"If the church as a matter of habit tolerates the use of force and planning for warfare on the part of the state, then she will not even know when the exceptional time has come when it would be justified for her to say a Christian 'yes.'"
John Howard Yoder, summarizing Karl Barth's views, Karl Barth and the Problem of War, 39.
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Church and War
Monday, February 21, 2011
New Music
So tell me...
If I were to download one new song today... what should it be?
What if I downloaded two?
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Reformission Rev. Review Pt. 2
In the early days, Driscoll recounts how some of their biggest challenges seemed to surround finding a good music leader. He recounts various musicians, drummers, and guitarists who filled the positions at various points in the history of Mars Hill. While I grew up in a fairly contemporary Christian worship music scene (true confessions: I played bass guitar for our church's worship team for a few years), I have over the years become more and more convinced that most of what is offered under that name is less than helpful, even though I am always open to finding good, new worship music (and I think the church should be committed to producing quality, new worship music/songs).
I have some familiarity with the worship music scene at Mars Hill -- I've listened to a few of the recordings posted on the Resurgence website -- (so I wasn't really surprised), but my initial reaction was honestly still that these "struggles" seemed trivial, sort of part of the immaturity of the early days of the church plant. Sort of like a young high school punk complaining that his garage band hasn't gotten any gigs. I'm tempted to tell the kid to grow up and get a job. Get married, have some kids, and join the *real* world. I admit that I was *tempted* to feel the same away about the Mars Hill music leader struggles. Grow up and find a hymnal, I sort of wanted to say. But on second thought, it's just a fact that music and worship is really important to God, and even though I would quibble with the electric guitars and garage band style of worship music, it dawned on me that this concern and trial was actually in some ways a really good sign that the church was on the right track.
Worship is central; God loves music. God loves when His people sing to Him with joy and love in their hearts. This doesn't dismiss the quality and culture issues, but the fact of the matter is that there are many believers who worship the Lord in Spirit and in Truth with guitars and drums who will entire the Kingdom before the proud antics of Christians with high brow organs and violins. And furthermore, in so far as these struggles were borne out of a heartfelt love for Jesus and a desire to worship Him, Jesus was pleased with their baby steps and believers who walk in the obsessed love of Christ grow up into maturity. And this goes for all of us, whether we're plinking out old hymns on a piano or making a glorious ruckus on a Fender.
You can read the first part of this review here.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Top Five Reasons I Can't Get into Chuck
At the recommendation of several friends, I have watched half of the first season of the hit television sitcom Chuck, starring Zachary Levi and Yvonne Strahovski.
Now I certainly grant at least two possibilities that might undermine what follows. Those two possibilities are: 1. My sample size is much too small and creates an inaccurate picture of the series as a whole. 2. I'm just getting old and cranky.
But I just can't get into Chuck, and in fact, thus far, all I can do is cheerfully object to it's popularity. And here are my top five reasons:
5. It's annoying not to know what general genre of television sitcom I am in. Is this a comedy, an action thriller, a soap opera, a mystery, or what? Do I take you seriously when you say there is a bomb or are you going to make a joke about it and take off all your clothes in order to change before going back to your hot dog stand? Was I supposed to care?
4. There are two reasons for doing a little bit of everything (comedy, romance, action-adventure-mystery, documentary): one reason is that you have a good story to tell, and good stories do frequently include elements of every genre. Another reason is that you don't have a good story to tell and you are trying to cover that up with explosions and undressing women and cheap one-liners. As you can tell, I tend to feel that there is more of the latter going on than the former.
3. I resent shows that try to manipulate me. I want a good story, character development, intelligent humor, whatever to win me, but I do not like feeling manipulated. And I feel utterly manipulated when I watch Chuck. Some goofy jokes, a few explosions, a little hand to hand combat, sexy ninja girls fighting each other and fending off the bad guys, a little bit of romantic suspense to up the sexual frustration of the hero, and viola, you have Chuck. There are hooks for everyone. But I don't feel the love, I feel used.
2. And this leads more specifically to a particularly annoying manipulation ploy. I understand that living in modern day America there will be a certain amount of skin that just comes with the territory. And I have no patience for the prudish fanaticism of some who would prefer all women to go around in burlap sacks. But there is a big difference between a bit of Jane Austen cleavage and the moving scenery down at Hooters. Faithful guys rule their minds and eyes, give God thanks for beautiful women, love their wives, and spend goodish amounts of time counting clouds, looking at the ground or finding nondescript bits of the forehead to talk to. It's what good guys do, and it's cool. Even though we could wish for a safer world, we're guys and we fight dragons. But I just can't get into a show trying to cross Jack Bauer with Baywatch. And frankly, I wonder how many Christian husbands are getting little, subtle jollies from the spectacle, while insisting all along that it's just a funny-suspense-action-adventure-fantasy-scifi-thriller-drama-documentary-horror-comedy show.
1. OK, so really most of these objections blur together, and this is probably a summary statement more than anything, but the number one reason why I just can't get into Chuck is because I don't believe in Chuck. I don't believe the characters; I don't believe they really care. I don't believe the world they're in. Now, don't get me wrong, I realize that there is a fantasy/scifi element to the story. The title character Chuck has a microchip thingy in his brain that is filled with all the CIA records and when he sees certain people or objects it causes him to "flash" through all the archives and help the two *real* CIA agents solve the mysteries. Maybe that's even a cool idea for a show. But I don't believe the writers of the show are really intelligent enough to make that story fly. I suspect that they have had a few good ideas that they are now busy trying to decorate and repackage a few hundred times with short skirts and explosions and one-liners.
Again, I fully admit that this analysis may be severely inadequate given my limited sampling of the show. In fact, given the show's popularity, I hope I'm wrong. But at this point I don't plan to keep watching. I admit that I have laughed a number of times at some of the antics that take place between Chuck and his short, oblivious, sex infatuated co-worker, Morgan. But where a few points are scored with the humor, I'm unable to care or believe the rest of the story going on. And when the producers quickly flash to another female chest after a particularly choppy bit of dialogue, I can only feel manipulated, conned, and consequently nonplussed.
