It is no secret that membership in evangelical American churches in on the severe decline. Depending on which survey you read, no more than 40% of American adults indentify themselves as affiliated with any church at all. This mass exodus from the pew has been going on for two and a half decades and there is no promise for the reversal for that trend. The obvious question is why? Why in a country with so proud a religious heritage and a history of strong national faith are more than half of the adults outside of the church? Why is the body of Christ failing so badly to reach this nation? While inquiry into this subject would lead to no simple answer, a simplification of the issues at hand is that the church in America no longer looks anything like the church founded by Jesus and His apostles.
The book of Acts tells the history of the founding of the early church. Picking up at the ascension of Jesus into heaven, the author of the book (Luke) describes the mission of the disciples as they preached the gospel in Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. As the word of God reached those who had not believed in Jesus, powerful transformations occurred in the lives of converts. Perhaps the most clear description of the practice of the early church is found in Acts 2:42-47:
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (ESV)
A similar description is found in Acts 4:32-35:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (NIV)
These descriptions seem to mirror the exhortation of Peter to the dispersed church in 1 Peter 4:
The end of all things is at hand; therefore be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers. Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (vv 7-11 ESV)
The passage in Acts 2 mentions that the believers met in the temple daily; this presumably would have been similar to our corporate worship services (in theory, definitely not in culture or practice). However, the modern American church stops there as the end-all be-all of church function. Occasionally a potluck will bring a shared meal, or a revival or evangelism night will be an opportunity for inviting those outside the church to run a "trial membership" in the club. But rarely do we see true dedication to study of the apostles' teachings (scripture). How many sermons are "4 steps to financial freedom" or "5 rules for being a good parent" rather than explicit study and proclamation of the truth of the Bible? How many Sunday school classes are good for business networking and figuring out what our purpose is or that our heart is wild or captivated or broken or free rather than being edifying expositions of God's truth in His holy word? The early church had no mere peripheral interest in what truth was being presented to them. They devoted themselves to studying the teachings. They pursued truth and knowledge. It is true that practical applications exist for the Christian life, but when you don't know what the word says - and more importantly, what it means - application is useless, and powerless.
One of the fundamental problems in the American church is the abandonment of true fellowship and community for superficial relationships and a country club atmosphere with weekly meetings. The believers of the early church had a passion for community that is almost non-existent in the 21st century Western world. While technology has increasingly made the world smaller, it has also increasingly isolated the members of our society. We can hide behind social networking sites and websites (and blogs!) and communicate through text messages rather than by voice or face-to-face in order to avoid any real human contact. We put up facades and smiles and assure everyone that we are "good" when they ask "how are you" (even though they don't care). One can walk into a church service, give the hand of fellowship, the sign of peace, or the fist bump of brotherhood and leave having made no real connection with a fellow human being. When Peter says to show hospitality, does he mean to provide donuts and coffee, or a greeter at the door, or smile at each other during the greeting time? Peter's idea of the church obviously has nothing to do with a Sunday morning song and lecture service. Sometimes I wonder whether we should not follow Paul's command to greet each other with a holy kiss if for no other reason than that it forces us out of our comfort zone into real (if forced) interaction. Fellowship consists of so much more than what we have accomplished in the American church. It is hard to do. It is difficult to let people see you as you are; to appear broken and weak is against our nature, especially in Western culture. We ignore the command to bear each others' burdens. But until we are genuine and open and care about others more than ourselves, we as the church cannot be the image of Christ's bride that God desires.
The major complaint against modern Christianity is that Christians fight and bicker and hate each other. This is not a new issue. Nearly every epistle affirms the need to show kindness and patience and love for one another. Jesus Himself knew that our actions towards each other as His followers would be the loudest witness when He said in John 13:34-35: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (NIV) Why does the world disregard Christians? Because we do not love one another. Jesus said to love each other as He loved us. He died for us. Peter demands that we love earnestly. We have to try. Hard. We have to cover over each others' sins with love. Don't forget that this writing comes from the man who once thought he was doing good to forgive his brother seven times. What kind of dedication did these people have that they shared all of their possessions with one another to take care of any who had need. How foreign this must seem to us, especially in a time of economic hardship in our country, to sell property because someone else is in need. To sacrifice because someone else was hurting. And yet, perhaps, it is precisely because we do not understand what it is truly to suffer and to need that we cannot bring ourselves to be generous. Becoming a Christian for many of the Jews in the early church meant becoming anathema to their families. Or losing their jobs and livelihoods. Or being outcast by their friends and peers. To many of these people, their new brothers and sisters in Christ were their only real family. And maybe since we don't have the same necessity, we can't bring ourselves to the same devotion to fellowship. The early church lived life together and depended on each other for survival. Not that this family wasn't dysfunctional. Like any family, friction existed between sinners. This is why Peter must insist on love that covers sin. But such a dedicated love would present itself in many forms, and is evidenced by sacrificing for one another and putting someone else's needs ahead of one's own. Whether because of the "get-ahead" mindset, or because of sheer disregard for the commands of Christ, or for some other reason, we have failed to love each other more than ourselves. And this fact cannot and never will be hidden from those on the outside looking in to see if we live up to our own standards.
The breaking of bread seems significant for its symbolism of the fellowship among the believers. Family and esteemed guests eat together. Discussion over (and after) dinner reaches levels of familiarity (dare I say intimacy) that occur very few other places and instances (except for over cigars and beer, of course). To invite someone into one's home is a deep sign of kindness and courtesy, and sharing food seems to reach the most primal nerves within us. It may mean giving up a night after work, but how much quicker can fellowship be built than when sharing meals at the end of the day? To live life together in unity and to bear each other's burdens demands love and sacrifice, and sharing meals is one way to build those connections necessary to live in true fellowship.
