden and a challenge, we are the children of God, coming to maturity in Christ, so that love is a gift given to us by our holy and righteous Savior. Why should we slave under the law, finding it a burden and a challenge, when we can embrace with great joy the opportunity to fellowship with the Spirit of God in doing good works?
Remember, we do those works which God has prepared for us to do, which he does through us. We are not struggling to be moral, we are righteous and forgiven, therefore how can we act in any way but that which is moral? To be immoral is to turn back to the flesh from which we were redeemed. Why should we now be enslaved again under that which we have been freed from by the awesome power of God?
We have an opportunity to live lives that really do set us apart from others. We can love like no one else. We can put others before ourselves and serve to the glory of God. We will be taken advantage of, we will be mocked and insulted, but we will also reach some who have been forgotten by a generation that no longer remembers how to think about morality. But, we need to think about what would do, we need to bring our minds under the control of the Spirit, that we might see how we can serve others, we need to be a people to whom morality matters.
If we would be a moral people, we cannot excuse ourselves or justify ourselves for anything, but we must acknowledge our failings. We have to reflect upon the fact that we do not always act morally, so that we can learn from our mistakes. Paul commands us to be not conformed any longer to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Unless we reflect upon our own thoughts and our own deeds, we can never fully reflect the glory of Christ as he would have us to do.
We are justified in Christ, so we have no need to condemn ourselves for our actions, but we also have no need to excuse our actions. We can face our immorality because we are forgiven. We can acknowledge our evil before God and pray that he will change us, so that an unjust generation might know the justification we have experienced. We can love because we are loved, and we must love or we make our God a liar. Let us contemplate in each action and in every situation, what does love look like in this situation; let us be consistent in loving God and loving our neighbor, not under the enslavement of law, but because we are free.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Hero Worship
I remember before graduating seminary talking to my wife about heroes. I was wondering if there was any culture, any civilization, that did not have some kind of heroic myths that were passed from generation to generation. Granted, I don't know every culture that has ever existed, and though my background is in history, most of my historical studies have been constrained to Medieval Europe, and have been more focused on technology, philosophy, and religion than stories. But, every civilization I can think of, from the ancient Greeks to the medieval Chinese, to the American Indians, all of them had stories about heroes. The heroes could differ from situation to situation, sometimes a man and sometimes a woman, sometimes a great warrior and sometimes a cunning trickster, but they were all heroes.
It seems to me a hero has to do at least two things in order to be a hero. A hero has to accomplish some great task that others were incapable of achieving, and a hero has to save either a person or a group of people. More than that though, the task accomplished has to be somehow attached to the act of saving. What I mean is that a hero cannot perform some incredible feat of evil, and then go on to save a group of people in a minor act and still be considered a hero. A true hero has to achieve an act of great nobility, and it must be the noble act which saves people.
I told my wife that Hamlet, I think, is a great example of a hero (though a tragic one). Think of Hamlet, a man who is born to a position of power and authority, who has that taken from him by a conniving and wicked uncle. Then, as his father's apparition confronts Hamlet with what has happened Hamlet realizes that he has basically two options: he can commit suicide, or he can try and avenge his father. To avenge his father Hamlet acts crazy, tries to drive away Ophelia, though he is unsuccessful, and ultimately dies. Yes, Hamlet is a tragic character, and his death could have been avoided, but he accomplishes a great good in that he slays his father's murderer and he rids the throne of Denmark of the stain that would have tainted it had Claudius lived.
I started thinking about heroes again because of the prevalence of comic book movies. I liked comics when I was growing up. I enjoyed Spider Man, X-Men, and any number of other heroes. I didn't care for the sometimes sermonizing and patronizing way some of the stories were written, but I liked the characters. Every kid imagines having amazing powers, but what I liked about the comics I read was that despite the characters' amazing powers, they always had a powerful evil they had to fight against. It was never enough that they had to fight some external foe, they always had some internal struggle they had to face at the same time, and conquering the latter would often lead to conquering the former.
It seems like that same formula is common with most heroes. Hercules became great because of the great deeds he performed, but he performed those great deeds because of his sometimes stupid actions. For instance, in one telling of the story of Hercules rescuing Alcestis, he traveled to Hades and wrestled with Thanatos (death) because he had been drinking instead of mourning with his friend. Similarly, it was because Hercules had been overcome with madness and had slain his own children that he was sentenced to perform the 10 labors (that became 12). Hercules great deeds were in response to his own failings, so that his actions were overcoming his personal faults.
I bring this up because it seems like we all need a hero. We need to believe in someone who demonstrates that men can overcome their own limitations and achieve greatness. We need to believe that we can strive to be like that person; we can be better than we are and do something great. We may think heroes are just myths, but it is the ideal of the hero that inspires us to try when it seems like all hope is lost.
As I thought about the heroes that have come down to us, and the heroes we have created I began to wonder something. Obviously, heroes live from generation to generation not just because they teach us, but because they inspire us, we want to believe in the heroic, even if we don't believe in a specific hero. But why? Why do we believe in the heroic? I wonder if it isn't because that is the way we were made by God, I wonder if he did not build the desire for heroes into us.
If God did build in that desire for heroes it would make a lot of sense. After all, one of the historic teachings of Christianity is that God calls all men to come to him for salvation. And what greater hero story can we have than the story of Christ himself? God took on the form of man, he took on the weakness and needs of humanity, faced temptation, refused to sin, and despite it all he was killed by men who were sold out to wickedness. But, even in the face of defeat, Christ rose from the dead, he rose and became the victor, though to every appearance he was the greatest loser of all time.
Because of the death and resurrection of Christ we can be better than we are without him. God gives us the Holy Spirit, so that we can live victoriously despite every defeat we seem to suffer. We have a true hero, who demonstrates to us that we can be heroic too. Not that we achieve anything apart from Christ, but we can do all things through him who died upon the cross for us. We long for heroes because we need a hero, we need someone who really can rescue us from every danger, even death itself.
I guess my point is that hero worship is okay. It is good for culture to have heroes, to believe that the sacrifice of one can be sufficient to rescue many. When people understand this they are more prepared to understand the gospel of Christ. We don't need to rage against the imperfect hero, but we need to point people to the perfect that inspires all other imitations. Christ is the archetype of the hero, suffering, a man like us, yet powerful, more than we could ever be, God himself in human form, our savior, our true and perfect hero. Hero worship is okay, when we are worshiping the one who really is our hero.
It seems to me a hero has to do at least two things in order to be a hero. A hero has to accomplish some great task that others were incapable of achieving, and a hero has to save either a person or a group of people. More than that though, the task accomplished has to be somehow attached to the act of saving. What I mean is that a hero cannot perform some incredible feat of evil, and then go on to save a group of people in a minor act and still be considered a hero. A true hero has to achieve an act of great nobility, and it must be the noble act which saves people.
I told my wife that Hamlet, I think, is a great example of a hero (though a tragic one). Think of Hamlet, a man who is born to a position of power and authority, who has that taken from him by a conniving and wicked uncle. Then, as his father's apparition confronts Hamlet with what has happened Hamlet realizes that he has basically two options: he can commit suicide, or he can try and avenge his father. To avenge his father Hamlet acts crazy, tries to drive away Ophelia, though he is unsuccessful, and ultimately dies. Yes, Hamlet is a tragic character, and his death could have been avoided, but he accomplishes a great good in that he slays his father's murderer and he rids the throne of Denmark of the stain that would have tainted it had Claudius lived.
I started thinking about heroes again because of the prevalence of comic book movies. I liked comics when I was growing up. I enjoyed Spider Man, X-Men, and any number of other heroes. I didn't care for the sometimes sermonizing and patronizing way some of the stories were written, but I liked the characters. Every kid imagines having amazing powers, but what I liked about the comics I read was that despite the characters' amazing powers, they always had a powerful evil they had to fight against. It was never enough that they had to fight some external foe, they always had some internal struggle they had to face at the same time, and conquering the latter would often lead to conquering the former.
It seems like that same formula is common with most heroes. Hercules became great because of the great deeds he performed, but he performed those great deeds because of his sometimes stupid actions. For instance, in one telling of the story of Hercules rescuing Alcestis, he traveled to Hades and wrestled with Thanatos (death) because he had been drinking instead of mourning with his friend. Similarly, it was because Hercules had been overcome with madness and had slain his own children that he was sentenced to perform the 10 labors (that became 12). Hercules great deeds were in response to his own failings, so that his actions were overcoming his personal faults.
I bring this up because it seems like we all need a hero. We need to believe in someone who demonstrates that men can overcome their own limitations and achieve greatness. We need to believe that we can strive to be like that person; we can be better than we are and do something great. We may think heroes are just myths, but it is the ideal of the hero that inspires us to try when it seems like all hope is lost.
As I thought about the heroes that have come down to us, and the heroes we have created I began to wonder something. Obviously, heroes live from generation to generation not just because they teach us, but because they inspire us, we want to believe in the heroic, even if we don't believe in a specific hero. But why? Why do we believe in the heroic? I wonder if it isn't because that is the way we were made by God, I wonder if he did not build the desire for heroes into us.
If God did build in that desire for heroes it would make a lot of sense. After all, one of the historic teachings of Christianity is that God calls all men to come to him for salvation. And what greater hero story can we have than the story of Christ himself? God took on the form of man, he took on the weakness and needs of humanity, faced temptation, refused to sin, and despite it all he was killed by men who were sold out to wickedness. But, even in the face of defeat, Christ rose from the dead, he rose and became the victor, though to every appearance he was the greatest loser of all time.
Because of the death and resurrection of Christ we can be better than we are without him. God gives us the Holy Spirit, so that we can live victoriously despite every defeat we seem to suffer. We have a true hero, who demonstrates to us that we can be heroic too. Not that we achieve anything apart from Christ, but we can do all things through him who died upon the cross for us. We long for heroes because we need a hero, we need someone who really can rescue us from every danger, even death itself.
I guess my point is that hero worship is okay. It is good for culture to have heroes, to believe that the sacrifice of one can be sufficient to rescue many. When people understand this they are more prepared to understand the gospel of Christ. We don't need to rage against the imperfect hero, but we need to point people to the perfect that inspires all other imitations. Christ is the archetype of the hero, suffering, a man like us, yet powerful, more than we could ever be, God himself in human form, our savior, our true and perfect hero. Hero worship is okay, when we are worshiping the one who really is our hero.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Holiness? part 2
Okay, yesterday I began laying out a method by which Christians are able to determine what we should do in any given situation. Because of the length of the post I decided to divide it into two parts. The part yesterday discussed how we take a story we find in Scripture and derive a principle from it for the sake of application to our own lives. I noted that the method I am using is called the analogy of faith, and that it is an old method that has been passed down for hundreds of years. However, I want to clarify a little bit on the use of that term.
The term, "analogy of faith" most properly understood means that Scripture interprets itself. What I mean by this is that Scripture does not ever contradict itself. Therefore, the analogy of faith, in its purest form means that when we read one passage of Scripture we interpret that passage in light of the rest of Scripture, so that there is no contradiction. So, if there is a passage, such as James, that says you are saved by works, but there is overwhelming evidence throughout the rest of Scripture that works do not save you (as is the case) we are either left with a contradiction, or we are misunderstanding the text. The normal resolution in the above example is that what James meant when he said you are saved is that your faith is proven true, that is that faith must necessarily lead to works, or it not a true saving faith. This means that James is using the term "saved" differently than Paul. Whether or not you find this convincing (and I think it is if you read James' argument in context) will be based on whether you hold that all of Scripture is inspired by God, and therefore cannot be contradictory.
However the term "analogy of faith" has a broader meaning also, meaning that which conforms to the teaching and doctrine of Scripture. In other words, when we rightly apply Scripture we must use an analogy of faith, so that our practice is not contradictory to the teaching of Scripture. Because Scripture, rightly understood, cannot contradict Scripture, our lives also ought not contradict what is in Scripture. This holds true because the same God that inspired Scripture has called us to live like Christ. Because Christ is the incarnation of the Word of God, the life of Christ conforms to the teaching of Scripture, therefore our lives ought to conform to the teaching of Scripture as well.