For all their weaknesses, I'm still more impressed with The Office and The Simpsons.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Porn as a Public Health Menace
Here are a couple of articles from last spring collaborating with a recent report from the Witherspoon Institute's recent study on the social effects of pornography.
An anonymous woman writes about her own experience in the National Review Online:
"Imagine a drug so powerful it can destroy a family simply by distorting a man’s perception of his wife. Picture an addiction so lethal it has the potential to render an entire generation incapable of forming lasting marriages and so widespread that it produces more annual revenue — $97 billion worldwide in 2006 — than all of the leading technology companies combined. Consider a narcotic so insidious that it evades serious scientific study and legislative action for decades, thriving instead under the ever-expanding banner of the First Amendment."
You can read the rest of her piece here.
While she will conclude with suggestions for government studies and health care provisions for this "drug abuse," which I'm skeptical of, the overall thrust is a broad ranging acknowledgment of what the Bible has said all along.
You can't have a society of men acting like beasts and that not have enormous ramifications for the society. Proverbs says that lusting after the seductress reduces a man to a crust of bread, it burns him, and it will ultimately kill him.
"Do not lust after the her beauty in your heart, nor let her allure you with her eyelids. For by means of a harlot a man is reduced to a crust of bread; and an adulteress will prey upon his precious life. Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one walk on hot colas, and his feet not be seared?" (Prov. 6:25-28)
"Do not let your heart turn aside to her ways, do not stray into her paths; for she has cast down many wounded, and all who were slain by her were strong men. Her house is the way to hell, descending to the chambers of death." (Prov. 7:25-27)
Katherine Kersten also has an article summarizing a number of the broad effects of porn on our society:
"Pornography is seeping into our society at every level. It plays a role in many divorces, according to a recent survey of family lawyers. It has spilled into popular culture through songs, movies and music videos. The number of TV sex scenes nearly doubled between 1998 and 2005. Porn may even have influenced rogue American soldiers' abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The acts they perpetrated included weird elements of sexual humiliation."
You can read the rest of her article here.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Is it a sin to vote?
David Brewer, a justice of the US Supreme Court delivered a lecture to students at Yale University in 1902 which included this explanation of the sanctity of democracy in America:
"[The voting booth] is the temple of American institutions. No single tribe or family is chosen to watch the sacred fires... Each of us is a priest. To each is given the care of the ark of the covenant. Each one ministers at its altars."
(Cited by Michael Walzer in Exodus and Revolution, 113)
And if this religious fervor has done anything in the last century, it has only grown. Which means of course that conscientious Christians must be asking themselves, 'Which deity is being served at this temple?' And then very quickly after that, we ought to wonder if it is a sin to vote and if not yet, when?
What would it take to make casting a ballot in the general election on par with tossing a pinch of incense onto the altar before the emperor? At what point should Christians politely refuse to say the Pledge or sing the National Anthem or God Bless America at the ballgames?
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Plunder and Leaven: What's that Bling?
On the one hand, Yahweh tells Israel to get rid of all the leaven of Egypt. Get rid of Egyptian culture, Egyptian wisdom, Egyptian strength. God promises to give Israel a new identity, a new culture, His wisdom, He will be their strength.
On the other hand, Yahweh tells Israel to ask their neighbors for gold and clothing and jewelry. And when Israel goes marching out of Egypt, they do so having plundered the Egyptians.
So Israel is supposed to plunder Egypt but leave the leaven behind.
What's the difference between plunder and leaven? Why is plunder OK but leaven is not?
Later in Exodus, the Israelites will use some of this plunder to make a golden calf. Later still, they will use it to build the tabernacle. If leaven means influence and strength and growth, then the golden calf incident indicates that Israel didn't leave all the leaven behind. The leaven of Egypt wants to use gold and clothing and jewelry to mess with the worship of God's people. The leaven of Egypt is ultimately displayed in worshiping idols. But the plunder is for building Yahweh's house; the plunder is for adorning the worship of God.
The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees is the same (Mt. 16:6-12). It is corrupting the worship of God's people; but the plunder of Jesus is the people of God with which He is building a new tabernacle.
And the same principle would seem to apply to clothing, jewelry, and gold today. What are you using it for? Is it being used to build the Church, building up the people of God? Or are you using that bling for a golden calf in your life? Is that dress for the edification of the people of God? What about that house, that car, that haircut, that music you're listening to? Is that plunder that you're hauling off to build the tabernacle with or have you just gotten bored waiting for Moses up on that mountain?
Monday, November 08, 2010
Nose Piercing
So a little girl recently asked her mother, are ladies that have nose rings Christians?
Now on the one hand this might seem like a silly question. Are ladies who wear jeans Christians? Are ladies who drive Subarus Christians?
And as it happens, we have a number of godly, Christian women in our community with a nose piercing. So the question is not an irrelevant one.
So what should a conscientious mother or father say to such a question?
First, it is manifestly obvious that there is nothing sinful in itself with a Christian woman having a ring in her nose. Abraham's servant brought just such a gift for Rebekah (Gen. 24:22). And God Himself says that He put a jewel in the nose of Israel when He married her at Sinai (Ez. 16:12). Clearly, a nose piercing can be a most lovely thing, a sign of Christian love and affection, particularly for a married woman. In the context of these particular passages, like earrings, a nose piercing seems to symbolize the beauty of a Christian woman submitting to her husband. And three cheers for lovely Christian women.
Second, like most good things, the world likes to take them and twist them and turn them into signs of their rebellion and hatred toward God. And this has clearly happened in the case of nose piercings. In other cultures (like India and Nepal), nose piercing has remained relatively normal, though apparently somewhat through the influence of certain Hindu beliefs. But in the modern West, it is universally recognized that the resurgence of nose piercing has come about in conjunction with widespread rebellion. Which in itself is fairly ironic since in the biblical texts, as we noted, piercing is frequently associated with the beauty of Christian submission. So the question becomes how do Christians both cling to the Word of God as their standard for aesthetics and refuse to take part in the rebellion of the culture around them?
Paul seems to have something fairly similar going on in his day with meat offered to idols. He knows that idols are nothing, and that meat offered to Zeus isn't unclean when Christians receive it with thankful hearts to the true God of heaven. But Paul says that he'd rather be a vegetarian than offend anyone for the sake of a wonderful, slab of meaty goodness.