Can you imagine what our witness would be if we took care of our brothers and sisters in need to the point that not one wanted? If we could put aside our own selfish desires for useless crap, fueled by consumerist mentality? I have referenced before James 1:27: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (NIV) I pray that we have not become so polluted by the world and its temporal desires that we ignore the orphans and widows (and single moms and homeless and starving and those without clean water, etc.) in their distress. If we do not take care of our family - i.e. our brothers and sisters in Christ - we will never be willing to do what it takes to reach those that do not yet belong to God's family.
There are some Christians in America that are earnestly seeking community and generosity. They seek to show love and forgiveness above all else to each other. However, there are many among these groups that would water down the truth of God's word so as not to be offensive and to appeal to those who need God's love. While they are to be commended for their attempts at living life the way God intended in fellowship, there is no need to sugarcoat or change the gospel to reach others. It is fascinating to me to back up and read the first part of Acts 2 where Peter preaches to many people in Jerusalem. Peter boldly and clearly proclaims Jesus as Christ, the Son of God. Peter maintains Jesus's innocence, and claims that the same men to whom he was speaking were responsible for the death of the Messiah (v 23). Then the men ask what they should do and Peter tells them to repent. There was no dilution of the gospel; Peter only proclaimed the truth. And three thousand believed that day (v 41). It was these who were transformed by God's grace and learned to love each other and are our examples in verses 42-47. There is no reason to dismiss any part of God's word in order to live in harmony. In fact without it, there is no true banner to fly over ourselves as Christians. We should be wary of those who would delete part of the gospel in order to be peaceful.
I suck at praying. Personally, I find my own communications with God tend to be so whiny and self-centered that I can only dream of the effective prayer of a righteous man that avails much. I think I am not alone. But how much of the American mindset of prayer is framed by those who teach us to ignore the example of Jesus and to pray "my will be done". We hear all the time that if we tell God what we want, then he will make it happen without any regard for our discerning what He wants, and what He might want us to pray for. We have reduced Him to the genie beyond the sky, old grandfather waiting on our requests so he can spoil us with the desires of our heart. What would our brothers in the Sudan say if they knew we were praying for a new car as they die for their faith? Or the girl forced into prostitution in India? Or the orphan whose parents both died of AIDS? Prayer is about finding the heart of God in order that our hearts may be broken and formed into mirror images of Christ's. It is about lifting up others and pleading with God for justice or mercy for ourselves and our brothers and sisters. God tells us to offer requests for our needs, and He desires to take care of us according to His will. But we abuse this privilege when we use prayer in the name of the only risen Son of God to make known our wish lists and nothing else. I wonder whether it is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit to focus our prayers on ourselves rather than on God and communing with Him. The early church devoted themselves to prayer. So much so that when they petitioned God, He sent an angel on a jailbreak mission to rescue Peter and return him to the church (Acts 12). They knew that prayer was not a public spectacle for human attention or a display of pseudo-righteousness, but rather a supplication to God in times of need, a way to grow nearer to Him and commune with Him. These people, who are clear-minded as Peter desires, will benefit from growing close to God, so that when they speak it is as though God were speaking. And they would not seek any credit but desire above all that God be glorified. There is so much more to be said on the subject of prayer, but as I am admittedly a novice, I will leave such discussions to those who know what they're talking about. Suffice it to say that if the American church were devoted to true prayer, we would see mighty movements of God that we cannot fathom and would be more effective in spreading the news of His Kingdom.
In the passage from Acts 2, we see that when the church devoted itself to the apostles' teachings, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer that God moved among them, they had the favor of the people, and many joined their number. If the American church returns to its roots; if it is filled with people who seek after God's truth, who are genuine and not pretentious, are kind and tender-hearted, forgive each other, who serve each other, who eat meals together, who live life together, and who pray not for their own storehouses to be filled, but for God to reign in all of earth; if the church is filled with those seeking that God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, perhaps we may regain the favor of the people. They, seeing Christ alive in us, will join with us in proclaiming Him as Lord, and God will move powerfully among us.
30 August 2009
23 August 2009
A Christian View of Justice?
I don't typically pay world politics much attention, but the recent release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi - better known as the Lockerbie bomber - by a Scottish judge brings some interesting topics to light. The only pertinent details in my opinion are that he was convicted of mass murder in what seems to be a fair trial, he has terminal prostate cancer, and he is being released to return to his home country of Libya to die in the presence of his family.
I have come across several discussions on various Christian websites which looked at this situation as a great lesson of mercy and grace and how it can be applied today. Indeed, this situation has produced many emotional responses from those who agree as well as those who disagree with the ruling. There may be something to be learned of mercy. The judge who decided to free al-Megrahi spoke of his country's tradition of humanity and argued that the fact that al-Megrahi showed no compassion on his victims and their families was not enough reason to prohibit compassion from being shown to him. Taking the high road and releasing the criminal is supposed to be a gesture of compassion and grace that mirrors what Christ has done for us. And indeed we can learn quite a bit, even from the outrage of those who disagree with the ruling. There was no legal requirement for the release of this man, just as there was no requirement for Christ to die for our sins. Yet compassion prevailed. As we can do nothing to change this present legal situation, we would do well to at least glean from it what we can in regards to mercy.
