Theology and MAiD

In our part of the world MAiD or MAID refers to “Medical Assistance in Dying.” It possibly goes by a different name where you live.

Over the past few years I’ve been increasingly sharing my blog platform here, and especially at our sister blog with Ruth who is now an ordained pastor in a longstanding Canadian denomination. When she told me about this project, I offered to make it available to our audience here as well. Note that this is much longer than regular articles that appear on this site.

by Ruth Wilkinson

I have a friend who works at a hospice — a medical facility dedicated to the care of people who are dying. The hospice also provides support to people who choose to take this journey in their homes, with visitation, equipment, nursing, counselling. The purpose of palliative work is to allow people to die with as little suffering as possible, with the support they and their families need, and according to their own choice.

It can be argued that the purpose of MAiD is the same–support, dignity, the reduction of suffering. These two options (hospice and MAiD) lie before many of us as we age, or when we receive a diagnosis of terminal illness. As a pastor, if I am called to walk with people through their end-of-life decisions (insofar as they allow me), it is something I want to do well. And something I want to help them to do well.

Traditionally, the Church has condemned actions that end life before nature has taken its course. Intervention that speeds the process has been decried. Culturally, we’ve invested tremendous resources in extending life through treatment, medication, and equipment.

For many people, MAiD seems counter-intuitive. For some it just seems wrong. For those of us working through the question, I’ve put together this paper on the most common (in my experience) concerns and objections. These are questions that, I suggest, we would be wise to think through for ourselves, and to answer in community. I will include some quotes from other people, edited for anonymity.

These thoughts are not intended to answer the question, “Should I?” I hope instead to provide some resources for those trying to answer the question for themselves, or to engage well in conversation with others. This writing is neither prescriptive nor definitive. It is simply a tool for informing the conversation.

1. Is MAiD suicide? Is it murder?

• “Does the Bible say we are not to take a life and our body is the temple of God?”
• “I think I believe it’s taking a life, which is ultimately murder. But it’s a tough one because I’ve seen patients that suffer so brutally…”
• “Only God has the power of life and death. When you choose to end your life, you’re breaking the Sixth Commandment “Thou shalt not kill.””
• “I’m ok with ‘pulling the plug’ but it seems different from MAiD.”
• “Does anywhere in the Bible tell us that this is wrong? I don’t consider it murder or suicide, it is a medical decision.”
• “Even the victims of crucifixion had their legs broken to speed death.”

Suicide and murder are strong language that evokes strong emotions.

If we define ‘suicide’ as “the act of killing oneself intentionally,” then it applies to MAiD. As the Canadian process stands at this writing, it is an option that can only be chosen by an individual for themselves. No one can choose MAiD for someone else. There are restrictions on who may assist the applicant in filling out the forms (an attempt at preventing conflict-of-interest, or undue influence). More than one medical confirmation of untreatable illness must be obtained. And the applicant must be (unless they specify the exception in legal documents) conscious at the time of administration, and therefore able to change their mind at the last minute. MAiD is not eugenics or non-voluntary euthanasia. It is a choice one makes for oneself to speed an acute and terminal illness to its end.

If we define ‘murder’ as “the crime of intentionally killing a person,” then legally MAiD is not murder, because it is not a crime. But crime and sin are not synonymous. Some things that are morally wrong are not illegal (for example, adultery). For doctors and nurses involved in administering MAiD, the act is seen as a medical treatment, chosen by the patient. One hopes that, from their perspective, the system is designed to prevent them from being pressured into unwillingly taking part. But medical professionals have, historically, often spoken out for the right of patients to make end-of-life choices, especially in cases of untreatable degenerative or terminal illness. One may legitimately ask whether it constitutes murder if it has been clearly, calmly, and unwaveringly requested by the recipient. For the one administering the treatment, the choice must be made according to conscience.

The distinction from “pulling the plug” should be considered, as well. If a patient is being kept breathing by a machine, removing them from the machine allows their body to exercise its own agency: to decide whether to keep going or not. In that case, often the greater question is whether we should be put on the machines in the first place. For families who have to decide to “pull the plug,” the choice is made on behalf of someone other than themselves, which brings its own challenges and trauma including dealing with disagreement between siblings, spouse, or children. But according to our definitions, it constitutes neither suicide nor murder.

(As an aside, I think it interesting to ask why we are more comfortable with scheduling the beginning of a lifetime (eg, C-sections and inductions) than with scheduling an ending? If God has power over life and death, I wonder whether that is an inconsistency.)

2. What does the Bible say about suicide?

There is no simple, clear commandment that says, “Thou shalt not…” on this question. We look instead for the examples of people written about in the Bible. There are several who committed suicide. In chronological order:

Samson (Judges 16) – Samson was a judge in Israel, and filled with the Holy Spirit from his youth. He died by collapsing a building on himself and the enemies of God. Samson’s death was a complex act of humility, of repentance, and of hatred. As I understand it, in his self-sacrifice he sought to fulfill his calling and to seek atonement for his lack of faithfulness.

