Dead Man Blogging

Two Christian men with (apparently) very different views about the world. One writes this:

I spend thirty seconds thinking about Terry and her suffering and her circumstance, and then each time my heart and mind slip into thinking about my own little girl, and I can?t see the screen in front of me for the tears. Shannon, my third child, at age seven, like Terry cannot feed herself. Like Terry she wears diapers, and must be bathed. Like Terry she doesn?t pay attention, and can?t follow directions. Like Terry she cannot speak. Unlike Terry, she is under the care of a man who has covenanted to care for her, and whose heart loves her, and so she lives. It is good and proper that my heart should ache that Shannon should live in a world where the world thinks people like her should not continue to live. But it is likewise good and proper that she should live in a home where she is the very joy of our lives.

Another writes this:

God hasn’t brought me down the path of certainty about these things. He’s brought me down the path of uncertainty.

Once upon a time, I was an associate minister at a large church. We had friends, good friends, I’ll call Hal and Betty. Hal and Betty had two boys. They got pregnant with a third child. He was born without most of his brain.

I don’t remember a lot of the details here. I know it was terrible and lasted for months. I remember the weeks and months at the hospital. I remember Hal and Betty’s agony about what was the right thing to do for this child they loved. I could feel it tearing away at their marriage and their relationship with their children. Over time, the choices became more terrible, the stress more awful. The child was able to come home, but required constant vigilance and care. Death was certain, but no one knew when. On one occasion, the child stopped breathing at home, and the caretaking parent allowed death to occur. The other parent rushed home and revived the child with extreme measures. They lived through this, and many other things. Eventually, in God’s mercy, the child died.

Now you tell me which man “gets it”.

I don’t want to sound melodramatic, but in some ways today is analogous to what 9/11/01 was in terms of its effect on our worldviews.

There are more than a few people who were liberal on 9/10/01 and are now hawkish neocons. That day shattered our notion that we were safe. We could have seen it coming - considering the Khobar towers, the previous WTC bombings, the attack on the USS Cole - but those things were so easy to ignore. It was easy to shut our eyes and not notice. But after 9/11/01 we couldn’t ignore it anymore. The barbarians were at the gate and we had to take notice. They’d been there for a while, but now they had our attention. Liberals became conservative, and isolationist paleocons turned into interventionist neocons.

What effect will Terri Schiavo’s death have on the conservative Christian worldview?

Before today (plus or minus the last two weeks), it was possible to pretend that things were OK. Bush beat Gore and then Kerry. Janet Jackson said she was sorry and the Superbowl halftime show was cleaned up a little. Fox News is more popular than CNN, and “under God” is still in the Pledge. Congress even passed a law against partial birth abortion. Nice and comfy. Proud to be an American, right?

Of course, the evidence was there for anyone who looked. 46 million abortions in 32 years, for starters. Two babies killed _every single minute_.

Divorce is really high. Sodomy is legal, by court order, as is sodomite “marriage”. Idolatry and paganism are legally protected, enshrined in our precious Constitution. I could chronicle a list of woes in American society, but there’s not much need. We all know what goes on that list.

Will we conservative Christians have the same kind of “paradigm shift” that many Americans had on 9/11/01?

When those towers fell, we saw the world differently. Maybe I’m overreacting, but when Terri Schiavo died of thirst, I saw the world differently.

* I see a nation that recognizes no higher authority than “we the people” and the laws we make.

* I see an executive and legislature dominated by the judiciary.

* I see a Republican party unable or unwilling to act effectively. Janet Reno was willing to defy the courts and seize Elian Gonzales to send him back to a communist state, but nobody was willing to defy Judge Greer and save Terri Schiavo. I see that the lesser of two evils is still not good. I see that I didn’t even get half a loaf. I see that I voted to win, but still lost.

* I see a fallen, godless culture. I see a culture that doesn’t need to be engaged or transformed. It needs to be supplanted, replaced, defeated, destroyed.

What do you see?

Judges 20

3 … Then said the children of Israel, Tell us, how was this wickedness? 4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. 5 And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead. 6 And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel. 7 Behold, ye are all children of Israel; give here your advice and counsel.