As I said initially, for a Christian "holiness" and "morality" are basically interchangeable ideas. Holiness means living lives set apart to the glory of God. If we are to be moral we must be holy, because God is the absolute measurement of all that is good. So, when we seek to be moral we must determine what best reflects the perfect goodness of God, and do that. Being moral alone may not necessarily lead to holiness, but seeking holiness will require us to live morally. Therefore, when we come across a principle in Scripture that shows us, "This is what God would have of his people" we need to apply that principle to our own lives and live in light of it.
Previously we discussed how to apply the analogy of faith to what we read in Scripture, specifically looking at a single narrative example, and even then looking at only one part of that narrative example. We could have asked additional questions of that narrative, like, for instance, if we recognize that adultery is wrong based on the story of David and Bathsheba, what should we do if we are already in an adulterous relationship? Well, in order to answer that question we could look at the end of the story and see that David repented, and so we should also repent. But, then we would need to determine what repentance means in our instance.
If we were to ask this question it would be like the second situation I mentioned yesterday, what if you were faced with the option of cheating on your taxes to avoid paying the government some money? I'm assuming you are in a position where you could get away with the cheating, that you are sure you won't get caught and therefore the question is a purely moral question. Am I allowed to do this based on Scripture? In order to answer these kinds of questions we need to have either some familiarity with the Bible, or we need to know how to do a bible search for relevant passages. After all, if we want to follow the analogy of faith we need to know what Scripture teaches in order to conform our behavior to Scripture.
In all reality, these are likely going to be the more nagging questions than "What does this section of Scripture teach?" If we come to a section of Scripture we don't understand we can always mark it and come back to it later, but when we are faced with a real moral choice we cannot always postpone the decision to come back to it later. Thus these questions will be more pressing, and more nagging because we may wonder for some time afterward if we made the right decision. So, let's address these questions.
First, we need to know what Scripture says. So, for the tax question, we can turn to Romans 13:6-7 and Matthew 22:15-22. We can use these two sections of Scripture because they both speak directly the issue of paying taxes. Paul says that we should pay taxes to whoever taxes are due. Jesus says we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Now, in the case of the second example we have to take a small step and move up from "Caesar" to "whatever government is in power." But, we can see the principle at work in Jesus words, and Paul basically distills that principle down for us, giving it to us directly in Romans 13. So, Scripture commands us to pay our taxes, therefore we can't cheat on them.
But, what if we are already in an adulterous relationship? Well, we see that David begs for God's forgiveness, but he doesn't divorce Bathsheba. Should I continue to sleep with a married woman, or sleep with a woman who isn't my wife as long as I recognize it is sin and ask for forgiveness? What does Paul say about sin, in general? If we look to Romans 6:1-2 we see that Paul tells us that if we have died to sin, that is if we are in Christ, then it is abominable that we should continue on in sin. Likewise James gives us a principle we can apply here in James 4:17, "So, whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." What we are left with then is that if we know that adultery is a sin, and we know that we are called to stop sinning, it is not enough to simply know it is wrong and ask God to forgive me, I have to stop the relationship.
This principle, that a Christian should not continue on in Sin, but that we should do that which we know to be good is the foundation of our morality. John says it like so, "but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked." (1 John 2:5-6) We are called to walk like Christ, and that means we must conform our lives to Scripture. To this we may add Christ's words, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." The Christian ethic conforms to the ideal of love.
Indeed this ideal of love is why we should read Scripture. For if God has written Scripture to instruct us in righteousness, and we are called to love God, shouldn't we desire to be righteous? Shouldn't we, therefore, make a point of studying Scripture, so we might know how to live in a way that is pleasing to God? We fulfill thus the law of love in not sinning against our neighbor, in not sinning against God, and in not continuing in any sin in ignorance. Reading Scripture is part of the way we fulfill our obligation to love God and our neighbor, doing to them what we would have them do to us.
So then, in order to live a holy life, we must understand how to apply Scripture to our lives. That means we must know how to determine the principles that are in Scripture, and that we must know Scripture and search it out when we are confronted with moral questions. But, living a holy life also means that we need to be informed about modern issues. For instance, I have written on stem cell research, homosexual marriage, even politics (though I still have that one pending to post to the blog) and honoring mothers and fathers. But while most of those things may be discussed in Scripture, there is certainly nothing in the bible about stem cells, rocket fuel, cars, alternative energy, democratic government, or even computers and blogs, does that mean that we cannot make moral statements about any of those things? No, instead we must know what Scripture says, what principles are in Scripture, and we must understand the issues that face us in the modern day, that way we can know what principles from Scripture to apply to whatever issue we are facing.
For instance, I argued against embryonic stem cell research based on the fact that the only way to generate those cell lines we would use for experimentation come from destroyed embryos. Thus, I held that because we are destroying a human life (not a potential human life, but an actual human life) we are sinning to do so, and any research that is done must necessarily be tainted by the immorality of that action. But, my position is only correct if I'm right that embryos are human lives. Therefore I am making a biological claim based on the scientific information available to me: embryos are human lives because as soon as a sperm and an egg meet the resulting entity is a new human life. The only way I can make that claim is to first understand the science that is being discussed.
Our obligation to live lives of of holiness means we have to live those lives in the times and places we live. I cannot live in A.D. 300, because this is A.D. 2010. I have to live a life of holiness today, and that means I have to engage with my culture as it exists today. We are obligated to know Scripture, and our own current cultures as much as is reasonable, so that we can know the right thing to do in every situation with which we might be confronted. Christian morality is hard, because it requires us to be informed, it requires us to use logic, and it requires us to be willing to take positions that might be unpopular, if that is what we are called to by the Word of God.
But remember, James promises us that God will give us wisdom if we ask him, believing that he is good and gives good things to those who seek him. James also says that if we will humble ourselves God will give more grace. If we make a mistake we still have Christ as our savior. The love of God is not limited to saving only those who sin willfully. But, we need to always be seeking wisdom from God, and asking him to reveal our sin, that we might be holy, no longer continuing in sin, but walking in the light of Christ.
The term, "analogy of faith" most properly understood means that Scripture interprets itself. What I mean by this is that Scripture does not ever contradict itself. Therefore, the analogy of faith, in its purest form means that when we read one passage of Scripture we interpret that passage in light of the rest of Scripture, so that there is no contradiction. So, if there is a passage, such as James, that says you are saved by works, but there is overwhelming evidence throughout the rest of Scripture that works do not save you (as is the case) we are either left with a contradiction, or we are misunderstanding the text. The normal resolution in the above example is that what James meant when he said you are saved is that your faith is proven true, that is that faith must necessarily lead to works, or it not a true saving faith. This means that James is using the term "saved" differently than Paul. Whether or not you find this convincing (and I think it is if you read James' argument in context) will be based on whether you hold that all of Scripture is inspired by God, and therefore cannot be contradictory.
However the term "analogy of faith" has a broader meaning also, meaning that which conforms to the teaching and doctrine of Scripture. In other words, when we rightly apply Scripture we must use an analogy of faith, so that our practice is not contradictory to the teaching of Scripture. Because Scripture, rightly understood, cannot contradict Scripture, our lives also ought not contradict what is in Scripture. This holds true because the same God that inspired Scripture has called us to live like Christ. Because Christ is the incarnation of the Word of God, the life of Christ conforms to the teaching of Scripture, therefore our lives ought to conform to the teaching of Scripture as well.
As I said initially, for a Christian "holiness" and "morality" are basically interchangeable ideas. Holiness means living lives set apart to the glory of God. If we are to be moral we must be holy, because God is the absolute measurement of all that is good. So, when we seek to be moral we must determine what best reflects the perfect goodness of God, and do that. Being moral alone may not necessarily lead to holiness, but seeking holiness will require us to live morally. Therefore, when we come across a principle in Scripture that shows us, "This is what God would have of his people" we need to apply that principle to our own lives and live in light of it.
Previously we discussed how to apply the analogy of faith to what we read in Scripture, specifically looking at a single narrative example, and even then looking at only one part of that narrative example. We could have asked additional questions of that narrative, like, for instance, if we recognize that adultery is wrong based on the story of David and Bathsheba, what should we do if we are already in an adulterous relationship? Well, in order to answer that question we could look at the end of the story and see that David repented, and so we should also repent. But, then we would need to determine what repentance means in our instance.
If we were to ask this question it would be like the second situation I mentioned yesterday, what if you were faced with the option of cheating on your taxes to avoid paying the government some money? I'm assuming you are in a position where you could get away with the cheating, that you are sure you won't get caught and therefore the question is a purely moral question. Am I allowed to do this based on Scripture? In order to answer these kinds of questions we need to have either some familiarity with the Bible, or we need to know how to do a bible search for relevant passages. After all, if we want to follow the analogy of faith we need to know what Scripture teaches in order to conform our behavior to Scripture.
In all reality, these are likely going to be the more nagging questions than "What does this section of Scripture teach?" If we come to a section of Scripture we don't understand we can always mark it and come back to it later, but when we are faced with a real moral choice we cannot always postpone the decision to come back to it later. Thus these questions will be more pressing, and more nagging because we may wonder for some time afterward if we made the right decision. So, let's address these questions.
First, we need to know what Scripture says. So, for the tax question, we can turn to Romans 13:6-7 and Matthew 22:15-22. We can use these two sections of Scripture because they both speak directly the issue of paying taxes. Paul says that we should pay taxes to whoever taxes are due. Jesus says we should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Now, in the case of the second example we have to take a small step and move up from "Caesar" to "whatever government is in power." But, we can see the principle at work in Jesus words, and Paul basically distills that principle down for us, giving it to us directly in Romans 13. So, Scripture commands us to pay our taxes, therefore we can't cheat on them.
But, what if we are already in an adulterous relationship? Well, we see that David begs for God's forgiveness, but he doesn't divorce Bathsheba. Should I continue to sleep with a married woman, or sleep with a woman who isn't my wife as long as I recognize it is sin and ask for forgiveness? What does Paul say about sin, in general? If we look to Romans 6:1-2 we see that Paul tells us that if we have died to sin, that is if we are in Christ, then it is abominable that we should continue on in sin. Likewise James gives us a principle we can apply here in James 4:17, "So, whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." What we are left with then is that if we know that adultery is a sin, and we know that we are called to stop sinning, it is not enough to simply know it is wrong and ask God to forgive me, I have to stop the relationship.
This principle, that a Christian should not continue on in Sin, but that we should do that which we know to be good is the foundation of our morality. John says it like so, "but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked." (1 John 2:5-6) We are called to walk like Christ, and that means we must conform our lives to Scripture. To this we may add Christ's words, "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." The Christian ethic conforms to the ideal of love.
Indeed this ideal of love is why we should read Scripture. For if God has written Scripture to instruct us in righteousness, and we are called to love God, shouldn't we desire to be righteous? Shouldn't we, therefore, make a point of studying Scripture, so we might know how to live in a way that is pleasing to God? We fulfill thus the law of love in not sinning against our neighbor, in not sinning against God, and in not continuing in any sin in ignorance. Reading Scripture is part of the way we fulfill our obligation to love God and our neighbor, doing to them what we would have them do to us.
So then, in order to live a holy life, we must understand how to apply Scripture to our lives. That means we must know how to determine the principles that are in Scripture, and that we must know Scripture and search it out when we are confronted with moral questions. But, living a holy life also means that we need to be informed about modern issues. For instance, I have written on stem cell research, homosexual marriage, even politics (though I still have that one pending to post to the blog) and honoring mothers and fathers. But while most of those things may be discussed in Scripture, there is certainly nothing in the bible about stem cells, rocket fuel, cars, alternative energy, democratic government, or even computers and blogs, does that mean that we cannot make moral statements about any of those things? No, instead we must know what Scripture says, what principles are in Scripture, and we must understand the issues that face us in the modern day, that way we can know what principles from Scripture to apply to whatever issue we are facing.
For instance, I argued against embryonic stem cell research based on the fact that the only way to generate those cell lines we would use for experimentation come from destroyed embryos. Thus, I held that because we are destroying a human life (not a potential human life, but an actual human life) we are sinning to do so, and any research that is done must necessarily be tainted by the immorality of that action. But, my position is only correct if I'm right that embryos are human lives. Therefore I am making a biological claim based on the scientific information available to me: embryos are human lives because as soon as a sperm and an egg meet the resulting entity is a new human life. The only way I can make that claim is to first understand the science that is being discussed.