Abimelech (Judges 9) – Abimelech was one of Gideon’s many sons. He wanted to rule Israel, and tried to achieve this by killing his brothers. In the resulting civil war, Abimelech was fatally wounded, but commanded a servant finish him off so that “…they can’t say, “A woman killed [me].”” As I understand it, Abimelech’s choice was one fuelled by arrogance and made necessary by his own bad choices.

Saul, and his armour bearer (1 Sam 31) – King Saul chose death over defeat. His army was defeated by the Philistines, and Saul, critically wounded, fell on his own sword rather than be captured and tortured. His armour bearer, seeing Saul dead, did the same. In the former case, Saul died to avoid further suffering. In the latter, the man killed himself because all hope was lost. As I understand it, Saul’s capture might, arguably, have made things worse for Israel. A dead king is bad enough, but a tortured and humiliated king is different. His motives may have been mixed. The armour-bearer, who would have been with Saul in every battle and unquestioningly loyal, followed his king into the inevitable.

Ahitophel (2 Sam 17) – Ahitophel was a traitor against King David, supporting the insurgency of Absalom. When Ahitophel realized that his cause was lost and that David would regain the throne, he “saddled his donkey and set out for his house in his hometown. He put his affairs in order and hanged himself.” Ahitophel decided that his life was over, took the time to organize, and then killed himself. As I understand it, Ahitophel had gambled for power, and lost. In a game where the winner takes all and has the hold of life and death over the loser, he chose the manner in which he would pay the price. He didn’t see the possibility that David might forgive him, as he did another betrayer, Shimei.

Zimri (1 Kings 16) – Zimri was a short-lived king of Israel, having taken the throne by assassination. The people rejected his rule, naming Omri King instead. Zimri was besieged by the Israelite army and, rather than surrendering, he burned down the citadel of the royal palace with himself inside. As I understand it, Zimri’s death was a (perhaps accidental) consequence of his own evil actions and pride.

Judas (Matt 27) – Judas’ death is, I think, the most sad. Having betrayed Jesus to the authorities and seeing that the end result was likely to be Jesus’ death, Judas tried to atone by returning the money and declaring Jesus’ innocence. When his gesture was rejected, he hanged himself. Judas’ suicide was (like Ahitophel’s) premature. Neither considered the possibility of grace (Jesus forgave Peter, who had also betrayed Him). Like Samson’s death, Judas’ motives were mixed but coloured by repentance. As I understand it, Judas’ death was a tragic error.

We are created in the image of God. That imbues us with undeniable value. We are treasured by the one who created us, and who is the “giver of all good things.” A significant portion of Scripture is filled with lament and the reality of human suffering. God’s inspiration of the writers, and of those who compiled the authoritative body of the Bible, does not shy away from honesty around physical and mental suffering. But the examples of people in Scripture who took their own lives centre on questionable motives and a failure of hope.

From another perspective, one might consider the deaths of people like Paul and Peter, who chose death over the denial of their faith in Christ. For many, there are things more important than the next breath. For some people, that includes sparing their loved ones the sight of their suffering, or the roller-coaster ride of medical crises. Choosing to die is, I think, never easy. But for some it is the lesser of evils.

3. If I choose MAiD, will I go to hell?

• “Growing up in a mostly Catholic culture, we were taught that suicide was a particularly heinous sin. People weren’t even buried in consecrated ground, because they died unshriven and guilty of the worst act–self-murder. Even though now I can’t find anything in the Bible to support that, I can’t shake the feeling that suicide might keep me out of Heaven.”
• “As [a friend receiving MAiD] said to me, “There’s no light at the end of this tunnel. I miss my wife and want to be in Heaven with her now.””

Many of us have, consciously or not, an uncertain understanding of how to “get into Heaven.”

Many believe that they will go to Heaven if they have lived a good life: one of more good done than bad. Of more innocence than guilt.

For one who, like myself, holds to a largely Evangelical theology, going to Heaven after death is instead a continuation of the relationship begun with Christ in this life.

Believers in other branches of Christianity have a theory of salvation that sees some sins as worse than others. Among the worst is the ending of life, and they might be concerned that if the last thing they do in this life is to end a life, there will be dire consequences.

But does sin keep us out of Heaven? Yes and no.

The sinfulness with which we are all born is a barrier to relationship with God. Whether one accepts the idea of ‘orginal sin’ (ie a congenital state of alienation from God) or not, there is little argument that human beings are incapable of living this life without breaking God’s moral or spiritual law. We are not capable of living a life that is pure. That sinfulness–that condition–if not dealt with through engaging with Christ’s forgiving work of dying on the cross to pay the cost, will keep us ‘out of Heaven.’