And I think this parallel actually works quite well. Paul is up against Judaizers who are busy insisting that faith in Jesus is not sufficient for salvation, that believing Gentiles must also keep the holiness code of the Old Testament and on the other hand there are the freshly converted pagans who just minutes ago were sleeping with temple prostitutes and eating medium rare steaks as acts of worship to Athena. On the one hand Paul might be tempted to give the Judaizers the finger and tell everyone to order up the steaks. And he has some pretty harsh words for Judaizers elsewhere. You can't really accuse Paul of being a softy on them. On the other hand, Paul knew that the freshly converted pagans were the young believers, the ones with weak consciences. So he says it's worth being very careful. Which means that Paul ran the risk of looking or sounding like a Judaizer for encouraging people not to eat meat not because it was unclean but for the sake of weak consciences. And Paul's conclusion is, "... if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love..." (Rom. 14:15).
When it comes to certain cultural practices that are not required by God's word, we should be glad to defer to love. Our calling is to love one another and to defer to one another. We are called to look for ways to be a blessing and an encouragement in the faith to one another. We are conspiring to bless. Which means having a keen awareness of the sorts of things that are sure to bless, sure to encourage faith and joy and good works, and being aware of those things that might be a blessing to some but not to others (though they may be perfectly moral in themselves).
If I bring home dessert to my wife and it is not loaded with dark chocolate, I am a failure as a husband. Anyone who knows my wife knows that God has designed her to be sanctified through dark chocolate. This is a deep mystery, but I am speaking of Christ and the Church. And actually I am. Christ comes looking to save, looking to heal, looking to set free, looking to redeem many captives from slavery. His aim was not: 'How much can I get away with and still be the Son of God?' His aim was Life, abundant life, high octane liberty which was found ultimately in laying His life down, giving up His rights, becoming a servant to all and for all.
But we live in a world that is not interested in this kind of wisdom. We live in a world full of people in high rebellion to our Lord Jesus. And that rebellion is expressed in countless ways, and if that were not already complicated enough, we have the responsibility of training up our children to recognize the difference between darkness and light, the difference between godly freedom and satanic slavery. And part of that training includes recognizing uniforms and costumes. Of course we cannot see the heart, and of course mature, godly wisdom does not function on superficial, legalistic dress codes. And a faithful, evangelistic Church is going to be full of people who look like they have been saved from the world. Because as it turns out that's what Jesus is doing.
But when my son looks out the window as we drive by the local high school and casually points out a group of hoodlums to his friend in the backseat and says, "those kids don't love Jesus," I do not freak out thinking that my son has suddenly become a legalistic fundamentalist. I smile and thank God that he is beginning to recognize differences in the world. He's beginning to recognize the uniforms. Of course biblical wisdom can't stop there, and recognizing the uniforms must be married to a robust, evangelistic love for the lost, but our children need to be taught that rebellion *looks* a certain way. And frequently for the last several decades, nose piercings have been part of the getup.
And this isn't meant as any kind of backhanded insult to anyone. I have friends who are lovely, Christian women who have nose piercings. And personally, I do not find their piercings offensive in the slightest. But here would be the one cautionary question: Are there any in the broader Christian community who might be offended by your freedom? What do your mothers and your grandmothers think? What do they *really* think? And if they told you it wasn't their favorite, would that offend you? If another Christian woman asked whether it was really a good idea, would there be a gracious, quiet spirit replying or would there be a defensive attitude?
If you and your husband grew up in homes where nose piercing was just part of the normal, godly, feminine routine, then God bless you and I pray that your daughters grow up to be just like you. If your parents and grandparents and the wives of your elders and pastors all think it's just the greatest thing in the world, then that's wonderful and I'm not worried about a thing.
But the little girl who asked her mother whether ladies with nose rings are Christians or not was a real girl and she was asking a pretty reasonable question. And a wise mother or father needs of course to tell her that there are godly women who have nose piercings. And at the same time, some of those parents may want to also explain why their family doesn't. And it wouldn't be because it's a sin to put a jewel in your nose. Of course not. But the answer would be something like, 'But sweetie, we don't have time for that. There are so many other wonderful things that the Lord has given us to bless one another with.' It's like trying to make it to the big city for a concert or a professional sporting event in time and someone suggesting you take "the back way" or a "short cut." Of course if everyone agrees the "short cut" is really the way to go, then by all means, take the short cut. But if you're really in a hurry and you decide to take the "road less traveled," you must also recognize that you run the risk of showing up late. When you've got places to go, there's no time to worry about giving offense accidentally. There's already enough opportunity for that. And we've got plenty of work to do as the Church: people to love, people to serve, blessing to bestow, and life to live.
And of course perhaps postmillenially speaking, all the faithful, godly women will wear nose rings in a few hundred years. And if that's the case, praise God for that. But the way we will get there is not by pushing the limits and then telling the older women who object to cool their jets and chill out. The way we will get to a Christian civilization full of godly, nose-jeweled women (if that is indeed where we are headed) is through glad deference and joyful submission.
In other words, fighting for the symbol must begin by embodying the symbol. If we want to reclaim this particular symbol, if we want to take it back from the world, it will only happen as we take back what the nose ring actually means. And as we do that as communities and more broadly as the Church, God will bestow His beauty upon His people, and we can be sure that Christian women throughout the world will be like the daughters of Job.
And just to anticipate at least one specific question: what am I suggesting Christian women do who already have a nose piercing? I'm encouraging them to embody the symbol. Do whatever it takes to embody that lovely, Christian submission which the Scriptures call you to, remembering the "incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God" (1 Pet. 3:4). All jewelry, all adornment ought to always be merely a compliment to what is already there in the heart. For some Christian women, this may mean that they recognize some element of an unsubmissive spirit revealed in their adornment, and they ought to talk to their husbands and may need to rethink some things. If it was all love, all grace, all blessing to get the piercing, I have no concerns. But if there was any hint of 'I'm getting this piercing because I can and you can't tell me otherwise...' then your spirit doesn't match the symbol and the symbol may be communicating some of that spirit.
