Thanks Anthony for your response to Bill Wald. It seems as though you put a lot of stock in Reformed theology to explain the effectiveness of the gospel and to further explain the effectiveness of your teaching, as to whether your students grasp and take hold of it. You explain that your teaching is simply the human means that God uses to effectually call students to commitment to Christ above culture. The bottom line, it’s not your fault if they don’t fall, hook, line, and sinker, for the message you’re trying to convey. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit who does the convincing. You can rest at peace and in comfort, that you’ve done your work. I’ll assume that you do an excellent job in your teaching, although some might theoretically question whether your teaching was truly effective. The deeper problem I see, is whether the message you are conveying is really reasonable and therefore palatable. If the message doesn’t meet a rational standard why accept it as true? Why shouldn’t your students also see value in their own religious traditions?
As I see it, Reformed theology (the five points of Calvinism) is just a clever way of explaining why most people aren’t interested in the Christian message. The truth may be that the gospel is unreasonable and therefore unbelievable. But Reformed Christians (and the apostle Paul) would try to claim that such refusal is only because these refusers have not been chosen or elected unto salvation. The rational explanation is that the claim of the Christian gospel is unreasonable and unbelievable.
I’m quite sure you think that your students (who are holding on to parts of their old religion) are being unreasonable in trying to accommodate both religions or to holding on to any part of their old religion. Christianity makes so much more sense. But it makes sense because you are looking at Christianity from within the box of Christianity. You are not looking at Christianity objectively from outside the box. An objective look at Christianity from outside the box will show that Christianity is no more reasonable than other religions. You seem to be asking your students to evaluate Christianity from within your particular box (a Reformed Christian perspective) rather than stepping back and evaluating your claims objectively from outside of the box. From outside the box, some people objectively see value in a variety of religions and might want to acknowledge and accept the good in each. But you seem to fault some of your students (and some Christians in the U.S.) for wanting to do this. Again, you seem naive in wanting your students to acknowledge the same narrow view that you hold of Christianity. If I were you (and I'm not), I would be glad that my students accept the core of Christianity, even if they don't accept it in every detail as you understand it.
Thanks Mark for your insights into the topic of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. I noticed that in painting a picture of three different end of life situations, you painted the first two examples with a greater sense of compassion for the person dying than you did in the third example. From that alone, I knew where you stood on the topic of physician assisted suicide. In a sense, the rest of the article was not necessary to know where you stand. Had you painted a much more compassionate view of the third, your viewpoint would have not been so obvious from the start, and might have shown some balance.
Most Christians oppose physician assisted suicide because of their view of human life. Human life is sacred, not just valuable. The sanctity of human life stems fundamentally from people (as opposed to animals) being created in the image of God. And because humans are created in God’s image, we do not have the right to take that life from anyone. If humans were simply one step up the evolutionary ladder from monkeys, we might not feel the same. So it is our Christian perspective that pushes us in the direction of being pro-life, whether at the beginning or end of human life.
The fundamental question in our informed age is, do Christians have the right to impose their religious views on the general population? Because Christians believe in the sanctity of human life, should they dictate to the public that particular view? Wouldn’t that be like people of the Islamic religion wanting to impose sharia law on the general population of a democracy such as the U.S. or Canada? It is one thing for Christians to say that they believe in the sanctity of human life, but it’s entirely a different thing to impose our beliefs on others. The church should be staunch supports of such principles within their church communities, without imposing their views on others outside the church. Don’t we believe in a separation of church and state? I don’t know if the church does such an effective job within the church community, why should they go outside the church to impose their beliefs?
As for those promoting physician assisted suicide, they can definitely present and promote a much more compassionate and loving perspective on the topic than you have done with your third example. In fact, if shown in the way promoters intend, it is the most loving, compassionate, and hopeful thing that can be done (or allowed) for those facing severe pain and hopelessness.
Thanks Mark for your clarifications. As to your examples, if the third was a made up example, as you say, you could have, at least, added some compassion to show the concern and suffering that such a cancer victim was likely experiencing. As it stands, it is still obvious where you stand simply from your examples.
When you suggest that opponents of physician assisted suicide are not faith based and do not use religious arguments to make their case, I hope that is not the case for you, as you represent a Christian organization, the CRC and Disability Concerns of the CRC. And you are addressing a Christian audience. As such, I would think your opposition to euthanasia would mainly lie in a distinctly Christian argument. Unless, of course, the Christian argument doesn’t carry much weight. Unless the Christian argument doesn’t represent ultimate truth. Unless you feel you can only argue from a humanistic point of view.
But then if you are arguing from a humanist point of view and not a Christian perspective, then there is no ultimate authority from which to argue. You can only argue from a position of opinion. And your opinion carries no more weight than that of others. I hope you recognize that Western opinion on a number of issues (including euthanasia) has been strongly informed and shaped by a long standing Christian tradition that has spanned centuries of thinking. That is rapidly changing in our pluralistic Western societies.
You suggest that Christians are part of our pluralistic society and have a right to add their voice to the mix of many voices. I think you have a right to add your opinion and certainly impose your own opinion on yourself. But to tell someone who fundamentally believes differently from you that they have to act according to your opinions or values in a pluralistic society is unjust. Christianity is no longer seen as the guardian of our society and culture. That is why groups such as “No Longer Dead” will argue their position from a humanistic perspective. But their humanistic perspective is no more compelling or authoritative than the humanistic perspective of those advocating for physician assisted suicide. Those wanting to legalize physician assisted suicide are not suggesting that anyone suffering or in pain must submit to such action. That would be wrong, as well. They simply want this to be an option. In contrast those protesting euthanasia are giving no options. People in severe pain or greatly disabled are not allowed to make such a decision for themselves. Therein lies the error of your view advocating for a Christian position ruling our pluralistic society.
If the Christian church (or Christians) wants to prohibit physician assisted suicide it should prohibit it within their own church or denomination. But why go outside of their own church (of like thinking) and try to prohibit it in society which is not under the jurisdiction of the church. If the church cannot enforce such a law in their own churches why should the church or Christians be allowed such authority in society.
