Is Baptism Necessary/required?

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about the necessity of Baptism

Q:  Is Baptism required in order for a person to be saved?  What does the Bible say about people who die without being baptized?  What is required for a Baptism to be valid?

Even though Baptism is a key element of Christian practice and an important point in Biblical theology, there still remains some degree of diversity among the various Christian denominations regarding their beliefs about and the practices surrounding Baptism.

For example, the majority of Christians worldwide believe that Baptism is for all Christians, even infants, while a minority insist that only those old enough to desire and request Baptism should be baptized. Some would set some particular age, while others would judge based on the person's development or understanding, and may insist that Baptisms performed prior to their specified milestones must be repeated at an age when the individual can verbally articulate their faith. An even smaller minority would insist that only baptisms performed in their church or other churches within their specific fellowship are valid, and would insist any person baptized elsewhere be rebaptized.

Even though there are often a variety of ceremonies associated with Baptism, such as blessing and naming rituals in churches which baptize infants, or personal testimonies given before Baptism in churches which Baptize only older individuals, or gifts like a white garment or a burning candle given in recognition of the event and its meaning, such things are not a requirement of a valid baptism.  So, for example, when baptizing an infant in an emergency situation, I may include nothing more than applying water to the child with the words, "I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  At other times, only the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer might be added, and some of the previously mentioned ceremonies delayed until the Baptism is publicly recognized in the Sunday Service, but as long as these two elements are present--water and God’s Word, particularly the Triune name--the Baptism is valid, and we can say with confidence that it has done what God has promised.

There is also some diversity regarding the method of baptizing. Some insist on full immersion of the individual in water, while others allow other methods, such as sprinkling or pouring the water on the individual. Again, even though a minority insist on a particular method of applying the water, most agree, with support from the Greek text of the New Testament there is no Scriptural command regarding the method of applying the water.

Baptism is almost universally understood to be the means of entry into the Christian congregation and the boundary between those inside and outside of the Church.  In recognition of this, traditional church architecture often places the baptistery at the entrance to the church building so that one passes it every time they enter the worship space.  However, Pastors and Biblical Scholars would rarely describe Baptism as “required” as something we must do in order to be saved.  Instead, they might choose terms such as “necessary” without being “absolutely necessary.”

What this means is that in the regular order of things, a Christian is always to be baptized. For the child of Christian parents, this may happen soon after birth, while for others who come to Christianity as adults, their Baptism may follow their instruction in the Faith, but if an adult convert were to die after they had heard the message of Jesus and trusted in Him but before it was possible to receive Baptism, nearly no person would question that the person was forgiven and saved. However if an adult convert would claim trust in Jesus yet refuse Baptism for a prolonged time, the question would eventually have to be asked whether they were, in fact, a Christian.

One reason for this is because for a person to claim to trust Jesus, but then refuse to receive the Sacrament He commanded would be extremely inconsistent. More importantly, though, since Baptism is not primarily something the person does as an act of devotion to God, nor is it merely something the priest/pastor does for the person.  Instead, Baptism is something God Himself does for the recipient, by the hands of the pastor or priest, and if the person refused to receive the Sacrament through which God has promised to deliver His blessings, then it would necessarily raise questions about their profession of faith.

Unbiblical, Man-made laws

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about how to respond to man-made rules that do not come from the Bible:

Q:  How should a Christian respond if their church insists on following rules that are man-made instead of Biblical?  How does one know what church rules are Biblical and which are not?

Throughout the History of Christianity, this has been a problem which has plagued churches.  Often people have a hard time separating the biases and preferences of their culture from actual Biblical law, often with the result that the pastors and churches begin enforcing man-made rules and making them equal with God’s law.  

We can see this beginning even during the life of St. Paul, as he writes to Timothy (1 Tim. 4:3) condemning those who forbid marriage and require abstinence from certain foods, as Peter is criticized for exercising His God-ordained freedom to eat non-kosher meat and dine with gentiles, and as Paul has to correct the Galatians after they are misled by false teachers to think they must accept Circumcision to be true Christians.

Over the years, the details change repeatedly, but the tendency remains the same.  Fewer than 600 years after Jesus resurrection, a movement gained traction which forced priests to remain celibate and unmarried.  150 years ago, my own denomination was known to superstitiously forbid the purchase of insurance with the accusation that it was a failure to trust God to provide and protect. 

Early in the 20^th century, the movement for a ban on alcohol consumption overtook many churches and for a time the laws of our nation, and to this day new and different ways are being introduced to override God’s Law with rules of human origin.

