Sunday, June 30, 2013

Careless Sins

As followers of Christ on the road of sanctification, we should be becoming more like Him each day.  This requires effort on our part and obedience in following His Word. As we do our portion the Holy Spirit does His work, and together we leave the old ways and sinful patterns behind.  Certainly one thing we would expect to see is that we deliberately sin less and we are more concerned for others.

Sin always has consequences.  Most of the time, the consequences of our sins affect us, and we must be prepared to take responsibility for those consequences.  At other times, our sin affects others. Even if there are no obvious immediate effects on ourselves or others, we have disrupted our relationship with God.  As David said in Psalm 51, "Against you, you only, have I sinned."  Even our secret sins offend God.

Still, there are the situations where we did not set forth with sin in our hearts.  Our intentions may be good but we hurt someone because we are careless.  We may simply not be paying attention as we should.  Last week, for example, I caused someone temporary suffering because of an act of carelessness.  It was a simple act of speaking the wrong thing to the wrong person.  It was done with the best of intentions and with the hopes of making a bad situation much better, but actually caused confusion. The problem was easily corrected with an apology and I was quickly forgiven, probably because the other party realized my good intentions. 

Two of the seven deadly sins are sloth and pride, and I think this is where most of these careless sins fall.  We are not sinning out of lust, envy, greed, anger, or gluttony.  They occur because we are too lazy to take the time to pay attention to the details to prevent such a thing.  Or we are too prideful to think that such a matter is worth our attention, or that we are too important to have to waste our time with such trivial things.

I have had a problem with remembering names and faces for as long as I can remember remembering.  I am rather introverted, and not very outgoing or facile at making new friendships with strangers.  Yet I am convicted that some of the common courtesies are really the act of determining that other people are important enough that these courtesies require your attention.  In the Bible verse we looked at last week, Philippians 2:3, Paul told us, "...in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself."  If you can remember your own name, you should esteem others enough to remember theirs, and I am convicted of this sin of caring less-- being careless. 

If you stop and think a minute, there is an almost limitless list of careless sins.  Perhaps forgetting to say a "thank you" for someone that opens a door for you, or not opening the door for someone in the first place.  (Of course, I think driving too slowly in the left lane shows a careless lack of concern for others.)  Our rushed society encourages a certain amount of obliviousness, as we focus on what we need to get done and what needs to get checked off the list.  There often seems to not be enough time to care.

It takes effort to resist temptation.  Resisting is an active process.  In the Latin, "re-" can mean "against," and sister means "stand firm."  To resist, then, is to stand against.  We are faced with a temptation or a sinful desire, and we must resist.  Sometimes the temptations are subtle, and before we know it, we are caught up in a sin.  These careless sins are like that, and because these things that we should be caring about are not deemed important, we likewise deem the resulting sin as unimportant.  We may not even be aware that we are sinning or causing suffering.

It takes effort to care.  Caring is an active process.  It requires us to love your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27).  This is actually God's Word and Commandment.  Careless sins are because we are too lazy or prideful to carry this out.  We are putting ourselves and our concerns above others, and not taking the time and effort to esteem others better than ourselves.  Whether we care enough about or neighbor or not, God cares that we care. 

Sunday, June 16, 2013

The Father's Law

As children, our parents taught us to respect the law and the people who make it and who enforce it.  That was one of the definitions of "being good"; a "good" person did not break the law.  Throughout the Bible we are told to submit to authorities and pay our taxes.  Paul tells us in Romans 13:1, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." 

We also know that if a man-made law clearly violates the written Word of God and His commands, we must obey God.  When Darius made a decree that no one should worship anyone but himself, Daniel violated that and prayed openly to God.  For this he was thrown into the lion's den, but was spared (Daniel 6). 

Some people say, "You can't legislate morality," which is an absurd statement.  All law is the legislation of morality, of someone's idea of what is right and what is wrong.  A law against murder is a legal declaration that murder is wrong.  We do not live in a true democracy, where laws would be made by the majority.  We live in a representational republic, where we elect people, presumably with some legal expertise, to enact laws for us. 