However, there is a vastly more pertinent issue to be discovered, and it seems to come at a poignant time with regards to the current situation in the Supreme Court of the United States. The major issue here is not whether compassion is good. Jesus told us as His followers to exact no vengeance on our enemies, but to turn the other cheek, offer to walk the extra mile, and give up our cloak (Matthew 5:38-40). Paul wrote that vengeance belongs to the Lord, and showing kindness to our enemies will heap coals on their heads (Romans 12:19-20). Rather, the most imperative issue at hand is whether compassion is in the power of the judicial system at all. Above the Supreme Court, the motto is written "Equal Justice Under Law", in accord with the 14th amendment to the constitution, where we find that no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws". On the eastern facade of the Supreme Court, Justice is represented by a statue holding scales with a blindfold wrapped around her eyes. The implication is that true justice pays no mind to race, socio-economic status, gender, age, or anything else (health?) except the law and the facts of the matter at hand (I recently heard a comedian state that the statue actually represents that the courts weigh whoever has the most money, and they win. Given the increased bureaucracy of our legal system and the subsequent need for good lawyers and rise in legal fees, I wonder whether he is right). This idea of equality in justice pervades God's law (Exodus 23, Leviticus 19).
This is a year in which our president has insisted that empathy was important to him when selecting a justice to serve on the Supreme Court. This is a year in which that nominee agreed and stated that her experience as a minority woman would enable her to do a better job in deciphering the law. Is this good and noble? Is the function of the government to take the moral high road? The heart of the issue is a discussion on the role of government, particularly its courts. Is government in place to punish the guilty and protect the innocent? Or is it there to show empathy and display humanity? Were the words of Jesus and Paul meant specifically for private citizens or for governments to follow as well? And did the New Testament do away with the governmental concepts of an eye for an eye (Deuteronomy 19) and that any man who kills others will be put to death (Genesis 9:6)? Goverment is necessary because of sin and injustice. All are equal as sinners, and all deserve equal treatment in legal matters. If an American government official made a judgement that compassion should be shown, it could only be substantiated by appeal to morals. This would have to be decried by those who have attempted to keep religion out of the government of the United States. We have been told that our government cannot prescribe morality to us; so be it. Just be consistent. If that is the case, our judges should do nothing more and nothing less than carrying out the law as it is written. I can only conclude that to be consistent and true, the judicial system's function is to provide equal rights under the law, and that the only way to do so is to examine the law and the facts of the matter at hand. If justice is not blind, then she is not just.
No discussion of justice and Christian standards can avoid the fact that Christians (namely, Americans) have failed their neighbors in terms of social justice for many years. There exist human trafficking, exploitation of children and poor workers, extreme poverty and hunger, child prostitution, and many more evils to which we have turned a blind eye in order to enjoy our own comforts. This is an entirely different concept than when we discuss our judicial system, although the majority of these issues fall under legal justice as well. It is about personal (and, in terms of the church, corporate) moral responsibility. When Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan, He was not talking about governmental philosophy. He was giving specific guidelines to those who wish to be His disciples. We are to treat those around us with the utmost respect and love. Jesus himself told many of His parables to emphasize kindness to the poor. While we can mourn and denounce the exploits of evil people, the injustices of this world are just as much the fault of Christians failing to bring the world under the conquest of the kingdom of God. As Edmund Burke wrote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." We would do well to remember that true religion is to take care of the widow and the orphan (James 1:27) and thus honor God.
I have come across several discussions on various Christian websites which looked at this situation as a great lesson of mercy and grace and how it can be applied today. Indeed, this situation has produced many emotional responses from those who agree as well as those who disagree with the ruling. There may be something to be learned of mercy. The judge who decided to free al-Megrahi spoke of his country's tradition of humanity and argued that the fact that al-Megrahi showed no compassion on his victims and their families was not enough reason to prohibit compassion from being shown to him. Taking the high road and releasing the criminal is supposed to be a gesture of compassion and grace that mirrors what Christ has done for us. And indeed we can learn quite a bit, even from the outrage of those who disagree with the ruling. There was no legal requirement for the release of this man, just as there was no requirement for Christ to die for our sins. Yet compassion prevailed. As we can do nothing to change this present legal situation, we would do well to at least glean from it what we can in regards to mercy.
However, there is a vastly more pertinent issue to be discovered, and it seems to come at a poignant time with regards to the current situation in the Supreme Court of the United States. The major issue here is not whether compassion is good. Jesus told us as His followers to exact no vengeance on our enemies, but to turn the other cheek, offer to walk the extra mile, and give up our cloak (Matthew 5:38-40). Paul wrote that vengeance belongs to the Lord, and showing kindness to our enemies will heap coals on their heads (Romans 12:19-20). Rather, the most imperative issue at hand is whether compassion is in the power of the judicial system at all. Above the Supreme Court, the motto is written "Equal Justice Under Law", in accord with the 14th amendment to the constitution, where we find that no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under the laws". On the eastern facade of the Supreme Court, Justice is represented by a statue holding scales with a blindfold wrapped around her eyes. The implication is that true justice pays no mind to race, socio-economic status, gender, age, or anything else (health?) except the law and the facts of the matter at hand (I recently heard a comedian state that the statue actually represents that the courts weigh whoever has the most money, and they win. Given the increased bureaucracy of our legal system and the subsequent need for good lawyers and rise in legal fees, I wonder whether he is right). This idea of equality in justice pervades God's law (Exodus 23, Leviticus 19).
This is a year in which our president has insisted that empathy was important to him when selecting a justice to serve on the Supreme Court. This is a year in which that nominee agreed and stated that her experience as a minority woman would enable her to do a better job in deciphering the law. Is this good and noble? Is the function of the government to take the moral high road? The heart of the issue is a discussion on the role of government, particularly its courts. Is government in place to punish the guilty and protect the innocent? Or is it there to show empathy and display humanity? Were the words of Jesus and Paul meant specifically for private citizens or for governments to follow as well? And did the New Testament do away with the governmental concepts of an eye for an eye (Deuteronomy 19) and that any man who kills others will be put to death (Genesis 9:6)? Goverment is necessary because of sin and injustice. All are equal as sinners, and all deserve equal treatment in legal matters. If an American government official made a judgement that compassion should be shown, it could only be substantiated by appeal to morals. This would have to be decried by those who have attempted to keep religion out of the government of the United States. We have been told that our government cannot prescribe morality to us; so be it. Just be consistent. If that is the case, our judges should do nothing more and nothing less than carrying out the law as it is written. I can only conclude that to be consistent and true, the judicial system's function is to provide equal rights under the law, and that the only way to do so is to examine the law and the facts of the matter at hand. If justice is not blind, then she is not just.
