So this past week I was at the majority of the Calvary Chapel Pastor's Conference in Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. Here is a bit of what I experienced and what I thought of the conference.
Monday:
I arrived at the conference and came to the registration line where Brian Brodersen was standing.
Brian Brodersen, for those of you who do not know, is the lead pastor of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, the successor of Chuck Smith, the founder of the Calvary Chapel movement of churches. As such, Brian is also the head of the entire Calvary Chapel movement (or the half that identify with the Calvary Global Network at least). So it was certainly a blessing to meet him, let him know who I was and finally meet him and speak to one another in person.
The first session of the conference was led by Brian. He spoke of the Calvary Movement and what he loved and what he saw going forward. It was a great session and very encouraging to hear the direction Pastor Brian sees the Calvary movement going in, that is a theme for the conference, the future of our little movement of churches is certainly looking bright, even with the recent hardships within it.
After the first couple of sessions I found Mike Neglia, who was going to skip on dinner to study for his workshop the next day. I decided I should try the shop across the street for something Mike could eat whenever he had time. On my way, a car pulled up and Clay (formerly pastor of Calvary Waterford, and now Calvary Tri Valley in NorCal) asked me if I wanted to join them for food. After a couple of seconds of humming and hawing I decided to go and got into the car to see Brian Brodersen was the driver and his son, Char was there too. So I got to go have dinner with Brian the first day of meeting him. I'm not like the Quinity is Father, Son, Spirit, Chuck Smith and Brian Brodersen here or anything, it was just cool.
So with the guys we talked about Ireland, my future there, Clay's time there, Brian used to pastor in Westminster, so we talked about the differences between Europe and America in how people think and in ministry. It was just a blessing. Plus, they were already on a mission to get Mike food! So it worked out very well!
After all the conference activities were done I went back to stay with a lady, called Donna, who works in the church there. She lives with someone who works in the school of worship at Costa Mesa too. So, Donna and I shared some of our life stories and it was just such a blessing to get to know her and the life God has walked with her through.
Tuesday:
On Tuesday the stand out moment was certainly Christopher Yuan's workshop on how Christians should approach speaking to homosexual people. Christopher is himself someone who gay and now isn't living that life anymore. What an amazing time listening to how he has thought about how to talk to people and how clearly he presented it. What a blessing to the church!!
The other stand out moment was Paul David Tripp speaking in the main session. Knowing he would be there inspired me to read some of his books. We had one Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands in the CCBC library, so I read that first, then I bought Dangerous Calling from the CCBC bookstore, because it deals specifically with pastoral ministry. It was some of the content of this book that Tripp spoke on and it was so good!
Wednesday:
Wednesday is the crazy day. Wednesday morning at around 7:20am the police in Costa Mesa found Mike Neglia after he had been hit by a car. The car was travelling 45 mph and he was thrown 30 feet. It is a miracle he is alive.
Thus began one of the longest, most tense days of my life. Clay and Char were with Mike, and later Joy (from Calvary Cork) joined them. They relayed news to us, which Brian relayed to the conference at large. We waited for hours to learn that Mike was not paralysed. Then we waited hours more to hear his bones were okay, having previously heard he had a broken neck and two spinal fractures. God really had his hand on Mike, but it was certainly a tense day.
My brain didn't focus too much on the conference that day, until the news of Mike being well came in. Instead of sitting in sessions I hung out with Kellen and George, who are friends of Mike's and certainly have become friends of mine. They work for Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, and they as well as Britt, Josh, Matthew and some others were doing the live streaming of the conference, recording it and filming interviews and things. Seeing as film is a big interest in mine it was so great to be able to sit and observe and sometimes adjust cameras and little things like that, with them.
Wednesday we ate ribs together and it was great!
On Wednesday I also met John Henry. Back in the 80s John used to get Chuck's sermons sent to him in Tipperary. After some communication with Papa Chuck, Chuck invited him to Costa Mesa for a year. John never left. It was so good to get to sit with him and talk with him. He stayed in America because of his love for Chuck, and that was beautiful. I was talking to him about Mike and the possibility of my returning to Ireland to help Calvary Cork for a bit until Mike recovers, and he told me about how he did similar things with Chuck. I later learned that Chuck has circulation problems with his legs and John Henry used to massage them, often and for a long time, and if he hadn't done this Pastor Chuck could have died a number of years before he did. What a beautiful servant of God, helping Chuck to succeed in ministry by taking care of his physical and some administrative needs! We spoke about me planting a church, and the feeling I have of where the Lord is leading and the journey that I was on in coming to that place where, with confidence I can say exactly where it is (the middle of a blog post is not the place to announce that if you don't already know from personal conversations with me).
