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."

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.

One size God for all?

For some time, many students of the Bible's teaching about the end times have considered that one ingredient in the end scenario would be a one-world religion; a blending of the world's various faiths and spiritual philosophies into a common denomination of religion for everyone. The synthesis of all faiths would become the preferred religion, a standard for all to follow; and Christians would thus become the enemies of the world-religion and its all-inclusive dogmas.

Given the world's religious makeup, however, it seems unlikely that Christians would be the only ones alienated by a "one size fits all" religion. Indeed, the current religious climate shows that Muslims are every bit as devoted to their own doctrines as any Christian fundamentalist or orthodox Jew. And that's why some people are coming to view fundamentalism of any type, Christian, Jewish or Muslim, as dangerous to world peace and harmony. And there's truth to that feeling. If there was a one-world religion that tried to merge all faiths into one unrecognizable blob, Christians wouldn't be the only ones objecting.

Nor is it likely, for pretty much the same reason, that John Lennon's vision of world peace could ever be fulfilled, in which he asked us all to imagine a world with "no religion", thus removing the source of much of the world's conflicts and enmity between peoples. There's just too many who would never be willing to give up their cherished beliefs for the sake of world harmony.

That's why I don't think a one-world religion or no religion is as likely to happen as a "unified-world" religion; a "big tent" view of religions, with room for all faiths and non-faiths under the same umbrella of acceptability. The only religions left out would be those that still insist on their exclusive right to be the "true faith"; which is exactly what Christians must hold to if they are to be true to the exclusive claims of Christ as the "way, truth and life."

No better picture of this unified world religion could be seen than, of all places, at Michael Jackson's funeral. Jackson was a co-author of the song "We Are the World", originally performed in 1985 for a benefit concert on behalf of African nations. The song was performed at Jackson's funeral, with a visual background composed of various religious symbols arranged together in an way as to emphasize that all faiths are valid. The clear message of the whole scene was "All faiths are of equal value, and deserve equal respect." It's the religious version of Rodney King's "Let's all just get along."

Even some sincere Christians like George W. Bush want to gloss over religious conflicts by supposing that Christians and Muslims "believe in the same God." That would be like saying we all believe in the same George W. Bush, except that some say he has two daughters, while others insist he has two sons and a wife named Diane. At some point we have to decide if world harmony may just not be worth the price of discarding the truth.

If such a unified world religion ever takes hold of enough people (as it has already become the preferred view of many), then Christians will be given a line in the sand that they cannot cross without denying the exclusive claims of their Savior, Jesus Christ, who insisted that "no man comes to the Father except through Me." In the end, the religion that will be persecuted by the world will not be those who cling to their religious truths, but those who are willing to die for the fact that there can be only one Truth, and His name is Jesus.

What kind of body is the Church?

The apostle Paul used the analogy of the human body a lot to describe the Church, and it's a fitting comparison, at least in theory. Like the human body, the Church is a diverse collection of parts, personalities, gifts and backgrounds, with many different roles and jobs for its members to do. And all of it is meant to be united under one Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:22-23) And, if one might wonder why the unity of heart and effort that is supposed to characterize the Church is not more evident in real life, the most obvious place to look for an answer would be in the Church's relationship to her Head.

When a human body is sick, it may be due to one of many different diseases that afflict its various parts. But when a person's entire body is devastated by a system-wide disease that affects the movements and functions of the whole body, it's usually a problem somewhere in the brain, or an interruption in the nervous system that gets its signals from the brain. Parkinson's, Cerebral Palsy, paralysis, strokes and other brain injuries, and many other dysfunctions can totally disable an otherwise healthy body.

Unlike the human body, the Body of Christ has a Head that always does His job. But the Church Body, and its individual members, have a will of their own that may prevent the Head from giving the right directions. So with the Church, there may be different members who are suffering the effects of spiritual sicknesses, like undisciplined desires, lust, pride or ambition; but when the whole body of a local church or a church denomination is reeling from the effects of sinful practices, fleshly politics and worldly ambitions, you can bet there's a significant loss of communication with the Head.

