Posts tagged ‘Grace’
Who Is God’s Enemy?
There is a fascinating exchange between Joshua and an unnamed man right before he fights the battle at Jericho. As Joshua is nearing the city and mustering his troops, he looks up and sees a man with a sword drawn in his hand. He asks him, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” The man replies, “Neither, but as a commander of the army of the LORD I have now come” (Joshua 5:13-14).
This exchange, though somewhat cryptic, is extremely revelatory. In this exchange, this man reveals who He is. He is part neither of Israel’s army nor of the army of Israel’s enemy. Instead, He commands the forces of God Almighty. In other words, He is not just a man. He is divine. This is why this commander echoes the words that God speaks to Joshua’s predecessor, Moses, from a burning bush. “Take of your sandals,” this commander says to Joshua, “for the place where you are standing is holy” (Joshua 5:15). This commander speaks the same words God once spoke to Moses because He Himself is God, who is now speaking to Joshua.
But the revelation that is given to Joshua in this man does not end here. For this man reveals not only who God is, but who God cares about. Before one of the biggest battles in Israel’s history, this commander comes to Joshua and tells him that He is not somehow blindly for Israel and against Jericho. But neither is he for Jericho and against Israel. Instead, He is for God who, ultimately, is for all. It is indeed true that God does rain down His wrath on Jericho’s sin in this story. But this does not mean that He does not love Jericho’s people. God is much more interested in saving people than in siding against them.
In our current milieu, I think it can be all too easy to forget that God cares about not only us, but those who we call “enemies.” But if we took the time to actually ask Him, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” God’s answer might just surprise us. It might just be, “Neither.” God is much more interested in loving the world than He is in making enemies.
The next time you are tempted to hate your enemy, remember this commander’s interaction with Joshua. And remember the admonition of Jesus: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). And, most importantly, remember the action of Jesus: “While we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son” (Romans 5:10). Paul says that God’s enemy, before the cross, was you. So, ask yourself, “How did God treat me when I was His enemy?”
Go and do likewise with your enemy.
Character and Civics
Credit: Wikipedia
The economy is booming. There is hearty hope for a diplomatic breakthrough between the United States and North Korea. Pressure is mounting on Iran to come clean about its nuclear ambitions. And the President of the United States is embroiled in a controversy over whether or not campaign finance laws were violated when his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid an adult film actress, Stormy Daniels, $130,000 during the closing days of the 2016 election to, ostensibly, keep her quiet about an affair she now claims to have had with Mr. Trump in 2006.
If the accusations against President Trump are true, this episode is morally disquieting – and not just because campaign finance laws were potentially broken. Not only that, the responses to this episode are themselves morally disquieting. Many who are opposed to the president see this episode as a convenient way to defeat a political enemy. The moral turpitude of what has allegedly happened is merely a pretext for a political power grab. Others, who are aligned with the president, are quick to cast the allegations against him as nothing more than a witch hunt. Even if they suspect the charges might be true, they calculate that sexual immorality is a small – and, I would add, historical – price to pay for the power of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Whatever your political proclivities, these accusations present Christians with much to ponder. On the one hand, it is important for us to remember that character still matters in our leaders. All the way back in the sixteenth century, Niccolo Machiavelli famously argued that political leaders do not need actual virtue. They simply need to project the appearance of virtue:
It’s seeming to be virtuous that helps; as, for example, seeming to be compassionate, loyal, human, honest, and religious.[1]
This is nonsense. Appearing to be virtuous while not actually being virtuous is, plainly and simply, hypocrisy – a sin that Jesus fiercely and consistently condemns. Hypocrisy in virtue is not only immoral; it also is dangerous. If a person cannot lead himself by cultivating in himself basic virtues, he will struggle to lead others as well as he could. Self-leadership is a necessary prerequisite for other-leadership.
This is certainly not to say that our leaders need to be perfect – no leader is, has been, or ever will be. But it is certainly preferable that our leaders be self-aware. Self-awareness cultivates both humility and curiosity – humility over how one has fallen short and curiosity about how one can grow in competence and character.
