Have you ever experienced the reality of the greatness and awesomeness of the God of Heaven? Last Sunday, our worship opened with a lively choir number and a powerful instrumental accompaniment that lifted us as if to heaven but also brought us to our knees in humility before Him. As I considered God’s power, position, and personal nature, several words came to mind to describe Him – Almighty, Everlasting, All Wise, Infinite, and Omnipresent.
Then, I thought of His works. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1). Genesis 1:31 records that God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. God Almighty judged the created order and all that was in it as “good” because it was a perfect representation of His wisdom and plan.
The Apostle John declares in John 1:3 that All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John uses the Greek word, kosmos, to denote the created order which God through Jesus Christ brought into being out of nothing. It is the kosmos that God delighted in revealing to Adam when He invited Adam to study its order beginning with the task of naming the creatures and to learn his place in this great cosmic order (Genesis 2: 19-25). The psalmist declares O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; The earth is full of Your possessions (Psalm 104:24).
From the farthest star at untold millions of light years away to the smallest subatomic particle, there is an unmistakable order that our science has begun to discern and unify into theories. Yet God is above and beyond even the greatness and immensity of the kosmos. In fact, John declares that God so loved the kosmos that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). He goes on to write that God did not send the Son into the kosmos to judge the kosmos, but that the kosmos might be saved through Him (3:17).
What has been your understanding of God’s regard for His created order, or kosmos? How have you viewed the scope of God’s redemptive plan? Did Jesus die on the cross to redeem mankind alone? How do you reconcile the concept that Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18) with John’s claim that God so loved the kosmos that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16)? Careful contemplation and meditation on the answer to this question returns us to our worship of the Great and Awesome God Whose plan of redemption is much bigger than we often realize or consider in our daily lives. Feel free to reply with your thoughts in response to these questions.
Ascribe to the LORD the glory of His name;
Bring an offering and come into His courts.
Worship the LORD in holy attire;
Tremble before Him, all the earth.
Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity."
Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
Let the sea roar, and all it contains;
Let the field exult, and all that is in it.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy
Before the LORD, for He is coming,
For He is coming to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
And the peoples in His faithfulness. (Psalm 96: 8-13)
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Why Not Swat That Fly?
It seems that very few actions of President Obama escape the notice of the media these days. The cameras were even on hand when the president slapped a fly that had made the bad choice to interrupt a presidential interview. See the U-Tube video. The president’s heavy hand produced a SWAT heard ‘round the world. The reaction of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was immediate and predictable.
According to Fox News, a PETA spokesperson, Bruce Friedrich, stated: "We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals. We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
Although PETA is often maligned or ridiculed for its defense of animal rights, there is reason for pausing before looking at the swatted fly on the carpet with scorn and then disregarding PETA’s plea for the rights of flies and other invertebrates. In today’s world of instant access to information and commentary on current issues, there is no lack of opinions. However, there is great need for the discipline of hearing, reflecting, and understanding. So, let’s not be too hasty in condemning PETA for speaking for the flies.
To their credit, members of the “animal liberation movement” have drawn our attention to the possibility that animals have a right to be treated respectfully and humanely. In the 1950's and 1960's, the civil rights movement successfully challenged us to recognize that ethnic minorities have the right to share in the circle of moral standing as human beings. Where moral obligation toward them had been denied by many fellow humans, human rights were now widely recognized and implemented through institutional changes. (That work is still in progress even though the US has elected a member of an ethnic minority to the presidency.)
Then, in the 1970's, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and others called for an extension of moral responsibility from humankind to non-human species. Singer called for an extension of moral standing to sentient animals– animals that can suffer or experience enjoyment; whereas, Regan called us to consider that animals also have interests and inherent value by virtue of their being alive. Both Singer and Regan emphasized moral standing to the individual animal but not the animal species.
Although the animal rights movement challenged us to consider the rights and inherent value of animals, to this day, it has not provided a robust ethic as a foundation for practical arbitration of the rights of animals in relation to humans. Thus, when PETA calls for humans to exercise “compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals” what exactly does that mean? Does this mean no fly-swatting anywhere; and instead, trapping and release of flies to the out-of-doors? How about flies at picnics? Or ants, roaches, and other less popular species? Is it wrong to develop water-gardens or wetlands that encourage dragonflies and frogs which actually eat flies?