There are other valid arguments for those advocating for physician assisted suicide, but I’ve said too much already. Thanks for listening and responding.
One more time Mark. You are right that Christians, like anyone else, should be allowed to voice an opinion. If I were facing a situation of great pain, or physical disability and hopelessness (for the future), I would want to know what opinions are being voiced and weigh the validity of each point of view. But I would not want someone telling me what I had to do, especially if I didn’t agree with a particular point of view. I wouldn’t want someone else’s viewpoint or religion imposed on me. After hearing the different arguments let me make my own choice. That’s what the physician assisted suicide advocates are recommending, allowing a person to make their own choice.. Not so for those opposed to euthanasia.
I think that Christians are caught between a rock and a hard place. The Christian’s strongest argument is the teaching that people have been created in the image of God (the sanctity of human life). Therefore because of the ultimate value of human life, a Christian or anyone cannot even consider suicide as an escape from pain and suffering. But this is a Christian argument and doesn’t argue well when establishing law in a pluralistic society.
The humanistic argument for forbidding euthanasia depends on logic and reasonableness in coming to a solution. What is the most humane way of handling such a situation? Does those arguing “for” or “against” euthanasia have the most reasoned and logical point of view. Christian and other religious points of view should be put aside when establishing law in a pluralistic culture. Based upon reason, I think that those favoring physician assisted suicide have the stronger argument on this front.
Thinking of the humane treatment of a much loved pet dog who has lost all of its legs, what would be the most humane treatment for this pet? No doubt, it would be to put the dog down (end its life). It would be inhumane to expect such an animal to live out its years without legs. But that’s what you are suggesting for a person. The owner of the dog would make the decision for his/her pet. In regard to a person (in a humane society) facing a life or death decision, he/she would be primary in coming to such a decision. You can think of all kinds situations of suffering pets, in which the most humane treatment is to put the pet down. But in the treatment of suffering and hopeless people, you suggest giving them no choice but to live in likely hopelessness.
Of course animals and people are different. People have the capability of logic and reason. Adults can logically and reasonably make important decisions for themselves, even in life and death situations. They should be given the dignity and the honor that belongs to human beings to do so. If they choose life, then by all means, those close to such a person will do all they can to make the remainder of their life comfortable and meaningful. If they choose death, then those close will also make the passing as comfortable and guilt free as possible. To give an individual the right of choice gives the individual the dignity and honor that humans deserve. The right to choose seems, to me, to be the only reasonable and Christian option.
Thanks Duane, for an interesting article on normality. You interpret Psalm 139 more in terms of our physical and psychological makeup rather than moral makeup. You draw out the uniqueness of every individual to point out that God, in a sense, doesn’t look at us in some cookie cutter perspective, in which we are all the same. And certainly that fits well with a “disability concerns” sermon. But I’m not sure that you really connected with David’s thoughts in writing this Psalm. I think David’s confession was that God knew his heart and thoughts and knew either the purity or impurity of his being and thoughts. And this brings me to God’s basic understanding of our being. So what does God really think of us?
There’s no doubt that we are all unique and are individual. No one else like you or like me. But the real normal that the Bible or Christianity seems to emphasize is that we are all sinners. In fact looking at all human beings through the eyes of God, we are all failures, completely with no one excluded, except one. When Christians are asked, what makes Christianity unique from all other religions, the answer given is usually, Jesus Christ. Christianity is the only religion that provides a Savior, who is Jesus, who is set apart from all others. But the other unique factor that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that all people, none excluded, are moral failures in the eyes of God.
The God of other religions doesn’t look at people in such a way. People are given the life long opportunity to serve and love their neighbors, as well as God. We don’t read of the God of other religions setting the bar at any particular height. So it might seem as though their may be a variety of passing grades by which to win God’s approval ,such as A through D before getting to F for failure. Even the Mormons think that by far most people will make it to heaven, even if not a Mormon. But our God (the Christian God) says, of yourselves, you are all failures.
We’re all failures in God’s eyes because we miss his mark of absolute perfection, whether by a little or a lot. A miss is a miss. That seems to be a pretty high standard for God’s created creatures (human beings). After all he didn’t create us as Gods. We’re not expected to be all knowing like God, why perfectly holy?
But the good news is that he sent a Savior into the world. But wait. The Savior isn’t really for everyone, but only for his chosen ones (L - limited atonement). Whereas most have never even heard of Christ, let alone been persuaded by the Holy Spirit, therefor are condemned. I’ve heard of other religions having secret or hidden truths. I guess we, as Christians, are no different. Let’s talk as though the good news (the gospel) is good for everyone. But, of course, it’s not (just read the Canons of Dort).
So you ask, how does God see people? Primarily, as moral failures, deserving of eternal damnation. Not a very happy thought, about us or about God. I think you could have picked a better Psalm, Duane. Perhaps, I shouldn't have read Psalm 139 along with your article. Anyway, thanks for your article. It does make a person think.
Hi Jeff. There is no official format for “Network” articles that I know of. It just seems that the large majority of articles on this site are short articles that take no more than fifteen minutes to read, some even less. So when a one hour video turns up, it just seems out of character for the Network. I don’t generally come to the Network to read or watch lengthy articles. Of course, no one is forcing me to read any article, so I can be as selective as I wish. The subject matter of your article did catch my attention. Thanks for writing or video taping.
Yes Jeff, I am aware of what our denomination has done with “Third Wave Pentecostalism.” Personally, I think it’s disappointing. I apologize for sounding less than sensitive to this cause. I know you are deeply involved in this thinking. But, to me, it sounds so much like a dumbing down of Christianity. It’s a regression of any intellectual advancements cultures have achieved. This represents a superstitious mentality that belongs in the dark ages, rather than in the twenty-first century. Plus, it is not even verifiable. It’s more a matter of opinion, and the subject matter for vampire and exorcism movies, but not reality.