Our obligation to live lives of of holiness means we have to live those lives in the times and places we live. I cannot live in A.D. 300, because this is A.D. 2010. I have to live a life of holiness today, and that means I have to engage with my culture as it exists today. We are obligated to know Scripture, and our own current cultures as much as is reasonable, so that we can know the right thing to do in every situation with which we might be confronted. Christian morality is hard, because it requires us to be informed, it requires us to use logic, and it requires us to be willing to take positions that might be unpopular, if that is what we are called to by the Word of God.
But remember, James promises us that God will give us wisdom if we ask him, believing that he is good and gives good things to those who seek him. James also says that if we will humble ourselves God will give more grace. If we make a mistake we still have Christ as our savior. The love of God is not limited to saving only those who sin willfully. But, we need to always be seeking wisdom from God, and asking him to reveal our sin, that we might be holy, no longer continuing in sin, but walking in the light of Christ.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Holiness?
I have, for the last several posts, attempted to be somewhat more conversational and less professorial, however, I want to talk about a subject today that is difficult to address in a purely conversational tone. I want to address the issue of morality. From a Christian perspective I think morality and holiness are somewhat interchangeable. While we certainly teach our children to be moral and holy without using obscure arguments or purely logical argumentation, it is hard to express an overall scheme of morality without the use of logical argumentation.
In defense of the use of logic, I want to note that I don't think logic has to be boring. In fact logic ought to be compelling and forceful. Unfortunately many of us do not have extensive exercise in logic. We have long since moved away from philosophical terms like syllogisms, ultimate causes, and things as means versus things as an end unto themselves. Moving away from purely academic terms isn't an entirely bad thing, the scholarly and antiseptic logic of a classroom can cause us to miss the moral reality of certain situations. An example is in the debate over abortion. If we ask, "Is it morally acceptable to treat a fetus as an entity of secondary importance, utilizing its immediate separation from the primary entity as a means to an end, if the end is the overall increase in general happiness of those primary entities existing at the current time?" then we denude this proposal of its real moral force. The real moral force of the question becomes evident when asked in this way: "Is it okay to forcibly extract a baby from its mothers womb, killing it and treating it as less than human, if in doing so we placate the desire of the mother?"
Logic, far from being boring, is in fact absolutely essential for a life of holiness, a life to which the Christian is called. In fact, logic is necessary for any life at all. You cannot long live if you completely ignore the normal rules of logic, unless you have a very devoted individual seeking to protect you from your own stupidity. A man who walks out into every street without looking, and walks in the midst of traffic because the road is easier to walk on than a broken sidewalk is an idiot. Such an individual ignores the basic use of logic: recklessly walking out in the middle of a road with fast moving vehicles without giving those vehicles any heed will likely get you killed.
So, because logic does not have to be boring, I invite you to join me for a quick examination on the use of logic in forming a Christian system of ethics. I don't intend to lay out a complete system here, but to illustrate the method of logical progression that we can use for any situation in order to determine what would be the best course of action in that situation. The goal is not so much to create a post where you can look and say, "okay, what did he say about this situation" as it is to show the method of thought that will lead to an answer, even when faced with a difficult problem. Of course this is not a system that I have developed myself, rather it is the analogy of faith that has been taught and handed down through Christendom for hundreds of years. It is also the method that pastors often use to examine a text and derive the principles from that text that apply to a congregation, so that every text teaches an applicable truth to which we ought to conform.
Okay, so I used the term, "analogy of faith" what on earth does that mean? Basically it means that using a "this is like that" comparison for any issue we read about in Scripture, we can derive a principle from Scripture that teaches us how we should live faithfully today. This can work in two different ways: I can read Scripture and find a situation, like David's adultery with Bathsheba, and attempt to determine what that situation would teach me about how I should live today, or, conversely, I could find myself in a situation today, such as being faced with the option of lying on my taxes, and want to know what Scripture teaches on that subject. In either case we are faced with one situation and we want to know what the moral thing to do would be, based on that situation. Which side we start on does not ultimately matter, though starting on the side of Scripture may be somewhat easier if we are unfamiliar with the bible.
So, I gave two examples, but I didn't explain how we might work those out, lets look at one. In the case of David committing adultery with Bathsheba we have to read the whole story in order to determine what it teaches us about morality and how we should live today. There is no real moral imperative given in the text, "Let the reader be aware! This is how you should act..." does not appear in this story. So what we have to do is look at the situation of David and what he did, and figure out how that situation might apply to us today. Let's take the time to do that.
1) David did not go out to war with his men. 2) David saw Bathsheba bathing on a rooftop and desired her. 3) David called Bathsheba to himself. 4) David slept with Bathsheba. 5) When Bathsheba reported she was pregnant David sent for her husband. 6) David tried to get Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba, so he could make Uriah think he got Bathsheba pregnant, but failed. 7) David arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle so he could take Bathsheba to himself to hide the fact he got her pregnant. 8) David was confronted by Nathan and chastised, and told that because of his sin his son would die. 9) David repented and begged for God's forgiveness. 10) God forgave David, but his son still died as a result of his sinful behavior. 11) God loved Solomon, born to Bathsheba, and placed him next in the Davidic line.
Okay, so a lot happened. The basic issue though is what we can learn from the story as far as how we ought to behave currently. Potentially the following could be moral issues, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. I'm excluding 5 because it is simply the report of a fact, we don't normally say reporting something is moral or immoral, it is simply someone telling someone else the truth. 8 is not a directly moral issue, though there is perhaps a secondary moral issue, and we can address that issue later. 10 and 11 are God's determinative actions for David and Solomon; while there may be something going on here, again the moral question would be secondary, at best.
So then, the primary moral flow of the story could go like this: David didn't go to war and lead his men like kings were supposed to in that time, this lead to him seeing Bathsheba bathing and lusting after her, after which he committed adultery with her and attempted to cover it up, leading the murder of Uriah and God punishing David. If we read on in 2 Samuel 12:26-28 it seems that David should have been at Rabbah with his men, particularly based on what Joab says to him. So David's first error was in not leading his army. We would have difficulty making a direct application of that concept to ourselves as few of us are supposed to lead an army. The whole situation derived from this one error though, so let us look at David's error and see if there is any principle we can derive from it to apply to ourselves.
Let's look at the number of steps we might proceed with to get a full understanding of the moral implications of this story: Direct application- we should not stay home if our job is the lead the army out to war, or we might accidentally see a woman bathing and commit adultery with her, leading to a host of other immoral actions. Derived application, step one- We should not avoid our responsibilities lest we are lead into temptation and eventually great sin. Derived application, step two- We should seek to be busy fulfilling our responsibilities, so we do not come into temptation or great sin. Derived application, step three- We should seek to be busy doing whatever good things we can so that give temptation as little opportunity to occur in our lives as possible, so that we are protected from sin.
Notice that the derived applications seek to determine the principle that is at work in the direct application. Also notice that the second derived application takes the negative principle at play in the first derived application and turns it into a positive command. Finally, note that the third derived application take the command of the second derived application and then broadens it, so that it becomes even more applicable to our every day lives. The derived applications are logical applications of the story to our own lives, but they are not directly stated in the story.
Now a quick comment on the derived applications: you do not have to go through all these steps in each situation. Sometimes you will already have a positive example, so there is no need to derive a positive command from a negative. Sometimes the negative will be more applicable to your specific situation. The goal is to find a principle that can apply to us where we are, so that we can see what Scripture would command us to do, and what it would command us not to do. In some situations it may be difficult to determine the principle at play in a given section of Scripture (such as the laws of Leviticus or the genealogical records of Nehemiah or Numbers). In those situations we can either seek out commentaries to help us understand the text, or we ask someone else to help us understand how that section of Scripture should inform us.
According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 all of Scripture is useful to us. Sometimes we may have difficulty determining the specific principle for application in a given text, but that does not mean that Scripture does not have application. We must be familiar with as much of Scripture as we can, living by those areas that are most clear to us and seeking through additional reading and study that other sections would become clear to us over time. Peter said that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand, and he was an apostle who knew Paul personally! But, let us not think Scripture is too difficult for us to understand, the fact is that most of it is as simple as the example of David and Bathsheba above, and it contains all the principles we need to be thoroughly trained in righteousness.
This post is already quite long, so I will not go into the second example today, but I will go over that tomorrow.
In defense of the use of logic, I want to note that I don't think logic has to be boring. In fact logic ought to be compelling and forceful. Unfortunately many of us do not have extensive exercise in logic. We have long since moved away from philosophical terms like syllogisms, ultimate causes, and things as means versus things as an end unto themselves. Moving away from purely academic terms isn't an entirely bad thing, the scholarly and antiseptic logic of a classroom can cause us to miss the moral reality of certain situations. An example is in the debate over abortion. If we ask, "Is it morally acceptable to treat a fetus as an entity of secondary importance, utilizing its immediate separation from the primary entity as a means to an end, if the end is the overall increase in general happiness of those primary entities existing at the current time?" then we denude this proposal of its real moral force. The real moral force of the question becomes evident when asked in this way: "Is it okay to forcibly extract a baby from its mothers womb, killing it and treating it as less than human, if in doing so we placate the desire of the mother?"
Logic, far from being boring, is in fact absolutely essential for a life of holiness, a life to which the Christian is called. In fact, logic is necessary for any life at all. You cannot long live if you completely ignore the normal rules of logic, unless you have a very devoted individual seeking to protect you from your own stupidity. A man who walks out into every street without looking, and walks in the midst of traffic because the road is easier to walk on than a broken sidewalk is an idiot. Such an individual ignores the basic use of logic: recklessly walking out in the middle of a road with fast moving vehicles without giving those vehicles any heed will likely get you killed.
So, because logic does not have to be boring, I invite you to join me for a quick examination on the use of logic in forming a Christian system of ethics. I don't intend to lay out a complete system here, but to illustrate the method of logical progression that we can use for any situation in order to determine what would be the best course of action in that situation. The goal is not so much to create a post where you can look and say, "okay, what did he say about this situation" as it is to show the method of thought that will lead to an answer, even when faced with a difficult problem. Of course this is not a system that I have developed myself, rather it is the analogy of faith that has been taught and handed down through Christendom for hundreds of years. It is also the method that pastors often use to examine a text and derive the principles from that text that apply to a congregation, so that every text teaches an applicable truth to which we ought to conform.
Okay, so I used the term, "analogy of faith" what on earth does that mean? Basically it means that using a "this is like that" comparison for any issue we read about in Scripture, we can derive a principle from Scripture that teaches us how we should live faithfully today. This can work in two different ways: I can read Scripture and find a situation, like David's adultery with Bathsheba, and attempt to determine what that situation would teach me about how I should live today, or, conversely, I could find myself in a situation today, such as being faced with the option of lying on my taxes, and want to know what Scripture teaches on that subject. In either case we are faced with one situation and we want to know what the moral thing to do would be, based on that situation. Which side we start on does not ultimately matter, though starting on the side of Scripture may be somewhat easier if we are unfamiliar with the bible.
So, I gave two examples, but I didn't explain how we might work those out, lets look at one. In the case of David committing adultery with Bathsheba we have to read the whole story in order to determine what it teaches us about morality and how we should live today. There is no real moral imperative given in the text, "Let the reader be aware! This is how you should act..." does not appear in this story. So what we have to do is look at the situation of David and what he did, and figure out how that situation might apply to us today. Let's take the time to do that.
1) David did not go out to war with his men. 2) David saw Bathsheba bathing on a rooftop and desired her. 3) David called Bathsheba to himself. 4) David slept with Bathsheba. 5) When Bathsheba reported she was pregnant David sent for her husband. 6) David tried to get Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba, so he could make Uriah think he got Bathsheba pregnant, but failed. 7) David arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle so he could take Bathsheba to himself to hide the fact he got her pregnant. 8) David was confronted by Nathan and chastised, and told that because of his sin his son would die. 9) David repented and begged for God's forgiveness. 10) God forgave David, but his son still died as a result of his sinful behavior. 11) God loved Solomon, born to Bathsheba, and placed him next in the Davidic line.
