"God is love."

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the statement "God is love."

Q:  If “God is love” as it says in 1 John 4, then why do so many other parts of the Bible seem so unloving?    

As with many challenging portions of scripture, the first step to understanding what is being said is to realize that we are reading something that was written by someone in a different culture, to readers from a different culture, and in a different language than the translation we are reading from. 

On many occasions, words from other languages do not have a direct equivalent in English, leaving translator to come as close as they are able, yet still rendering the idea imperfectly.  Other times, even though there is an adequate English word to select in translation, the concept carries ideas in one culture that differ from those it conveys in another. 

In this example from the Epistles of John, “God is…” is a fairly straightforward translation.  Even “love” is a relatively safe translation—although there are several Greek terms which reflect particular aspects of the very broad English word, love—but most of the difficulty for Americans for understanding this statement comes in the cultural baggage which clings to the concept of “love.” 

Our culture tends to focus on love as a sentiment or emotion that is experienced by and between people.  For us, love tends to be an expression of desire, attraction, or affection.  It is understood as something experienced or felt within. 

In keeping with this understanding, many would argue that if an action or a relationship flows from this sort of internal, emotional motives, then it must be pure.  It must be good.  It must be right.  Many might argue that if the entity or experience they are describing fits this description, then it must be approved by God.  It is assumed that if something feels right it must be right, and that if it is accompanied by the expected emotional characteristics, then that serves as confirmation of its goodness before God. 

But such an approach fits better with the statement “Love is God” than “God is love.”  This is because in this sort of statement, the first word is a known quantity and the second depends on it for definition.  So, the natural approach of most Americans assumes and cultural understanding of love, then continues to build an understanding of God based on that assumption. 

John, on the other hand, does the opposite.  He begins with a history of God’s words and deeds.  By the time John write this letter, the entire Old Testament, all four Gospels, all of Paul’s epistles, and several other New Testament books have already been written.  These documents provide a verifiable definition of who God is and what His will is.  That, John says, is the definition of love. 

So, whatever we understand love to be must be consistent with the character of God, who is the very definition of love.  If God did something, it was loving.  If God commands it, that is loving.  This is true even when it seems hateful or horrible to us.  If it conflicts with God’s prior commands, it is not love, no matter how it feels.  If it is not consistent with the character of God revealed in previous scripture, it is not love, regardless of assumptions to the contrary. 

John even gives the prime example of love in the same chapter when He says, “In this is love, not that we have loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

So, when John says, “God is love,” he is describing to his readers what their lives as Christians are to look like—that as people who have been forgiven by God, called by God, and chosen by God, they now reflect the character of the God who has made them His own, not that they begin with their own desires, assumptions, or understandings, then arrive at conclusions about God in light of them. 

Are babies saved without Baptism?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about whether infants and young children can be saved:

Q:  If Jesus is the only way to salvation, then what happens to the souls of children who die before they are old enough to express their trust in Jesus to save them?    

The heavy emotional impact of the answer as well as the lack of a clear, concise statement in Scripture that, “all children are saved” or “all unbaptized children are condemned,” make this one of the most difficult questions that Christian theology must make sense of.

Even though we cannot judge with absolute certainty when we deal with questions of salvation in others, we have some indications from mature persons, such as their own statements affirming faith, or at the very least, we understand their regular attendance at a church to mean that they believed what was taught there; but with infants and young children, we lack this sort of observable testimony to faith, making this a particularly challenging exercise in Biblical discernment.

Numerous attempts have been made over the centuries to alleviate this uncertainty regarding deceased children and therefore give Christian parents hope (or in some cases anxiety) about the eternal state of these young deceased: 

Some have proposed that all children who have not attained the ability to recognize or form intent to sin are innocent and therefore saved.  A related proposition acknowledges that children are guilty of sin but that it is not counted against them until they attain the ability to understand and believe the Gospel. 

Others have proposed that those who have not been Baptized are absolutely condemned.  Still others have proposed that there is a neutral third place (sometimes called “Limbo”) for those who die apart from the opportunity to receive God’s grace through the preached Gospel or the Sacraments. 