At the same time it is necessary to encourage character in our leaders, it is also important demand character in ourselves. A critical part of personal character development, according to Jesus, is to carefully consider our own shortcomings before we address the iniquity of others. Jesus explains it like this:
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)
Notice that Jesus does not prohibit holding others accountable for their specks of sin, but He first wants us to hold ourselves accountable for our own planks of peccancy. Understanding and addressing our own struggles with sin gives us both wisdom and empathy to help others in their tussles with transgression.
Over the years, as I have watched the dialogue that unfolds during scandals involving the character of our public officials, I have come to suspect that at least a segment of our population doesn’t care too much about helping the people involved. Instead, it only cares about maximizing the power it has. Depending on one’s political preferences, maintaining or overturning the power of this or that politician becomes the driving and deciding factor in how some people respond to any given moral crisis. When this happens, we’re not really defending our politicians, even if we like them, or honoring them, as the Bible instructs. We’re simply using them. And that’s a character crisis in us that, though it may not make the headlines, should certainly serve as food for thought in our hearts.
______________________________
[1] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Tim Parks, trans. (New York: Penguin Books, 2009).
Mr. Zuckerberg Goes To Washington
Credit: NBC News
Last week, Mark Zuckerberg found himself in the hot seat as he faced Congress, who, as The New York Times reports, turned their interview with him into:
…something of a pointed gripe session, with both Democratic and Republican senators attacking Facebook for failing to protect users’ data and stop Russian election interference, and raising questions about whether Facebook should be more heavily regulated.
Along with broad calls for heavier regulations for the sake of people’s privacy came concerns that Facebook might also regulate people’s posts, especially in light of the many contested “fake news” posts that circulated during the 2016 presidential election on social media. Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska highlighted this concern, telling Mr. Zuckerberg:
Facebook may decide it needs to police a whole bunch of speech that I think America may be better off not having policed by one company that has a really big and powerful platform … Adults need to engage in vigorous debates.
At issue for Senator Sasse is whether or not a corporation like Facebook will be able to responsibly regulate all kinds of posts that, regardless of their intellectual and logical quality, are politically, though not necessarily corporately, protected under the First Amendment. Senator Sasse is concerned that Facebook may simply begin regulating speech with which Facebook management does not agree. The senator offered the example the abortion debate as a potential flashpoint if social media speech regulations were to be instituted:
There are some really passionately held views about the abortion issue on this panel today. Can you imagine a world where you might decide that pro-lifers are prohibited from speaking about their abortion view on your platform?
Mr. Zuckerberg responded that he “certainly would not want that to be the case.”
Corporate regulation of speech is indeed a concern, for even the best regulatory intentions often come with unintended – and sometimes awful – consequences. At the same time, for Christians, a devotion to free speech must never become an excuse for reckless speech, for reckless speech can be dangerously damaging. As Jesus’ brother, James, reminds us:
The tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. (James 3:5-6)
Thus, with this in mind, it is worth it to reflect for a moment on how we exercise our tongues – on social media, and in all circumstances. In our speech – and in our posts – Scripture calls us to two things.
First, we must love the truth.
When the apostle Paul writes to a pastor named Timothy, he exhorts him:
What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you – guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. (2 Timothy 1:13-14)
The Greek verb that Paul uses for “guard” is philasso, from which we get the English word “philosophy.” “Philosophy” is a word that, etymologically, translates as “love of truth.” As Christians, we are called to love the truth. We do this by expecting the truth from ourselves, by defending the truth when we see lies, and by seeking the truth so we are not duped by deceit. In the sometimes wild world of social media, do we tell the truth about ourselves, or do we paint an intentionally deceptive portrait of ourselves with carefully curated posts? Do we defend the truth when we see others being defamed, or do we pile on because we find certain insults humorous? Do we seek the truth before we post, or do we pass on what we read indiscriminately because it fits our preconceived biases? As people who follow the One who calls Himself “the truth,” we must love the truth.
Second, we must speak with grace.
