Friday, July 15, 2011

Who Do You Hear? ...

When seeking advice we tend to look for perfection, or at least as close to perfection as is possible, before we take the time to listen.  We like to consult “experts” on subject matter to make informed decisions when presented with information we ourselves admit we do not fully comprehend.  We avoid advice from people who say one thing and do another.  Hypocrites do not seem to make the best counselors.  Yet despite our best efforts, at the end of the day, the people we choose to listen to are all imperfect; make mistakes, and if examined closely enough – they disappoint us.  So who should we choose to rely upon for spiritual answers when faced with a world of obvious imperfections?

Would you take drug rehabilitation counseling from a non-reformed crack addict on the side of the street?  Would you take financial investment advice from a broker who just lost everything and is now going through bankruptcy?  Seems silly does it not?  The best these people might offer us is what not to do.  We could learn from their mistakes, but that is not the same as finding how things should be done.  When it comes to spiritual matters the problem is compounded.  Should I listen to a murderer whose uncontrollable temper could never be tamed?  Should I take prophetic advice from a coward?  How about advice on how to love from a ruthless womanizer?  How do I reconcile the counsel of say Paul which points me only to Jesus, when his entire life had been spent killing anyone who dared to claim the name of Jesus as the Messiah?  One could argue that Moses, Jonah, David, and Paul encountered God and were changed from their experiences.  But a careful reading of scripture shows that certain failings plagued them all right up to the grave.
Recently the trial of Casey Anthony, a young mother accused of killing her 3 year old daughter and did not report it for 31 days, was completed in Orlando Florida.  The verdict was not guilty on all murder charges for the state’s inability to prove their case.  She was however convicted of telling lies about her daughter for the 31 days after her daughter was noticed as missing.  Her behavior defies every norm we hold about how a mother reacts to a missing daughter.  Her trial was one of conflicting expert testimony, circumstantial evidence, accusations and denials.  She never spoke in her own defense.  Now that it is over, she could in fact publish a book, or sell movie rights to her story.  She could now decide to tell “the public” what actually happened.  Even if she did kill her daughter, the state is powerless to convict her now due to our double jeopardy laws.  So she is truly free to say anything about the matter.  But will she?  And if she did, would you listen?  Would you believe the word of a convicted liar, no matter what she said?
I would be willing to bet few would be seeking out Casey Anthony for parenting advice.  She might make good fodder for news shows looking to boost ratings, or talk shows looking to exploit pain.  But she will probably never make a name selling books on how to treasure a daughter and what to do if something happens to a daughter you love.  In that category she seems only qualified to tell you what NOT to do.  But what if Casey Anthony showed up in your local Christian church pulpit this weekend to deliver the sermon?  If the topic had nothing to do with her daughter, would you even be inclined to sit and listen while she speaks?  Her words could be the most loving tender picture of Christ there is, but given her recent infamous position in the media, would any congregation even sit still to listen.  Or would they get up and walk out before she could complete her first few thoughts?  How many would believe her efforts to preach a sermon were nothing more than publicity stunt on her part?  How many would accept that her motivation was not self-serving?
Yet the authors of our cornerstone of faith were a veritable parade of Casey Anthony’s of their own day.  None were perfect.  Many had direct contradictions between what they advocated and what they did.  Moses was an admitted murderer, and he wrote the first five books of the Old Testament.  The Ten Commandments include the edict … “thou shalt not murder”.  So … Moses did one thing and wrote another?  We could argue that he killed the Egyptian and then spent 40 years tending sheep (perhaps for penance, or to learn patience perhaps), and so maybe he changed in that time.  But the same temper that led him to slay the Egyptian, led him to strike the rock when he lost his patience with the constantly complaining children of Israel AFTER nearly 40 years of wandering in the desert.  Nearly 80 years had passed between his first temper incident with the Egyptian and the time he struck the rock in defiance of what God instructed.  One wonders how many times in between the struggle against his temper may have gotten the better of him.  But in any case, how do I take advice on murder from a guy who cannot control his temper?
Paul persecuted Christians.  He killed them.  He hunted them down using any deceitful method required turned their names over to local temple authorities and had them killed.  He was a zealous religious pious warrior for God – who killed every servant of the God he claimed to serve.  Ironic.  After his conversion, do you think he was well attended in his first few sermons on the love of Christ?  Do you think early Christians were willing to forgive the fact that Paul had only last week put their friends and families to death?  How could such a religious zealot who used any method of trickery required to seek out Christians and put them to death now be preaching about the tender love of Christ the true Messiah?  Who would listen? 
Our tendency is to associate the message with the messenger.  We link them such that if the source is not trusted, the content is disregarded.  But we live in an imperfect world.  Every one of us flawed at birth, inheriting generations of genetic decay, and environmental corruption.  For God to reach us, He is forced to use imperfect delivery vehicles.  The perfect truth must pass the lips of the imperfect vessel.  The heavenly communication must come from the pen of the author still struggling against his own very nature.  With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what is otherwise filthy can produce what is pure – whether in word, deed, or publication.  It is the quickening of the Holy Spirit that can transform, even if only for the moment of inspiration, that which is far from perfect, to deliver that which is perfection completed.  This is another gift of God to His erring creation.  It is yet another testament to the tender mercy of our God, to utilize those who are willing to be the delivery mechanism of His truth to all those in need.
Therefore it is the content alone that matters, the delivery vehicle is incidental.  Can truthful words come from a sinner still steeped in sin?  Yes.  The condition of the sinner matters little next to the power of truth that God may elect to send through them.  Consider for a minute God’s revelation of the future through the Pharaoh of Egypt in the days of Joseph.  If God only desired to save those who claimed His name, He could well have spoken directly with Jacob as He had done in the past.  He could have merely warned only the clan of Jacob to move eastward and avoid the coming famine, or to prepare for it as Egypt would eventually do.  But the love of God extends beyond just those who claim His name and worship Him in gratitude.  His love extends to the whole of the world, and so God revealed His purposes not to Jacob, or even to Joseph, His faithful servants.  Instead He reveals His mysteries to Pharaoh.