Clearly, both “human rights” and “animal rights” are moral issues that require an objective basis for deciding proper behavior. So far as we can tell, only humankind has the rational capacity to develop and live by a moral standard. It is unfortunate that so much of history is the record of our species denying the clear moral teaching of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. The Bible teaches that the Creator God has given to mankind the responsibility of dominion over the rest of creation. Instead of exercising this dominion as selfish, unfeeling tyrants, we are called to be submissive stewards according to the example of the Creator Himself Who took on the very form of a man, Jesus Christ, through His virgin birth and lived among mankind as a servant. Jesus showed us how to love ethic minorities, how to respect women who had no rights in His day, how to care for the poor and the rejected, and how to regard with compassion an ox in a ditch or a sparrow that falls. And now, Jesus calls us to find our satisfaction in serving Him and not through ill-gotten gain which destroys other human beings and His creation.
Should you swat that fly or squash that bug? Think about it first before swatting next time. What part do you play in the grand economy of creation; and what responsibility do you have as a steward of your home and as a citizen of the community of humankind as well as the biotic community of animals and plants upon which we depend. To deny that we have dominion over the Earth and to deny that we are capable of exercising it seems to deny reality. To relinquish dominion and blend into the natural world as just one more species, even if it were possible, would usher in unimaginable outcomes. Can you imagine? See “Not Dominion But Rebellion – and Restoration.” Comments are welcome as always.
According to Fox News, a PETA spokesperson, Bruce Friedrich, stated: "We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals. We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."
Although PETA is often maligned or ridiculed for its defense of animal rights, there is reason for pausing before looking at the swatted fly on the carpet with scorn and then disregarding PETA’s plea for the rights of flies and other invertebrates. In today’s world of instant access to information and commentary on current issues, there is no lack of opinions. However, there is great need for the discipline of hearing, reflecting, and understanding. So, let’s not be too hasty in condemning PETA for speaking for the flies.
To their credit, members of the “animal liberation movement” have drawn our attention to the possibility that animals have a right to be treated respectfully and humanely. In the 1950's and 1960's, the civil rights movement successfully challenged us to recognize that ethnic minorities have the right to share in the circle of moral standing as human beings. Where moral obligation toward them had been denied by many fellow humans, human rights were now widely recognized and implemented through institutional changes. (That work is still in progress even though the US has elected a member of an ethnic minority to the presidency.)
Then, in the 1970's, Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and others called for an extension of moral responsibility from humankind to non-human species. Singer called for an extension of moral standing to sentient animals– animals that can suffer or experience enjoyment; whereas, Regan called us to consider that animals also have interests and inherent value by virtue of their being alive. Both Singer and Regan emphasized moral standing to the individual animal but not the animal species.
Although the animal rights movement challenged us to consider the rights and inherent value of animals, to this day, it has not provided a robust ethic as a foundation for practical arbitration of the rights of animals in relation to humans. Thus, when PETA calls for humans to exercise “compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals” what exactly does that mean? Does this mean no fly-swatting anywhere; and instead, trapping and release of flies to the out-of-doors? How about flies at picnics? Or ants, roaches, and other less popular species? Is it wrong to develop water-gardens or wetlands that encourage dragonflies and frogs which actually eat flies?
Clearly, both “human rights” and “animal rights” are moral issues that require an objective basis for deciding proper behavior. So far as we can tell, only humankind has the rational capacity to develop and live by a moral standard. It is unfortunate that so much of history is the record of our species denying the clear moral teaching of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. The Bible teaches that the Creator God has given to mankind the responsibility of dominion over the rest of creation. Instead of exercising this dominion as selfish, unfeeling tyrants, we are called to be submissive stewards according to the example of the Creator Himself Who took on the very form of a man, Jesus Christ, through His virgin birth and lived among mankind as a servant. Jesus showed us how to love ethic minorities, how to respect women who had no rights in His day, how to care for the poor and the rejected, and how to regard with compassion an ox in a ditch or a sparrow that falls. And now, Jesus calls us to find our satisfaction in serving Him and not through ill-gotten gain which destroys other human beings and His creation.