I understand what you are saying about Jesus dealing with the demonic and Satan himself. That’s the dilemma. I’m of the opinion that our views of inerrancy and infallibility fall short in expressing an honest view of truth and reality. The views that we hold to (of the Bible), in a large sense, bind us to a first century way of understanding life and reality. They hog tie Christians into an archaic perspective, and bind us to a primitive and superstitious view of spiritual warfare. Jesus was part of a first century culture. He participated in that culture. He dealt with people under the umbrella of an archaic culture and primitive superstitions. For Jesus’ message to make sense in the first century he had to adapt to the culture he was part of. He couldn’t come into the first century and live and preach as though he belonged to the 21st century. If that was the case, he would have driven a Chevrolet rather than a mule. But that would have made him a mismatch for his culture. So instead he came into the first century world and brought a message of hope that was relevant under the umbrella of that world and its culture. We have to be able to discern what belonged to the first century, and leave behind what doesn’t fit in the 21st. And we can leave behind your notion of spiritual warfare and much of this third wave movement.
Is it any wonder that Christianity isn’t growing in Western culture? When you add your views of spiritual warfare and third wave Pentecostalism, Christianity becomes all the more unbelievable and unrealistic to the world, at least to the world of reason. I apologize, again, for being crass in responding to your article. I think you mean well, but I do think you have seriously missed the boat. Please don’t take offense.
Hi Jeff Brower. Hope you’re doing well. I think that is your term - “strictly modernistic.” I didn’t use it. But of course, there are a lot of Christians (inside the CRC and outside) that understand the incarnation and resurrection as you do, but don’t buy into this spiritual warfare movement. I think I would take exception to both words, “strictly” and “modernistic.” If you are equating modern with reasonable, I would prefer reasonable, without the use of “strictly.”
CS Lewis can speak of a “chronological snobbery,” but Christians have their own form of snobbery. Christians can speak of their religion as though it is the only valid religion in existence. Christianity considers itself as the exclusive religion, and other religions do the same. Religions tend to be mutually exclusive, but none more than Christianity. That’s the height of snobbery. So when it comes to the miracles of other religions (miracles that are central to their faith) we, as Christians, discount them as groundless, unrealistic or unreasonable. Just consider how we view the many so called miracles of the Mormon religion or the Islamic faith. And, of course, their miracles are backed up in their Scriptures which are fully inspired by God, like our Scriptures. So how can we claim, we’re right and you’re wrong? But didn’t you say, Jeff, that Christianity at its core is irreducibly miraculous. It would seem that Christians use the same principles, to discount the miracles of other religions (and therefor those religions themselves), that these so called modernists use to discount Christianity’s miracles. But, all the while. we claim that our miracles (which are central to our religion) are valid and should not be called into question.
We think modern science is unreasonable to call into question Christian claims (such as the six day creation account). This is another example of Christian arrogance. Christianity is not the only religion that has miraculous religious creation accounts. Are scientists suppose deal with all the differing religions one at time. Why is it that Christians think that their view of a miraculous creation is the only valid account and only one capable of standing up to the science of today? Isn’t this another example of our snobbery?
Or as Christians, we send our missionaries into Islamic countries in order to get Muslims to change religions, even when it may mean they will suffer terrible persecution. Isn’t this part of our Christian arrogance? Our religion is not just better than yours, but ours is the only true religion and your is a false religion. “So change and suffer. You’ll be better off.”
From inside our box of Christianity, we don’t think we are arrogant or snobs. But from the outside we are seen as the epitome of snobbery. So it doesn’t really do much good for CS Lewis or other Christians to criticize when the mud is really on our own faces.
You are right Jeff, everything old is not necessarily bad or outdated. But, at the same time, there is much that is old or very old that is archaic or primitive. And this whole spiritual warfare movement represents a first century mentality or world view that is archaic. The fact that there is no objective verification for it confirms it’s primitive nature. I did like the movie, “Ghost Busters,” but I’m not ready to claim that it represents reality.
I doubt that the empiricist feels any compulsion to disprove the miracles of the multitude of religions. A strict empiricist simply denies them because there is no empirical evidence to support them. And if there is no support other than opinion or belief, why consider them. It seems to be a matter for those who believe in a particular miracle or miracles in general to give proof, and not the other way around. Believing something is true doesn’t make it true. When there is verifiable evidence, I imagine even the empiricist would admit validity.
Of course, you realize there are a variety of shades of empiricism. You seem to be talking about the stricter empiricist when talking about empiricism. I haven’t placed myself in any such categories, but if I were to, I might feel closer to pragmatism which stresses practical consequences. And I don’t really see much in the area of practicality when it comes to the spiritual warfare espoused by the third wave movement (Pentecostalism). That’s especially true when we realize that the science of psychology, with a good track record, has tackled the problems associated with what neo-Pentecostals have associated with spiritual warfare.
A Frank Peretti fictional scheme of spiritual warfare may look fantastic on paper, but it’s fictional and doesn’t work in reality. And the same is true of third wave spiritual warfare. It interesting that our ecumenical creeds don’t touch this topic, and what our confessions have to say is very scant. And even what our confessions have to say doesn’t fit nicely into the paradigm of the third wave movement. This whole third wave movement is very recent and gets its impetus from a more recent form of Pentecostalism. And it seems questionable.
Of course, I guess we could go back to the witch hunts of the 17th century. They, too, were part of a Christian religious movement (Puritans) that had no grounding in reality or truth. That’s an example of something thought to be true (with religious grounding) among a segment of Christianity but in actuality belonged to an archaic mind set. The same could be said for palm readers, sorcery, magicians and witchcraft. Throughout history, but especially in early history, belief in magic and people possessing magical powers was common. Even Pharaohs and kings claimed magical and divine powers. This too, was part of a primitive or archaic way of considering reality. Perhaps you don’t agree. But very few political leaders today claim divine or magical powers or insight into reality that others don’t possess. We’ve moved beyond the primitive cultural perceptions of reality that belong to a past culture. And we can still believe in God. So yes, Jeff, the Bible was written under the umbrella of an archaic culture in many ways and what was seen was witnessed through the lens of that culture. That’s similar to the Puritans truly believing that many in their communities were witches and possessed by demons and should be burned at the stake.