For the believer in Christ–the follower of Jesus–the cost of our sinfulness has been paid. Our relationship with God has been assured. If we, for example, tell a lie while talking on the phone crossing the street and get hit by a bus, that lie will not keep us ‘out of Heaven.’ God takes lying very seriously. Liars are included in the list of people who will not inherit eternal life, along with “the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters” (Revelation 21:8). But our relationship status carries greater weight than any one act of sinfulness.

It’s true that even within our new identity within Christ’s family, we still do things that are wrong. But “… a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16). The principle Paul is teaching here is that we cannot earn our way to Heaven. Nor can we earn our way to Hell. Our identity in Christ–His forgiving work–is what matters. (Suicide is not the “unforgiveable sin.” That phrase comes from Mark 3:29: “…whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”)

I would suggest that dying by MAiD does not decide one’s eternal destiny. That decision is not made by one act (either of personal atonement or of sin), but by one’s relationship to Christ — ”I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set you free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1-2). Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24).

4. Does the Bible speak to the question of MAiD as it is currently practiced in Canada?

• “I want to learn more about God’s Word so that I could defend my belief that MAiD is not sinning (or find sufficient evidence that it is).”
• “I don’t think there is any advantage to this kind of (prolonged) suffering.”
• “As Evangelical Christians, we have always valued the dignity of life. But, how does the dignity of choice fit into that?”
• “If it’s ok for me to end my dog’s suffering and have her euthanized, then why should a human not have the same courtesy? I feel that although medical discoveries can prolong lives, sometimes it’s not the best thing.”
• “In the church we have ideas as to what it means to say “it is appointed unto man to die,” or “our lives are in God’s hands.” It is as though these statements preempt the action under discussion.”
• “But if we truly believe that God can perform miracles and is in control, then it wouldn’t make sense.”

As I’ve said above… no. The Bible doesn’t speak of suicide specifically. But there are a few passages that are quoted in discussions around MAiD.

I’ll look at some of those here:

Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

The context of this passage is sexual purity. The broader New Testament perspective on our physicality is that it matters. We are not just ‘spirits in bodies.’ Our physical, earthly existence was created by God to be a blessing to the rest of Creation as we worked to multiply His image and His holiness on the planet of which we are a part. When we defile our bodies, we defile His image–the image that dwells in His temple. This passage reminds us of our individual, unique physicalness and the responsibility we have for wearing it well.

So… it could be argued that there is a principle here, of “honouring God with our bodies” that would preclude harming them or ending life.

But… for the believer in Christ there is the hope that these bodies will, like Christ’s own, be made new and incorruptible in eternity. That might suggest that, when this body has failed irretrievably, choosing to lay it to rest is not the worst thing we can do.

At the same time, the decisions we make about our bodies impact other people. “You are not your own” is here reminding us of Christ’s work, but in other passages, we’re reminded of our responsibility to each other. Principles like, “…do not think of yourself more highly than you ought” (Romans 12:3), “…in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests, but each of you to the interests of the others” (Philippians 2:3-4), “…submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21). Even the Beatitudes (Blessed are the poor in spirit… Blessed are the meek (Matthew 5:3ff)) challenge us to consider the impact of our decisions on the people in our lives.

Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

This passage may seem very similar to the one above, but the context is quite different. Here, Paul is talking about unity and divisiveness in the Church. The “you” he is talking to is the collective of all of us. We are, all together, God’s temple and dwelling place. The temple we are to preserve is the Church. As a small part of a larger ‘body,’ our actions impact the other parts. Our examples speak to our sisters and brothers. The values we embody inform the faith journey of those who surround and come after us. How we live and die speak of what we believe, and who we believe in.

Just as people are destined (some translations: appointed) to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:27-28)

The context here is the completeness of Christ’s work on the cross. The language of being “appointed” to die does not carry the suggestion of a set time of meeting. It refers to the inevitability of death, and the fact that our earthly bodies can die only once.

Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:16)

The context here is the completeness of God’s knowledge. He knows beforehand all of days we will live, and that are recorded or formed for us. The writer reflects on the fact that there will be an end to our days. The text doesn’t require that the duration of those days be dictated by God, but reminds us that He is intimately and lovingly aware of our experience.

Into Your hands I commit my spirit; You have redeemed me, O LORD, God of truth…

But I trust in You, O LORD; I say, “You are my God.” My times are in Your hands; deliver me from my enemies and from those who pursue me. Psalm 31:5, 14-15

The context here is one’s trust in God for deliverance from enemies. The writer is calling God’s people to have courage, and to trust Him. Illness and dying are, indeed, enemies. 