But the exhortation goes the other way as well. As Paul says in Romans, let every man be convinced in his own mind: if your wife has a nose piercing then do it to the Lord and if she does not, do that unto the Lord. But we do not live to ourselves, we live unto the Lord (Rom. 14:5-6). Walk in faith, love one another, and do everything you can to provoke one another to love and good works.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
After the First 30,000 Years
What would you do if you could live forever?
I asked some of my students this question this morning, and it was striking to see how quickly the question was broken in half.
Do you mean eternal life or earthly life?
One student immediately recognized that we will live forever, so it's not a hypothetical question. But, he went on, if it's talking about living forever here on earth, it might eventually get kind of boring.
But students quickly reassure me that living forever "in heaven" will be great. What will we do there? Praise God forever, of course. Will that get boring? Of course not...
In some ways it's grand to long for eternal life with God, and recognizing that worship is the end for which God created us is absolutely true and wonderful. But having these "default" settings without thoughtfully digging into some of our presuppositions can actually obscure what God is up to.
For instance: God created this world, this universe, with billions of stars and galaxies, with jellyfish and rainbows, volcanoes and dragons, oceans and pineapples, and God created Adam and Eve and intended for them to live forever in this world. And apparently God loaded this world with enough treasures to last forever. God didn't give Adam a job that would get boring after the first 30,000 years.
And this world is piled so high with treasures that Adam was going to need lots of kids and grandkids to help him with the project. Billions of people living forever in this world was part of the plan, digging into the ground, exploring the depths of the seas, and figuring out how to sling shot our grandchildren into other galaxies.
And of course we've done our best to screw that up, and slow the project down. We got old and cranky in our sin and told God it couldn't be done. But God came to make us young again, young like Adam and Eve, young like children who see the universe as their sandbox, young and fearless and creative.
In Christ, God did not come up with the Great Escape Plan. The New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven in Revelation is not a Flying Saucer come to beam up all the good guys and then fly away into some other dimension, some other existence. The New Jerusalem is coming down out of heave to earth. And John hears a voice saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God" (Rev. 21:3).
The promise is that in Christ, God has come to be with us, and the hope of the Gospel is that God's Life, His Kingdom will come here on earth as it is in heaven. The promise is that God will come wipe away every tear; He isn't going to wipe away the entire creation and start from scratch. There will be no more pain, but God isn't busy trying to make this world go away. God has come in Christ to heal this world, renew this world, refashion this world.
So the question is not what would you do if you could live forever. The question is what are you doing since you're going to live forever? Death for Christians is a nap time. It's a wonderful, Sunday afternoon nap, dreaming with Christ. Only we won't wake up groggy or grumpy or still tired. The resurrection will wake us up with the energy of little kids and the wisdom of the mind of Christ. We will wake up refreshed, ready to get back to work. We will wake up healed of our diseases, our afflictions, our hurts, our pain, and our sin will be no more.
And then what will we do? There will be mountains to jump, oceans to walk, magic to learn, volcanoes to swim, stars to explore, and dragons to tame. And of course people, billions of interesting, intelligent, funny, strange people.
If in our old age of sin and death we have fumbled about in the dark and come up with antibiotics and iPhones and space shuttles, what might we find if we could actually open our eyes?
And of course, living forever is all about worshiping the Brilliant Creator of this mind blowing project, but I wonder if it won't be a bit more active and vigorous than we sometimes think. If Jesus made this world, He is far more into it than we are. He'll be leading the comet riding ventures and the solar surface tours.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Christ and Nothing
If you have never read David Bentley Hart's essay "Christ and Nothing," you need to.
Here it is: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HartChrist.shtml
And now you have no excuses.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Showing up in Mom's Minivan
Talking with my students in the Omnibus class I teach for Veritas Press, several things connected for me in new and vivid ways.
We like to point out that relativism is incoherent because it must take a stand for the truth of the non-existence of absolute truth. So which is it?
Or, we critique postmodernists who decry global statements, universalizing narratives that seek to explain everything as though we understand or see everything. And to their cries of foul play, we ask them where they got their global narrative decoder goggles enabling them to see and understand the nature of narratives to such a degree to be so sure that our narrative is wrong. Don't wave your universalizing narrative around like that, someone might get hurt.
Culturally, we mock the veneer of multiculturalism and tolerance that, as veneers go, is about as authentic as an angry teenager with pink hair and a hole in his lip showing up to the class party in his mom's minivan. Everyone wants to be all Mayan and Aztecan until someone actually suggests child sacrifice or the need for a beating human heart. Oh, you weren't serious?
My students and I were talking specifically about Marcel Duchamp's famous bit of work entitled Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, Even (pictured here). Here on display in some famous art museum seems to be something of the same caliber as the before mentioned phenomena. Someone, presumably Duchamp or his able assistants, went out to the hardware store and purchased these items or maybe they dug around in a trash can (I don't know). But someone meticulously arranged these items in the glass, thought through how the pane ought to be cracked and splintered and so on. And then set it up all proper like in the art museum for everyone to see.
I'm no artist and there very well may be some artistic interpretation to be done on this work, but it struck me that this is the artistic equivalent of going down to the mall to buy $85 jeans that someone has pre-ripped for you (in all the right places).
One of the questions we pondered was whether this piece of art seemed to emit a sort of hopelessness and despair. And what we concluded is that the piece of art was trying to emit hopelessness and despair but that it was being propped up by a lot of aspiration, hope, and creativity. Real despair wouldn't take the time to put this piece of art together. Authentic hopelessness isn't creative. This angry piece of art has arrived at the party in his mom's minivan.
And this line of reasoning isn't meant to deconstruct all platforms, all truth, or even mom's minivan. The point is to embrace the world that God made and has given, and that would include all the specific things that God has given you and your family. In other words, love your mom.
One of the great dangers with this kind of play acting is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. What may begin as only pretending to be hopeless and bitter actually ends up becoming hopeless and bitter. What we act like, who we imitate is what we become.