Should you swat that fly or squash that bug? Think about it first before swatting next time. What part do you play in the grand economy of creation; and what responsibility do you have as a steward of your home and as a citizen of the community of humankind as well as the biotic community of animals and plants upon which we depend. To deny that we have dominion over the Earth and to deny that we are capable of exercising it seems to deny reality. To relinquish dominion and blend into the natural world as just one more species, even if it were possible, would usher in unimaginable outcomes. Can you imagine? See “Not Dominion But Rebellion – and Restoration.” Comments are welcome as always.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Media and Religion in the Public Square
Our age of instant communication affords us daily access to thousands of visual and auditory bytes of information. It is increasingly rare to find individuals and households that do not have access to abundant information and news sources. Instead, we are increasingly faced with three other challenges.
First, are the media presenting news accurately and with proper distinction between news and commentary? It is easy for news sources today to allow political agendas to dictate their decisions as to what makes the evening news or the front page. For example, many on both sides of the political spectrum agree that Barak Obama was preferentially favored both in quantity and quality of coverage during the 2008 campaign. Nothing wrong with biased reporting as long as we have the freedom and discipline to seek out alternative sources of information. This point brings us to the second challenge.
With such abundant access to information, and the tendency toward biased reporting, we must be disciplined to use our ability and time to analyze and reflect on what we hear or read in order to develop a reasoned response. Critical analysis of information takes time, discipline, and a wisdom that is committed to the pursuit of truth. According to Proverbs 1:8, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1: 6-9
adds,
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
Guarding the paths of justice,
And He preserves the way of His godly ones.
Then you will discern righteousness and justice
And equity and every good course.
The third challenge is to profess our opinions in a manner that is clear, logical, and wise out of a respect for our friends, colleagues, and neighbors. To profess, is to express truth that is consistent with our profession of faith. This faith recognizes that we are God’s subjects and He has entrusted to us the stewardship of our time, abilities, relationships, and material resources from the Earth. All these are to be used in a manner that expresses our love to the Creator God and to our neighbor as the two “great commandments” require (Matthew 22:35-40).
Today, Christians are asked to be tolerant in a society that is increasingly intolerant of biblical views, even when professed in a polite and “engaging” manner. The accusations of bigotry and harassment toward Christians are becoming more frequent. However, wisdom teaches us that we are created to be worshipers. All of us are religious. By nature, we will worship God or an idol–-another god, material wealth, or human reason itself. Therefore, the question is not, “Should religion (a system of beliefs and practices that justifies our life and behavior to a supreme authority) be allowed in the ‘public square’?” The question is, “Will there be freedom to express and practice one’s religion of choice in the ‘public square’?
To view a partly humorous rendition of a workplace situation in which two religions are both impolitely expressed, click HERE. The clip is provided by ZoNation on PajamasTV. In keeping with the challenges outlined in this article, take time to identify the two religions featured, consider the source of authority behind each profession, the accuracy with which they are presented, and how each might have professed their belief more respectfully. What is the difference between “environmentalism” and Judeo-Christian environmental stewardship? What motivations are there to care about "climate change" or the Earth in general? See
"Creation Care and Christian Character", and article in Creation Care, Summer, 2007.
First, are the media presenting news accurately and with proper distinction between news and commentary? It is easy for news sources today to allow political agendas to dictate their decisions as to what makes the evening news or the front page. For example, many on both sides of the political spectrum agree that Barak Obama was preferentially favored both in quantity and quality of coverage during the 2008 campaign. Nothing wrong with biased reporting as long as we have the freedom and discipline to seek out alternative sources of information. This point brings us to the second challenge.
With such abundant access to information, and the tendency toward biased reporting, we must be disciplined to use our ability and time to analyze and reflect on what we hear or read in order to develop a reasoned response. Critical analysis of information takes time, discipline, and a wisdom that is committed to the pursuit of truth. According to Proverbs 1:8, The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1: 6-9
adds,
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
Guarding the paths of justice,
And He preserves the way of His godly ones.
Then you will discern righteousness and justice
And equity and every good course.
The third challenge is to profess our opinions in a manner that is clear, logical, and wise out of a respect for our friends, colleagues, and neighbors. To profess, is to express truth that is consistent with our profession of faith. This faith recognizes that we are God’s subjects and He has entrusted to us the stewardship of our time, abilities, relationships, and material resources from the Earth. All these are to be used in a manner that expresses our love to the Creator God and to our neighbor as the two “great commandments” require (Matthew 22:35-40).