Pharaoh was no servant of the most High God.  Instead He blasphemed God by claiming that he was divinity on earth.  All men were to bow to the Pharaoh and recognize his earthly divine manifestation.  He did not keep the laws of God, rather he instituted his own.  He was what the Jewish nations would call pagan, or heathen.  He was unclean, unbaptized, unrepentant, ego-maniacal, and had quite literally a God complex.  Yet our God spoke to Pharaoh in a dream.  Our God revealed the future, and His own mercy, to the earthly king that denied His very existence.  Pharaoh did not seek the Holy Spirit.  Pharaoh did not renounce his own divine claims even after having Joseph interpret the meaning of his dreams.  Pharaoh did act in his own interests and in those of his nation.  Thus our God saved multitudes of people who would refuse to call on His name.  Only Joseph stood as an example of the salvation of the Lord through His truth.  Remember Pharaoh might have chosen to disregard the truth shown to him, but he did not.  Truth and mercy were sent to the world in the most unlikely vessel, the king of Egypt and the hand of a slave.
Were we to examine Pharaoh using today’s standards as Christians we would simply ignore the dreams of a raving heathen who claimed to be God as any messages to him from the great beyond, must only come from Satan.  Pharaoh could not be trusted to have received truth from God.  Like Casey Anthony, the stain on the vessel is too great for us to find truth in it.  But at least Pharaoh was sane right?  Nebuchadnezzar would follow many generations later in Babylon.  His sexual exploits would be far from monogamous, and the kind of palace parties (‘orgies’) done in Babylonian times were likely not completely heterosexual in nature.  Anything goes, when morality does not exist.  This king had blood on his hands, he ruled the then known world with a sword drenched in the blood of his enemies.  On top of that he went literally mad for seven years, living in the backyard of his palace feeding on grass.  Not exactly the picture of sanity, yet through him, God chose to reveal His plans for the world right up to the end of time itself.  NOT through his own prophet Daniel who only interpreted the truth God gave to Nebuchadnezzar.  No, like Joseph before him, Daniel was merely the interpretation of truth.  The message itself came to the most unlikely of vessels.
So is it possible that genuine truth could come from the lips of the convicted liar Casey Anthony?  Yes, it actually could.  It is the content that must be examined.  It is the content of the message that must be evaluated independently of the delivery vehicle.  Whatever I think of Casey, I must put my feelings aside, and examine only what she says.  If God chooses to speak through her, I am obliged to listen.  God does not tell us to emulate the vehicles of His truth.  He tells us to hear His words.  He tells us to listen.  He does not want us to be listening to the murderer Moses, or the murderer Paul.  He asks us to look beyond the murderer and see the truth He wishes to communicate to the world through these broken vessels.  His truth lives on.  And His truth is only ever delivered to us in this way throughout all of Scripture.  Christ Himself wrote no books of the New Testament.  Books were written by His far from perfect followers.  The truth lives on delivered by hands inspired of the Holy Spirit though not permanently perfected by Him.  Broken vessels can still deliver perfect truth, when it is God behind the inspiration.  It is why we MUST separate the content from the delivery system.
Jim Baker, a televangelist with an extensive ministry, who was caught with a hooker in a hotel room.  Or was that Jimmy Swaggart who confessed he had sinned.  TV ministers who frequently get caught in sexual indiscretions, some of a homosexual nature, shamed into disgrace leaving behind their ministries.  Does this negate everything they ever said in the uplifting of the name of God?  Does being caught in human weakness reduce the truth of what may have been said before, or after that time?  If it does do we abandon the words of Peter before or after his second conversion when he realized the gospel was not just intended for the Jews but for all people.  People are not perfect, but truth can be.  No one aspires to be Jim Baker, or Jimmy Swaggart, or the countless others who have been publicly humiliated in sins we all too often indulge in ourselves.  But then I do not remember such fallen ministers asking us to be “like them”, instead they asked us to “follow Christ”.  Not every word they uttered was divinely inspired, but not every word they uttered should be disregarded merely because the perfection we all seek had not been found in them yet.
A fundamental problem of our culture is that we idolize celebrity.  We seek the famous, and wish to carry fame of our own.  Thus we spend too much time trying to emulate those we admire rather than model ourselves after the ideals we know to be better.  This tendency leads us to fuse the message with the messenger and when the messenger disappoints we disregard the message as well.  But Christians should intrinsically know that only Christ is our role model.  We should seek only to emulate our Lord, not the imperfect souls who try to share His truth.  We should free ourselves to find the truth in the inspiration behind the vessel, than to believe the inspiration comes from the vessel itself.  It is the God of the truth we seek, not the vessel by which truth comes.
If we could do this, then we could find the beauty of a forgiving and loving God, and could discern His truth, even if it comes from Casey Anthony, or the pastor who already occupies our pulpits, or the family member who does not even embrace the name of God.  If we could ignore the failings of the vessel and focus on the purity of the truth that may come through them, we could finally learn to hear the voice of God.  God reveals His love in the most unlikely places.  But we are so picky about who we hear, and where we choose to listen, we ignore His constant foray into our lives.  We lose so much truth and love from our inability to segregate truth from weakness.  It is time for us to hear His voice wherever it comes.  It is time for us to aspire to truth, not to those who deliver it.  It is time for Christians to see God, even if God chooses to reveal Himself through Casey, or Moses, or Paul.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Homosexuality and Choice ...

Perhaps one of the most perplexing questions a Christian faces in our world is … “is homosexuality a choice?”  If the answer is yes, then adopting this lifestyle is a matter of conscious choice and as the Bible points out, it is a sin against God.  But if the answer is no, then how can God, or the Christian community hold those without choice accountable for this sin?  But beyond a simply yes or no answer are the gray scale responses that occur when regardless of what might have been the original ability to choose, evil inserts itself and corrupts that choice through abuse or rape, particularly when it occurs on children unable to defend themselves or mature enough to know their own sexual preferences.  In these situations the idea of “choice” itself is even murkier.  But then perhaps on an even more profound basis, we might all ask if sin itself is a matter of choice or not.