So, for example, Christian young people who "play" rebellion with their parents by getting huffy in theological throw downs over baptism, paedocommunion, liturgy, clerical collars, and eschatology are in grave danger of tithing mint and cumin and dill, while neglecting the weightier matters of the law like honor your father and mother. It can't come as a surprise that when a 22 year old college student wears his postmillenial eschatology like a lip ring, he ends up with a real one in a few years. Or when the kid disrespects his mother in defense of the pastor wearing a clerical collar, why would we be surprised that he ends up Roman Catholic and a few years later is a Muslim?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Private Religion and Weak-Mindedness
"The modern habit of saying, 'This is my opinion, but I may be wrong,' is entirely irrational. If I say that it may be wrong, I say that it is not my opinion. The modern habit of saying, 'Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me' - the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more posses a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon."
G.K. Chesterton, Introduction to the Book of Job
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Cigarettes
Should Christian college students smoke cigarettes?
First, we should clarify that this issue is one of wisdom. God has not declared cigarettes sinful and therefore neither should we. And in principle this also means that cigarettes may be smoked to the glory of God.
But the question is should Christian young people smoke cigarettes? Is it a good idea? Is it wise?
There are at least two biblical principles that we ought to consider when we ask this question, and they come under the headings of authority and love.
First, it must be recognized that for better or worse the symbol of smoking cigarettes has become a fairly universal symbol in North America of rebellion. This does not mean that everyone who smokes cigarettes is in rebellion, but it is a fairly wide spread symbol of rebellion. From the hippies to the rock stars to the frat boys, the symbol is a slightly more subtle version of the middle finger to authority.
Now there was a time when smoking cigarettes was far more culturally acceptable. And I can imagine a time in which Christian families gathered around after dinner for post meal smokes somewhat like how many of us will have coffee or tea after dinner today. Maybe my perception of that era is distorted, but the point still stands. I can imagine a Christian culture where smoking (in moderation) is an acceptable social pastime. In such a culture, kids could grow up and share an occasional smoke with their parents and grandparents and neighbors and everyone was in fellowship and could do it all to the glory of God.
And maybe, just maybe, postmillenially speaking such a culture will emerge in a thousand years. But the way to building such a Christian culture is not through Christian teenagers and college students telling their parents where to stick it.
And that brings us to the point about authority. One of the most helpful questions to ask when deciding whether it is a good idea to smoke cigarettes is the question: what do your parents think? I suppose there are probably a few Christian families here and there and various subcultures where smoking is still relatively acceptable. Well, good for them. But for lots of us who have grown up over the last few decades, the frowns and grimaces and sideways glances are not, I can assure you, repressed feelings of approval.
The entire weight of the Scriptures is not, "Children, just don't make your parents really mad." But we read it that way sometimes, and as long as mom isn't hyperventilating and dad hasn't exploded and called the elders, we shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves it must not be a big deal. They're only a little mad, we assure ourselves piously.
But honoring parents is not merely passive. Disobedience does not merely come in the form of sins of commission (doing what they have expressly forbidden). Dishonor and disobedience also come in the form of sins of omission. We can dishonor our parents by not actively bestowing honor, for not looking for ways to bless them, for not looking for ways to please them. If you asked them, "Is there anything that I'm doing, that you wish I would stop?" -- would smoking be on the list? Then drop it. Even if they're wrong, it should be an easy, black and white decision. Our job as young people is to honor our parents, to pile up honor and blessing for them.
And related to this would be the fact that our "father and mother" include all those in authority over us. If 9 out of 10 of your elders, pastors, and teachers would frown at it, why do it? Aren't we called to love? And love not only covers multitudes of sins, it looks for ways to die for others. Ordinarily, in our culture, cigarettes are self-serving and the only other people thankful for your indulgence are your friends who also know deep down (or not so deep down) that dad would really not be pleased with this. Is that love?
And so moving right into the second principle, the principle of love, Paul said that meat offered to idols is clean, and Christians were free to eat it but if he knew his doing so would cause a brother to stumble he would rather be a vegetarian than eat prime rib offered to Athena. The principle is that we should be willing to give up lots and lots for the unity of the body.
So you confess that you believe in the communion of saints? But which communion are you talking about? If you're talking about the body that you gather with week after week to worship with, how do they like those smokes? And shrugging your shoulders and saying that no one has ever said anything to you about it, doesn't mean it's not a problem, it just means that you have brothers and sisters who are more polite than you.
Two last thoughts: I write all of this somewhat autobiographically. These are convictions that I have come to over time, but which I did not always recognize or practice. And in the grand scheme of things, I really don't think this is a hill to die on in either direction. I don't think elders and pastors ought to have campaigns to eliminate all the twenty year old cigarette smokers from their congregations. And I know good, upstanding Christians who smoke. God bless them. But neither do I think that young people should make this their own pet campaign either, even if privately with their close friends back behind Bucers or Starbucks. I do believe that the next generation of Christians ought to look for ways to improve upon their elders, but do we really want to claim that the next great reformation will be in the form of Camels and Marlboros?
My advice: Don't be a crank or a whiner, but look for ways to love and bless the body of Christ. Ask your parents what they think, and look forward to listening to them, following their example, and be hungry to find ways to die to yourself in order to love and honor them. And my guess is that there are many people who already know what their parents think and have some repenting to do.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Where was God in Haiti when the earthquakes struck?
Update: Here's the recording of the talk: "Where was God in Haiti when the Earthquakes Struck Haiti?"
Introduction
On January 12th, 2010 at 4:53pm, an earthquake measured at a magnitude of 7.0 struck the nation of Haiti on the island of Hispaniola, the epicenter some 15 miles west of Port-Au-Prince, the capital city and largest city in Haiti. The earthquake struck some 8 miles down into the earth’s crust. The death toll is now estimated to be over 200,000 with perhaps another 200,000 injured and somewhere around a million people displaced in and around the Port-au-Prince area.
A description of the tectonic phenomenon: “The January 12, 2010, Haiti earthquake occurred in the boundary region separating the Caribbean plate and the North America plate. This plate boundary is dominated by left-lateral strike slip motion and compression, and accommodates about 20 mm/y slip, with the Caribbean plate moving eastward with respect to the North America plate.
At the longitude of the January 12 earthquake, motion between the Caribbean and North American plates is partitioned between two major east-west trending, strike-slip fault systems -- the Septentrional fault system in northern Haiti and the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault system in southern Haiti.