5. If someone in my family or my church chooses MAiD, how should I respond?

• “Christians are compassionate (or should be) about neglect, poverty, homelessness, war, etc. Why would they not be compassionate about this kind of suffering too?”
• “It must be hard knowing the hour! I think it is a courageous choice to leave life well.”
• “I have seen the indignities that people suffer because our culture believes that quantity > quality.”
• “I have traditionally been against MAiD of any kind, for any reason. However, as I’ve been journeying with and learning from people (Christ-followers and not) who have navigated this in their families, I am left with less certainty.”
• “People are living and wrestling with huge decisions in the tension. How we care well for people, respect people, and love people with compassion matters.”
• “[Name] died yesterday with the help of MAiD. They had been diagnosed a few months ago as having maximum six months to a year before dying ‘naturally’ after suffering through the decay of their quality of life.”
• “I don’t think any of us can know what is in the dying person’s heart and head during their journey to MAiD. I don’t believe there is anything Biblical either affirming or precluding MAiD.”
• “Of course if someone accesses MAiD, there will be issues following for the network of family and friends to come to terms with, even if they have been part of the journey.”

“In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12) Jesus’ command to us is to respond to others in a spirit of humility and empathy.

If someone chooses MAiD, our responsibility is to respond to them as we would to someone who is in pain and fear, and who is grieving for all they have lost. People who have reached the threshold of making the MAiD decision are dealing with some of the worst that life can hand us.

Respond with sensitivity and love. Go as far with them on the journey as they invite you, and as far as you are comfortable. Death impacts those of us left behind as well as those of us departing.

Be kind to yourself. Not everyone is comfortable being in the room at the moment of death. That’s ok. Seek the support you, as an ally or griever, need. Be aware that the passing of someone you love, or even just know, is a source of trauma, and different people are impacted differently in those experiences. Permission is granted to say ‘no’ if you need to. But say it graciously.

Conclusion:

We can all hope to die as David did–peacefully of old age, having given his blessing and final words to his family, and having kept his promises and served God faithfully by ruling Israel for forty years (1 Kings 2). When that is not our experience, we may have a decision to make.

In making that decision, we need to consider among other things:

• Our relationship with God in Christ.
• Our view on miraculous healing.
• The perspective of those who love us.
• Our motivation for either ending our suffering, or for enduring through it.

Our trust in God to catch us when we stumble across the line, whether or not of our own volition.

“I” vs. “We” — Couples, Families in God’s Presence

So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
– Romans 14:12 NIV

And I tell you this, you must give an account on judgment day for every idle word you speak.
-Matthew 12:36 NLT

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
-2 Corinthians 5:10 ESV

All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
-Matthew 25:32 NIV

Before we begin, apologies to those of you who are single, separated, divorced, or widowed. I wrote this with couples in mind, but as you see from the title, have expanded it slightly to include the concept of entire families.

I have several married couple friends who have shared social media accounts. It isn’t something I recommend. It was hard enough for Ruth and I to share an email account until she finally got her own computer. But I realize that, with Facebook in particular, there are sensitivities that some couples overcome by not having any contacts or communications apart from the other.

The problem is that many times all of us express opinion on Facebook and Twitter, and believe me, husbands and wives don’t always agree on everything, and this is probably a healthy situation. Some work around this by presenting names in parenthesis, such as: “I (Paul) thought the show was funny.” And of course there are things on which we do agree, not everything should be a battleground.

Beware of “We”

Almost every day at this site’s sister blog, I begin with something like “Today we’re featuring the writing of a new author…” Of course we is me. I produce and edit and format the daily devotions on my own; it’s a one-person project. “We” in this case is sometimes referred to as an editorial “I.”

But it can be overused. I tend to type, “Today we want to consider…” first and then, taking a moment to reconsider, realize I need to own the content more, and re-type, “Today I want to look at…”

I have some friends who share a few social media accounts. They use “we” a lot. I decided to call them out on it. Friends will forgive, right?

And they did. While they made it clear that I was making assumptions, they also assured me that while I may see them speaking with one voice on various things online, they do hold and value individual opinions on various issues, including theological ones. Honestly, I was relieved to hear that. I really shouldn’t have expected anything different.

When the stakes are higher

But then I think of another couple who recently gave up on church and I would say perhaps for one of them even any pretense of deism.

I opened this article with several scripture verses. (I know some of you thought I’d written this for my devotional blog, but I actually wrote it for you guys!) I keep thinking of the idea of each of us standing before God individually. We don’t get to have our spouse stand next to us.

This is also true for families. We don’t have the option of an inherited faith. Perhaps growing up your parents rooted for one particular college sport team and so you just joined them in that passion. Or liked one late night talk show host over another. Or one local radio station’s format better than another which played similar music. This is the stuff of good humored banter at the dinner table. Dare I mention political parties?

With faith, you stand on your own. I am aware that there is a passage in Acts from which is derived the idea of household salvation, and I know it does happen where an entire family turns to Christ at the same moment and is perhaps all baptized on the same day; but from that point on each of us is on an individual journey.