We also spoke of his time in Ireland and the joy he has in seeing the continuing of the Calvary movement there. All in all it was just such a great conversation!
At the last session, just before Christopher Yuan spoke, Brian announced the results of Mike's tests, there is a video on my instagram (@WaveyCowpar) if you want to see it. There are also pictures of some of the speakers and a paraphrase of a quote they said, because I often cannot remember the exact quotes!
Thursday:
Thursday I went straight to the live streaming area. I hung out with George mostly, and prayed for Kellen's stress levels. Then, at lunch time, some of those guys were heading to film three episodes (again there is a picture on my instagram). So I got to see the Calvary TV studios and the equipment they use to film. My goal is to have a Calvary Church that undertakes similar projects, because film is such a big part of my life!
It was great to see the studio and listen to Brian interviewing three wonderful people, Efram, who is a pastor in London and once a member of Brian's own church there; David Guzik, who's just a genius and a very gracious and humble man, and Lu Wing, who is writing one of the most interesting titles I've heard, but it sounds like it will be so good!
All in all, the conference was so good, and speakers really inspired the pastors present to look to the future by being informed of our past and the work of Pastor Chuck. Especially blessing was Johnathan Domingo talking about the example of how Chuck delegated ministry responsibility allowed Calvary to fail at times, but ultimately to grow and be the influence it was in the early days and is now in Mexico. It was also great to meet lots of different people, and to finally meet Brian and see the human behind the image!
Please continue to pray for Brian Brodersen as he leads and directs the Calvary movement and is pastor at Costa Mesa, there were times my heart went out to him, its a lot of weight to carry especially with all that's happening in the Calvary movement today!
Pray also for Mike's recovery, and for Rachel, Eoin and Rosie, and for Calvary Cork as they function without Mike!
Saturday, 1 July 2017
Sunday, 18 June 2017
ToTD: Altar Calls.
Hey all, grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!
So, I've been reading James recently as I and a friend are studying through it throughout the summer, and it has had me doing some serious thinking (which is awesome), you may have seen some of these thoughts pop up on Facebook. Anyway, I've been having issues with James 2 and the ideas in the latter half specifically, and how those marry with Paul's ideas in Romans. I have not conclusively decided anything, we aren't there in my study yet, but here are some thoughts on faith.
James 2:14-26:
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." (ESV)
In this section we see James speaking of three types of faith, with only one leading to life.
The first is dead faith. This faith (seen in the first paragraph above) is an intellectual faith. It knows all the right words, it knows what to say and it can sound good, but it only goes brain deep!
The second faith, in the second paragraph, is demonic faith. Demonic faith is intellectual, the demons know all the things, and it is also emotional, they shudder in their knowledge, but they aren't saved.
Only the third paragraph describes living faith, dynamic faith is faith that actually impacts the whole person. It's not just intellectual and emotional, it's holistic and begins to change the person's life. That's, I guess, what James is saying in his confusing example about Abraham and Rahab being justified by works.
So, this second type of faith got me thinking... A lot of what we do in evangelical circles, regarding evangelism, is hoping for a dynamic faith, using methods for a demonic faith. I am talking, as the title has betrayed, of the altar call.
Perhaps you have never been to an event with an altar call, and if so I applaud the ministry for which you have been part! But these things come after an emotion filled story, where the Gospel is laid out, usually through someone's testimony. Then a musician plays softly in the background as the speaker asks everyone to close their eyes. Then, with no one looking and with his voice full of emotion and the strings of your heart being plucked at the same time as the guitar, he asks people who want to receive Jesus to raise their hands. And hands go up.
Usually, though recently there has been a move away from this, the speaker will lead those with their hands raised in the sinner's prayer. Once he says amen, he declares the raised hand people saved.
Really?
Because I've been with people who stand up, raise their hands and go forward at these events and then the next day there is no interest in God, there is no desire to follow Him, there is no change in their life or their eternal standing before God.
What your altar call has produced is not a dynamic, saving faith but a faith that is similar to that of the demons mentioned here in James 2. You wanted dynamic faith and you created demonic faith.