Because of the lack of a single-sentence answer in the Bible, it means that Scriptural answers will have to bring together evidence from throughout the Bible.  When formulating such a Biblical answer to this difficult question, there are several factors to take into consideration. 

First, Scripture is very clear that salvation must come through Jesus, so any answer which proposes salvation apart from Jesus cannot be considered.  Similarly, the only means through which Scripture promises God’s grace, won by Jesus, will be delivered are the Gospel and the Sacraments, particularly Baptism, so any solution which proposes a connection to Jesus through any other means is, likewise, unreliable. 

Additionally, because Paul and James clearly indicate the sinfulness of “all people” in their epistles, and because in the Psalms King David specifically applies this judgment to begin “from birth, from the time my mother conceived me,” answers which deny the children’s guilt for sin prior to their ability to observably commit sin are also unbiblical. 

Finally, there is no scriptural evidence for the existence of any “third place,” and a statement approved by Pope Benedict several years ago eliminated the rationale to teach of such a place based on church tradition. 

In spite of the clarity of the Bible that children are also guilty of sin and that forgiveness can only come because of Jesus, this does not mean that children are condemned by default until an age where they can hear and trust the Gospel.  Scripture gives numerous occasions for hope for children’s forgiveness and salvation. 

Peter’s promise that “Baptism now saves you,” and that “the promise is for you and your children,” along with our Lord’s instruction to “Let the little children come to Me,” are the clearest invitation to apply God’s grace to our children through Baptism and thereby gain certain hope that they have received God’s grace. 

Even when Baptism has not been possible, such as a stillbirth or a sudden accident, Scripture gives ample reason for hope.  This includes the faith of John the Baptizer even prior to birth (Luke 1), David’s declaration of His deceased newborn son’s salvation in 2 Samuel, along with numerous indications that Jesus dies for “the world” and that God desires to save “all people.” 

Martin Luther also found hope for the salvation of the children of Christian parents based on God’s promise to answer the prayers of those who trust in Him, combined with the fact that their parents had certainly prayed for them prior to their birth. 

Ultimately, although we cannot pronounce with absolute certainty the salvation of unbaptized children (or of anyone other than ourselves for that matter), and although why and how remains shrouded in mystery, the plentiful promises and revelations of God’s merciful character found in Scripture mean that there is certainly no cause for despair or anxiety when children of Christian parents die prior to Baptism.

Hypnosis

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Hypnosis:

Q:  How should Christians approach hypnosis, whether the self-help variety used to quit smoking or lose weight, or the entertainment variety that is often seen during prom season? 

Even though there are diverse methods and definitions, the common thread that defines hypnosis as an intentional practice seems to be that the practitioner of hypnosis induces upon another person a mental state other than that in which they normally exist.  Characteristics of this mental state might include such things as sleepiness, increased suggestibility, decreased inhibitions, or heightened concentration. There are even natural hypnotic states that occur spontaneously, such as when a person spaces out while watching television or becomes sleepy as a result of the motion of riding in a vehicle.

As noted in the question, there are also a variety of purposes for which hypnosis is employed.  Sometimes, it is merely for entertainment (stage hypnosis).  Other times, it is used to achieve behavioral ends, such as smoking cessation or weight loss, or as an attempt to relieve pain, phobias, or anxiety.  On other occasions, hypnosis is used as a spiritual discipline for recovering memories, particularly those from supposed past lives in a cycle of reincarnation. 

For Christians, this final purpose of hypnosis would obviously be inappropriate.  Since we know that humans live once, are judged at death, and will one day be resurrected to live out the rewards or consequences of that judgment, any past-life memories are certainly fraudulent and to be rejected.  Likewise, even if hypnosis were to be used only for the purpose of recovering memories within natural life, research regarding such results suggests that the recovered information is frequently unreliable. 

Similarly, for a Christian to subject oneself to a stage hypnotist seems unwise.  In many cases stage hypnotists use deception to make their acts appear genuine to audiences, which would make the Christian who participates with them complicit in deception or fraud.  Even when this is not the case, Christians should instinctively be cautious about an activity which causes them to yield any degree of control over their thoughts or behaviors to someone else, particularly in a scenario where they are likely to experience decreased inhibitions, and especially when the potential gain is merely entertainment and not more significant benefits such as found in the final category in the following paragraph.