The location and focal mechanism of the earthquake are consistent with the event having occurred as left-lateral strike slip faulting on the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault system. This fault system accommodates about 7 mm/y, nearly half the overall motion between the Caribbean plate and North American plate.”
Over 54 aftershocks over a magnitude of 4.5 have been recorded, the two largest were 5.9, one 7 minutes after the original main shock, and the second on January 20th.
Where was God in Haiti when the Earthquakes struck?
But when we ask this question, it is understood that we’re not just asking about this catastrophe. We’re really asking about ALL catastrophes. Where was God when the tsunami struck Myanmar? Where was God when Hurricane Katrina blasted the Southeast? But why limit ourselves to natural disasters? Where was God when George W. Bush was elected? Or Obama? Where was God when the economy tanked? Where was God when Pat Robertson said the earthquake was sent by God because the Haitian’s pact with the devil?
But really, to be fair, we have to expand this even further: Where was God when that brilliant sunrise broke over the Palouse hills one morning I remember a number of years ago when I had stayed up all night with some friends? Where was God when Bach composed the Brandenburg Concertos or when Handel composed his Messiah? Where was God when Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet? Where was God when my daughter was born 9 and half weeks premature, so beautiful, so small, and so awful?
There’s no sense in only choosing the bad things, the hard things. What we mean is: where was God? Where was God when it was awful and where was God when it was wonderful? Where was God when it was ugly and horrendous and where was God when it was heart-achingly beautiful?
The Atheist Response
One possible answer is to say that God wasn’t there. God wasn’t in any of those situations because there is no God. If the atheists are right, it’s pointless to answer this question, and it’s even more pointless for all of us to be gathered here to ask this question. But if there is no God, then there’s reasonable way to distinguish between the great variety of things we experience. There’s no reason why something should really be considered beautiful or ugly, harsh or lovely, evil or good. There’s no meaning to the words “suffering” or “justice.” Pain and ecstasy are just a biological phenomena, chemical reactions, atoms colliding in one way and not another. It’s all just “left-lateral strike-slip motion and compression.” Sure, you might prefer one thing over another. But that’s all it is: just a preference. If the earthquake was as much part of the evolutionary process as childbirth, sunsets, and laughter, then the earthquake just happened. Why struggle against Mother Nature? Why question fate? If there is no God, if there is no ultimate, transcendent right and wrong, good and evil, beautiful or ugly, then “who cares?” is just as appropriate a response to Haiti as sending aid and assisting in relief efforts. It’s only a matter of preference. Not only is this an empty, inhuman response, it is entirely unsatisfying and does not match our experience at all.
The Absent/Ignorant Deistic Response
This is really atheism for cowards. This person is willing to admit the existence of a god, and probably he created this world, but when the earthquake occurred, he was either busy with something else or simply didn’t know that it was happening. This god is not omniscient; this god is not omnipresent. He does not see all things or know all things. He is absent and ignorant. He is far removed. But this is no god. This is the god invented by rationalists who need a place holder for their orderly system of explaining the world. This is the generic god of American civics, the god of “god bless America” and “one nation under god,” the god who does not interfere or impose upon us. And that’s the root of this atheism-lite, this atheism for cowards. These cowards are also usually power hungry. This god does not speak, and cannot be counted upon to help in a time of need. But the worshippers of this god would be glad to help. Their god is useless, but that’s because this god is a front for tyranny. Deists want a distant god so that they can force their own moral vision on the world. They know what’s best for you. Hitler believed in a god like this. These moral fascists don’t know where god was when the earthquake struck, but they’ll be happy to play the part of god and exploit this horrific situation to their lust and greed.
The Absent Christian God
Unfortunately there are some Christians who embrace the Bible, embrace the revelation of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but for whatever reason refuse to listen to the clear teachings of Scripture. These Christians believe in a personal, present God, but when it comes to natural disasters and horrific events, they insist that God was in some way unable to stop the evil. These Christians (I think mostly unintentionally) are so infatuated with a particular form of “free will,” that they are willing to sacrifice many other Biblical truths on the altar of this conviction. In the name of the freedom of humans, they sacrifice the freedom of God. And they do this by insisting that God was only vaguely there. God heard the cries, God saw the plates of the earth moving together, and the buildings shaking, and for some reason God was not able to act to stop it. God was crying when the earthquake struck Haiti, crying for the hurt, crying for the pain. He wanted to stop it but couldn’t. This is little-old-lady Christianity, an anemic version of Christianity that’s trying to protect God from Himself. O God, don’t get mixed up with natural disasters; it’s not good for Your reputation. But not only is this unfaithful to the full teaching of Scripture, it is less than satisfying to the biblical standards of justice. This is a powerless God who cannot act to intervene and save lives when the earth shakes. This kind of God cannot be trusted. Can you pray to this kind of God?
The Christian God: Father, Son, and Spirit
1. God is the Creator and sustainer of all things. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). “In these last days [God has] spoken to us by His Son whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds… and upholding all things by the word of His power…” (Heb. 1:2-3) “I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord do all these things” (Is. 45:7). This includes earthquakes. While this is perhaps the hardest part of the answer, it ultimately rests in the conviction that God is love and that this love is supremely evidenced in the horror of the cross of Jesus Christ. Christians refuse to get their definitions of love, justice, and mercy from the newspapers, Hollywood, or sappy vampire romance novels. We insist that these and all other virtues must be grounded in the person of Jesus crucified. So we do not begin with an abstract notion of “God is love” or even that “God is good.”
We begin with Jesus crucified. And the Scriptures teach that in Jesus crucified the love and goodness of God was displayed to the world. By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us (1 Jn. 3:16). When Jesus was delivered up according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (Acts 2:23), He displayed justice and mercy and love and goodness for the world (Rom. 1:17). Jesus on the cross is the foundation for all Christian morality and theology. If we cannot accept that, then none of the rest will follow, none of the rest of the Bible will seem coherent or rational. But if Jesus crucified is the justice and goodness of God for the world, then everything is changed. The world isn’t what it seems. If the Christian God orchestrated the salvation of the world through the suffering of an innocent man on a cross and was raised up again three days later, then He can be trusted. The God who delivered Jesus up to be crucified for the salvation of the world, is the same God who orchestrates all things (even earthquakes) according to His wisdom for the salvation of the world.