How one reacts to these demands depends on how and why they are being made.  Governments, for example, are free to make laws not found in the Bible, and according to the Fourth Commandment and Romans 13, Christians are obligated to obey them, unless that law would command them to sin.  When spiritual leaders or church bodies make the laws, however, the situation is different.  If a command cannot be supported by an honest and accurate reading of the Bible, a church or a pastor have no right to demand it be followed. 

When something has neither been commanded nor forbidden in the Bible, the Christian is free to follow His own conscience in the matter and ought not attempt to enforce his choice on others.  Examples of issues where this might apply would include such things as alcohol consumption (in moderation), tobacco use, dancing and styles of dress (within certain boundaries of modesty).

Although I haven’t been able to find the reference in print to provide a precise quote, I heard a story from a professor in college about Martin Luther responding to such a demand, saying something like, “If any man tells me I may not drink Wittenberg Beer, I shall drink a second for him.”  The idea behind this is that if the demand is made out of pride, the Christian should be deliberate in boldly displaying His Christian freedom so that the other person would be freed from their bondage to the man-made law. 

On the other hand, when another Christian fears out of weakness that something is a sin, (not out of pride and trying to mislead others), or when an act may be harmful to a person (such as drinking in the presence of an alcoholic) the Christian ought to voluntarily abstain from that act in the presence of that person so as not to cause them unnecessary guilt or temptation in their weakness.  The Apostle Paul discusses this at length in Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 9. 

Ultimately, a simple way to know whether a rule is Biblical is to know the Ten Commandments, and see if the law can be connected to one of them.  If it can, it is most likely Biblical.  If it cannot, it is most likely man-made. 

Churches and their pastors ought not ever be hesitant to declare a law that God actually has made, and cautious never to demand obedience to a law that He has not, while Christians in their lives ought never be ashamed to obey a law that God has given, and at the same time careful to discern whether their neighbor with a different position needs to be comforted in their distress or confronted for their pride.

Why be moral?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the reason for morality:

Q:  If Christianity is not primarily a moral code, why should Christians pay attention to the Bible’s moral commands?  Couldn’t they just live any way they choose?  Why do churches differ so widely on what moral commands they consider applicable to Christians, and how do I know which church is right on this matter?

First and foremost, Christianity is about Jesus forgiving sins and giving eternal life, as a gift, and as a result of His crucifixion.  Consequently, Christianity is not primarily a moral code, but the Bible’s moral commands do act in service to this primary purpose of distributing forgiveness and eternal life. 

This is because those moral commands first, convict those who do not yet trust in Jesus that they have displeased God and cannot correct the problem themselves; then, once a person does trust in Jesus, which results in a desire to live in a God-pleasing manner, these commands describe what that godly life looks like. 

Even though Christianity is not primarily a moral code, its moral commands do still matter, and it is important that we be able to accurately identify what they are.  In order to make this identification, it is first necessary to acknowledge the ground rule that the Bible will be the sole source for making such a determination.  Secondly, it is necessary to read the Bible accurately. 

The first important part of this is to read the Bible like any other book—that is to look at the whole text rather than reading a verse apart from its wider context; consider the language and structure (subjects, verbs, objects, setting, main ideas, etc.); understand what type of writing is being presented (prophecy, poetry, history, etc.) and how the book or verse fits into the broader picture. 

Then it is necessary, to the highest degree possible to separate oneself as the reader from any presuppositions and read the text for what the text says rather than in light of one’s own experiences and biases.  Most importantly, know when to stop.  Sometimes the Bible just doesn’t answer certain questions, and we have to accept that.  Be confident in what the Bible has said, but don’t give in to the temptation to make it speak where it hasn’t really spoken.  Failure on the three points just mentioned can account for a vast majority of the differences between churches. 

Bible commentaries or Bibles that contain study notes can be helpful, but they also have the potential to be misleading, depending on their source.  Knowing Biblical Greek is the best possible tool to have at one’s disposal, but since time or cost would be prohibitive for most people to do this, settle for befriending a pastor who knows it.  Having expended the effort to learn it, he will be glad to speak with someone who appreciates and takes an interest in this rare ability. 

If evaluating a church, don’t just consider the moral commands but all teachings of a Church.  Whenever a church reflects what is taught in the Bible, it is acting as a true church, but whenever a church overrules a Biblical teaching to suit the leaders or the members, or if they teach in such a way that bends the Bible to fit their presuppositions rather than adjusting their presuppositions to align with the Bible, they are teaching falsely and leading people away from Jesus. 

All of this matters, because the Bible’s promises and commands are inseparable.  Disregard for the Bible’s commands ultimately undermines any confidence in its promises, and if its promises are undermined, it would be just as spiritually powerless as any mere idol statue that human hands have carved or sculpted over the centuries. 

