Demons & Oppression

I probably have no business writing about what I’m going to write about. I haven’t done extensive study in demonology and all of that stuff; I just have had some thoughts recently that have really culminated into a kind of understanding that I want to share.

I’ve said this before in posts, but I really like movies about possession, demons and really just religious themes in general. I like them because they show me perspective on God, even when what is displayed is the opposite. Every perspective on God is a peering into the most important part of another person, as weird or wrong as it may be.

You might say I’ve had a life full of the supernatural. I say supernatural, but such a term is rather loaded. As a Christian, I believe fully that God’s Spirit works within me. This is a rather accepted view in Christian faith. Now, that in itself is “supernatural” because it is a force beyond the physical. In my life though, I admit that things have happened both within my family and to people I’m very close to that go above and beyond even that. I won’t go into lengthy stories, if you desire to know them, holler at me sometime.

I know a lot of people who have “ghost” stories and the like. Some embrace this rather well and some reject it, all within the faith community. The spectrum is quite large amongst Christians as to what really does happen and what is kind of bogus. I’ve already admitted that I feel some of these things happen. Way too many stories from people I trust and personal experience within my family to deny that. Most of the things within my own family are actually quite pleasant stories, not scary or creepy…maybe a little weird but sometimes they are simply comforting.

The point of this post though is to focus on the really negative side of all this. My mind really got on this subject after writing a paper for a class on mental disorders that I’m taking currently. We looked at one of the gospels and wrote about the perspective on sickness and healing.

I chose Matthew. Matthew recounts many, many healing stories, and there is something incredibly fascinating about them. The view of the day was that physical ailment had to do with people’s sin. This is somewhat reflected in the story of Job as well as when people ask Jesus stuff like “Who sinned, this person or their parents?” In Matthew, there is a moving away from such thought. I’ve said it in many posts, but suffering can actually be a privilege to the Christian. Some trials are able to build us up into the people we are supposed to be. However, there’s another side as well. In Matthew, there is a distinct difference from sickness that is purely sickness and sickness that is brought on by a demon. One chapter you’ll read about a mute man who Jesus heals, and another chapter you’ll read about another mute man that Jesus casts a demon out of in order to heal him. The accounts of these events distinguish between the two causes.

I somewhat expected my teacher to use this assignment as a way of saying that perhaps more healing can be explained as the healing of some sort of psychological event, instead of demon possession. In fact, my teacher did the opposite. He said that perhaps today we try to explain too much by physical processes and instead there may be a balance and we should look at evil forces that could potentially be at work.

MIND BLOWN.

So, I’ve come up with a very important distinction based on my reading of Matthew. There is suffering in our lives that builds us up and causes us to be better disciples of Christ. This suffering is the result of us living in a broken and imperfect world where there is disease and hurt. But, there is also suffering that is brought on by oppression of evil entities that is in fact meant to break us down both physically and mentally, and make us vulnerable so that Satan can more easily get at us.

I think I’m beginning to notice oppression more and more. Satan tempts us away from God by all of the vices that create a chasm in our relationship with God. There is brutality in the psychological oppression that comes from guilt of addiction to anything unholy. This is one kind of oppression that I see greatly. Sin. Satan is the father of sin and entices us with it greatly.

There’s another type of oppression I’ve seen though, and it is a mix of physical and fear. I have several extremely close friends that have had encounters with dark entities in their life. Several have described this type of entity as a black, shadowy figure or mass. 

I'm not saying this is the image, I'm just saying that it’s a terrifying image. Some have mentioned interaction with this figure from something moving that shouldn’t have to literally being pressed around the chest/heart area by the figure. These kinds of encounters need not always be black shadowy masses. There is variety. But, I have seen this as a theme.

This is where some are like “Yeah! That happened to me/my cousin/my friend/etc.” and some people are like “pshhhhh, get out of here.”

This is honestly where I think that some horror/possession movies get it right. In the movie The Conjuring, famous demonologist Ed Warren (real person by the way) is giving a talk on the process of possession and labels it in stages. The second to last stage he labels as oppression. This is where stuff get’s moved, doors slam, shadowy figures arise, etc. All of these things strike fear into the people who are victimized by these things. This fear leads to all kinds of worry and psychological breakdown. This breakdown leads to what is described as the final stage – possession.

Now, possession is a concept way beyond my knowledge and grasp. But, I feel I can relate to that idea of oppression, because it is so vividly described to me by those I’m close to who have experienced something like this. Oppression and possession are also described in the Biblical narrative, where it is because of possession that a person is being oppressed by some sort of illness. I’m not sure how much possession goes on today, but I do see a good deal of oppression. It is oppression that I focus on.

Now, this isn’t a reason to be terrified. Most bumps in the night actually are trees hitting the window and creaky pipes. But, there are things to be learned from this in my opinion.