2. This leads to the second point which is that the curse of sin is embedded in the earth. All of creation groans for the redemption of the sons of God (Gen. 3:17-18, Rom. 8:20-22). But it groans even louder after the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus is the first fruits Paul says of the renewal of all things. This means the renewal of families, the renewal of states, the renewal of economic policies, the renewal of the environment, and yes, the renewal of the tectonic plates of this planet. How can we trust that this is in fact happening? Because Jesus is risen from the dead. Where is Jesus now? What’s He doing? St. Paul says that He reigns in heaven until every enemy has been put beneath His feet (1 Cor. 15:25). And the last enemy will be death. Jesus is reigning until injustice is put beneath His feet. Jesus is reigning until economic oppression is put beneath His feet. He reigns until disease is put beneath His feet. The Scriptures teach us to believe that Jesus will reign until natural disasters are likewise put beneath His feet. How can we believe this? How can we trust that this is true? The answer of the Bible is the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus came back from the dead then the impossible is not only possible, not only likely, but absolutely certain. Who can stop Him now? The promise of the gospel of Jesus is that “creation itself will also be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21).
3. God hates evil and suffering, but God is not bound by them. God is free.
He is free to overcome evil and suffering through bending it to His good purposes. Joseph says that what evil men meant for evil, God can and does turn to His good purposes.
“I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I the Lord, do all these things” (Is. 45:7). This is not a question of what is reasonable or conceivable; it is a question of God’s freedom and power. What is God up to in the world? The Bible presents God as the God of Freedom, the God who sets captives free, the God of the Exodus. And Jesus comes to fulfill all of it: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Lk. 4:18). Jesus is the freedom of God come for the world. But this freedom is not bound by our categories, by our standards. How could it be? God’s freedom is the definition of freedom and liberty. Jesus is the standard.
And so the question becomes: what is God’s freedom? What is God free to do? One of the central answers of the cross is that God is free to bend horror into beauty. He is free to display His glory in the cross, free to display His love, free to display His mercy and justice for the world. He is free to bring about His good purposes through the hardship of an earthquake in Haiti. God is free to do that, but we also know that He is strong enough to do it because Jesus is risen from the dead. What is possible? Is it possible to bring good out of evil? Is it possible to transform what from one perspective is awful into what becomes unflinchingly lovely? Is God free to do that?
4. God hates evil and suffering in itself, because it is the remnants of the old sin cursed world that still haunts all of us. But God is free to use this ugliness as He pleases, and He does. How does He use pain and suffering and death?
First of all, we know that God teaches us wisdom and hope through suffering (Job, Js. 1, Rom 5:3-5). Is God free to use hardship, even horrors to teach us wisdom? Jesus says that the truth will set us free.
Secondly, He confronts unbelievers with their mortality and their rebellion and frequently people need to be shaken awake from their sin-filled sleep. “But the idols He shall utterly abolish. They shall go into the holes of the rocks, And into the caves of the earth, from the terror of the LORD and the glory of His majesty, when He arises to shake the earth mightily. In that day a man will cast away his idols of silver and his idols of gold, which they made, each for himself to worship, to the moles and bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the crags of the rugged rocks, from the terror of the LORD and the glory of His majesty, when He arises to shake the earth mightily” (Isaiah 2:18-21). But this is not a mechanical equation (this is the problem with Pat Robertson’s declaration). When asked about a tower that fell in the town of Siloam in his own days, killed 18 people, Jesus said, they were not worse sinners than anyone else, but unless we repent we will likewise perish (Lk. 13:4).
Third, God does save lives and others He takes. “Now see that I, even I, am He, and there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive: I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from my hand” (Dt. 32:39). He is the God of the living and the dead: the life of every living thing is in His absolute control (Job 12:10). He takes the lives of those who are wicked and in high handed rebellion, and He brings His own people home to rest in His presence until the resurrection.
In this, He is absolutely just and merciful. And our certainty of this does not rest in the images we see on the television. Our certainty rests in the crucified Jesus. In Jesus, the justice of God was revealed. In Jesus, all sin and evil was put to death. In Jesus, the way of life and freedom and joy was opened up to all who place their trust in Him. The God of the cross is the same God who continues to push history forward in every detail. And He can be trusted because Jesus is risen from the dead.
In conclusion: Where was God in Haiti when the earthquakes struck? Jesus said that not a hair can fall from our heads apart from the will of the Father. Where was God? God was in Haiti. Not one stone was outside the perfect control of our faithful Father. Not one life was taken accidentally, not one bone was broken by mistake. The same God who displayed His love and justice in the cross of Jesus, is the God who is free to use every circumstance, every disaster, even great horrors for good.
There are many metaphors that work well to illustrate how this could possibly work: Can a composer resolve dissonance into harmony? Can a master chef blend the bitter and the sour into a meal of exquisite fine dining? Can a sculptor turn an ugly stone into a lovely image? In every instance we know this is true, and the Christian God wields this freedom perfectly.
And despite the many trials we face in this world, we are likewise surrounded with piles of good things. And the same God is actively bestowing those gifts, and the question is: how will you respond? Will you give thanks for the good, and trust the God of the cross?
Where was God when chocolate was discovered? Where was God when I met my wife? Where was God when Mozart composed his requiem or stained glass was invented or we first saw the northern lights? God was there.
And where was God when my daughter died? The God of the cross was there.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Drag Me to Hell
I'm not usually into these sorts of flicks, but this review has me fairly intrigued.
Father Toms writes:
The title of the film hints that some of its characters are in danger of being dragged to hell. In the Bible, hell is often presented as something that devours, swallows—something that has a belly. Interestingly, the key images of this film center around food and eating. The movie is so replete with issues concerning food and dieting that some reviewers have felt that one of the subtexts of the movie is eating disorders. There is no question that the most repulsive and grotesque images of the film play with an idea about horrors connected with the mouth, both what goes in and comes out of it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
10 Reasons Why College Students Should Spend Time with the Elderly
CRF Talk: 10 Reasons Why College Students Should Spend Time with the Elderly
1. You don’t have better things to do. College students are selfish and lazy. “The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer sensibly.” (Pr. 26:16) Young people are characteristically self-assured, conceited, proud, and the biblical name for this is “sluggard.” Wisdom and greatness are tied together and they come through serving and loving (Mt. 23:11).
