Saturday, August 22, 2009

Who's calling please?

The concept of a "call" to ministry, or any other action taken in the name of Christ, is a somewhat slippery one. After all, if God is still "calling" men and women to a specific task of service, it's a pretty subjective experience for the one called. The apostle Paul had a very definite experience on which to base his claim that he was "called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" (1 Corinthians 1:1). But normally, when the New Testament speaks of God "calling" believers, the word is used in the sense of the call to salvation by the Holy Spirit.

We often hear of someone speak of a call to the professional ministry, meaning a sense of conviction and certainty concerning the will of God for that individual. But I've never heard of someone claiming to have had a "Damascus Road" experience, upon which to base their claim to be so called. Instead, it's the more ordinary sense of inner leading that is, for practical purposes, indistinguishable from, say, a doctor's sense of vocational calling, or what my wife experienced when, even as a young girl, she sensed she should train to be a nurse (and she did, and her career has supported that perception).

But, does that subjective conviction or sense amount to a divine calling? That's where the slippery part is. To automatically ascribe such a conviction to God gives room for all kinds of people to attribute their actions to God with justification, including those who commit acts of violence "in the name of God", or because "God told me to." Surely, there ought to be some way to connect such perceptions to the Bible, in order to separate an actual "calling" from an ordinary, and very human sense of psychological attraction to an idea or practice. Otherwise, how do we know who's really "calling"? It could be just the echo of our own mind, as is surely the case with those who feel they've been called to do things clearly outside the bounds of biblical truth.

And, case in point, today's news from the recent meeting of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (the largest and most liberal-leaning Lutheran denomination) tells how the vote of those gathered went in favor of allowing ELCA churches to be pastored by someone who is both homosexual and sexually active in a "committed" relationship. They aren't the first to take this step, just the latest. The justification for this action was expressed by one delegate as being consistent with God's leading in his own life, as he said, "The same-gender couples I know live in love and faithfulness and are called to proclaim the word of God as are all of us." (My emphasis)

So, which is it? Are they indeed "called" by God, or are they just "led" (by whatever influence or perception that might be)? If the Bible is a unified book of God's inspired writings, then there is no way to justify such a calling with the clear statements of Scripture on the subject of homosexuality; at least not for those who take the Bible's words at face value, and don't try to bend them to fit modern sensibilities on this subject. Such "same-gender couples" may "live in love and faithfulness". But that doesn't mean they are biblically in the same category as a heterosexual person in respect to the calling of God to do His work (not that all heterosexuals are cleared for takeoff in the ministry either).

So, who's calling? If God has called these individuals to proclaim His gospel in a professional sense, then those who interpret the Bible to say that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle are mistaken (as the gay-friendly churches are indeed saying). But if that's the case, then I've wasted 35 years of Bible study on a book that can't be trusted to say what it means. Either that, or God has changed His mind of this subject and I just didn't get the memo.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The more things change...

The pace of change in modern life is sometimes hard to keep up with, especially in the area of technologies in business, medicine and everyday living. But like the old saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Despite all the I-phones, CAT scans, video conferencing, microwaves and the like, the basic stuff of life isn't really different from the days when the Bible was written.

Reading through the first chapter of Romans this morning, it was clear once again that the things that most trouble our lives from day to day are pretty much the same as what troubled society in Paul's day. And the root of it all, placed in the human heart and mind, is still to be observed in the daily news and the daily grind we're all facing.

If anything, the many changes of how we go about our lives have only served to magnify the fact that Paul identifies as the key to understanding the human condition. And that fact is this: Though men have the witness of God in their hearts, the evidence of His creative power and nature as seen in the physical universe, they nonetheless "do not honor Him or give thanks."

Does that describe every human being? No, there are many who "fear God and keep His commandments," but only because God has, by His grace, revealed His word to men in the Bible and most especially in His Son, Jesus Christ. But He doesn't compel anyone to believe, and the decline in general moral and social behavior that is the stuff of our daily news reports comes exactly in correspondence to a steep decline in Christ-centered, Biblical spirituality in American public life.

We have expelled God from our schools, even punishing those who pray to Him at a recent school meeting. We have seen skeptics openly ridiculing the Church and her Savior in movies, books and other venues. We have seen legal groups defending a "do-your-own-thing" philosophy in the name of First Amendment rights, while attempting to restrict the rights of a Christian to wear a cross in the office. We have seen marriage reduced to a user-defined term for any two individuals in a long-term relationship to each other. We have defended the speech that was formerly considered vulgar and improper for public audiences, while insulting some who insist on praying in the name of Jesus.

We have seen, in one generation, the moral tone of society reversed, so that behaviors that were disapproved in the 50's are now on open display, while those who still publicly disapprove are called names, instead of those who do such things. And this is exactly how Paul concludes the first chapter of Romans, where he says that, in spite of the fact that the Bible predicts a destiny of eternal and spiritual death for pursuing behaviors forbidden by God, "they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

I-phones and microwaves notwithstanding, nothing's really changed here.

Monday, August 17, 2009

The confusion of certainty

The expression, "What was ___ thinking?", whether applied to ourselves or to another person, is an acknowledgment of how easy it is to become confused by one's own sense of certainty about an idea, a conviction or desire. It's a common enough thing for us all, to get attached to an idea that "sounds right" or maybe one which seems to go along with other ideas, and then we stop reasoning about the idea, to the point that we swallow it "hook, line and sinker."

Much of the time such confusion is harmless enough, and produces embarrassment but not much else. But often such disjuncture between conviction and reality can be tragic. In one of history's most horrific examples, the Nazi party managed to sway much of the German population into believing the idea of Jewish inferiority, to the point that genocide was thought to be normal. But no less horrific is the assumption, so firmly lodged in millions of minds, that a pregnant woman's right to choice in her own medical affairs should extend to the fetus growing within her, to the point that she may be exempted from the normal laws protecting the life of another person.

