WHAT WE GAIN FROM OBSERVING LENT

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

WHAT WE GAIN FROM OBSERVING LENT

            As we approach Ash Wednesday, my aim today is to discuss what the church might gain from observing the season of lent. Lent is not solely Catholic as many would assume, for there are many Protestant traditions who observe the season. It is also not insincere simply because it is tradition as others might assume. I have spoken often of the fact that sincerity has little to do with ritual or spontaneity. Sincerity, rather, is connected to the heart. Perhaps, this is to what Jesus refers when he says, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (Matt 15:8 ESV) This should surely highlight the corporate nature of spirituality; yet, it also points to a deeper matter than what is on the surface. Lent could certainly be surface-level for some people; for others, however, Lent could (and should for everyone in reality) be a sincere observance.

            Lent is the 40-day season leading to Easter. The season is considered 40 days if Sundays are not included. Lent then begins Ash Wednesday and ends the Saturday of the Paschal Triduum just before Easter Sunday. Shrove Tuesday (Fat Tuesday in Western culture) is often lumped in with Lent but is actually just before Lent begins.[1] Its beginnings are born of a 2^nd-century reflection during a 2-day fast leading to Easter; by the 3^rd-century, fasting was expanded through Holy Week; and by the 4^th-century, Rome developed a practice of a 3-week fast, which expanded throughout the empire and eventually became an observance of an entire season beginning the sixth Sunday before Easter.

            The biblical background is diverse including the 40-day flood, Moses on Mt. Sinai, the spies in Cana, the Israelites in the desert for 40 years, most apparently Jesus in the desert for 40 days, and even his walking the earth for 40 days after his resurrection. There exists a variety of themes during Lent which are vital to the Christian life, e.g. reflection, a refocusing of one’s relationship with God, dependence on God, a reminder of humanity’s mortality, and selflessness.

Knowing this information, I suggest that Lent is, in no way, a meaningless ritual, especially if one’s observances are sincere. If the observance of Lent is meaningless ritual, why then is the observance of Christmas or Easter not the same? Derived from this knowledge then, I have four predominant imperatives which we gain from observing Lent.

A Loss of Self

            We first gain a loss of self or a necessary selflessness. John says, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30 ESV) The Apostle Paul understands the importance of this concept when he says, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Phil 1:21) It is not the glorification of self then that accomplishes God’s glory in the Christian life but rather the loss of self. Even if we go to the ends of the earth to preach the gospel, if the aim and indeed the result is our own praise, we have missed the point, for nothing we do in life should be about us. In fact, I submit that in circumstances where we receive praise naturally, we should turn the praise Godward. Lent allows us to do this. Lent allows us to remember that we are merely human. An intentional reflection in such a truth is not bad but surely helps us in our faith.

A Godward Focus

            Giving up something during the Lenten season is not a biblical mandate; nor is the observance of Lent itself. What observing Lent does, however, is creates an intentional method by which to focus on holy God. Giving up something should be simply reflective of a total focus on God. It is declaring our own spiritual death and new life in Christ. I have heard multiple criticisms of Lent and the idea of giving up something during the season. Why such a practice would be criticized I can only speculate. My initial assumption is that Lent is associated 1) with Catholicism and 2) with meaningless ritual. I have already covered the meaningless ritual. To associate Lent solely with Catholicism, however, is to negate the fact that prior to the Reformation, there were not denominations but only one church; thus, many of the practices employed today (even in Catholic traditions) are derived from a people centered around Jesus Christ. Liturgical observances then are not uniquely Catholic but are deliberate ways to tell the full counsel of God through time. God stepped into time and space in the person of Jesus Christ and uses time and space to proclaim the gospel. What a lectionary and liturgical calendar does then is provides humanity a way to share in the gospel story of Jesus Christ. Many Protestant churches, in fact, observe liturgical seasons and feasts such as Lent to this day. By observing the season of Lent, we pave the way for a Godward focus, a decrease in focus on ourselves and an increase in focus on God.

A Humility and Dependence on God

            Thirdly, Lent easily provides us a humility and dependence on God. Consider Jesus’ 40 days in the desert. He fought Satan himself with Scripture. He did not eat for the duration of his time in the desert and had to rely totally on God. On Ash Wednesday, when a minister is placing ashes on the forehead of one who opts to receive them, he or she usually says something like this:

“Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Repent and believe the gospel.” The idea is that we are merely human. We will die one day. God, however, is eternal. The ashes remind us of both our mortality and God’s immortality. That realization, in turn, should give us a humility that is only indicative of our present realization. Many people choose to give up something during Lent, whether food or something else, out of a perpetual realization that life comes from God and humanity is completely dependent on him. A season such as Lent, which offers a time to focus and refocus more on God and less on self, grants us the opportunity to realize our own depravity and mortality and, thus, reflect upon our dependence on God.

A Remembrance and Preparation for the Coming Celebration

            Finally, observing Lent gives Christians an opportunity for not only remembrance but also preparation for the coming celebration. Numerous times in the Bible, we are told to remember, the most obvious likely being Jesus’ command to take Communion in remembrance of him. (Luke 22:19) Lent extends the remembrance of many themes, e.g. humanity’s mortality and God’s immortality, selflessness, Godward focus, etc. to a 40-day period so that Christians may reflect upon and remember those themes. Moreover, Christians remember Jesus’ time in the desert in preparation of his own earthly ministry. Since Christ serves as our ultimate example, we should take seriously the call to remember by modeling our lives after Jesus himself.