Most Christians believe that acts of sin are matters of conscious choice.  If this is true, then man should be accountable for both the commission of sin as well as the cessation of sin.  If I CAN choose not to sin, but do NOT choose to stop sinning, then I am alone responsible for the sin in my life.  And more to the point, if I am able to choose to stop sinning, why do I need a savior to save me from my pain?  It seems then the only role for Christ in this version of Christianity is to provide forgiveness for my past.  Going forward, if the actions of sin are nothing more than choice, I can simply elect to sin no further.  Perfection then, should be instantaneous, complete, and permanent.  Sounds like the twinkling of an eye to me which is not predicted until the second coming. 
Others believe it is the action of the Holy Spirit that drives sin from our lives.  That once “the Spirit falls” on us, our sin is removed from us and we are made perfect by the indwelling of the Spirit.  At its heart this is true, but we are still free to reject our salvation from sin, even after the Spirit has fallen.  On the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was made manifest in the upper room, all present were “of one accord”.  All 12 of the disciples as well as the rest of the servants of Christ were physically touched by the Spirit of God.  They spoke, and their words were heard in the native languages of all present.  It was a miraculous event.  Yet it did not prevent later dissention over preaching to the Gentiles, even in the heart of Peter who had to receive a further dream from God before he was convinced the gospel was meant for ALL the world, not just all Jewish peoples.  It did not prevent the later dissention about who should accompany various disciples on their journeys to spread the word.  Arguments were not permanently disabled thru the initial touch of the Holy Spirit.  They were abated only while His presence was among them.  Later imperfections still revealed themselves and it was obvious perfection had not been obtained through that singular incident.
Paul considered himself chief among sinners.  This was not merely a reference to his murderous past, but a declaration about his immediate present as he penned those words.  “That which I would not, that do I do” – these words reflect Paul’s struggles against sin long after his Damascus Road conversion being directly touched by Christ.  Paul knew the horror of sin, as well as the love of Christ.  His written letters of encourage to the churches of his day were designed to point all to the love and ministry of Christ on our behalf.  Paul who was responsible for writing nearly half the books included in the New Testament portion of our Bible, inspired of God, had not reached the perfection we all seek.  Paul who died a martyr’s death, had not reached perfection despite his being so close to Christ.  Paul’s own words reflect on our discussion of choice – Paul states – “that which I would not” – this means that Paul does not desire to do what he does, yet he does it anyway.  If sin was merely an act of choice why would Paul simply not do, what he does not wish to do.
Scripture also provides us with incidents that do appear to be matters of choice such as the act of Judas in betraying our Lord.  Judas makes a bargain with the Jewish religious leadership to betray Christ to them for a few pieces of silver.  No one knows why he committed this act.  It could have been to simply increase his greed.  But it might also have been to force Jesus to act to save himself when confronted with his imminent death.  Judas may have been trying to compel Jesus to become the earthly king the Pharisees had so long predicted would come.  There was no doubt in Judas’ mind as to Christ being the Son of God.  He had been with Jesus almost as long as any other disciple, he had seen the same miracles, and performed them himself like all the others.  He had the same understanding of scriptures as EVERY other disciple did.  They ALL used to argue about who would be greatest in the coming kingdom Jesus would implement in this world.  They ALL believed Jesus would eventually be an earthly king.  This is what their religion had taught, and what history had always seen develop.  Israel would sin, be invaded, and after repentance (which John the Baptist had called for), they would be delivered from their enemies.  Their current enemy was Rome, so they all believed Jesus would deliver them from Roman oppression.  Judas may have only believed he was forcing this to occur sooner rather than later.  So his act was a conscious decision, despite what his motives may have been.  A sin of choice.
Peter too sinned by choice.  Peter in an attempt to preserve his own life, denied even knowing his Savior.  These were sins of self-preservation, lies told to protect himself from the fear of discovery and association with Christ; sins that broke the heart of Peter when the words of Christ earlier in the day rang true in his ears with the cock crowing.  Judas’ sin broke his heart too as he realized that the ministry of Christ would not be to setup an earthly kingdom at all.  Both saw the death of Christ as a permanent thing (forgetting the words of Jesus about His own resurrection).  They saw their own acts of shame in the demise of Christ as unable to receive forgiveness for their Lord had died.  Judas elected to hang himself in his despair.  Peter simply cowered in the shame of what he had done.  Had Judas waited and witnessed the resurrection of his Lord, he too might have gotten the forgiveness of Christ he so longed to have.  No one can judge.  But clearly both men chose to do as they did.  Neither was compelled to do so.
So perhaps sin is sometimes a choice, and seems sometimes to be beyond what we would classify as choice.  Choices do have consequences.  It is the nature of sin to be addictive.  Not just the sins that alter our body chemistry through drugs or alcohol; but every sin has the propensity to become habit.  Any action we repeat can move from singular acts to acts of habit.  As habits grow they become part of our nature, part of who we are.  It is our brain chemistry itself that is altered with repeated behavior that moves a single choice, into a repeated pattern, into a “natural” part of who we are.  The pathways in the brain develop electrical superhighways that conduct the electricity in our brains with greater and greater ease as we repeat actions over and over again.  Ever heard the term “pathological liar”?  A person who lies over and over and over again, it becomes more natural to lie than to tell the truth – even when the truth might be better for you – even when telling the truth would decidedly prevent pain from lying, the liar may still lie, and defy explanation in doing so.
So there may be a choice that an alcoholic makes to take the first drink, but once the chemistry is altered in his brain, taking the second drink is significantly easier.  Over time, he loses his ability to choose.  Over time, he becomes an addict to alcohol.  Adam once had the ability to choose not to sin.  When he consumed the forbidden fruit, he lost the ability to say no to sin entirely.  He could war against it from then on, but was destined to lose.  Adam lost for us our dominion over ourselves.  We no longer have the ability to “just say no” to sin.  We are slaves.  We are addicts.  We have generations of our parents propensities built into our DNA, along with an environment of moral decline that has existed for over 6000 years.  We are programmed to fail in our current state.  When scripture proclaims there is not “one” who is holy outside of Christ, it states a fact of obvious observation.  So then our only real choice is “who” we wish to dominate our lives – not whether our lives will contain sin.
