One of the things I have been teaching on a lot lately at our fellowship is that our faith and belief "statements" should not just be for thick books and seminaries. If they don't affect our daily life, in the grit and grind of living in this world and being salt and light in it, then haven't we missed something? Jesus didn't spend His whole time on earth in some ivory tower coffee house of safe discussions—He lived very much in this world and interacted with it and touched it. Then Jesus said He was sending out the church as the Father sent Him. Additionally, Ephesians tells us a pastor's job is to equip the saints (the body of Christ) for the work of ministry. Our faith is supposed to impact our daily life, to define its choices and change our priorities and expectations and values and words. We are in the world for a reason, for the work of ministry, otherwise the Father would take us immediately to Heaven where there is no pain, sorrow, death, sickness. This is one of the reasons I stress so much knowing a person's world view—because if they are true to it (which you would hope they would be if they really believe it) then it should affect their lives completely.
Last night's Vice Presidential debates really struck a note with me, though not a good one. I listened to Vice President Biden say that his personal belief is that life begins at conception (that's his supposed world view). Then he said he'd never force that on someone else or take away a woman's choice in the issue. My mouth almost dropped open. How can someone truly believe life begins at conception and then not take a stand to defend that defenseless life? What is the difference between that and removing laws against murder? How can he truly believe that is a life, a baby, inside the mom and then say he won't legislate to stop someone from killing it? If he truly believes it is a life inside a woman then, whether or not he'd admit it, he is saying that he believes a woman should have a choice to kill it.
Now I need to say that I believe Christians have handled the abortion issue tremendously wrong in many ways, and we have come across as cold, insensitive, hateful, angry, etc. I think we often haven't shown a mom to be the compassion of understanding her fear, her dilemma, etc., especially in the cases of unwanted pregnancies. I think we have spilled words that condemn a woman whose had an abortion instead of showing her the love and forgiveness of Jesus. But, all that said, if it is a life in her—and we believe it is—than that is a separate life and it must be dealt with as any other life, and we don't allow murder of anyone else no matter how convenient or expedient it is.
It is not just about the woman's choice! There is another life involved, and if we believe that we must—must!—defend the defenseless. That is God's mandate! I remember for me the turning point in the whole issue came when a brother said to me something to the effect of, "Everyone talks about a choice. What if they ask the baby its choice? What if they said to it that it was an accident, would it like to die? No one talks about the baby's choice." That, for me, was the defining moment. I realized that if I truly believed that was a life inside a woman then it, too, had rights and a choice, and if it couldn't defend or stand up for them on its own then others must. That is what God is about, and American used to be about. Are we still? He still is.
At its core this whole issue reveals an even higher and more important truth in a man or woman—what is our true (not just professed) world view, and what is our highest standard of truth? This issue, like many others, has at its core a much greater truth and that is the truth of where we stop as the final word in truth and right and wrong. Will that highest point that trumps all be God or man's opinion? Questions like this cut through all the expedient words and empty professions and reveal the true heart and belief of the person making them.
Note: Even Congressman Ryan wasn't consistent with his world view as he was listing exceptions to his anti-abortion stand. I think that when we start to make murder OK even in a few situations we are opening a slippery slope that won't stop just because we say, "no more." Once an avalanche begins it is unstoppable. It then becomes not a question of right and wrong, but a question of how far right or left the demarcation line is put, or of when it is right or wrong. The reality of that is that we aren't any longer saying something is right or wrong as an absolute, but we have changed over into saying man's wisdom defines right and wrong. That, then, becomes arbitrary which leads to moral relativism . . . one of the most dangerous philosophies a society can have. The rejection of absolute right and wrong is not tolerance, it is naive foolishness and the first step on the path to death.