Not only is what we say important, how we say it is important as well. The apostle Paul explains it like this: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (Colossians 4:6). There are times when communicating the truth can be difficult. But even in these times, we must be careful to apply the truth as a scalpel and not swing it as a club. The truth is best used when it cuts for the sake of healing instead of when it bludgeons for the thrill of winning. This is what it means to speak the truth with grace. Paul is clear that he wants the truth proclaimed “clearly” (Colossians 4:4), but part of being clear is being careful. When anger, hyperbole, and self-righteousness become hallmarks of “telling it like it is,” we can be sure that we are no longer actually “telling it like it is.” Instead, we are obfuscating the truth under a layer of vitriol and rash rants.
Facebook has a lot to answer for as investigations into its handling of people’s privacy continue. It appears as though the company may not have been completely forthcoming in how it operates. And their deceit in this regard is getting them into trouble. Let’s make sure we don’t fall into the same trap. Let’s be people of the truth – on social media and everywhere.
Sharia Law and Biblical Grace
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This is the apostle Paul’s sobering summary of the human condition. And he’s right. Not only is there is not a person alive who lives up to God’s standards of righteousness, there is also not a person alive who lives up to the standards of righteousness he sets for himself, as any person who has ever attempted – and failed at – a New Year’s resolution can tell you. Sin is universal.
The Wall Street Journal reports that, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, two Christians were publicly whipped, according to the dictates of Sharia law, “for playing a game at a children’s entertainment complex in a way authorities say amounted to gambling.” Aceh’s population is 98 percent Muslim, and people can face floggings for acts including “drinking alcohol, adultery, gay sex, gambling or having romantic relationships before marriage.” Indeed, the province’s courts are imposing hundreds of whippings a year for acts like these. Last January, a Christian was sentenced to 36 lashes for selling alcohol.
I do not believe that drinking or selling alcohol, in and of itself, is sinful, though I do believe that drunkenness is. Likewise, I don’t believe that a good-natured raffle for a few laughs is inherently wicked, though I am also well aware and wary of the dangerous greed that gambling can stoke and how the gambling industry, especially in the form of state lotteries, cynically preys on the economically disadvantaged. I do believe in a traditional sexual ethic. So, I would say, as do the courts in Aceh, that any sexual activity outside of the confines of marriage strays from what is appropriate. In short, though I would qualify certain things, I find myself in broad agreement with Aceh’s moral concerns. But I also find myself fundamentally at odds with Aceh’s response to these concerns.
The radicalized form of Islamic law that Aceh’s theocratically-minded courts seem to be bent on propagating addresses sin through judgment. Each sin, in these courts’ minds, deserves a flogging. Christianity, however, addresses sin in a whole different way. Christianity acknowledges the reality and ubiquity of human sinfulness – “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) – but addresses such sinfulness not with judgment, but by grace: “All are justified freely by God’s grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).
In John 8, Jesus is famously confronted by some religious leaders who bring to Him a woman who has been caught in the act of adultery. In a breathtaking display of theocratic virtue signaling, they crow: “In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do You say” (John 8:5)? In their recounting of Mosaic law, the religious leaders conveniently overlook the fact that it was both the adulteress and the adulterer who were to be punished by death, as, in this case, they bring to Jesus only the adulteress. They also needlessly restrict the method of execution to that of stoning, even though Moses makes no such specification. Nevertheless, they are broadly correct that adultery was, according to Mosaic law, punishable by death. Jesus, however, instead of debating the finer points of where the adulterer is and what method of execution should be used, simply responds:
“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:7, 9-11)
Here, Jesus brilliantly puts His finger on the problem with responding to sin with judgment instead of with grace. If one responds to sin with only judgment, there will finally be no one left to mete out any judgment, because no one is without sin. Everyone will have been stoned. Only grace can address sin in a way that leaves anyone standing.
Christianity certainly understands and accepts the role governing authorities play to discourage wickedness by means of penalties. But Christianity also knows that people need more than a penalty in the face of sin. They need a Savior who does not condemn them, but forgives them. And this is what a theocracy like Aceh’s, which plays the roles of both political and religious authorities, cannot provide.
Interestingly, the Bible does accept lashings as appropriate remuneration for sin. But the lashes do not fall on us. They fall on God’s Son:
He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on Him, and by His wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)
The courts of Aceh, it turns out, are lashing out far too late for it to do any good. The lashing that was really needed already happened 2,000 years ago.