This final category of hypnosis is probably the one for which it is most difficult to exclude Christians from participation.  Many people seeking behavioral change or relief from anxiety or physical pain do report benefits from hypnosis.  Although there is debate concerning whether these benefits are an actual result of hypnosis or a placebo effect, even beneficial results would not automatically allow participation, thus necessitating closer examination. 

Even though there are no Bible verses conclusively referring to hypnosis or necessarily naming participation in it a sin, several concerns would still exist for the Christian considering hypnosis.  First among these would be its connection to the meditation practices of Eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism and to cultic and New Age philosophies.  Since the Bible forbids Christians from engaging in the worship of other religions, this would require thorough contemplation and research on the part of the Christian before they engage the practice. 

Additionally, because of the reduced inhibitions or suggestibility often associated with hypnosis, the character and beliefs of the practitioner would be of great importance to the Christian considering hypnosis.  A practitioner who follows a false spirituality or is lacking character could potentially cause spiritual harm during the practice of hypnosis. Furthermore, the mental state associated with hypnosis does not seem to be consistent with Biblical admonitions to “be on your guard” (1 Cor. 16:13) or “Be alert and sober minded” (1 Peter 5:8). 

Finally, the orientation of Christianity is that we seek solutions to spiritual problems outside of ourselves (namely from Jesus) and that spiritual benefits are delivered through external means (namely the Bible, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper).  Hypnosis suggests the opposite—that we can achieve desired outcomes or overcome troubling behaviors and thoughts by looking deeper into ourselves—a reversal of the Biblical direction.

In his Large Catechism, Martin Luther defined a “god” as “That from which we seek the highest good.”  For this reason, it seems that even if hypnosis is not a sin, and even if hypnosis did not render a person vulnerable to spiritual harm or to sinning as a result of reduced inhibitions, even therapeutic hypnosis would be an ill-advised choice for Christians, because it seeks solutions to spiritual problems by human manipulation and introspective techniques rather than from God and His divinely-appointed means of delivery.

God in a Box?

Christians and Pornography

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about a Christian response to pornography:

Q:  What is the Christian approach to pornography?  Since a person is not engaging in a physical relationship outside of marriage and nobody is being hurt, is it still a sin?

The starting point for this question would be the same as any other inquiry about sexuality, which is the sixth commandment, “You shall not commit adultery,” along with Jesus’ explanation, “whoever looks with lust upon [another person] has already committed adultery in his heart.” 

Spiritually speaking, pornography, live shows featuring nudity, physical extra-marital affairs, and even inappropriate fantasies about other people who remain fully-clothed, are all violations of God’s intentions for human sexuality. 

God institutes all of the horizontal relationships of human life (father-child, mother-child, husband-wife, pastor-congregation, government-citizen, etc) to be reflections of the greater vertical relationships between God and humanity or Jesus and His Church, and whenever an alteration occurs, whether to the number or the identity of the participants, even if only in thought or fantasy, or to the permanence of the relationship, they fail to reflect the greater divine truth as he intended.   

Video or photographic depictions of other people, which are created for the purpose of arousing erotic desire certainly achieve this relational destruction in a similar manner to live nudity and physical affairs.  Although the practical consequences might build more slowly or seem less severe, the spiritual and relational destruction occur all the same. 

Practically, repeated studies have shown direct relationships between increased levels of pornography usage and decline in measures of marital satisfaction and the user’s desire or ability to please or be pleased by their partner intimately.

It has also been observed that habitual pornography usage alters responses in the human brain so that the ability to achieve pleasure or the degree of pleasure people experience from various forms of stimulus is diminished, which in turn causes a continuous increase in the amount of stimulus necessary to create the desired response, very similar to that observed in drug addiction. 

This often results in further increases in usage, (accompanied by increased withdrawal from health relationships and appropriate outlets) or sometimes escalation to other behaviors such as soliciting prostitutes and other risky sexual actions.