Therefore, we can sometimes look at laws to determine what the general public has declared to be right and wrong.  This must not be confused with what God has declared to be right and wrong.  The laws of the land and the Word of God would ideally be in agreement, but sadly that is not always the case.  In the case of murder and theft, our laws agree with God's commandments.  In the case of abortion, they do not.  What is frustrating, however, is that sometimes a law with good intentions really confuses the issues.  You can learn a lot from looking at a law and seeing what it doesn't proscribe. 

In Tampa, John Andrew Welden who was the son of an Obstetrician got his girlfriend pregnant.  She desired to keep the baby, but the man did not want to be a father.  He got one of his father's prescriptions and forged his name so as to obtain a medication that would cause an abortion.  He then switched the label on the bottle so that it looked to be an antibiotic.  He then gave the medicine to his girlfriend, telling her that his father had prescribed it for her because he wanted her to be on an antibiotic.  The girlfriend then had an abortion, and when she went to the hospital was told that it was due to a medication.

There is a federal law called Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.  It recognizes a child in-utero as legal victim, at any stage of development, if he or she is killed or injured during the commission of certain federal crimes.  The young man is being charged as a criminal under this act, as well as first degree murder, for the death of the girlfriend's baby, and he faces life imprisonment.  What was his federal crime?  Product tampering.  This is because he switched the labels on the medication. 

Those who oppose abortion should be pleased that there is a law that would protect unborn life.  But think about what this law is saying by what it does not do.  You cannot be a legal victim unless you are a living person, but in this case you are only a legal victim if a federal crime was committed.  If the Obstetrician had prescribed the medication, there would have been no problem.  If the girlfriend had gone to any doctor and received the medicine, there would have been no problem.  If the young man had given her the medicine openly and without changing the label, there would have been no problem.  In this case, the unborn child was only a living being because a label got switched. 

So, although having this law on the books is better than nothing, we cannot look at this law for moral guidance.  It only tells us that as far as the federal government is concerned, the fetus is a living being under certain externally derived circumstances.  And, it really is only applicable after the fact for all practical purposes.  It only looks back after the fetus is killed and asks, "was a federal crime committed in the process?"  It does not seem that it would provide any deterrence and prevent the death of the unborn.  I am sure that if John Welden knew that the only way he was going to get into trouble was the switching of the label, he would have figured another way around it. 

The news articles focus on the suffering of Mr. Welden and his wasted life and potential life imprisonment.  They focus on the suffering of the young woman who lost a child that she desired to keep.  They do not focus on the suffering of the unborn child who was denied a life in this world due to the selfish actions of a cold-hearted assassin.  And again, he is an assassin only because he switched a label, according to the law. 

A confused society enacts confusing laws.  The legislation of morality requires moral clarity.  A fetus cannot be a person on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays only.  A well-intentioned law may prevent some tragedies, but a law that only goes part of the way sanctions others.  Justice Blackmun wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision that, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment."  We can only pray that on Father's Day that anyone who would father a life would recognize that regardless of how the laws are written, that the life that is created is a living person, at any stage of development, in each and every case.  Our Father's laws tell us so. 

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Truth or Consequences

Forgive me for the extended absence; by God's grace I was able to visit the Holy Land.  It was in Israel that so much of our Judeo-Christian heritage originates, and my wife and I were blessed richly to see the land and its peoples, and to learn so much of both the ancient and the modern.  When we think of ancient Israel, we are looking back through most of the Old Testament.  Much of the Old Testament events, however, occurred outside of Israel.  For example, the Law was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, in the Sinai Peninsula. 

The Law and the Ten Commandments were God's instructions to His chosen people.  These were designed to insure the distinctiveness and separateness of the Jews.  Several parts of the law were "novel" ideas to peoples of that time, such as taking an entire day of the week and not working.  There were proscriptions against sowing two kinds of seed in the same field, or wearing clothing made of two different kinds of thread, emphasizing that the Jews were to maintain their purity and not blend with surrounding pagan nations.