Firstly, it’s important to know that this crap is real. Spiritual warfare is happening all around us and so it serves us well to know who’s side we are on, and to truly take up that metaphorical armor of God we’ve heard about in Sunday school. The line from the end of The Conjuring is an actual quote by Ed Warren which reads “God is real, the devil is real, and as humans, our destiny hinges on whom we elect to follow.” Know who you follow, but know that God wins. So, probably best to be on that side.

Secondly, and I’ve said this before, but DON’T DABBLE IN THIS CRAP. This is also a point where I think Hollywood got it right on a couple of occasions. In both The Exorcist and Paranormal Activity (and potentially others, but these two come to mind), everything really hits the fan after they mess with a Ouija board or some other kind of deal. I would not touch one with a 39 ½ foot pole. I won’t go ghost hunting. I won’t cast spells, even as a joke. I won’t go to the special graveyard where weird stuff happens. I WON’T DO IT. YOU CAN’T MAKE ME. I’m fascinated by it, I’ll watch movies about it, but I will NOT participate. I don’t think it is smart in the least. I don’t think Satan can just waltz inside, I think you have to let him in. But sometimes letting him in is simply dabbling with something you don’t have any business messing with. I think even the strong can and are oppressed (for I’ve seen it happen to exceptional people), but that nothing can take hold if the person remains strong in God.

Thirdly, you have to rebuke the crap out of this stuff. In one of my friend’s stories, he was being pushed down by a black, shadowy figure and immediately he sat up, rebuked it in the name of Jesus, saying things by the Spirit within him, and immediately went back to sleep afterwards. THAT IS SO FREAKIN’ COOL! It’s one of most spiritually bad mama jama things I’ve ever heard of. To be at such peace, knowing that God will not allow the enemy to prosper against His servant, to the point where right after one of the single scariest things that could ever happen to a person goes down, he was just able to go right back to sleep…I admire that so stinking much. I told him he’ll have to put it on his resume one day – Accomplishments: I rebuked a demon once.

Rebuking can also mean admitting that you are weak in the face of temptation and asking for the power of God to rule in your life and get whatever pollutant is present to get up and LEAVE. It also means hardcore accountability with the people around you. It’s time we combat the sin in our own lives much more aggressively. We need to rebuke the things that God would not have for us.

So yeah, there are some thoughts. I’m sure it only causes more questions, but hopefully this kind of honesty helps us wake up to the spiritual battle that we are a part of and take a stand against Satan and his agents. Also, know that some of this could be wrong. I do not doubt the experiences of those friends I mention, but my interpretation could be a little off. After all, I cite three movies as examples for a few of the points I’ve used. Perhaps further study will inform me more, but at the same time, I really do believe what I’ve written here. Let this be a stepping-stone to further study.   

  

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm (Ephesians 6:10-13)

He said, “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha (2 Kings 6:16-17)

The Heart of the Matter

I feel like I hear it a lot – “it’s about where your heart is at.” This is a super popular line in Christianity, and to some extent, it’s true. People say this all the time about worship, that the structure doesn’t matter as much as if the worshipper’s heart is right. I can jive with this idea, for worship really is about expressing a true yearning, love, and appreciation for God. So, it is about the heart.

The thing is though, we tend to overdo this. Sometimes my heart isn’t right, and I need to do something anyway. With the example of worship still, worship is something I need to do, even if I’m not exactly having a great day or really “into” it. It is through worship that I at least tend to get my heart right and correct that. So, sometimes you have to do something even when your heart isn’t in it at first.

However, we’ve overdone this in other areas as well. Like, REALLY overdone it. We’ve made where our “hearts are at” an excuse for not acting in ways that Jesus commanded. And the real kicker is, our hearts are totally not in the right spot and we are doing our absolute best to lie to ourselves.

Let me illustrate with something you can most certainly connect to. Remember when the rich young ruler comes to Jesus asking what he needed to do to have eternal life (Matthew 19:16-22)? Jesus spits basic tenets and after the young ruler says that he’s done these, Jesus tells him to go and sell all his stuff, and then to follow Him. Of course, we all know that the young man walks away saddened, because he didn’t want to give it up. His heart was indeed, not in the right place. For most of us who read this though, ours isn’t either. We try and say “it’s about having your heart in the right place.” I know I have. We could never dream of actually being asked that by Jesus and so we make it more about having a “giving heart” and being “willing to give it all up” while in our deepest selves, we never would and certainly have no plans to in the current.

Jesus asked the young man to follow Him. That is the main thing. And to do that, the young man must give up that which he loves the most. When it comes down to it, Jesus asks nothing less of us. We try to make it “matters of the heart” to keep from actually having to give anything up or act any differently, but that is not at all what Jesus means by His command “Follow me.”

