One of the Christian virtues which I think people struggle with the most is forgiveness. Forgiving others is a command we are to obey; it is our duty to do it. When someone sins against us, and though we are hurt, we ought to forgive them. Let's first consider what this actually means. What does it mean to forgive someone?
What happens when someone sins against us is that the relationship between us and them is damaged. We no longer feel close to them. In fact, we usually feel like distancing ourselves from them. What forgiveness is really all about is restoring the broken relationship. We always want relationships restored because love, the essential nature of God, necessarily puts us in relationship with one another rather than separating us. To have the nature of God; that is, to truly be a loving person, we will not desire to be enemies with anybody. All people are equally worthy of being in relationship with. Forgiveness restores the relationship damaged by an offense. To forgive someone is to willingly suffer the "full force" of the offense, expecting no reparation from the offending party. We, in effect, provide the "reparation" ourselves. Whenever we're offended by someone, we always have this sense that there ought to be something done to make it up to us. When the restaurant gets our order wrong, we might expect free drinks, or when the neighbourhood kid breaks our window with a careless pitch, we expect his parents will help pay for it, or perhaps send their son over to do some gardening for us. When we forgive, that requirement for reparation doesn't actually go away. Rather, we suffer it ourselves.
What is "owed" for an offense depends on the magnitude of the offense. When someone murders a member of our family, we want the death penalty for them; and perhaps we feel even that isn't enough. But if someone drops a dinner plate of ours and it smashes, the recompense we expect is so small we are barely aware that there is a recompense that even ought to be paid for such an offense. But there is; we just find it so incredibly easy to absorb ourselves that when we forgive, it doesn't even feel like forgiveness has taken place. But we were able to forgive because absorbing that offense was very easy to do. It's when the penalty for an offense is beyond what we care to absorb that we have trouble forgiving.
There is, in any broken relationship, the offended and the offender. Forgiveness has to do with the offended party suffering the "full force" of the offense for the sake of the relationship. But even having done that, it takes two to mend a relationship. Offending someone else alienates me from the relationship as well as the person I offended. I may not be able to look that person in the eye again, knowing what I've done to them. Or worse, I might be pleased with what I've done to them. In other words I can either be repentant, or unrepentant. In both cases, the offended person can forgive. However, for the relationship to be restored, the offending party must also desire the forgiveness and the restoration of the relationship, being sorry for what they've done. When asking the question "Is forgiveness always right?" we might have it in mind that perhaps it is not right, or is not to be granted, to those who are unrepentant and don't want it. But I just want to help us to recognize, here, that forgiveness can be granted to those who don't want it. What they do with your forgiveness will either be good (they receive it) or bad (they reject it), but that is their choice.
Now if we consider God as the model for forgiveness, we see how God's forgiveness involved God, the offended party, suffering the full force of our offense Himself. Where breaking a plate requires little recompense, but murdering requires more than we can really pay; the recompense required for our offenses against God are infinitely beyond our ability to repay. Unless God, who is infinite, forgives us by suffering the reparation required Himself, there is no possibility for restoring the relationship between God and man. But suffer the full force of the offense is precisely what Christ did on the cross. Nevertheless, as we have seen, it takes two to mend a relationship, and this is why Christ calls us to repentance. Having been forgiven, we must still desire that relationship with God. This necessarily means repenting of our offense against Him, because unless we do, we essentially desire to perpetuate the brokenness of the relationship.
Understanding the degree to which Christ has forgiven us, and knowing that we ought to be imitators of Christ, we surely have an answer to the question "Is forgiveness always right?" It is always right, whether or not the offending party deserves it or wants it. Jesus told the following parable:
Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii, and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, 'Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place. Then his master summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. And should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his master delivered him to the jailers, until he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart." (Matthew 18:21-35)
This parable helps to put into perspective how wrong it is when we choose not to forgive even the greatest offenses against us. In this parable the man owed ten thousand talents. It's worth noting that this amount is equivalent to several billion dollars. 100 denarii, on the other hand, which was the amount owed to the servant, is something like $1000. This is not a trivial amount; it does represent one of those offenses which we would find difficult to forgive. But even this amount, compared to the "billions" that Christ has forgiven us, ought to be forgiven. Unforgiveness is one of the most anti-Christian states of the heart one can have, because forgiveness is the chief purpose of Christ's work on the cross and the quintessential way in which He demonstrates His love.
Until tomorrow...
And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." (Mark 11:25)
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
#89: Is abortion always wrong?
In our society abortion is a legal option for a woman; the termination of a pregnancy by killing the fetus inside of her. Women have all kinds of reasons for wanting an abortion, and whilst some of those reasons are just plain selfish, we can often be faced with reasons that appear perfectly justifiable. In asking today's question, I want to make the assumption that abortion is, indeed, wrong. What I'm asking is whether it is always wrong. But it seems to me that for many people, we need to first straighten out that initial assumption. Why is abortion wrong at all?
When we ask ourselves why an embryo has as much right to life as a “born” human, we run into all kinds of questions to do with what makes any person worthy of life at all. There is a common apologetic, for example, which reads something like this:
A woman is pregnant. She suffers from tuberculosis, her husband from syphilis. One of their children is blind, one is deaf, and one suffers from syphilis. Another is dead in his childhood. What should she do? Abortion? Great, you've killed Beethoven.
This is a very well known citation you may have seen before. But besides the fact that most of this information about Beethoven's family is false, it's really making a terrible argument in the first place. It seems to be saying that Beethoven's life was worth keeping because of the musical genius that he was. This is not how we ought to think at all. All human life is valuable in God's eyes, whether that person contributes to society or not. A baby, when it comes out of the womb, cannot contribute anything to society but is entirely dependent upon its parents. Yet we would not murder that child. The reason we like abortion is because we don't see a human figure being killed. We can tell ourselves that it is not the same thing. But I’ve seen the heartache of enough women who have suffered miscarriages to know that those women saw that embryo for the child it was. Of course, these women wanted a child. It’s when a woman doesn’t want the child that she begins to reason that it was “just a clump of cells”. This is precisely what justifies any murder; the dehumanising of people, seeing them as inferior or not even human at all. On the other hand, some women get an abortion out of what they see as necessity; perhaps they can’t afford to raise a child. These women do tend to suffer emotionally over the loss of the child because they know it was a human life.
Leviticus 18 is a chapter to do with sexual sins; what people ought not to do sexually. It includes forbidding incest and adultery. But in the midst of all this, there is a verse which might seem out of place...
You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 18:21)
In the midst of all of these sexual prohibitions, we read about a sin of idolatry; the offering of children to the idol Molech. How does this fit the context? The way that children were offered to Molech was to place them in the arms of the bronze idol and then burn a fire underneath the statue until the child was incinerated. The reason this relates to the passage is that through sexual immorality, many unwanted pregnancies would occur. The people could see this “offering to Molech” any way they wanted, but the plain truth of the matter is that it would be the murder of children born as a result of their sexual promiscuity. It was their form of abortion. In that pagan religion, making an offering to this idol would have been a noble and justifiable thing to do. But frankly it was murder. And thankfully, to this day few people aren't shocked by it.