            Lent is a somber season; yet, it also gives Christians a time to prepare for the coming celebration. Lent leads to the Easter season, the 50-day season which follows. It is unfortunate that many Christians and churches approach celebration as something for which preparation is not necessary. Preparation often seems to be linked to rigor, dogma, and a lack of joy. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, our grandest celebrations in life require preparation. Why then would we not desire to prepare for the grandest of celebrations, namely the celebration of Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and eventual return?  By observing Lent, we may rightly prepare for the coming celebration, not only of Easter Sunday alone but the 50-day season to follows leading to Pentecost as well as the expectation of Jesus’ return.

A Lenten Resurgence

            Current trends reveal that Christians are returning to liturgy. Even in evangelical and free traditions, liturgical seasons and feasts are being observed more. There seems to be a resurgence of liturgy in the church and indeed a resurgence of the observance of Lent. Such a season is not uniquely Catholic or dogmatic but is rather an intentional method by which to live in the reality of God’s story. There is much we might gain from observing Lent. Believers should remember and celebrate God’s story. Observing Lent is one way of doing so.

---

[1] Shrove Tuesday is from the Latin absolve and is intended for the believer to reflect upon the current sins and struggles of which he or she needs to repent. Its evolution into “Fat Tuesday” is unbiblical, unhistorical, and a distortion of its intent at best.

THE MEANING OF FOREKNOWLEDGE

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

THE MEANING OF FOREKNOWLEDGE

            One of the most polarizing topics in Christian theology is that of election, foreknowledge, and predestination. Having wrestled with this important but difficult doctrine (the doctrine of sovereign grace) in my early twenties, I have made several conclusions on the matter; yet, I remain open to other perspectives. Nothing, however, has convinced me more than what Scripture says plainly and clearly. As much justifying as I did to prove a friend wrong about election, it proved futile except that it brought me to a place of acknowledgement and belief in election. After approximately six months of anger and not knowing how to handle the fact that the God whom I was taught growing up was not the God I was seeing in the Bible, I finally rested in and trusted the Lord that he is sovereign, I am responsible, and the two are compatible.

            One of the primary justifications I used during that time and, to this day, hear others use is a feeble explanation of foreknowledge. I could not deny that predestination and foreknowledge is biblical. It is there plainly; Scripture is also replete with the concept in both the Old the New Testament. What I did was misrepresent foreknowledge as many do today. I tried to give a definition of it that was not true because, in my mind (and in others’), it made sense. Part of the problem, however, is that we often look for what makes sense to us when we should merely trust what God has already said.

            My aim here is to define foreknowledge in a biblical manner, which is only one manifestation of a manifold doctrine. Nevertheless, I believe that a greater understanding of foreknowledge to yield a greater understanding of sovereign grace.

Foreknowledge Is Not Merely Knowing the Future

            Before stating what foreknowledge is, I should state what it is not. My thoughts here are derived from arguments I used to make and arguments many now continue to make. I will soon discuss linguistic evidence for foreknowledge; fundamentally, however, I want to begin by discussing the antithesis of the word.

First, foreknowledge is not merely knowing the future. That, in fact, is not foreknowing but rather foretelling. The problem with this view is that it assumes God foreseeing his people’s salvation based upon their own work rather than his.[1] Certainly, God knows the future. The reason, however, is because he designs and controls it. To the human mind, this is illogical because we are sovereign[2] beings ourselves and are perfectly capable of making our own decisions. That is what we think at least so a God who controls everything is not logical even though all things were created by God and exist through him and for him (Rom 11:36). If we think in such a way, it not only confuses us but may even anger us that someone else would dare control everything. Surely, we are left with something to control right? As the common question goes, does that mean that we are essentially robots? My response is that it is worse. In fact, the Apostle Paul refers to us as clay instead of robots (Rom 9:21). It may sound like an overreach to say that God controls everything including every roll of the dice in Las Vegas; yet, that is precisely what the Bible says. Beyond that, God does not only control everything, but everything is held together by him (Col 1:17). We either believe in God’s complete sovereignty or we hold to a self-gratifying idea that we are left with some control. If God is completely sovereign, foreknowledge then is not merely knowing the future.

Foreknowledge Is Not Mental Knowledge

            Secondly, foreknowledge is not merely mental knowledge. To start the support for this statement, the following are scriptures which use a version of the word, know:

“Adam knew his wife, Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain…” (Gen 4:1 ESV)

“The righteous know the needs of their animals…” (Prov 12:10 NRSV)

“Do you think you are a king because you compete in cedar? Did not your father eat and drink and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the LORD.” (Jer 22:15-16 ESV)[3]

It should be apparent that the word, know, is used in varying contexts. When Paul says that for those God foreknew, he also predestined, the Greek word is proginosko. The word is a combination of the prefix, pro, meaning beforehand or prior to, and ginosko, meaning know or knowledge. Proginosko is from where our English word, prognosis, comes. The word could still seemingly mean mental knowledge until we realize that Jesus uses gnosko in Matthew 7 when he says that to some he will say, “I never knew you; depart from me…” (Matt 7:23 ESV) Surely, God knows who they are mentally; he is not referring to a mere knowledge of them. It must be something other than mental knowledge then, for the same word, in Matthew, refers to a relationship. Jesus is not saying that he has no recollection of them but rather that he had no relationship with them. Foreknowledge, as Paul uses it, then is not mental knowledge.