No discussion of justice and Christian standards can avoid the fact that Christians (namely, Americans) have failed their neighbors in terms of social justice for many years. There exist human trafficking, exploitation of children and poor workers, extreme poverty and hunger, child prostitution, and many more evils to which we have turned a blind eye in order to enjoy our own comforts. This is an entirely different concept than when we discuss our judicial system, although the majority of these issues fall under legal justice as well. It is about personal (and, in terms of the church, corporate) moral responsibility. When Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan, He was not talking about governmental philosophy. He was giving specific guidelines to those who wish to be His disciples. We are to treat those around us with the utmost respect and love. Jesus himself told many of His parables to emphasize kindness to the poor. While we can mourn and denounce the exploits of evil people, the injustices of this world are just as much the fault of Christians failing to bring the world under the conquest of the kingdom of God. As Edmund Burke wrote, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." We would do well to remember that true religion is to take care of the widow and the orphan (James 1:27) and thus honor God.
21 August 2009
Things you think about at 4 in the morning when you can't sleep
A topic for discussion (although probably trivial and admittedly hypothetical):
Since Jesus had no inherited sin nature through Adam, and since death is the consequence of sin, had Jesus not taken on mankind's sin, would he have been mortal in the flesh?
Since Jesus had no inherited sin nature through Adam, and since death is the consequence of sin, had Jesus not taken on mankind's sin, would he have been mortal in the flesh?
16 August 2009
15 August 2009
I'm pro-choice, but it's not what you think
Politicians use the word "rhetoric" when they think the opposite side is using unfair language to describe them and their positions. However, rhetoric itself is not necessarily bad. It helps us to frame debates around the central issues by using effective and persuasive language. The debate regarding abortion has been framed by rhetoric from both sides. Those against abortion call themselves "pro-life"; the obvious inference is that their opposition would be "anti-life" or "pro-death". While this moniker may be true, I highly doubt many that support abortion would accept this point of view. They prefer the term "pro-choice", implying that their opposition would be "anti-choice". Here is where I would like to focus our discussion.
I am pro-choice. But not in the sense that anyone would have you believe. And I would say that the majority of those opposed to abortion will agree with me. You see, we all (or almost all) agree that a woman's rights should be protected. She has the right to choose with whom to engage in sex. No one I know would suggest that any woman can justly be coerced into having sex with anyone she doesn't want to. Any person is to be protected in the same way, as innocent people (regarding the law), so this would include all people, adult or not. Her choice is correctly and justly protected in that sense by laws regarding rape, sexual assault, etc. The other way is also true; it is her right to engage in consensual sex with any other adult she chooses (remember, I am not making moral equivocations). This would technically apply to adolescents as well as regarding legal matters, but children are easily preyed on by perverse adults, and laws protecting children are necessary. I would generally agree that laws about sex in our country are just and fair, and I see no reason to discuss them further at this point. So I am pro-choice for women when it comes to when and with whom to engage in sex.
Second - and fewer pro-lifers will agree with me here - I believe that women have the right to prevent pregnancy with preventative birth control. Science has produced many methods, and there are additionally many other natural methods of preventing pregnancy that are highly effective and do not need to be described in detail. Obviously none of these methods are fool-proof, but the exceptions tend to prove the rule. I would not grant the same rights to children or adolescents that are still under the protection of responsible adults. Sex is a moral issue regardless of whether one believes that to be true or not. As such, the parents or guardians have a legal right to enforce the morality in their family, so teens still living at home - not providing for themselves - do not have claims to all the rights that adults do. We do not grant them other privileges (driving, alcohol, voting, etc.) even though those issues effect them. If those adolescents are functioning as adults, providing for themselves, then so be it. They can be granted the same rights to contraceptives medically. But the government owes them no access simply because their bodies are capable of engaging in sex.
As I read back over what I have already written, I am afraid that I have gone too far into detail and perhaps convoluted my message. However I deem it necessary to show in as great of detail as I can that my position is not, as some pro-abortionists would suggest, sexist toward women. I believe that every right a woman can exercise in order to prevent pregnancy is her right - not the least of which is the most effective birth control, namely abstinence. In this sense - and I want this to be perfectly clear - I am in agreement with the pro-choice argument: a woman has the right to do with her own body what she thinks is best. The rhetoric of calling me anti-choice fails when held up to scrutiny, and I refute anyone who would criticize my stance as anything other than fair and beneficial to women. Now for the hard part.
The difference lies now in how my view of abortion differs from that of its proponents. If, as they would say, a fetus is a non-person, then an abortion is a medical and scientific matter. The argument that it is an attempt to dodge responsibility and consequence of sex is not valid here, because the same could be said for the use of birth control. The fundamental argument boils down to whether a fetus is a human life or a growth equivalent to a benign tumor. I highly doubt that any proponent of abortion would remain so if they honestly believed it killed a person. But no matter how many times it is repeated that this is a medical issue the fact remains that it is a moral and philosophical question.