But what about some of these hard cases? What if carrying the child to term will probably kill the mother? Well, there are difficult moral dilemmas like this one, and we need to carefully think through such things. This short blog post isn’t going to address every scenario. For me, this is one case where I don’t think the abortion would be considered murder, because it’s not out of hatred or a devaluing of the child’s life that we would abort. Rather, we’re trying to save a life. But it's not a simple matter to judge.
Hard cases are only hard because they cause a conflict between two values that a person holds. I recall a passage in Richard Dawkin's book “The God Delusion” which reads, “Even resisting rape could be represented as murdering a potential baby (and, by the way, there are plenty of 'pro-life' campaigners who would deny abortion even to women who have been brutally raped).” Now, Dawkins' just assumes his readers will be appalled by the idea that rape victims aren't justified in having an abortion. He doesn’t even seem to view it as a hard case. But let's think; if my mother was raped, is that my fault? Should I suffer for the evil of some other man? This justification seems to be based more on the fact that the woman’s right to choose when and with whom she will become pregnant has been violated. So this may be seen as a hard case because it causes a conflict between two values; the preservation of life and the right to choose whether to become pregnant. Well, the choice to become pregnant is every couple’s right; but it doesn’t outweigh the moral obligation to respect and preserve a life that now exists. Rape is an evil, and we ought to resist evil. But denying the possibility of conception by resisting rape is nothing like terminating an existing life. Likewise, a couple has every right to choose whether or not to have a child, but that’s different from exercising that choice at the expense of killing an unwanted child after conception. Even a child borne of rape should be wanted because it is a human being made in the image of God. A right set of basic values will often resolve these “hard cases”. People cannot justify terminating an unwanted child because no child should ever be unwanted.
But what if the mother falls pregnant and cannot afford the child? Of course, if she had any control over it, she ought not to have fallen pregnant knowing she could not afford to raise a child. Perhaps she has brought this upon herself? But sometimes even contraception fails. We often find ourselves burdened by the needs of others. Many of us will some day face the financial burden of caring for our elderly parents. But of course, we would not kill them to alleviate the problem. Rather, as the Bible says, we should “bear one another’s burdens.” I know of a girl who became pregnant at the age of 17. She was urged to keep the child by her mother, and when the baby was born she was overwhelmed by the love and kindness of family, friends and the Church. This was both a witness to her of the truth of Christian love, and prevented her from doing something which she now says would have been the greatest regret of her life.
Finally the other most common, seemingly justifiable reason for abortion, is when the child will be mentally or physically impaired. Again, we need to be careful that we're not more worried about the inconvenience of this to the parents. The inconvenience you suffer should have no bearing on the matter; just as I cannot kill my annoying neighbour for continually borrowing and never returning, regardless of how "inconvenient" I find that to be. But we might genuinely say that our concern is for the life of the child. We think that because we could not tolerate the quality of life they'll have that they should rather be dead. But I wonder if such parents have ever spoken to a mentally or physically impaired person before and asked them whether they'd rather be dead? They don't, typically. And in any case, don't suicidal tendencies run even amongst the healthy and wealthy? I don't think disability is really the ultimate reason behind wanting to die. All life is valuable to God, and God has entrusted to us all a solemn responsibility as parents to take care of our children and bring them up to be men and women of faith.
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. (Psalms 127:3)
When we ask ourselves why an embryo has as much right to life as a “born” human, we run into all kinds of questions to do with what makes any person worthy of life at all. There is a common apologetic, for example, which reads something like this:
A woman is pregnant. She suffers from tuberculosis, her husband from syphilis. One of their children is blind, one is deaf, and one suffers from syphilis. Another is dead in his childhood. What should she do? Abortion? Great, you've killed Beethoven.
This is a very well known citation you may have seen before. But besides the fact that most of this information about Beethoven's family is false, it's really making a terrible argument in the first place. It seems to be saying that Beethoven's life was worth keeping because of the musical genius that he was. This is not how we ought to think at all. All human life is valuable in God's eyes, whether that person contributes to society or not. A baby, when it comes out of the womb, cannot contribute anything to society but is entirely dependent upon its parents. Yet we would not murder that child. The reason we like abortion is because we don't see a human figure being killed. We can tell ourselves that it is not the same thing. But I’ve seen the heartache of enough women who have suffered miscarriages to know that those women saw that embryo for the child it was. Of course, these women wanted a child. It’s when a woman doesn’t want the child that she begins to reason that it was “just a clump of cells”. This is precisely what justifies any murder; the dehumanising of people, seeing them as inferior or not even human at all. On the other hand, some women get an abortion out of what they see as necessity; perhaps they can’t afford to raise a child. These women do tend to suffer emotionally over the loss of the child because they know it was a human life.
Leviticus 18 is a chapter to do with sexual sins; what people ought not to do sexually. It includes forbidding incest and adultery. But in the midst of all this, there is a verse which might seem out of place...
You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 18:21)
In the midst of all of these sexual prohibitions, we read about a sin of idolatry; the offering of children to the idol Molech. How does this fit the context? The way that children were offered to Molech was to place them in the arms of the bronze idol and then burn a fire underneath the statue until the child was incinerated. The reason this relates to the passage is that through sexual immorality, many unwanted pregnancies would occur. The people could see this “offering to Molech” any way they wanted, but the plain truth of the matter is that it would be the murder of children born as a result of their sexual promiscuity. It was their form of abortion. In that pagan religion, making an offering to this idol would have been a noble and justifiable thing to do. But frankly it was murder. And thankfully, to this day few people aren't shocked by it.
But what about some of these hard cases? What if carrying the child to term will probably kill the mother? Well, there are difficult moral dilemmas like this one, and we need to carefully think through such things. This short blog post isn’t going to address every scenario. For me, this is one case where I don’t think the abortion would be considered murder, because it’s not out of hatred or a devaluing of the child’s life that we would abort. Rather, we’re trying to save a life. But it's not a simple matter to judge.