Today, Christians are asked to be tolerant in a society that is increasingly intolerant of biblical views, even when professed in a polite and “engaging” manner. The accusations of bigotry and harassment toward Christians are becoming more frequent. However, wisdom teaches us that we are created to be worshipers. All of us are religious. By nature, we will worship God or an idol–-another god, material wealth, or human reason itself. Therefore, the question is not, “Should religion (a system of beliefs and practices that justifies our life and behavior to a supreme authority) be allowed in the ‘public square’?” The question is, “Will there be freedom to express and practice one’s religion of choice in the ‘public square’?
To view a partly humorous rendition of a workplace situation in which two religions are both impolitely expressed, click HERE. The clip is provided by ZoNation on PajamasTV. In keeping with the challenges outlined in this article, take time to identify the two religions featured, consider the source of authority behind each profession, the accuracy with which they are presented, and how each might have professed their belief more respectfully. What is the difference between “environmentalism” and Judeo-Christian environmental stewardship? What motivations are there to care about "climate change" or the Earth in general? See
"Creation Care and Christian Character", and article in Creation Care, Summer, 2007.
Monday, May 18, 2009
“Fair-Minded Words” for Human Life?
Kudos to President Obama for delivering a forceful commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on May 17 with our whole nation, still embroiled in heated controversy over the moral rights of the unborn, seemingly in the audience. It is also commendable that the White House included in the official speech transcript the words of a heckler, “Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!” and the President’s response, “We're fine, everybody...We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes.”
In keeping with this challenge, the president called the nation to "work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
Our president went on to challenge Notre Dame graduates and our nation reach to a higher level of dialog about controversial issues, using “fair-minded words” and to “open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do [in order to] “discover at least the possibility of common ground.”
Then, the President elaborated (italics mine): In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse. But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
On this note, we can certainly hope for a new era of “fair-minded words”– one in which we would listen carefully to the words of another president who spoke at a Notre Dame commencement on another May 17. In 1981, it was President Reagan at the podium. Referring to our founding fathers, he said:
“They gave us more than a nation. They brought to all mankind for the first time the concept that man was born free, that each of us has inalienable rights, ours by the grace of God....”
Then, six years later, President Reagan proclaimed January 18, 1987 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day with these words:
“Our Founding Fathers pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in the Declaration of Independence. They announced their unbreakable bonds with its immutable truths that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Americans of every succeeding generation have cherished our heritage of God-given human rights and have been willing to sacrifice for those rights, just as our Founders did. Those rights are given by God to all alike. Medical evidence leaves no room for doubt that the distinct being developing in a mother's womb is both alive and human. This merely confirms what common sense has always told us. Abortion kills unborn babies and denies them forever their rights to ``Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Our Declaration of Independence holds that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and our Constitution -- founded on these principles -- should not be read to sanction the taking of innocent human life.”
Now, President Obama has proclaimed that “those of us who believe must trust that His (God’s) wisdom is greater than our own.” But where do we find God’s wisdom? God reveals His wisdom both in nature and in His written Word, the Bible. In His natural revelation, we can see, courtesy of YouTube, the awesome development of the human being in the mother’s womb. Thanks to the work of many women’s centers across our nation, many women contemplating abortion respond to this “natural revelation” by carrying their baby to full term.
In His written revelation, the Bible, God makes it clear that it is not “beyond our capacity to know with certainty...what God asks of us.” For example, God spoke to the prophet Jeremiah, saying “ "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1:5);" Or, the God, of whom King David said, “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them (Psalm 139:16).
So, we conclude with thanks to President Obama for his challenge to “trust that His (God’s) wisdom is greater than our own.” We can be certain that the Creator God values the life of the unborn. We can also be certain of the statistics from the U.S. Census Report of 2006 (See Table 77). The report reveals that Black Americans are no longer replacing themselves because there are more deaths than live births. According to Protecting Black Life, “35% of the abortions in the United States are performed on African American women, while they represent only 13% of the female population of the country. African Americans are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population.” Let us pray that President Obama will not “shy away from things that are uncomfortable.” May his speech at Notre Dame be remembered as a turning point– a time at which he turns toward becoming a protector of the moral and civil rights of both the African American minority and of the unborn of all humanity.