Central Teaching/Moral Improvement

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on the central thing in Christianity:

Q:  What is the main thing in Christianity—the central idea or goal around which everything else revolves?  What is the place of things like a changed attitude or moral improvement in Christianity?

If a Sunday School teacher were to ask her students to answer this question with a single word, they would most likely give the answer that Sunday School students always give when they don’t know the answer:  “Jesus.”  On this occasion, that answer would be correct.  Now, since every teaching of Christianity either comes from Jesus or points to Jesus, it will be necessary to answer an additional question:  “What did Jesus come to accomplish?” 

The purpose for which Jesus came was to forgive sins, resulting in eternal life for all who would trust in Him.  He accomplished this by living perfectly and dying innocently as our substitute, therefore fulfilling the law of God and suffering the punishment of God in our place.  The consequence of this is that all who rely on Him and His life and death in their place are credited by God with a perfect life and as having the punishment for their sins already served, with the result that at death their souls rest with Christ at death and then they will live forever after the Resurrection on the Last Day.

Because this is thoroughly a gift from God to the Christian, we call this God’s grace, and this grace is distributed to humans through Churches where the message of Jesus is taught and proclaimed from the Bible, and Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are administered as means through which this grace, won by Jesus, is delivered to individual Christians. 

Everything else which follows in Christianity is built upon the foundation of those two truths.  Unless God forgives sins, none of the other blessings found in Christianity are relevant, because if one remains a sinner in God’s eyes (and even one imperfection renders that judgment) everything else, whether good deeds done by the individual or positive attitudes experienced by the individual, are immaterial. 

The place of our moral improvement or positive attitude in Christianity is as a result of having sins forgiven.  God’s forgiving is not merely a step on the way to a greater goal of moral improvement, but instead, moral improvement is an inevitable consequence of one’s sins being forgiven by God.  God does desire us to live morally and be empowered to deal in a healthy way with the challenges of life, but it is not the central thing in Christianity.

Regrettably, dislocating moral improvement in the life of the church occurs all too frequently—either by improperly elevating it to the goal and central aspect of Christianity, or by disregarding it entirely as unimportant, and it is precisely this dislocation that is at the root of many of the disagreements among Christians about moral issues today. 

One camp desires to approve and encourage any act that individuals feel in their hearts is moral, even when there are clear Scriptural prohibitions to the contrary; while another adamantly defends The Bible’s moral commands, but in doing so, at least gives the appearance, if not outright stating, that certain sins are worse than others—a clearly un-Scriptural position.  Both of these equal-but-opposite errors occur because moral improvement has been dislocated in the life and teaching of a Church or its members. 

When Christian morality is held up as a good and important thing; but the grace and forgiveness of God through Christ alone, and the delivery of it to the gathered saints, are retained as the most important goal and central activity of the Church, steady balance is retained and the truth shines forth.  Whenever these priorities become dislocated, the foundation becomes unstable and the truth is obscured.

Pastoral Absolution

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the validity of public absolution:

Q:  When visiting a church on Sunday, I observed that the congregation began the service with a Confession of Sins, and at the end of that Confession, the pastor said to the congregation, “I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  Can the pastor forgive sins or only God?  Does the pastor also have the power to refuse to forgive sins?

The Confession described here is the opening element of services in many liturgical churches.  It functions in much the same way that private confessions do, but in this case, confession is done generally, as a group, with specific individual sins recounted only silently rather than named individually to the priest or pastor. 

Much like private confession, the pastor’s declaration of forgiveness is, in Martin Luther’s words, “just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord had dealt with us Himself.”  Even though this may be an uncomfortable thought for many individualistic do-it-yourself Americans, and even though all who trust Jesus have their sins forgiven, the idea that God desires to deliver forgiveness in specific ways, which involve pastors, also is Biblical. 

In Matthew 16, we see Jesus promise this authority to Peter, saying, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  In this case, Jesus promises that this authority will be given in the future, and makes the promise to Peter individually.  However, when Jesus fulfills this promise, as recorded in John 20, saying, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you…  Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld,” He grants this authority not only to Peter, but to all of His disciples, and by extension to the pastors who would follow them in coming generations. 

This is not to say, however, that pastors may grant or withhold forgiveness according to their own whim or based on their own standards.  Instead, they are called to grant and to withhold forgiveness solely as a reflection of what God has already determined by God in heaven, which the Greek words John writes in these verses make clear.  In private confession, this means that pastors forgive those who acknowledge and repent of their sins, but withhold from those who refuse to acknowledge their sins or repent of them.  Since pastors are not capable of judging anyone’s heart, they must base their actions on what is declared or confessed by the person seeking forgiveness.  Likewise in public confession, the absolution is given under the assumption that those confessing are confessing sincerely. 