Hard cases are only hard because they cause a conflict between two values that a person holds. I recall a passage in Richard Dawkin's book “The God Delusion” which reads, “Even resisting rape could be represented as murdering a potential baby (and, by the way, there are plenty of 'pro-life' campaigners who would deny abortion even to women who have been brutally raped).” Now, Dawkins' just assumes his readers will be appalled by the idea that rape victims aren't justified in having an abortion. He doesn’t even seem to view it as a hard case. But let's think; if my mother was raped, is that my fault? Should I suffer for the evil of some other man? This justification seems to be based more on the fact that the woman’s right to choose when and with whom she will become pregnant has been violated. So this may be seen as a hard case because it causes a conflict between two values; the preservation of life and the right to choose whether to become pregnant. Well, the choice to become pregnant is every couple’s right; but it doesn’t outweigh the moral obligation to respect and preserve a life that now exists. Rape is an evil, and we ought to resist evil. But denying the possibility of conception by resisting rape is nothing like terminating an existing life. Likewise, a couple has every right to choose whether or not to have a child, but that’s different from exercising that choice at the expense of killing an unwanted child after conception. Even a child borne of rape should be wanted because it is a human being made in the image of God. A right set of basic values will often resolve these “hard cases”. People cannot justify terminating an unwanted child because no child should ever be unwanted.
But what if the mother falls pregnant and cannot afford the child? Of course, if she had any control over it, she ought not to have fallen pregnant knowing she could not afford to raise a child. Perhaps she has brought this upon herself? But sometimes even contraception fails. We often find ourselves burdened by the needs of others. Many of us will some day face the financial burden of caring for our elderly parents. But of course, we would not kill them to alleviate the problem. Rather, as the Bible says, we should “bear one another’s burdens.” I know of a girl who became pregnant at the age of 17. She was urged to keep the child by her mother, and when the baby was born she was overwhelmed by the love and kindness of family, friends and the Church. This was both a witness to her of the truth of Christian love, and prevented her from doing something which she now says would have been the greatest regret of her life.
Finally the other most common, seemingly justifiable reason for abortion, is when the child will be mentally or physically impaired. Again, we need to be careful that we're not more worried about the inconvenience of this to the parents. The inconvenience you suffer should have no bearing on the matter; just as I cannot kill my annoying neighbour for continually borrowing and never returning, regardless of how "inconvenient" I find that to be. But we might genuinely say that our concern is for the life of the child. We think that because we could not tolerate the quality of life they'll have that they should rather be dead. But I wonder if such parents have ever spoken to a mentally or physically impaired person before and asked them whether they'd rather be dead? They don't, typically. And in any case, don't suicidal tendencies run even amongst the healthy and wealthy? I don't think disability is really the ultimate reason behind wanting to die. All life is valuable to God, and God has entrusted to us all a solemn responsibility as parents to take care of our children and bring them up to be men and women of faith.
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. (Psalms 127:3)
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
#88: Do I need to tithe to be a Christian?
A “tithe” is a portion of our income which is offered to God. It is offered to God in the sense that it is given to the local Church in order to finance the work of the Church. It is commonly regarded as 10% of a person's income. So many questions arise from this; Where do we get the figure of 10%? Is it 10% of our gross our net income? Does all 10% need to go to my local Church, or can I split it between my Church and some other ministry? And of course, the “big” question; Is it compulsory?
All of these questions can tend to have a common motive... we're really asking “How little of my hard earned cash do I have to lose?” Even when we ask “Does all 10% need to go to the Church?” we might really be more concerned that supporting another ministry will cost us over and above the 10% set aside to the Church. Well, as you can probably guess, all of these motivations are not very pure. Our obsession with the finer details of how much we give to the Church are really to do with our attachment to money.
Tithing is a part of the Old Testament Mosaic Law...
To the Levites I [God] have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the tent of meeting (Leviticus 18:21)
The Levites were the priests. Israel were divided into 12 tribes, and when Israel came into the land of Canaan, each tribe inherited a parcel of land to live in. But the Levites (the tribe of Levi) did not inherit land; they lived amongst the other tribes, and were supported by them. Since the Levites' job was to be priests, they weren't going to be making a living by farming or doing any other kind of work. And so the rest of Israel supported them with their tithes. The tithe was 10%, and was compulsory for all Israel. But this is what the Law is like in all its commands; it was compulsory for people to follow those commands whether they did so from the heart or not. But now, after Christ has come, we are to understand that the Law was really about showing us what we ought to do “from the heart”. Even an Israelite ought not to have said grudgingly “Here, take my 10% you greedy Levites!” Rather, from the heart he should have given gladly, knowing that his contribution was supporting those priests in their God-given role. The New Testament doesn't command a compulsory tithe, but as Christians we know what we ought to want to give to our pastors which have no other form of income, and to the Church which does good in its ministry and needs our financial support. In the New Testament age, we borrow the term “tithe” from the Old Testament, and we give a general recommendation of 10%; but really, I prefer the term offering, since there is no “legal requirement” as the term “tithe” suggests. We ought to give as much as we can afford and are still gladly willing to give. I know that my own pastor struggles from time to time, and that if it weren't for the income he receives through the congregation's offerings, he might not even eat. A Christian ought to be more concerned about that than whether they “have to” make an offering or not at all.
A Christian ought to give generously to all kinds of needs, not forgetting the Church, or charities for the poor, or those we know personally who are in need. When we give it ought always to be out of a genuine care to meet those needs. That means that when you give to your local Church, you do genuinely care that your pastor has enough to live on, and that the needs of the Church's ministry are met. It is absolutely right, then, for you to have some knowledge of whether your pastor actually is in need, and to have a knowledge of the kind of ministry your Church performs. Do you, in fact, support the ministry that they do? If you don't actually agree with what they do for some reason, then you might need to have a think about more than just whether to support them with your finances. Our Church has various ways in which we can keep up to date with what they're doing, and they also publish openly in each week's bulletin how much money has been received in Church offerings, and what their target is. We can look and see whether that target is being met, and if we are so inclined, we can offer more or less money to the Church.
It's not in opposition to faith when we are careful to know where our money is going and whether it's being used wisely. However, there's another aspect to giving that we must consider. Often we want to give our money to those who “deserve it”. We see an alcoholic who is cold and hungry because they've spent all their money on booze, and yet we think “I won't give anything to him, he'll just spend it on more booze. He's cold and hungry, but he did that to himself; he doesn't deserve it!” Well, I don't know if we might think it in exactly those words, but sometimes in our hearts that's how we feel. Yet if we consider all that God has given us, and we ask ourselves whether we “deserved it”, it ought to make us think twice. And when God gave us His only Son to die for us, was it not to save us from that which we'd done to ourselves? We want to help people, and you can seek God's wisdom for how to do that. But no one ought to be excluded based on your own judgements of “desert”. Sometimes the act of giving is more about letting someone know that they're loved and cared for by a Godly person, than what that little bit of cash might achieve for them materially. Sometimes the greater amounts of money we give sort of count for less because they simply meet some physical need and leave the spiritual needs of the person unmet. We ought not to be in the business of making people feel comfortable on their way to hell. The best use of our time and money will be to care for their spiritual need for Christ, not neglecting by any means their physical needs, for through our care for their physical needs Christ is revealed and glorified.
Until tomorrow...
Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (Corinthians 9:7)
All of these questions can tend to have a common motive... we're really asking “How little of my hard earned cash do I have to lose?” Even when we ask “Does all 10% need to go to the Church?” we might really be more concerned that supporting another ministry will cost us over and above the 10% set aside to the Church. Well, as you can probably guess, all of these motivations are not very pure. Our obsession with the finer details of how much we give to the Church are really to do with our attachment to money.
Tithing is a part of the Old Testament Mosaic Law...
To the Levites I [God] have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they do, their service in the tent of meeting (Leviticus 18:21)
The Levites were the priests. Israel were divided into 12 tribes, and when Israel came into the land of Canaan, each tribe inherited a parcel of land to live in. But the Levites (the tribe of Levi) did not inherit land; they lived amongst the other tribes, and were supported by them. Since the Levites' job was to be priests, they weren't going to be making a living by farming or doing any other kind of work. And so the rest of Israel supported them with their tithes. The tithe was 10%, and was compulsory for all Israel. But this is what the Law is like in all its commands; it was compulsory for people to follow those commands whether they did so from the heart or not. But now, after Christ has come, we are to understand that the Law was really about showing us what we ought to do “from the heart”. Even an Israelite ought not to have said grudgingly “Here, take my 10% you greedy Levites!” Rather, from the heart he should have given gladly, knowing that his contribution was supporting those priests in their God-given role. The New Testament doesn't command a compulsory tithe, but as Christians we know what we ought to want to give to our pastors which have no other form of income, and to the Church which does good in its ministry and needs our financial support. In the New Testament age, we borrow the term “tithe” from the Old Testament, and we give a general recommendation of 10%; but really, I prefer the term offering, since there is no “legal requirement” as the term “tithe” suggests. We ought to give as much as we can afford and are still gladly willing to give. I know that my own pastor struggles from time to time, and that if it weren't for the income he receives through the congregation's offerings, he might not even eat. A Christian ought to be more concerned about that than whether they “have to” make an offering or not at all.
A Christian ought to give generously to all kinds of needs, not forgetting the Church, or charities for the poor, or those we know personally who are in need. When we give it ought always to be out of a genuine care to meet those needs. That means that when you give to your local Church, you do genuinely care that your pastor has enough to live on, and that the needs of the Church's ministry are met. It is absolutely right, then, for you to have some knowledge of whether your pastor actually is in need, and to have a knowledge of the kind of ministry your Church performs. Do you, in fact, support the ministry that they do? If you don't actually agree with what they do for some reason, then you might need to have a think about more than just whether to support them with your finances. Our Church has various ways in which we can keep up to date with what they're doing, and they also publish openly in each week's bulletin how much money has been received in Church offerings, and what their target is. We can look and see whether that target is being met, and if we are so inclined, we can offer more or less money to the Church.
It's not in opposition to faith when we are careful to know where our money is going and whether it's being used wisely. However, there's another aspect to giving that we must consider. Often we want to give our money to those who “deserve it”. We see an alcoholic who is cold and hungry because they've spent all their money on booze, and yet we think “I won't give anything to him, he'll just spend it on more booze. He's cold and hungry, but he did that to himself; he doesn't deserve it!” Well, I don't know if we might think it in exactly those words, but sometimes in our hearts that's how we feel. Yet if we consider all that God has given us, and we ask ourselves whether we “deserved it”, it ought to make us think twice. And when God gave us His only Son to die for us, was it not to save us from that which we'd done to ourselves? We want to help people, and you can seek God's wisdom for how to do that. But no one ought to be excluded based on your own judgements of “desert”. Sometimes the act of giving is more about letting someone know that they're loved and cared for by a Godly person, than what that little bit of cash might achieve for them materially. Sometimes the greater amounts of money we give sort of count for less because they simply meet some physical need and leave the spiritual needs of the person unmet. We ought not to be in the business of making people feel comfortable on their way to hell. The best use of our time and money will be to care for their spiritual need for Christ, not neglecting by any means their physical needs, for through our care for their physical needs Christ is revealed and glorified.
Until tomorrow...
Each one must give as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (Corinthians 9:7)
Monday, March 28, 2011
#87: Will God take away my addiction?
Addictions are, almost by definition, something which takes more than a person’s own will power to get rid of. There are all kinds of addictions, but I suppose you could put them all into one of two categories... there are addictions to some kind of substance which creates a physiological dependency in a person, such as with cigarettes or over-eating. And there are addictions which are more sort of “psychological”, such as becoming addicted to computer games or pornography. Now, experts might tell me that even the latter kind create a physiological dependency, I don’t know? But that's not important, because neither of these kinds of addictions are necessarily “easier” to give up. Addictions are a form of bondage. In fact, dictionary.com uses the word “enslaved”; an addiction is “the state of being enslaved to a habit”. The Bible uses this same word to describe people’s relationship to sin...
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:16-18)
In a sense, sin is every person’s “addiction”; and we know that when we come to Christ, He takes away that sin which enslaves us so that we are able to be “obedient from the heart” to God's Word. He gives us His Spirit, which enables us to do this. Addictions are most certainly the result of the fallen state of mankind. They may not be strictly sinful, but they are also not the way we are supposed to be. They can be things which take priority in life over God, and so become sinful in that sense; but addictions need not do that. And we can see that addictions can cause sinful behaviour; even something like an addiction to food can cause irritability in a person who hasn't had their “sugar fix” for the day. Nobody ever wants to be addicted to something; people who are hate the state they're in. I know a chronic smoker who says he's tried every method there is for giving up. I happened to be speaking to an alcoholic last week who said, “My greatest regret in life is that I started drinking at the age of 18.” These people want to be free from their addictions but they don't have the necessary power to overcome them. Such power, of course, is given to us through Christ. The same Spirit which enables us to “kick the sin habit” enables us to take control over our addictions, whether or not we want to argue over the idea that all addictions are themselves, by definition, sinful. In describing the characteristics of the Holy Spirit which abides in us, Paul writes:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)
This is what mankind is supposed to be like as they imitate the character of God, and we see in this list “self-control”. The Holy Spirit gives us that ability to take control over our desires; even our addictions. When Christ saves a person, He begins to transform us into the person God created us to be, having these characteristics we ought to be able to exercise... love, joy, peace... faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Addictive behaviours cause us to act contrary to these things, and so the effect of Christ in our lives will naturally be to give us control over our addictions. I personally know of a former alcoholic (not the aforementioned) who will testify that it was the work of Christ in his life that he is no longer drinking, and hasn't touched one drop for more than twenty years. I've mentioned in a much earlier post how, since the day I became a Christian, I haven't once looked at pornography. (Though it's probably fair to say that I was never actually addicted to it, I see it as the same principle at work).