When we choose Christ, we learn to submit ourselves to Him.  Submission is not merely an act of acknowledgement that we require forgiveness for our past.  It is an act of surrender regarding our desperate need of a Savior in our present.  We must be saved from ourselves.  It is “I” who is the enemy of Christ.  It is “self” that must die, in order that life can be worth living.  Our surrender or submission to Christ then is about letting Christ change “who we are”.  We need to allow Him to remake what we want, what we desire, and what we love.  We need to allow Christ to teach us “how” to love, and what love really means.  We need to be willing to “let go” every shred of what we think is wisdom and instead accept what He teaches us as being truth.  Our own common sense must be abandoned in favor of trusting God.  Many times in scripture our God asks us to do things that defy common sense, and we agree miracles are performed by His great power.  The miracle of a changed life does not occur in the strength or desire of the subject, it occurs in the complete domination of a life submitted to Christ.  It is Christ’s strength that drives sin from our lives, our hearts, our minds, even our DNA.  It is Christ’s strength that is sufficient to do what cannot be done through “normal” means.  It is Christ alone who can, and “we” who can do nothing.
In this context, it does not matter whether homosexuality is brought on by choices repeated over time, or by inherent propensities of our genetics, or by the victimization of predators upon young prey.  The reason why a condition exists becomes less important than the process to reach perfection in our lives.  Gay, straight, adulterer, liar, drunkard, no matter our condition – we ALL exist in sin at the present.  And we ALL require healing.  And there is only ONE method by which healing can be attained; in the complete and total surrender to Christ.  When Christ leads, the reasons why we are in the condition we are do not matter, only that we reach the life He intended for us.  It is NOT up to us to define the sins of others, it is up to us to allow Christ to remove the sins that harbor within us.  It is not up to us to define how others must love; rather it is up to us to allow Christ to teach us what love means and how to love others without condition.  We must ALL learn to love like He loves, and not according to our own ideas on the topic.
The problem Christians truly face in questions of homosexuality is not about choices, but about judgment and condemnation.  We center our attention on a sexual sin, most of us are not confronted with, and decry it as being an abomination before God.  Yet we completely ignore the pride in our own hearts that would lead us to make these declarations.  We ignore the greater sin of self-focus in our own lives and hearts and focus only on what we believe to be aberrant in others; all this while indulging in lies, pride, avarice, greed, manipulation, and lust of another variety.  Our own cups of iniquity are overflowing while we cast dispersions and judge the motives and histories of others who are caught up in a different kind of pain and struggle than our own.  It is the world who would have us believe we should be “all we can be”.  It is the world who would have us believe we should be “true to ourselves”.  It is scripture that teaches us that “we” cannot be trusted to want the right things.  It is scripture that teaches us that our ideas of wisdom are actually folly.  It is scripture that teaches us that we can be SO much more than we are, if we are willing to allow Christ to remake us into His image once again.
The work of a follower of Christ must reflect the work of their leader.  Christ did not come to our world to condemn it, but to redeem it.  We are NOT called to condemn the sins of others, but to work for their redemption.  We must lead in this work by submitting to it ourselves FIRST.  We are not capable of witness to a life in pain, while we embrace the pain of evil in ourselves.  We are not capable of witness to how evil is defeated while we continue to war against it in our own strength, denying our need of a savior, and calling sin merely a matter of choice.  We must lead lives of submission found only in Christ before we have anything to say to the world around us.  We must see sin taken from us FIRST.  We must see sin disappear in our hearts FIRST.  We must see the clear leadership of Christ in our OWN desires, needs, wants, and love BEFORE we are qualified to talk to others about what Christ has done for us.  The process for the removal of sin, all sin, is the same.  The journeys are as different as fingerprints and DNA that make us unique.  God must reach each of us personally, if we are to be saved.  It is in our interests, and the interests of those we would wish to save, to keep from inserting “ourselves” in the process and allow Christ ALONE to do the work He alone is capable of doing.  We must learn to trust our own salvation to Him, and allow Him the freedom to do the same with others, in the manner He sees fit, in the timeline He chooses to use, and without our considered second opinions on the process at all.
If there is to be a choice at all – let it be to choose Christ and give Him the freedom to save us from ourselves.  This alone is the only “choice” worth making.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Bio Ethics ...

How far would you go to save your own life?  Would you take the life of another to save your own?  How should a Christian handle the idea of human cloning?  Just because we can do a thing, should we do that thing?  These questions haunt our minds and hearts as we consider the ethics of how far we have come with respect to biology and science around life.  DNA has been cracked by modern science.  The human genome is being mapped already.  Before long, science will offer us cures for illnesses that have long plagued our world.  But at what cost?  Will we be willing to compromise our humanity to achieve great medical breakthroughs, or perhaps just our Christian ideals?

Organ donation is a relatively new ability in our world.  It has only been around for about a hundred years.  Go back more than that and those requiring a new heart, or other critical organ, would simply die of their conditions.  Some organs are able to be harvested from live donors without significant loss of quality of life such as kidneys, etc.  Others like human hearts can only be harvested from poor souls who have died recently or are brain dead.  We look on those willing to donate these organs as “giving” the greatest gift of life to those in need.  But what if this sacrifice was no longer needed?  If scientists were able to advance our abilities in human organ cloning, it may one day be possible for medical personnel to grow a new heart from a cell harvested from our own bodies.  With the added ability of genetic manipulation, they may also be able to remove any inherent defects in the newly grown organ before transplant occurs.  How far would we go to see this goal achieved?  Imagine the worldwide impact of this kind of cloned organ transplant.
Genetic manipulation itself is studied with the intent of curing disease and removing potential threats from us and our offspring.  The goals are lofty, and seem beneficial to our society.  But our fear of the unknown makes us cautious in our pursuit of scientific achievement, perhaps rightfully so.  Despite best intentions, sometimes fairly horrific acts are committed in the “name” of science.  Hitler’s regime conducted “research” on the limits of a human to cope with pain.  His results are regularly employed in today’s torture implementations.  The “scientific” experiments he had conducted were nothing short of horrific and have had little beneficial value (if any) in our modern world.  All he seemed to achieve in the name of science was pain and suffering and needless death.  But to think only Hitler was capable of this is to ignore our own nations “research” into deliberately giving men venereal diseases, or deliberately giving American citizens radioactive poisons to study their effects on the population.  Our own government in times past has done regrettable things under the guise of scientific research.
