Quicksilver Commentary

Pro-Life To a Fault?

What makes a life?  Is it the heartbeat or brainwaves, the act of being born or a child's very conception?  Just when is it that life really begins?  These are the questions that drive what might have formerly been called the debate about abortion before it reached its current polarizing extremes of rhetoric.  Indeed, the two sides of the argument, in an effort to associate their views with some vague concept that is seen by most as overwhelmingly good, have dubbed themselves "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life," and encouraged the public to pigeonhole themselves by jumping onboard with one system of beliefs or the other, and to take up arms against the opposing side as though this battle of the heart were to be waged against flesh and blood by means of intellect and legislation. 

Both parties in this argument have taken the mindset of "if we can force the other side to do things our way, it won't matter if they see things our way," and this emphasis on enforcing conformity to a law (or a potential law) has succeeded only in causing a breakdown of communications between the so-called "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" crowds.  No longer can the issue be intelligently debated for the entire country to hear, if that were even possible to begin with; now everyone from Washington, D.C. to Berkeley, California has their own sound-bites that they like to repeat whenever the issue of a woman's right to choose happens to conflict with an infant's right to actually be born, and they will gladly repeat those sound-bites until they turn blue so long as it keeps them from considering that life may actually begin before a child takes his first breath, or that sometimes a woman has a legitimate reason for terminating a pregnancy.

But enough of this "both sides are stupid" crap.  I'm anti-abortion and you all know it, and quite frankly I think that the Republican party and Christians in general have done a spectacularly horrible job of protecting children's right to life and the mother's spiritual, emotional and physical well-being.  A colossal failure if ever there was one.  To be sure, I'm quite opposed to the point of view that says an unborn child may be freely disposed of, but if any Christian truly wishes to see some sin or social ill come to an end, he is denser than the whole of the Pro-Choice lobby if he thinks that can be achieved apart from the regenerative power of Christ.  Christ's blood is the only thing that can end sin, so would it not be considered idolatry to fancy that legislation and the government can usurp that power?

Imagine that the Pro-Lifers get what they want.  Laws are passed and enforced that ban all types of abortion, and life is good.  But have the social ills stopped?  Of course not!  In the wake of the phasing out of legal abortions will rise illegal abortions, and while this is certainly not a reason to halt all progress toward the protection of unborn children's rights, it does cause one to think that maybe there is an evil greater than the taking of innocent life at work in the country's abortion battle.  Maybe there's more to abortion than simply murder (something the Pro-Life lobby refuses to consider). 

Perhaps we can ban abortions, but the root cause of abortion will still remain, and it will continue to cause trouble and social ills forever if it is not confronted as it is.  To forbid abortions as things stand now would be like knocking a couple of leaves off of a weed in your front yard; if you hope to end your problem without destroying its root, you might as well not be working at all. When abortions end, unwanted pregnancies will remain. 

Indeed, you might wish to convince people to stop creating unwanted pregnancies by making them harder to deal with, but in the end it is not the consequences of his actions that cause a sinner to stop sinning. This has never worked, and it never will; if it did, then I'd probably be the first to start a mass exodus from Christianity to Islam.  The fact is, though, that we can never be made to keep the law apart from Christ, and while it is acceptable to keep a sinner from infringing upon the rights of others, it is not acceptable to keep a sinner from sinning in other ways.  I'm quite sorry to say it, but I do not believe Christians have the right to legislate against any sort of sex between consenting adults.  That doesn't mean that I believe "anything goes"; I place myself quite firmly in the moral absolutist camp.  I simply don't believe we can do any good by legislating against some sin that doesn't harm anyone except those who partake of it.

But I digress. . .

If as I said, abortion is only a problem that can be solved by first solving its root problem, that is, by eliminating the demand for abortions, what on earth can we do if it is wrong to legislate against sex between consenting adults?  Because after all, even if you wish to argue that such impropriety is harmful for the resulting child due to the situation he is born into, it is the conception of the child that leads to the demand for an abortion, not the sex itself.  The truth is that the solution to the problem of the demand for abortions is for Christians to stop trying to force sinners not to sin (that is, to not have sex outside marriage or conceive children they don't want), and start caring about both the unborn children and the sinners that find them inconvenient.