Satan loves that! Warren Wiersbe said: “Satan is the great deceiver; one of his devices is imitation. If he can convince a person that counterfeit faith is true faith, he has that person in his power.”
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everybody who has come to know Jesus via an altar call does not have a genuine, dynamic and saving faith. Heaven forbid, but what I am saying is that we put a lot of emphasis in methods that aren't returning the proper results, but giving people a false sense of eternal security. Those reading this who were saved via an altar call, we can know your salvation is genuine by the perseverance you have in the Lord, by the changed life we see, but there are many who make professions of faith at altar calls (and other emotionally charged events and times in their life) and their confession is just demonic faith, they know God is there and they fear Him.
So how can we know faith is genuine?
Here's some questions to ask yourself, to help the Holy Spirit search you and know you!
So, I've been reading James recently as I and a friend are studying through it throughout the summer, and it has had me doing some serious thinking (which is awesome), you may have seen some of these thoughts pop up on Facebook. Anyway, I've been having issues with James 2 and the ideas in the latter half specifically, and how those marry with Paul's ideas in Romans. I have not conclusively decided anything, we aren't there in my study yet, but here are some thoughts on faith.
James 2:14-26:
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." (ESV)
In this section we see James speaking of three types of faith, with only one leading to life.
The first is dead faith. This faith (seen in the first paragraph above) is an intellectual faith. It knows all the right words, it knows what to say and it can sound good, but it only goes brain deep!
The second faith, in the second paragraph, is demonic faith. Demonic faith is intellectual, the demons know all the things, and it is also emotional, they shudder in their knowledge, but they aren't saved.
Only the third paragraph describes living faith, dynamic faith is faith that actually impacts the whole person. It's not just intellectual and emotional, it's holistic and begins to change the person's life. That's, I guess, what James is saying in his confusing example about Abraham and Rahab being justified by works.
So, this second type of faith got me thinking... A lot of what we do in evangelical circles, regarding evangelism, is hoping for a dynamic faith, using methods for a demonic faith. I am talking, as the title has betrayed, of the altar call.
Perhaps you have never been to an event with an altar call, and if so I applaud the ministry for which you have been part! But these things come after an emotion filled story, where the Gospel is laid out, usually through someone's testimony. Then a musician plays softly in the background as the speaker asks everyone to close their eyes. Then, with no one looking and with his voice full of emotion and the strings of your heart being plucked at the same time as the guitar, he asks people who want to receive Jesus to raise their hands. And hands go up.
Usually, though recently there has been a move away from this, the speaker will lead those with their hands raised in the sinner's prayer. Once he says amen, he declares the raised hand people saved.
Really?
Because I've been with people who stand up, raise their hands and go forward at these events and then the next day there is no interest in God, there is no desire to follow Him, there is no change in their life or their eternal standing before God.
What your altar call has produced is not a dynamic, saving faith but a faith that is similar to that of the demons mentioned here in James 2. You wanted dynamic faith and you created demonic faith.
Satan loves that! Warren Wiersbe said: “Satan is the great deceiver; one of his devices is imitation. If he can convince a person that counterfeit faith is true faith, he has that person in his power.”
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that everybody who has come to know Jesus via an altar call does not have a genuine, dynamic and saving faith. Heaven forbid, but what I am saying is that we put a lot of emphasis in methods that aren't returning the proper results, but giving people a false sense of eternal security. Those reading this who were saved via an altar call, we can know your salvation is genuine by the perseverance you have in the Lord, by the changed life we see, but there are many who make professions of faith at altar calls (and other emotionally charged events and times in their life) and their confession is just demonic faith, they know God is there and they fear Him.
So how can we know faith is genuine?
Here's some questions to ask yourself, to help the Holy Spirit search you and know you!
- Was there a time when I honestly realised I was a sinner and admitted this to myself and to God?
- Was there a time when my heart stirred me to flee from the wrath to come? Have I ever seriously been alarmed over my sin?
- Do I truly understand the Gospel, that Christ died for my sins and He arose again? Do I understand and confess that I cannot save myself?
- Did I sincerely repent of my sin and turn from them? Or do I secretly love sin and want to continue to enjoy it?
- Have I trusted Christ and Christ alone for my salvation? Do I enjoy a living relationship with Him through the Word and in the Spirit?
- Has there been a change in my life? Do I maintain good works, or are those good works more occasional, or weak? Do I seek growth in Christ? Can others tell I have been impacted by Jesus?
