As we finished the Fourth of July weekend, we are reminded of the fight for independence that began this great nation. Although The Declaration of Independence from England was voted into effect on July 2, 1776, it was not formally announced until the fourth. Of course, by that time, the Revolutionary War was over a year old, having begun at Lexington and Concord in April of 1775.
Many other battles and wars would be fought following that first War. Technology progressed from muskets and sailing ships to rifles, machine guns, tanks and battleships. Many thousands died to ensure our freedoms and the liberties of other nations in the decades to come. Modern mechanized warfare reached its most widespread application in World War II. Our youngest surviving veterans of that war are now in their late eighties; a few years ago, around a thousand World War II veterans were dying each day. Their numbers continue to shrink. There are only 10 surviving World War II Medal of Honor winners still alive.
Back in 1941, when America entered the War, only Great Britain stood between Western European freedom and the Axis armies. France had long since capitulated. Germany and Italy controlled most of Eastern Europe and North Africa. The Royal Air Force had held off the German Luftwaffe, preventing an invasion of England. And it was from there that the United States was able to join their former enemies, the British, in fighting back.
England turned into an immobile aircraft carrier, and we covered the southeastern countryside with American air bases. The English had been combatting Germany with nighttime bombing raids, bombing whole cities in an effort to destroy targets. The American approach would be to attack in the daytime, using heavy four-engine bombers flying at 30,000 feet, and precision bombsights that would allow hitting specific targets. These bombers, the B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-24 Liberator both had a crew of ten men-- a Pilot and Co-pilot, Bombardier and Navigator, Radio Operator, and five other gunners.
The missions flown by these men and planes are scarcely believable today. In the early days, the groups of planes were small, taking off in the pre-dawn hours. Climbing over England to five miles high, they would assemble and begin heading over towards targets in France and Germany. At these altitudes, temperatures were twenty to fifty degrees below zero, and the planes were not heated or pressurized. Oxygen masks and heated suits were required; removing a glove could result in frostbite. For a long time, we did not have any fighter aircraft that could accompany these bombers. They would be subject to attack for hours by enemy fighters. Once over the target, the enemy fighters would leave and refuel while our bombers had to fly through heavy anti-aircraft fire. A straight-and-level approach was needed to bomb the target, making the bombers themselves targets for the anti-aircraft attacks. After leaving the bomb run, the enemy fighters would return, assaulting our planes all the way back to the English Channel.
The losses were astounding. It was not uncommon for twenty per cent of the bombers to be lost on a single raid. Many were wounded in those freezing high-altitude aluminum cans, bleeding and dying in the hours before the plane reached home. There was a near certainty of eventual death. It has been said that once aerial combat began, the life expectancy of the tail-gunner in a B-17 was a little more than two minutes. The requirement was that a bomber crew had to complete 25 missions before they could be sent home. The average number of missions completed was only 12-14 before being shot down, and only twenty per cent of crews were able to survive to complete the required number of missions. In fact, one of the first to do so, the crew of the "Memphis Belle" became something of celebrities for making it.
Because the chance of survival was so low, the unofficial name for such a policy was, "fly until you die". Most knew that they would not be coming home. They climbed into these lumbering, noisy machines for each mission knowing that there was a good chance that it would be their last. They did it so that our country, and others, would enjoy the freedoms we do today. Their suffering was not in vain.
Although the vast majority of us will never have to show such courage, in our own way we, too, must "fly until we die." As Christians, we deal with the pains of life, knowing that, "If we endure, we shall also reign with Him" (II Timothy 2:12). Each day that we begin we are not guaranteed to finish, but the difference between us and those brave airmen is that we know that as Christians it is when we die that we go home. At 30,000 feet, the bomber crews were five miles closer to Heaven, yet when our mission here is over, within an instant of dying we shall join God in peace. Let us give thanks for these courageous fliers and others that risked their lives for posterity, and as we look at Independence Day give God thanks for our freedoms, the Independence of our Country, and our Dependence on Him.