Okay, so a lot happened. The basic issue though is what we can learn from the story as far as how we ought to behave currently. Potentially the following could be moral issues, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. I'm excluding 5 because it is simply the report of a fact, we don't normally say reporting something is moral or immoral, it is simply someone telling someone else the truth. 8 is not a directly moral issue, though there is perhaps a secondary moral issue, and we can address that issue later. 10 and 11 are God's determinative actions for David and Solomon; while there may be something going on here, again the moral question would be secondary, at best.
So then, the primary moral flow of the story could go like this: David didn't go to war and lead his men like kings were supposed to in that time, this lead to him seeing Bathsheba bathing and lusting after her, after which he committed adultery with her and attempted to cover it up, leading the murder of Uriah and God punishing David. If we read on in 2 Samuel 12:26-28 it seems that David should have been at Rabbah with his men, particularly based on what Joab says to him. So David's first error was in not leading his army. We would have difficulty making a direct application of that concept to ourselves as few of us are supposed to lead an army. The whole situation derived from this one error though, so let us look at David's error and see if there is any principle we can derive from it to apply to ourselves.
Let's look at the number of steps we might proceed with to get a full understanding of the moral implications of this story: Direct application- we should not stay home if our job is the lead the army out to war, or we might accidentally see a woman bathing and commit adultery with her, leading to a host of other immoral actions. Derived application, step one- We should not avoid our responsibilities lest we are lead into temptation and eventually great sin. Derived application, step two- We should seek to be busy fulfilling our responsibilities, so we do not come into temptation or great sin. Derived application, step three- We should seek to be busy doing whatever good things we can so that give temptation as little opportunity to occur in our lives as possible, so that we are protected from sin.
Notice that the derived applications seek to determine the principle that is at work in the direct application. Also notice that the second derived application takes the negative principle at play in the first derived application and turns it into a positive command. Finally, note that the third derived application take the command of the second derived application and then broadens it, so that it becomes even more applicable to our every day lives. The derived applications are logical applications of the story to our own lives, but they are not directly stated in the story.
Now a quick comment on the derived applications: you do not have to go through all these steps in each situation. Sometimes you will already have a positive example, so there is no need to derive a positive command from a negative. Sometimes the negative will be more applicable to your specific situation. The goal is to find a principle that can apply to us where we are, so that we can see what Scripture would command us to do, and what it would command us not to do. In some situations it may be difficult to determine the principle at play in a given section of Scripture (such as the laws of Leviticus or the genealogical records of Nehemiah or Numbers). In those situations we can either seek out commentaries to help us understand the text, or we ask someone else to help us understand how that section of Scripture should inform us.
According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 all of Scripture is useful to us. Sometimes we may have difficulty determining the specific principle for application in a given text, but that does not mean that Scripture does not have application. We must be familiar with as much of Scripture as we can, living by those areas that are most clear to us and seeking through additional reading and study that other sections would become clear to us over time. Peter said that some of Paul's writings were hard to understand, and he was an apostle who knew Paul personally! But, let us not think Scripture is too difficult for us to understand, the fact is that most of it is as simple as the example of David and Bathsheba above, and it contains all the principles we need to be thoroughly trained in righteousness.
This post is already quite long, so I will not go into the second example today, but I will go over that tomorrow.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
My Stance on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
I had a kind friend write to me to point out what he felt were some deficiencies in my position on embryonic stem cells. Because I entered into the last post without giving a thorough defense of my own position, I thought I would post this so that those who are interested might see what I think, and why I am against embryonic stem cell research as it done today. Because this is a response to an email sent to me you may have to read between the lines a little to see what my friend was stating, however, I think my response was thorough enough that you can understand his position and mine from this post.
As a disclaimer, I want to note that I asked his permission to post this comment. I always intend to respect those who wish to keep dialogue private, so you do not have to worry that I'm going to post a long response to anything you email me about, unless you just want it posted. The text of my response email follows:
Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for your comments. I was actually fully aware of everything you noted here (he wrote to me to mention that most of the stem cells used in embryonic stem cell research come from embryos generated by in vitro fertilization, and that the embryos used are donated for the purpose of science, and that they would otherwise be destroyed). None of this changes my position though. My position is: once an egg and a sperm have been joined such that there results a joining of DNA and naturally occurring cellular division and reproduction, that entity is now a new human life. Therefore, because embryonic stem cells are derived from the destruction of these embryos it is an unethical and immoral area of study, due to the fact that it necessarily requires the destruction of a human life in order for research to be conducted.
The issue for me is not where or how the egg is fertilized. My own personal position (and that of my wife) is that if we were unable to naturally conceive, we would adopt. We would not go the route of in vitro feritilization. However, I have no actual moral complaint against women who do go that route, so long as they have fully considered the reality of what they are doing and have weighed their options. I do believe that some couples have acted selfishly in conceiving in vitro, however, couples act selfishly in adopting and in natural pregnancy, so I can hardly raise that as a complaint. Certainly I wouldn't argue that because one person has abused the system the whole enterprise is immoral.
As far as the egg being incapable of surviving on its own, of course it cannot survive on its own. No egg once fertilized can survive on its own. The very nature of any human act of reproduction requires a womb for the baby to develop. The reality that the egg cannot survive outside of the womb does not negate its very real humanity though. This argument is akin to saying that a scientist could remove (in some fashion) an egg that has just implanted itself in a woman's womb, and then say, "I have not killed the child, it simply cannot survive outside of the womb, therefore I should use it to experiment." The issue is not whether it (the embryo) was implanted at any given time nor whether it could survive outside the womb at any given time, the issue is what "it" is.
As to the throwing away of embryos, I do find this to be a rather abhorrent situation. Most embryos are frozen for extended periods of time, and quite safely at that, so we can store embryos as a stop-gap for our current situation. I would fully agree that embryos ought not be destroyed. One possible solution that I think rightly answers the seriousness of the situation are embryo adoption groups who seek to stop the destruction of innocent children by finding those will adopt the embryos and raise them as their children. Hopefully, with the ability to safely preserve embryos, those willing to adopt unused embryos, and the advancement of in vitro fertilization, the number of embryos destroyed will decrease and eventually stopped altogether.
I am aware that most science requires years of study in order to advance to a particularly useful point. Stem cell research, in general, has advanced to the point where over 70 different treatments are being done using them. All of these have been derived from adult stem cells though. I have come across only one treatment that I know of where embryonic stem cells have been used to derive a treatment (for a form of blindness). I am sure that additional treatments will be developed in the coming years and decades, perhaps even additional treatments from embryonic stem cells, but no amount of time will change the morality of committing murder today for the sake of future benefit.
There are also those who make (perhaps valid) arguments that embryonic stem cell research, while not yielding cures, is helping us to better understand early biological developments and cellular development in general, in ways that adult stem cells do not. This research, it is argued, has multiple uses and much value, and is invaluable in itself because of how it deepens our understanding of biology. These arguments do not change my position any more than the arguments that we are deriving cells from embryos that would be destroyed. My argument is not against the research being done, nor even the question of whether there is valid research being done, such arguments, to me, are secondary. My argument is, and remains, solely with the means of deriving the materials necessary for the research being done.
Allow me to give you what I consider to be a valid example of my position: Imagine, if you will, that a scientist argued (reasonably) that, if he were allowed to kill 10 babies he could utilize the material from those babies to develop potentially life saving research. He would not steal babies, he would only use deformed babies who had been abandoned at hospitals and who would die within 3 months. However, he could not wait for those babies to die naturally, he had to, instead, actually kill the babies in order to conduct his research. He would kill the babies quickly, they would feel no pain, and he could not guarantee results, but he was confident that within 20 years he could have some results.
Would it be okay with you if he conducted the research? Would it be right to fund that research with public money? Would any amount of results make his research ethical? What if he could guarantee results within 5 years? What if he only needed to use 2 babies? My argument is that such research, regardless of its rewards, regardless of its potential, regardless of its potential "return on investment" would be immoral, because it relies upon the murder of innocent human lives. Because I believe that God is the creator of life, and that he creates a new life at the moment of conception, I believe that it is murder to destroy embryos for research, and thus any research conducted from that position is immoral.
We do not make life, we can only bring together physical components (egg and sperm) God actually creates the life that results. Therefore, for us to murder that life, at any stage, is an act of immorality. When we determine who has the right to live and die based on what value they may contribute to us as a society, or to science as an experimental specimen, we begin to play God. This is the temptation of Satan in the Garden, "You can become like God, knowing (determining) good and evil." This is the root of all human sin, our decision to place our ethics above God's clearly revealed will.
Those who would argue against my position must first convince themselves of one thing: what we are destroying, when we kill and embryo, is not a human life. Yes, it is undergoing cellular development, yes if placed within its most natural environment, (a womb) it has the potential to grow and develop all the way to the point of birth as a baby, yes it has human DNA and is rightly recognized as an independent living organism, but it is still not a human. My complaint with embryonic stem cell research thus rests upon the same foundation of my argument against abortion: we do not create life, and we do not get to determine when a human becomes a human. Because of the very serious moral complaint that God could raise against us, we are better to err on the side of caution, that we may seek the blessings of God in the rest of our lives. Let us not assume a wisdom beyond ourselves, but rather recognize that when confronted with a mystery, it is best that we act humbly and move cautiously, lest we overextend ourselves and stride proudly into sin.
Now, since I have laid out quite thoroughly why I am against embryonic stem cell research, I do want to say that I am not entirely against embryonic stem cell research. If there were a means of deriving embryonic stem cells not related to the destruction of embryos I would have no compunction against research done on those cells. Thus, if there were, for instance, some way that scientists could derive embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords, or if they were able to harvest some from embryonic fluid withdrawn during necessary in utero surgeries, or some other means, then I would not be against doing research based on those cell lines. (However, if scientists withdrew embryonic fluid solely for the purpose of attempting to harvest embryonic stem cells, and thus endangered a pregnancy, I would be against that.) The issue for me is entirely the means by which the cell lines are developed, and as long as even one embryo is destroyed, or one child needlessly endangered, I will continue to protest that this is an act of gross immorality.
Caiaphas said, "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." John made clear that Caiaphas was prophesying that Christ would die in order to bring all of God's children together, as one. But, for Caiaphas, what he intended was that it was better to kill Jesus than that Jesus should bring the wrath of Rome on Israel. (John 11:47-53) Even if it meant that Caiaphas had to bring false charges against Jesus and reject the Christ of God, he would kill one man in order to protect his nation. While we can understand his passion, we rightly reject his actions as immoral and worthy of condemnation. Are we somehow more innocent than him if we allow the murder of babies, the murder of innocent children, humans, regardless of how they came into being, for the sake of research? Do our "good" goals make right our wicked actions today?
As a disclaimer, I want to note that I asked his permission to post this comment. I always intend to respect those who wish to keep dialogue private, so you do not have to worry that I'm going to post a long response to anything you email me about, unless you just want it posted. The text of my response email follows:
Dear Sir,
Thank you so much for your comments. I was actually fully aware of everything you noted here (he wrote to me to mention that most of the stem cells used in embryonic stem cell research come from embryos generated by in vitro fertilization, and that the embryos used are donated for the purpose of science, and that they would otherwise be destroyed). None of this changes my position though. My position is: once an egg and a sperm have been joined such that there results a joining of DNA and naturally occurring cellular division and reproduction, that entity is now a new human life. Therefore, because embryonic stem cells are derived from the destruction of these embryos it is an unethical and immoral area of study, due to the fact that it necessarily requires the destruction of a human life in order for research to be conducted.
The issue for me is not where or how the egg is fertilized. My own personal position (and that of my wife) is that if we were unable to naturally conceive, we would adopt. We would not go the route of in vitro feritilization. However, I have no actual moral complaint against women who do go that route, so long as they have fully considered the reality of what they are doing and have weighed their options. I do believe that some couples have acted selfishly in conceiving in vitro, however, couples act selfishly in adopting and in natural pregnancy, so I can hardly raise that as a complaint. Certainly I wouldn't argue that because one person has abused the system the whole enterprise is immoral.
