Kingdom Storehouses: Matt 13:52

I tend to be politically opinionated. The downside of that is confirmation bias – tending to believe what already fits with your strongly held opinion, and not looking to falsify what you know you naturally want to believe. That’s one of the reasons I didn’t say that much about the affordable healthcare act and its effect on private insurance in relationship to the moral conscientiousness of religious organizations. In this case, confirmation bias would have led me to the truth: the HHS mandates and the affordable healthcare act have in fact made it impossible to provide healthcare to people without directly subsidizing abortion and other non-necessary procedures that offend the Christian conscience because they are morally wrong. This not only forces us to pay for procedures that are morally wrong, and even murderous – it also puts the economic incentives against morally good actions like having and raising children. Further, it miss-classifies conditions against reality, the biggest example being that it does not classify children in utero as children primarily, unless it suits the medical interest of the mother.

Recently I had one of our interns research what our options are concerning Christian conscience in providing health care for our workers. This was his summary:

“the only option for a Catholic or other conscientious employer, would be to simply discontinue the employee health plan and convert plan contributions back into cash wages paid to the workers. However, under the new law, if the employer has 50 or more workers, it would then be fined $2,000 each year, per worker, for not providing the required coverage. Furthermore, its workers would also be fined if they did not, then, obtain the required coverage on their own. Yet, all of the alternative plans available to them in either the individual insurance market, or through the employer of another worker in the family, would be required to include the morally objectionable items or services. Thus, this option is not a satisfactory solution for either the employer or the employees."

The most highly publicized legal objection to the affordable care act was that it required citizens to purchase something they may or may not desire. The Supreme Court agreed that this was unconstitutional, but the Justice Department argued that fining Americans for not purchasing health insurance did not amount to legal coercion but to a tax.

This objection, though important in a constitutional republic is not the same objection being offered by people of religious conscience. The argument is that through the affordable care act people of faith are being required to purchase, provide an subsidize medical procedures and drugs that are morally objectionable.

Under the mandate, no employer in America can provide health insurance for their employees and not provide coverage for these drugs and services- most are required to be offered without patient co-pays.

The healthcare.gov website openly denies this stating under what is covered, “contraception: FDA approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, not including abortifacient drugs.” It is also worth stating, that since all of the controversy is surrounding abortifacient drugs, the new coverage does not cover abortions done through instrument-based procedures.

If this is true, then the things covered in this health care plan would not be objectionable to most Protestants. We, for the most part, have affirmed non-abortive birth control methods. We may believe it is immoral in relationship to liberty to make others pay for our birth control. We may believe it is wrong to create increased economic incentives towards sterilization and avoiding pregnancy. But we would not have a direct quarrel with any particular covered benefit because it is intentionally destroying an innocent human life.

However, the larger problem here in relationship to liberty is that at least one very large group of conscientious objectors is being forced to provide non-basic healthcare coverage they find morally objectionable on religious grounds to its people or be fined. Or worse, they are being told that if they will not provide benefits that are morally wrong, they cannot be involved in providing general healthcare benefits that are moral good. And while being excluded from providing for their own people, they get to endure the public shame of a governmental fine, that technically we are told is only a tax. This is a serious problem for religious liberty. And if we ignore this problem now when our Catholic brethren are fighting, we are demonstrating that we will only fight for religious liberties when our own positions are being encroached upon. We are proving that we are not people of principle, but people of the pragmatic.

I recognize that many evangelicals are convinced that Christians should support democrats, and that the HHS mandate is on the whole a moral good. This is completely debatable. However what I do not believe should be debatable for biblical Christians is that the human conscience is inviolable and that this means good government defends religious liberty and religious conscience.

It is worth pointing out at this juncture that the free exercise clause of the Constitution does not refer to the freedom of worship or houses of worship – the only organizations exempted from the HHS mandate. The Constitution explicitly affirms the right of the people to have the free exercise of their religions – not the freedom merely to engage in their religious worship within their houses of worship. Distinction between these two was used in the Soviet Union to drastically limit the rights of religious people. They were offered “freedom of worship” but denied “freedom to exercise their religion” whenever that freedom of exercise interfered with the will of the sovereign state.