What a concept.  Christians caring about everybody. Maybe Jesus not only loves the little children, but also the adulterers, the fornicators, the gays, and the girls who were raped.  Maybe Christians should start caring for them too. 

You see, caring about someone does not mean telling them to buck up, that their child is a gift and if they don't want it they can carry it for nine months and give it up for adoption.  To my knowledge, Jesus didn't tell anyone who was hurting that they needed to "suck it up," though I might just be reading the wrong translation.  The Christian thing to do is not to enforce morality among the masses, who are too lost for it to do them any good.  The Christian thing to do would be to see and understand the pain of a girl who has been raped, or the needs of a girl who never knew her father, so she tries to fill that hole with other men who seem to keep getting her pregnant.  Would Christ tell either of these to keep their children?  It seems that both of them have some things they need to work through, and neither would be fit to raise a child; to force them to go through with their pregnancy would only compound their problems, hence the demand for abortions. 

And yet, as Christians we must object to abortion.  We believe that life begins either at conception, or sometime before a child is actually born, and thus we view abortion as the infringement of one individual upon another's right to life and a completely invalid way to end a pregnancy.  We have no trouble recognizing that abortion is the wrong way to terminate a pregnancy; we just can't seem to fathom that some pregnancies might in fact need to be terminated.  We think that surely a woman lost enough to have her third child out of wedlock with her third consecutive man has no right to end the pregnancy, whether for her sake or the child's.  At best, she should have to finish the pregnancy to "teach her a lesson," right?

Of course not.  If Jesus thought we needed to be taught lessons about how bad sin is, he would have let the adulteress be stoned.  As we know, though, He chose to rescue her rather than condemn her; He showed her He cared by rescuing her from the physical consequences of her sin, that she might trust Him to pay for the spiritual consequences as well.  For a sinner knows only the flesh and the things that are of the flesh, and if we do not rescue him from things that are of the flesh, then how will he ever begin to trust us or our Master in spiritual things which he knows nothing of?

So then, if it can be said that some pregnancies are unnecessary, and yet abortion is murder, and yet we cannot prevent unwanted pregnancies, what choice are we then left with except to provide an alternative to abortion?  Wouldn't it be great if we stopped working against all the hurting women who, in their minds, just don't want to have their kids, and started working with them toward a goal that would prove that we care about them, and help their children have a chance at life?  Wouldn't that be more effective at solving the problem of abortion and all the problems that would come with banning it (illegal abortions, infanticide, more neglected/abused children)?  I admit, I don't know what alternatives to abortion exist; adoption is indeed a legitimate one (and one which should be given far more emphasis than it is), and I seem to remember hearing something about the testing of artificial wombs, though I'm not sure if children could yet be transplanted into them. 

You see, I'm not condoning sin by seeking to help those in pain.  I'm not trying to tell anyone that it's perfectly okay to go out and make babies you don't want or can't feed. What I'm trying to do is make the point that sin and unwanted babies will always be with us, no matter how we may wish to make the unrighteous become righteous without God.  Our best bet is not to eradicate all sin in the world, but rather to cope with it, and use it that God's grace might be made evident.  Indeed, a world that is wallowing in and fully aware of their own depravity would be much more receptive to salvation than a people who have been forced to act as though they were saved all their lives. 

What I've just written is not Republican.  In fact, given what I keep hearing from the Right, it's probably not even Pro-Life, since it deals with the more effective solution of making abortion obsolete rather than legislating against it. What I've written isn't on any party platform that I know of; it is, quite simply, a solution from someone who may not be a Republican but is without a doubt a Christian.  Take it or leave it. 