Monday, July 8, 2013
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Traveling
I will be out of the country for the next two weeks, but look forward to seeing you back here then.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Not My Fault
For those of you old enough to remember Mel Brook's movie Young Frankenstein, there is a scene where Igor goes to fetch a brain for Dr. Frankenstein to place in the man he is creating. Igor is given strict instructions to bring back a specific brain, but drops the container on the laboratory floor, shattering it. He then selects a container with a brain that says, "Do Not Use This Brain! Abnormal."
One of the debates that has raged for centuries is what leads to certain behaviors. Many of you are familiar with the "nature versus nurture" arguments. On the one hand, some claim that people are born with genetic predispositions to act in a particular way. We could refine this description further to look at not only the actual genes that might be responsible for a person's character or behavior, but also the environment in the womb. For instance, in the case of Down's Syndrome the mental deficiency is related to an extra chromosome 21, but in other cases, there may be malnutrition or oxygen deprivation in the womb leading to brain damage.
However, some behavior is related to the environment in which one is raised. It is understood that children raised in a home with violent behavior or sexual abuse are more likely to engage in such behaviors themselves once grown. There have been decades of studies looking at social factors and the role of society in promoting antisocial behavior. A prime culprit is assumed to be poverty, and one of the justifications given for the government to solve the poverty problem is that it will correct all manner of social ills as well.
There are many behaviors that are proclaimed to be the result of genes. Two that immediately come to mind are alcoholism and homosexuality. As one of my two undergraduate degrees was in psychology, we studied criminal behavior and its supposed genetic origins. There was a great deal of effort to study people with an extra "Y" chromosome, the so-called "47,XYY Syndrome." Men with this genetic type are usually taller than others, often have severe acne, and learning disorders. When I was in college, it was also thought that these men were much more prone to criminal behavior, with the extra "Y" male chromosome making them "supermales" with increased aggression and hostility. This relationship seems far from certain today.
So, is behavior related to genes, the environment in the womb, the home in which one is raised, or from parents or peers?
An article recently published looked at the results of research using PET scans of normal people and killers. Here is an example of a normal person's brain PET scan:
Of course, the abnormal brain is implanted and the Frankenstein creature is deranged from the moment he wakes up. When Igor is later questioned about which brain he brought back from the laboratory, he says, "Abby someone." Dr. Frankenstein asks, "Abby someone. Abby who?" And Igor replies, "Abby...normal."
One of the debates that has raged for centuries is what leads to certain behaviors. Many of you are familiar with the "nature versus nurture" arguments. On the one hand, some claim that people are born with genetic predispositions to act in a particular way. We could refine this description further to look at not only the actual genes that might be responsible for a person's character or behavior, but also the environment in the womb. For instance, in the case of Down's Syndrome the mental deficiency is related to an extra chromosome 21, but in other cases, there may be malnutrition or oxygen deprivation in the womb leading to brain damage.
However, some behavior is related to the environment in which one is raised. It is understood that children raised in a home with violent behavior or sexual abuse are more likely to engage in such behaviors themselves once grown. There have been decades of studies looking at social factors and the role of society in promoting antisocial behavior. A prime culprit is assumed to be poverty, and one of the justifications given for the government to solve the poverty problem is that it will correct all manner of social ills as well.
There are many behaviors that are proclaimed to be the result of genes. Two that immediately come to mind are alcoholism and homosexuality. As one of my two undergraduate degrees was in psychology, we studied criminal behavior and its supposed genetic origins. There was a great deal of effort to study people with an extra "Y" chromosome, the so-called "47,XYY Syndrome." Men with this genetic type are usually taller than others, often have severe acne, and learning disorders. When I was in college, it was also thought that these men were much more prone to criminal behavior, with the extra "Y" male chromosome making them "supermales" with increased aggression and hostility. This relationship seems far from certain today.
So, is behavior related to genes, the environment in the womb, the home in which one is raised, or from parents or peers?
An article recently published looked at the results of research using PET scans of normal people and killers. Here is an example of a normal person's brain PET scan:
This can be compared to that of a murderer's brain PET scan:
You can see a dramatic difference. In fact, there was a convicted murderer who was spared the death penalty because the jury was shown these scans and felt like the killer was not fully responsible for his acts because of his abnormal brain.