Jesus says “I Am The Way,” yet we reduce Him to mere religion that can be separated from daily life. We interiorize and spiritualize the gospel, and Christ’s teachings become things that inform our attitudes rather than our actions. We love our enemies in our hearts, while our profession requires us to marginalize, objectify, and even kill them. We reduce the ethics that Jesus lays out to an inward disposition, and not a bodily action. We make distinctions between wealth accumulation and greed, where such a distinction did not exist so readily in the early church. We emphasize an attitude of detachment from our possessions so that we can live in comfort while our brothers and sisters live in oppressive poverty. Spirituality replaces lifestyle and religion replaces discipleship (Camp, 41-42).

What is in your heart is displayed in your action. Your heart cannot be right without consistent action following. Those who claim that their attitude toward following Jesus is right simply lie to themselves if there is no action in their following.

This is the part of the post where a preacher or writer makes some sort of statement that alleviates the awkwardness and inward struggle felt by retreating back just a little bit so you can sleep better. I make no such statement. I have lied to myself for many years about my heart being in the right spot, while showing nothing in my daily life.

In our attempts to get away from “earning our salvation” and doing “works” in order to please Jesus (worthy and correct teachings I might add), we have also gotten away from discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer described this phenomenon as Costly Grace. It is costly because it commands us to follow; it is grace because the command is to follow Jesus. It is costly because it costs a person their life; it is grace because it gives them the only true life. It is costly because it cost Jesus His very life; it is grace because Jesus loved you enough to pay the price (Bonhoeffer, 45).

Following Jesus leads to a cross, and that is simply not comfortable for us. This Way, This Lifestyle, is about physically following Jesus, through some very physical changes and actions. Christianity isn’t a “heart” religion. Christianity is a “following” lifestyle.

Choose not to lie to yourself about your heart being in the right place so that you can so easily ignore the difficult teachings of Jesus anymore. Instead, live a life of discipleship, a life described by James when he wrote about a lifestyle that was consistent with the faith that a person proclaimed.      

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but their actions are not consistent? Is that person’s claim to faith able to justify them? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking daily food, and someone says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled” but does not give them what they need for their body, what good is that? So also, faith without action…is dead. (James 2:14-17)

Works Cited

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Macmillan, 1959. Print

Camp, Lee C. Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World. Brazos Press, 2003. Print

Just War & Early Christianity

"War is evil...Its causes are evil...Its consequences are evil...it orphans and widows and horribly maims the innocent...it cheapens life and morality...wars that are intended to arrest violence and injustice seem only in the long run to breed further injustice and conflict. To call war anything less than evil, would be self-deception."

Those words sound like they came from someone from the 70s who wore colorful clothing, long hair, but somehow kept their brain intact. They actually come from a man named Arthur Holmes, who is actually a huge proponent of Just War Theory. 

Now, the above statement brings quite the shock to people today, particularly Americans. We have been raised with such different standards. Many today are, in fact, in love with militarism. Militarism is by definition the "belief or desire...that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests." This is where a good number of American Christians fall it would seem. I touched on this a few posts back called in a post called "Merica: We Don't Dial 911" if you would like to look back. But essentially, it is Christians who are the single biggest supporters of war and military. 

Now, this simply cannot be. Between the bizarre war ethics of the Israelites in the Old Testament (see the post mentioned above), to the predictions of Isaiah that one day people would "beat their swords into plowshares" (Isaiah 2:4), to the ethics of Jesus where enemies are loved and cheeks are turned, there is simply no room for militarism. The love and support of war as well as the love of military might is simply not supported in scripture, anywhere. I repeat - ANYWHERE. In fact, it is condemned as idolatry by the Prophets. This mindset of the general conservative Christian population is in no way informed by heavenly citizenship, it is informed by earthly citizenship. Red, white, blue, camo, guns, and eagles are products of the nation I am a part of, not God. Now, instead of getting upset here because you wear camo and own guns, please realize that I'm not saying anything against this. In no way did my last statement condemn such things. I live amongst hunters and woodsmen/women. I speak strictly of nationalistic, militaristic thought that seems to be so pervasive in our churches. 

Now, the thing is, I seem to pick on America quite a bit. It's where I live. However, this kind of mindset and issue is not limited to just America nor to even this time period. This started a long time ago, and so perhaps a brief discussion on history will help clear some things up. 

You can look ALL you want, but you will not find a single shred of writing from the first 2-3 centuries that will give Christian support to violence or war. Not one phrase. Jesus's ethics led fully during this time, there was nothing else. Now, something changed around the 4th century. Constantine had that pesky dream in which the letters Chi and Rho are emblazoned before his eyes - the first two letters of the word Christos (Christ/Messiah) in Greek. You've seen this before most likely, it looks like this. 