In addition to the marital consequences, many sources are beginning to report that fathers’ use of pornography negatively impacts their ability to relate to and express affection toward their daughters as they grow from little girls into young women, which then may manifest in undesirable emotional or behavioral consequences in their daughters. 

Even further, an alarming relationship has recently been observed between pornography and human trafficking, so that many of the women involved in the making of pornography (along with large numbers in prostitution and exotic dancing) are actually victims of kidnapping, rape, and other atrocities, who are deceived or forced into various forms of sexual slavery. 

Even those who enter this profession voluntarily report dramatically increased rates of mental illness, as well as alcohol and drug abuse as a consequence of the psychological trauma of their occupation.  Most experience short careers followed by extreme guilt and regret over their involvement.  Meanwhile those who produce and sell the product rake in yearly revenue that exceeds that of all professional sports combined.

Even if a person disagrees with the spiritual and moral evaluations of pornography usage based on Biblical commands, it ultimately has to be acknowledged that the human suffering created by the industry would inspire nearly-unanimous agreement that it is necessary to refrain from this product in order not to contribute to the extreme consequences experienced by those employed by the industry, as well as to avoid the negative impact on the marriages and families of those who use it. 

Christians and strip clubs

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about a Christian response to strip clubs and other "adult" entertainment venues:

Q:  Is it acceptable for Christians to patronize or operate “adult” entertainment establishments featuring things like nude dancing, peep shows, or other similar content?

In this life, we live in a world, in a nation, and in communities, that are populated entirely by sinners.  Some of these are forgiven, while others are not, but all are sinners the same.  Therefore, we should not be surprised when we see that Biblical morality fails to be reflected around us, and that every manner of disobedience is practiced openly, even as legal commerce.

The establishments described in the question would certainly be included under this description, but even though they might be legal, and even though the best attempts of Christians might fail to shield their communities from the harmful consequences of such establishments, it would not excuse Christians who disobey divine commands by operating or participating in them. 

Beginning in the earliest books of the Old Testament, where God lays out His commandments, a clear connection is drawn between nakedness and sexual sin.  “Adultery” in the sixth commandment is explained as not merely unfaithfulness in marriage, but as all sexual intimacy, even if imagined and not executed, that that occurs between anyone other than a husband and wife. 

We see this occurring with King David as he sees Bathsheba bathing on a rooftop.  His visual infidelity with another man’s wife eventually leads to physical expression of that infidelity and an unplanned pregnancy for Bathsheba.  In order to cover up the adultery, King David places Bathsheba’s husband Uriah in a military situation where he is certain to be killed and thus adds murder to the list of offenses, after which their child dies as a consequence of the chain of events. 

The Apostle Paul warns similarly in Ephesians that there should not even be “a hint” of sexual immorality among Christians, and to Timothy that young men and women ought to treat one another like siblings outside of marriage.  Even the most erotic book of the Bible, Song of Solomon, warns its readers not to awaken such desires prematurely (which is, prior to marriage). 

Jesus makes the clearest statement when He tells His followers, “You have heard it said that you shall not commit adultery, but I say to you, if a man even looks upon a woman with lustful intent, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  He gives us absolute certainty that there is not a certain plain which one may not cross or a certain base that one may not round.  Instead, the moment that the desire is entertained or the intent is formed, the sin has already been committed. 

All of these commands fit well with what we can observe in biology and human behavior, as we observe a near-automatic, even biochemically induced, jump from nudity to inappropriate sexual desire, if not actual consummation of such desire. With the exception of a few extraordinary individuals, the jump from seeing erotic dance, which has as its intentional outcome to arouse erotic desire, to entertaining lustful intent is unavoidable.

Therefore, patronizing, owning, or otherwise supporting such establishments would be unquestionably forbidden for Christians.  Whether a patron intentionally goes for the purpose of entertaining lust, or knowingly puts themselves in a position to be tempted by it in an effort to be more accepted by a group of peers, it is absolute misconduct for a Christian to engage in such activities.  At the very least, their economic support of the establishment participates in the owners’ sin of shamefully monetizing the bodies of the women they employ and commercially providing outlets for the already-rampant lust of their patrons.