If the Church was always following her Head, there would be no fractious splits, no heresies, no drifting into worldliness, no rivalries and disputes and other things that Paul attributes to the "deeds of the flesh." There would be no "arms" of the church going off in a direction totally contrary to His Word. If Christ was truly directing His Body, there would be harmony of heart and effort in carrying out His mission of making disciples; there would be unity of faith in His Word, instead of myriad theologies and sects competing with each other.

Instead, the Church is seen by an increasingly skeptical world as "spastic", given to "convulsions" and widely divergent signals in communication that totally distort the unity of message and mind that Paul sought for the Body of Christ when he urged Christians to "make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose." (Philippians 2:2) How different would be the history and present life of the Church, if the apostle's words had been lived out on a world-wide scale. Though we can't reverse history, we could at least commit ourselves in our own local churches to making sure our Head is in charge of His Church, rather than just being attached to a dysfunctional Body.

What is the Church, really?

It would be an understatement to say that the Church, in her almost 2000 years of existence, has presented a varied and often contradictory picture to the rest of the world. At times full of compassion and service, at times more of a spiritual police force; an organization at most times more than an organism.

There may be many reasons to account for this, but a point of analysis occurred to me recently, while preparing a message on the Church; and that point has to do with what the Church is, which should be driving what the Church does. The difference between the Church and Israel is much more than a comparison of the Law of Moses vs. the Age of Grace, or one nation vs. all nations.

Fundamentally, Israel was related by birth as the seed of Abraham, called to please God by living out their faith in Him through obedience to statutes, doctrines and practices. The Church, on the other hand, is related by second birth as the spiritual seed of Abraham, called to relate to God through faith in the Savior, whose obedience to the will of God led Him to the cross, where He fulfilled the sacrifices of Moses' law for all who trust in His death on their behalf.

The bottom line of this contrast is that Israel was a people united by their common ancestry and by a relationship to God as a nation. They were charged with not only obeying the Law, but with enforcing obedience on the rest of the nation, so as to remain a holy people. The nation's holiness was a direct result of scrupulous observance of the Law, though mere legalism was never meant to substitute for the faith modeled by father Abraham.

The Church, meanwhile, is a people united by a common Spirit, and by a personal relationship to God as born-again individuals. The Church, unlike Israel, is not charged with enforcing the holiness of her members, because each one is already holy (thus addressed as "saints"). Church discipline was practiced, not to mandate holiness, but to prevent the fleshly behavior of some "so-called brethren" from diluting the testimony of the Church, which is supposed to be "lights in a crooked and perverse" world.

The Church has too often in her history acted as if Christians were just "Israel 2.0", an updated version of the nation of the Ten Commandments and laws of the Old Testament. Many subgroups of the Church have used updated versions of priests (ignoring the fact that all of us are priests under one Great High Priest). Many use rules of conduct patterned after the Ten Commandments, while some try to use those commands as the basis of a moral society by placing them in front of the courthouse; ignoring the fact that the Law can't change anyone since it can only convict, not change the heart.

The Church has engaged in countless wars over doctrine and practice, as if trying to "purge the camp of sin", like Israel in the wilderness, attempting to enforce standards and rules as each one sees them. Of course, the many and varied interpretations of those standards is why there's so many different kinds of churches, and so many different schools of thought about how the Church is supposed to be changing the world. Indeed, doctrine and practice are important, but not as the basis for our holiness.

The Church is a holy people by virtue of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit; and, when we walk with Christ in a common love for Him and for one another, we allow Christ to express His power and grace through us. When we demonstrate the light of Christ in us to a lost world, we exert more power than any crusade or inquisition could do by brute force. And that's something that good old Moses, on his best day, couldn't do.