Archive for April, 2008

biblical priorities for love

Published
by
enoch
on April 28, 2008
in Bible, Family, Marriage and Parenting
. 0 Comments

A friend recently asked me a question. In the New Testament book of James chapter 2, God commands us to not show favoritism. But what about our blood relatives? Should we not put them above others in our lives? It’s a great question, not only because it’s so practical. It’s a great question also because we should care enough to follow the teachings of Christ that we ask questions if they seem contrary to common sense.

 

I wrote the following reply. 

 

That’s a good question! This is one of those times when the answer may be found in bringing together different Scriptures. All theology has to harmonize various Bible texts. On this topic of favoritism, I think these are some of the relevant texts.

Galatians 6:10 teaches us to love and care for all people, but especially Christians first

Ephesians 6:9 tells slave masters to treat their slaves well because God does not show partiality based upon human classes or status.

1 Timothy 5 talks about family responsibilities. Verse 8 explicitly teaches that we have a higher responsibility to care for family (like blood relatives).

And Ephesians 5 teaches that a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. That is the highest calling for human love. I think that means a spouse should be the highest priority even above your parents and children. After all, you left your parents to become one with your spouse. And your children will leave you for their spouses. In fact, a husband who loves others before his wife would be a bad husband.

So, while we are called to love everybody, God also gives us priorities in who first to show love towards. (We should be thankful for that guidance!) Does God love everybody? Yes, and we should too. But even Jesus did not provide equal attention to all people.

Jesus had his large group of disciples, perhaps up to 70. Out of that he focused on the 12 disciples. The 12 were divided into 3 groups of four. If you look at each of the lists of apostles in the gospels you’ll see that they are always listed in 3 groups of four. And among the 3 groups, the group most intimate with Jesus was Peter, James, John, and Andrew. And often it was only Peter, James and John. And even among those three, Peter is listed as the “first” disciple. 

How does this work with James 2? I think it means there’s a carnal and wrong way to prioritize attention. That’s favoritism. In fact, the kind of attention a rich man receives in James 2 is not love, not for the rich man anyway. When we give preference to a rich person, it’s not because we love them but because we love ourselves. We hope that the rich person will be kind back to us. That’s the opposite of love, which is selfishness. And that’s what James is teaching against. Don’t favor people because of what they can give you. Favor them because of the responsibilities God has given us. It’s not favoritism if I love my kid more than other kids. It’s good parenting. Do I love other people’s kids? Yes. Do I love them a lot? Absolutely. In fact, I often pray that I will love the youth at church as much as I love my kids. But I know my responsibility to my own kids comes first. 

And that’s why the Bible gives special place for the widows and orphans (like in James 1). The widows and orphans are those who have no family to take responsibility for them. That’s why the church needs to favor them above others. 

Hope this helps. I am no scholar, so take this for whatever it’s worth. If you haven’t done so, I’d also suggest asking your leaders and pastor what they think about it too. I’m sure they’d have good things to say

How’d you find me?

Published
by
enoch
on April 9, 2008
in Asides and Personal
. 0 Comments

How’d you find this site? I haven’t told many people. Leave me a comment and tell me how you came by this site if I didn’t tell you personally. And if I didn’t tell you personally, please don’t take it personally. I’m just using this as a forum for pre-writing.

I think I know what to do

Published
by
enoch
on April 9, 2008
in Bible, Culture, Ministry, Musing and Personal
. 0 Comments

I admit, I desire the greatest impact. Yes, I relate to the sentiment that “I just want to be faithful to what God has called me to…” which has a ring of humility to it. It’s a humility that seeks not great things for oneself. Instead, it’s the heart’s cry of a true servant who is eager and pleased to serve the master in whatever way He sees fit.

But as I wrestle with my own aspirations, I desire more. Not more for myself, though I am sure I am plagued by common temptations of pride and vainglory. But more in the sense that I also eagerly desire to make the greatest impact possible with the time, opportunities, talents, and resources God has availed to me.