Foreknowledge Is Not out of Control

            The suggestion that God’s foreknowledge is the equivalent of a prior seeing or knowing who will choose him implies a lack of control or sovereignty. From the scriptures, however, we know that God is supremely in control. Not only the previously given examples of God as a potter and the fact that all things are from him, through him, and ultimately to him, but the Bible is replete with references to his authority and control over every single detail. The idea that someone else controls humanity could be offensive to some; yet, we are told that “the plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.” (Prov 16:1 ESV) How can it be that we are not in control of something like our own tongue? This speaks highly toward the supreme reign of God.

            Sovereignty, as we would consider it, is disparate from biblical sovereignty, i.e. the sovereignty of God. The United States of America, as a sovereign country, makes its own decisions. The United States of America, however, does not control every single act that occurs on its own land in that there are surely people who do what they want including breaking the law. God, however, does only allow acts to happen; he also controls them and the motives by which we make our choice. Paul tells us that “those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified,” (Rom 8:30 ESV)[4] i.e. all who God calls to salvation are saved. The implication then is that while humankind is held responsible and either chooses or rejects Christ, God controls the motives by which we make that choice. Our natural choice is always sin. For those who belong to the Lord, however, the effect of his call is always salvation.

            The word, sovereign, is used sparingly in Scripture and holds various meanings when it is employed. In Acts 4:24 and Revelation 6:10, the term means a possessor. In 1 Timothy 6:15, however, the word is rendered sovereign but refers to a king or one who makes decrees. In either case, the idea is that God is the one in control. Moreover, from the scriptures already mentioned, we can and should assume that God is not only in control by allowing acts to occur; he also controls those acts. How could a loving God be in control of such a terrible world? This we cannot answer with certainty; we can, however, know that he is in control and that something better is coming for those who love him. When we speak of foreknowledge, we should not dethrone God by feebly thinking that he is out of control, for he still sits on the throne and leads in his sovereignty.

Foreknowledge Is Foreloving

            Now that I have covered what foreknowledge is not, I will submit what foreknowledge is. Relating foreknowledge to mere mental knowledge or foretelling the future is incorrect. We can and should say that God knows the future; nonetheless, the reason he knows the future is because he ordains it. John Piper has suggested that foreknew would be more correctly rendered foreloved.[5] To be clear, this, in no way, suggests that God does not love everyone but that he has a relationship with those who are his, i.e. his church. It could be offensive to some that God predestines some for salvation; yet, we should not be angry about who God does not elect but rather rejoice in the fact that he elects anyone at all. Beyond that, we do not know the mind of God and, thus, do not know why he employs salvation in the manner he does except that everything he does serves his own glory and satisfaction. Foreknowledge then is relational; it is not mental knowledge or foretelling. To say God foreknew is to say that he foreloved. Giving linguistic and biblical evidence for this, my aim is that we would trust the text of Scripture and further rejoice in the saving atonement of Jesus Christ.

---

[1] John Piper, “Foreknown, Predestined, Conformed to Christ,” Desiring God, accessed February 10, 2019, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/foreknown-predestined-conformed-to-christ.

[2] The meaning and concept of sovereignty will be discussed later.

[3] The previous three scriptures use the same Hebrew word: yada.

[4] Romans 8:30 is one of many scriptures from which the concept of irresistible grace comes.

[5] Piper.

ARE SOME NON-BELIEVERS MORE "CHRISTIAN" THAN MOST CHRISTIANS?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

ARE SOME NON-BELIEVERS MORE “CHRISTIAN” THAN MOST CHRISTIANS?

            Perhaps you are like me and have heard a phrase like the following at some point in your life and perhaps even recently: I know many non-believers (or non-Christians) who are more “Christian”[1] than most Christians. While I understand the sentiment behind such a statement, it is simply not true. Without negating the responsibility of all Christians to live morally upright lives, we should understand that everyone fails. If we did not fail, we would not need a savior; yet, we do so in that way, we are all hypocrites. What people usually mean, in a statement like this, is that there are some people who do not profess Christ as their Lord yet live lives seemingly more righteous than many people who do profess Christ as Lord. The problem in such a statement, however, is threefold under the umbrella of answering with a resounding no! I will discuss the most protruding three problems in that statement, all of which are derived from what the Bible says about humanity and about Jesus Christ.