In keeping with this challenge, the president called the nation to "work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
Our president went on to challenge Notre Dame graduates and our nation reach to a higher level of dialog about controversial issues, using “fair-minded words” and to “open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do [in order to] “discover at least the possibility of common ground.”
Then, the President elaborated (italics mine): In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse. But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
On this note, we can certainly hope for a new era of “fair-minded words”– one in which we would listen carefully to the words of another president who spoke at a Notre Dame commencement on another May 17. In 1981, it was President Reagan at the podium. Referring to our founding fathers, he said:
“They gave us more than a nation. They brought to all mankind for the first time the concept that man was born free, that each of us has inalienable rights, ours by the grace of God....”
Then, six years later, President Reagan proclaimed January 18, 1987 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day with these words:
“Our Founding Fathers pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in the Declaration of Independence. They announced their unbreakable bonds with its immutable truths that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Americans of every succeeding generation have cherished our heritage of God-given human rights and have been willing to sacrifice for those rights, just as our Founders did. Those rights are given by God to all alike. Medical evidence leaves no room for doubt that the distinct being developing in a mother's womb is both alive and human. This merely confirms what common sense has always told us. Abortion kills unborn babies and denies them forever their rights to ``Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Our Declaration of Independence holds that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and our Constitution -- founded on these principles -- should not be read to sanction the taking of innocent human life.”
Now, President Obama has proclaimed that “those of us who believe must trust that His (God’s) wisdom is greater than our own.” But where do we find God’s wisdom? God reveals His wisdom both in nature and in His written Word, the Bible. In His natural revelation, we can see, courtesy of YouTube, the awesome development of the human being in the mother’s womb. Thanks to the work of many women’s centers across our nation, many women contemplating abortion respond to this “natural revelation” by carrying their baby to full term.
In His written revelation, the Bible, God makes it clear that it is not “beyond our capacity to know with certainty...what God asks of us.” For example, God spoke to the prophet Jeremiah, saying “ "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1:5);" Or, the God, of whom King David said, “Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them (Psalm 139:16).
So, we conclude with thanks to President Obama for his challenge to “trust that His (God’s) wisdom is greater than our own.” We can be certain that the Creator God values the life of the unborn. We can also be certain of the statistics from the U.S. Census Report of 2006 (See Table 77). The report reveals that Black Americans are no longer replacing themselves because there are more deaths than live births. According to Protecting Black Life, “35% of the abortions in the United States are performed on African American women, while they represent only 13% of the female population of the country. African Americans are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population.” Let us pray that President Obama will not “shy away from things that are uncomfortable.” May his speech at Notre Dame be remembered as a turning point– a time at which he turns toward becoming a protector of the moral and civil rights of both the African American minority and of the unborn of all humanity.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Pro-Environment But Pro-Choice: Contradiction and Categories
This entry in Oikonomia features a link to the CedarEthics podcast in which Dr. Dennis Sullivan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at Cedarville University invited me to discuss a rather puzzling pattern in our culture. First, let me frame the issue using many of Dr. Sullivan’s opening remarks. Then you can go to the podcast link below and listen.
Dr. Sullivan notes that former President George Bush was notably pro-life in his outlook. This means that he was opposed to abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia, among other things. In contrast, Mr. Bush was not recognized for a strong stand on environmental protection. He opposed U.S. ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, and he favored opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, positions that angered environmental activists.
However, the inauguration of Barack Obama as our new president has led to sweeping political changes, and his views on certain key ethical concerns are dramatically different than his predecessor. For example, he has stated that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate many legal limitations on abortions, including parental notification laws and waiting periods, and would even overturn our present ban on partial birth abortion. By the time you read this, the president may already have signed an executive order to permit government funding of embryonic stem cell research, something the Bush Administration would not permit. One the other hand, Dr. Sullivan points out that our new president is considered by many to be a friend to the environment and in favor of more controls on pollution and greater protection for natural resources. The two presidents appear to be quite representative of the views of their respective supporters.
So, it seems that being pro-life means also being anti-environment, if our national discourse is any indication. My discussion with Dr. Sullivan on the CedarEthics Podcast addressed the question, “Why do both of these ethical concerns live at opposite sides of the political spectrum?” Please click on the link below, listen, reflect on the points being made, and reply if you would like to comment or raise a question.