This leads to the possibility of one member of a family, or one spouse attending church and being faithful to Bible reading on their own, and I do frequently run into personal contact with a woman who is the wife of an unsaved husband or the man who is the husband of an unsaved wife. I feel deeply for people in that situation, and try to point them to resources written specifically to address this.

But let me clear on this: That’s better than not attending weekend services because your husband or wife won’t attend. Or not being active with a local congregation because your brothers, sisters, parents or children don’t want to take part.

In the end, when I stand before God, I simply can’t use the word “we” as any possible line of defense.

 

Applying Our Energies Where God Is Already at Work

It’s possible that your work situation or family situation or neighborhood situation looks, from a spiritual perspective, fairly bleak. You may find yourself in what you consider to be a fairly pagan or secularized environment. But I believe that God is at work in hearts more than we realize.

What is our part in bringing people into an awareness of Jesus that leads to a desire for Jesus?  There is the kind of person that God can use to be “sent,” that is to go out into a particular situation or people group or individual’s life and then tell them, so they can hear, believe and call out for salvation.

But the Bible also teaches a principle of “sowers and reapers” in I Corinthians 3:

^{(NCV) 5b-8} …We are only servants of God who helped you believe. Each one of us did the work God gave us to do. I planted the seed, and Apollos watered it. But God is the One who made it grow. So the one who plants is not important, and the one who waters is not important. Only God, who makes things grow, is important. The one who plants and the one who waters have the same purpose, and each will be rewarded for his own work.

My entire part-time work career during eight years of high school and college consisted of working in large department stores. In each area of the store I had to know what the products were, how the products worked, whether there were product warranties, and where the products were kept in the stockroom.  I also had to learn how to work the cash register.

So, my usefulness to my employer consisted of two things:

• product knowledge
• sales processing

In later years, when I owned my own business, I realized I had been taught nothing about how to sell. There was no sense in which I asked customers what they felt they needed, qualified what might meet that need, and then proceed to  “ask the question.” Asking means saying, “Do you think that this product can meet those needs?” Or, “Is there anything stopping from you buying today?” Or, “Can I wrap that up for you?”

The ingredient I was missing was what is called, “closing the sale.” My training should have been a three-pronged approach consisting of:

• product knowledge
• closing the sale
• sales processing

Sometimes in the Christian journey we encounter people who given to us so that we can plant seeds. And other times, we find people where God has been working in their lives already and they’re just waiting for someone to gently nudge them over the line of faith.

But sometimes we fall short of doing both when the opportunities are present. To switch analogies for a moment, it’s like a baseball game in which you’re up to bat and you get a perfect pitch, but instead of hitting a home run you decide to bunt. What holds us back from the hitting the ball out of the park?

One pastor often told the story of a friend with whom he been planting seeds for a long time. One day, out of the blue, an associate asked the man if he would like to become a disciple and make Christ the Lord of his life, and the man said yes on the spot. The pastor often joked that after all his years of investment in the man’s life, this was simply “not fair.” With a department store analogy — especially if you’ve been a retail environment where people are working on commission — you could say that this man was not the second person’s customer, though thankfully we’re not exactly on commission! But the pastor telling the story understood the distinction between sowing and reaping, and rejoices that this man did indeed cross the line of faith.

In Experiencing God, Richard Blackaby talks about coming alongside areas where the Holy Spirit is already working. Perhaps there is a ministry organization or even a secular social service agency where people, whether consciously or unknowingly, are experiencing the fruit of God’s love and are ripe to respond. Could you be the missing ingredient?

• In the lives of people you’ve been in contact with for the past few weeks or month, are you a sower or a reaper?

• Do you know people right now who you’ve been gently sharing your faith with, but you’ve been afraid to ask the question?

• Re-read today’s key verses. Maybe you find evangelism very difficult. Is there an area where you can be a “water-er” providing after-care for new disciples?

 

Of Miry Clay and Wretchedness

Brain flashback…

I remember it being sung in a children’s meeting:

He lifted me up, yes up
Up from the miry clay

We were kids, we played in the dirt and we played with the hose. We knew a thing or two about miry clay. Well, we did and we didn’t. We didn’t use the word miry in everyday speech.

For the adults it was:

From sinking sands he lifted me

Quicksand is something with which most of us do not have direct experience. Sometimes a person who was caught in the throes of addiction will talk about reaching bottom where there was nothing else to do but look up. But for the most part, the analogy of quagmire gets lost on us.

A more contemporary lyric would be

That saved a wretch like me

I remember in youth group we when we were coming up to “me” we would turn and point to the person next to us and sing “him” or “her” instead of “me.” None of us wanted to be the wretch.

The point is, in Western Europe and North America we have it pretty good. We’re comfortable. We enjoy our materialism. We celebrate our excesses on social media. Sin is become as archaic a word as miry clay; we’re comfortable redefining it — “that’s not sex” — as needed.

Nobody is covered in clay anymore, no one is sinking, no one is wretched.