I'm Not Dead, Just Sick

Yeah, so I got back into town on Monday and had all manner of grand schemes to write posts that would make your head spin.  But then I got sick, and have spent the last few days wondering what my body thinks it's doing.  Anyway, it's been pretty annoying trying to think about the sort of thing I like to write about, only to find my mind drifting away to other topics without my consent.  Things seems to be getting back on track now though, so maybe a new post will show itself soon.

But just maybe.  If you've read my blogs for any length of time, you know it's probably a bad idea to get your hopes up. Your best bet is to comment frequently and get your friends to do the same, so that I'll see the comments and be reminded that I have a blog which a few people actually read.  Then I will write, and you will read, as will your friends that you sent here to make me write in the first place, and one of them will think I'm really cool and nominate me for blog awards, or help make me famous.

Speaking of fame... Ah, nuts.  I forgot what I was gonna say.  Whatever. 

There's no easier way to end a post than that.   

Because You All Wanted To Know...

I'm not in Rome right now.  See, there's this place called Asbury College, and I'm visiting there for their Fall Preview Weekend. 

It's almost over now, just a couple more things to do tomorrow and I'll be done, and I'm exhausted.  Can't really write a lot because my brain is fried, but I very much like the college.  It's actually much better than I had imagined, because it's a small private Christian college that is serious about their academics but is also rather uncompromising in their faith.  Great place, and I'd recommend all my college-bound readers look into it. 

So yeah.  Check out Asbury.  I love it. 

And I also love Showbread.  But that's a different story entirely. 

A Brief Examination of Sin

Mad props to my friend Sarah Liz for getting me thinking further about this issue.  Why is it that I insist on blaming Christians for the way non-Christians act?  In my last post, I talked about the Ted Haggard fiasco, and how we deserve the way we are treated by the world because we are, sadly, rather inept in our preaching of the Gospel (or whatever message it is we are trying to spread).  But I think maybe I should say a little more about that while it's on my mind. 

Let's start from the beginning. . . We are all human beings, bent toward sin.  It's just something we do, it's our nature.  This is a problem that is common to all men.

Now, there are essentially two types of people that this post will deal with:  Christians and non-Christians.  The non-Christians are a group of people who are, as I have previously stated, bent toward sin.  They sin quite regularly, as is their nature, and they are regrettably (but justly) hellbound.  The Christians are a bit different though.  Christians are in fact bent toward sin, just like their non-believing counterparts, and they may theoretically even sin just as regularly (I know what you're about to say, hold that thought).  The difference though, is that Christians are heavenbound rather than hellbound, and this is not due to any amount of sin that they may have oh-so-righteously abstained from.  In fact, it is not the result of any physical action on their part; the sole thing that separates the Christians from the non-Christians is the acceptance of the revelation of Christ and his sacrifice. 

But what of our actions?  If it is God's grace alone that separates us as Christians from the rest of the world, then why not just keep on sinning?  Should we in fact seek further sin that God's grace might be further applied?  Not at all, for to seek further sin in light of God's grace would indicate that one has not received that grace to begin with.  James chapter two, when read with the understanding that it is by grace that we are saved through faith, implies that anything we truly believe will cause us to act upon it.  If we love ourselves above all, then we will seek our own gratification above all, but if we love God above all, then it will be Him that we seek to please.  Thus, our faith can and does to some extent influence our actions. 

That is why I say that it is only theoretically possible for a Christian to sin as much as a non-Christian.  Indeed, Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to cover any and all sin, so any sin that anyone commits can be forgiven, but it stands to reason according to James that someone who is a Christian will not seek to sin against God. 

But he will sin.  As I've said, it is the nature of all human beings to sin against God, because we all have a physical, natural body that is the product of a natural, fallen world.  We are made new creatures in Christ, it's true, but it is our spirit that is regenerated by this act; our flesh remains with us, and will continue to seek sin until we are finally separated from it in physical death.  Thus someone who is truly a Christian is not one who lacks a sin nature; instead, he is a being of a dual nature, one nature seeking its own gratification, and the other seeking to glorify God.  So it cannot be said of man that he is initially both good and bad, like in the story of Jekyll and Hyde; instead, man is thoroughly bad, and upon receiving Jesus Christ's saving grace, he becomes conflicted by nature, and perfectly good (or at least justified) by proxy.