I also believe that I can be zealous for the Lord’s name in such a way as to take the time, opportunities, talents, and resources and multiply them to generate greater opportunities, all by His grace.

As I am now 32, I am slowly solidifying what I’ve suspected for almost 15 years. The greatest impact is defined by a how qualitatively deep and how quantitatively numerous I can influence people’s lives for the better.

And by better, I mean with to herald the fullness of the gospel of God to as many people in as clear, compelling, and faithful as possible.

At this point, it seems to me two major areas of work. The first area is that of directly impacting people personally. That seems the way of Jesus as he invested in his followers. But as he did that, he ensured by the facility of the Holy Spirit both a written message and a living movement. Thus, while we have no record that he physically wrote things down, God orchestrated the inspiration and transmission of Scripture that would impact people forever. And while he did not create an organization while he lived, the church was born through the Spirit and an institution was birthed in the Church.

I am not Christ. But it has seemed to me for many years that would be the greatest means to make an impact. Writing songs are good for being remembered, but I desire direct change. Great preachers are popular for a generation or two, perhaps with records made of their great sermons. But the way to the church is through her pastors, and that comes through theology professors, seminaries, and powerful written works (mostly scholarly but not necessarily so). And that is passed down through the under-shepherds and the churches they serve.

Thus, the combination of a movement of people with a body of work to which they commend the future leaders and members of any movement.

So, I aspire and desire to make the greatest impact in my generation and in centuries to come through writings on the most enduring themes: God and His Word. Indeed, the books that I know of from centuries ago are mostly commentaries because students of the Word search anew. The other books I am familiar with are stories. Those works seem to have the best chance of enduring past the 100 year mark. C. S. Lewis, MacDonald and the likes may not be as well remembered outside our context in 100 years. But Jonathan Edwards may still be remembered for his theological writings and preaching, if only by those who are in the similar movement of God’s plan.

If I truly do wish to write works of this sort, I had better start doing just that with the preparation and focus of someone who is set to accomplish that which God has set for him.

I have the interpersonal, speaking, and pastoral abilities to preach and lead a church of biblical greatness. Again, if any of that is true, it is true by the grace of God. I claim nothing on my own. And by biblical greatness, I do not mean a church that has enormous buildings, that is nationally known, or that has thousands of attendees. But a church that serves the Lord and His purposes with their very lives.

I also have the intellectual opportunities, resources, and drive to study and write and study and write and study some more and rewrite yet again. Do I really need a doctoral degree to accomplish this? Well, it depends what I want to write. If I desire to write fiction, then probably not. If I desire to write more learned works, then again, probably not if I study well on my own. But if I am not able to do so, if I find myself limited either in reception or in production by not possessing certain earthly credentials, then I would endeavor to work towards achieving those for the glory of God. But I would not know if I truly needed those– if it is worth the resources– until I try my hand at the craft and task first and found myself in want.

And so, I will write.

But what to write? Since I am no scholar yet, and I wish to write about the Bible, perhaps I would write to help people understand the bible better? I would write for these:

  • Pastors and teachers, fathers and spiritual leaders, missionaries and disciplers, mothers and those who nurture.
  • Let me write to help others understand the Bible with an aim to understanding it, praying it, living it, and teaching it.
  • Let me write something that could be used “devotionally” as a daily reading for God’s children, but not encumbered by the styles and whims of today’s tastes.

Of course, I would also like to write about relevant issues of the day, engaging in the thoughtful discourse as I am best able to engage. This is all that systematic theology does: it answers people’s questions about God, the Bible, and life. Thus, it must deal with questions people are asking. This may seem staid and dated, but the deep questions of life seem to be timeless: love & friendship, beauty and hope, truth and meaning, justice and righteousness, fun and humor (my own addition!).

Most germane, I would like to write to strengthen both believer and non-believer with the truthfulness, practicality, and beauty of the God and the Christian life. Call this a type of apologetic.

I would also like to radically live out what I learn, but first I must become that much greater a student of the Word.

So, I will endeavor to write a work somewhere between a devotional, Bible study, and accessible commentary on certain texts.