In truth it is not the science behind cures and potential cures we fear, it is the reality of how humans use knowledge in harmful ways over others that we fear.  Nuclear technology could have been employed for power production only, but instead it was first used as a massive weapon.  Now the world lives in fear of a rogue nation or group deploying such a weapon.  Millions could die from it.  Our history and track record where it comes to scientific breakthroughs is not one of stellar success where mankind was benefited unconditionally.  Today, many believe that medical cures are no longer a topic of research.  Instead “treatments” are sought, that will captivate patients into lifelong commitment to drug regimens that will maintain drug company profits well into the future.  So while the promise of human cloning and genetic manipulation seem to offer us much, we remain skeptical based on our historical applications of new scientific information.
This is not a new problem.  It is theorized that after the fall of Adam and Eve, subsequent generations using 100 percent of their brain capacity and having nearly unlimited access to raw materials may well have cracked DNA prior to the flood.  The blending of human with animal species told of in our myths and legends may have a basis in our distant past.  The blending of animal species combined with genetic manipulation could well have resulted in the genesis of dinosaurs prior to the flood.  It would also explain why God chose not to preserve any of the species in the ark that He did not create.  It may also explain why the numbers of dinosaur remains are rarely found in great numbers.  Granted it is all speculation based on our understanding of Biblical teachings and the evidence we have uncovered to date (something which evolutionists would predictably dispute).  But if the theory has merit, it would imply that genetic manipulation is not always used to ennoble mankind, but rather to have him explore his baser ideas.
 Where it comes to bio-ethics, the weightier questions center around the cost and value of human life, or even animal life.  If one person is killed to save a thousand, is it worth it?  Perhaps not if YOU are the person slated for death, particularly if you are given no choice in the matter.  Those who would believe the loss of one life is worth the saving of a thousand are more likely to lower those numbers significantly before the equation breaks down.  Often it may simply come down to - better you than me.  It is this willingness to sacrifice the lives of others to preserve our own that form the basis for ethical conflict on this topic.  For those of us more tenderhearted the same argument is applied to lesser species of life such as animals.  While we do not discard the idea of animal testing on medical research, we seem to object more readily to cosmetic companies torturing animals to insure their products will have less adverse effects on their human customers.  At its base is the ethical question what is one life worth?
Christ laid down His life to save all of mankind.  But He chose to do so.  No one forced Him, or compelled Him to redeem a race that had rejected Him and broken trust with Him.  It was love unbound that motivated that decision.  In it, He does not compel us to do the same.  The Bible does not ask us to die for others, yet often love motivates mankind to do just that.  Soldiers on the battlefield give all to save their comrades.  People who they have only met in service to their country become like brothers to them, friends who they will sacrifice all to protect.  Men make choices to save others by laying down their own lives.  But none of it should be compulsory.  It is the tendency of science to create scenarios where choice is not offered.  The “research” is considered of more value to humanity, than the humans that will suffer to see the research completed.
The example of Christ is not one to disregard a single life.  Ninety nine sheep were left safely in the fold in order that one erring lost sheep could be found and carried back to the safety of the others.  Each life is of such value to our Lord that He would have come and lived His life to save only one, if only one was willing to be saved.  To this end our bio-ethical positions should reflect that extreme value of a single human life.  Not a single human life should ever be compelled to be sacrificed in exchange for the benefit of others.  The donor is as important as the recipient.  Each is precious.  Each must be preserved.
If human cloning requires the creation of a complete additional copy before organs would be suitable to donation, it takes the process too far and should violate our ethical standards.  If the research to accomplish genetic manipulation requires adverse consequences to those involved it cannot be mandated and must be fully disclosed.  In our quest to prolong and improve the quality of life we must as Christians maintain our focus on the value our Lord places in each life.  We must remember that His sacrifice was enormous for each life, and so each life should be so valued.  If we maintain a love-centered ideology our ethical decisions and standards will better reflect the government of heaven, where there is no compulsion, but only eternal love for each soul.

Abortion ...

What is life?  How do we define its value?  Should we even try?  Perhaps the biggest political debate that conflicts with popular Christian philosophy centers around the origin and value of human life.  Most Christians feel strongly that the lives of the innocent should be protected.  In a bit of irony, most Christians also support the death penalty.  But are we looking at this issue in the proper context?  Or have we been forced to see this debate as the choice to respect the privacy and rights of a woman over the rights of the unborn to live?  This is how the issue is framed for us in the media and by most all the political pundits and candidates of the day.  But perhaps there is another way to examine this perplexing issue that might bring together those with opposing views.

First one must examine the most fundamental question; who is the author of life?  As Christians we believe this is God.  But what role God delegated to man in the pro-creation of life is something that must also be considered.  For a child to be born at all, a man and woman (without using the aid of modern cloning, or advanced fertility techniques which we will discuss later) must consent to having intercourse.  This was intended to occur within the marital relationship as God setup in the Garden of Eden before sin ever existed.  The intimacy shared between husband and wife on the most profound physical level would result in the “multiplying” of our species.  If man and wife abstain entirely, no child is born at all.  Man makes a choice.  That choice has consequences.  It was not God’s design that only one sex could spontaneously decide to have children.  It was supposed to take the union of both man and wife.  Two people deciding to join, and in so doing, to pro-create.  We cannot originate life on our own.  But in union we are able to.
This brings up the issue, of how much of a role do we play with respect to the choice to procreate.  To the best of our knowledge there has only ever been ONE virgin birth, that of Christ.  Every other birth (short modern medicine) has occurred the traditional way.  God has not intervened and granted the desire of a single person absent a partner to spontaneously create a new life.  Therefore men and women play the MOST pivotal role in our species propagation.  It is not a matter of luck.  It is not a matter of fate.  It is a matter of choice, physical interaction, and the biological systems our God has created in us.  Engage in physical union and the results can be procreation.  No union – no children.  So when a husband and wife come together as God ordained, a child is the likely outcome.  It takes preventative measures to interrupt what would otherwise occur.  Today women take a pill, or couples use condoms, or other measures to disrupt what might otherwise occur as a natural result of their unions.  The entire birth control industry is built on preventing the likelihood of pregnancy.