What would anyone need to be saved from?

Pop Stars, Presidents, Popes: Who is a Christian and Who Isn’t?

Much ink has been spilled and much energy has been spent trying to flesh out the subject of “who’s in and who’s out” in matters of the Christian faith. Only God knows. Approximately three years ago, the religion news story of the week was Pope Francis weighing in on Donald Trump’s faith and Trump’s inevitable response. The Pope asserted that Christians work to build bridges not walls, and on the basis of a statement reflecting this particular fruit of Trump’s character, implied that Trump’s Mexico/USA border wall concept is not consistent with identity as a Christian. Three years later it’s still the same story.

But on what do you base an assessment of someone? Within my own sphere of acquaintances there are people who disagree on a wide variety of subjects; some of which are part of Biblical interpretation, some of which are ethical, and others of which are reflective of the living out of their faith in everyday life. Is any one of these a significant marker of one’s spiritual sincerity or authenticity? Is there a single litmus test of orthodoxy? And is the in-versus-out question based on what I do today or tomorrow or on faith commitments I made at an earlier stage of life? Can I be in one day and out the next?

One of the best articles I’ve seen on this topic is in the book A is for Abductive by Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren and Jerry Haselmayer in which they speak of bounded sets, centered sets, and dynamic sets; along with helpful diagrams. It’s a book I keep handy, but the lateness of the hour on Friday prevents me from scanning in those pages, so you’ll have to settle for someone else’s work. On the previous page there is a circle with no center point; one is defined as either in or out. X, Y and Z below are all in, but B and C are certainly close. Then they introduce centered-set thinking:

For most of you, this either simplifies things or makes it more complicated. (There’s a logical statement.) But it illustrates the degrees to which people go to try to think through the issue of who’s in and who’s out.

In searching for the graphic I came across this quote from C.S. Lewis along with another diagram:

[The] situation in the actual world is much more complicated than that. The world does not consist of 100% Christians and 100% non-Christians. There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name: some of them are clergymen. There are other people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand…. And always, of course, there are a great many people who are just confused in mind and have a lot of inconsistent beliefs all jumbled up together.

Consequently, it is not much use trying to make judgments about Christians and non-Christians in the mass. It is some use comparing cats and dogs, or even men and women, in the mass, because there one knows definitely which is which. Also, an animal does not turn (either slowly or suddenly) from a dog into a cat. But when we are comparing Christians in general with non-Christians in general, we are usually not thinking about real people whom we know at all, but only about two vague ideas which we have got from novels and newspapers. If you want to compare the bad Christian and the good Atheist, you must think about two real specimens whom you have actually met. Unless we come down to brass tacks in that way, we shall only be wasting time.

~ C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952; Harper Collins: 2001) 208-209.

So while the media continues to speculate on the faith of pop stars, politicians, Presidents and Popes, know for sure that deciding on either the present devotion or the eternal destiny of anyone in particular is way above our pay grade. We can’t do it when speaking of individual people because we’re not God; but Lewis argues that dealing with it theoretically has no value.

Recipe for a Joyless Christianity

One of the best ways to experience a completely joyless salvation is to believe you were never ultimately lost in the first place.

One of the best ways to remain smug about your standing with God in Christ is to feel you were entitled to it all along.

One of the best ways to not be gracious is to remain firm that any grace you have received — amazing or otherwise — is something you deserved. 

One of the best ways to be unloving is to never fully consider the love that has been poured out on you.

All four gospels record the story of the woman with the alabaster jar. But Luke adds this detail:

^7.41 “Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii and the other fifty. ⁴² Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”

⁴³ Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”

“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

⁴⁴ Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. ⁴⁵ You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. ⁴⁶ You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. ⁴⁷ Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.”

Good Friday: I Wish I’d Thought of It

In much younger days I had a friend who I said I would be willing to die for. I’m not sure if I went on record with this in an informal conversation or if it was said in a talk I would have given to a particular group of young adults.

Today, I’m not going to be dismissive of it. I’m not going to suggest it seems a little silly, though it does seem rather extreme. But is it? In a world where people donate kidneys and bone marrow to perfect strangers?

John 15:12 comes to mind: “There is no greater way to love than to give your life for your friends.” (The Voice).

The Good Friday narrative is something we could never have come up with by ourselves. 1 Corinthians 2:9 echoes Isaiah 64:4 “No one has ever seen this, and no one has ever heard about it. No one has ever imagined what God has prepared for those who love him.” (NCV) In Isaiah 55:8-9 we’re reminded that “His ways are higher than ours,” translated elsewhere as:

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.
    “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
⁹ For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
    so my ways are higher than your ways
    and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.  (NLT)

Just a few days ago we quoted Walter Wink, “If Jesus had never lived we would never have been able to invent him.”