The next day, Constantine puts these letters on his soldiers and they win the battle. Constantine then legalized Christianity and eventually made it the national religion. From then on, churches started meeting in buildings, and eventually you have guys like Charlemagne who converted the nations by holding a sword to people's throats saying "be baptized or die" and the crusades and after centuries, you end up where we are now. Most people in Christian church today, whether they fall into this kind of militaristic category or not, suffer from the effects of Constantine. In fact, some Christian writers call what we suffer from the "Constatinian Cataract," saying we have a lens (perspective) of Christianity that is completely tinted by what happened in the 4th century, and a complete paradigm shift is needed to view church in a similar fashion to the first century church (Camp, 25-30). 

Something else happened too though. Also around the 4th century, Ambrose and his disciple Augustine of Hippo, a very strong and prominent early church father, started discussing Just War and when Christians could actually participate in and support it. When war is just had been talked about amongst the early Greek philosophers, but it was Augustine who refined and introduced the concept to the early church. 

This is fascinating for two reasons. Firstly, it is the first written support of war at all from a prominent Christian church leader. Secondly, Just War Theory is absolutely independent of scripture. There is not an Old or New Testament passage that gives a definition of when it is justified to go to war, or supports the criteria laid forth by Augustine. So, the foundational theory that is supposedly THE Christian method by which war is either justified or not justified is not based on Scripture. 

A third reason this is fascinating to me is because most Christians do not have a CLUE what Just War Theory says. Just War Theory was created as an EXCEPTION to the New Testament rule of enemy love. Note the fact that I capitalized exception. The New Testament itself gives no support to war in the least, and so Just War Theory was created as the exception to enemy love. It seeks to say essentially - "In general, war is evil, and only under these circumstances can it actually be justified". So, the New Testament Christianity that we all claim to follow, and the church in the first few centuries that we look to so often as the example by which we model after only saw war as being justified under very specific circumstances, and those circumstances were not even developed until the 4th century. 

This has been lost completely in our current time. War support (and really just violence in general) and Christianity today go together like peanut butter and jelly.This is a FAR cry from the early understanding that we claim to seek through scriptural understanding and historical/cultural studies. As I said, most today do not even know what Just War Theory is. 

So, I'd like to look at the theory because although there are some sincere critiques that can be done to the different criteria (as I will show), it nevertheless offers a MUCH better mindset towards war than our current understanding gives. 

Let's look at the criteria (these criteria can be found many places, I adapt them from the book Fight by Preston Sprinkle, who I utilize elsewhere in this post). 

1. Just Cause

Now, this could be a couple things. Firstly would be self-defense, so either attack or imminent threat of attack. The second would be intervening of another nation that is being oppressed. Preemptive strike as just cause is quite debatable. 

2. Right Authority

Only a legitimate government can wage war. So, no revolutionaries, criminals, or private militia. 

3. Right Intention

Much like Just Cause, this says that there cannot be unjust purposes for waging war, like vengeance, economic gain (read "Oil"), expanding territory, etc. 

4. Reasonable Chance of Success

The good results must outweigh the evil results. Since war should be to reestablish peace, the nation waging the war must have the means to achieve its goal.

5. Last Resort

ALL nonviolent methods and avenues must be exhausted completely before a country resorts to war.

6. Proportionate Means

Weaponry and force should be limited to only what is needed to repel attack and secure peace. Going beyond what is necessary for peace is unjust. Most would argue then that the use of nuclear weapons completely violates this criteria. 

7. Noncombatant Immunity

Civilians must not be targeted in war. This includes medical personnel, POWs, and anyone else that is not part of combat. If these kinds of people are killed as an indirect result of an attack (soldiers weren't trying to kill civilians and took the steps not too), this criteria is not violated. This would seem to go against drone attacks and carpet bombing. 

Those are the criteria laid out by Augustine. Now, the interesting thing is, there has been almost no war ever to meet these criteria. History has not seen a just war, even according to most Just War advocates. Augustine did not create these in order to justify war, he in fact primarily sought to show how evil it truly can be. 

Now, even with Just War Theory and those who try to say that it is the method by which warfare can be justified, there are some legitimate concerns with the theory. The main concern is perspective. Legitimate authority for example. What about revolution against unjust legitimate authorities? After all, it was America's Thomas Jefferson who said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." But, who gets to determine which side is evil? No doubt that it is always the "other guys" that are in the wrong. Both the North and the South prayed to the same God for victory. We may be able to look back and make at least more informed judgment calls, but it is not so easy to do so at the time. Just cause and right intention are other examples where perspective tends to be different. 9/11 is an example, for Bin Laden attacked the U.S. in response to military presence, including bases, in the Middle East, which they perceived as unjust. That, in fact, is a serious violation of their culture and religion. Now, does that make 9/11 a just attack? I wouldn't say that in a million years. And as always, there seems to always be civilian casualties in war that are chocked up as "collateral damage" in the name of a "greater good." (Sprinkle, 269)

In most examples, some wars may be seen as having several criteria met, but then it most likely violates others.  