Now you've probably been aching to say “But why do Christians still struggle with addictions?” I do affirm that Christians certainly can struggle with addictions. And the reason for this, in my mind, is probably the same reason that Christians still struggle with any sin. Whilst we remain in this corrupt body, we are still affected by our former sinful tendencies. I think that, generally speaking, God wants us to be able to identify with unbelievers and to be able to help them. It's not really through our lingering sinfulness that we are able to do this; Christ was sinless and yet identifies with us. Rather, it is by remaining on this Earth that we can be of help to unbelievers, leading them to Christ. But the “effect” of remaining here is that we are still influenced by our old natures. Our bodies are still subject to chemical addictions because of the way that they work. Our minds, likewise, are still subject to psychological addictions because of the way they work. But why are some addictions taken away whilst others remain? The reason is going to be different for each person. Let's consider the testimony of Nate Larkin. Nate is a Christian who was addicted to pornography for some 20 years or more. This question of ours bothered him for all that time as well; “Why won't God take away this wretched addiction!?” Eventually he found what he feels is the answer. For 20 years he'd been asking God for “a private solution to his private problem.” But it wasn't until he brought his problem before other Christians that God began to take away his addiction. The reason God had not taken away Nate's addiction seemed to be in order to teach Nate a lesson which, for Nate, is so profound it forms the foundation of his present day ministry... that God's desire is for the people of God to work together. The Christian life is not a private one! God considered this lesson so important for Nate to learn that he allowed Nate to suffer his addiction, and even the consequences it brought as it tore his family apart. Through this experience, Nate not only understands the importance of the Body of Christ, but shares this with others in a phenomenal fellowship-building ministry.
Should we say that those Christians whose addictions are taken away simply don't have any lessons to be learned? No; we all have much to learn, but God has an infinite number of means at His disposal. But whether addictions or physical ailments or whatever, God has His reasons for allowing us to suffer them. We can think of Paul's “thorn in the flesh” in which Paul prayed that God would take it away, but God didn't. And then Paul recognized that through this affliction, whatever it was, Paul learned humility and dependence upon God's grace. Whatever we're going through now...
He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. (Romans 6:16-18)
In a sense, sin is every person’s “addiction”; and we know that when we come to Christ, He takes away that sin which enslaves us so that we are able to be “obedient from the heart” to God's Word. He gives us His Spirit, which enables us to do this. Addictions are most certainly the result of the fallen state of mankind. They may not be strictly sinful, but they are also not the way we are supposed to be. They can be things which take priority in life over God, and so become sinful in that sense; but addictions need not do that. And we can see that addictions can cause sinful behaviour; even something like an addiction to food can cause irritability in a person who hasn't had their “sugar fix” for the day. Nobody ever wants to be addicted to something; people who are hate the state they're in. I know a chronic smoker who says he's tried every method there is for giving up. I happened to be speaking to an alcoholic last week who said, “My greatest regret in life is that I started drinking at the age of 18.” These people want to be free from their addictions but they don't have the necessary power to overcome them. Such power, of course, is given to us through Christ. The same Spirit which enables us to “kick the sin habit” enables us to take control over our addictions, whether or not we want to argue over the idea that all addictions are themselves, by definition, sinful. In describing the characteristics of the Holy Spirit which abides in us, Paul writes:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)
This is what mankind is supposed to be like as they imitate the character of God, and we see in this list “self-control”. The Holy Spirit gives us that ability to take control over our desires; even our addictions. When Christ saves a person, He begins to transform us into the person God created us to be, having these characteristics we ought to be able to exercise... love, joy, peace... faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Addictive behaviours cause us to act contrary to these things, and so the effect of Christ in our lives will naturally be to give us control over our addictions. I personally know of a former alcoholic (not the aforementioned) who will testify that it was the work of Christ in his life that he is no longer drinking, and hasn't touched one drop for more than twenty years. I've mentioned in a much earlier post how, since the day I became a Christian, I haven't once looked at pornography. (Though it's probably fair to say that I was never actually addicted to it, I see it as the same principle at work).
Now you've probably been aching to say “But why do Christians still struggle with addictions?” I do affirm that Christians certainly can struggle with addictions. And the reason for this, in my mind, is probably the same reason that Christians still struggle with any sin. Whilst we remain in this corrupt body, we are still affected by our former sinful tendencies. I think that, generally speaking, God wants us to be able to identify with unbelievers and to be able to help them. It's not really through our lingering sinfulness that we are able to do this; Christ was sinless and yet identifies with us. Rather, it is by remaining on this Earth that we can be of help to unbelievers, leading them to Christ. But the “effect” of remaining here is that we are still influenced by our old natures. Our bodies are still subject to chemical addictions because of the way that they work. Our minds, likewise, are still subject to psychological addictions because of the way they work. But why are some addictions taken away whilst others remain? The reason is going to be different for each person. Let's consider the testimony of Nate Larkin. Nate is a Christian who was addicted to pornography for some 20 years or more. This question of ours bothered him for all that time as well; “Why won't God take away this wretched addiction!?” Eventually he found what he feels is the answer. For 20 years he'd been asking God for “a private solution to his private problem.” But it wasn't until he brought his problem before other Christians that God began to take away his addiction. The reason God had not taken away Nate's addiction seemed to be in order to teach Nate a lesson which, for Nate, is so profound it forms the foundation of his present day ministry... that God's desire is for the people of God to work together. The Christian life is not a private one! God considered this lesson so important for Nate to learn that he allowed Nate to suffer his addiction, and even the consequences it brought as it tore his family apart. Through this experience, Nate not only understands the importance of the Body of Christ, but shares this with others in a phenomenal fellowship-building ministry.
Should we say that those Christians whose addictions are taken away simply don't have any lessons to be learned? No; we all have much to learn, but God has an infinite number of means at His disposal. But whether addictions or physical ailments or whatever, God has His reasons for allowing us to suffer them. We can think of Paul's “thorn in the flesh” in which Paul prayed that God would take it away, but God didn't. And then Paul recognized that through this affliction, whatever it was, Paul learned humility and dependence upon God's grace. Whatever we're going through now...
He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
Sunday, March 27, 2011
#86: Why doesn't God perform miracles now?
Perhaps we wish that God would perform a miracle for us that the whole world could witness on live television, or something? And this would clear up all doubt as to whether God exists. But He doesn't seem to do that. Rather, God performs miracles quite sparingly throughout history. There is a tendency to presume that miracles are an Old Testament thing, since we have the miracles of the Exodus, from the burning bush to the parting of the Red Sea and countless others in that whole story of Moses. And we have the great miracles of Elijah and Elisha, raising the dead and calling down fire from heaven. But miracles weren't actually very common in the Old Testament either. When the Israelites heard about Moses seeing a burning bush which did not burn up in the fire, they would have been as intrigued as we are. Is there some reason why God chooses to perform miracles at a certain time, and not at others?
The primary purpose of miracles appears to be God's way of authenticating a particular man as having authority given to him by God. Consider Moses, for example...