So, when someone engages in a behavior, what is their own personal responsibility for this? According to either the nature or nurture view, it is not their fault. It is either the fault of the traits with which they were born, or the fault of the environment in which they were raised. Both arguments are advanced by groups that seek to absolve those individuals of responsibility. If you can absolve individuals of the responsibility for their behavior, you can then remove stigma associated with the behavior, any consequences for that behavior, and if the behavior cannot be tolerated (as in the case of crime) you can insist on marshaling societal resources (taxpayers' dollars) to correct the societal ills. Being gay is a normal inherited variant, being an alcoholic or drug addict is an inherited illness that must be treated, and being a violent criminal is either a social problem requiring correction or an inherited brain abnormality over which the criminal has no control.
I could be wrong on this, but after a careful review of the Bible I am unable to find where sin is not coupled with responsibility. The Commandments and the penalties laid out in the Old Testament don't have qualifying clauses. Murderers were not to be set free because they had abnormal brain PET scans or abusive parents. Thieves were not forgiven their theft because they were born poor. We encounter many instances in the New Testament where Jesus shows compassion on sinners, offers forgiveness of sins, and in the case of the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery, told her, "go and sin no more" (John 8:11). He didn't say, "It's not your fault."
We read last week of the release of the three women from a decade of captivity and abuse in Cleveland. Details will emerge in the ensuing weeks about their trials and torments, and I am sure that the graphic descriptions of their bondage will sicken us. The kidnapper claims to have been abused as a child and sexually abused by a relative as well. In fact, he places the blame on his kidnapped victims: "They are here against their will because they made a mistake of getting in a car with a total stranger."
The Word of God gives him no excuse, no extenuating circumstances, no way to explain his behavior. Regardless of what genes he carries, what his PET scan shows, the environment in his mother's womb, the upbringing he had as child, or the societal circumstances that surrounded him, he is responsible for what he did. God's definition of sin does not allow for either the nature or nurture excuse. When we stand before Him, we will not be able to plead either of these arguments. God does not want our excuses, He wants our repentance. For He who knew you in the womb also knows your genes, and you do not need to remind him of your childhood or your parents.
We might as well blame Adam and Eve for bringing sin into the world, for if it were not for them everything would still be perfect and there would be no sin. Few of us had perfect childhoods or perfect parents, and almost all of us, myself included, have "Abby...normal brains". God does not expect us to be sinless, but He does expect us to claim responsibility for our sin. He does not forgive us of our sin because of our excuses, but because of the work His Son did on the cross. To deny our responsibility for our sin, to blame our nature or our nurture, is to deny true repentance. Making an excuse to God is trying to tell Him something you don't think He already knows. How many things about you do you think He doesn't know already?
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Calling All Christians
The process of becoming a Christian has been one of the most debated topics in the Christian faith since the earliest days of the church. The various schools of Augustinianism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Calvinism all have had their strong proponents over the centuries. There are many good books on these topics and I will not go into them here. However, I want to briefly discuss the notion of being called to be a Christian.
There are at least thirty definitions of the word call. We use the word to describe a phone call, a football play call, a demand to repay a loan, or a visit such as a business call. As a physician, I am frequently "on-call," meaning I am responsible for taking phone calls for patient care, and may even be "called" in to see them.
In theology, we use the term call to describe the means by which God reaches the unbeliever to draw him to become a Christian. There are usually two ways in which this is delineated, the general, or external call, and the effectual, or internal call. The general call is that message of the Gospel and the Word of God to all men. This is a call that can be resisted and frequently is. As Jesus said in Matthew 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen."
There are many reasons that man resists the general call. "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh." (Romans 8:5), and "...the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Romans 8:7). Paul tells us in I Corinthians 2:14 that, "...the natural man does not receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." As Christians, we are to participate in the spread of the Gospel, the general call, realizing that many will hear and many will reject. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).
The effectual call is the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul of a person that leads them to believe and to receive Jesus Christ as their Savior. This comes from within, God moving to give the unsaved new birth and fellowship with Him through His Son. Sadly, this does not happen with all who hear the general call; only through the grace of God do some receive the effectual call and become Christians.
So far we have looked at the word call as a noun. What happens when we use it as a verb?