Let this genre– if it has a name yet– be organized by Bible book, but cross referenced by topic and even suggested thematic Scriptures for study or preaching.

But more on this… I would like to create a work that is useful for both Bible student and teacher, for Bible study and personal devotion, biblical and systematic theology, for group study and preacher. Perhaps I am on to something with a new genre. And this distinctiveness would have to be a genre, not just a format with a column for the preacher and another call-out box for the devotion.

Why is Jim Wallis a professed evangelical Christian?

Published
by
enoch
on April 3, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

It’s statements like this that make me wonder how Jim Wallis understands the grace and power of God: “Even in the loving arms of a God who also grieves such terrible human losses [such as the Oklahoma City bombing], the pain never really does go away.” (God’s Politics, p.302) Is this deep sympathy that the pain is tremendous, perhaps that that God even in his goodness allows someone to keep their pain? Or is it a legitimate and real limitation of God’s power to comfort? His answer could be quite profound, or banal.

Or take a statement like, “Her prayer comes right out of the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew’s gospel, which was the passage that brought me back to Christian faith,” (God’s Politics, p.217). I believe that God can and does use such a motivation to come (back) to faith in Christ. And that such a faith grows in maturity, insight and nuance over time. Indeed, coming to Christ should be just as much out of adoration for the God who loves the poor as it is for the God who forgives sin through Christ’s work on the cross. Moreover, it is our sin which has broken the world and made us poor both in body and in spirit. To seek God for one motivation ultimately converges, I suspect, with the other.

But why is Jim Wallis a professing Christian today? We all have deficiencies in our views of God, in our theology. That must be admitted in light of the infinitude of God’s manifold beauty and attributes. Thus, we must learn from each other. And as one educator recently wrote in a Chronicle of Higher Education, “For a student to be educated, she has to face brilliant antagonists,” (Mark Edmondsun, Dwelling in Possibilities, the 3/14/2008 issue).
I ask this because while the soundness of his theology is not necessarily dependent upon his motives, they are related. And he is not followed merely for his views, but for his personhood, character, and what he stands for. I also ask this because as I read an author, I’m most interested in the mindset and journey of that thinker more than his current views. I learn more by how someone came to her views rather than person’s position (which can change) at a particular time.

Well, I don’t know if Jim Wallis is brilliant (nor do I consider him an antagonist), but I have plenty to learn from him, both his correctness and his mistakes. God help me know the truth, as best it’s known by someone like me.

consistent views of life?

Published
by
enoch
on April 3, 2008
in Culture and Social Responsibility
. 0 Comments

I’ve read from Jim Wallis that to be pro-life, one must also be against capital punishment in order to be consistent. A good Christian brother whose mind, life, and faith I admire also wrote a similar sentiment at http://notonmyquach.com/?p=15#comments.

Is it really inconsistent to be pro-life and allow for capital punishment?

Jim Wallis writes, “I am against the death penalty in principle. We simply should not kill to show we are against killing. It’s also easy to make a fatal mistake, as alarming DNA testing has demonstrated. The death penalty is clearly biased against the poor, who cannot afford adequate legal representation, and is outrageously disproportionate along racial lines. Few white-collar killers sit on death row, and fewer are ever executed. And there is no real evidence that it deters murder; it just satisfies revenge,” (God’s Politics, p.303).

Working towards solutions that try to answer “what’s right and what works,” something Wallis says throughout the book, he states this. “… I believe it is incumbent upon opponents of the death penalty to offer alternatives commensurate with the crime. To be against capital punishment does not require us to be against punishment for such a heinous crime. It was not only a moral contradiction to kill McVeigh for his killings; it was also not punishment enough,” (p.304). He also writes, “When someone takes other lives so deliberately, they should be deprived of any normal life themselves. The only adequate alternative to the death penalty is life without parole,” (p.305).

Let me begin by analyzing the first paragraph I cite in which Wallis states his view and then gives several reasons against capital punishment.