Then Moses answered, “But behold, they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’” The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” He said, “A staff.” And he said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it. But the LORD said to Moses, “Put out your hand and catch it by the tail” - so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand - “that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.” (Exodus 4:1-5)
The purpose of the miracle, and various others that Moses later performs in front of Israel and Pharaoh, is to authenticate Moses as the prophet of God and deliverer of Israel. Or we can think of other examples; Gideon asks God to perform a miracle concerning a fleece, so that “I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand” (Judges 6:37). When Elijah raised the woman's son she said, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24). When Elisha parts the river, the onlookers acknowledged that he had been given the same Spirit as Elijah. (2 Kings 2:15). Finally, we see that many of Jesus' miracles aimed to demonstrate that Jesus was a genuine prophet of God. In John it says 'When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”' (John 6:14)
But when people saw Jesus' miracles, did they all believe that He was who He said He was; the Son of God? Many did not. Even miracles won't convince many people. If you want to know what I think it would be like if God performed a miracle on live television in this day and age, I think it would be something like when that alien autopsy film came out in the mid 1990's. It wasn't until 2006 that the film maker fully admitted that the film was actually of a fake model. But the point is that for all those years, most of the world remained unconvinced anyway. Not that they could prove it was a fake; but that even in the midst of what appears to be undeniable evidence of something extraordinary, people refuse to believe.
Whilst miracles are used by God to authenticate a prophet at a particular “landmark” in time, Jesus warns us to be wary of miracle workers...
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
People who perform miracles are not necessarily genuine prophets of God, since there is real power in things like witchcraft. But miracle-workers can even think that they're doing these things as believers in Christ, yet be mistaken. Jesus said:
On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:22-23)
What God wants is for us to believe in Him with a genuine faith. And as the Bible says, “We walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Corinthians 5:7). This is the nature of faith; that it is trusting in God despite appearances. Now, many see this as believing in a God when there is no evidence. But that's not what I'm saying. We see abundant evidence for God, both in general revelation (the witness of creation all around us); the truth of God's Word, the Bible; and also in our personal experience of God. But Jesus said “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign” (Matthew 16:4). Why? Because there is already sufficient evidence everywhere. When God said “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test”, this is not something we should find difficult to understand. It means that God will not submit to the will or commands of men. He’s already given us sufficient to believe in Him; and we know this is true because many millions of Christians do believe in Him.
In a sense, God is performing miracles all the time. God's sovereign hand guides all things. He “upholds the universe by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). I often think that if it never rained, for example, then the first rain would be a miracle. Is it less of a miracle because it happens all the time, just as we wish miracles would? Oh, we can explain the causes of rain, but the whole water cycle is itself a miracle. God has created a world of order. A world in which miracles happened all the time, (in the sense of events which defy the natural order), then our idea of “the normal order of things” would be something quite different such that we’d be looking for something else as a sign; maybe for something with predictability? Really, we should see all of creation is a miracle, brought into being by the Word of God.
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. (John 20:29)
The primary purpose of miracles appears to be God's way of authenticating a particular man as having authority given to him by God. Consider Moses, for example...
Then Moses answered, “But behold, they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’” The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” He said, “A staff.” And he said, “Throw it on the ground.” So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent, and Moses ran from it. But the LORD said to Moses, “Put out your hand and catch it by the tail” - so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand - “that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.” (Exodus 4:1-5)
The purpose of the miracle, and various others that Moses later performs in front of Israel and Pharaoh, is to authenticate Moses as the prophet of God and deliverer of Israel. Or we can think of other examples; Gideon asks God to perform a miracle concerning a fleece, so that “I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand” (Judges 6:37). When Elijah raised the woman's son she said, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24). When Elisha parts the river, the onlookers acknowledged that he had been given the same Spirit as Elijah. (2 Kings 2:15). Finally, we see that many of Jesus' miracles aimed to demonstrate that Jesus was a genuine prophet of God. In John it says 'When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”' (John 6:14)
But when people saw Jesus' miracles, did they all believe that He was who He said He was; the Son of God? Many did not. Even miracles won't convince many people. If you want to know what I think it would be like if God performed a miracle on live television in this day and age, I think it would be something like when that alien autopsy film came out in the mid 1990's. It wasn't until 2006 that the film maker fully admitted that the film was actually of a fake model. But the point is that for all those years, most of the world remained unconvinced anyway. Not that they could prove it was a fake; but that even in the midst of what appears to be undeniable evidence of something extraordinary, people refuse to believe.
Whilst miracles are used by God to authenticate a prophet at a particular “landmark” in time, Jesus warns us to be wary of miracle workers...
For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
People who perform miracles are not necessarily genuine prophets of God, since there is real power in things like witchcraft. But miracle-workers can even think that they're doing these things as believers in Christ, yet be mistaken. Jesus said:
On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:22-23)
What God wants is for us to believe in Him with a genuine faith. And as the Bible says, “We walk by faith, not by sight.” (2 Corinthians 5:7). This is the nature of faith; that it is trusting in God despite appearances. Now, many see this as believing in a God when there is no evidence. But that's not what I'm saying. We see abundant evidence for God, both in general revelation (the witness of creation all around us); the truth of God's Word, the Bible; and also in our personal experience of God. But Jesus said “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign” (Matthew 16:4). Why? Because there is already sufficient evidence everywhere. When God said “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test”, this is not something we should find difficult to understand. It means that God will not submit to the will or commands of men. He’s already given us sufficient to believe in Him; and we know this is true because many millions of Christians do believe in Him.
In a sense, God is performing miracles all the time. God's sovereign hand guides all things. He “upholds the universe by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). I often think that if it never rained, for example, then the first rain would be a miracle. Is it less of a miracle because it happens all the time, just as we wish miracles would? Oh, we can explain the causes of rain, but the whole water cycle is itself a miracle. God has created a world of order. A world in which miracles happened all the time, (in the sense of events which defy the natural order), then our idea of “the normal order of things” would be something quite different such that we’d be looking for something else as a sign; maybe for something with predictability? Really, we should see all of creation is a miracle, brought into being by the Word of God.
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. (John 20:29)
Saturday, March 26, 2011
#85: How do we reconcile the wrathful God of the Old Testament with the loving God of the New?
Jesus Christ is God, who became a man and walked among us and taught us many things. When we consider the kinds of things that Jesus said and did, it's not uncommon for people to view God as having had a “change of heart”. People generally know Christ for His love and compassion as He healed the sick and commanded us to love even our enemies. Conversely, people generally characterize the God of the Old Testament as wrathful, destroying mankind with a flood, slaying the firstborn sons of Egypt, and commanding the death sentence for violations of His Law. Now, the wrathful nature of God may be a concern for some us, personally; but a change in God's character should really be a concern for all of us! If God were to change character from the Old Testament to the New, I think we could rightly say that the New Testament writers were inventing a new God. But what we find, of course, is that God does not change. In every book of the Old Testament He is characterized both by His wrath which is an expression of His justice, and His mercy which is an expression of His love. And in every book of the New Testament, including the gospels describing Jesus' life, we find Christ also to be characterized both by His love and by God's perfect justice.