It’s time to put the whips down.
Thanksgiving Lessons From Lincoln
Credit: Luminary PhotoProject / Flickr
I have made it a tradition of sorts to read one of Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving proclamations each year during this time. His proclamations are not only extraordinarily well-crafted pieces of oratory statecraft, they are also genuinely theologically rich. In his Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1863, Mr. Lincoln recounts the blessings God has bestowed on this nation and then declares:
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
President Lincoln beseeches the nation to give thanks on its knees, humbly recognizing that anything it has is not due to some inherent civic merit or to some twisted theology of a manifest destiny (a concept Mr. Lincoln resolutely opposed), but to the unmerited mercy of God. In other words, the president recognized that rather than judging this nation as its sins deserved in wrath, God instead blessed this nation apart from its sins out of grace. And for this, Mr. Lincoln was thankful.
What struck me the most about President Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation as I read it this year was how the president believed divine mercy should lead to concrete action. Mr. Lincoln concludes his proclamation thusly:
I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to God for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.
In view of God’s mercy, the president invites the American people to three things: repentance, remembrance, and restoration. He invites the American people to repent of their sins, both in the North and in the South, understanding that any snooty swagger of self-righteousness can never receive mercy from God because it does not understand the need for the grace of God. He also invites the American people to a remembrance of those who are suffering – those who have become widows, orphans, and mourners in the strife of the Civil War. He finally calls the American people to restoration – to be healed from a wound of division that runs so deep that it has led Americans to take up arms against Americans.
As I reflect on the wisdom in President Lincoln’s proclamation, the words of the teacher in Ecclesiastes come to mind: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Today, as in Mr. Lincoln’s day, examples of delusional self-righteousness abound – both among the secular and the spiritual – which close us off to appreciating and receiving God’s mercy. Today, as in Mr. Lincoln’s day, widows, orphans, and mourners still live among us, often unnoticed and sometimes even ill-regarded, suffering silently and in desperate need of our help. Today, as in Mr. Lincoln’s day, America still suffers from a wound of division, which some, almost masochistically, delight in ripping open farther and cutting into deeper for their own cynical political purposes. The problems that plagued our nation in 1863 still plague our nation today in 2017. Our problems persist. But so too does the mercy of God.
154 years later, we are still extravagantly blessed with bounty. 154 years later, our republic has not dissolved, even as it has frayed. 154 years later, God still is not treating us as our sins deserve. Our sinful rebellion, it seems, cannot thwart the tenacious grace of God. And for that, on this Thanksgiving, I am thankful.
The Reformation of the Church
Credit: Ferdinand Pauwels, 1872
Tomorrow, many corners of the Christian Church will mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. And though the Reformation of the Church was larger than any one event and any one man, the beginning of this grand theological and historical watershed is traditionally traced to October 31, 1517, when an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther posted 95 theses to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg, Germany, outlining his grievances against some of the abuses that were rampant in the Roman Catholic Church of his day.
At the heart of Luther’s protest was the Church’s sale of indulgences. Indeed, in his 95 theses, Luther uses the word “indulgence” some 45 times! An indulgence was a partial remission of punishment for sin, issued by the Church, and could be used either to lessen a person’s future penalties in purgatory, or to shorten a deceased loved one’s current intermediate period in purgatory. Indulgences took both the form of personal good works, such as pilgrimages and acts of devotion, as well as the form of a payment to the Church by which, it was said, one could have some of the good works of one of the Church’s canonized saints imputed to him to counterbalance his sin.
In Luther’s day, a preacher named Johann Tetzel shamelessly peddled the second type of indulgence, claiming that paying for an indulgence could breezily and easily excuse a sin for which one would otherwise have to suffer terribly in purgatory. With clownish flamboyance, he declared:
Consider, that for each and every mortal sin it is necessary to undergo seven years of penitence after confession and contrition, either in this life or in purgatory.
How many mortal sins are committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in the whole extent of life! They are well-nigh numberless, and those that commit them must needs suffer endless punishment in the burning pains of purgatory.