At the heart of this question is the stern rebuke that Dietrich Bonhoeffer raised before Germany was plunged into its second darkness of the 20th century. Christ is higher than the state. Throughout the history of Christianity, the state has generally not been the friend of the church. During Christendom, it was the actions of the state rather than the church that has given us a historical blackeye. And David Bentley Hart’s book Atheist Delusions he explores the historical relationship between the church giving up its authority over witch hunts to the state, and that being the moment where witch hunts increased and became more terrifying, more widespread and more brutal all over Europe. Yet the modern atheists who usually believe in a perfectly powerful state, mercilessly attack the church for something done by the state. In other times, in the Roman era of early Christianity, as well as the Soviet, Nazi, and other oppressively socialist authoritarian regimes, Christianity has had the boot of the state on its neck. It is only thrived under Liberal government when Liberal has meant liberal- giving others the freedom to do what they want to do- whether for reasons good or bad.

Christians should know from history, from human nature and from the dictates of the gospel that whenever we look for the state to do what is the responsibility of another  kind of group a culture is always in danger and decline. When the responsibilities of the individual, the church, the voluntary organization, the family, and other civil institutions are supplanted by the authoritarian state (even if democratically elected), a culture is always becoming weaker and sicker- unless we are the one anomaly of all of human history. I suppose that’s possible. Yet we should remember, that almost all the great empires indicated that they would fall when they began to accumulate larger amounts of debt. That sounds eerily familiar.

The two passages of Romans chapter 3 and James chapter 2 are often pitted against each other in the history of biblical interpretation. Martin Luther didn’t even admit the book of James to the Canon of Scripture. The main reason for this is that James says that we are justified by faith and works and not by faith alone, while Paul says that we are justified by faith alone. People have often wondered if this is a biblical contradiction, or if it puts the dynamic of our salvation in question. Below is a passage by John Calvin that I think amply explains the meanings of the two passages. I would encourage you to read both, and then read the explanation below. “Sophists” in this context are people who make an intellectual sounding arguments but don’t actually have real wisdom – that is, people who are just plain wrong. Referring to your opponents this way, that is negatively, was very common in 16^th century writing.

“That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the twofold meaning of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, “Shew to me thy faith,” &c. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable estate, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known.

22. By works was faith made perfect. By this he again shews, that the question here is not respecting the cause of our salvation, but whether works necessarily accompany faith; for in this sense it is said to have been perfected by works, because it was not idle. It is said to have been perfected by works, not because it received thence its own perfection, but because it was thus proved to be true. For the futile distinction which the Sophists draw from these words, between formed and unformed faith, needs no laboured refutation; for the faith of Abraham was formed and therefore perfected before he sacrificed his son. And this work was not as it were the finishing or last work, for many things afterwards followed by which Abraham proved the increase of his faith. Hence this was not the perfection of his faith, nor did it then for the first time put on its form. James then understood no other thing than that the integrity of his faith then appeared, because it brought forth that remarkable fruit of obedience.”

CNN has reported that the president said in a press conference “I am not a dictator, I’m the president.”

This is true, but it is not the most disturbing thing in the news story. CNN reports of this startling quotation:

“I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington, and that somehow–even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal–the fact that they don’t take it means that somehow I should do a Jedi mind-meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right,” he added.

This is no conclusive proof that not only is Pres. Obama not a dictator, he is not a respectable nerd either. Any respectable nerd would know that a mind meld is something a Vulcan does in Star Trek, while the Jedi is the force using trained warrior of Star Wars. Confusing the two alternate realities is a giveaway that someone is not even approaching the status of level I nerd-dom. It’s not my desire here to pick on our president, only to point out while we are pointing out that he isn’t a dictator that he is also not a nerd or geek.

That stellar magazine the USA Today has already reported that I am not the first to notice this. So whether or not we have a working Congress, one thing we can be sure of is that we have an attentive nerd class still here in America.

Below is a laugh out loud exchange between two fellow atheists. Richard Dawkins had been challenged on three occasions to debate William Lane Craig, perhaps Christianity’s living debater. Dawkins has refused to debate Craig because he doesn’t believe it’s worthwhile or interesting. Dr. Daniel Came of Oxford, who claims to be an atheist wrote a letter to try to persuade Dawkins to take the debate. It is a truthful and fairly persuasive letter, but the last paragraph is the one that I find out-loud- laughing hilarious. See the highlighted passage below:

if you don’t think it’s hilarious, I don’t know what to tell you. It is.

Attachments

Letter from Richard Dawkins to Dr. May on 15 January 2007

Dear Mr May

Far be it from me to quote a distinguished scientific colleague who, when challenged to a debate by a religious spokesman of whom he has never heard, is in the habit of replying: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine.” I don’t know who your William Craig is, but maybe you’d have better luck with an Archbishop or a Cardinal? I’m afraid my answer is no.

Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins

Letter from Dr Came to Richard Dawkins on 26 February 2011

Dear Professor Dawkins,

I write as an atheist and in reference to your refusal to participate in a one-to-one debate with the philosopher William Lane Craig.

You dismiss Professor Craig as a ‘professional debater’ and state that you are not willing to debate anyone less senior than a bishop. Professor Craig has a PhD in philosophy and a PhD in theology. He is Research Professor in Philosophy at Talbot University. He has published more than thirty books and over a hundred papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Given your passionate and unconditional commitment to truth, I can only think that you were not aware of Professor Craig’s credentials when you made the above reference.

I understand that you have also commented that ‘a debate with Professor Craig might look good on his CV but it would not look good on mine’. On the contrary, the absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part. I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts of the Colorado Hell House.

While I have your attention, may I also urge you to take another look at the ontological argument for the existence of God? On the basis of your brief discussion of the argument in The God Delusion, it appears you do not understand the logic of this argument. The ontological argument moves from the logical possibility of God’s existence to its actuality. Douglas Gasking’s parody of the argument, which you cite, moves from a logical impossibility to actuality and so is not parallel to the argument. In addition, you do not discuss the more sophisticated modal version of the argument advanced by the American philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga. Admittedly, you do say that some philosophers ‘resort to modal logic’ in an attempt to prove the existence of God. But this is a bit like saying ‘some botanists resort to looking at plants’ and so can hardly be said to constitute an objection to the argument.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Daniel Came,
Lecturer in Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford

Most of us believe some part of childhood should reach adulthood – should always be with us. Most of us realize many parts of childhood do reach adulthood – parts that shouldn’t always be with us. A clear eyed view of childhood sees much foolishness and immaturity, and yet a certain amount of purity, wonder, excitement, and vibrancy. People have always been sentimental and cynical about children.

Children are the most protected and exposed creatures on the planet.

The nation is in an emotional uproar over the 20 children killed in the Connecticut shooting. But we seem little grieved over the 16,000 children that will die from hunger related causes on Christmas Day. Were we more related to the children in Connecticut then to the Brown children of the global poor? Why was the death of these 20 children so much more upsetting than the infinitely more preventable deaths that happen every day? I think about my own feelings about the 20 children killed in Connecticut in the 16,000 that will die from hunger related causes – and I feel my own feelings of sentimentalism and cynicism.

I am sentimental about the Connecticut children. They are like my own children, and like I was myself in grade school. Their death brings about anger and a desire for justice, and a sense of sadness that the pure and gentle environment which very young children require was violated by violence. I am sentimental.

And yet, when I see the number 16,000 – I don’t really feel much of anything. I feel it is a shame. I feel it is an unnamed and remote tragedy. I do not picture any faces. And I simply believe life has always been this way, and will likely always be this way. I’m cynical.

And if I asked you over the next three years if you believed we will spend millions of dollars seeking to prevent a future shooting we cannot prevent, or whether we will use part of that money to save the lives of hungry children whose deaths we know we can prevent – which would you predict as a nation we will do?

We will do the first, and we will continue to ignore the second. Not because it is rational, and not because it is right – but because we are cynical and sentimental about children.

All we have to do is think about the micro and the macro picture of our culture in relationship to children. In the micro picture our children get an enormous amount of attention. We use the most child centered parenting models to the point of destroying our marriages. We spend far more on them than their rearing requires. We buy them the best of everything we can afford. We protect them from any danger at any cost.

And yet in the macro picture, the picture is far different. Tens of millions of children have been aborted since the 1970s. In the average year in New York City more children are aborted been born. Our birth rates have plummeted – showing the though we love the children that are convenient to us, our more general hospitality of embracing children has been on the decline since the beginning of industrialization – and certainly since the development of birth control. It shows us beyond doubt that the reason we have always had kids is because we couldn’t prevent it – because the moment science made us able to prevent births we certainly did.

I actually think this is a huge issue for three reasons.