God's justice and wrath are not in conflict with His love. In the Old Testament we see God's love for Israel in leading them out of Egypt. At the same time we saw a demonstration of God's wrath on Egypt because of their idolatry. Throughout the remainder of the Old Testament there are continual reminders of God's love in this act of delivering Israel from their slavery in Egypt. Typically we are reminded of this whenever a prophet is about to issue a stern warning to the people of the consequences of their sin. It is a reminder of the love of God in order to draw them back to God, for when we truly understand the love God has for us, we naturally respond with love in return, which manifests itself in repentance and obedience. But it is also a reminder of the wrath of God on those who are rebellious against Him. When Israel was brought out of Egypt they were to eventually make war with the Canaanites. Why was this? In Deuteronomy 18:12 we're told it is because of the sins of the Canaanites. But as Israel wandered through the wilderness, we find that time and again when Israel rebelled against Him with idolatry and other offenses, God judged them in much the same way as Egypt and Canaan were judged. During this early period between the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan, the intensity of God's wrath seems so much greater than in later Biblical history, up until we get to the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Why is this? It is because God is establishing the nation; they need to know about the just character of God as well as knowing about His love. Such strictness was not really seen again until the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, even though the nation fell into far worse sin and idolatry than during those 40 years in the wilderness, even sacrificing their children to idols. So while God's wrath is a dominant theme in the Old Testament, it's actually a testimony to God's love and mercy that we don't see more of it.
Now in the New Testament, we do see God's love manifested to a far greater degree than we had before, because in the New Testament we see God Himself become a man to die for all of us sinners. But even when we think of Jesus' good deeds in feeding the poor and healing the sick, He rebukes the religious leaders of the time because they had failed to practice the Law of the Old Testament; for if they had, they would be doing such good works themselves. The Old Testament is full of the wrath of God because the people of God brought it upon themselves. But this is no different to the New Testament. Jesus says to the religious leaders, the Pharisees, “Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matthew 23:31-33) The wrath of God has not diminished in the New Testament. In fact, we might say it, too, is being revealed to a greater degree than before.
In the Old Testament we saw how Israel, themselves, were judged in the wilderness and incurred God's wrath upon them. And I commented how this revelation of God's wrath was more intense at that time in order to establish the nature of God for the new nation. For us in the New Testament, these lessons still apply. Jude says “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 1:5) Since we have the revelation of the Old Testament, such an intense demonstration of God's justice and wrath is not as necessary. Still, while the Church was in its infancy, we read about how, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death directly by God for their deception; a sobering reminder of how seriously God takes sin. Or how God put many people to death because, according to 1 Corinthians 11, they were participating in the Lord's Supper “unworthily”. God is no less just and wrathful in the New Testament, but He reveals it to us because He loves us. It's so that we will understand just how loving and merciful He is toward us. I mean, I wonder how often I should have died after taking the Lord's Supper?
Jesus is eternally loving and eternally just, from the beginning to the end...
The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:7-8)
God's justice and wrath are not in conflict with His love. In the Old Testament we see God's love for Israel in leading them out of Egypt. At the same time we saw a demonstration of God's wrath on Egypt because of their idolatry. Throughout the remainder of the Old Testament there are continual reminders of God's love in this act of delivering Israel from their slavery in Egypt. Typically we are reminded of this whenever a prophet is about to issue a stern warning to the people of the consequences of their sin. It is a reminder of the love of God in order to draw them back to God, for when we truly understand the love God has for us, we naturally respond with love in return, which manifests itself in repentance and obedience. But it is also a reminder of the wrath of God on those who are rebellious against Him. When Israel was brought out of Egypt they were to eventually make war with the Canaanites. Why was this? In Deuteronomy 18:12 we're told it is because of the sins of the Canaanites. But as Israel wandered through the wilderness, we find that time and again when Israel rebelled against Him with idolatry and other offenses, God judged them in much the same way as Egypt and Canaan were judged. During this early period between the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Canaan, the intensity of God's wrath seems so much greater than in later Biblical history, up until we get to the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Why is this? It is because God is establishing the nation; they need to know about the just character of God as well as knowing about His love. Such strictness was not really seen again until the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, even though the nation fell into far worse sin and idolatry than during those 40 years in the wilderness, even sacrificing their children to idols. So while God's wrath is a dominant theme in the Old Testament, it's actually a testimony to God's love and mercy that we don't see more of it.
Now in the New Testament, we do see God's love manifested to a far greater degree than we had before, because in the New Testament we see God Himself become a man to die for all of us sinners. But even when we think of Jesus' good deeds in feeding the poor and healing the sick, He rebukes the religious leaders of the time because they had failed to practice the Law of the Old Testament; for if they had, they would be doing such good works themselves. The Old Testament is full of the wrath of God because the people of God brought it upon themselves. But this is no different to the New Testament. Jesus says to the religious leaders, the Pharisees, “Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” (Matthew 23:31-33) The wrath of God has not diminished in the New Testament. In fact, we might say it, too, is being revealed to a greater degree than before.
In the Old Testament we saw how Israel, themselves, were judged in the wilderness and incurred God's wrath upon them. And I commented how this revelation of God's wrath was more intense at that time in order to establish the nature of God for the new nation. For us in the New Testament, these lessons still apply. Jude says “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 1:5) Since we have the revelation of the Old Testament, such an intense demonstration of God's justice and wrath is not as necessary. Still, while the Church was in its infancy, we read about how, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death directly by God for their deception; a sobering reminder of how seriously God takes sin. Or how God put many people to death because, according to 1 Corinthians 11, they were participating in the Lord's Supper “unworthily”. God is no less just and wrathful in the New Testament, but He reveals it to us because He loves us. It's so that we will understand just how loving and merciful He is toward us. I mean, I wonder how often I should have died after taking the Lord's Supper?
Jesus is eternally loving and eternally just, from the beginning to the end...
The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:7-8)
Friday, March 25, 2011
#84: Is Christianity a form of child abuse?
When I was first confronted by a man who expressed his distaste for Christianity by calling it “child abuse”, I was completely dumb founded. I couldn't possibly see how Christianity could be seen this way. However, after watching Richard Dawkins' TV program “Root of all Evil”, in which he interviews a woman by the name of Jill Mytton, I can certainly understand how this allegation arises. Jill was raised in a “strict Christian sect”. She describes the “abuse” she felt in terms of an emotional abuse because of the fear of eternal damnation. When Dawkins asked Ms. Mytton what hell was like, she choked up for a moment; and then, overcoming the emotion of it, said “after all this time, it still has the power to affect me...” Since the doctrine of hell is, in fact, an all important teaching of Christianity, is it child abuse to teach our children about it?