One other thing, Jeff. CS Lewis said (in your quote) he doesn’t deny miracles performed outside of Christianity or even through other religions (pagans). But I would imagine he (and you) would deny the miracles that confirm the truth of other religions, such as the angel Gabriel being the agent though whom God gave Mohamed the Koran, or the angel Moroni revealing the golden plates (the book of Mormon) to Joseph Smith, therefor making those writings the God inspired writings and therefor without error. It’s easy to acknowledge miracles if there is no great consequence involved. We, as Christians, believe, similar to the Muslims and Mormons, that our Scriptures are the inspired word of God and therefor absolutely true. On what basis do you know that Christianity is the one true religion and that Christ is the only way to God? And is the reason you give the same reason they would give for believing their religion is the one true faith?
Very interesting comment Cindy. Thanks for adding your contribution to the dialogue. It’s good to see a variety of responses from different vantage points. My comments have not been in favor of this third wave movement that is getting a foothold and gaining some momentum in our CRC denomination. It doesn’t bother me to discount a movement, because it seems less personal attacking a movement rather than a person. So I really don’t want to disparage your personal experience. That is your experience and it seems to bring meaning to your life and Christian experience. So I apologize if I am hitting too close to home. But I do feel experiences and testimonies like yours could help to clarify, what I see as a problem with this movement.
I realize that personal testimonies of having witnessed demon possession and having personally entered into battle with demons seems to add credence to this spiritual warfare perspective. How can one argue against first hand experience? But a first hand experience isn’t necessarily an objective viewpoint.
The mind is a tricky thing. And a particular mind set can easily lead one (or many) to believe something is true when it likely is not be true. It’s called deception or being deceived. How does this work? What might be a good example that comes close to home. In my last response, I mentioned the witch hunts of the 15th and 16th centuries (the Salem witch hunts being most notable). These witch hunts had their origin within Christianity and were based upon both Old and New Testament Scripture. Although there was an European precedent, in the U.S. it was the Puritan movement and churches that authorized and sanctioned these witch hunts. As you may know, the Puritans were known for their very strict and puritanical life style. Life and living was a very serious matter. The Puritans didn’t celebrate holidays. Play, even, by children was discouraged; toys were outlawed, especially dolls (that’s easy to understand why); children were put to work at a very early age. Fun for the sake of fun was strictly forbidden. Drawing from the Bible, as their ultimate authority, joy was distinguished from fun. Joy was permissible because joy is always directed toward God. The angels who rejoiced in the birth of Jesus were expressing joy toward God, but were not there to have fun. David, in the Old Testament, danced before and unto the Lord, but he was not dancing for the sake of fun. David was not participating in a high school sock hop. For the Puritans, as with many Christians, all of life was to be lived to the glory of God. Anything that didn’t promote his glory was wrong and sinful. “Fun”, as opposed to “joy,” always turns in upon self. The Bible nowhere promotes fun, but does promote joy. So you can begin to see where the Puritans got this idea that “fun” was not just wrong, bad, or sinful, it was Satanic. “Fun” was Satan’s imitation of “joy.” And people who wanted fun in their lives were dabbling in Satanism or witchcraft. The mother who wanted her children to experience some fun in their lives was in serious trouble. And the mother who had a fit rage or went into depression because her children were not allowed to have fun gave the sure signs that she was possessed by the devil or by demons. And she was dragged away from her Christian home and punished or burned for being a witch. I”m sorry I can’t take longer to explain further.
This is just one example of how a Christian cultural perception influenced the behavior of an entire community. And certain behaviors by individuals were sure signs of demon possession. Did this perception of witch craft have Biblical support? It certainly did. Probably as much or more support than the Bible gives for this third wave movement that has come to the CRC and other Christian churches. The preponderance of other religions (false religions) also give evidence of how a world and life view can affect whole communities of people. So I would say, think twice before jumping on this “third wave” wagon that is traveling through our denomination. It may make some Biblical sense (like the witch craft of the Puritans) but is totally unreasonable and illogical.
Thanks Jeff for your article on spiritual warfare. I looked at the handouts that you provided but did not watch the video. A one hour video doesn’t seem to fit the format for Network articles. I would have appreciated a nutshell version of the video, in print. I did pick up a basic gist of what you may have been saying, plus I’ve done a small amount of reading on this spiritual warfare.
I personally do not see where this kind of teaching has any place in the CRC, let alone Christianity. I think it lends itself to delusional and primitive thinking. The leverage that you may have is that you can find some Biblical warrant for spiritual warfare. But the world and life views of the first century were very primitive. In Bible times, people didn’t look for answers to their maladies in natural laws and natural order, but rather in the spiritual order. Bible times were pre-scientific age, pre-industrial age, and pre the age of reason or enlightenment. Their life view was very limited and superstitious. And the Bible authors wrote from within the cultural perceptions of their day which included this superstitious perception of life. They were products of their culture and not products of logic or enlightenment or cultural growth and advancement. This is the thinking that goes into your “spiritual warfare” mentality. A regression to first century superstition. Plus, on top of being built on a first century world view, spiritual warfare has little or no objective verification. It all seems to be a matter of emotional perception and opinion.
This thinking of yours may gain some foothold among the less developed societies of our world, but in more developed cultures it is more a matter of delusion. Who really wants to go back to an age of first century superstition? Thanks Jeff for this article. We do need to know what others in our denomination are thinking. For one, I hope the teaching that you are espousing does not catch on.