But with these confessional letters you will be able at any time in life to obtain full indulgence for all penalties imposed upon you …
Are you not willing, then, for the fourth part of a florin, to obtain these letters, by virtue of which you may bring, not your money, but your divine and immortal soul, safe and sound into the land of paradise?
According to Tetzel, one sin buys a person seven years of suffering in purgatory. If a person commits only one sin a day, which, according to Tetzel himself, who invites his hearers to ponder “how many mortal sins are committed in a day,” is an unrealistic underestimation, this would mean that, for one year’s worth of sins, a person would spend 2,555 years in purgatory. If a person lived to be 75, they would have to endure 191,625 years of suffering in purgatory. But, Tetzel continues, “for the fourth part of a florin,” one can purchase an indulgence letter, which allows the bearer to “obtain full indulgence for all penalties imposed on you.” A florin was an Italian gold coin worth around $144 in today’s currency. A fourth of a florin, then, would be worth around $36. Thus, Tetzel’s message was this: for $36, your sins can be taken care of, and you can enter effortlessly into paradise. What a deal!
The problem with Tetzel’s deal, of course, is that, ultimately, he cheapened both the penalty and the payment for sin. As harrowing as 191,625 years in purgatory may sound, the true penalty for sin is even more terrifying, for it is not a finite time in purgatory, but an infinite eternity in hell. And the true payment for sin that rescues us from this eternity in hell is certainly more than a measly $36. The true payment for sin is nothing short of priceless. As God says through the prophet Isaiah, “Without money you will be redeemed” (Isaiah 52:3). The true payment for sin is nothing less than the priceless blood of Christ.
The truth Luther rediscovered is that the penalty for sin is much steeper and the payment for sin is much deeper than an indulgence preacher like Johann Tetzel ever let on. And this is the truth that launched a reformation of the Church.
Tetzel passed away in 1519, only two short years after the Reformation began. By this time his ministry had been discredited, and he had been accused of fathering an illegitimate child. When Luther heard that Tetzel was near death, he wrote his old theological sparring partner a kind note, begging him “not to be troubled, for the matter did not begin on his account, but the child had quite a different father.”
Luther was known for preaching grace as a theologian. It turns out that, for all his protestations against and sometimes harsh critiques of the Catholic Church of his day, at times, he was also gracious as a person. And grace is better than any indulgence. This was Luther’s message – and, most importantly, this is the gospel message. And that’s a message worth celebrating, which is why the Reformation is worth celebrating, even 500 years later.
“Indulgences are in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.” (Martin Luther)
A Forgiveness That Kills Death
When Mark Zuckerberg first unveiled Facebook Live, he touted it as a service that allowed people to express themselves in “raw” and “visceral” ways:
Because it’s live, there is no way it can be curated. And because of that it frees people up to be themselves. It’s live; it can’t possibly be perfectly planned out ahead of time. Somewhat counterintuitively, it’s a great medium for sharing raw and visceral content.
This is true. But I’m not sure broadcasting a murder on social media is what Mr. Zuckerberg had in mind. But on Easter Sunday, last weekend, this is exactly what happened.
74-year-old Robert Godwin Sr. was walking home from an Easter meal with his family when he was stopped by Steve Stephens. Before Mr. Godwin knew what was happening, he was dead and Stephens was on the run. The following day, Stephens was spotted in Pennsylvania at a McDonald’s drive-thru. When police took pursuit, Stephens took his own life.
This is a shocking story. But it took an even more shocking turn when Mr. Godwin’s family was interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper. The anchor asked the family what they learned from their father. They answered:
The thing that I would take away the most from my father is he taught us about God, how to fear God, how to love God, and how to forgive. And each one of us forgives the killer, murderer.
Clearly shocked, Mr. Cooper asked, “You do?” To which the family responded:
We want to wrap our arms around him…And I promise you I could not do that if I didn’t know God, if I didn’t know Him as my God and my Savior…It’s just what our parents taught us. It wasn’t that they just taught it, they didn’t just talk it, they lived it. People would do things to us and we would say, “Dad, are you really going to forgive them, really?” and he would say, “Yes, we have to.” My dad would be really proud of us, and he would want this from us.