As Christians, our identity is not be found in our morality, not are we to consider ourselves superior to those whose immorality is of a different, less socially-acceptable, variety than our own.  At the same time, there remains no excuse for Christians to openly engage in obvious immorality or to support those who provide opportunities for the same.

Christianity and Hate

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Christianity and hate:

Q:  Why does it seem that so many Christians hate or fear people who are different than them?  Why don’t we see more tolerance coming from churches?

The idea that many Christians harbor fear or hatred toward certain groups of people is an unfortunate misconception that probably stems from several sources.  One of these causes is a very small number of organizations that get a great deal of media attention because of their visible and extreme nature.  One of these organizations even threatened to make an appearance in Algona at a soldier’s funeral. 

However, these organizations include such a small minority of Christians that if one were to create a chart of the various approaches to Christianity, they would appear only as an asterisk at the bottom with the words, “various other groups composing fewer than 1 percent of the Christian population.”  In fact, the leading organization that opposes and blocks their visibly hateful demonstrations is composed primarily of Christians and opens its rallies with prayer by a designated chaplain.

Another source of this misconception is a modern assumption that disapproval or disagreement equate to hatred and fear.  In present discourse, whether it is a maliciously false accusation used for the purpose of silencing opposition, or if, more likely, it is an automatic, yet unwarranted hiccup in an otherwise reasonable person’s thought process, it is assumed that anything short of agreement and acceptance of another person’s actions stems from ill-will toward a group of people who share that behavior. 

A popular pastor and best-selling author, Rick Warren, answers this misconception wisely and concisely when he says, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.“

The truth is that the vast majority of Christians who take moral stands on the various social issues of our day have no fear or hatred whatsoever behind their position and display no fear or hatred in communicating their positions to the broader culture.  Instead, they hold these positions, because based on both spiritual convictions and careful observation of society, they believe that the actions they warn against cause harm to their neighbors who engage in them. 

Typically, the ministries and organizations they form to address these social issues seek to avoid vocal condemnation, and instead create systems and services which attempt, beyond purely spiritual solutions, to also provide practical assistance to those who find their lives disrupted and troubled by the choices they have made and the behaviors they have embraced. 

The idea of tolerance itself actually originated with Christianity.  It was Christians who first proposed that people of differing spiritual and moral convictions can live side-by-side without harassment or violence toward one another.  But tolerance as a concept has also been misunderstood in the present debates. 

Tolerance, properly defined, does not include acceptance of, or agreement with, opposing positions.  Instead, it is the acknowledgement of differences, perhaps even debate over them, after which those involved can continue to live as neighbors and fellow citizens of the same community, not by pretending that their disagreements do not exist or do not matter, but rather by agreeing not to harass or physically harm one another based on them. 

Ultimately both the majority of Christian denominations, as well as the congregations and individuals included in them, seek to maintain both of these emphases:  to be faithful to their genuine moral convictions, while at the same time being considerate and compassionate toward their neighbors with whom they disagree, as the Apostle Peter instructs, “Always be prepared to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”

Martin Luther and "Evangelical Calvinism"

Christianity Today published my Letter to the Editor in their April issue:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/april/letters-to-the-editor.html?paging=off

Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to see enough of the article for mine to be visible, so I've also included the text below:

The Way to Election

In "Election is for Everyone" [January/February], Roger Olson describes Martin Luther as being one of the "early reformers" whose understanding of election closely resembled the one commonly associated with Calvin.  I find this a serious mischaracterization.  Luther acknowledged God's receiving sole credit for salvation, but rejected the idea of God's electing to condemnation.  His view much more closely (although not quite identically) resembled the "third way" Olson identifies as evangelical Calvinism.  In truth, confessional Lutherans were the "third way" between Arminianism and Calvinism before either of them was even formulated.

Christian Food Laws

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Food Laws for Christians:

Q:  Do Christians have any food laws similar to the other religions of the world?

Across the religious spectrum, food seems to be a distinguishing characteristic.  The Hindu religion, among others, requires vegetarianism.  Buddhism encourages the same, but without making it absolutely mandatory.  Islam and Judaism both have regulations regarding animals from which their meat, milk, and eggs may be eaten and from which they may not. 