1. I believe we are doing great damage to the children we do have by being too softheaded and sentimental about what they really need from us
2. I believe we are not embracing with hospitality the children God wants us to have – either by adoption or by natural birth. I think many people are losing sight of our true procreative responsibility in passing on life and civilization to a new generation. Having children is an action of hope in the future and duty to the future. In doing so used to be the grounding of an enormous amount of human meaning – something lacking in many in our present culture.
3. I believe we are becoming sentimental and cynical about childhood – and what parts of childhood are meant to come into adulthood. I think that this is destroying modern adulthood, causing us to bring into adulthood the worst parts of childhood, and losing the greatest parts of childhood that were been to endure – purity, wonder, vibrancy and passion. We are losing the things that were supposed to make us happy. And when we see them in our own children, we latch onto them like vampires experiencing them vicariously – rather than having those characteristics ourselves and inculcating them in our children permanently. And so we steal their happiness rather than perpetuated.

I came across this article in my preparation and study for the series I’m planning on worship in January. Tim Keller’s thoughts in this article are very close to my own – and I think they also may share the property of being right, as best as I can tell. If you want to know more about how to do worship in our culture, or if you go to High Point and want to better understand some of the reasons why we’re doing what we’re doing, this article should really help.

“The Bible simply does not give us enough details to shape an entire worship service. When the Bible calls us to sing God’s praises, we are not given the tunes or the rhythm. We are not told how repetitive the lyrics are to be or how emotionally intense the singing should be. When we are commanded to do corporate prayer, we are not told whether those prayers should be written, spoken in unison, or extemporaneous. So to give any concrete form to our worship, we must fill in the blanks that the Bible leaves open. When we do so, we will have to draw on tradition, the needs, capacities, and cultural sensibilities of our people, and our own personal preferences. Though we cannot avoid drawing on our own pref­erences, they should never be the driving force (cf. Rom. 15:1–3). But if we fail to do the hard work of consulting both tradition and culture, we will – wittingly or unwittingly – choose music just to please ourselves.”

*Photo courtesy of http://slaveofjesuschristdotme.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/tim-keller.jpg.

When looking for a church home, Americans have a multitude of options. There are an estimated 350,000 churches in the U.S.*,  with more than 80 different congregations in Madison alone. This variety makes it easier to reach different kinds of people, and, as long as the churches have good relations with each other, there can be some good that comes from this arrangement in the modern world. Many have noticed that the reason the church in America is healthier than the church in Europe is that there are no state churches in America. They survive on donations of members, and there is nothing to keep them from failing and dying but God and the people who support them. This has led to innovation in ministry types and all kinds of change and growth that would not have been likely otherwise. I have always been part of strong churches and, in my professional ministry, growing churches.

But there is a frustrating underside to the church “free market.” The church is supposed to be a flock and an army and a family and a body. Sheep don’t switch flocks voluntarily. Soldiers can’t trade posts whenever they like. Families aren’t voluntary establishments. Hearts don’t take a break from beating and pumping blood. While it may work in some ways, the modern religious economy would have been unthinkable not only to the first millennium of Christians, but also to the biblical authors.

This brings up questions rarely handled in any detail: what are the right grounds for leaving a church or changing churches? Will any reason suffice? Does no reason but doctrinal apostasy compel reattachment? I’ll offer two quick principles here:

1. You should be part of a church.
2. Your reason for changing churches should take fully into account five “non-market” metaphors relating to the identity and purpose of the church.

Church “switchers” have at least one thing right – they are going to church. Every Christian is by definition a part of the universal church and must be part of a real local church. Hebrews 10:25 commands us to keep “meeting together” to encourage one another – and that it will be all the more important as time goes on. 1 John argues that part of our assurance that we are really Christians is in our practical love for other Christians in the local church. Going to church isn’t enough; you have to be part of the church – part of the community and a recognizable member of the body.

Your reason for changing churches should take fully into account five “non-market” metaphors relating to the identity and purpose of the church.

Markets are great because they allow for efficient and flexible cooperation between people with no other attachment than the things they are trading. They are enormously productive ways to offer goods and services. Though they have their problems, I support them. But thinking of the church as a market is problematic, since the church is not a market – it is a kingdom. When you go to church with the mindset of a consumer, things start to get unhealthy. The market only takes into account your own felt needs. You are the issue, and you are considered competent to decide what you want. Neither of these work in the church. Your responsibility is to God and the kingdom first, and to yourself as one belonging to God and part of the kingdom. Your needs are not first. You should assume that you are not fully competent to decide all the goods and services you require. God has appointed the pastoral offices for your good, and to reject them is to reject medicine he thinks you need. Taking this concept further, there are some non-market metaphors and questions to think about before switching churches:

1. Kingdom. Is you switching churches the will of the King and the need of the universal kingdom? Is it about him or about you? Is the church as a whole going to be stronger because of you switching?
2. Battle. Deployment and achievement require dependability. The church’s health requires dependability in relationships and contribution. Fickle members kill a church’s ability to do ministry. What does your calling as a disciplined soldier for the purposes of the Gospel require?
3. Body. A body does not break up easily. Its parts work together and belong to each other. They deal with inherent limitations and are not looking for somewhere to go. They support each other and try to make the body healthier and better, knowing that health in one organ and system can make everything better. Do you need to stay and help bring about health?
4. Family. Relational discomfort and dysfunction are part of all family life. There is a certain randomness to family, and this is ultimately good for us. We are not relationally responsible to the people we like but to the people we are related to. This is God’s sacred ordering of life. The church is a spiritual family, and you are called to relate to the dysfunctional family you’ve got, not look for the perfect family to join. Are you leaving because there are some difficult relationships, and you won’t accept that this is part of family life? Have you accepted that you are in an intergenerational family and will not get your way all the time? If the church isn’t catering to your tastes, this might be a sign of health.
5. Flock. Pastors and elders are called to protect and provide for the flock; this includes care and discipline. For this to work well, the shepherd has to know who his sheep are, and they need to stay in the flock even when they get his attention. Hebrews 12:8 says that if we are not disciplined we are illegitimate children. So we need to be subject to authority and discipline wherever we call home – and we can’t leave if that authority to discipline is evoked. Wherever you are, the leaders should have the authority to confront you and discipline you. If you are prone to leave or not be connected enough to receive this kind of care, you think the church is a market. Are you leaving to avoid discipline? Are you going somewhere else seeking discipline, and are you going to be part of the flock – willing to receive shepherding care that the shepherd thinks you need, rather than the religious goods and services you think you require?

While I do not think that changing churches is always inherently bad, I do think it is often done without the reflection that should be required, and for theologically misguided reasons. Knowing and understanding the non-market biblical pictures of the church can help us see the limitation of market thinking in relation to our church commitment and involvement.

* Hartford Institute for Religion Research website.

Photo courtesy of http://joog07.wordpress.com.

Since the start of the spiritual gifts series, a number of people have asked me, “What is the difference between a ‘spiritual gift’ and a skill you’ve developed?” Another important question is, “What’s the difference between a spiritual gift you receive after you’re converted and filled with the Holy Spirit, and a natural talent?”

There are a couple of important points, both biblically and psychologically, in the answer to these questions. First, there is no such phrase as “spiritual gifts” in the Bible. In 1 Corinthians 12:1, the word translated as “spiritual gifts” is pneumatikos, or “spiritual ones,” meaning things or people that are spiritual. A number of commentators think this word refers to people whom Paul was correcting because they thought of themselves as spiritual, and Paul didn’t want to be held in too high of esteem by the church because their spirituality wasn’t authentic. In the later verses, like verse 4, the word is charismaton, or “something freely given or bestowed,” a thing of grace; the Holy Spirit gives “grace-things.” While “spiritual gifts” sounds better, the direct translation of the Greek give us a better understanding of what is meant when we say “spiritual gifts.”

The reason it makes sense to talk about spiritual gifts as something other than natural giftings is because it’s important for us to look more broadly at what God has given us, rather than just at our known talents. If we know we’re good at speaking in front of people, then it’s really easy for us to assume our only gifts are leadership and teaching. This assumption would especially cause us to overlook the more overtly miraculous gifts like speaking in tongues, prophesy, word of knowledge, healing and so on. When we look beyond our skills, occupational capabilities and innate giftings, we can discover a broader set of abilities, some of which we may not have anticipated.

So what is the difference between natural gifts and spiritual gifts? For one thing, it’s how we receive the gift. Grace is an intentionally vague word – it is an undeserved favor of any kind, and it marks everything we receive from God. Some things we acquire through the circumstances of birth, family or upbringing. All of these assets are from the grace of providence – God’s superintending rule over life’s circumstances. Some things we acquire through development and experience united with capacities we already have. These skills and abilities are still of grace – they find their source in God’s generosity toward us. Some gifts come after conversion through supernatural power – these are through the grace of supernatural power, but they are still of grace.

Whatever the means of our receiving these gifts, we are equally responsible to use them for God’s glory. We are not more responsible for overtly supernatural spiritual gifts than for any other gift.

Look at the spiritual gifts lists and seek more than just your talents. Seek the “greater” gifts, not just the enhancement of the your known abilities. And then use all of these resources for God’s purposes.