- Do I have a desire to share Christ with others? Or am I ashamed to talk about Him?
- Do I enjoy the fellowship of God’s people? Is worship a delight to my soul?
- Am I ready for the Lord’s return? Or will I be ashamed, or even left behind, when He comes back?
in A ainm agus A chuid seirbhís.
Friday, 2 June 2017
TotD: God's Justice, Limited Atonement and Salvation
Someone once said to me that God is just and doesn't punish sin twice. He wouldn't punish Jesus and the person who sinned. Therefore, the conclusion was, Jesus only died for certain people, choosing certain people (the elect) and saving them from among the multitudes. Therefore, Jesus' atoning death was only valid for those who are members of the elect and will certainly come to trust Christ as Saviour and be forgiven.
This has troubled me for years. It doesn't sit right, but God is just and He wouldn't punish someone twice.
For a long time I assumed a God's level limited atonement, He knew who would come to Him so He died for those who He foreknew would come, but I have been led on a path to a different and better explanation.
Christ died for sins, once for all. That's what the Bible says and I can finally say I whole-heartedly agree and confess that statement.
This does not lead us to universalism, where we say everyone is saved due to Christ's atoning death on the cross. No because of another couple of verses.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:16
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. - John 3:18
This same sin of unbelief is often equated with the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (in Matthew 12). So unbelief is that unforgivable sin, pretty much the only thing that actually separates you from God.
So, Jesus died and atoned for all your sin, He was punished for it, you can have the assurance that you will not pay for every lie you said, bad thought you've had etc. Many people argue those should only have limited time punishments, a bit like the concept of purgatory. Maybe... However, though Jesus paid for all those sins there is one left on all our accounts. The sin of unbelief. We in no way pay for this ourselves either but the sin of unbelief, if we continue in it, justifiably punishes us for all eternity. This is just as we would have rejected our loving Creator God, who became Incarnate and died on the cross for us, atoning for our sins to bring us into His family. This affront to God and who He made us to be, restless until we rest in Him, would be a (the only) justifiable grounds to punish someone eternally.
So, Jesus died for everyone's sins, there is no such thing as limited atonement. Praise God as this opens membership of the elect to all people God created, if they have faith in Jesus Christ, and all this without us ever having to accuse God of punishing two people for the one sin, or of being unjust.
This has troubled me for years. It doesn't sit right, but God is just and He wouldn't punish someone twice.
For a long time I assumed a God's level limited atonement, He knew who would come to Him so He died for those who He foreknew would come, but I have been led on a path to a different and better explanation.
Christ died for sins, once for all. That's what the Bible says and I can finally say I whole-heartedly agree and confess that statement.
This does not lead us to universalism, where we say everyone is saved due to Christ's atoning death on the cross. No because of another couple of verses.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:16
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. - John 3:18
This same sin of unbelief is often equated with the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (in Matthew 12). So unbelief is that unforgivable sin, pretty much the only thing that actually separates you from God.
So, Jesus died and atoned for all your sin, He was punished for it, you can have the assurance that you will not pay for every lie you said, bad thought you've had etc. Many people argue those should only have limited time punishments, a bit like the concept of purgatory. Maybe... However, though Jesus paid for all those sins there is one left on all our accounts. The sin of unbelief. We in no way pay for this ourselves either but the sin of unbelief, if we continue in it, justifiably punishes us for all eternity. This is just as we would have rejected our loving Creator God, who became Incarnate and died on the cross for us, atoning for our sins to bring us into His family. This affront to God and who He made us to be, restless until we rest in Him, would be a (the only) justifiable grounds to punish someone eternally.
So, Jesus died for everyone's sins, there is no such thing as limited atonement. Praise God as this opens membership of the elect to all people God created, if they have faith in Jesus Christ, and all this without us ever having to accuse God of punishing two people for the one sin, or of being unjust.
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
TotD: What Makes A Christian Nation?
Today has been an interesting day, a devastating day.
I have often been shocked and appalled at the idea that brothers and sisters in Christ could rally behind someone like Donald Trump, someone who spouts hatred, who lies in every speech he has made during this political campaign, who has threatened his political opponents life and freedom and much much more.
Yet, according to exit polls, only 1 in 5 Evangelicals did not vote for Trump... That's 80% that did.
I have to wonder why someone would choose a man to be their President who is the complete opposite of Jesus Christ. Jesus said love your enemies, Trump said deport people who look like our enemies, Jesus said turn the other cheek, Trump said build a wall, shoot Clinton and others. Jesus said we would be known as His disciples by the love we have for one another, Trump has made more people more scared than they have been in my lifetime.