To give the clearest pictures of food laws in Christianity, it is necessary first to review the beginning of the story.  In the beginning, we can conclude that all of creation was vegetarian, because there was no death.  Some have concluded that this means God’s will is for humans to be forever vegetarian, but this is a very rare stance for Christians to take. 

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and brought sin into the world, that sin also brought death, and God Himself clothed them with the skins of animals to cover their shame.  At the end of the flood, God explicitly permits Noah and his descendants to have “every living thing that moves” as food.  This continues through the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel through their slavery in Egypt. 

After rescuing them from slavery to the Egyptians, God establishes a ritual separation between His people and the other nations of the world, and a part of that separation is the food laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which declared certain animals, their milk, and eggs, “clean” or “unclean.”  In addition to ritual separation, these laws, which parallel sacrificial standards, also point forward to Jesus as their fulfillment and serve to preserve His ancestral line from being assimilated into idolatrous nations. 

These laws are still followed by the Jewish people today, as well as by a very small minority of Christians who have taken about re-establishing these laws among themselves, either for ethical reasons (because they believe God desires Christians to follow them) or for practical reasons (because they see them as good practical advice, even though not morally required). 

Throughout the Old Testament, God confirmed these laws as a condition of the Israelites’ privilege of inhabiting their Promised Land, and criticized the Israelites when they failed to keep them.  Even though the Prophets criticize the Gentiles for their immorality and idolatry, they do not criticize them for their failure to keep these ritual standards; that they reserve only for Israel. 

As Mark (Ch. 7) records the events of Jesus life in his Gospel, he includes Jesus saying, “Whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him…what comes out of a person is what defiles him,” then explains that by this saying, Jesus “declared all foods clean.” 

In Acts 10, Peter is given a vision by God of a sheet coming down from heaven with “every kind of animal” on it, which God invites Peter to “Get up, kill, and eat.”  When Peter objects that he may not eat “unclean” creatures, God responds, “Do not call unclean what God has made clean.” 

In the book of Galatians, Paul describes the laws of Israel as being like a temporary guardian or schoolmaster set in place for Israel that is now unnecessary after the coming of Jesus, therefore returning Christians to the moral standards in place at the time of Abraham and Noah, rather than the additional civil and ceremonial standards set in place by the law of Moses. 

 Acts 15 records a council where the Apostles meet to resolve certain issues about the observance of the Old Testament law by Gentiles.  At this council, James advises Gentiles to refrain from sexual immorality, things polluted by idols, meat that has been strangled, and blood (taking for granted that they observe the Ten Commandments and other moral laws affirmed elsewhere in the New Testament). 

The three restrictions on food in this proclamation, however, are not a binding declaration for Christians of all times, but rather a compromise by the apostles to keep peace between the Jewish and Gentile Christians of that time and place.  We understand this because we see Paul giving both the Romans and the Corinthians more permissive advice regarding these things in his letters.

Ultimately, we see that arguments of food, drink, holidays, and such are completely foreign to the Spirit of Christianity, which emphasizes God’s forgiveness of our failure to keep His law and the free Grace delivered by the Holy Spirit to all who trust in Jesus, who on the Last Day will usher in an eternal feast of fine wine and meat without death (Isaiah 25).

Natural/Organic Foods

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Natural/Organic foods:

Q:  Is there a moral obligation for Christians to follow natural, organic, or other recently-popular food production methods which avoid the use of modern advancements to enhance yield/growth or protect crops/animals? 

This is a topic I have heard an increasing degree of advocacy for recently in Christian circles.  The reasoning typically follows the line that people ought to raise plants and animals in as close a state to the way God created them as possible. 

Some advocate this out of a belief that pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers on crops or antibiotics and hormones in animals are harmful to humans.  Others believe that alterations to the genetic composition of plants or enhancing the growth or immunity of animals is too close to “playing god.” 

Others do not object to the morality of these things, but feel that such practices are unwise for a wide array of reasons, from the sustainability of the practice to the long-term impact on the various species under these practices.  Another variation stems from the belief that humans ought to provide the most desirable and natural environment possible for animals during their lives out of respect for the fact that their death will eventually result in our being fed. 