No Because Everyone Is Radically and Totally Wicked by Nature

            First, the answer of whether some non-believers are more “Christian” is no because every person throughout history is radically and totally wicked by nature. Some might say it is by choice; yet, we choose evil because our nature is evil. There exists (and perhaps always has existed) a train of thought that suggests humanity is mostly good by nature. Scripture, nevertheless, says otherwise. Not only have all sinned and fallen short of God (Rom 3:23), i.e. righteousness, the Apostle Paul says that we are/were dead in our trespasses (Eph 2:1). Moreover, the psalmist says that we are conceived in sin (Ps 51:5). Such an idea might not seem logical to many; nonetheless, when reasoned, it becomes clear. Consider how prone humanity is to making evil decisions not only in the most extreme circumstances but also in our daily lives. We do not need help sinning; we do not need to be taught to sin; it is not learned but is natural. It does not take long for a child to make bad decisions. In fact, from the moment a child is born, they begin a path of selfishness. No one is innocent. All are totally and radically depraved and in need of Christ. Thus, to say that some non-believers are more “Christian” than most Christians is false.

Those who are Christians[2] are found in the righteousness of Christ. One is never saved by their works; no one’s works could ever be good enough for salvation. It is only through Jesus that anyone is saved so even if someone acts better than another person (which is completely possible), if such a person is not atoned through a personal Lordship relationship with Jesus Christ, their works are not good enough. We must understand that Christians are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. It is upon salvation in Christ then that our lives begin to change and become more like him. We will still make many mistakes and some quite terrible, in fact; we are covered, however, before the Father, in the righteous blood of Jesus Christ. The answer to the question then is no: there is no such thing as a non-believer who is more “Christian” than most Christians. You either are a Christian, or you are not; you either hold the imputed righteousness of Jesus, or you hold the completion of sin.

No Because No One Is Saved by Works but Only by Christ

            In continuation, our works are not good enough for salvation. The Bible tells us that we are saved by grace through faith and not of ourselves (Rom 6:23). A problem with a statement that suggests non-believers are more “Christian” than most Christians is that it fails to realize humanity’s complete dependence on God and inability to choose God or do enough good for him to accept us. It is only by the calling and awakening of the Holy Spirit that we may receive Christ and choose righteousness. The fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Gal 5:22-23). Such characteristics are impossible to exist without Christ. Even those who are not Christians but perhaps exude behaviors that could be considered as such do not do so on their own merit. Anything good is only from God. When a non-believer does good, that good only exists because of the good of God. If good and evil exist in our world, there is an obvious source of each. God is the source of good so even good exemplified in a non-believer employs God as the source usually without realizing or understanding it. For the Christian, however, it is understood that humanity is evil by nature and in need of a good God. The fruit of the Spirit then is supernaturally and perpetually possessed by God’s people but not by non-believers. No one is good enough to be considered righteous so the answer to the question again is no.

No Because Even the Innocent Are Not Innocent

            The third problem with stating that many or some non-believers are more “Christian” than most Christians is that an innocent person does not exist. Again, in continuation of what was previously stated, any innocence from any person is not from themselves. One might ponder what might happen to the innocent man from an indigenous tribe who has never been able to hear the gospel. Inclusivists would suggests that some people are saved and do not even know it because “God is love.”[3] On the contrary, exclusivism suggests that “redemption is possible only through faith in the gospel. This has been the predominant Christian position throughout church history and remains so among Bible-believing evangelicals today.”[4] Foundationally, as already mentioned, there is none who are good. God certainly is love; yet, his wrath is necessary to atone for sin and either has been paid through Christ or will be paid by eternal damnation for those who do not receive Christ. The Bible tells us that no one is without excuse (Rom 2:1) and that the law reveals our depravity and nature reveals God’s attributes making them clearly perceived (Rom 1:20). To answer the question of what happens to the innocent man from an indigenous tribe who has never had access to the gospel, such a person does not exist. This truth should 1) cause our hearts, as Christians, to be spurred in love to go and send to the uttermost parts of the earth so that all nations (ethnicities) may see and know Christ and 2) comfort us in knowing that we have no ability to save anyone including ourselves, for it is only by faith in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit that we may come to him. Building upon my foundation here, the answer of whether any non-believer is more “Christian” than most Christians is a further resounding no.

We Should Be Both Comforted and Convicted That No One Is Righteous

            Concluding, I will reiterate what I just said: we, as believers in and followers of Jesus Christ should be both comforted and convicted that no one in righteous. It is only by and through Jesus Christ that anyone has access to the Father. In fact, without the mediation of the Son, our prayers go nowhere, for God does not hear us unless through Jesus; he alone is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). The idea that we are all striving toward the same goal, that God is love and knows who is good, and that all ways are basically the same is false. As Christians, this truth should cause our hearts to be overwhelmed with joy that there is a way at all and concurrently spur us to love others and faithfully preach the gospel. Certainly, we make mistakes; thus, it might seem that some who do not profess Jesus live more morally upright lives than some Christians. Nonetheless, nothing is further from the truth, for their morality is in vein if not in Jesus Christ. Even our best is nothing but filthy rags compared to God’s righteousness and holiness (Is 64:6). When we make mistakes and when we fall, it is vital that we get right back up and continue serving God, for we are continuously being made into his image from one degree to another (2 Cor 3:18). Are we hypocrites? Yes; so is everyone else. God calls and changes imperfect people because he alone is perfect. The answer then to whether non-believers are more “Christian” than any Christian at all is no. Let us rejoice in the righteousness of Christ, strive for excellence with the realization that we will still fail, and faithfully preach and execute the gospel throughout our lives.