Posted in: Purposefully Putting Culture Before Christ
Thanks Anthony for your response to Bill Wald. It seems as though you put a lot of stock in Reformed theology to explain the effectiveness of the gospel and to further explain the effectiveness of your teaching, as to whether your students grasp and take hold of it. You explain that your teaching is simply the human means that God uses to effectually call students to commitment to Christ above culture. The bottom line, it’s not your fault if they don’t fall, hook, line, and sinker, for the message you’re trying to convey. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit who does the convincing. You can rest at peace and in comfort, that you’ve done your work. I’ll assume that you do an excellent job in your teaching, although some might theoretically question whether your teaching was truly effective. The deeper problem I see, is whether the message you are conveying is really reasonable and therefore palatable. If the message doesn’t meet a rational standard why accept it as true? Why shouldn’t your students also see value in their own religious traditions?
As I see it, Reformed theology (the five points of Calvinism) is just a clever way of explaining why most people aren’t interested in the Christian message. The truth may be that the gospel is unreasonable and therefore unbelievable. But Reformed Christians (and the apostle Paul) would try to claim that such refusal is only because these refusers have not been chosen or elected unto salvation. The rational explanation is that the claim of the Christian gospel is unreasonable and unbelievable.
I’m quite sure you think that your students (who are holding on to parts of their old religion) are being unreasonable in trying to accommodate both religions or to holding on to any part of their old religion. Christianity makes so much more sense. But it makes sense because you are looking at Christianity from within the box of Christianity. You are not looking at Christianity objectively from outside the box. An objective look at Christianity from outside the box will show that Christianity is no more reasonable than other religions. You seem to be asking your students to evaluate Christianity from within your particular box (a Reformed Christian perspective) rather than stepping back and evaluating your claims objectively from outside of the box. From outside the box, some people objectively see value in a variety of religions and might want to acknowledge and accept the good in each. But you seem to fault some of your students (and some Christians in the U.S.) for wanting to do this. Again, you seem naive in wanting your students to acknowledge the same narrow view that you hold of Christianity. If I were you (and I'm not), I would be glad that my students accept the core of Christianity, even if they don't accept it in every detail as you understand it.
Posted in: Pro-Life Series: Physician-Assisted Suicide
Thanks Mark for your insights into the topic of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. I noticed that in painting a picture of three different end of life situations, you painted the first two examples with a greater sense of compassion for the person dying than you did in the third example. From that alone, I knew where you stood on the topic of physician assisted suicide. In a sense, the rest of the article was not necessary to know where you stand. Had you painted a much more compassionate view of the third, your viewpoint would have not been so obvious from the start, and might have shown some balance.
Most Christians oppose physician assisted suicide because of their view of human life. Human life is sacred, not just valuable. The sanctity of human life stems fundamentally from people (as opposed to animals) being created in the image of God. And because humans are created in God’s image, we do not have the right to take that life from anyone. If humans were simply one step up the evolutionary ladder from monkeys, we might not feel the same. So it is our Christian perspective that pushes us in the direction of being pro-life, whether at the beginning or end of human life.
The fundamental question in our informed age is, do Christians have the right to impose their religious views on the general population? Because Christians believe in the sanctity of human life, should they dictate to the public that particular view? Wouldn’t that be like people of the Islamic religion wanting to impose sharia law on the general population of a democracy such as the U.S. or Canada? It is one thing for Christians to say that they believe in the sanctity of human life, but it’s entirely a different thing to impose our beliefs on others. The church should be staunch supports of such principles within their church communities, without imposing their views on others outside the church. Don’t we believe in a separation of church and state? I don’t know if the church does such an effective job within the church community, why should they go outside the church to impose their beliefs?
As for those promoting physician assisted suicide, they can definitely present and promote a much more compassionate and loving perspective on the topic than you have done with your third example. In fact, if shown in the way promoters intend, it is the most loving, compassionate, and hopeful thing that can be done (or allowed) for those facing severe pain and hopelessness.
Posted in: Pro-Life Series: Physician-Assisted Suicide
Thanks Mark for your clarifications. As to your examples, if the third was a made up example, as you say, you could have, at least, added some compassion to show the concern and suffering that such a cancer victim was likely experiencing. As it stands, it is still obvious where you stand simply from your examples.
When you suggest that opponents of physician assisted suicide are not faith based and do not use religious arguments to make their case, I hope that is not the case for you, as you represent a Christian organization, the CRC and Disability Concerns of the CRC. And you are addressing a Christian audience. As such, I would think your opposition to euthanasia would mainly lie in a distinctly Christian argument. Unless, of course, the Christian argument doesn’t carry much weight. Unless the Christian argument doesn’t represent ultimate truth. Unless you feel you can only argue from a humanistic point of view.
But then if you are arguing from a humanist point of view and not a Christian perspective, then there is no ultimate authority from which to argue. You can only argue from a position of opinion. And your opinion carries no more weight than that of others. I hope you recognize that Western opinion on a number of issues (including euthanasia) has been strongly informed and shaped by a long standing Christian tradition that has spanned centuries of thinking. That is rapidly changing in our pluralistic Western societies.
You suggest that Christians are part of our pluralistic society and have a right to add their voice to the mix of many voices. I think you have a right to add your opinion and certainly impose your own opinion on yourself. But to tell someone who fundamentally believes differently from you that they have to act according to your opinions or values in a pluralistic society is unjust. Christianity is no longer seen as the guardian of our society and culture. That is why groups such as “No Longer Dead” will argue their position from a humanistic perspective. But their humanistic perspective is no more compelling or authoritative than the humanistic perspective of those advocating for physician assisted suicide. Those wanting to legalize physician assisted suicide are not suggesting that anyone suffering or in pain must submit to such action. That would be wrong, as well. They simply want this to be an option. In contrast those protesting euthanasia are giving no options. People in severe pain or greatly disabled are not allowed to make such a decision for themselves. Therein lies the error of your view advocating for a Christian position ruling our pluralistic society.
If the Christian church (or Christians) wants to prohibit physician assisted suicide it should prohibit it within their own church or denomination. But why go outside of their own church (of like thinking) and try to prohibit it in society which is not under the jurisdiction of the church. If the church cannot enforce such a law in their own churches why should the church or Christians be allowed such authority in society.
There are other valid arguments for those advocating for physician assisted suicide, but I’ve said too much already. Thanks for listening and responding.