Theologically, some of these reasons are lacking, however, because they fail to recognize the impact of sin on the world.  Human sin has impacted not only our actions, feelings, and emotions, but it has even broken creation.  Because of this, all of nature no longer works as it should.  Disease and adverse conditions threaten both crops and animals.  Our breaking of the world by sin even results in animals whose natural instincts fail them, sometimes to the point that they may turn on one another or even their own offspring apart from human intervention. 

Certainly all people would agree that abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of animals, whether they are raised for food or not, is unacceptable, but it can be argued that present-day practices serve to protect them from disease and the elements, which is likely more vital than what we perceive their emotional needs might be. 

Likewise, it would be broadly accepted that we ought not place hazardous chemicals in dangerous quantities into our bodies, but it has also been noted that all chemicals used in the production of food undergo extensive testing regarding the extent of their absorption into the plant and its fruit and the quantities at which they become hazardous in the event they would be consumed. 

Additionally, it is important to note that, even though the idea of making alterations to nature might seem unsavory to some, God has given us the intelligence to make the advances to feed a growing population.  The person who discovers safe methods to increase yields or protect from pests and disease is using their God-given ability to help their neighbor.  Some would propose that without the kind of advances that have been made in agriculture, the loss would be more than income or comfort, but that he lack of these methods would come at the expense of lives, as the present population could not possibly be fed with nineteenth century levels of production. 

The Apostle Paul writes on several occasions in his epistles about matters which are neither commanded nor forbidden by the God.  In such things, he instructs the believers that they should follow their own conscience, but not impose their conscience-driven position on their neighbor who believes differently.  This question is one of those matters. 

Those who are convinced it is more wise to raise crops and animals without these advancements should follow their conscience in doing so or buying from those who do so.  At the same time, those who are convinced otherwise should not feel any guilt because they benefit from these advancements. 

Both those who make use of these innovations and those who refrain should understand that their actions are neither more nor less righteous because of this choice, but that they are following their own conscience and using their own God-given wisdom to make the best choice on a matter that has not been addressed in Scripture.

Is Jesus or the Bible first?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the relationship between Jesus and the Bible:

 Q:  Do Christians believe the Bible because it is endorsed by Jesus, or do Christians believe in Jesus because the Bible says so?  Which comes first?

It is important to begin by remembering that salvation and the faith which receives it are completely gifts of God through the Holy Spirit.  No person can claim to have received God’s forgiveness based on their own philosophical strivings or efforts at discovering truth.  Instead, sinners hear the message of God’s forgiveness through trusting in Jesus as their substitute, and they rely on that truth to save them. 

This might seem like a bit of a chicken-and-egg question at first, but it does have important implications.  For those who are already Christians, it can be important to learn why their trust in Jesus is reasonable and be equipped to defend this truth against those who would seek to undermine it.   These kind of considerations play a part in answering the objections of opponents of Christianity who reject the truth claims of the Bible based on inaccurate preconceptions or faulty scholarship. 

This discipline is called apologetics (meaning to explain the faith), and this question addressed here falls into a category called epistemology.  Epistemology is the study of truth—specifically, answering the question, “How do we know what we know?”  So here, we ask, “Do we rely on the events of Jesus’ life because the Bible says so, or do we rely on the Bible, because Jesus endorses its contents?” 

Christian teachers over the centuries have been split over the question of the logical priority of the personal revelation of Jesus and written revelation of the Bible.  Some have reasoned that the Bible is primary.  This is reflected in the words of the children’s song, “Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so.”  According to this understanding, belief in Jesus is reasonable, because the Bible says so. 

This is true when it comes to the question of how people are initially saved.  Ordinarily, whenever a person trusts in Jesus, they do so because they have heard his story in the Bible or because a person has preached or described this story to them.  They begin with the Bible and move to Jesus.  The weakness of this approach, though, is that a book becomes the center of Christianity instead of a person (Jesus) and the relevant events of His life (particularly the resurrection). 

Consequently, under this approach, opponents are given the opportunity to challenge Christians’ reliance on Jesus by way of undermining the reliability of the Bible or by deceptively using the Bible against those who are not well-educated in its claims and teachings. 