What makes a human? A fetus carried to term, born as a baby, is obviously accepted as a human being. Our society places a special emphasis on the protection of babies and young children. We would be (and are, when it happens) appalled by a mother or father killing their own children. We despise those who hurt the innocent and defenseless. Why is it any different in the womb? Because it is smaller than a human living outside the womb? Humans come in all sorts of sizes. Is someone with dwarfism less human than a normal sized person? Is Yao Ming intrinsically more of a person than Tom Cruise? Where is the line of size difference that says, ok it's this big, now it's a person?
What about developmentally? In the first trimester, a fetus looks very little like a human being at all. Is there a dividing line of development that we can show where it becomes a human at a certain stage? We certainly do not look at prepubescent children and declare that they are inhuman. And yet a newborn is obviously undeveloped in comparison with a twelve year old, which in turn is undeveloped in comparison with a 40 year old. Again, what is the standard? There is an argument that until a fetus can sustain life outside the womb, it is not a person. The main problem with this argument is the concept behind the sustenance of life. A newborn cannot sustain life outside the womb alone any more than a baby in the second trimester. A fetus growing in the womb needs nutrition and protection in order to develop and live. A child must have someone else to feed it and care for it or it will die. What is the fundamental difference? This does not make it less human. Are only adults who can care for themselves worthy of being considered human? Where objectively is the line where we can say that a fetus has grown to the point that it can live in the outside world without aid from an adult?
Is a fetus human when it can feel pain? There are disorders of the nervous system and paralysis that cause even adults not to feel pain. Is it when there is a beating heart present? There are those with pacemakers; they need an artificial heart to survive. Are they subhuman?
You see, any of these standards for humanity or personhood quickly become nothing but arbitrary rules imposed by an unobjective observer. I submit to you that there cannot be an argument against a fetus's personhood which is not arbitrary. We have no acceptable standard to differentiate between an incompletely developed human and a completely developed human that is not arbitrary and subjective. Any argument that says a fetus is not a person from the instant of conception to the last breath begs the question whether there is such a thing as being a person at all. This subjectivism leads to relativism. A person is whatever I want it to be. At this point the argument breaks down, as there is no guiding principle as to how to apply it. We cannot accept arbitrary conditions placed on an idea by a person. We surely cannot imagine a worldview which denies such a thing as humanity. That position is inconsistent with our nature, our actions, and what we understand about the world. There is, unequivocally, no philosophically tenable viewpoint that a fetus is not a person. And we believe that innocent, defenseless (which babies certainly are) people are worth protecting. And, in fact, our government does just that. In all manners outside abortion, an unborn baby is treated as human. If someone accidentally causes the death of a fetus, that person can be charged with manslaughter (and murder if it is intentional). Why in this one issue is there a difference?
Not only does logic lead us to this position, but so also does the word of God. I have until this point tried to show that this issue is just as much an ethical, philosophical debate as it is religious. However, God undeniably has something to say on the subject and deserves to be heard. Psalm 139:13-16 is used popularly to show God's work in unborn babies, who are knit together in their mother's womb. Luke 1 is also useful in showing that the baby inside Elizabeth had a spirit and even recognized when Mary who was carrying Jesus in the womb was present.
The pro-choice argument almost always includes the emotional appeal to the plight of women who are victims of rape and incest or who may die by carrying their pregnancies to term. I would agree that these are very pertinent issues worthy of discussion. But without coming to an agreement that abortion kills a defenseless human being, we cannot grasp the gravity of these situations, and discussion will be insubstantial. There can be no meaningful dialogue regarding abortion without the mutual realization that killing a child is killing a child no matter what box the argument comes wrapped up in.
So I am pro-choice. I believe that we should protect the right of women to make their own decisions, whether morally correct or not. I have common ground with those who argue for the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. But I am unashamedly pro-life. We cannot fail to protect the innocent lives that are being lost every day.
A couple of final points. A much more powerful proclamation of these truths was done recently by John Piper and I wholeheartedly recommend visiting desiringgod.org and listening to the entire message entitled "The Baby in my Womb Leaped for Joy". More information regarding abortion, statistics regarding "necessary" or "emergency" abortions, and racial abortion issues can be found at abort73.com. Also, the argumentation and reasoning behind the ruling of Roe vs. Wade make a mockery of our legal system and of reason itself. Whether you agree with the ruling or not, you would be hard-pressed to agree that the ruling makes any sense in light of the reasoning provided for the ruling. It is insulting to our intelligence that we have been forced to agree that Roe v. Wade is a good example of due process. Even I could have written a better argument for decriminalizing abortion.
Finally, to my fellow people who consider themselves pro-life: we need to take a long look at ourselves. I truly believe that being anti-abortion does not make us pro-life. This is an enormous issue, and a very important one; however, unless and until we are willing to face the other life issues, we cannot live up to our self-imposed description. To be pro-life means fighting disease, poverty, genocide, unnecessary war, violence, and death in all of its forms. We cannot give up the fight on abortion, but we cannot stop there and pretend that we are contending for life to the best of our abilities.
I am pro-choice. But not in the sense that anyone would have you believe. And I would say that the majority of those opposed to abortion will agree with me. You see, we all (or almost all) agree that a woman's rights should be protected. She has the right to choose with whom to engage in sex. No one I know would suggest that any woman can justly be coerced into having sex with anyone she doesn't want to. Any person is to be protected in the same way, as innocent people (regarding the law), so this would include all people, adult or not. Her choice is correctly and justly protected in that sense by laws regarding rape, sexual assault, etc. The other way is also true; it is her right to engage in consensual sex with any other adult she chooses (remember, I am not making moral equivocations). This would technically apply to adolescents as well as regarding legal matters, but children are easily preyed on by perverse adults, and laws protecting children are necessary. I would generally agree that laws about sex in our country are just and fair, and I see no reason to discuss them further at this point. So I am pro-choice for women when it comes to when and with whom to engage in sex.