Showing posts with label pro life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pro life. Show all posts
Friday, October 12, 2012
Monday, February 8, 2010
Who Says? — Part II
I read an article in the online New York Times yesterday by Op-Ed Columnist Frank Rich titled "Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet." It is hard to capture the whole article in a few sentences, but it uses the Pentagon's move to possibly repeal the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military towards gay soldiers as a platform to happily advance that the majority of Americans now see gay as an immutable identity and not a "lifestyle." He talks about the "progress" we are making on the issue (its greater acceptance) and uses words to describe those who oppose the homosexual agenda like "homophobic" and "prejudice" and makes the homosexual issue a civil rights issue.
I found the article catching my attention because of the post I had just made (2/7/10: "Says Who?," or "Who Says?") in which I asserted the need for an absolute standard for defining right and wrong. Whether it is the homosexual issue, the abortion issue, racism, prostitution, etc., unless there is a standard defining point for right and wrong there will always be arguments on both sides. In his column, using words like "bigotry," Mr. Rich talks about the court arguments about California's Proposition 8 and he attacks the arguments of those who testified of the danger to marriage of its being repealed and gays being allowed to marry.
Really, we can make all the arguments we want for how gays in the military will affect morale, or what it would do to other soldiers, or for how gay marriage will threaten the institution of marriage, and how it will advance the homosexual agenda in schools, etc., but the reality is that the supreme reason we stand against any of it (or against abortion or prostitution or . . . ) is because God's Word says it is wrong. Just like we would tell an adulterer that they are wrong, and still love them as we do it, we declare homosexuality wrong and abortion wrong—because God says it is.
Every argument we can advance will have a counter argument. Every fact will have a counter fact. Whoever has the best lawyers and the heart strings of the majority of the voters will stand the best chance of having their position ratified . . . unless, and until, Jesus is embraced by our nation as God's Son and the Bible as God's Word. In the absence of an absolute standard there is, simply, argument against argument. Who has the most believable expert witnesses? Who has the best commercials? We have lost the point, which is who has truth? If the people of America who profess to be Christians simply stood—lovingly and humbly, but firmly—on the standard of God's reality and His Word as supreme truth, this wouldn't even be an issue. Until we do we will probably lose more battles than we win.
Note: You can read Mr. Rich's complete article by clicking here.
I found the article catching my attention because of the post I had just made (2/7/10: "Says Who?," or "Who Says?") in which I asserted the need for an absolute standard for defining right and wrong. Whether it is the homosexual issue, the abortion issue, racism, prostitution, etc., unless there is a standard defining point for right and wrong there will always be arguments on both sides. In his column, using words like "bigotry," Mr. Rich talks about the court arguments about California's Proposition 8 and he attacks the arguments of those who testified of the danger to marriage of its being repealed and gays being allowed to marry.
Really, we can make all the arguments we want for how gays in the military will affect morale, or what it would do to other soldiers, or for how gay marriage will threaten the institution of marriage, and how it will advance the homosexual agenda in schools, etc., but the reality is that the supreme reason we stand against any of it (or against abortion or prostitution or . . . ) is because God's Word says it is wrong. Just like we would tell an adulterer that they are wrong, and still love them as we do it, we declare homosexuality wrong and abortion wrong—because God says it is.
Every argument we can advance will have a counter argument. Every fact will have a counter fact. Whoever has the best lawyers and the heart strings of the majority of the voters will stand the best chance of having their position ratified . . . unless, and until, Jesus is embraced by our nation as God's Son and the Bible as God's Word. In the absence of an absolute standard there is, simply, argument against argument. Who has the most believable expert witnesses? Who has the best commercials? We have lost the point, which is who has truth? If the people of America who profess to be Christians simply stood—lovingly and humbly, but firmly—on the standard of God's reality and His Word as supreme truth, this wouldn't even be an issue. Until we do we will probably lose more battles than we win.
Note: You can read Mr. Rich's complete article by clicking here.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
"Says Who?," or "Who Says?"