8 And all the people arose as one man, saying, We will not any of us go to his tent, neither will we any of us turn into his house. 9 But now this shall be the thing which we will do to Gibeah; we will go up by lot against it; 10 And we will take ten men of an hundred throughout all the tribes of Israel, and an hundred of a thousand, and a thousand out of ten thousand, to fetch victual for the people, that they may do, when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, according to all the folly that they have wrought in Israel.

11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together as one man. 12 And the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, What wickedness is this that is done among you? 13 Now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Belial, which are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel. 14 But the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together out of the cities unto Gibeah, to go out to battle against the children of Israel.

…

19 And the children of Israel rose up in the morning, and encamped against Gibeah. 20 And the men of Israel went out to battle against Benjamin; and the men of Israel put themselves in array to fight against them at Gibeah. …

27 And the children of Israel enquired of the LORD, (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days, 28 And Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days,) saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And the LORD said, Go up; for to morrow I will deliver them into thine hand.

…

35 And the LORD smote Benjamin before Israel: and the children of Israel destroyed of the Benjamites that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men: all these drew the sword.

I’m told that in Nazi Germany there was a Christian church near a train station. That train station was used to load Jews on trains to concentration / death camps. During service, the church was able to sometimes hear the cries of Jews being loaded onto those trains. It became the congregation’s habit to sing very loudly, so as to drown out the desperate cries of the Jews.

I used to think very poorly of the church in Nazi Germany.

I am glad that the church today believes and teaches that _the_ (only) way of bringing the world under the lordship of Christ is individual, personal evangelism.

I am glad that we believe submission to governmental authority means all we can do is vote (for Republicans) and evangelize the lost.

I am glad that the church holds so strongly to the separation of church and state.

I am glad that libertarianism and federalism hold such sway in the minds of conservative Christians.

I am glad that we Christians believe the “rule of law” means the rule of man’s written law, and that we have to do whatever judges say.

I am glad that so many of us turned our backs on Roy Moore and denounced him as a lawbreaker.

I am glad that we supported the execution of Paul Hill for murdering an abortionist.

I am glad for the idea of incrementalism.

Otherwise, we might have come up with some crazy ideas.

I wrote earlier that I wanted the State to bow to Christ. I have taken a little flack for that from an anonymous commenter as well as another.

I agree with Kuyper that there is not a square inch of the universe that Christ does not look at and say ?This is Mine!? And that extends to Washington DC. I believe He is the King of the universe, and that all powers and principalities will bow before Him, including the government. I want to see His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

In the spirit of writing about what I _do_ believe instead of what I _don’t_ believe, here are some things I do believe in as well as questions for anyone who cares to respond. I’m going to start with a few things I do _not_ believe in.

* I do not want to ?impose? Christianity by force of any kind.
* I do not want taxes going to support churches.
* I do not want other denominations or religions outlawed.
* I do not want any religious organization to have any official influence over governmental affairs, or vice versa.
* I do not want any special treatment, good or bad, accorded to anyone due to his religious convictions.

Here?s what I do believe in:

* I believe that the state should openly acknowledge that it rules as a servant of Christ. *What source of authority do you think the state should assert?*
* I believe the State should kiss the Son lest He be angry. *What stance do you think the State should take towards Christ?*
* I believe the State should respect the law of God to limit the areas of life it rules. *What measure do you believe the State should use to determine the limits of its rule?*
* When the state is governing the parts of life that it is supposed to govern, I believe the State should make laws and judgments openly based on the law of God. *What basis do you believe the State should use for making decisions?*

Before you answer, you might take a look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 23, as well as Shaw’s Exposition of this chapter.

David at Challies.com writes about the importance of being _for_ something, not just _against_ many things. A couple of good quotes:

You may have met this kind of person. They are against abortion, but they don?t love children. They are against welfare programs, but they don?t care for widows and orphans, or reach out to their neighbors in need. They know all about the problems they see, but know nothing, or do nothing, towards a solution.