As far as the egg being incapable of surviving on its own, of course it cannot survive on its own. No egg once fertilized can survive on its own. The very nature of any human act of reproduction requires a womb for the baby to develop. The reality that the egg cannot survive outside of the womb does not negate its very real humanity though. This argument is akin to saying that a scientist could remove (in some fashion) an egg that has just implanted itself in a woman's womb, and then say, "I have not killed the child, it simply cannot survive outside of the womb, therefore I should use it to experiment." The issue is not whether it (the embryo) was implanted at any given time nor whether it could survive outside the womb at any given time, the issue is what "it" is.
As to the throwing away of embryos, I do find this to be a rather abhorrent situation. Most embryos are frozen for extended periods of time, and quite safely at that, so we can store embryos as a stop-gap for our current situation. I would fully agree that embryos ought not be destroyed. One possible solution that I think rightly answers the seriousness of the situation are embryo adoption groups who seek to stop the destruction of innocent children by finding those will adopt the embryos and raise them as their children. Hopefully, with the ability to safely preserve embryos, those willing to adopt unused embryos, and the advancement of in vitro fertilization, the number of embryos destroyed will decrease and eventually stopped altogether.
I am aware that most science requires years of study in order to advance to a particularly useful point. Stem cell research, in general, has advanced to the point where over 70 different treatments are being done using them. All of these have been derived from adult stem cells though. I have come across only one treatment that I know of where embryonic stem cells have been used to derive a treatment (for a form of blindness). I am sure that additional treatments will be developed in the coming years and decades, perhaps even additional treatments from embryonic stem cells, but no amount of time will change the morality of committing murder today for the sake of future benefit.
There are also those who make (perhaps valid) arguments that embryonic stem cell research, while not yielding cures, is helping us to better understand early biological developments and cellular development in general, in ways that adult stem cells do not. This research, it is argued, has multiple uses and much value, and is invaluable in itself because of how it deepens our understanding of biology. These arguments do not change my position any more than the arguments that we are deriving cells from embryos that would be destroyed. My argument is not against the research being done, nor even the question of whether there is valid research being done, such arguments, to me, are secondary. My argument is, and remains, solely with the means of deriving the materials necessary for the research being done.
Allow me to give you what I consider to be a valid example of my position: Imagine, if you will, that a scientist argued (reasonably) that, if he were allowed to kill 10 babies he could utilize the material from those babies to develop potentially life saving research. He would not steal babies, he would only use deformed babies who had been abandoned at hospitals and who would die within 3 months. However, he could not wait for those babies to die naturally, he had to, instead, actually kill the babies in order to conduct his research. He would kill the babies quickly, they would feel no pain, and he could not guarantee results, but he was confident that within 20 years he could have some results.
Would it be okay with you if he conducted the research? Would it be right to fund that research with public money? Would any amount of results make his research ethical? What if he could guarantee results within 5 years? What if he only needed to use 2 babies? My argument is that such research, regardless of its rewards, regardless of its potential, regardless of its potential "return on investment" would be immoral, because it relies upon the murder of innocent human lives. Because I believe that God is the creator of life, and that he creates a new life at the moment of conception, I believe that it is murder to destroy embryos for research, and thus any research conducted from that position is immoral.
We do not make life, we can only bring together physical components (egg and sperm) God actually creates the life that results. Therefore, for us to murder that life, at any stage, is an act of immorality. When we determine who has the right to live and die based on what value they may contribute to us as a society, or to science as an experimental specimen, we begin to play God. This is the temptation of Satan in the Garden, "You can become like God, knowing (determining) good and evil." This is the root of all human sin, our decision to place our ethics above God's clearly revealed will.
Those who would argue against my position must first convince themselves of one thing: what we are destroying, when we kill and embryo, is not a human life. Yes, it is undergoing cellular development, yes if placed within its most natural environment, (a womb) it has the potential to grow and develop all the way to the point of birth as a baby, yes it has human DNA and is rightly recognized as an independent living organism, but it is still not a human. My complaint with embryonic stem cell research thus rests upon the same foundation of my argument against abortion: we do not create life, and we do not get to determine when a human becomes a human. Because of the very serious moral complaint that God could raise against us, we are better to err on the side of caution, that we may seek the blessings of God in the rest of our lives. Let us not assume a wisdom beyond ourselves, but rather recognize that when confronted with a mystery, it is best that we act humbly and move cautiously, lest we overextend ourselves and stride proudly into sin.
Now, since I have laid out quite thoroughly why I am against embryonic stem cell research, I do want to say that I am not entirely against embryonic stem cell research. If there were a means of deriving embryonic stem cells not related to the destruction of embryos I would have no compunction against research done on those cells. Thus, if there were, for instance, some way that scientists could derive embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords, or if they were able to harvest some from embryonic fluid withdrawn during necessary in utero surgeries, or some other means, then I would not be against doing research based on those cell lines. (However, if scientists withdrew embryonic fluid solely for the purpose of attempting to harvest embryonic stem cells, and thus endangered a pregnancy, I would be against that.) The issue for me is entirely the means by which the cell lines are developed, and as long as even one embryo is destroyed, or one child needlessly endangered, I will continue to protest that this is an act of gross immorality.
Caiaphas said, "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." John made clear that Caiaphas was prophesying that Christ would die in order to bring all of God's children together, as one. But, for Caiaphas, what he intended was that it was better to kill Jesus than that Jesus should bring the wrath of Rome on Israel. (John 11:47-53) Even if it meant that Caiaphas had to bring false charges against Jesus and reject the Christ of God, he would kill one man in order to protect his nation. While we can understand his passion, we rightly reject his actions as immoral and worthy of condemnation. Are we somehow more innocent than him if we allow the murder of babies, the murder of innocent children, humans, regardless of how they came into being, for the sake of research? Do our "good" goals make right our wicked actions today?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A Victory for Life and Science
I never cared much for doing science fairs when I was a child. To be honest, I just wasn't that creative and didn't have ideas that I could realistically test that hadn't been done by others. What's the point in doing a volcano for the hundredth time, talking about the chemical reaction of whatever two components you chose to make it explode? But, I did like to play with shiny things and I would come up with all kinds of ideas that would allow me to see what burned what color or what worked as a better magnet, etc. A lot of what I did when I was young wasn't science, but that didn't stop me from submitting those ideas as science fair projects, just because I had to do something.
I wonder sometimes if that same idea is what is behind much science today. How much do researchers attempt to get the government, or private companies, to finance ideas that they know are not effective, but they have wed themselves to ideologically or economically? I have a feeling that the answer might be more than many of us realize. That isn't to fault researchers, it isn't to say that they don't believe that somehow, someday, they might be able to do some good with their ideas, but they realize that any such good is really a long, long way off. Likewise, even if they are blinded by their own commitments, that only demonstrates that they are human, because all of us have our ideological blind spots, usually areas that we will passionately defend, even if someone points out that our positions don't make much sense.
I wonder if that is why some scientists continue to insist on the potential of embryonic stem cells. The fact is that there is not much promise in embryonic stem cells. The very few successful uses of embryonic stem cells have been limited to animal models, and even then there have been increased cysts and tumors. Yes, the discovery of these types of stem cells only dates back 12 years, but the fact is that there hasn't been a successful treatment on humans yet. In the only current FDA permitted trial in the United States they are working with cells that are derived from embryonic stem cells, despite the fact that cysts were more prevalent on the spines of the mice that received the treatment. (The FDA did not comment on why they removed the hold they had placed on the research, however the company doing the research claimed that the cysts had no adverse reactions, and that they changed their treatment to result in fewer cysts.)
Don't misunderstand me, I'm really big on the idea of stem cell research. I mean I think that the possibility that we could use naturally occurring cells in the human body to cure major diseases which we have no effective means of currently treating is absolutely wonderful. Adult stem cells have shown promise in this area. Because adult stem cells are able to be developed from a person's own body they generally do not suffer from the issue of rejection like embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have also been used successfully in human trials. (Each of the words in the previous sentence links to a different site discussing the success of adult stem cells. I chose the sites I did based on the fact that each of them contains at least one different story, so that while there may be overlapping examples the sites also each contain unique examples, or if two sites had two of the same stories, they are thus represented properly as two different situations. The whole points being that you could spend all day finding new examples of the success of adult stem cells. Some of the stories mentioned above include recovery from decades of blindness, walking after nearly two decades of paralysis, and many other amazing events of that nature, all due to adult stem cell research.)
It is because I am a big supporter of adult stem cells that I am excited that a court has halted a recent decision from the Obama administration to allow for additional federal funding on embryonic stem cells (pending the results of a lawsuit). Please, let me be clear: I am not against stem cell research, I am against the murder of babies, (primarily) and the waste of limited resources in less efficient areas of research when there are already existing promising opportunities presenting real cures for existing diseases. Yes, I intended to say "murder of babies" above. Embryonic stem cells are generally obtained from destroying a fetus, thus terminating a life that has already begun. You can argue that this is not killing a person if you want (I find that argument logically tortuous and laughable, but that's up to you) but you cannot say that you are not killing an actual human being as an embryo is a living independent organism, with human DNA. (Again, I know there are methods of getting embryonic stem cells that do not involve the destruction of embryos, but lets be honest, the reality is that most lines of embryonic stem cells are developed from killing an embryo.)
This really is a victory both for science and for life. Scientifically speaking there is less value in embryonic stem cell research than there is adult stem cell research, even if based on nothing but potential for results. From the perspective of a culture of life, this is a great victory because there will be no federal funding of the murder of the innocent. The federal judge did not rule that embryos are humans and should, therefore, have the full protection of the authorities against being wrongfully murdered. The judgment does not at all address the reality that we are killing our children for the vain hope that we might derive some form of medical benefit in the long term. But, I'll take what victories we can get, even if they do not address the root problems that we are facing.
If you think my language is brash in arguing against embryonic stem cell research, then I beg you to reconsider. I have already laid out my position: a baby is a baby from the time of conception to the time of birth. While many things may happen to naturally terminate a pregnancy before the birth of a child, that does not make it less a murder when we do so intentionally. That is why I take this so seriously. God is the giver of life, for us to arbitrarily take the life of another human being is a horrible thing.
I wonder sometimes if that same idea is what is behind much science today. How much do researchers attempt to get the government, or private companies, to finance ideas that they know are not effective, but they have wed themselves to ideologically or economically? I have a feeling that the answer might be more than many of us realize. That isn't to fault researchers, it isn't to say that they don't believe that somehow, someday, they might be able to do some good with their ideas, but they realize that any such good is really a long, long way off. Likewise, even if they are blinded by their own commitments, that only demonstrates that they are human, because all of us have our ideological blind spots, usually areas that we will passionately defend, even if someone points out that our positions don't make much sense.
I wonder if that is why some scientists continue to insist on the potential of embryonic stem cells. The fact is that there is not much promise in embryonic stem cells. The very few successful uses of embryonic stem cells have been limited to animal models, and even then there have been increased cysts and tumors. Yes, the discovery of these types of stem cells only dates back 12 years, but the fact is that there hasn't been a successful treatment on humans yet. In the only current FDA permitted trial in the United States they are working with cells that are derived from embryonic stem cells, despite the fact that cysts were more prevalent on the spines of the mice that received the treatment. (The FDA did not comment on why they removed the hold they had placed on the research, however the company doing the research claimed that the cysts had no adverse reactions, and that they changed their treatment to result in fewer cysts.)
Don't misunderstand me, I'm really big on the idea of stem cell research. I mean I think that the possibility that we could use naturally occurring cells in the human body to cure major diseases which we have no effective means of currently treating is absolutely wonderful. Adult stem cells have shown promise in this area. Because adult stem cells are able to be developed from a person's own body they generally do not suffer from the issue of rejection like embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells have also been used successfully in human trials. (Each of the words in the previous sentence links to a different site discussing the success of adult stem cells. I chose the sites I did based on the fact that each of them contains at least one different story, so that while there may be overlapping examples the sites also each contain unique examples, or if two sites had two of the same stories, they are thus represented properly as two different situations. The whole points being that you could spend all day finding new examples of the success of adult stem cells. Some of the stories mentioned above include recovery from decades of blindness, walking after nearly two decades of paralysis, and many other amazing events of that nature, all due to adult stem cell research.)