Second - and fewer pro-lifers will agree with me here - I believe that women have the right to prevent pregnancy with preventative birth control. Science has produced many methods, and there are additionally many other natural methods of preventing pregnancy that are highly effective and do not need to be described in detail. Obviously none of these methods are fool-proof, but the exceptions tend to prove the rule. I would not grant the same rights to children or adolescents that are still under the protection of responsible adults. Sex is a moral issue regardless of whether one believes that to be true or not. As such, the parents or guardians have a legal right to enforce the morality in their family, so teens still living at home - not providing for themselves - do not have claims to all the rights that adults do. We do not grant them other privileges (driving, alcohol, voting, etc.) even though those issues effect them. If those adolescents are functioning as adults, providing for themselves, then so be it. They can be granted the same rights to contraceptives medically. But the government owes them no access simply because their bodies are capable of engaging in sex.
As I read back over what I have already written, I am afraid that I have gone too far into detail and perhaps convoluted my message. However I deem it necessary to show in as great of detail as I can that my position is not, as some pro-abortionists would suggest, sexist toward women. I believe that every right a woman can exercise in order to prevent pregnancy is her right - not the least of which is the most effective birth control, namely abstinence. In this sense - and I want this to be perfectly clear - I am in agreement with the pro-choice argument: a woman has the right to do with her own body what she thinks is best. The rhetoric of calling me anti-choice fails when held up to scrutiny, and I refute anyone who would criticize my stance as anything other than fair and beneficial to women. Now for the hard part.
The difference lies now in how my view of abortion differs from that of its proponents. If, as they would say, a fetus is a non-person, then an abortion is a medical and scientific matter. The argument that it is an attempt to dodge responsibility and consequence of sex is not valid here, because the same could be said for the use of birth control. The fundamental argument boils down to whether a fetus is a human life or a growth equivalent to a benign tumor. I highly doubt that any proponent of abortion would remain so if they honestly believed it killed a person. But no matter how many times it is repeated that this is a medical issue the fact remains that it is a moral and philosophical question.
What makes a human? A fetus carried to term, born as a baby, is obviously accepted as a human being. Our society places a special emphasis on the protection of babies and young children. We would be (and are, when it happens) appalled by a mother or father killing their own children. We despise those who hurt the innocent and defenseless. Why is it any different in the womb? Because it is smaller than a human living outside the womb? Humans come in all sorts of sizes. Is someone with dwarfism less human than a normal sized person? Is Yao Ming intrinsically more of a person than Tom Cruise? Where is the line of size difference that says, ok it's this big, now it's a person?
What about developmentally? In the first trimester, a fetus looks very little like a human being at all. Is there a dividing line of development that we can show where it becomes a human at a certain stage? We certainly do not look at prepubescent children and declare that they are inhuman. And yet a newborn is obviously undeveloped in comparison with a twelve year old, which in turn is undeveloped in comparison with a 40 year old. Again, what is the standard? There is an argument that until a fetus can sustain life outside the womb, it is not a person. The main problem with this argument is the concept behind the sustenance of life. A newborn cannot sustain life outside the womb alone any more than a baby in the second trimester. A fetus growing in the womb needs nutrition and protection in order to develop and live. A child must have someone else to feed it and care for it or it will die. What is the fundamental difference? This does not make it less human. Are only adults who can care for themselves worthy of being considered human? Where objectively is the line where we can say that a fetus has grown to the point that it can live in the outside world without aid from an adult?
Is a fetus human when it can feel pain? There are disorders of the nervous system and paralysis that cause even adults not to feel pain. Is it when there is a beating heart present? There are those with pacemakers; they need an artificial heart to survive. Are they subhuman?
You see, any of these standards for humanity or personhood quickly become nothing but arbitrary rules imposed by an unobjective observer. I submit to you that there cannot be an argument against a fetus's personhood which is not arbitrary. We have no acceptable standard to differentiate between an incompletely developed human and a completely developed human that is not arbitrary and subjective. Any argument that says a fetus is not a person from the instant of conception to the last breath begs the question whether there is such a thing as being a person at all. This subjectivism leads to relativism. A person is whatever I want it to be. At this point the argument breaks down, as there is no guiding principle as to how to apply it. We cannot accept arbitrary conditions placed on an idea by a person. We surely cannot imagine a worldview which denies such a thing as humanity. That position is inconsistent with our nature, our actions, and what we understand about the world. There is, unequivocally, no philosophically tenable viewpoint that a fetus is not a person. And we believe that innocent, defenseless (which babies certainly are) people are worth protecting. And, in fact, our government does just that. In all manners outside abortion, an unborn baby is treated as human. If someone accidentally causes the death of a fetus, that person can be charged with manslaughter (and murder if it is intentional). Why in this one issue is there a difference?
Not only does logic lead us to this position, but so also does the word of God. I have until this point tried to show that this issue is just as much an ethical, philosophical debate as it is religious. However, God undeniably has something to say on the subject and deserves to be heard. Psalm 139:13-16 is used popularly to show God's work in unborn babies, who are knit together in their mother's womb. Luke 1 is also useful in showing that the baby inside Elizabeth had a spirit and even recognized when Mary who was carrying Jesus in the womb was present.
The pro-choice argument almost always includes the emotional appeal to the plight of women who are victims of rape and incest or who may die by carrying their pregnancies to term. I would agree that these are very pertinent issues worthy of discussion. But without coming to an agreement that abortion kills a defenseless human being, we cannot grasp the gravity of these situations, and discussion will be insubstantial. There can be no meaningful dialogue regarding abortion without the mutual realization that killing a child is killing a child no matter what box the argument comes wrapped up in.