Additionally, pastors do not forgive sins as independent agents, nor do they have the power within themselves to forgive or withhold sins.  Instead, they have been called to a particular office to act on behalf of Jesus and His Church, and their authority to forgive sins is exercised in the congregation “in the stead and by the command” of Jesus, as is stated in the absolution itself.  Another way to say it is that when the pastor is forgiving sins, Jesus is forgiving sins; or that Jesus forgives sins through the pastor. 

So, it would not be possible for a pastor to improperly keep God’s forgiveness from getting to a person or to effectually grant forgiveness when the person was unrepentant.  If it would happen that a pastor were to attempt to act in violation of Jesus command or apart from the proper authority to do so, the warnings and promises of Scripture would still prevail respectively for the benefit of the repentant and the condemnation of the unrepentant, in spite of a mistaken or improper act of the pastor.

Technology/Demonic

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about demonic activity through technology:

Q:  Can Satan use electronic devices, such as computers or televisions to tempt humans?  Would a demon come to someone through one of these devices?  What you would recommend to someone who thinks this is happening?  Could this really be the case, or might they be hallucinating?

The topic of demonic activity is one that we in the United States often disregard, but there are real beings—both good and evil—in spiritual realms.  Scripture is quite clear that the demonic world is real and that it is not something to take lightly. In fact, the Bible even attributes such things as false religions (1 Corinthians 10) and false doctrine (1 Timothy 4) as actually being the work of demons, done for the purpose of misleading people in regard to spiritual things.

The most important thing to remember when speaking of demons is what their purpose is--to lead people away from trusting in Jesus. Sometimes they do this deliberately and obviously, such as by tempting a person to curse God or commit sin. On other occasions, they might work more deceptively in quite the opposite manner--by leading a person to be moral or religious, but to rely on their morality or religiosity instead of the sacrifice of Jesus to receive God's blessing.   

Additionally, we often mischaracterize how a demon might appear.  Because demons intend to deceive their victims, not merely scare them, and because they desire to do spiritual, not physical harm, it is highly unlikely that one will ever encounter an oozing, screeching, visible being such as those portrayed in many supernatural dramas on television.  Instead, one may only observe the temptation or false idea itself without detecting the demon which inspired it.  In any case, it may at times be very clear that spiritual forces of evil are at work, while at others, they may be quite invisible, subtle, and deceptive.

Regarding the specific case of digital communication being the medium for demonic activity, I would not rule it out, but I imagine the mechanism is slightly different than many would imagine.  So, for example, it seems unlikely that a demon would possess a digital device or communicate directly with a person through it. However, it is highly likely that a demon would tempt a person to misuse a digital device in a way that would lead people away from Jesus.

An excellent example of this would be internet pornography or similarly inappropriate digital conversations. These would be perfect illustrations of the sort of thing a demonic force would love to have a person become entrenched in, and I have heard anecdotal evidence that many (men especially) have experienced demonic encounters that are directly or indirectly connected to habitual inappropriate uses of the internet. Obviously, this is just one of many ways in which they might tempt a person to sin by misusing technology, and the particular temptation might vary from person to person, manifesting in things such as habitual electronic gambling or neglect of one’s duties as a parent or employee in favor of wasteful internet use.

To summarize, it is entirely possible that a demon would use the TV, internet, or other forms of technology as a means to lead a person into something that will serve as an obstacle between them and Jesus. The best way to discern what one is experiencing in a particular circumstance would be to find a competent, Biblical, and trustworthy pastor in order to describe the problem in detail and seek his guidance.  Because situations like this are so individual that no generic response will be able to do justice to the situation, personally involved pastoral care is the best resource.

Paraphrase Bibles

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about story/paraphrase Bibles:

Q:  Are alternative formats for the Bible a good tool for Christians to use?  What does one gain or lose by using a chronological or story Bible or a paraphrase instead of a typical translation?

Probably the earliest alternative Bible formats to be produced were intended to be used with children.  Picture Bibles were produced for children who had not yet learned to read, and illustrated Bible Story Books were produced for children in the process of learning to read.  Some of these books, particularly the older hand-illustrated ones, are beautiful works of art which also served as excellent teaching tools for introducing the Bible to children at a young age and beginning their instruction in the Faith.