---

[1] This is often the precise term used by those who might present such a statement.

[2] This implies not only by profession but by sincere life-change. Christians are not perfect; yet, there is a progression of sanctification (which looks different for everyone) throughout their lives from the moment Christ began to change them.

[3] Matt Smethurst, “What Happens to Those Who Never Hear the Gospel,” The Gospel Coalition (September 7, 2016), accessed January 23, 2019, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-happens-to-those-who-never-hear-gospel/.

[4] Ibid.

SHOULD ALL OPINIONS BE RESPECTED?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

SHOULD ALL OPINIONS BE RESPECTED?

            In our current societal discourse in many facets, e.g. political, theological, cultural, etc., the church should be an agent of unity rather than disunity. Often, the opposite is true; yet, God calls us to primarily exemplify the unity of Christ among each other but also to love our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:31). Jesus’ command here is in the greater context of giving us what to what he refers as the two greatest commandments. The Greek word for neighbor here, plesion, simply means someone who is near and does not suggest a specific group of people such as other Christians, i.e. Jesus implies that everyone is our neighbor. Our love for others is derived from the greatest commandment: to love God above all else with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30), for when we love God above all else, our love for others increases because we begin to view others in the same light as God himself. How then are we to handle dissonant discussions of vital material among all people in our society? The church is given the responsibility to love everyone so we are not exempt from that command in any situation including tense dialogue. The question at work here is this: should all opinions be respected? I shall argue that all opinions should be respected in scope but limited in application, i.e. everyone is to be loved, heard, and even understood while absolute agreement is not necessary. Before continuing, it should be noted that everyone is different and, thus, possesses different opinions, which is okay and good. Without diversity, we would not need to have important discussions as we so often do. We should enter our dialogue with other believers and even non-believers realizing this fact. To properly engage in tense dialogue as Christians, I have three imperatives to bear in mind.

Determine the Essentials

            In answering the question of whether all opinions should be respected, we must first determine the essentials. At the core of our opinions, essentials are usually few and far between, i.e. people are often more passionate about secondary issues than perhaps they ought to be and not as passionate about those few issues that matter above all else. What then is essential? For this discussion, let me suggest that essentials are those issues which are absolute and from which we must never waver. These are issues that define us as humans, not as particular religions, denominations, or political parties. Life, for example, is essential. I will even suggest that issues like healthcare are not. It is certainly good and important to have informed opinions on secondary issues; yet, they are still just that: secondary.

            Essentials could seem ambiguous; yet, again, I will clarify that essentials are few and far between; therefore, the chances of an issue actually being essential are not high. As we engage in cultural discussions with people, we should understand that we will likely have disparate opinions from even those within our same affinity circles such as local churches and political groups. What unites us, however, are those items that we find essential to humanity. We should not waver from loving everyone; we should not waver from respecting life; and we should not waver, as Christians, from proclaiming Jesus Christ as the only way with a love and respect toward all people. That from which we may waver, are the non-essentials; essentials, however, once determined must be of utmost importance.

Determine the Non-Essentials

            If essentials are few and far between, non-essentials are most issues we tend to discuss. I do not intend to negate the importance of forming a valuable opinion on issues; I do submit, nonetheless, that the issues which cause the most division in our society are non-essential. Indeed, the issues about which we find ourselves most passionate are usually non-essential, e.g. healthcare, immigration, and even the type of government which we have such as democratic, socialist, etc. These are crucial issues but still non-essential; thus, there should be room for disagreement and mutual respect for all opinions, although there often is not. When an issue is determined to be non-essential, as people of God, it is our responsibility not to engage in more division. An example of division here is a dissenting response on an online social media post, which is fueled by our (usually ignorant, immature, and unnecessary) growing anger over a topic. Keep in mind that most issues are non-essential. In fact, I would challenge you to find many essential issues about which people are often upset on social media. When reasoned, we quickly realize that most of the divisiveness in our society is unnecessary. Perhaps, the best approach is to usually stay out of these fly-by discussions and to only have tense conversations in person with a limited group of people. In such a case, we can clearly express our opinions but also leave room for mutual respect toward those who hold different beliefs. When we reason what is essential and what is non-essential before engaging in discussions, it should affect the way we proceed and communicate (or do not communicate) with others.

Always Respect People

            Concluding, we should perpetually respect everyone. This does not mean, however, that we must always agree with everyone even (and especially) when it is attempted to guilt us into agreeing. It also does not mean that all opinions are valid; yet, even one with an invalid opinion should be respected. The reasons for one’s invalid opinion are vast, e.g. misinformation, wrong beliefs, family upbringing, etc. There is certainly wisdom in seeing and hearing another perspective even if you are sure that you will not agree with that perspective. You could be surprised and change your view, as happens more often than you may think so at least try to see another side. We must remember that our disagreement is also an opinion so why is ours more valid than another’s? It might truly be more valid; nevertheless, it is impossible to know unless we understand another’s perspective. If, after hearing another perspective, which requires mutual respect, we still disagree, it validates our opinion perhaps even more. Enter these discussions with an open and neutral mind, for that is the only way to begin to see another point of view. When our opinion is informed then, we should realize the foundation of what we believe and respect those who believe differently, particularly on non-essential issues.