So I am pro-choice. I believe that we should protect the right of women to make their own decisions, whether morally correct or not. I have common ground with those who argue for the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. But I am unashamedly pro-life. We cannot fail to protect the innocent lives that are being lost every day.
A couple of final points. A much more powerful proclamation of these truths was done recently by John Piper and I wholeheartedly recommend visiting desiringgod.org and listening to the entire message entitled "The Baby in my Womb Leaped for Joy". More information regarding abortion, statistics regarding "necessary" or "emergency" abortions, and racial abortion issues can be found at abort73.com. Also, the argumentation and reasoning behind the ruling of Roe vs. Wade make a mockery of our legal system and of reason itself. Whether you agree with the ruling or not, you would be hard-pressed to agree that the ruling makes any sense in light of the reasoning provided for the ruling. It is insulting to our intelligence that we have been forced to agree that Roe v. Wade is a good example of due process. Even I could have written a better argument for decriminalizing abortion.
Finally, to my fellow people who consider themselves pro-life: we need to take a long look at ourselves. I truly believe that being anti-abortion does not make us pro-life. This is an enormous issue, and a very important one; however, unless and until we are willing to face the other life issues, we cannot live up to our self-imposed description. To be pro-life means fighting disease, poverty, genocide, unnecessary war, violence, and death in all of its forms. We cannot give up the fight on abortion, but we cannot stop there and pretend that we are contending for life to the best of our abilities.
Praise God
The past couple of months have been difficult for us. It seems that most anything that could have gone wrong did. It led me to question whether the move here was the right one. But God has remained faithful. Every time it seems that we are at the end of our rope, He sends unexpected blessings our way, and He did it again today. So I will choose to continue trusting Him because He keeps proving Himself faithful. I'm trusting that He will continue to provide for our needs, and hope that He will provide a job for me soon.
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:26-34 NIV)
“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:26-34 NIV)
13 August 2009
Rejoicing in Romans 8 in light of Romans 9
Before I was born, my mother knew me and loved me. Before I caused her pain - in childbirth (and thankfully thereafter), by disobedience, by spitefulness - she committed to love me unconditionally as her child. This is the nature of motherhood, a natural attachment to her offspring. My father likewise loved me before he saw me and has never wavered from it. It is marvelous the design God has to preserve the family, and it is beautiful to see his work in action through imperfect human love. Sometimes though, this can lead to a wrong mindset about God, His purposes, and His plan.
I was recently studying Romans chapter 9, and though I had read it many times before, I reverted emotionally to an old response when I read the words: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated". You see, Paul writes, "Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls - she was told: 'The older will serve the younger.'" (vv 10-12, NIV - a quote from Genesis 25:23) From the context, Paul is very clearly using this story as a prooftext to show God's unconditional election of His own people before their birth. Our immediate human response is "That can't be! A loving and just and merciful God choosing our fate for us before we have done anything good or bad! Shouldn't God leave it up to us? Surely He has an obligation to justice that He must leave this up to us!" And yet Paul anticipates this very thinking - it is after all the natural response - as he immediately writes "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy...' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (vv14-16, NIV - a quote from Exodus 33:19) The New King James Version reads, "So then, it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (v 16) Paul, himself being human and very justice-minded knew the knee-jerk reaction that sinful man would have when reading these words. A man's will cannot and will never bring the mercy of God. Only God has the prerogative to show mercy or not. Indeed, fallen sinful man standing before God and demanding justice or mercy would be similar to (yet still an infinitely weaker case than) an ant demanding anything of a human. Paul goes on to write "For the Scripture says to Pharoah: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden." (vv 16-18 NIV - a quote from Exodus 33:19) To my brothers and sisters who would argue that Pharoah hardened his own heart, or that Pharoah was "too far gone" so God decided He could make an example of the ruler, I submit that that is not what Paul is saying here, nor is it consistent with what Paul is saying to be true in this passage. The fact is that God took a man's heart into His own hands and hardened it, turned it against Himself for His own purposes. It is clear from Paul's argument that God is the one doing the action, not Pharoah. God does what He wills and we are powerless to do anything about it. That is the true Christian view of the condition of man. And yet Paul sees the next argument coming, as it tries to rise up in my heart every time I read this passage. "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?'" (v 19 NIV) Admit it. That's the same thought you had when you read through Romans 9 up to this point, and it is the same feeling I have as well. Paul knows exactly who he is talking to and what he is talking about. God has placed in us a natural desire for justice, but it is corrupted by our sinful pride. So much so that we will question God on His sense of justice. Paul knows this and gives his response. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him that formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"'" (these are quotations from the book of Isaiah) "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath - prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory" (vv 19-23 NIV) Wow. What if God wanted to do that. Surely the omnipotent Creator of the universe can do whatever he likes with His creation. My dad used to say (quoting Bill Cosby I believe) "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out." Well, God brought this world into being and created music and gravity and quadratic formulas and grammar and logic and you and me and He can do whatever He pleases with it. You see, God is not bound by any law of goodness or justice. If these things transcended Him, He would cease to be God. Rather, He has by His nature defined for us what justice and goodness are, and anything He does would be just and good. I think I sense a hint of sarcasm when Paul says "Who are you, O man..." (v 20). O man, great explorer of the planet and the moon, who cannot go to the nearest planet, of which there are millions in the universe God has created. O man, who has found DNA and can clone animals and people, yet cannot add information to the proteins necessary for life, while God created all ex nihilo - out of nothing - and created you, O man, from dust and His breath. O man, who can calculate the angle of an isosceles triangle and the speed of light, yet cannot approach infiniteness, which God is. Who are you, O man, who kill, steal, covet, profane, and boast, who are you to approach God demanding satisfaction? The potter has the freedom to do what he will with the clay, and the clay has no argument against the potter.