Mr. Cooper, amazed at this family’s willingness to forgive a man who murdered their father in cold blood, wrapped up the segment by saying:
You talked about how your friends would say they wish they were Godwins. I know a lot of people watching tonight – and certainly I speak for myself – I wish I was a Godwin right now because you all represent your dad very well.
Jesus famously said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). Anyone who has ever had to face down an enemy has probably found this to be a nice sentiment in theory, but painfully difficult to practice. And yet, Jesus commanded us to live this way because He knew it was the only way to confront sin and destroy it. When someone sins against us and we retaliate, we have only traded injury for injury. But when someone sins against us and we love and forgive them, as the Godwins did, we have taken their sin and, instead of meeting it with something similar, we destroy it with something better.
Easter is a day when we celebrate life. Steve Stephens tried to turn it into a day of death. But death lost when the Godwin family forgave. For where there is forgiveness, there is life. After all, how do you think we receive eternal life? Only through the forgiveness of sins that comes in Christ.
“God has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son He loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Colossians 1:13-14)
Flowers, Same-Sex Marriage, and Responding with Grace
Barronelle Stutzman enjoyed catching up with her friend, Rob Ingersoll. He would stop by regularly to order custom bouquets from the mom-and-pop flower shop she operated, Arlene’s Flowers, and the two would talk about what was going on in their respective lives. Everything was coming up, excuse the pun, roses, until one day when Rob stopped by Arlene’s Flowers to ask Barronelle to provide custom flower arrangements for his upcoming wedding to his partner, Curt. According to a deposition by Ms. Stutzman, she responded by putting her hands on Mr. Ingersoll and saying, “Because of my relationship with Jesus Christ, I can’t do that.” Understandably, he walked away feeling deeply hurt and rejected. After that, it didn’t take long for a legal firestorm to explode.
The two men sued Arlene’s Flowers for $7.91, the price it cost to drive to another florist. Then, on February 16, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Stutzman was in violation of state law, claiming that Ms. Stutzman’s actions constituted “socially harmful conduct” and that the “government views acts of discrimination,” which is how they regarded Ms. Stutzman’s refusal of service, “as independent social evils.”
In a situation like this, it can be difficult for a Christian to figure out how to respond. Indeed, there has been a fair amount of debate among Christians over whether or not it is biblically-appropriate to provide certain services, as Barronelle Stutzman refused to do, for a same-sex wedding.
Regardless of what an individual Christian may or may not be willing to accommodate in a situation like this, Ms. Stutzman’s overall response to this controversy has been charitable and exemplary. Shortly after the controversy erupted, she penned an opinion piece for The Seattle Times. She opened:
Rob Ingersoll will always be my friend. Recent events have complicated – but not changed – that fact for me.
Ms. Stutzman began with a statement of love for Mr. Ingersoll. Even if he sues her, she will not disown him. She will always be a friend to him, even after she felt she had to have a conversation with him that was, in her words, “one of the hardest things I’ve ever done in my life.”
She continued by explaining her desire to balance her moral convictions with her Christian love:
I knew he was in a relationship with a man and he knew I was a Christian. But that never clouded the friendship for either of us or threatened our shared creativity – until he asked me to design something special to celebrate his upcoming wedding.
If all he’d asked for were prearranged flowers, I’d gladly have provided them. If the celebration were for his partner’s birthday, I’d have been delighted to pour my best into the challenge. But as a Christian, weddings have a particular significance…
I’ve never questioned Rob’s and Curt Freed’s right to live out their beliefs. And I wouldn’t have done anything to keep them from getting married, or even getting flowers. Even setting aside my warm feelings for them, I wouldn’t have deliberately taken actions that would mean the end of being able to do the work I love or risk my family’s home and savings.
I just couldn’t see a way clear in my heart to honor God with the talents He has given me by going against the word He has given us.
Whatever decision another Christian would have made if faced with a situation like this, it is difficult to disparage Ms. Stutzman’s desire to be both faithful to her moral convictions and loving toward her friend.