Many people voted for Donald Trump not because of the character of the person, but because of the issue of the Supreme Court. If you haven't come across this yet a Clinton win means a liberal Supreme Court, a conservative one if Donald wins and it turns out he is telling the truth about who he will appoint.
This all leads to the question: what makes a Christian nation?
To answer this question you need to take a step back.
What makes a Christian?
A Christian is a person who has a life-changing faith in Jesus Christ, a person who recognises that they are a sinner and need Jesus for their salvation.
A Christian is NOT:
- A person that follows Biblical laws.
- A person that follows Biblical laws because they are the laws of the State.
Those things do not make you a Christian! You are not a Christian because you live a good and moral life, you are a Christian if you trust in Jesus, throw yourself on the mercy and grace of God and rely on Him and Him alone (not your own works, goodness, morality etc) for your salvation.
So what makes a Christian nation?
A Christian nation would be a nation filled with Christians. If being a Christian means being saved by grace, not living by moralism, then a Christian nation can only be a nation of people who are Christians... nothing else.
Americans have fallen into the age-old trap this election. The same one every European Country did in centuries previously and are now finding themselves under major criticism for.
America has fallen into the trap that imposing Christian morals makes a Christian nation.
Let's go back to the Supreme Court.
With a Trump win, if he keeps his promises, he will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. Many Christians have mentioned how a conservative Supreme Court would overthrow Roe v Wade, the piece of judicial history that allows for abortion in the USA. As well as this Christians are celebrating (not all, but 80% apparently) the idea that a conservative Supreme Court would overthrow the gay marriage ruling and annul the marriages that have taken place since.
To some this sounds like steps in a movement back towards the Christian nation America has been in the past. But remember, a nation is not Christian because it enforces Christian beliefs on a non-Christian population, it is Christian because it has a population of saved individuals, relying on the grace of God and expressing love for one another; not acting in ways that will come across as hateful and unloving to those who disagree.
Our God commanded us to turn the other cheek, yet time and time again Christians get drawn in by power and the ability to enforce Christianity in law. We are told not to be like Gentiles and lord it over others, but time and time again Christians take that option and that route.
This is not Christianity, it's moralism. Perhaps the Presidency of Donald Trump will enforce Christian morality on people, by force, but it will not make the nation a Christian one. Don't fool yourselves you 81% of Evangelical voters who voted Trump, you have not made the nation more Christian by voting Trump, just more moralistic.
What makes a Christian nation?
So, in reality what can you actually do to make a nation more Christian when it is made up of non-Christians?
1. Respect the dignity of all people:
As people made in the image of God. This means helping those who are not able to help themselves: the poor, disabled, those with addictions, the young and the elderly. It means respecting one another as people no matter our race, colour, gender or orientation. It means loving one another despite our differences and working together to see a better world for each person.
2. Recognise the reality of sin:
Man I wish we lived in a perfect world. I really do! I really wish we could see, expect and get the best out of ourselves and one another... However, this is not the case. A 'Christian' nation (one not made up of Christians but one hoping to build a more Christ-like approach to life) needs to recognise the reality of sin and legislate for it and protect each of our citizens from the dangers we pose to one another when we are at our worst.
3. Spread Love, not hate:
Jesus says that the world will know Christians because of the love they have for one another. I wonder how many Hispanic-Americans, Muslim-Americans, LGBT-Americans, black-Americans would say they feel loved when you tell them that Donald Trump had a greater percentage of Evangelicals voting for him than Mitt Romney, John McCain or the Bushes? Probably very few.
Christianity is a reality based on the overwhelming love of God who, while we were enemies of Him, loved us to the point of coming to this earth and dying in our place so we can experience His love for us ourselves. Resultant from that love is a calling to go and love others as we have been loved, even our enemies. For many Christians that means even Hillary Clinton, for others that means 59,606,000 people in the USA who voted for Clinton. For still others it means Donald Trump and the 59,399,000 who voted for him. I certainly hope and pray that Donald Trump will be able to move beyond the hatred he has incited and bring people together... but I have a feeling America will be a divided society where systemic racism becomes a reality again.
So what makes a Christian nation? Is it enforcing laws on gay marriage and abortion?