Historically, the more common and more stable approach to this question has been to begin with the events of Jesus’ life, especially the Resurrection, and build from there.  If Jesus rose, then the rest of His teachings are then confirmed.  This is based on the criteria that Jesus, Himself set for believing in His truthfulness when He told his opponents to “tear down this temple, [His body] “and I will raise it up again on the third day.”  What this means is that if Jesus rises after being crucified, He is to be believed, including his endorsement of the Old Testament and of the Apostles’ who would write the New after His Ascension. 

This brings the entire question down to the Resurrection.  If Jesus stayed dead, the whole Bible is to be disregarded, and Christians should abandon their churches.  If Jesus was alive again on Sunday after His crucifixion on Friday.  Christians believe, based on the testimony of hundreds of witnesses, some of which are recorded in the Bible, that Jesus did rise; therefore they believe in both Jesus and the Scripture that He endorsed. 

Is Pacifism Christian?

My post from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Pacifism:

Q:  Is strict Pacifism a stance that Christians are required to take by the Bible?  If not, when is it acceptable for a Christian to use force—even lethal force—against another person?

The question of pacifism—if and when Christians may use violent resistance in defense of themselves or another has been debated throughout the history of Christianity.  On very rare occasions, small groups of Christians have claimed a case for strict pacifism:  that Christians ought not resort to force under any circumstances.  The majority of Christians throughout history, however, have maintained the propriety of the use of force by Christians in certain circumstances. 

There are very clear verses in Scripture which prohibit violent revenge, vigilantism, and rebellion against lawful government.  Beyond this, further clarity on the issue revolves around the meaning of certain passages such as Jesus’ admonitions to “Love your neighbor,” “turn the other cheek,” and that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” 

On the surface, these verses might appear to advocate that Christians passively suffer any violence and injustice brought against them, but there are others where Jesus Himself uses a whip to cleanse the temple of greedy merchants, and allows and instructs His disciples to carry swords (although on one occasion correcting Peter for his overzealous use of it).  Both Peter and John the Baptizer preside over the conversion of soldiers and centurions without instructing them to leave their vocations, which Jesus did instruct in the case of dishonest or immoral professions like prostitution and tax-collecting. 

So, if those words of Jesus demand strict pacifism, then the Bible contradicts itself.  On the other hand, when these passages are viewed within their context and when the reader takes the time to ensure he is not reading his personal biases into the text, we find that the Bible prohibits the use of force as a response to non-dangerous offenses (such as a slap on the cheek), as acts of revenge after danger has passed, or when the matter could be handled by the proper authorities.  On the other hand, it has nothing to say prohibiting the use of force in defense of oneself or others from immediate danger. 

In fact, even the strict Old Testament law excuses from punishment those who kill in defending against murder, rape, and robbery.  When ancient church fathers prohibited military service, it was because it required idolatry by worshipping and sacrificing to Caesar, not because it involved the use of force.  Later on, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and an assortment of popes all wrote affirming that Christians may be soldiers in good conscience and that not only may they use force in self-defense, but even that they have the duty to use force in the defense of their wives and children if it becomes necessary. 

The question then, is not whether one is to love one’s neighbor, but which neighbor they are to love.  Does a man who is confronted by another who seeks to harm his daughter “love” the attacker while allowing his daughter to be kidnapped, killed, or raped, or does he love his daughter precisely by the act of slaying the attacker?  Likewise, does a man love the thief who seeks to steal from him while his children starve and suffer, or does he love his children by dispatching the robber?  Does he allow himself to be beaten into disability so that his family loses their support, or does he love them by preserving through self-defense his ability to provide for them?  The same principle would apply similarly to Christian soldiers or police officers, whose authority flows from the Biblical command to obey father and mother. 

God desires that all people would live peaceably with one another.  He institutes government to punish those who would interfere with this intention, and warns Christians about the dangers of rebellion, revenge, and the offensive use of force.  But on occasions when these all break down, he authorizes the use of force in defense of self, wife, children, neighbors, or property, precisely as an act of love for those under our care and in keeping with the justice of His own character.