…As I thought about this, a song title popped into my head, “A Strange Way to Save the World.” I don’t know this song at all, and a quick search proved it to be a Christmas song, not an Easter one; but the sentiment still applies namely, for those of us outside the Jewish sacrificial framework, the act of atonement would not have been predicted, and even within that context, a human sacrifice might not have been foreseen.

One of my favorite verses is Hebrews 10:11-12 (the reference is easily memorized)

¹¹ Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins. ¹² But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. (NLT)

I wonder if back in that day, anyone ever looked the priests, “ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices” (NASB) and wondered, ‘What if we had a way to do this once and for all?’ Maybe that’s just me, or perhaps it’s just a 2017 mindset. Maybe they didn’t think like that back then. Or, ‘What if there was such a perfect sacrifice that this act need never be repeated?’

It was and is a strange way to save the world.

…I’m posting this on Thursday so we can think about it as we head into Good Friday. This whole thing, conceived in the mind of God is so simple that a child can understand it, but so intricately detailed that an adult can never cease to be fascinated by it.

And then there’s prophecy; that dozens upon dozens of prophecies are fulfilled on a single day. We often talk about a story that wraps up all its loose ends as, ‘putting a bow on it.’ In this one God ties up the bow and hands us a gift labelled, ‘For you.’

…Even as I write this I see my words’ deficiencies. I’m thinking of the plan of salvation and not focusing that in all of this Jesus is ushering in his kingdom. For 3+ years he teaches, ‘The kingdom of God is at hand;’ (see Matthew 4:17) and if this Easter weekend represents the climax of the story, then certainly his death and resurrection has huge kingdom implications. It’s hard to tell the whole story in a few short paragraphs and not leave something out.

However, we are on safe ground to allow ourselves to see this weekend in atonement terms. Looking to the cross we find forgiveness. Remembering his sacrifice on Good Friday we’re reminded that “No one has greater love than this: to lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13 CSB)

 

 

Camped Out on the Edge of Belief

I mentioned a few weeks ago that twice a year I am asked to write a devotion for our local newspaper. It presents a number of challenges, not the least of which is trying to keep it under 550 words. If I I’m writing for C201, I don’t include things that begin with illustrations; we cut to the chase of studying text. But I have to include some type of local references, to our town about an hour east of Toronto. I thought I would share with you what I came up with awhile ago. Your comments are invited.

As I mentally scan the map, I can’t think of any place along the southern tier of Canada where it’s possible to be so close to the U.S. border but have to drive so far to get there. On a clear day, you can see a generating station’s smokestack across the lake with the naked eye, but entering New York State involves either a nearly two-hour drive in either direction to reach a border point.

In many ways, it’s a metaphor for the relationship that Canadians, especially in the days before today’s religious pluralism, had with Christianity. Even now, many sit camped out on the edge of belief. They might even hold church membership or do volunteer work, but a spiritual heart examination would show that they’ve never crossed the border of commitment; they’ve never placed themselves, by faith, under the covering of the cross.

We can all see the border. We see it in the chorus of our federal anthem, which is a prayer for God to keep our land free, just as we see it still in some municipal councils where another prayer acknowledges the sacredness of God’s name, invites His kingdom to be fulfilled and recognizes His power and glory. We see the border when local churches step up to build a house for Habitat for Humanity, join en masse a walkathon for Multiple Sclerosis (canceling a Sunday morning service in the process) or feed the hungry through the Salvation Army…

Just as we can watch U.S. television stations and listen to its radio so easily, because the border is so close, we live in a time and place which has been influenced by Christianity, but still, many hesitate to fully enter in, to fully engage, because, figuratively speaking, the drive to the border is too long. Nothing of urgency has forced us to make the trip.

In Acts 26, we read the story of an encounter between the Apostle Paul and King Agrippa. This is Paul’s moment to secure his release from custody, but from a legal standpoint, he squanders the opportunity and instead tells Agrippa the basis for his belief that Jesus is the long-anticipated Messiah, the deliverer of Israel in particular and mankind in general.

As Paul is speaking, Festus, the Governor, interrupts and says what many still say to passionate followers who seem more heavenly minded than earthly good: “Paul, you are insane. Too much study has made you crazy!” (vs. 25, NLT)

But Paul calmly reminds him that none of the occurrences in the Jesus story were made up, nothing was done in secret, “for this thing was not done in a corner.” (vs. 26, KJV) Agrippa and Festus need merely to check out back issues of The Jersualem Times to read the accounts for themselves of Jesus’ teaching, miracles and crucifixion.

And that’s where Agrippa says, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian;” (vs 28, KJV) or “Keep this up much longer and you’ll make a Christian out of me!” (vs. 28, MSG)

But a few short verses later the scene ends. We’re left with the picture of King Agrippa camped out on the border of belief, but, to return to our analogy again, he never gasses up the car and makes the run for the border. Full commitment is in view, he can see it with the naked eye, but nothing of urgency forces him to make the trip that day.

Perhaps that sounds familiar.