In the news, much has been made about what this story and the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling mean for religious freedom. The questions this controversy raises about religious freedom are indeed monumental. And the court’s ruling a couple of weeks ago is certainly open to vigorous questioning. But in the midst of all the thorny Constitutional and legal quandaries, let’s not miss the simple story of a woman trying to live out her faith in Jesus in front of others and for the sake of others. For this is how each of us are called to live – loving even those with whom we deeply disagree us and seeking to winsomely hold forth to the world the use of God’s gifts – like the gift of marriage – according to God’s intentions.
Whatever ultimately comes of this case, this call will not change.
Abortion, Absolution, and Pope Francis
In a letter dated Sunday, November 20, Pope Francis announced that any woman who has had an abortion can now be forgiven for that sin by a priest. This move toward priestly absolution for abortion began a full year ago when the pope announced a “Year of Mercy.” Before this special year, only ecclesiastical higher ups could absolve someone of an abortion unless a particular region gave special disposition to its local priests to absolve this sin, which the Catholic Church in the United States had already done. The pope’s announcement of a Year of Mercy gave this right to priests worldwide. And now the pope has extended this right into perpetuity. In his missive, the pope explained:
We have celebrated an intense Jubilee Year in which we have received the grace of mercy in abundance. Like a gusting but wholesome wind, the Lord’s goodness and mercy have swept through the entire world. Because each of us has experienced at length this loving gaze of God, we cannot remain unaffected, for it changes our lives…
Lest any obstacle arise between the request for reconciliation and God’s forgiveness, I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion. The provision I had made in this regard, limited to the duration of the Extraordinary Holy Year, is hereby extended, notwithstanding anything to the contrary.
When the pope first announced his Year of Mercy, The New York Times ran an editorial by Jill Filipovic titled, “The Pope’s Unforgiving Message of Forgiveness on Abortion.” In her piece, Ms. Filipovic decries the idea that those who had obtained an abortion should need forgiveness. She writes:
Instead of treating women as adults who make their own decisions, the pope condescends to “all the women who have resorted to abortion,” saying he is “well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision.” The threat of excommunication, at the very least, makes the church’s views on women’s rights clear. Offering forgiveness is a softer version of the same judgment: that the millions of women around the world who have abortions every year are sinners. Inviting women to feel shame and guilt for their abortions isn’t a mercy; it’s cruelty.
At issue for Ms. Filipovic is the fact that abortion would be classified as a sin at all. For her, forgiveness for an abortion is neither needed nor desirable. What is needed is a wholehearted endorsement and promotion of abortion itself.
The biblical position on abortion and forgiveness undermines both the Roman Catholic Church’s strange view of absolution, especially before this recent papal pronouncement, along with the secularist’s cynicism toward the sinfulness of abortion. The secular view of abortion and forgiveness is inadequate precisely because the emotions of “shame and guilt,” contrary to Ms. Filipovic’s assertion, should be the affective outcome of any sin, including abortion. Our sin should make us feel bad – at least if we take what God commands seriously. Only God’s gospel can remedy our shame and guilt as it releases our sins to Christ on the cross. Abortion cannot be excused and explained away. It can only be forgiven.
Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church’s view on abortion and forgiveness also will not do. The now former restriction on priestly absolution for abortion seems to have been largely meant as a threatening deterrent against particularly grievous sins, as is explained in the Baltimore Catechism:
The absolution from some sins is reserved to the pope or bishop to deter or prevent, by this special restriction, persons from committing them, either on account of the greatness of the sin itself or on account of its evil consequences.
This restriction overlooks the fact that, theologically speaking, every sin is an affront against all divine law, therefore making any sin damnable. It also overlooks the fact that to make forgiveness difficult to obtain via a barrage of ecclesiastical red tape takes what is meant to be a gift from God and perverts it into a work of man. This makes the forgiveness spoken of here antithetical to the gospel rather than the center of the gospel, for the gospel is never about what we do, but about what God has done for us in Jesus Christ.