Later he writes about what he believes in:

I believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, as revealed in Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone.
I believe in reverent, God-centered worship.
I believe in expository preaching, based on sound exegesis and hermeneutics, by diligent scholars who are dedicated to rightly dividing the word of truth and declaring all the counsel of God.
I believe in loving the Lord my God with all that I am, and my neighbor as myself.

I don’t want to spend my time picking through the Bible to find out what I’m _against_. I want to look at the Word of God and think about how it out to manifest itself in various parts of my life. I wrote earlier about my desire to see the state bow before Christ. That’s sort of along these lines. I don’t want to be _against_ teaching evolution and certain types of sex education in the government’s schools, and against abortion and against gay marriage in any form and against socialist wealth redistribution schemes and against divorce and blah blah blah. It just makes me tired typing about all the things I’m against. And I _am_ against all those things, but only because they deviate from what I’m _for_.

David’s list of what he believes in is good, and it’s powerful because it’s short. My list will be long.

I am for letting our light shine before men that they may see our good works and glorify our Father who is in heaven.

I am for visiting widows and orphans in their affliction, and keeping ourselves unspotted in this world.

I am for separation from the world, loving God instead of the world, setting our minds on things above, and storing up treasures for ourselves in Heaven.

I am for doing good as we have opportunity, and especially to those of the household of faith.

I am for treating our brothers in Christ so well that the world feels jealous and wonders “What love is this?”

I am for the kingdoms of this world becoming actualized as the kingdom of Christ. Even if the rapture does surprise us one day, it was still a worthy effort.

I am for the spread of the gospel by the public preaching of the Word, and lives of holiness among believers.

I am for being able to give an account for the hope that lies within you.

I am for the church behaving like a body, a bride, a family - not a business or an army. (Oops, that was kind of something I’m against, but it helps clarify what I’m for I think.)

I am for large, stable, loving, extended families where the husband models Christ, the wife models the Church, children obey their parents, parents raise their children, and everyone - whether they are old or unborn, sick or healthy, self sufficient or totally dependent - is welcomed, loved, and cared for until God calls them home.

I am for ties to communities that go back for generations.

I am for a society that honors life and cares for the downtrodden.

I am for welcoming the poor, the tired, the huddled masses yearning to be free, onto our shores. (Yeah, I know that’s not in the Bible, but work with me here.)

I am for working hard, resting well, and unashamedly enjoying the provision and blessings of God.

I am for work that is legitimately part of subduing the earth.

I am for economic and social institutions that treat people as people.

I am for a lifestyle and work that keeps us close to the land and the natural rhythms of night and day, cold and heat, springtime and harvest, that God established.

I am for unity through truth and agreement.

I am for the building up of the saints for the work of ministry.

I am for believers being of the same mind and the same judgment.

I am for reverent, theocentric worship.

I am for a simple, quiet life.

I am for decency, modesty, dignity, sobriety, purity, kindness, compassion, humility, and patience.

Before I get going on this, I want to say - without further explanation - that discussing life and death decisions in cases like this (particularly wrt a feeding tube) is very painful for me right now. So for this post I have disabled pings and comments.

I am somewhat encouraged by Congress’s and Bush’s intervention in the Schiavo case. But as I was reading this article, something kind of jumped out at me:

[Michael Schiavo] has fought for years with his wife’s parents over whether she should be permitted to die or kept alive through the feeding tube.

Look at the way that’s worded: Should she be _permitted_ to die, or _kept_ alive? “Permitted to die” is calculated to imply that the natural, peaceful course of events would be her death, that it’s what she wants to do, and we are artificially stopping it. “Kept alive,” by contrast, suggests active involvement that is thwarting the natural course of events.

Now I could maybe - _maybe_ - agree with this wording if she were on machines that kept her heart beating or kept her breathing. But a _feeding tube_?

If we were to imprison a man and refuse him food and water, would any sane person describe that as “allowing him to die”? After all, it doesn’t take any action on our parts. He’s already locked in a cell - allowing the cell to remain locked is a passive thing. It takes effort to bring him food and water, so can we describe that as “_keeping_ him alive”?