 

The Opposite of Infant Baptism: Why Evangelicals Opt Out

This article was a link list item two weeks ago, but I found myself thinking about it somewhat continuously since, and last night it came up again at the supper table. The writer blogs at Patheos under the banner Troubler of Israel but I’m otherwise unfamiliar with his work.

I’ve quoted this in full, though you are strongly encouraged to read it at source and join the over 300 comments; just click the link in the title below. The only difference here is that I’ve placed one paragraph in bold face type which I believe deserves special attention.

The Real Reason Evangelicals Don’t Baptize Babies
by G. Shane Morris

Friends (especially those expecting children) ask me with surprising frequency why I believe in infant baptism. For a couple of years, I replied by giving what I think the best biblical reasons are. But I usually don’t take that route anymore, because I’ve realized that’s not what convinced me.

For most evangelicals, what stands in the way of baptizing infants isn’t a lack of biblical evidence, but an interpretive lens they wear when reading Scripture. That lens–shaped by revivals, rugged individualism, and a sacramental theology untethered from the church’s means of grace–makes conversion the chief article of the faith. We should expect this, since American evangelical theology was forged on the frontier, in camp meetings, to the sound of fire-and-brimstone preaching.

For Evangelicals, this is the far more familiar image which comes to mind at the mention of the term ‘baptism.’

The core assumption here is that you must have a conversion experience to be saved. You must turn away from a past life toward a new one, usually with tears and laments attesting your sincerity. And this view of Christianity works well in an evangelistic setting, where many have lived as open unbelievers. The problem is it’s an awkward fit when it comes to multi-generational faith.

Anyone who was raised in a Christian home and still believes in Jesus knows that there wasn’t a time when he or she transitioned from “unbelief” to “belief.” We were never “converted.” It was simply inculcated from infancy, and for as long as we can remember, we have trusted in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, whether we were baptized as a baby or not.

But because of the baptistic emphasis on conversion, many (if not most) raised in those churches found ourselves “converting” over and over, reciting the “sinner’s prayer” at countless altar calls during our childhood and teenage years, certain that each time, we were truly sincere, but always finding ourselves back at the altar. Some of us even asked to be re-baptized upon our fresh conversions. And everyone raised in evangelical churches will know what I mean when I say “testimony envy,”–that real and perverse jealousy you feel when someone who lived a nastier pre-conversion life than you shares their story.

This is where I think the chief difficulty with infant baptism lies, at least for American evangelicals. I don’t believe baptistic evangelicals really view their children as unregenerate pagans before their “credible profession of faith.” If they did, they wouldn’t teach them to say the Lord’s Prayer or to sing “Jesus Loves Me.” I think what’s really going on is a kind of alternative sacramentalism, where a dramatic conversion experience, rather than baptism, is the rite of Christian initiation.

Thus, children raised in this setting feel the need to manufacture tearful conversions over and over to prove their sincerity. And rather than their present trust in Christ, they’re taught (implicitly or explicitly) to look back to a time, a place, and a prayer, and stake their salvation on that.

Infant baptism runs counter to this entire system. It declares visibly that God induces a change of heart and a saving faith in those too young to even speak or remember their “conversions.” It illustrates that the branches God grafts in to His Son aren’t sterile. They bud and blossom, producing new branches that have never drunk another tree’s sap. And most importantly, it matches the lived experiences of believers’ children, rather than continually imposing a system on them that was designed for first-generation converts.

Almost always, I see the lights come on after explaining this point to an evangelical friend. And in most cases, their acceptance of infant baptism isn’t far behind.

 

Chickens and Eggs: Which Comes First, Belonging or Believing?

Try Before You Buy?

Later today at Christianity 201, we’re doing a video post from Seven Minute Seminary at Seedbed.com. We did this about a year ago, and while choosing something for today (it’s on the destiny of the unevangelized) I found this one. At first, I found the reference to “postmodernism” a bit dated. Surely everybody gets that mindset now and its continued pervasiveness among Millennials, right? But as Jim Hampton got into this 6½ minute explanation, I realized that is take on believing vs. belonging was something I hadn’t seen before; the notion that a new generation of seekers really wants to embed themselves in our communities to see if our faith is genuine; if our belief is authentic enough that it translates into our everyday practices. 

But embed themselves to what extent? Singing on a worship team? Partaking of The Lord’s Supper (Eucharist)?

Click the title below to read the article and watch the video at source:

Belonging vs. Believing: Postmodernism and Its Implications for Discipleship

Postmodernism has many implications for how churches understand and approach discipleship. Using youth culture as a model, Dr. Jim Hampton explores how those who have a suspicion of authority and dogma might be included in the process of discipleship by allowing them to participate in community in significant ways.

James Hampton is Professor of Youth Ministry at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is an editor for the Journal of Youth and Theology.

View the growing playlist of Seven Minute Seminary.