CedarEthics Podcast - Pro-Life or Pro-Environment: Poles Apart? (16)
Dr. Sullivan notes that former President George Bush was notably pro-life in his outlook. This means that he was opposed to abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia, among other things. In contrast, Mr. Bush was not recognized for a strong stand on environmental protection. He opposed U.S. ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, and he favored opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling, positions that angered environmental activists.
However, the inauguration of Barack Obama as our new president has led to sweeping political changes, and his views on certain key ethical concerns are dramatically different than his predecessor. For example, he has stated that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate many legal limitations on abortions, including parental notification laws and waiting periods, and would even overturn our present ban on partial birth abortion. By the time you read this, the president may already have signed an executive order to permit government funding of embryonic stem cell research, something the Bush Administration would not permit. One the other hand, Dr. Sullivan points out that our new president is considered by many to be a friend to the environment and in favor of more controls on pollution and greater protection for natural resources. The two presidents appear to be quite representative of the views of their respective supporters.
So, it seems that being pro-life means also being anti-environment, if our national discourse is any indication. My discussion with Dr. Sullivan on the CedarEthics Podcast addressed the question, “Why do both of these ethical concerns live at opposite sides of the political spectrum?” Please click on the link below, listen, reflect on the points being made, and reply if you would like to comment or raise a question.
CedarEthics Podcast - Pro-Life or Pro-Environment: Poles Apart? (16)
Thursday, January 1, 2009
On Being a Thankful Steward
We greet the New Year with a contribution from a guest blogger, Jessicah Zehring, Assistant to the Director, Center for Bioethics at Cedarville University:
A new year is upon us, and as we celebrate the occasion with loved ones, we often reflect on the material, physical, and spiritual blessings of the past year with a sense of thankfulness. It is easy to feel thankful for various events and opportunities we've had in the past. But what role does an attitude of thankfulness play in our stewardship of the environment?
Being thankful for an object implies an awareness and appreciation of that object. Both Christian and secular environmentalists share an awareness of and appreciation for the natural world. Awareness that an object exists is a prerequisite to appreciating or valuing that object. In turn, our appreciation for an object deepens as we come to a greater understanding of its' role and function. Christians and non-Christians alike can appreciate the beauty and complexity of the natural world, and value the organisms that interact in our earthly environment.
But there is another component to being thankful, one not shared by many secular environmentalists. That component is an attitude of grateful esteem to the Creator of the universe. The secular environmentalist who does not acknowledge God as Creator and Sustainer of the universe and Who has a purpose for both His creation and our part in it can only view the natural world as a product of chance events. In this naturalistic view, there is no object for his or her praise and thankfulness. Although he or she can be aware of and value natural processes, he or she doesn't share a feeling of gratefulness to a creative being Who set the world in place and Who has invited mankind to exercise stewardship of it.
Christians recognize that God is the creator of the natural world. We acknowledge that the goldfinch outside our window, or the lowly Draba verna plant growing in our yard is no more a product of random chance than we ourselves. Instead, they are creatures of great value and purpose because God choose to create them for His glory and pleasure. He crafted the Earth and all the organisms in it, and appointed human beings stewards over his handiwork. David writes in Psalm 136:3-6:
Give thanks to the Lord of lords,
His love endures forever.
To Him alone who does great wonders,
His love endures forever.
Who by his understanding made the heavens,
His love endures forever.
Who spread out the earth upon the waters,
His love endures forever. (New International Version).
Here, God’s written Word and His creation together give testimony to the power and wisdom of the Designer. It is to this God that we can be thankful because He has revealed our unique role as stewards of creation. His revelation also enables us to place correct value on ourselves and on our fellow creatures. As we enter a new year, let us strive to execute our stewardship role with thankfulness, both toward the Creator and His creation.
A new year is upon us, and as we celebrate the occasion with loved ones, we often reflect on the material, physical, and spiritual blessings of the past year with a sense of thankfulness. It is easy to feel thankful for various events and opportunities we've had in the past. But what role does an attitude of thankfulness play in our stewardship of the environment?