What about an infant? If a mother put a baby in a crib, walked out, closed the door, and never went back, would you describe that as _permitting_ the child to die? After all, a baby is incapable of getting food even if he is not restrained.

George Orwell discussed in _1984_ the importance of language. The words you use affect the things you are able to think. We are losing this battle.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of compromises. The kingdom of God is not advanced through compromising with the children of Satan. We’re here to conquer, not make peace.

I am not interested in seeing stickers in science books explaining that evolution is just a theory. The real debate ought to be between ID and Creationism.

I am not interested in restricting profanity and other filth to only late night TV. We ought to censor it.

I am not interested in the display of the 10 Commandments as part of a historic display. I want a state that openly acknowledges the God of the Bible as our sovereign and the source of all law and morality.

I am not interested in references to a vague “God” in an idolatrous pledge of allegiance to a nation and flag. My allegiance is to Jesus Christ, and I owe honor and obedience to the state because He said so.

I am not interested in any religious service that refers to the God of Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammed. I cannot consider a man a solid Christian if he does not know the differences between Jehovah and Allah or that there is indeed a difference.

I am not interested in “civil unions” for sodomites, just so long as they don’t call it “marriage”. Even the New Testament says sodomites deserve death. At least we could keep a law on the books about it.

And I am no longer interested in voting for Republicans. We’re voting to win, right? Can someone tell me what we’ve won?

Peggy Noonan puts it well:

The Republican Party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. The Republicans are in charge. They have the power. If they can’t save this woman’s [Terri Shiavo's] life, they will face a reckoning from a sizable portion of their own base. And they will of course deserve it.

The idea is that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, especially if you can keep working to get that other half. I’m starting to suspect that we aren’t getting any of the loaf either way. I’d rather go hungry and maintain my dignity by sticking to my principles.

What are we afraid of? Didn’t Jesus tell us the gates of Hell would not prevail against (i.e., withstand) us? Why aren’t we charging?

Kiss the Son, lest He be angry. That’s our king. He doesn’t say pretty please.

I understand that we can’t win everything immediately. I know that the road to eliminating abortion is long and rocky, and that eliminating partial birth abortion is a step. But I’m really starting to wonder if the companions we’ve chosen are interested in walking the same road we are, and indeed if all of us are interested in walking down that road.

I was thinking today about what kind of job would be honoring to the Lord. At first glance, the answer seemed strange, but the longer I thought, the clearer it became. I can serve God by serving drinks. I’ll pour out drink offerings to the Lord … into shot glasses.

Let’s deal with the immediate objections. We know that only legalistic Pharisaical fundamentalists (and who knows if they are _really_ believers to begin with?) think there is anything wrong with drinking. More enlightened Christians realize that Jesus _was_ a winebiber who went to drinking parties. The Pharisees were right in their description of Him. Remember what His first recorded miracle was!

Fundamentalists just don’t get it. They seem to think that Christianity is somehow partly about being “holy” or “righteous”. They don’t realize that no one is righteous or holy, and our (self!-)righteousness is simply filthy rags. No, Christianity is not about “being good”. It’s about evangelism.

Evangelism requires relevance. You have to earn the right to be heard. You have to be thought well of and respected by those you speak to. The methods of public preaching and exemplary living are so artificial, so false, so _yesterday_. Our (post)modern, _authentic_ methods are clearly superior to the practices of the past couple of thousand years. We have to get right in there among the preChristians and _impress_ them.

Bartending is an excellent opportunity for evangelism.

First of all, a bartender has a chance to be “salt and light” which is the greatest mission we have. And although Jesus didn’t actually _say_ it, we know that His admonition to be salt was a command to get out of our “holy huddles” and get in among the world - just like salt gets mixed in with what it is preserving. And although He warned against hiding our light, we know what He meant was that we need to make sure our light is surrounded by as much darkness as possible. Think about it: If you light a candle in a well-lit room, does it give off much light? What if you light it in a pitch black room? In which case is your light more hidden? We ought to worry more about making sure our light is near the darkness, than worrying about somehow hiding it under a basket. I don’t know who came up with that anyway.