So do I think there is a Just war? Yes, I actually do. I believe that when God Himself tells His people to go and fight a war, then it is justified. This is the example set forth in the Old Testament. Now, other religions outside of Judaism and Christianity have claimed direct inspiration for war, but never has this been true of any war fought since the Israelites were claiming the promised land and purifying it for God. Men like Constantine and the leaders of the Crusades have claimed inspiration, but very unjust behavior is exhibited and selfish intentions have always been seen as the true reasoning. 

I've said it before, but we got kicked out of Eden for trying to be like God and make judgment calls. God is the only being truly righteous enough to make these, and so the Old Testament, which is infused with war it seems, is riddled with examples how God doesn't want the Israelites to have a king so that He can be their king, and even when they are given a king, the king is stripped of the power to fight war. This is reserved for God and His righteous judgment. So, I do believe in Just War, but I believe that God is the one to make the call. Post Israel, there has never been a nation that is God's nation. The church is the New Israel, and we are told to be in the "enemy love" business, not in the war business. 

Now, I don't naively believe that every person who reads this or my last post on this kind of topic will immediately change their opinion to fit with my view (or should I say, my strongest attempt at having a biblical view). But perhaps I can get you to think a little bit and maybe make a couple of steps towards a different way of thinking. 

Now, while I see there being some serious critiques of Just War Theory, I would much rather see people hold the Just War opinion than the nationalistic, militaristic opinion that seems to be so prevalent in churches today. After all, as the beginning quote notes, holding to Just War Theory means holding to the idea that war is evil, and is never what should be desired. Even if someone does not get on board with Just War Theory, surely it can be agreed that war and violence are terrible things, even if some believe that they are sometimes necessary. 

Now, something you may be thinking...nations are going to war against nations, that's part of life. It indeed is. But, that doesn't mean that Christians by default need to support this and participate. War will happen, but as I've also said before elsewhere, the war in Iraq would not have happened without the support of Christian evangelicals. Our support of such inevitable things is not necessary, so our stance should be questioned. 

So my purpose in all this is to introduce a conversation that is rarely had. Discussion of Just War is rarely had. A war is not a just war simply because it is ordained by the state. We are scared to talk about these types of things, and of all the topics out there, this one seems to get people more mad when their point of view is disagreed with than just about any other thing. I invite you to open up the conversation and question the nationalism and militarism that seem to be more prevalent than the ethics of Jesus which would have us hate revenge and love our enemies. 

I invite you to question your stance, and try to let Scripture and your heavenly citizenship inform your earthly citizenship and stances, not the other way around. It may not be comfortable, it may go against your entire upbringing, it may be so foreign you can hardly imagine it. But, I'm not asking you to go against Christ. I'm not asking you to hate soldiers or throw tomatoes at anyone (that wouldn't be Christian at all). I love soldiers, they are God's children and most do not go to war out of a desire to kill, but to serve. I'm not promoting devil worship or sacrificing barnyard animals. I'm suggesting there may be a more biblical way to look at this issue than most do.

Don't be scared to ask those hard questions or even change your stance if you find a more Jesus like way to think. This is how we grow. Choose to challenge yourself because at the end of the day, something about this picture really just doesn't feel right. This just doesn't seem like the Jesus we read about in Scripture, does it?

Works Cited:

Arthur Holmes, "The Just War," in Robert G. Clouse (ed.), War (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), 117-135 (117). 

Camp, Lee C. Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World. Brazos Press, 2003. Print. 

Sprinkle, Preston. Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence. Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 2013. Print. 

Life: A Thing To Be Cherished

I shall now continue to state my opinion on very delicate issues that I simply feel are far too important to be silent on. The last time I touched on this kind of touchy subject, I got more reads than several of my posts combined. So, whether people agree or not, people are reading this stuff and perhaps pondering more than they have. And I'm good with that. So, here we go again. Strap in, remember to be loving, and let this open up some dialogue. 

I have considered myself Pro-Life for years. Only now am I truly able to understand what that should actually mean. Some people reading this are like "Yeah buddy!" and some are more like "Hey now" and both are most likely not fully understanding where I am going with this. So, hang in there. 

First and foremost, when I say Pro-Life, people think of being against abortion. As always, I believe the better point is not to be "against" something, but to be "for" something else. I consider myself in all ways a proponent of life. 