Or is it loving and helping those to experience their human rights to the fullest of their dignity deserved by the fact that each human being is made in God's image?
On top of that Christians need to think about that other nation they belong to, that nation they share with all Christians everywhere. This election is another failure for American Christians in this area.
While US Christians voted for the benefit they see (the Supreme Court in the United States enforcing Christian morals on a non-Christian population, as others would see it) they have not thought about their brothers and sisters in other nations.
They have not thought of South Korea.
That nation just south of the mental-case that rules North Korea.
Trump has, time and again, stated that he does not support Americas alliances, he wants to capitalise on them, make them a source of income for the USA. His election has left Christians in South Korea fearing that they will soon be left to fend for themselves against North Korea, and if they are because Trump doesn't hold to the alliances of the USA, they will surely fall. North Korea is always one of the top persecutors of Christians worldwide.
I strongly believe that, now Donald Trump is president that we need to pray for him and ask God to lead and rule in the decisions Trump makes, but I also believe in change. Things like this should never be allowed to happen again. Christians need to sit down and ask themselves what makes a Christian, and what makes a Christian nation.
I put it to you that Trump's America is the wrong Christian nation, one that, when the pendulum swings, will result in Liberals making sure something like Trump is never allowed to happen again, legislation against Christianity. We have seen it before, but the answer is not to fight their hell fire with our own, it is to preach the life changing Gospel of Jesus Christ, to pray for our cities for in their welfare we will find our welfare, for pray for our leaders, to live peaceably with everyone as much as we can, and to love our neighbours as ourselves. A Christian nation built on moralism cannot do these, it doesn't measure up and actually hurts the church, we need to leave this thinking behind and move forward, not backward.
It is a sad day indeed.
I have often been shocked and appalled at the idea that brothers and sisters in Christ could rally behind someone like Donald Trump, someone who spouts hatred, who lies in every speech he has made during this political campaign, who has threatened his political opponents life and freedom and much much more.
Yet, according to exit polls, only 1 in 5 Evangelicals did not vote for Trump... That's 80% that did.
I have to wonder why someone would choose a man to be their President who is the complete opposite of Jesus Christ. Jesus said love your enemies, Trump said deport people who look like our enemies, Jesus said turn the other cheek, Trump said build a wall, shoot Clinton and others. Jesus said we would be known as His disciples by the love we have for one another, Trump has made more people more scared than they have been in my lifetime.
Many people voted for Donald Trump not because of the character of the person, but because of the issue of the Supreme Court. If you haven't come across this yet a Clinton win means a liberal Supreme Court, a conservative one if Donald wins and it turns out he is telling the truth about who he will appoint.
This all leads to the question: what makes a Christian nation?
To answer this question you need to take a step back.
What makes a Christian?
A Christian is a person who has a life-changing faith in Jesus Christ, a person who recognises that they are a sinner and need Jesus for their salvation.
A Christian is NOT:
- A person that follows Biblical laws.
- A person that follows Biblical laws because they are the laws of the State.
Those things do not make you a Christian! You are not a Christian because you live a good and moral life, you are a Christian if you trust in Jesus, throw yourself on the mercy and grace of God and rely on Him and Him alone (not your own works, goodness, morality etc) for your salvation.
So what makes a Christian nation?
A Christian nation would be a nation filled with Christians. If being a Christian means being saved by grace, not living by moralism, then a Christian nation can only be a nation of people who are Christians... nothing else.
Americans have fallen into the age-old trap this election. The same one every European Country did in centuries previously and are now finding themselves under major criticism for.
America has fallen into the trap that imposing Christian morals makes a Christian nation.
Let's go back to the Supreme Court.
With a Trump win, if he keeps his promises, he will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. Many Christians have mentioned how a conservative Supreme Court would overthrow Roe v Wade, the piece of judicial history that allows for abortion in the USA. As well as this Christians are celebrating (not all, but 80% apparently) the idea that a conservative Supreme Court would overthrow the gay marriage ruling and annul the marriages that have taken place since.
To some this sounds like steps in a movement back towards the Christian nation America has been in the past. But remember, a nation is not Christian because it enforces Christian beliefs on a non-Christian population, it is Christian because it has a population of saved individuals, relying on the grace of God and expressing love for one another; not acting in ways that will come across as hateful and unloving to those who disagree.
Our God commanded us to turn the other cheek, yet time and time again Christians get drawn in by power and the ability to enforce Christianity in law. We are told not to be like Gentiles and lord it over others, but time and time again Christians take that option and that route.