Posted in: Pro-Life Series: Physician-Assisted Suicide
One more time Mark. You are right that Christians, like anyone else, should be allowed to voice an opinion. If I were facing a situation of great pain, or physical disability and hopelessness (for the future), I would want to know what opinions are being voiced and weigh the validity of each point of view. But I would not want someone telling me what I had to do, especially if I didn’t agree with a particular point of view. I wouldn’t want someone else’s viewpoint or religion imposed on me. After hearing the different arguments let me make my own choice. That’s what the physician assisted suicide advocates are recommending, allowing a person to make their own choice.. Not so for those opposed to euthanasia.
I think that Christians are caught between a rock and a hard place. The Christian’s strongest argument is the teaching that people have been created in the image of God (the sanctity of human life). Therefore because of the ultimate value of human life, a Christian or anyone cannot even consider suicide as an escape from pain and suffering. But this is a Christian argument and doesn’t argue well when establishing law in a pluralistic society.
The humanistic argument for forbidding euthanasia depends on logic and reasonableness in coming to a solution. What is the most humane way of handling such a situation? Does those arguing “for” or “against” euthanasia have the most reasoned and logical point of view. Christian and other religious points of view should be put aside when establishing law in a pluralistic culture. Based upon reason, I think that those favoring physician assisted suicide have the stronger argument on this front.
Thinking of the humane treatment of a much loved pet dog who has lost all of its legs, what would be the most humane treatment for this pet? No doubt, it would be to put the dog down (end its life). It would be inhumane to expect such an animal to live out its years without legs. But that’s what you are suggesting for a person. The owner of the dog would make the decision for his/her pet. In regard to a person (in a humane society) facing a life or death decision, he/she would be primary in coming to such a decision. You can think of all kinds situations of suffering pets, in which the most humane treatment is to put the pet down. But in the treatment of suffering and hopeless people, you suggest giving them no choice but to live in likely hopelessness.
Of course animals and people are different. People have the capability of logic and reason. Adults can logically and reasonably make important decisions for themselves, even in life and death situations. They should be given the dignity and the honor that belongs to human beings to do so. If they choose life, then by all means, those close to such a person will do all they can to make the remainder of their life comfortable and meaningful. If they choose death, then those close will also make the passing as comfortable and guilt free as possible. To give an individual the right of choice gives the individual the dignity and honor that humans deserve. The right to choose seems, to me, to be the only reasonable and Christian option.
Posted in: The Normal Christian Life
Thanks Duane, for an interesting article on normality. You interpret Psalm 139 more in terms of our physical and psychological makeup rather than moral makeup. You draw out the uniqueness of every individual to point out that God, in a sense, doesn’t look at us in some cookie cutter perspective, in which we are all the same. And certainly that fits well with a “disability concerns” sermon. But I’m not sure that you really connected with David’s thoughts in writing this Psalm. I think David’s confession was that God knew his heart and thoughts and knew either the purity or impurity of his being and thoughts. And this brings me to God’s basic understanding of our being. So what does God really think of us?
There’s no doubt that we are all unique and are individual. No one else like you or like me. But the real normal that the Bible or Christianity seems to emphasize is that we are all sinners. In fact looking at all human beings through the eyes of God, we are all failures, completely with no one excluded, except one. When Christians are asked, what makes Christianity unique from all other religions, the answer given is usually, Jesus Christ. Christianity is the only religion that provides a Savior, who is Jesus, who is set apart from all others. But the other unique factor that distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that all people, none excluded, are moral failures in the eyes of God.
The God of other religions doesn’t look at people in such a way. People are given the life long opportunity to serve and love their neighbors, as well as God. We don’t read of the God of other religions setting the bar at any particular height. So it might seem as though their may be a variety of passing grades by which to win God’s approval ,such as A through D before getting to F for failure. Even the Mormons think that by far most people will make it to heaven, even if not a Mormon. But our God (the Christian God) says, of yourselves, you are all failures.
We’re all failures in God’s eyes because we miss his mark of absolute perfection, whether by a little or a lot. A miss is a miss. That seems to be a pretty high standard for God’s created creatures (human beings). After all he didn’t create us as Gods. We’re not expected to be all knowing like God, why perfectly holy?
But the good news is that he sent a Savior into the world. But wait. The Savior isn’t really for everyone, but only for his chosen ones (L - limited atonement). Whereas most have never even heard of Christ, let alone been persuaded by the Holy Spirit, therefor are condemned. I’ve heard of other religions having secret or hidden truths. I guess we, as Christians, are no different. Let’s talk as though the good news (the gospel) is good for everyone. But, of course, it’s not (just read the Canons of Dort).
So you ask, how does God see people? Primarily, as moral failures, deserving of eternal damnation. Not a very happy thought, about us or about God. I think you could have picked a better Psalm, Duane. Perhaps, I shouldn't have read Psalm 139 along with your article. Anyway, thanks for your article. It does make a person think.
Posted in: Introduction to Spiritual Warfare
Hi Jeff. There is no official format for “Network” articles that I know of. It just seems that the large majority of articles on this site are short articles that take no more than fifteen minutes to read, some even less. So when a one hour video turns up, it just seems out of character for the Network. I don’t generally come to the Network to read or watch lengthy articles. Of course, no one is forcing me to read any article, so I can be as selective as I wish. The subject matter of your article did catch my attention. Thanks for writing or video taping.
Yes Jeff, I am aware of what our denomination has done with “Third Wave Pentecostalism.” Personally, I think it’s disappointing. I apologize for sounding less than sensitive to this cause. I know you are deeply involved in this thinking. But, to me, it sounds so much like a dumbing down of Christianity. It’s a regression of any intellectual advancements cultures have achieved. This represents a superstitious mentality that belongs in the dark ages, rather than in the twenty-first century. Plus, it is not even verifiable. It’s more a matter of opinion, and the subject matter for vampire and exorcism movies, but not reality.