With Superbowl kickoff only hours away I must say that I am truly glad to hear that CBS has decided to not air an ad from a gay dating service showing two men making out. Their decision to air an ad from Focus on the Family with Tim Tebow and his mom (which I am personally happy for) brings up an important point, however, and that is, "Who says what is ok and what isn't?"
CBS has their own standards and criteria which they subjected the ads to. But what if they had made a different decision? What if they had shown the two men making out and not run the Tebow ad (which is reported to have a pro-life message from his mom's own decision not to abort him despite doctor's recommendations)? Would they have been right or wrong?
The obvious point here is how right and wrong is defined or determined. If anyone is asked how they determine right and wrong and their answer is a non-absolute (something like getting their values from family, teachers, own opinion, what hurts the least people, experience, the Bible as simply a "good book of morals," etc.) then they are on shaky ground. The problem is, what happens when they meet someone else whose values are in opposition to theirs, and in fact infringe on theirs, and who has an equally non-absolute basis for choosing them? Who is right? Who prevails?
The logical extreme of everyone picking their own values and right and wrongs is obvious if one simply spends a little time thinking about it. In fact, in the absence of absolute right and wrong, even fascism, racism, abortion, elderly elimination, elimination of the sick and weak, etc., are all equally justifiable to people believing them—and with no absolute standard to judge them against, who is anyone to say they are wrong? In fact, wouldn't evolution (which denies God) tell us that the strongest has every right, and is even admired for, asserting him/herself over the weaker and insuring the continuation of his own?
When we are devoid of an absolute standard for right and wrong, or good and bad, we are on a slippery slope in which the slightest shift or collision can bring the whole thing down in an avalanche of chaos and destruction. That is why we, as Christians, must be absolutely convinced in our hearts that the Word of God is truly that, and that Jesus is who He says He is, because He says He is the way and the truth, and the Bible displays God as the absolute defining point of good and evil. Praise God that we have a God who does not change, and that we have in Him a sure anchor in these days of shifting winds and currents where nothing seems sure or steady.
Note: If this post intrigues you then you might want to read my September 2, 2009 post on world view and politics which talks about the need for a standard as well. You can read it by clicking here.
CBS has their own standards and criteria which they subjected the ads to. But what if they had made a different decision? What if they had shown the two men making out and not run the Tebow ad (which is reported to have a pro-life message from his mom's own decision not to abort him despite doctor's recommendations)? Would they have been right or wrong?
The obvious point here is how right and wrong is defined or determined. If anyone is asked how they determine right and wrong and their answer is a non-absolute (something like getting their values from family, teachers, own opinion, what hurts the least people, experience, the Bible as simply a "good book of morals," etc.) then they are on shaky ground. The problem is, what happens when they meet someone else whose values are in opposition to theirs, and in fact infringe on theirs, and who has an equally non-absolute basis for choosing them? Who is right? Who prevails?
The logical extreme of everyone picking their own values and right and wrongs is obvious if one simply spends a little time thinking about it. In fact, in the absence of absolute right and wrong, even fascism, racism, abortion, elderly elimination, elimination of the sick and weak, etc., are all equally justifiable to people believing them—and with no absolute standard to judge them against, who is anyone to say they are wrong? In fact, wouldn't evolution (which denies God) tell us that the strongest has every right, and is even admired for, asserting him/herself over the weaker and insuring the continuation of his own?
When we are devoid of an absolute standard for right and wrong, or good and bad, we are on a slippery slope in which the slightest shift or collision can bring the whole thing down in an avalanche of chaos and destruction. That is why we, as Christians, must be absolutely convinced in our hearts that the Word of God is truly that, and that Jesus is who He says He is, because He says He is the way and the truth, and the Bible displays God as the absolute defining point of good and evil. Praise God that we have a God who does not change, and that we have in Him a sure anchor in these days of shifting winds and currents where nothing seems sure or steady.
Note: If this post intrigues you then you might want to read my September 2, 2009 post on world view and politics which talks about the need for a standard as well. You can read it by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