Being thankful for an object implies an awareness and appreciation of that object. Both Christian and secular environmentalists share an awareness of and appreciation for the natural world. Awareness that an object exists is a prerequisite to appreciating or valuing that object. In turn, our appreciation for an object deepens as we come to a greater understanding of its' role and function. Christians and non-Christians alike can appreciate the beauty and complexity of the natural world, and value the organisms that interact in our earthly environment.
But there is another component to being thankful, one not shared by many secular environmentalists. That component is an attitude of grateful esteem to the Creator of the universe. The secular environmentalist who does not acknowledge God as Creator and Sustainer of the universe and Who has a purpose for both His creation and our part in it can only view the natural world as a product of chance events. In this naturalistic view, there is no object for his or her praise and thankfulness. Although he or she can be aware of and value natural processes, he or she doesn't share a feeling of gratefulness to a creative being Who set the world in place and Who has invited mankind to exercise stewardship of it.
Christians recognize that God is the creator of the natural world. We acknowledge that the goldfinch outside our window, or the lowly Draba verna plant growing in our yard is no more a product of random chance than we ourselves. Instead, they are creatures of great value and purpose because God choose to create them for His glory and pleasure. He crafted the Earth and all the organisms in it, and appointed human beings stewards over his handiwork. David writes in Psalm 136:3-6:
Give thanks to the Lord of lords,
His love endures forever.
To Him alone who does great wonders,
His love endures forever.
Who by his understanding made the heavens,
His love endures forever.
Who spread out the earth upon the waters,
His love endures forever. (New International Version).
Here, God’s written Word and His creation together give testimony to the power and wisdom of the Designer. It is to this God that we can be thankful because He has revealed our unique role as stewards of creation. His revelation also enables us to place correct value on ourselves and on our fellow creatures. As we enter a new year, let us strive to execute our stewardship role with thankfulness, both toward the Creator and His creation.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The “Greatest Subject” Subjects Himself
We began the Oikonomia blog on August 1 with an entry entitled “God: The Greatest ‘Subject?’” to provoke some discussion, particularly around the following logic: God is the subject of the greatest book ever written, the Holy Bible, which is a tremendous reservoir of knowledge. Therefore, He might be considered the “Greatest Subject.”
On the other hand, the Bible reveals God as subject to no one because He owns all and is ruler of all; He is King of creation not a steward or caretaker on behalf of a master. But wait! Has God indeed been subject? We asked this question on August 1, then proceeded to discuss in subsequent entries how God did subject His creation to be under the dominion of humans who were commanded to serve as stewards. But humankind rejected their honorable role as ruling subjects, and God brought judgement upon them and their descendants.
Some would argue that God is unjust in judging humans for our failure. If He is truly God and our Creator, isn’t He being unjust to subject creation to our care then bring judgement for our failure? Indeed, isn’t God unjust on two counts. First, how can a righteous God be so unsympathetic toward mankind whom He created? Second, how can a supposedly omniscient God even know the limitations of our humanness as created beings in contrast to His divinity?
In response to the first indictment, the Bible reveals God as a Creator Who is fully aware of our limitations. For example, in a summary of the history of the nation of Israel in Psalm 78, Asaph recounts how the nation rebelled against God and writes in verses 38-39:
But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity and did not destroy them;
And often He restrained His anger And did not arouse all His wrath.
Thus He remembered that they were but flesh, A wind that passes and does not return.
And, David writes of God’s knowledge in Psalm 103:14:
For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.
But how can we believe that the God of heaven is truly “mindful of our condition?” After all, He is God and we are not. This second indictment has an ontological basis; namely, that God’s nature as “spirit being” prevents Him from relating across a “great divide” to humans who reside in a body of flesh, made from the dust of Earth. How can God know what it is like to be human? Perhaps if He were to subject Himself to the limitations and temptations we face, we could believe that He really is mindful of our frailty.
The fact is, according to the biblical revelation, God has done just that. The “Greatest Subject” through His divine Son, Jesus Christ, became the subject of the limitations of the human condition and the subject of the imperfect judgement, ridicule, misunderstanding, scorn, and abuse of humans. Paul recounts in Philippians 2: 3-11 how Christ Who existed in the very form of God, ontologically speaking, emptied Himself, not of His deity, but of His divine right to act apart from the will of His Father in heaven. Therefore, in Christ, the perfect God-man, we see God coming across the “great divide” as a servant and steward of His Father’s kingdom to represent the very nature of God to mankind while experiencing all of the limitations of humanness, yet without sin. Being the sinless “lamb”, Jesus Christ could make the ultimate sacrifice, bearing our sin and rebellion on the cross which caused at that unique point in all eternity, His separation from the Father (spiritual death), the price necessary to bring atonement for our sins (Romans 6:23).