I suggest that respect for all opinions is necessary in scope but limited in application. In general, most issues which we discuss are non-essential so respect is vital in those conversations. Essential issues are few; yet, these are the issues from which we must not waver. In these cases, e.g. human life, any opinion that blatantly contradicts basic human rights is not worthy to be respected. Certainly, respect the person; they must know, however, why their view is wrong. In general, I should caution, however, against engaging in these conversations unless prompted and among a limited group of people. As people of God, we are called to love everyone, which also encompasses respecting everyone. Contrary to popular belief, respect should not be earned; it should be something that we, as the church, give out of love for Christ. Do not waver on essential, issues; yet, because they are so few, we should mutually respect everyone and their opinions on non-essential issues. Should all opinions be respected then? No, but most should; moreover, all people should be respected. If we abide by these principles, we might live in a more fruitful and productive society even among non-believers.

A RESPONSE TO CULTURE AND CHRISTIANS ON ABORTION

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

A RESPONSE TO CULTURE AND CHRISTIANS ON ABORTION

            The recent legislative actions in the state of New York recently have caused me to reflect quite a bit. I have always been a staunch opponent of abortion; the recent, legislation in New York, however, has provided a time and place for me to speak about the topic even more. We, as a society, have already committed the largest mass murder in history. Since Rove vs. Wade (1973), there have been over 61 million abortions.[1] Additionally, since 1980, there have been over 1.5 billion abortions worldwide.[2] History would suggest that the world followed suit to the United States after Roe vs. Wade. We then are the most murderous people who have ever walked this planet. I say “we” because it has been allowed as a society. Even for those of us who hate the murder of babies, we are a part of the people who have allowed it to happen. In Scripture, God condemns those who sacrifice children to Molech (Lev 20:2). In the same way, a day of reckoning is coming for all of us regarding abortion. The question will be asked of what we did about it. I, for one, do not want to be someone who did nothing. Thus, considering the recent New York legislation, I will respond to two groups: 1) advocates of abortion and 2) Christians.

To Abortion Advocates

            To abortion advocates, I have five responses revolving around the absolute wrongness of abortion.

Statistics Show That the Overwhelming Majority of Abortions Are Performed Purely out of Convenience

            When Roe vs. Wade occurred and the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that abortion is constitutional, much of today’s medical technology was nonexistent. Therefore, people could not know what is known now about a baby’s course of development inside the womb of his or her mother. By 8 weeks in a mother’s womb, there is a heartbeat, fully functioning organs, and a fingerprint;[3] moreover, recent studies reveal that babies recoil from pain.[4] At 21 weeks, a baby can survive outside the womb with help.[5] Studies reveal that the overwhelming majority of abortions occur not because of life-threatening situations but purely out of convenience, 92-95%, in fact.[6] 3% of abortions are said to be for health concerns;[7] yet, health is not defined. The argumentation suggests that situations of horrific rape, incest, and the mother’s life are reasons for abortion. The problem with such an argument, however, is that those situations are extremely rare: less than 1% in some studies. All of this means that abortions are usually (not rarely) performed purely out of convenience. Thus, the health argument does not work. Convenience is no reason to terminate a human life, for all life is sacred.

Abortion Advocacy Language Has Changed Since Roe vs. Wade

            My second argument to advocates of abortion is that the language surrounding abortion has drastically changed since Roe vs. Wade primarily because of advanced research and medical technology. We are beginning to see people speak of a baby in the womb as a fetus less because people understand that what is inside the mother is a human life. Mary Elizabeth Williams, a staunch proponent of abortion, says, “I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that's what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn't make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.”[8] She then goes on to say that not all life is equal.[9] Abortion rights advocates are now acknowledging that what is inside a mother’s womb is a human life but continue to support his or her termination.

The development of a baby, which I have already referenced, should be evidence enough that there exists a human life during pregnancy. Sadly, however, it is not for many in our society including those to whom I am addressing right now. If there is, in fact, a human life inside a pregnant woman (we have already established that there is, and science supports this notion), then it is not only the woman’s body at stake; it is the baby’s as well. That is how reproduction works: someone must carry the other life. None of us designed this; God did. Men are not able to get pregnant so the argument that only women should decide this matter is unequivocally false. What if the father of the baby wants to keep him or her but the mother does not? Does he not get a say in the matter, as he should? Another human life exists inside the mother who is carrying the baby. This is not a woman issue; this is a moral issue. If we are not going to waver from the fact that there is a baby inside of the woman, terminating that life is murder. If one disagrees that what is inside the woman is a human life, that person effectively ignores science and even other advocates of abortion. What is happening right now blatant an unapologetic murder. This is not a Christian issue but a life issue. We must be on the correct side and currently are not.