2. Because you have lots of energy and time. “The glory of young men is their strength.” (Pr. 20:29) Embracing the glory that God bestows upon “youth” means proving your freedom in sacrificial ways like spending time in ways you don’t *have* to.
3. This is one way to get wisdom. The “simple” – ie. the immature, the young – need to get wisdom. Reading Proverbs is the beginning of wisdom, and it is the words of a father to a son (Pr. 1:1, 1:8, and 8:5). But the glory of old men is their gray hair (ie. their wisdom) (Pr. 20:29). The young should seek wisdom from the old. Spending time with the elderly is the pursuit of wisdom.
4. It teaches us to fear the Lord. “You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:32). Taking time to talk to them, sing with them, pray for them, know them, love them, and serve them are all ways of honoring the “face of an old man.” This passage ties honoring the elderly to fearing God. Our honor of the old is a measurement of our fear of God, our determination that the Lord is God.
5. It's obedience to the fifth commandment. Obviously your own grandparents/great-grandparents is a good place to start. This is an extension of the fifth commandment to honor your father and mother. Likewise, other friends of your father: “Do not forsake your own friend or your father’s friend…” (Pr. 27:10)
6. It teaches us how to be the Church. The elderly are your parents and you are their children. “So He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life." (Lk. 18:29-30) While the family is a real institution, it is relativized to the Church, the household of faith, the family of God. Every baptism is the proclamation that the Church is your family. And if true and undefiled religion is caring for orphans and widows in their distress and many of the elderly have been abandoned and are effectively orphans and widows, then we are called to be family to them.
7. It fulfills the promises of God and enacts the Kingdom of God. Spending time with the elderly is a way of fulfilling the promises of God to turn the hearts of the children to the hearts of their fathers (Mal. 4:6). This is a way to proclaim the Kingdom of God in word and deed. Jesus is come, and the generations are being gathered together and reconciled. This includes our own parents and grandparents but must expand to include all that we come in contact with.
8. It reminds you of where you’re going (Eccl. 12:1ff). It teaches humility and sobriety. “Better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of all men; and the living will take it to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, for by a sad countenance the heart is made better. The heart o the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.” (Eccl. 7:2-4). Spending time with the elderly discourages vanity. We can’t be that proud of our bodies and accomplishments when we remember what we’ll look like in 50-60 years. It also teaches us deep thankfulness for the health and strength we enjoy now.
9. It teaches you to hate sin. Growing old is part of the curse of sin, and seeing it in front you is one of the best educations. Hating sin in the deformed body of an old woman in front of you teaches you to hate sin in your heart, in your words, in your thoughts and actions. Hearing about a life that was poorly lived, full of regret, is a severe warning to us to repent of sin now and to live at peace with all men as far as it depends upon us.
10. It teaches us to long for the resurrection and consummation of all things. As postmillennialists and reformed, we might be rightly criticized for not longing for the final return of Christ. Sin and hell, sickness and death should be good motivators for evangelism and mercy ministry. Likewise, if the resurrection and the life to come really are as grand as the Scriptures promise, we should want to hasten them. The sooner the better, and we have to recognize our place in that program.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
A Thought
You have heard it said, "consumerism is evil" and you despise he who says, "whatever is newer is better," but verily, verily, I say unto you, what about technology and medicine? For with my Blackberry I work miracles and even many doctors work by the Spirit to grant me good health.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Help
So here I am asking for your advice, my dear readers. Having dutifully signed up for lala.com (in order to be as hip as possible), I am now notified that I have 15 song credits that will expire in 3 days. So my question to you is: what fifteen songs should I acquire with said song credits?
If you only recommend one song, that's fine. Unless you recommend something I already know I don't want, I'll take the first 15 songs recommended.
And remember I only have three days to decide.
Ready, go.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Dwindling of the Menopausal Militia
The article here in New York Magazine is hard to read straight through without wincing or tears. It's not really new information for us, but I'd say it's striking coming from the pro-choice camp. It's honest, terribly honest. And therefore it's also hopeful.
My favorite part is where the pro-choice movement is recognized as growing old compared to the current generation of younger Americans that the article describes as perhaps the most pro-life generation ever, due to technological advances like ultrasound. And one NARAL representative referred to the dwindling pro-choice ranks as the "menopausal militia."
HT: Albert Mohler
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
God is Killing our Children
As Douglas Wilson has pointed out from time to time, we often think that it is only sin that may have serious consequences rather than seeing sin as consequences. Sin is bad, and the consequences may be worse, but sometimes God gives us over to our sins. Sin itself is a judgment from God. In Romans 1, God gives men and women over to sexual perversity because they were sinfully confused prior to that. Sodomy is not merely a bad sin which will have horrific consequences. Sodomy is a judgment from God on a people who have turned away from Him, who have confused the creation with the Creator, who have lied and cheated and oppressed the weak and disobeyed their parents (see Rom. 1:28-32).
Similarly, adultery is a sin which God gives unfaithful husbands over to. It is not the sin of adultery that makes a man unfaithful. Adultery itself is God's judgment on a man whom God is already angry with (Pr. 22:14).
Hosea says that abortion is also the judgment of God. When God was angry with Israel for her sins, He said that He would remember all her past sins and give her miscarrying wombs and dry breasts (Hos. 9:14). But God's anger with Ephraim extends to the point that He says He will "kill the darlings of their womb." (Hos. 9:16) Abortion is not merely a great sin that will lead to the judgment of God (though that is true enough). Abortion is itself a judgment of God; He is killing our little ones because of our wickedness. He is angry with us and He is causing our sins to be visited on us and on our children.
So what shall we do? Hosea says, "Sow for yourselves righteousness, reap in mercy; break up the fallow ground, for it is time to seek the Lord, till He comes and rains righteousness on you." (10:12) And, "say to Him, 'Take away all iniquity; receive us graciously, for we will offer the sacrifices of our lips... [God says] 'I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely, for my anger has turned away from him.'" (14:2, 4)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