I could rattle off all kinds of arguments for why life in the womb should be protected and scientific facts about fetuses and how early they are like "real", outside the womb human beings. I could even rattle off the classic Psalms verse about "being knitted together in your mother's womb." Here is basically how I see it. God made sex for multiple reasons, but one of those most certainly is procreation. It is sacred, and the life that is made is sacred. More than cells that simply end up as dead skin, what God is able to make with two cells from a man and woman according to His design is sacred. Life, no matter how feeble or frail, is sacred to God, and should be protected and cared about. 

Now, fact of the matter is, a good number of Christians agree with this sentiment. They are in essence, pro-life, but do not see themselves as capable of telling other people, women in particular, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. I understand this, I truly do. I do not consider myself able to legally force my morals onto other people. However, I feel as though this is one area I must disagree with. 

Of all the "moral" things that I would want to see our nation hold to, it's the protection and value of life. We have been able to witness what happens in places where life is no longer valued. Genocide is of the worst evils in this world, and it is the result of people no longer valuing life. Nearly 50,000,000 children have been killed via this legal means. That is the greatest genocide of all time. 

Some do not see it this way, and in fact would claim that it would be better for some babies to go and be with Jesus, rather than enter into whatever social situation they may be in. I know there are Christians who have this opinion. However, let me make this application. If the baby is born, and the mother killed it then, would that be ok? Surely it could be argued that it could be better for some toddler to be with Jesus early rather than grow up in a social context that would very likely lend itself to all kinds of abuse, drug addiction, and countless other factors that come with lower income contexts in which abortions seem the most justified. However, once the baby is alive and outside the womb, very few people would be happy with a family who decided to abort that child. Sometimes in life, we externalize things. Imagine spit (saliva) - it fills our mouths, digests our food, and we swallow it on the daily. However, spit into a cup and it becomes a different story. Most people would gag at the thought of drinking a cup full of their own spit. It sounds gross just typing it. However, it's the same thing. With babies, I feel like we tend to do the opposite. We protect it from harm once it is outside the womb and are disgusted when people bring harm to babies, but do not blink when an abortion takes place. 

Some Christians also always cite cases of rape or incest as a situation that they feel abortion should be allowed. One sin does not justify another though. Furthermore, in all abortion cases, rape and incest account for (if my memory serves me right, I could be wrong) less than 1% of cases. These things are tragedies, but God shows up in tragedy and makes something good out of it. The world is a fallen place where other people's free will often impedes on others, but that does not make killing an innocent child justified in my eyes. 

Now here is the thing, if you are going to claim that you are "pro-life", that should include more than you might think it should. If you have been nodding your head up to this point...this next bit may be tough. Being pro-life means taking care of the mothers that are so tempted to have them. Some mothers truly cannot imagine how they will take care of a child. It is up to those who are pro-life to help them. Being pro-life also means helping the poor and not looking down on those who accept things like food stamps. One cannot simply wave a "moral flag" in another's face without offering to help them out of the situation they find themselves in.

Another interesting fact. Abortion is almost as prevalent in the church as the rest of the world. Why? For some reason, we have made girls feel more shame over getting pregnant than killing their unborn. We say that church is a place where we accept people, but then when people do open up to the church, they are treated as if they were a leper.  Also, my previous statements do NOT mean that I think we need to shame those who have abortions. These are not malicious people, but confused and scared individuals. These mothers are not murderers in the way that the word connotes. They are human beings who deserve to be loved. So, for those who claim to be pro-life, show that you are, don't just say that you are or just vote like you are. I honestly care so little for politics it is uncanny, but I know that being pro-life is an action, not a vote. 

This in fact has very little to do with politics. I'd far rather live the example than cast the vote. Plus, there is a side to being pro-life that I have not discussed yet. Remember back when that one abortionist was caught doing hundreds of illegal abortions and was convicted for his crimes? You think that would be a victory for the pro-life movement, but from those I am close to that are very involved in the movement, things like that actually divide the movement like no other. Why is this? Because half the people are screaming "give him the death penalty!" That's the thing, I truly do not wish to associate with political party, for neither hold life dear the way I wish to. One side is far more apt to support abortion while the other side tends to be more pro-war and pro-death penalty.

Just as those mothers who choose abortion in desperation deserve to be shown the love of Christ, so do murderers and thieves. 

Let me tell you the story of Jeffrey Dahmer. Dahmer was a notorious serial killer who liked to eat his victims. After being convicted, Dahmer was given a life sentence instead of the death penalty, much to the dismay of many who wished for him to get the death penalty. While serving his sentence though, Dahmer came to faith. Some may be skeptical of the legitimacy of this conversion, but if David could wind up a man after God's own heart and a guy like Paul could become the greatest missionary in the history of humankind (not to mention the fact that I have been saved, despite my shortcomings), then I shall not pass judgment. 