More recently, books have begun to appear for adults which place excerpts from the Bible in chronological order formatted as a story or a novel.  One thing that people often find challenging when first interacting with Scripture is that it consists of several different genres arranged thematically rather than chronologically.  So the Old Testament begins with all of the history books, continues with the poetic writings, then concludes with the record of the prophets.  Likewise the New Testament is divided into the four Gospels and the Epistles (letters), with the books of Acts (history) and Revelation (prophecy) included as the fifth and last books respectively. 

The authors of chronological or story Bibles intend to make the Bible easier to understand by smoothing these various genres into a continuous narrative and placing them in chronological order, and pastors may find some beneficial uses for these attempts, such as guiding a new believer through the Bible for the first time, much like parents might use a picture Bible or Bible story book with their children.

These Bibles do serve to remind us something that has sometimes been overlooked in the most recent era of Christianity—that, beyond being a source of inspirational quotes and proof-texts for doctrine, the Bible is a record of God’s actions from creation until the death of St. John the Evangelist to rescue humanity from the deserved punishment for our rebellion against Him. 

However, this style of Bible does have its weaknesses.  The first of these is that it does not include the whole story.  Because an editor has chosen the highlights of the story, the reader is at his mercy to choose which parts of the Bible are more or less important than others.  This means that bias of the editor may result in overemphasis on certain minor themes or the omission of important details not favored by the editor.

Additionally, since these editions of the Bible are not translations of the Bible text but paraphrases, one is reading the paraphraser’s impressions of a given verse or story rather than the actual text of the Scriptures.  This was a criticism often leveled against early paraphrases of the Bible such as The Living Bible or the Good News Bible, because the biases of the paraphraser can cloud the understanding of the reader.  While this is a concern with any translation of the Bible other than the original Greek and Hebrew, the concern is amplified when dealing with a paraphrase. 

When one considers that some of the popular translations of the Bible have been rated at a 7^th grade reading level, and even the King James Version is evaluated to be readable for the average high-school Senior, paraphrasing the text seems unnecessary.  This is one reason that, until recently, most seminaries required a working knowledge of at least Greek, and usually Hebrew, for every man who desired to become a parish pastor—so that he would be able to assist his parishioners in passages that may be difficult to understand or to translate concisely. 

Some pastors may find that chronological or story Bibles have a limited benefit for introducing the broad outline of the Bible for some people under their instruction, but because the various parts of the Bible are so intricately intertwined and interdependent, it would be difficult for a reader to gain a mature understanding of the Bible or a full appreciation for its depth using only such resources. 

Build Churches or Help the Poor?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of church resources:

Q:  Is a Christian allowed to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment?  Does the Bible require us to use all available means, no matter how unlikely the chance of success, to extend the life of a person who is critically or terminally ill?  How do we know when it is appropriate to proceed with, discontinue, or refuse treatment?

Knowing how to handle a life-threatening medical condition can be a very difficult thing, especially when we are making decisions for a parent or other relative who is not able to express their preferences at the time of treatment, as is often the case in situations where we are faced with questions such as this. 

For the Christian, life is always a gift from God to be honored and protected.  When we make decisions regarding our own treatment or that of a loved one under our care, this is our starting point.  We desire to respect life as God has given it and care for it in a way which honors Him.  We frequently hear this principle applied to life’s beginning at conception, but it equally applies to life’s end. 

Because modern medical technology did not exist during the times when the Bible was written, we do not find extensive guidance on choosing a course of medical treatment.  However, since the Fifth Commandment says, “You shall not murder,” it and its accompanying explanations in the Bible serve as our boundaries in this sort of decision. 

To begin with, actively and intentionally ending our own life or that of a loved one is never an option for the Christian.  The only circumstances in which the Bible does not consider causing a person’s death to be murder are genuine accidents, self-defense, and government’s authority to execute criminals and defend its citizens through war.  Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and any other active and intentional killing of the patient are therefore not an option.

We also do not withhold essential provisions such as food, water, and oxygen from a person for the purpose of hastening their death, nor should a person refuse such things as long as they are able to receive them through normal means.  At the same time, one is not required to go to employ extraordinary or invasive means to receive or provide them. 

When Martin Luther explains the Fifth Commandment, he summarizes the Bible’s guidance in this way: “We should…not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need.”  Our goal when making the sort of decisions described here is to help and not harm the person receiving care.  We want to honor God’s gift of life by making our best efforts to heal and save, but also we do not want to needlessly cause or prolong suffering beyond the likelihood of recovery. 

This can be difficult, because we have no way to know with absolute certainty what the outcome will be, so as we make these decisions we are always ultimately leaving the person in God’s hands.  We do our best to serve them with our decisions, and trust Him to guide the outcome for their benefit. 