It is natural, or by design, that procreation occurs from physical union.  It takes deliberate effort to prevent it.  Unless a couple suffers from medical inabilities of some sort, a series of physical unions will produce offspring.  Therefore it is a choice of man – whether a new life enters the world or not – as his actions can predict the outcome of that choice.  God does not create life absent the choice of man.  God has instead delegated this decision, and this process to man, for us to exercise as He has outlined.  Most every ”dilemma” that accompanies pregnancy occurs when physical unions happens outside of what God intended and ordained.
Rape and incest in our modern age were NEVER a part of God’s plans or intentions.  Teenage pregnancy was not either.  Pregnancy that comes from irresponsible decision making is not the fault of God.  To believe that God “wants” a teenage unmarried girl to become pregnant from engaging in sex outside of what He intended is to make God a sadist interested in punishing the guilty rather than redeeming them.  God does not “want” the teenager to be engaging in premarital sex in the first place.  This evil causes us to lose our self-respect, lose the ability to truly understand intimacy, cause undo emotional hardship as our transient relationships begin and end without commitment.  The pain that is caused to the teenager even if she never gets pregnant is damage enough.  Her life is already being ruined, even if she is unable to see it from lack of immediate consequences, as is the life of her partner who too suffers all these losses.  This says nothing of the risks that are taken from sexual diseases that can permanently alter our lives.  None of this was God’s intent.  But ALL of this is inevitable if premarital sex is embraced.  Pregnancy too is a natural consequence.  Not something that God ordained, or otherwise “blessed”.  It is simply another consequence to the actions and choices a teenager has made, or for that matter people of any age who engage in the same actions and decisions.
Forced sexual interaction was also NOT something God ever intended.  It is an abomination to Him.  And He does NOT intend that a woman becomes pregnant through the violent domination of a man who simply overpowers her in pure selfishness.  Pregnancy in these situations is not about what God intends, as if it were up to God, no sin like this would ever exist or be carried out.  Pregnancy in these situations is the natural results of the biological systems we were created with.  The only specific life that God ordained and intended was the birth of His son Jesus.  All other lives that have entered this world came through the natural results of men and their actions and choices.
So while the secondary origin of life may rest in the hands of men as God has created us with this ability.  The “value” of life is another matter entirely.  Each soul is precious to our God.  Each life is one in which He calls us His children.  Each of us unique by design.  Each created for a singular purpose that no other man or woman will ever be able to completely replicate for all eternity.  These are the teachings our Bible gives us.  Our existence may have been known to God in advance of our entering the world, but this is simply because He knew the choices our parents would make, and when they would make them.  When in scripture He says … I knew you in the womb … He is making a statement about His own omniscience, not about when cells dividing reach the point of life beginning.  To that end, each cell is already a “living” organism.  God knew the lives of all of us from before Adam and Eve were created.  He did not intend for Adam and Eve to break trust with Him and fail.  He did everything He could to prevent them from the choices they made.  But He could not force them to comply.  Nor can He force us to make better decisions.
Foreknowledge does not equate to predestination.  God does everything He can to save us from ourselves and the evil we embrace.  But He cannot compel us to choose Him.  This is the very nature of the freedom of choice He created.  He asks us, but does not force us.  Therefore man must be made responsible for the decisions he makes.  When we choose God, and submit our will to Him, He reforms our thinking and our desires and the consequences that come from evil outside of His intentions are removed from us through His grace.  When we forget to submit, or choose to follow our own path, we destine ourselves to the pain that comes from turning away from God.  When sex is engaged in outside of what God designed the natural results of the biology will also be inevitable.  Our choices may be foreseen by God, but they remain unknown to us.  We remain free to choose Him, or choose to forsake Him.  Only He knows what we will inevitably choose, but as we do not, we must turn our hearts and minds to Him daily.
So the simplistic answer is that were we to follow the designs of God and His intentions, the entire debate about “unwanted” pregnancies goes away.  Within the marital relationship, modern medical science offers us both ways to overcome our inabilities to procreate, as well as ways to keep from procreation.  Couples are able to make informed decisions about when to have children.  Should a married couple engage in physical union without precautions, they should expect pregnancy to result.  You cannot go back and hit the delete button.  One shouldn’t complain that they are unprepared or financially not ready to have children as a result of the irresponsible decisions we make even inside of a marriage.  If it matters, fix it.  If we intend to take risks, we should be responsible when the risks do not have the outcomes we wanted.
But what happens when evil is embraced and through sexual unions outside of God’s intentions a pregnancy results?  The salient question is what is to be done with the new life?  True freedom of choice, as God outlines it in scripture, is the freedom for a mother to “choose” to carry the pregnancy to term.  Then to decide whether to raise the child or not, which may well reflect the realities of her life and circumstances and what is in the best interests of the child at that time.  No mother should ever be criticized for the choices she makes in this regard whatever they are.  But what of those who choose not to carry the pregnancy to term?  Is that “against God”?
The Bible speaks of God breathing into man the breath of life.  It is at this point that man “became” a “living” soul.  We are not immortal.  We did not originate ourselves to begin with.  When that first breath was taken, we “became” a “living” soul.  Until then, we were a collection of dirt, water, and a few trace elements.  We did not spontaneously spring into existence through a selection of random events.  We were created by design.  Our creation was not complete until our first breath was taken.  We may have had hearts, brains, blood, bones, and the systems we needed in place to sustain life; but without God breathing into us, we were still NOT alive.  The same is true in the delivery room.  Until the child takes his first breath, he is not considered to be alive.  If he never breathes he is considered still born.  But when he takes that first breath on his own, a new life has entered the world.
When a mother suffers the loss of a pregnancy before it comes to term, it is a terribly sad event.  It is not that we miss a life we knew.  It is that we miss the life we wanted to know.  The life that might have existed, even if it never saw the light of day.  But in truth what was lost was not a new life, but the potential for a new life.  There is a difference between a pregnancy that terminates before birth, a child who is still-born, and an infant who dies of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).  Forgetting for a minute the intentional early termination of a pregnancy; prior to taking that first breath, a new life does not yet exist.  Once that first breath is taken, a new life has entered the world.