I really do feel for this poor woman, Jill Mytton. To be emotionally manipulated by fear is a terrible thing that nobody should be subjected to. Of course, many people think that's what the doctrine of hell is all about... “Be good or you'll go to hell!” Many have said to me that the Bible, or the whole of the Christian religion, was invented by men as a way of controlling people through fear. But to say “Be good or you'll go to hell” is to only tell part of the story. If this is all we say to people, or to our children, we're not actually teaching them the gospel or what Christianity is about at all. To only hear this part of the story is a horrible and frightening thing! To say “Be good or you'll go to hell” as a way of frightening people into being good is actually a very anti-Christian thing to do and teach. How good do I have to be? What if I can't be good enough? If this were the only message we heard, we might become exceedingly distressed as we realize that we are not and cannot be good enough! But the Christian message is that because you can't be good enough to escape hell, Christ, who is perfectly holy and righteous, has died in your place. When we acknowledge this, we find salvation from sin and hell in Christ. What Jill Mytton needs to know is that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus!
In the Bible, Jesus tells this story...
Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: “God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.” But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted. (Luke 18:9-14)
This is the Christian message that we ought to teach our children; that the only escape from sin and hell is not to be more righteous, but to acknowledge our sin and put our faith in God's mercy and forgiveness. Now, counter-intuitively to some, this will actually lead to righteousness. How? Surely if you take away the threat of hell you give license to sin? But when you understand who Christ is and what He did on the cross for you, this will naturally lead to love for Christ. Love for Christ will naturally lead to a genuine desire to please Christ. And we know what pleases Christ...
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
If we teach only about hell, we inevitably fail to teach that salvation is only through Christ. Yet we cannot fail to teach about hell because how will anyone understand salvation unless they are taught what it is that they're saved from? It is possible for parents to teach, (or even torment) their children with Biblical themes and not be teaching Christianity at all. And this can indeed be detrimental to a child. But that doesn't mean that the “real thing” is anything like child abuse. In the preface to “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins responds to the allegation that he's only focusing on the worst of religion and ignoring the good. His response is essentially this; that the “quantity” of good is insignificant compared to the damage that religion causes. But to look at the evil of false religions (since there is one true God and one true religion), or to look at the evil corruption of Christianity (since wicked men can claim that their deeds are in the name of Christ when they are not) doesn't mean that there is not a genuinely true and good body of believers who do live righteously and teach righteousness and love. One isn’t justified to stamp out the whole thing, but rather to nourish that minority in the hopes that it might become the majority. Such true teaching and values ought to be passed down to our children. Christianity “taught right” is a positively good thing.
Jill Mytton's parents possibly didn't teach her the truth of the gospel and true Christianity, (though we can't know that for certain.) But how does a parent teach their children true Christianity? If we teach them all that the Bible says but don't, ourselves, do what the Bible says, then we are not teaching them Christianity at all! True Christianity is doing what God desires of us. It is living by faith. This is the central message of every sermon preached in a truly Christian church. If we teach our children every doctrine of the Bible but do not demonstrate the reality of God in our own lives, then we actually are not teaching them what it means to be a Christian. Hypocrisy will destroy the Christian message to whoever we teach it to. We must be genuine ourselves. This will mean that our children will learn from us love and compassion for others. They will learn humility and honesty. And they will learn to put away selfishness and envy. Even Dawkins', based on his own preface, agrees that this would be a wonderful thing. And I agree also.
Jesus said:
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)
I really do feel for this poor woman, Jill Mytton. To be emotionally manipulated by fear is a terrible thing that nobody should be subjected to. Of course, many people think that's what the doctrine of hell is all about... “Be good or you'll go to hell!” Many have said to me that the Bible, or the whole of the Christian religion, was invented by men as a way of controlling people through fear. But to say “Be good or you'll go to hell” is to only tell part of the story. If this is all we say to people, or to our children, we're not actually teaching them the gospel or what Christianity is about at all. To only hear this part of the story is a horrible and frightening thing! To say “Be good or you'll go to hell” as a way of frightening people into being good is actually a very anti-Christian thing to do and teach. How good do I have to be? What if I can't be good enough? If this were the only message we heard, we might become exceedingly distressed as we realize that we are not and cannot be good enough! But the Christian message is that because you can't be good enough to escape hell, Christ, who is perfectly holy and righteous, has died in your place. When we acknowledge this, we find salvation from sin and hell in Christ. What Jill Mytton needs to know is that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus!
In the Bible, Jesus tells this story...
Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: “God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.” But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner!” I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted. (Luke 18:9-14)
This is the Christian message that we ought to teach our children; that the only escape from sin and hell is not to be more righteous, but to acknowledge our sin and put our faith in God's mercy and forgiveness. Now, counter-intuitively to some, this will actually lead to righteousness. How? Surely if you take away the threat of hell you give license to sin? But when you understand who Christ is and what He did on the cross for you, this will naturally lead to love for Christ. Love for Christ will naturally lead to a genuine desire to please Christ. And we know what pleases Christ...
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
If we teach only about hell, we inevitably fail to teach that salvation is only through Christ. Yet we cannot fail to teach about hell because how will anyone understand salvation unless they are taught what it is that they're saved from? It is possible for parents to teach, (or even torment) their children with Biblical themes and not be teaching Christianity at all. And this can indeed be detrimental to a child. But that doesn't mean that the “real thing” is anything like child abuse. In the preface to “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins responds to the allegation that he's only focusing on the worst of religion and ignoring the good. His response is essentially this; that the “quantity” of good is insignificant compared to the damage that religion causes. But to look at the evil of false religions (since there is one true God and one true religion), or to look at the evil corruption of Christianity (since wicked men can claim that their deeds are in the name of Christ when they are not) doesn't mean that there is not a genuinely true and good body of believers who do live righteously and teach righteousness and love. One isn’t justified to stamp out the whole thing, but rather to nourish that minority in the hopes that it might become the majority. Such true teaching and values ought to be passed down to our children. Christianity “taught right” is a positively good thing.
Jill Mytton's parents possibly didn't teach her the truth of the gospel and true Christianity, (though we can't know that for certain.) But how does a parent teach their children true Christianity? If we teach them all that the Bible says but don't, ourselves, do what the Bible says, then we are not teaching them Christianity at all! True Christianity is doing what God desires of us. It is living by faith. This is the central message of every sermon preached in a truly Christian church. If we teach our children every doctrine of the Bible but do not demonstrate the reality of God in our own lives, then we actually are not teaching them what it means to be a Christian. Hypocrisy will destroy the Christian message to whoever we teach it to. We must be genuine ourselves. This will mean that our children will learn from us love and compassion for others. They will learn humility and honesty. And they will learn to put away selfishness and envy. Even Dawkins', based on his own preface, agrees that this would be a wonderful thing. And I agree also.
Jesus said:
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)