What "pay grade" for life?

In last week's Saddleback Church forum between the two presidential candidates, each man was asked to state his opinion about that point in life at which an unborn child becomes a person with legal rights. John McCain answered immediately, "At conception." In sharp contrast, Barack Obama fumbled around for his words, and finally declared that such a determination was above his "pay grade."

For argument's sake, let's allow him to use such an expression to mean he's unwilling to give an opinion on a question about which scientists and religious experts are undecided. That may sound humble to some, but it's a misplaced humility in someone who's trying to become the chief policy-maker of the land. Meanwhile, thousands of women, not to mention Planned Parenthood and a great many physicians, have decided they have enough "pay grade" to answer that question; enough to justify aborting their unborn child.

If Mr. Obama is really uncertain about the beginning point of a truly human life, as opposed to a mere lump of tissue, then he could at least state such uncertainty with some sense of conviction. It could then be assumed that such a position is in line with other characteristics of a liberal Christian background in the United Church of Christ, a denomination well-known for its left-leaning theology. But Mr. Obama has been making an aggressive outreach to the conservative Christian base that has heretofore supported the Republican candidates, and it is reasonable to suppose he would prefer to avoid offending such an important voting bloc.

But Mr. Obama's response, or rather dodging the question, seems more clumsy than artful, and adds to the reputation he has earned with many conservatives as one who will say anything to please the greatest number of people. And millions, including many with no particular commitment to biblical truth, are so hungry for something different than the present government that they are swept away by his eloquence.

If Mr. Obama doesn't think a politician should be making a ruling on the beginning point for human life, how does he think a group of judges could do any better? And if this question is too high up the pay scale for any but the most educated and scholarly among us, how did it happen that ordinary citizens have been granted the freedom to make that decision for themselves?

And who decided that the scholars are far up enough to make the call? God, who made all living things, has already declared the answer once-and-for-all. As He said to one of the prophets, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5) Mr. Obama may think he's too far down the pay ladder to decide, but that's why we have a revealed, authoritative, trustworthy Word from the Creator of life. And you can put real money on that one.

All things to all men?

The debate about making the Gospel relevant or just givin' 'em the "old-time religion" seems destined to go on until Jesus comes. It seems one can always find extremes in any issue of importance, and it also seems to me that it's always easier to move toward one extreme or the other than to follow a balanced course that keeps a proper tension between extremes.

In terms of relevance vs. traditions, there are some who will try so hard to bring the Good News down to the understanding and tastes of any particular generation that they run the risk, at least in the opinion of some, of making the Bible a consumer philosophy. A recent, and unusual, example is a group of Italian priests who are taking inflatable "sanctuaries" to the beach to bring religion to the sun bathers. So much for the awe and wonder of the ancient cathedrals.

But to resist the suspected catering of the Gospel to modern "itching ears", others insist that the Bible be taught in exactly the same way as was used in the early to mid-20th century. An obvious problem with such thinking is that such traditions as our grandparents observed were all innovative at one time. If a church really wants to be "traditional" they should forget formal church buildings all together and and meet in homes, catacombs, or whatever location works; which is just what some in the "emerging church" movement are recommending.

So, does it really matter how the Gospel of Christ is brought to men, so long as it's brought? You might get that from Paul's words to the Philippian church, where he found reason to rejoice even in the preaching of some men who did so with less-than-pure motives, because he was glad that at least "Christ is preached." But the cause for his joy was that "Christ" was being proclaimed. And that, I think, is the "crux" of the matter (crux as in cross, the heart of the Gospel).

If the message of the cross, which will always be foolishness to the unbelieving mind, is clearly presented, with the equally clear insistence that salvation is a result of placing obedient faith in Christ's death on that cross, then that message may be, and should be, put into whatever terms and methods that will convey the truth of Christ to the heart of the hearer.

But if the message is other than the fully biblical truth of Christ (as in "God loves everyone too much to punish sin," or "Jesus is one of many ways to salvation"), then it doesn't matter what style or language or method is employed. Lies are lies, no matter how they're said. And the best lie is the one that makes the most sense to the person willing to believe it.