So where does this leave us? It leaves us here: if you are a woman who has had an abortion, there is hope beyond shame, release beyond burden, and wholeness beyond brokenness. Not because there shouldn’t be any shame, any burden, or any brokenness. And not because you can somehow claw your way out shame, burden, and brokenness by a work, even if that work is a work of self-debasing sorrow before a bishop or a priest. No, there is hope and release and wholeness because of Jesus. After all, He suffered death to conquer death, which means, even if a life has been lost to abortion, that life can be recovered too. And your life can be made new.
That’s the promise abortion needs.
The Price of Mercy
If I was David, I would have been tempted to say, “The devil made me do it.”
When “Satan rises up against Israel and incites David to take a census of Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:1), David can’t resist the opportunity to figure out just how big and powerful his empire really is. David, it seems, has become more prone to glorifying his nation than he is to glorifying his God. But the Lord is not pleased. So “He punishes Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:7).
David may be easily conned by folly, but, in this instance, he is also a man of quick repentance: “I have sinned greatly by doing this. Now, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing” (1 Chronicles 21:8). God answers by giving David three options for punishment. Israel can (1) endure three years of famine; (2) endure three months of attacks from surrounding enemies; or (3) suffer three days of attacks by the Lord Himself against Israel. David chooses option three, citing this reasoning: “Let me fall into the hands of the LORD, for His mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into human hands” (1 Chronicles 21:13).
God gets to work. In a flash, 70,000 people die. David’s census numbers must be amended. God then sends His angel to destroy Jerusalem, but “as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, ‘Enough! Withdraw your hand’” (1 Chronicles 21:15). It is at this point that it becomes clear that what David has said about God is true of God: His mercy really is very great. Three days would have been more than enough time for God to destroy everything. But instead, God preserves most things.
David, however, is not convinced that God’s tour of destruction has ended. So he cries out to God, “Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I, the shepherd, have sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? LORD my God, let Your hand fall on me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on Your people” (1 Chronicles 21:17). To a God who David has just called “merciful,” David offers his blood. David may say God is merciful, but he doesn’t really seem to trust in His mercy.
But God does have mercy – even for David. Indeed, God, mercifully, does not ask for David’s blood. But He does ask for an altar and a sacrifice: “Then the angel of the LORD ordered Gad to tell David to go up and build an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite” (1 Chronicles 21:18). So David goes to Araunah who offers both his land and all the materials needed as a gift to David so he can make his offering. But David refuses Araunah’s gift: “No, I insist on paying the full price. I will not take for the LORD what is yours, or sacrifice a burnt offering that costs me nothing” (1 Chronicles 21:24). David deems it unacceptable to offer to God a sacrifice that costs him nothing.
But why?
Abraham didn’t seem to have any problem offering God a sacrifice that cost him nothing when, in place of his son Isaac, he offered a ram caught in the thicket – a ram that God Himself provided. And the very sacrifice to end all sacrifices – the sacrifice of God’s Son – cost humanity nothing even as it cost God everything. The best sacrifices, it seems, are the ones that come as gifts.
God acts mercifully toward David when He tells him to go the field of a man who will offer everything David needs to make a sacrifice, but David can’t quite bring himself to receive the gift. He’d rather pay. David may call God merciful, but again, he doesn’t really seem ready to rejoice in His mercy.
It is true that sacrifices can be costly for those who offer them. Indeed, sometimes, sacrifices should be costly for those who offer them. Such sacrifices can stretch us and help us grow in our faith. But sacrifices can also come as free gifts. And it’s not wise to despise a gift.
How often do we, like David, confess God to be merciful as a matter of doctrinal truth, but then refuse the very mercy that God tries to give? We’d rather pay.
God received David’s sacrifice, even though David did not receive Araunah’s gift: “The LORD answered David with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering” (1 Chronicles 21:26). But I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if rather than saying to Araunah, “Let me pay!” David simply said, “Thank you.” I can’t help but wonder if God would have been pleased with David’s sacrifice just the same.
The apostle Paul writes, “I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your true and proper worship” (Romans 12:1). A holy and pleasing sacrifice does not require a payment from us. Rather, a holy and pleasing sacrifice can simply flow from the mercy of God.
So the next time God is merciful to you (which should be in no time at all), remember to receive His mercy. You don’t need to pay. You can just say, “Thank you.”
Pastor Zach's Blog 