Philippians 2:1-11 is a fitting passage to read at Christmas time. As you read it, consider the imagery of heaven’s glory, the manger scene in Bethlehem, the meekness of Jesus as He walked this Earth serving, teaching, and healing many, and then dying a cruel death on a Roman cross. God is indeed the “Greatest Subject” because He became the Servant, the Steward Who would first identify with humanity both in life and in death; then, be raised to Eternal Life to make way for all who will subject themselves to accept Him as their perfect sacrifice to cover sin. His shed blood purchases (redeems) the believer from the slave market of sin and enables us through the power of His Holy Spirit to be bondservants and stewards in service of the King as we conduct our affairs humbly and justly on the Earth, His valued “footstool.”
On the other hand, the Bible reveals God as subject to no one because He owns all and is ruler of all; He is King of creation not a steward or caretaker on behalf of a master. But wait! Has God indeed been subject? We asked this question on August 1, then proceeded to discuss in subsequent entries how God did subject His creation to be under the dominion of humans who were commanded to serve as stewards. But humankind rejected their honorable role as ruling subjects, and God brought judgement upon them and their descendants.
Some would argue that God is unjust in judging humans for our failure. If He is truly God and our Creator, isn’t He being unjust to subject creation to our care then bring judgement for our failure? Indeed, isn’t God unjust on two counts. First, how can a righteous God be so unsympathetic toward mankind whom He created? Second, how can a supposedly omniscient God even know the limitations of our humanness as created beings in contrast to His divinity?
In response to the first indictment, the Bible reveals God as a Creator Who is fully aware of our limitations. For example, in a summary of the history of the nation of Israel in Psalm 78, Asaph recounts how the nation rebelled against God and writes in verses 38-39:
But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity and did not destroy them;
And often He restrained His anger And did not arouse all His wrath.
Thus He remembered that they were but flesh, A wind that passes and does not return.
And, David writes of God’s knowledge in Psalm 103:14:
For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.
But how can we believe that the God of heaven is truly “mindful of our condition?” After all, He is God and we are not. This second indictment has an ontological basis; namely, that God’s nature as “spirit being” prevents Him from relating across a “great divide” to humans who reside in a body of flesh, made from the dust of Earth. How can God know what it is like to be human? Perhaps if He were to subject Himself to the limitations and temptations we face, we could believe that He really is mindful of our frailty.
The fact is, according to the biblical revelation, God has done just that. The “Greatest Subject” through His divine Son, Jesus Christ, became the subject of the limitations of the human condition and the subject of the imperfect judgement, ridicule, misunderstanding, scorn, and abuse of humans. Paul recounts in Philippians 2: 3-11 how Christ Who existed in the very form of God, ontologically speaking, emptied Himself, not of His deity, but of His divine right to act apart from the will of His Father in heaven. Therefore, in Christ, the perfect God-man, we see God coming across the “great divide” as a servant and steward of His Father’s kingdom to represent the very nature of God to mankind while experiencing all of the limitations of humanness, yet without sin. Being the sinless “lamb”, Jesus Christ could make the ultimate sacrifice, bearing our sin and rebellion on the cross which caused at that unique point in all eternity, His separation from the Father (spiritual death), the price necessary to bring atonement for our sins (Romans 6:23).
Philippians 2:1-11 is a fitting passage to read at Christmas time. As you read it, consider the imagery of heaven’s glory, the manger scene in Bethlehem, the meekness of Jesus as He walked this Earth serving, teaching, and healing many, and then dying a cruel death on a Roman cross. God is indeed the “Greatest Subject” because He became the Servant, the Steward Who would first identify with humanity both in life and in death; then, be raised to Eternal Life to make way for all who will subject themselves to accept Him as their perfect sacrifice to cover sin. His shed blood purchases (redeems) the believer from the slave market of sin and enables us through the power of His Holy Spirit to be bondservants and stewards in service of the King as we conduct our affairs humbly and justly on the Earth, His valued “footstool.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)