Those who believe “life” begins at conception are correct.  “Life” in so much as every single cell in our bodies is already alive and functioning as it should, begins even before conception.  Sperm too are alive.  As are the eggs they fertilize.  The process was created by God and was not intended for early interruption.  Death was never supposed to be part of our reality.  Neither was sickness or pain.  These things come as a result of the evil we embraced.  But our reality reflects the fact that not all pregnancies make it to term successfully.  The process is cut short from time to time.  When this occurs, it is the potential for life that has died, not life itself.  Perhaps in heaven the lost potential will be restored to us.  But while we remain here, we have to contend with the most unfortunate of circumstances that sometimes accompany a pregnancy lost.
It is the intentional disruption of the process of life that so grates on our hearts and our conscience.  Perhaps it is because most of the time when choice is exercised to terminate our normal process of life, it is done for reasons of pure selfishness.  When the decision to engage in sex was not forced, it is usually our other “priorities” that outweigh the potential life we choose to forego.  We put our own interests ahead of the interests of another.  Sound familiar?  It is the very core of evil itself – self-ish-ness.  We do not wish for our lives, our dreams, our desires, or our goals to “suffer” from our bad decisions.  When infidelity was the culprit behind an unwanted pregnancy, termination is sought to cover up our misdeeds.  When unwanted pregnancy occurs in the life of a teenager unprepared for the consequences of raising another life, we think our own needs outweigh those of another.  When casual sex is engaged in, we ignore our own irresponsibility and attempt to negate the “consequences” of our actions in order to avoid life-long financial responsibility or inconvenience.  In short, we take the risks, but refuse to embrace the natural consequences of our actions when they turn out to be not what we wanted.  This line of reasoning is entirely based in the same self-motivation that is at the root of every evil ever perpetrated in the history of our world.  It is why the idea of choosing early termination rubs us the wrong way.  It defies our ideas of right and wrong, because ultimately we know our choices are based in our own self interests.
But in cases where the choice to engage in sex was not one of informed consent; the idea of early termination of pregnancy by choice is only one of sadness.  Already a crime against a woman has been committed.  Now it is complicated by a result not of intent but of victimization.  What a woman chooses to do in a situation like this should be a matter of true choice between her and her God.  Should she choose to carry the pregnancy to term, she should be supported and embraced by those who claim the name of Christ.  Should she choose to end the pregnancy before an independent life is formed she should be supported by the same Christians who would have loved her if the outcome were different.  Obviously it is not a casual decision.  And the longer one waits the closer the life becomes from one of potential to one of reality.  But the motivation of a victim is entirely different from the motivation of one who has simply made a “bad” decision (which is actually taking a risk with an undesired outcome).  A victim makes a choice as to how to “deal” with the evil that has been perpetrated upon them.  There is no such equivalent for errant decisions.
In cases where the life and well-being of mother is put at risk from carrying a pregnancy to term, the decision again must be respected no matter the outcome.  Who would dare to criticize a woman who would willingly put her own life at risk to save another?  Is that not what policemen, firemen, EMT’s and our military servicemen do every day?  A mother will instinctively insert herself between her child and a predator determined to harm the child.  And a pregnant woman instinctively knows she is guarding the potential for life within her.  While our God values the life that exists in the woman who is already alive, He can also sympathize with her as she tries to fight for the life within her that puts her at risk.  She should never be condemned for trying to bring about the potential for life into an actual one.
Where a woman at medical risk makes a different decision in order to preserve her own well-being, no one should ever criticize this decision as well.  We do not criticize each other for changing our diets to preserve our health, or having a surgery, or taking advantage of modern medicine to extend our lives.  We do it regularly.  We do not criticize each other for defending our lives and those we love when they are threatened by the evil that exists in this world.  How many husbands would sit idly by and allow their wives to be harmed by another without stepping in harm’s way themselves first?  We take steps to protect ourselves and preserve our lives sometimes at the expense of another living person.  Why would we criticize a woman for doing so even before a potential life has transitioned to an actual one?  It makes no sense.  This is not a casual decision a person makes.  Organ donors take risks and we do not condemn the one who gives, or the one who is willing to receive what has been given.  We value the lives of them both.  We do not ask the donor to die, in order that the recipient live.  Instead we do everything we can to preserve both.  But at the end of the day, the life of the donor must be respected.  So too, the life of the mother must outweigh the potential for life she carries within her.  No man should judge her decisions in this respect.
No matter the circumstances the loss of a pregnancy that does not reach its fulfillment is a sad thing.  None of us are in a mood to celebrate, even at the potential lost life.  We may not hold funerals, or we may not feel the loss as keenly because we were unable to build a relationship with what would have been a new addition to our world, but we still feel the pains of sadness.  The loss deepens as time progresses.  Our own biological systems discard potential lives by the thousands in the form of sperm and eggs in early stages post copulation.  At this point we lack even the capability to know what is going on.  Once a pregnancy test comes back positive, changes begin to occur in the body, but more importantly in our minds.  We begin to accept the idea that life is coming.  We begin to anticipate it.  We start making plans around it.  We prepare, both physically and emotionally.  And we look forward to life.  When it is lost, no matter the reason, our sadness is experienced.
We must however make the distinction between sadness at the loss of potential, and sadness for the loss of an actual life.  We are sad when someone we love chooses to embrace an alcohol addiction and refuses to seek help.  It saddens us as we watch someone we love degrade themselves losing more and more of the things we value to the slavery of their condition.  People give up promising careers, financial stability, and finally even become willing to sacrifice the love of their families – all to pursue the next drink.  Everyone knows the futility of these choices.  Even the alcoholic can see the damage they inflict on themselves and those around them.  Yet they choose it anyway.  It is a terrible loss to watch the waste of potential.  But while life remains in the alcoholic, hope remains that reform can be sought.
When a person we knew dies, the loss is keener still.  When an aged parent or friend dies after many years of life, the loss is great as our relationships with them had time to mature.  Our love had time to grow and deepen.  When a young person dies we mourn both the loss of person we knew, and the loss of what they might have accomplished had they more time in this world.  When a baby dies, no matter how long they last after they take their first breath; the loss is heartbreaking.  The reality of death is keenly felt and the precious treasure is temporarily removed from our touch – to await a reunion in a more perfect world at the end of evil.  A parent truly mourns the loss of a child at any age.  It is the rest of us who mourn with them, the more we have time to build our own relationships with the children they have lost.