There Is Absolutely No Health-Related Reason to Have an Abortion, Particularly During the Third Trimester

            The vast majority of doctors will openly admit that there is absolutely no health-related reason to have an abortion, particularly a late-term abortion. Dr. Lawrence K. Koning, OB/GYN for over 30 years, says that “there is no medical situation where the doctor must kill the child to save the mother… Just deliver the baby by C-section…”[10] Dr. Omar L. Hamada, OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies, says, “I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt… I’m a Board-Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.”[11] Furthermore, Dr. David McKnight, OB/GYN for over 30 years, says, “I need to say publicly and unequivocally, that there is never a medical reason to kill a baby at term. When complications of pregnancy endanger a mother’s life, we sometimes must deliver the baby early, but it is always with the intent of doing whatever we can to do it safely for the baby too…. God help us.”[12] The people presenting these similar confessions are not idiots; they are not uneducated and certainly not making claims about which they know nothing. These are practicing doctors who deal with pregnancies and deliveries on a consistent basis. With current medical technology, I personally cannot think of one health-related reason to abort a baby at all, much less in the third trimester; yet, I find these experts in agreement with my thoughts. Why would we trust those who advocate for abortion making false claims about which they know nothing over practicing physicians who speak truth based upon experience and knowledge? Abortion is never necessary. There are always alternatives.

Scripture Does Not Differentiate between a Baby in or out of the Womb

            Since I am now responding to advocates of abortion, I have purposely refrained till now from using biblical support. I will, however, do so at this moment. The previous three sub-responses should be enough for convincing; yet, I believe it is not. Scripture does not differentiate between a baby in or out of the womb of his or her mother. I say this both to advocates of abortion who do not practice Christianity and to those who profess to be Christians. Particularly those who profess to be Christians, heed this biblical support.

            In the Christmas narrative, Luke tells us that when Mary visited Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, the baby “leaped in her womb” (Luke 1:41). In the next chapter, Luke also refers to Jesus lying in a manger as a baby (Luke 2:16). The Greek word in both selections is brephos, i.e. there is no distinction between John inside of Elizabeth and Jesus outside the womb lying in a manger. Furthermore, David confesses, “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Ps 139:13). As a believer in God’s complete sovereignty, it is apparent that God is involved in even the smallest details of every single aspect of this universe. My argument here is that life is sacred. Even without a religious context, we should believe that life is sacred. If life is sacred then, life inside the womb is sacred. Scripture does not differentiate between a baby in or out of the womb; nor should we.

Then What Are My Options?

            Advocates of abortion might then inquire about what options there are for pregnant women in terrible situations if abortion is not an option. I will respond to Christians next, which will help answer that inquiry; for now, however, let me present a few possibilities, most of which abortion advocates have probably already heard and considered.

First, adoption is possible. There are many people who cannot have babies and would love to adopt. You can partner with adoption agencies and select one that will care for the child. Second, if there is a health concern, consider an early C-section. A doctor would let you know if this needs to be performed anyway so listen to his or her medical expertise. Lastly, I would ask if you are considering an abortion because of convenience. Think reasonably about your situation. Are you considering abortion because you will not be able to finish school with a baby, because you do not make enough money, or because the baby could have a defect? Those are convenience reasons in which case abortion is unnecessary. Help exists; seek it. I would also encourage you to examine my response to the church.

To Christians

            The second part of my response on abortion is to Christians. We must speak up but in the proper context, as informed opposers, and in a loving manner, which means speaking up in any way possible, e.g. verbally, on social media, and in ways that secure action such as contacting and speaking with legislators. I follow abortion legislation as much as possible and only see a few federal legislators doing anything at all about abortion; these are probably legislators that most Christians would not expect because the ones they would expect are doing little to nothing about abortion. I firmly believe that abortion is the most vital topic in out society; most other issues are secondary. I certainly have opinions on issues such as healthcare, the border, and education; these, however, are not as important as abortion, which is the one issues on which I plant my flag. We must never waver from a position of absolutely wrongness in murdering babies. Here then is my response to Christians in how we should handle the situation.

We Must Love Advocates of Abortion

            We must love all people including advocates of abortion. Advocates receive enough hate from people who do not represent Christ well. Loving them then means not only in word but also in deed. If we, as the church, reveal hatred in anyway, we have effectively squandered the opportunity God has given us to love our neighbors. What abortion advocates support is absolute sin; yet, we cannot expect non-believers to act like believers. If humanity is radically depraved by nature, those who do not have a relationship with Christ will continue to act radically depraved. We must love abortion advocates. Nothing bad can come from love.

We Must Help Pregnant Women in Helpless Situations

We must be prepared to help pregnant women who are in less than ideal situations. Whether one is considering abortion for health or convenience reasons, once we voice our firm belief that life is sacred, we cannot leave them helpless. We must be soldiers of the Lord (2 Tim 2:3) by providing babysitting, shelters, medical care, helping with bills, etc. If we do not act in this manner, we only offer lip service. We should be pro life but also pro help, for that is what we are called to as the church. Out of our love for God flows love for all people including unborn babies and their mothers. I would dare suggest that most churches offer no help to helpless pregnant women. Be prepared to speak up and to help.