Let’s face it, bars are sometimes pretty unsavory places. Which is all the more reason for Christians to be there. The preChristians will see our joy, our cheerfulness, our dynamic personalities - and they will want what we have. Whether it’s the dancers, the DJ, the bouncers, or the customers, we can reach people that God would otherwise not been able to touch.

Remember that Jesus was a friend of sinners - another accurate description from the Pharisees. He spent His time with the lowest members of society. A friend of prostitutes, tax collectors, and other so-called “sinners”.

Second, a bartender is in a pretty unique situation of being able to meet people’s needs. Most people come to bars for a reason. Maybe they are looking for companionship. Perhaps they are depressed because circumstances are looking grim. Maybe they are drinking away pain and guilt. Maybe a marriage is on the rocks.

In all these cases, the bartender’s sympathetic ear epitomizes care and compassion. A Christian bartender would be able to console and counsel these poor wayward souls, mercy and wisdom pouring from his lips as the liquor poured from his bottle. As they drown their sorrows, he could teach them about washing away their sins as well. Through his ministry to “the least of these,” the bartender would become accepted within their culture, respected, and trusted. Having earned the right to be heard, he could speak with relevance to the preChristians around him.

A final, though much less important, point is that a bartender is also in a situation to help restrain sin. Bartenders have the responsibility to refuse to continue to serve alcohol to customers who are clearly drunk. A Christian bartender, trusting in the providence of God, would not fear economic loss (through lost tips, etc) and would be more able to fulfill his duty. Not in a judgmental way, but in a loving and compassionate way.

Proverbs 31:6-7 instructs us “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.” Jesus praises His true children because “ye gave me drink”.

In light of this, I don’t think we should ask “Should a Christian be a bartender?” Instead, we should ask, “How could any Christian _not_ be a bartender?”

Note: This is satire. I am joking. I’m not sure if this guy is, though.

There was a fairly lengthy discussion the other day on a blog I frequent about whether or not suicide is evil. There was some interesting discussion, particularly about what sort of medical procedures were considered suicide (e.g., removing life support) and what might be Biblically justifiable (e.g., giving higher doses of pain medicine even though it shortened one’s life).

A lot of the discussion centered around statements like “My friend committed suicide and didn’t do it to hurt anyone” and “I thought about suicide / tried to commit suicide.” Some of these were valid, since the discussion revolved largely around the evil motives behind suicide. But it seemed to me that many of the commenters were challenging the statement “suicide is evil” by asking how you could say they or their loved ones were evil.

It’s always so much easier to cast abstract _ideas_ and _actions_ as evil. When you put a face and name with those ideas and actions, it’s a lot more uncomfortable. It’s very hard to look at or think of a person you know and make negative moral judgments.

I’ll use a bit of a lighter example than suicide: Shoplifting is wrong. Shoplifters should be punished. No question about it. But if my teenage cousin were to be the shoplifter in question, well, that’s different. It’s much easier to hold a firm moral line when you’re dealing with abstract hypothetical persons, or even anonymous strangers. Put it in the context of people you know and real situations, and it’s different.

This is very understandable. But it’s also unbiblical. Look at the standard God calls His people to:

Deuteronomy 13:6-9
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Our relationship to the offender does not _lessen_ our moral obligation; it _increases_ our obligation!

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say this tendency of softening moral stances when we personally know those involved is pretty much _idolatry_. We have other gods - our friends, family, acquaintances, etc. - before God.

Moral law is not an abstract and external principle. It is the very will and character of God. He is the source of truth and morality. He is the definition of Good. When we are willing to softpedal a moral stance because of a personal relationship, we are letting that relationship interfere with our loyalty to God.

Of course, I don’t mean to criticize good things like giving grace (particularly when there’s repentance) or overlooking wrongs done to us. That’s not wrong, _if_ we are extending the grace and forgiveness of God. We must not pretend what that person did is somehow not that bad. Grace is possible because justice has been _satisfied_, not defeated. Evil is still evil, but it can be forgiven. We do not show grace by lying about the morality of one’s actions and character.