I understand what you are saying about Jesus dealing with the demonic and Satan himself. That’s the dilemma. I’m of the opinion that our views of inerrancy and infallibility fall short in expressing an honest view of truth and reality. The views that we hold to (of the Bible), in a large sense, bind us to a first century way of understanding life and reality. They hog tie Christians into an archaic perspective, and bind us to a primitive and superstitious view of spiritual warfare. Jesus was part of a first century culture. He participated in that culture. He dealt with people under the umbrella of an archaic culture and primitive superstitions. For Jesus’ message to make sense in the first century he had to adapt to the culture he was part of. He couldn’t come into the first century and live and preach as though he belonged to the 21st century. If that was the case, he would have driven a Chevrolet rather than a mule. But that would have made him a mismatch for his culture. So instead he came into the first century world and brought a message of hope that was relevant under the umbrella of that world and its culture. We have to be able to discern what belonged to the first century, and leave behind what doesn’t fit in the 21st. And we can leave behind your notion of spiritual warfare and much of this third wave movement.
Is it any wonder that Christianity isn’t growing in Western culture? When you add your views of spiritual warfare and third wave Pentecostalism, Christianity becomes all the more unbelievable and unrealistic to the world, at least to the world of reason. I apologize, again, for being crass in responding to your article. I think you mean well, but I do think you have seriously missed the boat. Please don’t take offense.
Posted in: Introduction to Spiritual Warfare
Hi Jeff Brower. Hope you’re doing well. I think that is your term - “strictly modernistic.” I didn’t use it. But of course, there are a lot of Christians (inside the CRC and outside) that understand the incarnation and resurrection as you do, but don’t buy into this spiritual warfare movement. I think I would take exception to both words, “strictly” and “modernistic.” If you are equating modern with reasonable, I would prefer reasonable, without the use of “strictly.”
Posted in: Introduction to Spiritual Warfare
CS Lewis can speak of a “chronological snobbery,” but Christians have their own form of snobbery. Christians can speak of their religion as though it is the only valid religion in existence. Christianity considers itself as the exclusive religion, and other religions do the same. Religions tend to be mutually exclusive, but none more than Christianity. That’s the height of snobbery. So when it comes to the miracles of other religions (miracles that are central to their faith) we, as Christians, discount them as groundless, unrealistic or unreasonable. Just consider how we view the many so called miracles of the Mormon religion or the Islamic faith. And, of course, their miracles are backed up in their Scriptures which are fully inspired by God, like our Scriptures. So how can we claim, we’re right and you’re wrong? But didn’t you say, Jeff, that Christianity at its core is irreducibly miraculous. It would seem that Christians use the same principles, to discount the miracles of other religions (and therefor those religions themselves), that these so called modernists use to discount Christianity’s miracles. But, all the while. we claim that our miracles (which are central to our religion) are valid and should not be called into question.
We think modern science is unreasonable to call into question Christian claims (such as the six day creation account). This is another example of Christian arrogance. Christianity is not the only religion that has miraculous religious creation accounts. Are scientists suppose deal with all the differing religions one at time. Why is it that Christians think that their view of a miraculous creation is the only valid account and only one capable of standing up to the science of today? Isn’t this another example of our snobbery?
Or as Christians, we send our missionaries into Islamic countries in order to get Muslims to change religions, even when it may mean they will suffer terrible persecution. Isn’t this part of our Christian arrogance? Our religion is not just better than yours, but ours is the only true religion and your is a false religion. “So change and suffer. You’ll be better off.”
From inside our box of Christianity, we don’t think we are arrogant or snobs. But from the outside we are seen as the epitome of snobbery. So it doesn’t really do much good for CS Lewis or other Christians to criticize when the mud is really on our own faces.
You are right Jeff, everything old is not necessarily bad or outdated. But, at the same time, there is much that is old or very old that is archaic or primitive. And this whole spiritual warfare movement represents a first century mentality or world view that is archaic. The fact that there is no objective verification for it confirms it’s primitive nature. I did like the movie, “Ghost Busters,” but I’m not ready to claim that it represents reality.
Posted in: Introduction to Spiritual Warfare
I doubt that the empiricist feels any compulsion to disprove the miracles of the multitude of religions. A strict empiricist simply denies them because there is no empirical evidence to support them. And if there is no support other than opinion or belief, why consider them. It seems to be a matter for those who believe in a particular miracle or miracles in general to give proof, and not the other way around. Believing something is true doesn’t make it true. When there is verifiable evidence, I imagine even the empiricist would admit validity.
Of course, you realize there are a variety of shades of empiricism. You seem to be talking about the stricter empiricist when talking about empiricism. I haven’t placed myself in any such categories, but if I were to, I might feel closer to pragmatism which stresses practical consequences. And I don’t really see much in the area of practicality when it comes to the spiritual warfare espoused by the third wave movement (Pentecostalism). That’s especially true when we realize that the science of psychology, with a good track record, has tackled the problems associated with what neo-Pentecostals have associated with spiritual warfare.
A Frank Peretti fictional scheme of spiritual warfare may look fantastic on paper, but it’s fictional and doesn’t work in reality. And the same is true of third wave spiritual warfare. It interesting that our ecumenical creeds don’t touch this topic, and what our confessions have to say is very scant. And even what our confessions have to say doesn’t fit nicely into the paradigm of the third wave movement. This whole third wave movement is very recent and gets its impetus from a more recent form of Pentecostalism. And it seems questionable.
Of course, I guess we could go back to the witch hunts of the 17th century. They, too, were part of a Christian religious movement (Puritans) that had no grounding in reality or truth. That’s an example of something thought to be true (with religious grounding) among a segment of Christianity but in actuality belonged to an archaic mind set. The same could be said for palm readers, sorcery, magicians and witchcraft. Throughout history, but especially in early history, belief in magic and people possessing magical powers was common. Even Pharaohs and kings claimed magical and divine powers. This too, was part of a primitive or archaic way of considering reality. Perhaps you don’t agree. But very few political leaders today claim divine or magical powers or insight into reality that others don’t possess. We’ve moved beyond the primitive cultural perceptions of reality that belong to a past culture. And we can still believe in God. So yes, Jeff, the Bible was written under the umbrella of an archaic culture in many ways and what was seen was witnessed through the lens of that culture. That’s similar to the Puritans truly believing that many in their communities were witches and possessed by demons and should be burned at the stake.