It is because I am a big supporter of adult stem cells that I am excited that a court has halted a recent decision from the Obama administration to allow for additional federal funding on embryonic stem cells (pending the results of a lawsuit). Please, let me be clear: I am not against stem cell research, I am against the murder of babies, (primarily) and the waste of limited resources in less efficient areas of research when there are already existing promising opportunities presenting real cures for existing diseases. Yes, I intended to say "murder of babies" above. Embryonic stem cells are generally obtained from destroying a fetus, thus terminating a life that has already begun. You can argue that this is not killing a person if you want (I find that argument logically tortuous and laughable, but that's up to you) but you cannot say that you are not killing an actual human being as an embryo is a living independent organism, with human DNA. (Again, I know there are methods of getting embryonic stem cells that do not involve the destruction of embryos, but lets be honest, the reality is that most lines of embryonic stem cells are developed from killing an embryo.)
This really is a victory both for science and for life. Scientifically speaking there is less value in embryonic stem cell research than there is adult stem cell research, even if based on nothing but potential for results. From the perspective of a culture of life, this is a great victory because there will be no federal funding of the murder of the innocent. The federal judge did not rule that embryos are humans and should, therefore, have the full protection of the authorities against being wrongfully murdered. The judgment does not at all address the reality that we are killing our children for the vain hope that we might derive some form of medical benefit in the long term. But, I'll take what victories we can get, even if they do not address the root problems that we are facing.
If you think my language is brash in arguing against embryonic stem cell research, then I beg you to reconsider. I have already laid out my position: a baby is a baby from the time of conception to the time of birth. While many things may happen to naturally terminate a pregnancy before the birth of a child, that does not make it less a murder when we do so intentionally. That is why I take this so seriously. God is the giver of life, for us to arbitrarily take the life of another human being is a horrible thing.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The Challenge of Justice
One of the best arguments for the reality of moral standards is, I think the argument from injustice. What I mean is that everyone seems to know when they have been wronged. No one needs to teach someone when they have been wronged. In fact, more than that, we have to be taught to reign in our emotions when we are wronged, lest we get into even more trouble.
For instance, imagine you were in medieval China, where the local lord had absolute authority over the life and death of those who lived in his territory. Imagine that you are wearing the correct colors, (yes, Chinese peasants had certain colors they were allowed to wear, and certain colors they weren't) you bowed and showed proper obedience when he went by, and you even went out of your way to show respect to the local lord by bringing the taxes you owed early. Basically, imagine if you were the perfect Chinese peasant. How would you feel if the local lord intentionally rode his horse next to you and tromped through some mud, just to get the dirt all over your face? How would you feel if you were disrespected despite the fact that you had fulfilled all your obligations and had honored your superior to the best of your ability?
I think of an example from my own life. I was fighting with one of my brothers (not an atypical event) and he was winning (also, not an atypical event). The difference was that in this particular situation I was actually entirely innocent! Normally when I got into a fight with my brothers I was at least somewhat to blame, but not this time. This time, and I can't even remember what the fight was over, I was totally innocent, and my brother knew it.
I was defeated and beat up by someone stronger than me, and I was outraged. I was also despondent, because no matter how hard I might try, there was no way I could avenge myself. I could go to my parents, but I had no evidence that I had been wronged, and without evidence I did not know any way I could get justice. There was no appeal to any higher or stronger power for justice, except that I could plead with God that my brother would admit he was wrong and apologize for what he did to me.
My point is that because we all know when we have been wronged, we also need justice. Any society that cannot convince its people that is laws are basically just will ultimately fall, because the people of that society will not support those who wield power. If people believe they are constantly being wronged, they will seek to get justice for themselves in whatever little ways they can. Justice is essential, not just for a society, but to each individual in society.
Because justice is so essential, both to society and to us as individuals, I found a recent article very interesting. Apparently, there is a judge in Saudi Arabia who has asked hospitals if they would be able to paralyze a man by damaging his spinal cord in some way. I kid you not. Read it for yourself here: "Saudi Judge Considers Paralysis Punishment." He is doing this because one man accidentally paralyzed another man, and now the paralyzed man and his family want justice, based on the concept of "an eye for an eye," which means the other man must also be paralyzed for there to be any justice.
I'm not intending to harp on how barbaric Islam is that it could be reasonable to paralyze a man because he accidentally paralyzed another man. Admittedly, the idea of paralyzing a man for the sake of justice is a pretty horrible idea. The fact that any society would think that corporal eye-for-eye punishments would result in an equitable solution for crime seems ridiculous on its face to me. What I mean is that if you cut off a man's foot because he accidentally (or intentionally) cut off yours, now you have introduced a situation where he is limited in how he can serve society, and how he could help pay for the disability he caused.
Here is the real problem for each of us though: Justice is essential. If we recognize that we have been wronged, and we recognize that our indignation is real, not just a contrived construct of society, then there is some standard that serves to define justice and injustice, both. Ultimately that standard has to be the absolute moral righteousness of God, for anything less is not absolute and has no true weight when placed on the scales of reality. But, if we have been wronged then we must admit we have wronged others, and if we have wronged others, we have also wronged God, because whenever we wrong someone else we not act unjustly against them, we violate the justice of God, since he is the one who established what is right and wrong.
What can we do though? Justice, when rightly performed requires that there be a repayment, an exchange that rights the wrong performed. At the very least, in the case of a slight wrong, there must be an apology. But, an apology only works between men because one humbles himself and appeals to the other, admitting that he has acted improperly. Forgiveness, in such a case, is not really justice, it is an act of grace whereby the one who forgives chooses not to require justice, but to act as though the wrong has been repaid. The problem is that if we humble ourselves before God and ask for forgiveness, we only assume our right position before God. And, if God chooses to forgive us then he would be in violation of his own justice, choosing to act as though repayment has been made when it has not.
If we tried to repay God we would find that to be impossible also. Even if we acted perfectly for our entire lives we would never do more than we should do. Even if we to live morally perfect lives in every way, such that we even sacrifice ourselves to save others, we would still not be doing anything more than living as we should live from that moment on. Justice requires not simply that a man should stop stealing, but that he should also repay for what he has stolen. How then can man repay God, when we cannot live morally perfect lives, and even if he could, that would not be enough to make him perfect, because after one wrong act the blemish would always exist.
The necessity of Christ becomes clear when we consider the justice of man. If even those without Christ understand that perfect justice is accomplished through exact repayment, then how much more should we understand what Christ paid on our behalf? Our iniquities, our injustice, our immorality, had to be atoned for, but only one who had no blemish could suffice for such a payment. Perfect justice requires a perfect payment, and so Christ, who was perfect, suffered, endured the wrath of God, poured out upon him on a device of human torture, so that in every way our unrighteous acts might be atoned for, paid for exactly by the Son of God himself.
When my brother got done beating me up he left me alone, and I cried and prayed that God would make him come back and apologize to me, because my brother knew he was wrong, I knew he was wrong, and more than that, God knew he was wrong. I did not really expect an apology, but I asked God that he would make right what was wrong. After I had regained my composure, I sat on my bed feeling sorry for myself, and my brother came back and told me that he was sorry. He knew I was innocent, he knew that he had no right to beat me up, and he was sorry for doing it. The very words I had prayed to God were spoken back to me from the mouth of brother.
Life does not always workout like things did with my brother. Sometimes we are wronged and there seems to be no recompense. Sometimes it seems like we ourselves have gotten away with murder. The fact is though that there is a righteous God who sees all things, and who will have justice one day, because his laws demand it.
The joy of being a Christian is that we already know our payment is complete. Christ, who died upon the cross, has born our sins, and we bear them no more. God's righteous justice is matched by his loving grace, because he did not have to provide Christ for us, but that it was what he chose to do. Because we have been forgiven, we can forgive those who wrong us, and when they stand puzzled at why we do not demand justice, we can let them know that justice has already been met, and that Christ suffered even for them, if they will confess him as Lord and Savior. Justice demands repayment, and grace allows us to tell people that a perfect payment has been made on their behalf. Have you considered how great a payment Christ's death was for you? Have you considered what a blessing it might be to endure injustice, how wonderful it could be to forgive someone else, so that you can tell them of the wonderful payment Christ made on their behalf?
If we have died with him, then we have been resurrected with him. He was declared the Lord of all things by his resurrection, so who are we to deny him? If his death was sufficient to pay our debt where we had wronged God, how much more should it suffice to pay for the petty grievances we might hold against those who have wrong us? Let us endure injustice, but let us be bold to confront those who have wronged us, that we might share with them the grace of the one who died and rose again. Our egos might be bruised, our toes might get stepped on, but let us see that the real challenge is not to demand justice, but to share the mercy of God with everyone who would hear.
For instance, imagine you were in medieval China, where the local lord had absolute authority over the life and death of those who lived in his territory. Imagine that you are wearing the correct colors, (yes, Chinese peasants had certain colors they were allowed to wear, and certain colors they weren't) you bowed and showed proper obedience when he went by, and you even went out of your way to show respect to the local lord by bringing the taxes you owed early. Basically, imagine if you were the perfect Chinese peasant. How would you feel if the local lord intentionally rode his horse next to you and tromped through some mud, just to get the dirt all over your face? How would you feel if you were disrespected despite the fact that you had fulfilled all your obligations and had honored your superior to the best of your ability?
I think of an example from my own life. I was fighting with one of my brothers (not an atypical event) and he was winning (also, not an atypical event). The difference was that in this particular situation I was actually entirely innocent! Normally when I got into a fight with my brothers I was at least somewhat to blame, but not this time. This time, and I can't even remember what the fight was over, I was totally innocent, and my brother knew it.
I was defeated and beat up by someone stronger than me, and I was outraged. I was also despondent, because no matter how hard I might try, there was no way I could avenge myself. I could go to my parents, but I had no evidence that I had been wronged, and without evidence I did not know any way I could get justice. There was no appeal to any higher or stronger power for justice, except that I could plead with God that my brother would admit he was wrong and apologize for what he did to me.
My point is that because we all know when we have been wronged, we also need justice. Any society that cannot convince its people that is laws are basically just will ultimately fall, because the people of that society will not support those who wield power. If people believe they are constantly being wronged, they will seek to get justice for themselves in whatever little ways they can. Justice is essential, not just for a society, but to each individual in society.
Because justice is so essential, both to society and to us as individuals, I found a recent article very interesting. Apparently, there is a judge in Saudi Arabia who has asked hospitals if they would be able to paralyze a man by damaging his spinal cord in some way. I kid you not. Read it for yourself here: "Saudi Judge Considers Paralysis Punishment." He is doing this because one man accidentally paralyzed another man, and now the paralyzed man and his family want justice, based on the concept of "an eye for an eye," which means the other man must also be paralyzed for there to be any justice.
I'm not intending to harp on how barbaric Islam is that it could be reasonable to paralyze a man because he accidentally paralyzed another man. Admittedly, the idea of paralyzing a man for the sake of justice is a pretty horrible idea. The fact that any society would think that corporal eye-for-eye punishments would result in an equitable solution for crime seems ridiculous on its face to me. What I mean is that if you cut off a man's foot because he accidentally (or intentionally) cut off yours, now you have introduced a situation where he is limited in how he can serve society, and how he could help pay for the disability he caused.
Here is the real problem for each of us though: Justice is essential. If we recognize that we have been wronged, and we recognize that our indignation is real, not just a contrived construct of society, then there is some standard that serves to define justice and injustice, both. Ultimately that standard has to be the absolute moral righteousness of God, for anything less is not absolute and has no true weight when placed on the scales of reality. But, if we have been wronged then we must admit we have wronged others, and if we have wronged others, we have also wronged God, because whenever we wrong someone else we not act unjustly against them, we violate the justice of God, since he is the one who established what is right and wrong.
What can we do though? Justice, when rightly performed requires that there be a repayment, an exchange that rights the wrong performed. At the very least, in the case of a slight wrong, there must be an apology. But, an apology only works between men because one humbles himself and appeals to the other, admitting that he has acted improperly. Forgiveness, in such a case, is not really justice, it is an act of grace whereby the one who forgives chooses not to require justice, but to act as though the wrong has been repaid. The problem is that if we humble ourselves before God and ask for forgiveness, we only assume our right position before God. And, if God chooses to forgive us then he would be in violation of his own justice, choosing to act as though repayment has been made when it has not.