Now, this concept of man's inherent badness, supernatural salvation and subsequent internal conflict goes hand in hand with another set of thoughts regarding sin.  I have already discussed man's nature, but now I must discuss the nature of his actions.  As I have mentioned already, a person's actions have no bearing on his eternal destination; that is to say, he can never abstain from sin entirely, and to break one part of the law is to break the entire law.  But the examination of the concept of sin must not end here. . .

Jesus told us in his Sermon on the Mount that it is in fact the heart of man that sins.  A person can commit some act, or not commit it, but he will be sinning all the same.  Conversely, I also believe that a man can have a pure heart and do any act without it being a sin.  Now, you might say to me that to murder is a sin, but I would say that most of what we call sin (such as murder) is a combination of two things:  An action (killing) and an attitude of the heart (malice), and it is only the attitude of the heart that determines whether or not we are sinning.  The action of killing someone can happen by accident, and can even be the fault of the person who was killed, but this doesn't make the action of killing a sin.  Similarly, it is not a sin to swing a baseball bat. . . however, it is a sin to swing a baseball bat at someone's head because he struck you out.  You see, in this situation we have the same action done twice, but only once was it a sin. 

This notion that sin is an action of the heart rather than the hands has two major implications upon our view of the nature of man's actions:  Firstly, it means that we cannot necessarily tell whether or not someone is saved based solely on their actions (since their actions may not betray the condition of their heart); and secondly, it means that we are doing sinners a great disservice by counseling them in Christ's name to avoid some particular sin.  This is because when we encourage those outside our religion to keep God's law, we are sending them a different message than what Christ would.  Christ did not say to keep any aspect of the law, but neither did He say to disregard it. . . in fact, all He told us was that we have all broken the law in an infinitely grave way, and that he came to fulfill that law for us so that we might not have to bear the eternal consequences of it. 

This is the message we are supposed to relay to non-Christians.  When we seek to convince them to act differently -- that is, to avoid sin -- we are painting a picture of a Savior who is concerned with the actions of one's hands more than the attitude of one's heart, even though Christ made it quite clear that it was man's heart that affects our sin and salvation.  Indeed, sin is a bad thing, but it is impossible to say that a sinner in fact shouldn't sin; you might as well give a lecture on how dirt should not be so dirty. 

You see, no one thinks a thing about the fact that dirt is "dirty," and no one tries to make it less dirty; it is not until a thing is made clean that anyone can rightly a fuss about it becoming unclean.  Likewise, it is outright insanity to say that a sinner ought not sin so much, for if he could stop sinning then he wouldn't be a sinner at all.  The real issue with a sinner is not that he should be made to sin less, because he can't.  Instead, the sinner must be transformed into something that is clean and pure in Christ; only then will it do the man any good to counsel him to avoid being dirtied by sin. 

And yet there are many well-meaning people in the church who would tell sinners that they really should stop that sinning business.  Many of these people would legislate it as well, independent of any considerations of the well-being of the general populace (which should be the government's only consideration).  This is in no way right.  Fine, if you find that a particular sinful act is harmful to others in society, go ahead and legislate against it, but do not say that something that is simply a sin should be illegal.  To do that is to misrepresent the Gospel.