One other thing, Jeff. CS Lewis said (in your quote) he doesn’t deny miracles performed outside of Christianity or even through other religions (pagans). But I would imagine he (and you) would deny the miracles that confirm the truth of other religions, such as the angel Gabriel being the agent though whom God gave Mohamed the Koran, or the angel Moroni revealing the golden plates (the book of Mormon) to Joseph Smith, therefor making those writings the God inspired writings and therefor without error. It’s easy to acknowledge miracles if there is no great consequence involved. We, as Christians, believe, similar to the Muslims and Mormons, that our Scriptures are the inspired word of God and therefor absolutely true. On what basis do you know that Christianity is the one true religion and that Christ is the only way to God? And is the reason you give the same reason they would give for believing their religion is the one true faith?
Posted in: Introduction to Spiritual Warfare
Very interesting comment Cindy. Thanks for adding your contribution to the dialogue. It’s good to see a variety of responses from different vantage points. My comments have not been in favor of this third wave movement that is getting a foothold and gaining some momentum in our CRC denomination. It doesn’t bother me to discount a movement, because it seems less personal attacking a movement rather than a person. So I really don’t want to disparage your personal experience. That is your experience and it seems to bring meaning to your life and Christian experience. So I apologize if I am hitting too close to home. But I do feel experiences and testimonies like yours could help to clarify, what I see as a problem with this movement.
I realize that personal testimonies of having witnessed demon possession and having personally entered into battle with demons seems to add credence to this spiritual warfare perspective. How can one argue against first hand experience? But a first hand experience isn’t necessarily an objective viewpoint.
The mind is a tricky thing. And a particular mind set can easily lead one (or many) to believe something is true when it likely is not be true. It’s called deception or being deceived. How does this work? What might be a good example that comes close to home. In my last response, I mentioned the witch hunts of the 15th and 16th centuries (the Salem witch hunts being most notable). These witch hunts had their origin within Christianity and were based upon both Old and New Testament Scripture. Although there was an European precedent, in the U.S. it was the Puritan movement and churches that authorized and sanctioned these witch hunts. As you may know, the Puritans were known for their very strict and puritanical life style. Life and living was a very serious matter. The Puritans didn’t celebrate holidays. Play, even, by children was discouraged; toys were outlawed, especially dolls (that’s easy to understand why); children were put to work at a very early age. Fun for the sake of fun was strictly forbidden. Drawing from the Bible, as their ultimate authority, joy was distinguished from fun. Joy was permissible because joy is always directed toward God. The angels who rejoiced in the birth of Jesus were expressing joy toward God, but were not there to have fun. David, in the Old Testament, danced before and unto the Lord, but he was not dancing for the sake of fun. David was not participating in a high school sock hop. For the Puritans, as with many Christians, all of life was to be lived to the glory of God. Anything that didn’t promote his glory was wrong and sinful. “Fun”, as opposed to “joy,” always turns in upon self. The Bible nowhere promotes fun, but does promote joy. So you can begin to see where the Puritans got this idea that “fun” was not just wrong, bad, or sinful, it was Satanic. “Fun” was Satan’s imitation of “joy.” And people who wanted fun in their lives were dabbling in Satanism or witchcraft. The mother who wanted her children to experience some fun in their lives was in serious trouble. And the mother who had a fit rage or went into depression because her children were not allowed to have fun gave the sure signs that she was possessed by the devil or by demons. And she was dragged away from her Christian home and punished or burned for being a witch. I”m sorry I can’t take longer to explain further.
This is just one example of how a Christian cultural perception influenced the behavior of an entire community. And certain behaviors by individuals were sure signs of demon possession. Did this perception of witch craft have Biblical support? It certainly did. Probably as much or more support than the Bible gives for this third wave movement that has come to the CRC and other Christian churches. The preponderance of other religions (false religions) also give evidence of how a world and life view can affect whole communities of people. So I would say, think twice before jumping on this “third wave” wagon that is traveling through our denomination. It may make some Biblical sense (like the witch craft of the Puritans) but is totally unreasonable and illogical.
Posted in: Introduction to Spiritual Warfare
Thanks Jeff for your article on spiritual warfare. I looked at the handouts that you provided but did not watch the video. A one hour video doesn’t seem to fit the format for Network articles. I would have appreciated a nutshell version of the video, in print. I did pick up a basic gist of what you may have been saying, plus I’ve done a small amount of reading on this spiritual warfare.
I personally do not see where this kind of teaching has any place in the CRC, let alone Christianity. I think it lends itself to delusional and primitive thinking. The leverage that you may have is that you can find some Biblical warrant for spiritual warfare. But the world and life views of the first century were very primitive. In Bible times, people didn’t look for answers to their maladies in natural laws and natural order, but rather in the spiritual order. Bible times were pre-scientific age, pre-industrial age, and pre the age of reason or enlightenment. Their life view was very limited and superstitious. And the Bible authors wrote from within the cultural perceptions of their day which included this superstitious perception of life. They were products of their culture and not products of logic or enlightenment or cultural growth and advancement. This is the thinking that goes into your “spiritual warfare” mentality. A regression to first century superstition. Plus, on top of being built on a first century world view, spiritual warfare has little or no objective verification. It all seems to be a matter of emotional perception and opinion.
This thinking of yours may gain some foothold among the less developed societies of our world, but in more developed cultures it is more a matter of delusion. Who really wants to go back to an age of first century superstition? Thanks Jeff for this article. We do need to know what others in our denomination are thinking. For one, I hope the teaching that you are espousing does not catch on.
Posted in: A Wind in the House of Islam
Interesting Greg. I wonder how many from a Christian background are turning to Islam? I have a feeling the numbers are large.