As we do so, it is important to honor their wishes whenever possible.  If they have expressed to us a desire regarding treatment, we should honor those desires.  When they have not expressed a desire or the decision goes beyond what they have communicated, we seek to always do whatever is best for them—whatever will bring the most help or the least harm in a given situation, and provide them the highest degree of comfort possible in the process. 

When the person receiving care is a Christian, we have an added consolation, because whatever the outcome, it will be for their benefit.  The Apostle Paul said, “To live is Christ, and to die is gain,” and the book of Acts tells us that “through many tribulations we enter the kingdom of God.”  This means that if the treatment is successful, they will spend more time receiving God’s blessing on earth, but if the treatment fails, their soul will rest with Jesus to await the Resurrection on the last day when they will be fully and permanently healed. 

As is often the case, the variety of circumstances is seemingly endless, so every situation will have its own unique characteristics.  Although we have general boundaries within which to proceed, the guidance of doctors and pastors is of immeasurable value when making any particular decision. 

Refusing Medical Treatment

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about treating terminal illness:

Q:  Is a Christian allowed to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment?  Does the Bible require us to use all available means, no matter how unlikely the chance of success, to extend the life of a person who is critically or terminally ill?  How do we know when it is appropriate to proceed with, discontinue, or refuse treatment?

Knowing how to handle a life-threatening medical condition can be a very difficult thing, especially when we are making decisions for a parent or other relative who is not able to express their preferences at the time of treatment, as is often the case in situations where we are faced with questions such as this. 

For the Christian, life is always a gift from God to be honored and protected.  When we make decisions regarding our own treatment or that of a loved one under our care, this is our starting point.  We desire to respect life as God has given it and care for it in a way which honors Him.  We frequently hear this principle applied to life’s beginning at conception, but it equally applies to life’s end. 

Because modern medical technology did not exist during the times when the Bible was written, we do not find extensive guidance on choosing a course of medical treatment.  However, since the Fifth Commandment says, “You shall not murder,” it and its accompanying explanations in the Bible serve as our boundaries in this sort of decision. 

To begin with, actively and intentionally ending our own life or that of a loved one is never an option for the Christian.  The only circumstances in which the Bible does not consider causing a person’s death to be murder are genuine accidents, self-defense, and government’s authority to execute criminals and defend its citizens through war.  Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and any other active and intentional killing of the patient are therefore not an option.

We also do not withhold essential provisions such as food, water, and oxygen from a person for the purpose of hastening their death, nor should a person refuse such things as long as they are able to receive them through normal means.  At the same time, one is not required to go to employ extraordinary or invasive means to receive or provide them. 

When Martin Luther explains the Fifth Commandment, he summarizes the Bible’s guidance in this way: “We should…not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need.”  Our goal when making the sort of decisions described here is to help and not harm the person receiving care.  We want to honor God’s gift of life by making our best efforts to heal and save, but also we do not want to needlessly cause or prolong suffering beyond the likelihood of recovery. 

This can be difficult, because we have no way to know with absolute certainty what the outcome will be, so as we make these decisions we are always ultimately leaving the person in God’s hands.  We do our best to serve them with our decisions, and trust Him to guide the outcome for their benefit. 

As we do so, it is important to honor their wishes whenever possible.  If they have expressed to us a desire regarding treatment, we should honor those desires.  When they have not expressed a desire or the decision goes beyond what they have communicated, we seek to always do whatever is best for them—whatever will bring the most help or the least harm in a given situation, and provide them the highest degree of comfort possible in the process. 

When the person receiving care is a Christian, we have an added consolation, because whatever the outcome, it will be for their benefit.  The Apostle Paul said, “To live is Christ, and to die is gain,” and the book of Acts tells us that “through many tribulations we enter the kingdom of God.”  This means that if the treatment is successful, they will spend more time receiving God’s blessing on earth, but if the treatment fails, their soul will rest with Jesus to await the Resurrection on the last day when they will be fully and permanently healed. 

As is often the case, the variety of circumstances is seemingly endless, so every situation will have its own unique characteristics.  Although we have general boundaries within which to proceed, the guidance of doctors and pastors is of immeasurable value when making any particular decision. 

Can Jesus be Tempted?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on the temptation of Jesus:

Q:  How could Satan tempt Jesus in the wilderness as described in the Gospels, when in James 1:13 the Bible says that God cannot be tempted with evil?

This question requires much care, because it touches on two of the most foundational doctrines of the Faith (The Trinity, and the Two Natures of Christ), and because these two truths are considered by many to be “mysteries” – that is, teachings that the Bible declares, but leaves an unresolved tension, because understanding them is beyond our natural capabilities. 