We Must Not Think That Advocates of Abortion Are Any More Sinful Than We

            As horrible as abortion is, we should not think that advocates of and participants in abortion are any more sinful than we. All of humanity is equally depraved. We should not expect a society that does not follow Christ to make Christlike decisions. I expect abortion because I expect evil; we too are radically depraved and prone to such decisions apart from Christ. When we consider ourselves better than those who advocate for abortion, we do not love them but rather begin to show animosity toward them. That is not how Christ would respond. Understand that their sin is on the same plane as any sin we too have committed. Do not judge but help, love, and praise God for his grace.

Do Not Use Personal Experience to Fight Abortion

            I also respond to Christians by requesting that we stop using personal experience to fight abortion. There are situations in which such a tactic may work when the person or people to whom one is speaking can relate. Often, however, people cannot relate to personal experiences. It might seem as if arguing against abortion on the basis that one has a child whom they love works; yet, it often does not. Many advocates of abortion have been placed in unexpected situations and do not have a loving spouse nor a life as great as what others may seemingly have. Thus, speaking of opposition to abortion on the basis that one has a child and could not bear to see him or her killed could be salting a wound. Moreover, if one claims that having a child has shifted their perspective on abortion in any way (even if they already opposed abortion before), it causes that person’s argument to seem illegitimate. Abortion is wrong irrespective or whether one has a child. If it takes a personal experience for one’s opinion to arrive where it is now, why would someone in a different situation listen to that person? It seems, in such a case, that one is arguing based upon personal experience rather than objective truth. I would not suggest completely dismissing personal experience but limiting those conversations to only people who might more readily understand. I think arguments based on objective truth go further in the fight against abortion.

If Life Is Sacred, All Life Is Sacred So Act Like It

            Finally, in my response to Christians, consider this: if life is sacred, all life is sacred so act like it. I imply social justice here. The life of one inside the womb is just as sacred as those outside the womb including the worst of the worst such as robbers and terrorists. Recently I saw a social media post absolutely shredding abortion and then immediately after laughing at and praising the fact that a store robber was shot to death by every person in the store who was carrying a gun. Certainly, we should celebrate justice; nonetheless, that is not what was happening here. I also recently heard a popular political commentator suggest that a terrorist is subhuman. Brothers and sisters, if we look at some people as subhuman and their lives as less sacred than others, we too fail in the endeavor and fight against abortion. God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone including the wicked (Ezek 33:11). We should realize, as Christians, how desperate the situation is right now and place the fight against abortion as a top priority, even above the secondary issues facing our society right now; yet, we must also stop living in apathy to injustice. By that, I am saying that we should act and help those in need. This will only happen if we consider all life sacred. When a terrorist is killed, rejoice in served justice but mourn that someone has died and likely without knowing Christ, which is horrible. All life is sacred so we should act like it lest we negate our argument against abortion.

My Exhortation

            My final exhortation here, in response to the topic of abortion, is to understand that abortion is wrong, understand that people are wicked by nature and prone to evil, and understand that we, as Christians, must love those who are in situations they did not expect. Take action rather than simply giving lip service. Take action not just by speaking up against abortion but by helping those who are considering it. Finally, be encouraged that this world is not our home. We have been placed here with a mission. God has first called us to himself and to his church; all functions then are derived from that. We live in a world where God is working but simultaneously realize that we have not yet arrived. It is a world between God’s plan of his own glory and our final destination where every knee will bow, and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. When we see and hear of evil, we should take heart because this is not the end; something better is coming. Until then, however, we should live life with the joy of the Lord abundantly evident in our lives, love as Christ has loved, serve as Christ has served, and speak up for those who cannot speak. Do not be discouraged, people of God. Fight against abortion while living with joy, for a greater shout is coming than those echoed in the chambers of New York legislation!

---

[1][1] “Number of Abortions,” Abortion Counters, accessed January 26, 2019, http://www.numberofabortions.com/.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “Fetal Development: Stages of Growth,” Cleveland Clinic (September 9, 2014),accessed January 26, 2019, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth.

[4] Matt Chandler, “Matt Chandler on Abortion,” accessed January 26, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vr6g6FsnJg&feature=youtu.be.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Torres and Forrest, as cited by Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the Alan Guttmacher Institute in An Overview of Abortion in the United States (2001).

[7] Ibid.

[8] Mary Elizabeth Williams, “So What if Abortion Ends Life?,” Salon (January 23, 2013), accessed January 26, 2019, https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/.

[9] Ibid.

[10] “What This Doctor Says about Danger-to-Mother Claims to Justify Late-Term Abortions,” Black Community News (October 25, 2016), accessed January 26, 2019, https://blackcommunitynews.com/what-this-doctor-said-about-danger-to-mother-claims-to-justify-late-term-abortions/.

[11] Douglas C. Golden, “OB/GYN Who Delivered over 2,500 Babies Blows Lid off NY Abortion Law: ‘I Want to Clear Something Up,” Conservative Tribune by Western Journal (January 25, 2019), accessed January 26, 2019, https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ob-gyn-delivered-2500-babies-blows-lid-off-ny-abortion-law-want-clear-something/.

[12] Carole Novielli, “Medical Practitioners Speak out Against ‘Pure Evil’ New York Abortion Law,” Live Action (January 25, 2019), accessed January 26, 2019, https://www.liveaction.org/news/new-york-abortion-medical-evil/.