  1. Wallis opposes the death penalty in principle. He is not simply saying that the American form of the death penalty fails to do justice. Nor is he saying that he’d like to reform the current system to make it work. He is against killing.
  2. Wallis provides 4 reasons why he’ against the death penalty.
    1. It’s inconsistent (and therefore wrong) to punish an act by the same act.
    2. It’s faulty in the frequency to irreversibly punish someone who did not deserve that punishment.
    3. It’s unjust to (irreversibly) punish someone this way because a certain population (the poor) is unable to have the most costly (and effective) legal counsel.
    4. The outrageous racial disparity among those who are sentenced to death must indicate the system has tremendous flaws and bias against those races.

These four reasons make a case against capital punishment in 2 different ways. The first reason makes a case against the concept and use of capital punishment in all cases. (This seems to assume death is the greatest possible crime as well as greatest possible punishment. I may not agree with that, but we’ll address that another time.) And if the argument succeeds against capital punishment in principle, then no form of it should be used.

The latter three reasons make a case against the current US system. They point out systemic faults not in the usage of capital punishment as much as the conviction of crimes. Of course accurate conviction is important for all crimes, but presumably capital punishment has a uniquely irreversible finality. You cannot undo an execution. You cannot release a wrongfully convicted man who was already executed.

(Of course, you cannot undo any sentence fully. In the case of the death penalty, obviously the state does not have the power to give life back. But in the case of incarceration, neither does the state have the power to give time back. Sure, if the person is still alive, they can be released from prison, and even compensated financially. But frankly, that never would fully repay the lost time in prison. Perhaps the type of penalty that is most able to be repaid would be fines. The state can refund the fines, even with interest. But even in this case, it is impossible to repay the money factoring opportunity cost. Perhaps the monies seized as fines would have been used to invest in a breakthrough company, fund a valuable scientific discovery, or purchase a winning lottery ticket. One can never know. So let us be honest. No matter the sentence, it is imperative that our justice system gets it right the first time.)

The death penalty seems to stands alone in its finality. So, while these points have some validity, perhaps not as much so in light of all this. At best, one could make the case for massive reforms in the US justice system.

But what Wallis really wants to go for is the eradication of the death penalty, and not just in practice, but in principle. As we said above, he only provides one reason: “we simply should not kill to show we are against killing.”

Let me make a few points about this.

First, I understand that this is not a step by step argument. But at the same time, this book was meant to persuade people to his view, I’m sure. So, it seems fair and charitable to engage in a reasonable critique. Also, I know Jim Wallis’ work was not meant to be a scholarly treatment of the issue. But since I do not consider myself a scholar, I hope I have not acted uncharitably in my critique.

The most potent argument I can muster from his statement is this: it is morally and logically inconsistent and wrong to punish a person for an act by the very same act. In other words, it’s hypocritical to punish killing and declare killing is wrong by another killing.

This statement has some force to it. It would seem we’d be stooping to the level of the criminal if we killed. Is this not hypocrisy? Furthermore, as Christians, it doesn’t seem becoming of Christ to punish someone by killing.

I submit there is a view of capital punishment that is consistent with pro-life views. In fact, I would argue that to be against capital punishment is more difficult for a Christian to consistently hold. The consistency of these positions should be readily assessed regardless of how much one subscribes to Christian beliefs.

Let us be clear on what we are against. Wallis says we are against killing. He seems to equate capital punishment with killing. But it is not sufficient to say we’re against killing. We need a moral transgression in order to consider such an act a crime. I think it’s more accurate to say we are really talking about wrongful killing. At least, wrongful killing of another human being. (I don’t know if Wallis would want to incarcerate those who hunt, eat meat, fight diseases, or kill bugs in the shower.) Let us call the wrongful killing of a human being as simply “murder.”

Thus, for the death penalty to be hypocrisy, we really need to argue against “using murder to show that we’re against murder.” But what would make a killing wrong? To put it another way, what has to be true about a killing to qualify as murder? Surely killing in and of itself is not always wrong. If the self defense of a father protecting his family from a malicious armed intruder led to the death of that intruder, would we punish the father with a life term in prison? If we say “no,” then we must allow that there are killings that are wrong and killings that– though tragic and preferably avoided– are justified.