We are not to be ashamed to be Christians. Paul wasn't. In Romans 1:16 he said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ," and in 2 Timothy 1:8 we hear, "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of the Lord." We are not to deny Christ and our faith. As Christ Himself said, "Therefore, whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32-33). Just as we should not be ashamed to be Christians, we should not be ashamed to call ourselves Christians.
Conversely, we should not boast about ourselves as Christians. As Paul says in Galatians 6:14, "But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." If you recognize yourself as a sinner, saved by the grace of God, you realize that it is only the work of Christ on the cross that allows you to one day enter Heaven.
It behooves us to remember that our actions and lives as Christians are visible to those who are not yet children of God. If we boast of being Christians, yet live so that unbelievers see us behaving in ways that contradict the commandments of our Lord, then we have shown them that we are no better in behavior than the unconverted. (Obviously I myself have never had this problem.) It is as if we are putting forth our own "call-blocking", a way of contradicting the general call. We preach that if only they will accept the Gospel, their lives will be changed to become Christ-like, and then demonstrate the opposite.
The non-Christians are looking at those of us who are Christians, and weighing what they see against the general call of God for them to be saved. God, through the Holy Spirit, will use an effectual call to change some of their hearts and incline their souls to Him and faith in His Son. God, all-powerful, can do this despite what our un-Godly example can do to incline them otherwise. We must pray that when we do fall into sin, as Christians do from time to time, that we will not be seen in a way that gives the unbeliever just one more reason to reject the general call. The saddest thing to be said of a Christian is that,"he calls himself a Christian."
There are at least thirty definitions of the word call. We use the word to describe a phone call, a football play call, a demand to repay a loan, or a visit such as a business call. As a physician, I am frequently "on-call," meaning I am responsible for taking phone calls for patient care, and may even be "called" in to see them.
In theology, we use the term call to describe the means by which God reaches the unbeliever to draw him to become a Christian. There are usually two ways in which this is delineated, the general, or external call, and the effectual, or internal call. The general call is that message of the Gospel and the Word of God to all men. This is a call that can be resisted and frequently is. As Jesus said in Matthew 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen."
There are many reasons that man resists the general call. "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh." (Romans 8:5), and "...the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Romans 8:7). Paul tells us in I Corinthians 2:14 that, "...the natural man does not receive the things of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." As Christians, we are to participate in the spread of the Gospel, the general call, realizing that many will hear and many will reject. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).
The effectual call is the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul of a person that leads them to believe and to receive Jesus Christ as their Savior. This comes from within, God moving to give the unsaved new birth and fellowship with Him through His Son. Sadly, this does not happen with all who hear the general call; only through the grace of God do some receive the effectual call and become Christians.
So far we have looked at the word call as a noun. What happens when we use it as a verb?
We are not to be ashamed to be Christians. Paul wasn't. In Romans 1:16 he said, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ," and in 2 Timothy 1:8 we hear, "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of the Lord." We are not to deny Christ and our faith. As Christ Himself said, "Therefore, whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32-33). Just as we should not be ashamed to be Christians, we should not be ashamed to call ourselves Christians.
Conversely, we should not boast about ourselves as Christians. As Paul says in Galatians 6:14, "But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." If you recognize yourself as a sinner, saved by the grace of God, you realize that it is only the work of Christ on the cross that allows you to one day enter Heaven.
It behooves us to remember that our actions and lives as Christians are visible to those who are not yet children of God. If we boast of being Christians, yet live so that unbelievers see us behaving in ways that contradict the commandments of our Lord, then we have shown them that we are no better in behavior than the unconverted. (Obviously I myself have never had this problem.) It is as if we are putting forth our own "call-blocking", a way of contradicting the general call. We preach that if only they will accept the Gospel, their lives will be changed to become Christ-like, and then demonstrate the opposite.
The non-Christians are looking at those of us who are Christians, and weighing what they see against the general call of God for them to be saved. God, through the Holy Spirit, will use an effectual call to change some of their hearts and incline their souls to Him and faith in His Son. God, all-powerful, can do this despite what our un-Godly example can do to incline them otherwise. We must pray that when we do fall into sin, as Christians do from time to time, that we will not be seen in a way that gives the unbeliever just one more reason to reject the general call. The saddest thing to be said of a Christian is that,"he calls himself a Christian."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)