If we tried to repay God we would find that to be impossible also. Even if we acted perfectly for our entire lives we would never do more than we should do. Even if we to live morally perfect lives in every way, such that we even sacrifice ourselves to save others, we would still not be doing anything more than living as we should live from that moment on. Justice requires not simply that a man should stop stealing, but that he should also repay for what he has stolen. How then can man repay God, when we cannot live morally perfect lives, and even if he could, that would not be enough to make him perfect, because after one wrong act the blemish would always exist.
The necessity of Christ becomes clear when we consider the justice of man. If even those without Christ understand that perfect justice is accomplished through exact repayment, then how much more should we understand what Christ paid on our behalf? Our iniquities, our injustice, our immorality, had to be atoned for, but only one who had no blemish could suffice for such a payment. Perfect justice requires a perfect payment, and so Christ, who was perfect, suffered, endured the wrath of God, poured out upon him on a device of human torture, so that in every way our unrighteous acts might be atoned for, paid for exactly by the Son of God himself.
When my brother got done beating me up he left me alone, and I cried and prayed that God would make him come back and apologize to me, because my brother knew he was wrong, I knew he was wrong, and more than that, God knew he was wrong. I did not really expect an apology, but I asked God that he would make right what was wrong. After I had regained my composure, I sat on my bed feeling sorry for myself, and my brother came back and told me that he was sorry. He knew I was innocent, he knew that he had no right to beat me up, and he was sorry for doing it. The very words I had prayed to God were spoken back to me from the mouth of brother.
Life does not always workout like things did with my brother. Sometimes we are wronged and there seems to be no recompense. Sometimes it seems like we ourselves have gotten away with murder. The fact is though that there is a righteous God who sees all things, and who will have justice one day, because his laws demand it.
The joy of being a Christian is that we already know our payment is complete. Christ, who died upon the cross, has born our sins, and we bear them no more. God's righteous justice is matched by his loving grace, because he did not have to provide Christ for us, but that it was what he chose to do. Because we have been forgiven, we can forgive those who wrong us, and when they stand puzzled at why we do not demand justice, we can let them know that justice has already been met, and that Christ suffered even for them, if they will confess him as Lord and Savior. Justice demands repayment, and grace allows us to tell people that a perfect payment has been made on their behalf. Have you considered how great a payment Christ's death was for you? Have you considered what a blessing it might be to endure injustice, how wonderful it could be to forgive someone else, so that you can tell them of the wonderful payment Christ made on their behalf?
If we have died with him, then we have been resurrected with him. He was declared the Lord of all things by his resurrection, so who are we to deny him? If his death was sufficient to pay our debt where we had wronged God, how much more should it suffice to pay for the petty grievances we might hold against those who have wrong us? Let us endure injustice, but let us be bold to confront those who have wronged us, that we might share with them the grace of the one who died and rose again. Our egos might be bruised, our toes might get stepped on, but let us see that the real challenge is not to demand justice, but to share the mercy of God with everyone who would hear.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Peace Making 101
Have you ever done something stupid? Have you ever done or said some stupid thing that hurt someone else by accident? How about on purpose? I'll bet if you think hard enough you can probably come up with an idea of sometime when you did. I know I can.
I have two older brothers, one about 2 years older and one about 4 years older. Because we grew up as three boys, and because we basically grew up in an area where there were no other children until I was 8, we did stupid things that got each other hurt. I remember one time emptying out a 2 liter bottle of some kind of soda, then I held it up to my eye and acted like I could see something really cool in it. When one of my brothers took it and looked into it I hit it. Now, I meant to knock it so he would be surprised, but I didn't think about the fact that bottles have little openings, so instead of just hitting around his eyes, I basically hit the bottle right into his eye. As you can imagine, he didn't think it was funny, and it ended up hurting him a bit more than I thought it would. (As you can also imagine, I got into trouble for it. Lesson to all you kids out there: stupid actions do not make you immune to the consequences.)
My point? Well, apparently even adult Christians are not immune from doing stupid things. I came across an AP News Article that reports that a church in Gainesville, FL plans on burning copies of the Quran on September 11. Now, I'll grant you that I'm not entirely up to date on exactly why they plan on burning copies of the Quran, I have an idea but I haven't actually talked to anyone from the church about it, but I'm going to state that this is a categorically stupid idea. Not only is it stupid, it is unchristian.
Why is it unchristian? Well, what does it accomplish? Does it present the gospel to a lost and dying world? Does burning copies of the Quran engage with Muslims in the area or abroad and present to them the reality of their sins and their need for redemption? Basically, this move in no way exalts God, because all it does is burn pieces of paper.
Okay, it isn't just pieces of paper, its copies of the religious holy book of another religion. So what? Will burning those copies of the Quran prevent the spread of Islam? Will burning copies of the Quran have any effect on Islam in any way, shape or form? Of course not. Burn ten copies, burn a thousand copies, burn a million copies of the Quran, it won't change a thing, because more can be printed and will be printed. Unless everyone who is enslaved by Islam around the world embraces the freedom that is offered to them in Jesus Christ, destroying copies of the Qur'an is a meaningless event at best. At worst this event will simply harden the hearts of people who desperately need to know about Jesus, and thus this church will be helping Satan lead these people to hell.
Maybe this church figures that because bibles are routinely destroyed in Muslim countries they are simply doing what Muslims have been doing for years. But that isn't what Christ commanded us to do. He told us to do to others what we would have them do to us. That means despite the fact that we are insulted, we do not insult back Despite the fact that Christians are wronged, our Scripture is insulted and our people are murdered, we do not respond in kind, because we are called to love those who hate us, and to bless those who curse us.
I had a whole rant prepared for how we are God's Israel, and how our battle is against spiritual powers and a sinful system that enslaves and oppresses those who do not know Christ. But I don't really need to do that rant. I don't need to provide an argument for what we are called not to do, because there is a simple statement that tells us what we should do in situations like this: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)
If we are called to be peacemakers, is this church being obedient to the Word of God? Is burning the Qur'an going to help spread the gospel of Christ so that his peace will reign in the hearts and souls of men? Anyone who honestly looks at this can only say, "No". Instead of being peacemakers this church is quite intentionally stirring up controversy.
I'm not saying that we should not confront Islam. I think we should. But I think we need to do it in the same way Christians are commanded to confront any false religion, any sin: through biblical, personal outreach. We need to demonstrate that what we are doing is being done from love, and that we want to rescue the hurting. Speaking gently, confronting with compassion, and standing on the authority of God's Word are the means of confronting any sin, not burning effigies and screaming at people.
I wonder if this church realizes how much harder they might be making things for Christian missionaries in Muslim countries. I had a friend who was going to go and be a missionary in Indonesia, he told me that he sometimes had people come to him and say they wanted to know what it would take for them to go with them. He told me that his response was that they shouldn't bother to pack suitcases, but instead, buy a plain pine coffin, pack their clothes in it, and have it sent with them as their luggage because most likely they would need it if they came with him. He went knowing that it was entirely possible, if not probable, that he would die sharing the gospel with a lost and dying people who were at war with God.
That is what being a peacemaker means. Being willing to accept that the gospel of Christ is of more importance than material possessions, your own life, or even your own anger and venom. I do not doubt that this church that wants to burn Qur'ans believes that Islam is evil and dangerous. I believe Islam is evil and dangerous. But what if, instead of burning Qur'ans, this church did a joyful, peaceful servant project to a local community that had a high population of Muslims, and tried to develop personal relationships that would allow them to speak truth into the lives of those enslaved by lies? What if on 9/11, and every day, instead of throwing fuel on the fires of hatred and resentment, we reached out to a dying world with love?
I have two older brothers, one about 2 years older and one about 4 years older. Because we grew up as three boys, and because we basically grew up in an area where there were no other children until I was 8, we did stupid things that got each other hurt. I remember one time emptying out a 2 liter bottle of some kind of soda, then I held it up to my eye and acted like I could see something really cool in it. When one of my brothers took it and looked into it I hit it. Now, I meant to knock it so he would be surprised, but I didn't think about the fact that bottles have little openings, so instead of just hitting around his eyes, I basically hit the bottle right into his eye. As you can imagine, he didn't think it was funny, and it ended up hurting him a bit more than I thought it would. (As you can also imagine, I got into trouble for it. Lesson to all you kids out there: stupid actions do not make you immune to the consequences.)
My point? Well, apparently even adult Christians are not immune from doing stupid things. I came across an AP News Article that reports that a church in Gainesville, FL plans on burning copies of the Quran on September 11. Now, I'll grant you that I'm not entirely up to date on exactly why they plan on burning copies of the Quran, I have an idea but I haven't actually talked to anyone from the church about it, but I'm going to state that this is a categorically stupid idea. Not only is it stupid, it is unchristian.
Why is it unchristian? Well, what does it accomplish? Does it present the gospel to a lost and dying world? Does burning copies of the Quran engage with Muslims in the area or abroad and present to them the reality of their sins and their need for redemption? Basically, this move in no way exalts God, because all it does is burn pieces of paper.
Okay, it isn't just pieces of paper, its copies of the religious holy book of another religion. So what? Will burning those copies of the Quran prevent the spread of Islam? Will burning copies of the Quran have any effect on Islam in any way, shape or form? Of course not. Burn ten copies, burn a thousand copies, burn a million copies of the Quran, it won't change a thing, because more can be printed and will be printed. Unless everyone who is enslaved by Islam around the world embraces the freedom that is offered to them in Jesus Christ, destroying copies of the Qur'an is a meaningless event at best. At worst this event will simply harden the hearts of people who desperately need to know about Jesus, and thus this church will be helping Satan lead these people to hell.
Maybe this church figures that because bibles are routinely destroyed in Muslim countries they are simply doing what Muslims have been doing for years. But that isn't what Christ commanded us to do. He told us to do to others what we would have them do to us. That means despite the fact that we are insulted, we do not insult back Despite the fact that Christians are wronged, our Scripture is insulted and our people are murdered, we do not respond in kind, because we are called to love those who hate us, and to bless those who curse us.
I had a whole rant prepared for how we are God's Israel, and how our battle is against spiritual powers and a sinful system that enslaves and oppresses those who do not know Christ. But I don't really need to do that rant. I don't need to provide an argument for what we are called not to do, because there is a simple statement that tells us what we should do in situations like this: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)
If we are called to be peacemakers, is this church being obedient to the Word of God? Is burning the Qur'an going to help spread the gospel of Christ so that his peace will reign in the hearts and souls of men? Anyone who honestly looks at this can only say, "No". Instead of being peacemakers this church is quite intentionally stirring up controversy.
I'm not saying that we should not confront Islam. I think we should. But I think we need to do it in the same way Christians are commanded to confront any false religion, any sin: through biblical, personal outreach. We need to demonstrate that what we are doing is being done from love, and that we want to rescue the hurting. Speaking gently, confronting with compassion, and standing on the authority of God's Word are the means of confronting any sin, not burning effigies and screaming at people.
I wonder if this church realizes how much harder they might be making things for Christian missionaries in Muslim countries. I had a friend who was going to go and be a missionary in Indonesia, he told me that he sometimes had people come to him and say they wanted to know what it would take for them to go with them. He told me that his response was that they shouldn't bother to pack suitcases, but instead, buy a plain pine coffin, pack their clothes in it, and have it sent with them as their luggage because most likely they would need it if they came with him. He went knowing that it was entirely possible, if not probable, that he would die sharing the gospel with a lost and dying people who were at war with God.
That is what being a peacemaker means. Being willing to accept that the gospel of Christ is of more importance than material possessions, your own life, or even your own anger and venom. I do not doubt that this church that wants to burn Qur'ans believes that Islam is evil and dangerous. I believe Islam is evil and dangerous. But what if, instead of burning Qur'ans, this church did a joyful, peaceful servant project to a local community that had a high population of Muslims, and tried to develop personal relationships that would allow them to speak truth into the lives of those enslaved by lies? What if on 9/11, and every day, instead of throwing fuel on the fires of hatred and resentment, we reached out to a dying world with love?