To begin with, God is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but there is one God, not three.  All three persons are equally God and have all the attributes of God, yet there are things we can say about one that we cannot say about the others.  For example, it is proper to say “God died” because Jesus died by crucifixion and Jesus is God the Son.  However, we could not say “God the Father died.” or “The Holy Spirit died,” because only the Son was crucified.  Similarly, only the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove at Jesus’ Baptism, while the Father and the Son did not. 

In a similar way, Jesus is fully God and fully human at the same time, yet only one person.  He is not half God and half human or sometimes God and sometimes human, but always completely God and completely human simultaneously.  Because of this, we cannot separate these two natures in Jesus in such a way as to say that only His divine nature did a thing or only His human nature did a thing.  If Jesus did a thing, then both natures did it, and if a thing can be said of one nature (divine or human), then it must be said of the other as well, because it is attributed to His whole person and not only to one nature.

When we look at the events of Jesus’ temptation by Satan in the wilderness, we see the above truths put into action.  Since Jesus is being tempted, Satan is trying to tempt God.  However, it is only the Son whom he is tempting, but not the Father or the Holy Spirit. 

When James says that God cannot be tempted, the word he uses for “God” can sometimes refer to God as a whole (all three persons) and at others refers only to the Father.  Additionally, the words used to reference the temptation differ in the two verses.  When James says that God “cannot be tempted,” the word is actually an adjective and means that God is “un-temptable.”  The word focuses on God’s inability to give in to the temptation, not the inability of anyone to try. 

However, when Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of Jesus’ “being tempted,” they use a related word that is a verb.  This Greek verb conveys a significant amount of meaning that is not immediately observable in English.  In this case, the verb is passive, meaning that the devil is doing the tempting, and Jesus is the target.  However, this verb does not imply success by Satan, or surrender on the part of Jesus, but only the attempts of Satan to tempt Him.  Therefore, the Gospel-writers are not implying in any way that Jesus was lured by the temptation, but only that the devil was trying to tempt Him into sin.

The book of Hebrews also addresses the temptation of Jesus, saying, “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (4:14-15) 

In these verses, the temptations Jesus faced are described as just as real as those faced by every other person.  As human, the temptations were just as hard to resist as those faced by every other person, but as God it was completely contrary to His nature to give in to them.  As a result, Jesus was truly tempted in every way, but because He is “un-temptable” God, He successfully resisted them without sin—not just during His 40 days in the wilderness, but also during the 30 years prior and the three which would follow—culminating at the crucifixion when He was tempted by onlookers to escape the cross, but remained steadfast, suffering the wrath of God for the sin of the world as our substitute.

Contraception Mandate

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the contraception mandate:

Q:  Why has there been so much opposition among religious leaders about the government’s new mandate concerning insurance coverage for contraception?  Does the Bible say that it is a sin to use birth control?

Most news coverage of this issue has focused on the Roman Catholic Bishops’ public opposition to this mandate.  The particular reason for their opposition is because this policy would require them to provide contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization surgery in their health plans—all of which are forbidden according to Roman Catholic doctrine. 

Even though there is a narrow exemption covering churches themselves, the exemption does not extend to non-church religious employers, such as religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools, colleges, and social service agencies.  This results in a circumstance where many religiously-affiliated employers would be forced to pay for and provide drugs and procedures to which their doctrine and conscience are opposed or face extreme fines and penalties.  Even after the accommodation announced the following week by the administration, which shifts the responsibility of providing the services to the insurer rather than the employer, they argue that the cost of these services would still be paid by employers who self-insure their plans or passed on in their premiums in cases where the organization purchases insurance, thus forcing them to provide for services they consider morally wrong.

This mandate and the previously-mentioned opposition have sometimes been framed as a women’s health issue, but the opposition is not on the grounds of disagreements over the services offered, but rather on the grounds of religious freedom.  The religious leaders opposing this mandate are not asking that the services be made illegal, nor are they asking that other employers and insurers be forbidden from providing them.  Instead, they argue that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from requiring them to provide and pay for services to which they are morally opposed.

There are a great many non-Catholic Christian leaders who have joined the opposition to this mandate.  Their participation is not because of contraception, or even surgical sterilization, because their doctrine does not forbid it, but rather because abortion-inducing drugs, such as the morning-after pill are included in the mandate.  They argue that providing coverage for their employees to receive abortion-inducing drugs amounts to participation in murder according to the teachings of their churches because these drugs are known to cause the death of an already-conceived child.  Since the Bible treats unborn children as persons and speaks of them being already known by God and formed by Him, they consider abortion of any kind to be murder, and many of them have stated that they would be jailed rather than participate in such an act.