Now, as we look into Romans 9, which is the more miraculous and absurd fact? Is it that God would choose to let sinners receive the punishment they deserve ("for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23 NIV) "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23 NIV)). Is it so far-fetched that God would let these people - dead in sin, haters of God, perverters of the truth - take their natural course in order that His justice and wrath be magnified and glorified? Is it so beyond the scope of imagination that before they were born and had done anything good or bad that God hated Esau? No, my friends. The wondrous, miraculous, supernatural message of Romans 9 can be summed up as this: "But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 NIV). While we were the enemies of God, before we were born, God said of us "These are mine, and I will die to protect them".
So then, how much more powerful now, in the light of God's unfailing sovereign grace and love when we read:
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28 (NIV)
"What then shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:31(NIV)
"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:37-39 (NIV)
When I read the promises of Romans 8 in the light of Romans 9, they are more powerful, more beautiful, and more glorious. I can anew agree with Paul when he says in Ephesians 3:20-21, "Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen."
I was recently studying Romans chapter 9, and though I had read it many times before, I reverted emotionally to an old response when I read the words: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated". You see, Paul writes, "Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls - she was told: 'The older will serve the younger.'" (vv 10-12, NIV - a quote from Genesis 25:23) From the context, Paul is very clearly using this story as a prooftext to show God's unconditional election of His own people before their birth. Our immediate human response is "That can't be! A loving and just and merciful God choosing our fate for us before we have done anything good or bad! Shouldn't God leave it up to us? Surely He has an obligation to justice that He must leave this up to us!" And yet Paul anticipates this very thinking - it is after all the natural response - as he immediately writes "What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy...' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." (vv14-16, NIV - a quote from Exodus 33:19) The New King James Version reads, "So then, it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." (v 16) Paul, himself being human and very justice-minded knew the knee-jerk reaction that sinful man would have when reading these words. A man's will cannot and will never bring the mercy of God. Only God has the prerogative to show mercy or not. Indeed, fallen sinful man standing before God and demanding justice or mercy would be similar to (yet still an infinitely weaker case than) an ant demanding anything of a human. Paul goes on to write "For the Scripture says to Pharoah: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden." (vv 16-18 NIV - a quote from Exodus 33:19) To my brothers and sisters who would argue that Pharoah hardened his own heart, or that Pharoah was "too far gone" so God decided He could make an example of the ruler, I submit that that is not what Paul is saying here, nor is it consistent with what Paul is saying to be true in this passage. The fact is that God took a man's heart into His own hands and hardened it, turned it against Himself for His own purposes. It is clear from Paul's argument that God is the one doing the action, not Pharoah. God does what He wills and we are powerless to do anything about it. That is the true Christian view of the condition of man. And yet Paul sees the next argument coming, as it tries to rise up in my heart every time I read this passage. "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?'" (v 19 NIV) Admit it. That's the same thought you had when you read through Romans 9 up to this point, and it is the same feeling I have as well. Paul knows exactly who he is talking to and what he is talking about. God has placed in us a natural desire for justice, but it is corrupted by our sinful pride. So much so that we will question God on His sense of justice. Paul knows this and gives his response. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? 'Shall what is formed say to him that formed it, "Why did you make me like this?"'" (these are quotations from the book of Isaiah) "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the objects of His wrath - prepared for destruction? What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory" (vv 19-23 NIV) Wow. What if God wanted to do that. Surely the omnipotent Creator of the universe can do whatever he likes with His creation. My dad used to say (quoting Bill Cosby I believe) "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out." Well, God brought this world into being and created music and gravity and quadratic formulas and grammar and logic and you and me and He can do whatever He pleases with it. You see, God is not bound by any law of goodness or justice. If these things transcended Him, He would cease to be God. Rather, He has by His nature defined for us what justice and goodness are, and anything He does would be just and good. I think I sense a hint of sarcasm when Paul says "Who are you, O man..." (v 20). O man, great explorer of the planet and the moon, who cannot go to the nearest planet, of which there are millions in the universe God has created. O man, who has found DNA and can clone animals and people, yet cannot add information to the proteins necessary for life, while God created all ex nihilo - out of nothing - and created you, O man, from dust and His breath. O man, who can calculate the angle of an isosceles triangle and the speed of light, yet cannot approach infiniteness, which God is. Who are you, O man, who kill, steal, covet, profane, and boast, who are you to approach God demanding satisfaction? The potter has the freedom to do what he will with the clay, and the clay has no argument against the potter.
Now, as we look into Romans 9, which is the more miraculous and absurd fact? Is it that God would choose to let sinners receive the punishment they deserve ("for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23 NIV) "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23 NIV)). Is it so far-fetched that God would let these people - dead in sin, haters of God, perverters of the truth - take their natural course in order that His justice and wrath be magnified and glorified? Is it so beyond the scope of imagination that before they were born and had done anything good or bad that God hated Esau? No, my friends. The wondrous, miraculous, supernatural message of Romans 9 can be summed up as this: "But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 NIV). While we were the enemies of God, before we were born, God said of us "These are mine, and I will die to protect them".
So then, how much more powerful now, in the light of God's unfailing sovereign grace and love when we read:
"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28 (NIV)
"What then shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?" Romans 8:31(NIV)
"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:37-39 (NIV)
When I read the promises of Romans 8 in the light of Romans 9, they are more powerful, more beautiful, and more glorious. I can anew agree with Paul when he says in Ephesians 3:20-21, "Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen."
11 August 2009
The Beginning
It seems doubtful to me that I have anything interesting and important enough to say that people would really want to read any of it. However, in the interest of occupying my time (which I have quite a lot of these days) I have decided to try to put some topics out for discussion. Check back soon and feel free to chime in any time and tell me to shut up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)