Monday, August 16, 2010
Good Morals in Hard Times
Most Americans agree that abortion should be limited except in the case of the health of the mother, rape or incest. Most Christians agree with this also, fortunately, and many Christians are vocal and active in regards to trying to limit abortions. I would like to address the question of the morality involved in the issue though. Why do we think abortions should be limited, excepting for situations involving the health of the mother, rape, and incest? Are there any proper limits that should be applied to abortion?
Generally, Christians cite verses like, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13, and particularly Jeremiah 1:5 in order to prove that abortion is wrong. The argument goes as such: God is the one who gives life, and he is the one who forms a child in its mothers womb, therefore, to abort the child is to kill the human life that God has created. The argument assumes that killing humans is wrong. Generally the idea that killing babies is wrong is accepted, as most people recognize that killing a baby would be murder, and murder is evil. But, not everyone agrees that human babies, while still in the womb, are babies.
Those who are proponents of abortion generally argue that it is not murder unless you kill a person, and while a fetus may be "human" it is not a person. Now, where the fetus starts being a person is under question. Is it when the fetus gets a heart beat? Maybe when the fetus has brain waves? Some have argued that it isn't really a human until a few days old, because prior to that it cannot function in the way we expect a person to function. Personally I find these arguments contrived and meaningless, resting entirely on speculation and with no real grounds for classifying a human as "person." To make such a division is simply to try and find a way to rationalize that which is immoral so you can sleep at night.
Therefore, assuming the Christian case is correct and compelling, I have two questions: "Why limit abortions where we have?" and, "What are the proper limits for abortion?" In addressing these two questions I want to examine the arguments for committing abortions in the cases of incest and rape, and then examine the mothers health. Then, after examining these positions, I want to examine the hard cases, those times when we are most compelled for the sake of compassion to go ahead with an abortion. My goal is help us reach a clearer idea of what we really believe, and what the results of our beliefs are.
In the cases of rape and incest then, why do we say abortion is acceptable? Usually the argument is that women who have been raped or who are victims of incest did not really choose the act that resulted in pregnancy. Thus, the woman was not consenting to the action, she should not be held responsible for the results. Because the woman should not be held responsible for the results of violence committed against her, she should not be forced to carry the baby in her. No one should be held responsible for the choices of someone else, particularly when those choices can have life changing and drastic effects on the innocent party.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores that the baby is also an innocent party. This is a response that has been made so often that it is basically a cliche, but it is still true. The baby, the one we are going to kill, the one we have established is in fact a baby, is completely innocent of the manner in which it was conceived. Therefore, to kill the baby, and remember, this is a baby we are talking about, because of the actions of the father would only be to add one crime to another. We cannot exculpate the the conscience of a woman for committing murder of a baby based on the crimes committed by the father.
As Christians particularly we are forced to acknowledge a problem with allowing for abortions in the case of rape and incest. We have already admitted that what is inside the woman is a baby. And all the Scripture we cited indicated that God is the one who decides on putting life into a womb. To say that we want to save babies when we want them, but not when we don't, is to admit that we know we are murdering a child, but it is okay in this instance because the child was not conceived in a way we like. There is thus no difference between a Christian who is willing to allow for an abortion in the case of rape or incest and the most hardened atheist who acknowledges that they are killing a human life, just because the mother does not want to bear the burden of carrying it.
Our problem is that either we accept that God gives all life, or we say some lives are not intended by God. We make ourselves judges of the lives of others, saying that we know that God would not bring about a life through a situation such as rape or incest. We presume to know the vast and infinite mind of God on matters such as who should be born, and who should not. That kind of arrogance has only one match: Satan himself.
Wasn't that the question uttered by Satan in the Garden? "Did God truly say..." Are we not confronted with that, and are we not the ones asking that question and giving that same lying answer that he gave to Eve? "Did God really say that he formed you in the womb? Did God really say that before you were formed he knew you? Did God really say that he knit us together himself? Surely God did not mean that in this case! No, God does not mean that he alone is the one who gives life, instead we can decide if he intended this one!"
There ought be no exception to abortion for the sake of rape and incest. Yes, the act of rape is horrible. Yes, incest is evil in every way. Abortion does not make it better, it only adds murder on top of abuse.
I know this is a hard teaching. Some will say that I am a man, and therefore I cannot understand what a woman in those situations would go through. I do not dispute that. I cannot claim that I have the wisdom and insight to be able to sit down and make a woman who has been raped feel "all better." But, whether or not I am even sufficient to comfort a woman who has gone through such a horrible trial does not change the fact of what the Word of God says about who puts life in the womb.
Our obligation then is to provide comfort, to provide assistance, and to provide love to women in such situations as these. In truth it is the obligation of Christians to provide comfort to any woman who is contemplating abortion. It is those who are most hurting who most need us to reach out to them and to help them. We may not win many to the gospel, but we should try. And, even if we cannot save their souls in the time we have to help them, at least we can try and save a life, one that God created, one he deemed to have value.
What of those pregnancies that risk a woman's health? If by "health" you mean that she could die from carrying or from delivering that child, then you have an honest moral dilemma. We live in a fallen world, things do not work like they should, and sometimes a pregnancy could kill a woman. My opinion is, and this is strictly my opinion with far less Scripture to back me up, if a woman would die, and the child would die, such as would happen in the case of the egg lodging in the fallopian tubes, then an abortion should be performed to attempt to save the mother's life (again, such as what happens when you remove a fallopian tube due to a tubal pregnancy). The goal, however, is not to abort the child, but to save the mothers life, the abortion is the horrible side effect of the treatment. If the mother is at risk, but there is a chance the baby could live, then that is a decision that is best made by the woman and her husband, based on the advice from their doctors and pastors.
Hard cases, like a child who is the result of an incestuous rape, who would be born horribly deformed, suffer for as long as he might live, and would never be mentally capable of rational though, make the hardest choices. We look and see nothing but a suffering life, and we say it is best to end such a life before it can even begin. But, the fact is that we are not God. If we believe that God can bring good out of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, the murder of the Son of God at the hands of evil men, then why can't God bring good out of even the worst possible situation we could imagine?
We do not need to know the reason why God chose to bring a life into the world through horrible situations such as rape or incest. We do not need to know the purpose God has for those lives of suffering to which some are born. We do have to be compassionate to those who suffer abuse and wrong at the hands of others. We do have to stand on the Word of God and say that every abortion is the taking of human life. Will you take that stand in hard times, as well as good?
Generally, Christians cite verses like, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13, and particularly Jeremiah 1:5 in order to prove that abortion is wrong. The argument goes as such: God is the one who gives life, and he is the one who forms a child in its mothers womb, therefore, to abort the child is to kill the human life that God has created. The argument assumes that killing humans is wrong. Generally the idea that killing babies is wrong is accepted, as most people recognize that killing a baby would be murder, and murder is evil. But, not everyone agrees that human babies, while still in the womb, are babies.
Those who are proponents of abortion generally argue that it is not murder unless you kill a person, and while a fetus may be "human" it is not a person. Now, where the fetus starts being a person is under question. Is it when the fetus gets a heart beat? Maybe when the fetus has brain waves? Some have argued that it isn't really a human until a few days old, because prior to that it cannot function in the way we expect a person to function. Personally I find these arguments contrived and meaningless, resting entirely on speculation and with no real grounds for classifying a human as "person." To make such a division is simply to try and find a way to rationalize that which is immoral so you can sleep at night.
Therefore, assuming the Christian case is correct and compelling, I have two questions: "Why limit abortions where we have?" and, "What are the proper limits for abortion?" In addressing these two questions I want to examine the arguments for committing abortions in the cases of incest and rape, and then examine the mothers health. Then, after examining these positions, I want to examine the hard cases, those times when we are most compelled for the sake of compassion to go ahead with an abortion. My goal is help us reach a clearer idea of what we really believe, and what the results of our beliefs are.
In the cases of rape and incest then, why do we say abortion is acceptable? Usually the argument is that women who have been raped or who are victims of incest did not really choose the act that resulted in pregnancy. Thus, the woman was not consenting to the action, she should not be held responsible for the results. Because the woman should not be held responsible for the results of violence committed against her, she should not be forced to carry the baby in her. No one should be held responsible for the choices of someone else, particularly when those choices can have life changing and drastic effects on the innocent party.
The problem with this argument is that it ignores that the baby is also an innocent party. This is a response that has been made so often that it is basically a cliche, but it is still true. The baby, the one we are going to kill, the one we have established is in fact a baby, is completely innocent of the manner in which it was conceived. Therefore, to kill the baby, and remember, this is a baby we are talking about, because of the actions of the father would only be to add one crime to another. We cannot exculpate the the conscience of a woman for committing murder of a baby based on the crimes committed by the father.
As Christians particularly we are forced to acknowledge a problem with allowing for abortions in the case of rape and incest. We have already admitted that what is inside the woman is a baby. And all the Scripture we cited indicated that God is the one who decides on putting life into a womb. To say that we want to save babies when we want them, but not when we don't, is to admit that we know we are murdering a child, but it is okay in this instance because the child was not conceived in a way we like. There is thus no difference between a Christian who is willing to allow for an abortion in the case of rape or incest and the most hardened atheist who acknowledges that they are killing a human life, just because the mother does not want to bear the burden of carrying it.
Our problem is that either we accept that God gives all life, or we say some lives are not intended by God. We make ourselves judges of the lives of others, saying that we know that God would not bring about a life through a situation such as rape or incest. We presume to know the vast and infinite mind of God on matters such as who should be born, and who should not. That kind of arrogance has only one match: Satan himself.
Wasn't that the question uttered by Satan in the Garden? "Did God truly say..." Are we not confronted with that, and are we not the ones asking that question and giving that same lying answer that he gave to Eve? "Did God really say that he formed you in the womb? Did God really say that before you were formed he knew you? Did God really say that he knit us together himself? Surely God did not mean that in this case! No, God does not mean that he alone is the one who gives life, instead we can decide if he intended this one!"
There ought be no exception to abortion for the sake of rape and incest. Yes, the act of rape is horrible. Yes, incest is evil in every way. Abortion does not make it better, it only adds murder on top of abuse.
I know this is a hard teaching. Some will say that I am a man, and therefore I cannot understand what a woman in those situations would go through. I do not dispute that. I cannot claim that I have the wisdom and insight to be able to sit down and make a woman who has been raped feel "all better." But, whether or not I am even sufficient to comfort a woman who has gone through such a horrible trial does not change the fact of what the Word of God says about who puts life in the womb.
Our obligation then is to provide comfort, to provide assistance, and to provide love to women in such situations as these. In truth it is the obligation of Christians to provide comfort to any woman who is contemplating abortion. It is those who are most hurting who most need us to reach out to them and to help them. We may not win many to the gospel, but we should try. And, even if we cannot save their souls in the time we have to help them, at least we can try and save a life, one that God created, one he deemed to have value.
What of those pregnancies that risk a woman's health? If by "health" you mean that she could die from carrying or from delivering that child, then you have an honest moral dilemma. We live in a fallen world, things do not work like they should, and sometimes a pregnancy could kill a woman. My opinion is, and this is strictly my opinion with far less Scripture to back me up, if a woman would die, and the child would die, such as would happen in the case of the egg lodging in the fallopian tubes, then an abortion should be performed to attempt to save the mother's life (again, such as what happens when you remove a fallopian tube due to a tubal pregnancy). The goal, however, is not to abort the child, but to save the mothers life, the abortion is the horrible side effect of the treatment. If the mother is at risk, but there is a chance the baby could live, then that is a decision that is best made by the woman and her husband, based on the advice from their doctors and pastors.
Hard cases, like a child who is the result of an incestuous rape, who would be born horribly deformed, suffer for as long as he might live, and would never be mentally capable of rational though, make the hardest choices. We look and see nothing but a suffering life, and we say it is best to end such a life before it can even begin. But, the fact is that we are not God. If we believe that God can bring good out of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, the murder of the Son of God at the hands of evil men, then why can't God bring good out of even the worst possible situation we could imagine?
We do not need to know the reason why God chose to bring a life into the world through horrible situations such as rape or incest. We do not need to know the purpose God has for those lives of suffering to which some are born. We do have to be compassionate to those who suffer abuse and wrong at the hands of others. We do have to stand on the Word of God and say that every abortion is the taking of human life. Will you take that stand in hard times, as well as good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)