Some people today would like to use these Biblical rules as examples of the irrelevance of the Bible to our lives today.  This is among many ways that the Bible and its Word are attacked.  The question is raised as to the truthfulness and accuracy of Scripture.  You must realize that these arguments go back as far as the origin of the Bible and the selection of the books in the Canon.  There is a litany of complaints against the Bible's veracity: the men who wrote it were imperfect, they wrote imperfectly, the copies of manuscripts are imperfect, and we are capable of imperfect interpretation. 

These debates have raged for centuries.  There has been great discussion over terms such as "inerrant" (meaning the Bible contains no error) and "infallible" (meaning the Bible couldn't contain any error).  The primary arguments used to establish that the Bible is completely true are that the Scripture tells us that all of it comes from God (II Timothy 3:16), and God cannot do or say anything that is untrue.  One of the best sources to review these arguments comes from the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy who published the Chicago Guide to Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. 

What is the significance of this argument for us today?  First of all, the laws, rules, and admonitions in the Bible serve many purposes.  The first and foremost is for us to bring glory to God and to ensure that we regard Him as holy. The purpose of all God's creation is to bring glory to Him, and the Good Book tells us how to do that.  But there is more.  The Rulebook tells us how to stay out of trouble.

In my book, Surviving the Suffering, one of the categories of suffering that is discussed is that of Chastening.  When we are out of God's will, when we are disobedient, God uses whatever measures necessary to correct us, and some of these are painful.  We can avoid Chastening by obeying the rules God has laid down before us, and we get those rules from the Bible. 

Rather than lay out in great detail all the arguments for and against Biblical inerrancy, I think it may be more useful to ask why some would even press the argument for a Bible that was errant, and what would be the outcome of having such a Bible. 

There is tension between what God desires and requires of us and what we desire and require for ourselves.  In Leviticus, for example, the Law instructs God's people to stone adulterers and homosexuals.  Although we do not do that today, throughout the Bible it is clear that God does not desire those behaviors.  In no place, Old or New Testaments, are they condoned.  Although the way our society deals with these behaviors has changed, God's character has not, and His Book, along with the Holy Spirit, convicts us of this.  It is God's desire that the sanctity of marriage and its sexual relationship be kept pure.  When we behave to the contrary, we invite His correction.

Yet if we can show the Bible to have error, we can claim that we are not really sinning when we do things contrary to the Word.  A Word full of error could not be used to convict us, now could it?  If the Bible condemns fornication, and the Bible is the true Word of God, and we have a sexual relationship outside of marriage, we have a problem on our hands.  On the other hand, if these Biblical instructions were in error, or only applied to people in the "old Biblical days," then we can go ahead as we please.  Think about abortion, for example.  Why would people want to avoid condemnation of abortion?  So they can have abortion on demand.  Why would people want abortion on demand?  So they can freely have sexual relations.  Eighty-five per cent of abortions are performed on unmarried women.  Abortion helps remove the consequences of living against God's Word. 

We talked a while back in a previous post (Intolerable Suffering) about the difference between truth and belief.  Something cannot be true and untrue at the same time.  A Biblical commandment from God cannot be both true and not true at the same time.  Belief is what we think to be true.  Whether you believe God's Word to be true or not does not change the Truth.  Believing that the Bible might just have some mistakes in it will lead you to come up with your own version of God, His will, and what is permissible.  If we believe we have a Bible with mistakes we mistake the Bible's instructions.  Regardless of what we believe, God's character and moral will for us is unchanged, and we will suffer the consequences. 

I am not capable of being sinless.  But I would rather sin and be forgiven than deny that I sinned.  I also like to have a Book that truthfully spells it out for me.  Many other people would like to have their Christianity with a lot less requirements.  You can sin, not have to admit that you sinned, and not repent of your sin.  When standing before our Creator one day, I will know that I lived a sinful life but because of Jesus Christ, I am forgiven.  For others, they will know that He meant what He said. It's not just another book, it is The Book, and don't make the error of assigning it error.