Well, the next question is this: is the execution of a murderer wrongful or justified? That remains to be answered. But we can no longer simply say it is wrong by appealing to the mere fact that it is a killing. No, it seems we must make a case for the wrongness of that. This seems to render Wallis’ argument incomplete. It’s not enough to simply say it’s wrong to punish killing by killing. Now, to be fair, this does not make the case for allowing for the death penalty either. But my point is that it’s not clear that it is categorically wrong to use it simply because it involves killing. The act is not categorically wrong in and of itself.

For example, if someone was caught taking money from another person, does it follow that it would be wrong to punish that perpetrator by taking money from him? Do not criminal and civil laws allow the levying of fines for taking someone’s money? Is it wrong for the government to take money away from a person whose crime was to take money away? Our practices seem that we see no problem with that. Our government fines people who evade taxes. We levy penalties and fines against those who steal. It would be wrong for a government to steal. But to fine someone for breaking the law is not stealing.

And for evangelicals it seems there are biblical reasons in support of capital punishment. The New Testament book of Romans 13:4 speak of God’s granting that government authorities bear use of the “sword.” In my studies, the sword represents God’s granting government the use of capital punishment. But not to be bogged down in the interpretation of that passage, there is a bigger problem for those against capital punishment in principle. How would opponents address the idea that God is a killer? As an evangelical with a historic view of God, Wallis presumably believes in the moral perfection of God. Then how can he oppose killing if God does it, and not infrequently but regularly? God regularly used Israel to kill the pagan peoples in Canaan. There are those who argue that capital punishment was tolerated in the OT, but not in the NT. Well then, we would need those fresh arguments in favor.

It would be fair for the reader to ask of me to put forward my own views, and so I shall. I would submit that allowing for capital punishment is consistent with high view of life within a Christian framework. The wrongful taking of life is such an offense that it must bear the highest offense possible: the taking of another life. Again, that may seem hypocritical, but let us remember that God Himself orchestrated just that. In a gracious reversal, God took the life of His own Son on a  cross. Furthermore, life consists of not only the physical life, but the spiritual as well. The fact that the NT in Revelation speaks of a resurrection of all peoples allows the Christian a consistent platform to be pro-life on abortion and allow for the death penalty. For in the biblical view, execution in this earthly life is an incarceration of sorts which will be reviewed and addressed at the final judgment. For those who were wrongly executed, God will make things right on that last day. For those who were accurately convicted, they will have had their just sentence.

Practically, I do think our current system shows signs of significant flaws. If enough doubts are raised, I would support a moratorium on executions, as well as a thorough investigation into revamping the system. And it seems prudent that a system of appeals be made, even if it takes a long time to finally execute someone. I also believe we should process criminal allegations with the perspective that people are innocent until proven guilty and place the burden of proof upon the prosecution. I would rather have a system in which some murderers go free and have no innocent people executed than the other way around.

But in actuality, the evangelical view is that all people who have hated someone or wished evil upon another have already committed murder in their hearts (Mt. 5:21-22). I stand guilty as one of them. It is God’s grace that will cover our sins through Jesus’ substitution on the cross. And the final outcome of reward or condemnation will be wrought through the wisdom, knowledge, and justice of God.

In conclusion, I’ve tried to show that it’s not necessarily inconsistent for a person– including a Christian– to have a consistent view of life while be against abortion but not necessarily against capital punishment. Killing itself is not automatically always wrong. There must be cases where killing is justifiable, such as in self-defense from an armed assailant intent on murder. So we must labor to discern what killings are justified and which are not.

The point of this article was to show that it’s possible to consistently be against abortion and not against capital punishment. My goal was not to argue for what constitutes the legitimate use of capital punishment. Rather, it was to show that in the past and in principle, there have been times when capital punishment has been employed legitimately. Whether we as a society can ever reproduce such discernment and a jurisprudence system is another matter entirely.