A Christian should have the clearest picture of what the loss of life, and the potential for life means.  We should do everything in our power to comfort those who have experienced this pain.  We should never do anything that might add to it.  It is unthinkable to go to a funeral and heap insults on the departed.  We would condemn the person who goes to such an affair and does everything they can to increase the pain of the survivors.  To go there and second guess them, to say “they” are at fault for the lost loved ones, blaming “them” for not doing enough.  It is unconscionable.  Funerals are a time for comfort and to express our grief and sadness, not a time for recriminations, blame, and second guessing.  The predominant emotion at a funeral is sadness, and for Christians, the secondary emotion should be hope.  But what is not needed at all is criticism.
When a woman seeks out a medical facility to terminate a pregnancy it is not the time for criticism.  It is akin to standing outside a drug rehab facility screaming at the patients leaving the building for ever being addicted in the first place.  If Christians wish to see better “choices”, we must begin by allowing Christ to change the desires we hold in the first place, and the values we choose to live by.  It must begin with the man in the mirror, not with the woman on the street.  When our own lives are reformed by His grace, we begin to love like He loves.  This is a compelling lure, and provides a reason for someone who is still caught in pain, to ask us how we found relief from our own pain.  It is then that we have an effective answer for them.  Submission to Christ cannot be taught in words.  It must be shown in the mirror of our lives.  We must be different people, not simply talk about aspiring to be different.  When we love without precondition our first concern is to alleviate the pain of others, not to increase it.
When our own lives reflect the work of submission to Christ, we finally and truly see the value in forsaking evil.  Our lives become a living example to our children of what marriage is actually capable of being.  We become more Christ-like in our role models as parents and our children see what the difference is, instead of just hearing about it.  Only then will teenage pregnancy rates begin to decline.  When our children witness for themselves the beauty of a marriage, instead of being subjected to the horror and pain of divorce, will we begin to see them cherish the ideas of fidelity and waiting for the “right” one to come along.  How can we ask them to wait for the “right” person to marry, when we ourselves trade in wives and husbands like so much candy?  If our relationships are transient can we not expect our children’s to reflect this also.  If our marriages are bad because we base them on our own abilities and selfish weaknesses can we truly expect our children to value marriage?  We must be different before the world becomes different.
Values cannot be instilled in another through well-crafted words.  They must be shown by a well lived life.  A living example is a powerful testimony.  If we wish to see a reduction in the choices to terminate pregnancies we must begin in our own homes.  As we become changed, and introduce change to our children, we raise up a generation who knows only how to love like God loves.  Teenage pregnancies will fall dramatically.  But to reflect the character of Christ is not to embrace evil, or to condemn and punish those who do.  It is to redeem those who embrace evil from the pain they bring upon themselves.  Instead of carrying placards in front of an abortion clinic, why not open, publicize, or volunteer to help out at an adoption services facility.  Open, volunteer, or contribute to a local day care facility for parents who do not have the funding to care for their children on their own.  Volunteer or teach in any facility that will have you that caters to the needs of the children who already exist in our communities.  Each of these acts of service will inspire others to believe that perhaps raising a child may be more feasible than they first thought.  Where no hope is offered to a person in need, hope is lost, and people make unfortunate and sad decisions.
Beliefs cannot be legislated into the hearts and minds of others.  Our country had national laws to set a maximum speed limit on its road systems of 55mph for many years.  Yet our citizenry routinely ignored these limitations despite the consequences.  The laws were enacted to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, a goal with which most agree.  But the inconvenience of driving at reduced speed outweighed the better goals of reducing our fuel consumption.  Eventually because so many ignored these laws, they were revoked.  The creation of laws does not change the minds of the governed.  Consequences for breaking our laws does nothing to deter a criminal bent on disobedience.  To truly change behavior, we must provide a living role model, that behavior can change, and that the values we live by help us avoid the pain and sadness that come with those who refuse these values.  A woman will forever carry the scars emotionally from choosing to terminate a pregnancy no matter when she decides to do this.  It will be a sadness that haunts her forever.  She needs no law to remind her of this, or to try to prevent her from this.  She needs a reason to avoid being caught in this decision in the first place.  And she needs hope to provide her with another alternative if she is found in it already.  To truly offer choice we must offer a real choice.
It is unrealistic to expect a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without the benefit of life long support for that decision.  Are we willing as Christians to go beyond preaching the evils of abortion and take up the cause of being in a child’s life from birth to tomb?  Instead of asking the person caught in sin to pay for it (as might rightly be asked of us for our own sins), perhaps we should offer the same kind of love that gets involved and stays involved that Christ offers us.  How many might turn away from the saddest choice a woman could make, if the alternative was a full community of people who would be there for her and her child for the length of their lives.  It is not because the new mother deserves this kind of support.  In fact she does not.  It is after all our own bad decisions that cause us to suffer the pain of the consequences of evil.  But if Christians are to value the lives of the innocent, perhaps we should commit to get involved on their behalf.  If we are to offer hope, we must find a way to make the hope tangible.  It is not enough to offer prayer for the fallen victim on the road, the Samaritan took action to save the victim.  So too should we Christians take action to offer a real alternative for the potential lives we value so much.
Salvation is not about crime and punishment.  Salvation is about being saved from our own evil choices.  It is about changing what we want, and therefore what we do.  To blame someone for making an evil choice is to blame a diseased person for their own conditions.  We already know we are at fault.  All of us make bad decisions.  Salvation is not about blaming, it is about reforming.  Abortion will not ever be required, let alone considered in the perfection of heaven.  Life was never intended to be prematurely interrupted.  It is a consequence of evil that this occurs at all.  And in this world, we are all steeped in the evil that accompanies this kind of result.  Knowing that abortion would not exist in perfection, perhaps Christians can begin to see it completely extinguished in the world around us, by seeking the perfection that comes from total surrender to Christ.  By complete submission to our Lord, the need, the desire, the sadness, all of it can be once and for all removed from our lives.  When we learn to love like He loves, we will finally change the world around us.  Not until.