Confused?  Think of it like this... We as Christians believe it is sin that separates us from God.  Therefore, whenever we address sin in the name of Christ to a non-Christian, they are left to assume that it is because we are trying to help them bridge the gap between them and God, which is in some way or another the purpose of all religions.  Thus by telling sinners not to sin, we have indirectly but undeniably told them that the way to bridge the gap between themselves and God is to avoid sin.  This stands in stark contrast to the Gospel, however, for it isn't through our abstention from sin that we can come to the Father, but rather through faith in the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That is the Gospel.  The fact that we can freely be saved from our sin and come to the Father thanks to the grace of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again.  And yet this is not the message so many in the world hear.  Instead, as I said in my last post, people see Christianity as an institution of rules and regulations, of adherence to a Law, and they would not do so if they were being taught otherwise.  Now, you might blame this misunderstanding on their hearts simply being hard, or the fact that they improperly infer things from the message we deliver, but I'm afraid that is simply a cop-out.  It is the responsibility of the teacher to educate those who do not understand.  If the lesson we seek to teach those who don't understand our faith is being received the wrong way, then perhaps we should consider finding a better way of teaching the lesson.  Indeed, the Gospel can be comprehended by all when properly taught (for if it couldn't then it would hardly be just), so I am left to wonder if it is our methods of preaching that are inadequate, not so much in terms of being irrelevant as being chaotic and well-nigh impossible to understand.  Perhaps the Great Commission would be more efficiently fulfilled if we were to emphasize grace for a change, instead of expecting those who by their very nature transgress against the Law to suddenly learn to keep it.  For is it not rather Pharisaical (not to mention stupid) to try to force someone into keeping the Law before they have been given the supernatural means to do so?  And if we ourselves can't always keep the Law, and yet we are justified in spite of it, can we really believe we are doing any good by conveying a message (whether intentionally or accidentally) that makes people believe conformity to God's Law is the path to salvation?

And there lies the root of my disgust with the Evangelical world's treatment of sin.  It is because it is both unreasonable and counterproductive to command sinners not to sin, and yet the majority of the stances that Evangelicals take on social issues are based on ensuring that sinners don't sin.  That is why I say we've asked for it whenever we get roasted on movies like Saved! or on the news when some Evangelical does the very thing he expects sinners not to do.  The problem isn't that people sin, it's that we think sin is a problem we need to take care of.  The truth is that we all sin, and we will sin until the day we die; this does not affect our salvation one way or the other.  The only thing that affects our salvation is our acceptance or rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who came to provide us with a way to the Father.  The sin is just evidence of our need for Him, and whether we keep sinning or not won't affect our access to the Father because no matter how much we sin, Christ's sacrifice has justified us in spite of it.  We are commanded not to sin, it's true, but if someone is in Christ then that is not something he will seek to do.  He may sin incidentally, but it is no longer what he seeks after because he now has a dual nature, one that is good to help counteract the one that is bad. 

So it is important that we remember that we are not to sin, but it is equally important to remember that we must not impress that upon non-believers.  For we ourselves are no longer bound in sin once we have become Christians, but if we wish to see others come to experience that same freedom, we must not make them think that it is their sin that now keeps them from God.  To be sure, it is their sin that causes them to be separated from Him, like rushing water might keep a man from crossing a river, but if there is a bridge for the man to cross, the water is no longer what keeps him from reaching the other side; it is only his hesitancy to use the bridge. 

This is the message the World needs to hear.  They must understand sin, without a doubt, but they must not in any way be led to believe that abstention from sin can save them.  Therefore it is our responsibility to teach them about God's Law and mankind's inherent inability to keep it, but we must only teach them this if we are also capable of teaching them that there is a way to the Father, and that that Way operates independently of whether or not we break God's Law. 

For as it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one." 

Evangelicals Gone Wild! AKA Too Hot for TV. . . Evangelism?

So yeah.  There's this dude in Colorado, and he's a big preacher man.  A lot of people like him, and go to his church because. . . Well, that's just what they do.  Anyways, his name is Ted Haggard, and he's recently been accused of some conduct which is rather, shall we say, unbecoming of a pastor.  Please don't be alarmed. . . This is a routine occurrence in evangelical circles (something similar even happened at my old church a while back), and we just need to understand that people mess up sometimes.  People sin, it's kinda their nature, so it's really absurd that the media would jump all over poor Teddy the minute he's accused of doing something that Jesus says is bad, right?