Many of the denominations which are opposing this mandate, including my own (The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) typically avoid taking stands on political issues.  They refuse to endorse candidates for public office, the denomination and its leaders do not publicly affiliate themselves with any political party, do not have Washington offices or lobbyists, and do not accept federal funding to do their work.

They urge their parishioners to pay their taxes and participate in their civic duty even if the government acts immorally, and they believe in obeying the government, even when one does not like its laws.  At the same time they also believe, according to Acts 5:29, that Christians “must obey God rather than man.”  So, when this mandate was announced, they felt compelled to speak out, because the government was obligating them to materially participate in acts they consider immoral.  Their demand was not that the government obey the Bible, but rather that the government honor the nations commitments embodied in the Constitution by not interfering in their freedom of religion and conscience. 

As to the question of the propriety of birth control in general, the Bible, at all times, considers children to be a blessing to a husband and wife from God, and defends their lives, even while yet unborn, causing the majority of Christians throughout history to insist that aborting them would be murder, including contraceptive methods that could cause already-conceived children to die.  However, it is silent on birth control methods that prevent conception by use of barriers or preventing ovulation, leaving these methods as matters of conscience to be decided between husbands and wives.

Wine or Grape Juice

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of wine in the Lord's Supper:

Q:  Why do some churches use wine for Communion and others use grape juice?  What did Jesus use in the first Lord’s Supper and what are the potential consequences if we use something else?  What alternatives does a person have who has been advised not to consume alcohol because of alcoholism or for medical reasons?

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the night He was betrayed, He was eating the Passover meal with His disciples.  This fact, along with the words Jesus used, does a great deal to reveal to us what was in the cup that Jesus was using on that evening. 

First, the wine was made from grapes, because Jesus refers to it as “fruit of the vine,” which would exclude wine made from any other fruits.  We also know that grape wine was used in the Passover meal and that the wine was fermented wine. 

In addition to the traditions of the Passover meal, the Greek word used in the Bible for the drink used in the Lord’s Supper specifically means fermented wine.  If it were anything else, the authors would have used a different word or modified the word for “wine” with an additional word to describe the difference. 

Further evidence can be found in that the Passover is celebrated in the Spring.  Because Pasteurization and Refrigeration had not yet been invented, it would only be possible for a person to drink unfermented grape juice immediately during the grape harvest, because within a matter of days, the juice would begin to ferment as a result of the heat and the natural yeasts found on the skin of the grapes.

Throughout history, churches have typically attempted to use the same elements as the original institution to the closest degree possible.  This is because God’s command includes specific elements and His promises are tied to those elements.  While we cannot say whether the wine was red or white, or what grape it was made from, or the particular alcohol content, we do know that it was fermented grape wine. 

For Christians who believe that Jesus body and blood really become present in the Lord’s Supper and that the Lord’s Supper does forgive sins, the consequence of changing the elements is that it has the potential to introduce doubt concerning whether the Sacrament is valid and capable of delivering the blessing God has promised. 

Typically, when grape juice is used exclusively in congregations, it is in congregations with one or both of two teachings as a part of their theology.  The first of these is a belief that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper represent or symbolize Jesus’ body and blood rather than being His body and blood.  As a result of this belief, using grape juice does not present concerns about the Sacrament’s validity for them. 

The second of these is that they have some level of discomfort with the use of alcohol by Christians, sometimes even to the point of considering all alcohol consumption sinful.  Since they cannot reconcile the use of fermented wine with this belief, they resolve the tension by using unfermented grape juice. 

Occasionally, even Sacramental denominations will offer unfermented grape juice as an alternative for those who struggle with alcoholism or have been medically advised not to consume alcohol.  However, in light of other alternatives many pastors are now finding even this concession unnecessary. 

For example, there are a variety of wines available on today’s market which have been fermented in the usual manner, but distilled to 0.5% alcohol content, resulting in a true wine that is virtually without alcohol.  Another option is to use the normal communion wine offered in the congregation, but dilute it with water to the point where the alcohol content is insignificant. 

Many have also found a return to using the chalice (common cup) as an excellent alternative, because the communicant can merely allow the wine to touch their lips rather than consuming the entire contents of an individual cup.  Many alcoholics also report that receiving wine during communion by the pastor’s hand from a common cup is such a different experience from receiving an alcoholic drink by their own hand that it eliminates the temptation to return to their alcoholic behaviors. 

In addition to these practical reasons, since we know that Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper for our benefit, we can have a faithful confidence that God would certainly not allow a Christian to suffer spiritual harm in a Sacrament intended to bless them.