Now, according to Romans 13, the government does have the "right" to bear the sword. However, the chapter before tells Christians they should have nothing to do with that. So, while I shall not be so bold as to say it is wrong, it should not be something Christians desire, for it does create the "eye for an eye" mentality. Also, if a soul like Dahmer can be changed by the power of Christ, then perhaps we should scream for life, not death. But, when we send someone to prison, remember that it is at the core of Christ's teaching to visit those in prison, for how would Dahmer have changed if no one visited him and shared Christ's love with him? Not to mention, I heard once that it actually costs tax payers more to kill a person than to keep them alive. Must be true. Read it on the internet or something. 

I've already written about it and perhaps will take another post to expand my thinking even more, but when it comes to matters of war and killing in the name of something good, Christians just tend to be FAR too supportive of such things. We should be the group that is SCREAMING for peace, even if some do believe that some war and killing are necessary or justified. LIFE should be on our lips in every way. That should be our default. To use a quote offered to me recently, "death is the consequence of sin (according to Genesis), and we as Christians should not be about the business of causing it, no matter what the circumstances."

Also, remember this. We as the church are a countercultural force. These things I say here may never come into fruition. We may never live in a place where there is no death penalty, no abortion. Fact is, whether those types of things get put into law or not, they will continue. However, just because something won't work, doesn't mean that a Christian is then under no obligation to do them. We will never rid ourselves completely of sin, but should we go on sinning so that grace may abound? Heck no (a more literal translation of the Greek there in Romans). We strive to be pure, even though we never will. So, we also speak for life, despite how effective we are. Effectiveness does not equate to faithfulness. 

This is not about political side, after all, neither major political party truly values life in the way that I feel a Christian should. This is about cherishing life in a consistent way. Perhaps it is this kind of consistent ethic that we can truly unite behind as a church and be a light in a dark, sinister world full of death. 

Perhaps it is in our cherishing of life from conception to the grave that we can show the life that Christ offers, and how much he cares for every individual life in this world. 

Sources:

A lot. I have read a good deal of things on this subject that have rattled around in my head and spilled onto my keyboard, so if you have a question about any particular part, it very well may have some extra insight or reading behind it. Ask and I'll be happy to try and remember specifics. 

The Gates of Hell

This will be an extension of a facebook thought I put up the other day that got quite a bit of attention. I asked and answered the question - How do we remain faithful? The fact of the matter is, the church is losing kids like crazy as they come out of highschool and go into college. This is something that I think about quite a bit. The first reason that I do is because I am a youth minister, it's on my mind. The second reason is because I have seen a good number of friends leave the church. Great people that I grew up with, going to various church camps and what not, just vanishing. Some come back after a bit of hiatus, and some still seem to be on the fringe. 

The other day I had about 18-20 friends share the link to the movie "God's Not Dead" which seems to be the next Facing the Giants, Fireproof type of movie. All but one person were like "Yeah! I can't wait! This looks so good!" and there is not a thing in the world wrong with that. One of my friends and fellow youth ministers actually dared to ask the question of how the atheist crowd was going to receive such a movie. Would this movie do anything to reach out to others or would it simply be an apologetics type of movie for our Christian youth and young adults? 

If you haven't seen the trailer, it essentially focuses around a young male who goes to college and is confronted in freshman philosophy class with a professor who is extremely atheistic and has the entire class write down the words "God is Dead" on a piece of paper (playing on the coined phrase of Nietzsche that "God is dead" because we have killed him. An interesting read if you never have). Now, I have to admit, this is a little dramatic. The freshman of course says he can't do so because he's a Christian and then is put on the spot to come up with an answer to why he refuses to write such a thing down. And so the movie is centered around the young man making the argument that God's not dead and asking questions to get at why the professor has such a bad taste in his mouth with God.

Now, I'm not saying anything against standing up for what you believe in. I agree that if one is presented with such a task that is denying God before fellow humankind, they must proudly be able to say that they believe in God, and be able to give a reason for the faith that they possess as Peter would commend them to do. 

However, there seems to be a premise behind the movie that tries to answer the original question: how are we to remain faithful? The movie seems to put forward the idea of defense. In the movie, the young protagonist Christian is attacked by the antagonist atheist professor and thus must defend the faith that he has. The actual tactic is to put God on trial, thus literally, the plotline is God (or this young man) defending the faith possessed by Christians.

There is nothing inherently wrong in this. However, I think it is the wrong tactic when it comes to living out our faith. Remember when Jesus said to Peter that He would build his church and the gates of hell would not stand against the church? It was then this same Peter who writes that you should be able to give an answer concerning why you have the faith that you have. However, I think there is something we tend to misinterpret. When you think about gates, what is their purpose? They keep things out. They are defensive structures. Now, if the gates of hell will not prevail against the church...that puts us on the offense. I always got this mixed around. Somehow I made the image of gates beating on the doors of our churches trying to get in work in my mind, but that's not what we're talking about here.