Eh... No, not really.  Granted, it's true that people sin thanks to their sin nature, even if they are great preachers that we need to tell us about God.  And yes, it's true that Ted Haggard is in fact a person (despite the image such preachers are given in the Evangelical community) rather than a holy super-human who doesn't do bad things.  The problem, of course, is that most Evangelicals conveniently ignore these facts about their own humanity until the time comes that they need forgiveness for something.  They're perfectly content to preach about the evils of homosexuality, cursing, abortion, drunkenness and immodesty as though these sins are worse than the slothfulness, pride, deceit, bitterness and idolatry in their own lives, and they'd far rather remind the world that it's necessary to keep God's law than remind the world that our humanity prevents us from keeping God's law (hence our need for salvation). 

Until one of 'em screws up, anyway.  Then the tone changes from "You shouldn't do things that God says are bad" to "We must all understand that even the best of us mess up sometimes."  In my experience as a lifelong Evangelical, this is the only time that humanity's inability to keep God's law is emphasized.  Why is it that we wait until one of our leaders has done something stupid to tell non-Christians "Oh yeah, we forgot to mention that everyone sins, and we should just be understanding and forgive as Jesus forgave?"  Isn't that the very core of the Gospel?  That Jesus died to save us from the consequences of being under a law we could never keep?

But this isn't the message we choose to spread.  Instead, we choose to tell everyone about how bad homosexuality is, and what a bad idea it is to have pre-marital sex.  We've created such a stigma against sin that it's no surprise the world jumps on us every time someone in the church does a no-no.  We've told them with our words and with our actions that sin is something we should always avoid, and should we happen to find ourselves caught up in it, covering it up is a pretty smart thing to do.  So then, with the way we point and sneer or gasp in holy indignation every time we see people breaking God's law, can we really be surprised when the world does the same thing to us when we break God's law?  Are we really so stupid that we think we don't deserve it?

Indeed, I'm afraid we are.  There are in fact some people who would say that Evangelicals do not preach a message of outward conformity to God's law in the absence of an inner transformation.  Some people might say that we do a great job of telling others about how Jesus Christ can save us from our inescapable sin. . . or uh, how he fills that "God-shaped hole" in our soul and makes everything better.  Same dif, right?

I have yet to understand those people.  Unfortunately, it's plain to see that the message we're sending the World is not the message of the Gospel; all you have to do is ask the World!  Believe it or not, there is a reason that non-Christians regard the Church as being an institution of rules and regulations, where going to church and smiling are integral parts of the faith and those who sin (that is, don't go to church or smile) are shunned.  We have given them that view of our faith, and we deserve every bit of their scorn.  Our message, one of keeping a law that isn't exactly "keepable," is every bit as realistic (and laughable) as the command to jump over the moon, and yet we as Christians never once stop to think about the fact that we're either presenting the World with the wrong message, or presenting the right message wrongly.  Instead, we just attribute rejection from non-Christians to the hardening of their hearts, and contently take our shots of grape juice with the knowledge that the fate of the lost is not our responsibility.  'Cause we've done our part, after all. . .

I don't know if Ted Haggard did drugs or had a gay. . . uh, fling.  It really doesn't matter that much.  What matters is the attitude that we see revealed in the World when an Evangelical leader goes down in flames, and that will only matter if we will stop pretending that we're doing everything right in our preaching of the Gospel.  We must realize that the world's reaction to scandal in the church is not a result of the fact that we will be hated for Christ's sake, or assurance that we're on the right track, because let's face it: unless we're actually delivering the message that Christ gave us, one of inescapable sin, justified damnation and a free and undeserved deliverance, we're not really being hated for Christ's sake. . .

We're being hated because we're being stupid.   And that's not reassuring.

. . . And It All Went Downhill from There. . .

Yesterday I played tennis.  In the middle of a point, a bird pooped on my head.  I lost the point.  And the match.

Maybe this is just the Evangelical in me, but there's got to be a sermon illustration in there somewhere...