In today's local news, two stories stand side-by-side to illustrate this confusion of certainty. In one report, a Nebraska woman is charged with manslaughter for stabbing a pregnant teenager, killing the fetus in her womb. The teenager is expected to recover from her wounds, while the manslaughter charge is applied to the unborn child. Now, if the teenager had done the same with a tool of some kind or an abortive drug, she would be exercising her "choice", and subject to no consequences other than some people's disapproval. For another person to do that without the teen's "permission" is considered manslaughter.

The whole thing screams, "What's wrong with this picture?" We don't charge people with manslaughter for killing "tissue", or whatever the pro-choice people call the fetus to justify murdering it by abortion. But somehow the same legal system that doggedly protects a woman's choice also applies personhood to that same unborn child, in a case when its death is at the hands of someone else who makes such a choice.

And then, a second article concerns Dr. Leroy Carhart, whose abortion clinic in Bellevue, NE has already received a lot of negative publicity for years. Now, in the wake of the killing of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Dr. Carhart is aiming to raise the fallen banner of Dr. Tiller, known nationwide for his many late-term abortions. Dr. Carhart's mission is motivated by his conviction that, "We have to keep abortion available for the women of this country."

Compare that sentiment to our current legal situation in regard to assisted suicide. Obviously you wouldn't take a person to court who had just committed suicide, but neither are there indications in the legal code that it's unlawful to take your own life if you're suffering a terminal illness. But to assist someone in doing that, even with their permission, is still subject to prosecution. No one with any legal or social standing is saying, "We have to keep patient-assisted suicide available for the people of this country." And one who tried to make such a stand, Jack Kevorkian, went to jail for his convictions.

What can explain such a schizophrenic confusion among so many otherwise intelligent people? Perhaps the idea that a fetus is either a person or it's not, take your pick but don't try to have it both ways, is a bit too subtle a distinction in logic for those whose aim is to give a woman the unfettered freedom to end her pregnancy for her own reasons.

Let there be no confusion on this point: I'm all for supporting a woman's choice to become pregnant. And if she wants to make that choice, then let her be careful to avoid all situations where a pregnancy may happen. But once an egg and sperm combine to begin the God-ordained process of birth of a separate person, then the choice to end that life is not hers to make; anymore than it would be her choice to kill a terminally ill person, even with his permission. To say anything different seems to me, in Spock's words, "illogical."

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Happiness vs. joy

In this morning's "Faith & Reason" column, a regular feature of the USA Today online edition, a book review is featured, written by Lindsey Norman, who confesses that "I love Christ with all my heart, but wrestle with God's goodness at times." A common problem for many, who have a hard time reconciling their human interpretations of "goodness" with the sovereign goodness of God.

It's an age-old problem, going back to Job and his friends, who believed, as many still do, that "bad things" in one's life are a sure sign that God is displeased, and is therefore punishing the one who has incurred His wrath. The difference between Job and his would-be counselors was that they assumed he had messed up royally due to the awful mess he was in, while Job insisted something terrible had happened in God's bookkeeping, since he could think of nothing he had done sufficient to earn the whipping he and all his family had received.

With this "wrestling" in the background, Ms. Norman goes on to comment on a recent book, "The Geography of Bliss", in which the author tries to determine what nation on earth may have the happiest people, and who the least so. After reading the book, Ms Norman acknowledges, like many before her, that "Happiness is difficult to come by and, ultimately, a challenging pursuit."

Then Ms. Norman follows up with her life-lesson gathered from this insight: "I concluded that there is a distinct difference between joy and happiness. Joy is an overall state of mind, a deliberate decision. We choose whether or not to have a positive attitude and outlook on life. Happiness on the other hand is connected to external circumstances."

Again, this is a conclusion that many before her have reached, and, while I can be "happy" for her discovery, it could have come sooner for her or anyone else by learning from the experiences of the apostle Paul, especially as recorded in the letter we know as Philippians. Paul's "happiness" factor was severely strained by an ongoing list of troubles (recorded in 2 Corinthians, chap. 11), and, in the case of the Phillippian letter, by being a captive of the Romans, not for criminal activity but for Christ.

Philippians, rather than being the report of an unhappy prisoner, is so full of joy that many Bible students have considered joy to be the central theme of the letter. Personally, I think "attitude" or "life view" is more the theme, with joy as one of the results of an attitude like Paul's. He rejoiced so persistently because his life view", stated in chap. 1 as "For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain," was the deciding factor in how he felt about his circumstances.

So, even an imprisonment that kept him from his preaching travels was seen as a blessing, as he now had a "captive audience" in the guards assigned to watch him. (Chap. 1) And, though some people took advantage of his incarceration to preach the gospel of Christ "out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment." In spite of this, he said firmly, "I will rejoice!"(Chap 1) He found joy, not in his situation, but in the spiritual condition of the church, especially when they were "of one mind" in Christ (Chap. 2). He knew joy because he had "learned to be content" in his circumstances, discovering through all his trials that "I. can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Chap. 4)

Anyone who would be "happy" should spend a generous amount of time in Philippians, with the outcome of choosing to adopt the life-view of the great apostle of joy. Paul knew, as expressed in many other of his letters, that God's goodness is not limited, in this sin-corrupted world, to what we call the "good times", or to anything else defined by this world's circumstances. Rather, God simply is good, and therefore saves sinners and leads them to experience His goodness through His sovereign ability to "work all things together for good to those who love Him." (Romans 8:28). To live in the outworking of that goodness is truly joyful.