In general, we teach people (and especially our kids) to go on the defense. We tell them not to drink, not to smoke, don't dance, don't cuss, don't have premarital sex, don't watch this or that tv show, and most certainly be able to stand up against the classmate or professor that will try tell you about evolution or Nietzsche. Now, there is some merit to some of these things. Our stance on these, even if it is moderation is what makes us the separate and holy entity that the church should be, embracing being Light and Salt, vastly different than what they invade and make different. However, sometimes this is all we teach. We teach what not to do. And just so I don't have angry parents hitting me up in the comments, you should teach about these things...maybe some less than others or in moderation and appropriateness (My mama taught me how to dance, but appropriately). 

This point is important. I know many people who have been burned because of this in one or both of two ways. Firstly, people get burned out of church when we make doctrine out of opinion. If the Bible doesn't address it, even secondarily through some sort of standard or topic not directly involved in the issue, why do we make that a rule? The Bible doesn't have anything to say about carpet color. It doesn't have anything to say about a good deal of things. So, we have to have opinion in order to structure our lives and church, but there is freedom in that. We do this in church, and in parenting. Fact is, "treat your body as a holy temple" has nothing to do with smoking cigarettes and tattoos. Now, perhaps there are issues of health or addiction that may be guiding issues here that we can assess the goodness of these things, but the Bible just doesn't address it. Now, you might be thinking "yeah, but the Bible does address tattoos" - and you would be right (kinda). However, in context, there are very specific things said. The same could be said about other things that we come down very prohibitively on. The Bible simply doesn't prohibit some things, and so it is the humble opinion of this theologian that respect and moderation are preferred ways of teaching. Learning about change in graduate school makes me even more so aware that prohibition can actually encourage negative behavior, whereas respect leads to healthy treatment. Example: sex education. Sometimes we in the church make sex seem bad or dirty. This comes from the prohibition mindset but also just not wanting to deal with the subject. Respect is explaining how sex is supposed to rock, but in specific contexts.  

HOWEVER. All of that should not be our focus in teaching. Those are very elementary teachings. Spiritual milk if you will. When a toddler is learning how to walk, most commands are NO. Because they could get hurt. The problem is...we sometimes don't grow out of that stage with our adolescents. All they are taught is what they shouldn't do once they get to college. Now, once they're there, they get bored and decide to go ahead and see what it's like. This is by no means a post on what is appropriate and what is not, for I want to draw your attention elsewhere.

Instead of teaching our youth to go on the defense, I want to show them offense. I don't want to spend even HALF of the time telling them what NOT to do, I would SO much rather talk to them about what TO do. Sometimes in the church, we get so caught up in defending the faith that we forget to spread it. The Gospel of Love is what we offer, not creationism versus evolution. We offer Sensational Sex set within the parameters of the One who made it, whereas we generally either shy away from the subject or pound abstinence into the ground. We offer not a rule book by which they are going to have to cut things out of their life as much as we offer a Book of Life that offers a way of living that is so abundant that it fills even the most stubborn holes in our lives.

We aren't teaching our youth how to live our Christ-like, loving offense, so no wonder they rebel against a rigid defense in which they feel no relationship with the Savior and no community with fellow believers. Mother Teresa was invited to an anti-war rally to which she replied that she would not be able to attend, but the next time they had a pro-peace rally, count her in. Being anti is unfortunately what we're known for. When asked "What is the church about?"...the most common answer from a random selection of unchurched people was that the church is anti-gay. Somehow pro-love didn't make it into our description as much. Positives outweigh negatives.

Have you ever stopped to think about how you go about battling sin? We focus so much on fighting the bad, but I think we may have more luck if we spent more time filling ourselves with good things, "whatever is true, whatever is noble...think on these things." It's a whole lot harder for the bad to sneak in when we are filled up with the good.

So, we need a paradigm shift in Christianity. It's something that many are attempting within various religious movements and church leaderships. However, if when asked, the most common thing about the church from the world's perspective is us being AGAINST something...we have some serious work to do.

I genuinely believe with all my heart that if we spend more time focusing on our non-offensive offense of Christian love, we will create an environment where our youth do not want to leave the church. A proper offense almost replaces our need for a defense at all.

Let's show a dying world what it looks like to be Salt and Light. Let's show them what kind of gatebreakers we can be. It's an almost violent image, bursting down the gates of hell and releasing those ensnared by them, but it is our love that we show as the body of Christ that truly has such conquering power. 

Let that love radiate from us and let them say of those Christians, "Man, they're weird, but they really do love everybody."