This is not Christianity, it's moralism. Perhaps the Presidency of Donald Trump will enforce Christian morality on people, by force, but it will not make the nation a Christian one. Don't fool yourselves you 81% of Evangelical voters who voted Trump, you have not made the nation more Christian by voting Trump, just more moralistic.
What makes a Christian nation?
So, in reality what can you actually do to make a nation more Christian when it is made up of non-Christians?
1. Respect the dignity of all people:
As people made in the image of God. This means helping those who are not able to help themselves: the poor, disabled, those with addictions, the young and the elderly. It means respecting one another as people no matter our race, colour, gender or orientation. It means loving one another despite our differences and working together to see a better world for each person.
2. Recognise the reality of sin:
Man I wish we lived in a perfect world. I really do! I really wish we could see, expect and get the best out of ourselves and one another... However, this is not the case. A 'Christian' nation (one not made up of Christians but one hoping to build a more Christ-like approach to life) needs to recognise the reality of sin and legislate for it and protect each of our citizens from the dangers we pose to one another when we are at our worst.
3. Spread Love, not hate:
Jesus says that the world will know Christians because of the love they have for one another. I wonder how many Hispanic-Americans, Muslim-Americans, LGBT-Americans, black-Americans would say they feel loved when you tell them that Donald Trump had a greater percentage of Evangelicals voting for him than Mitt Romney, John McCain or the Bushes? Probably very few.
Christianity is a reality based on the overwhelming love of God who, while we were enemies of Him, loved us to the point of coming to this earth and dying in our place so we can experience His love for us ourselves. Resultant from that love is a calling to go and love others as we have been loved, even our enemies. For many Christians that means even Hillary Clinton, for others that means 59,606,000 people in the USA who voted for Clinton. For still others it means Donald Trump and the 59,399,000 who voted for him. I certainly hope and pray that Donald Trump will be able to move beyond the hatred he has incited and bring people together... but I have a feeling America will be a divided society where systemic racism becomes a reality again.
So what makes a Christian nation? Is it enforcing laws on gay marriage and abortion?
Or is it loving and helping those to experience their human rights to the fullest of their dignity deserved by the fact that each human being is made in God's image?
On top of that Christians need to think about that other nation they belong to, that nation they share with all Christians everywhere. This election is another failure for American Christians in this area.
While US Christians voted for the benefit they see (the Supreme Court in the United States enforcing Christian morals on a non-Christian population, as others would see it) they have not thought about their brothers and sisters in other nations.
They have not thought of South Korea.
That nation just south of the mental-case that rules North Korea.
Trump has, time and again, stated that he does not support Americas alliances, he wants to capitalise on them, make them a source of income for the USA. His election has left Christians in South Korea fearing that they will soon be left to fend for themselves against North Korea, and if they are because Trump doesn't hold to the alliances of the USA, they will surely fall. North Korea is always one of the top persecutors of Christians worldwide.
I strongly believe that, now Donald Trump is president that we need to pray for him and ask God to lead and rule in the decisions Trump makes, but I also believe in change. Things like this should never be allowed to happen again. Christians need to sit down and ask themselves what makes a Christian, and what makes a Christian nation.
I put it to you that Trump's America is the wrong Christian nation, one that, when the pendulum swings, will result in Liberals making sure something like Trump is never allowed to happen again, legislation against Christianity. We have seen it before, but the answer is not to fight their hell fire with our own, it is to preach the life changing Gospel of Jesus Christ, to pray for our cities for in their welfare we will find our welfare, for pray for our leaders, to live peaceably with everyone as much as we can, and to love our neighbours as ourselves. A Christian nation built on moralism cannot do these, it doesn't measure up and actually hurts the church, we need to leave this thinking behind and move forward, not backward.
It is a sad day indeed.
Friday, 24 June 2016
TotD: Brexit
I actually cannot believe I am writing a blog after the Leave vote won in the recent Brexit Referendum. It's a little shocking, it's a little scary, it's very exciting!
This article and blog is going to be super long. Most of you will probably be bored reading all of it.
Here's some divisions:
1. The History of the European Union's 'Ever Closer Union' and the effects on Ireland:
I believe the European Union has been overstepping what is politically wise and good since as far back as 2004 when the Treaty for a European Constitution came on the scene, a treaty that effectively sought to create a United States of Europe akin to the United States of America, though a little less politically unified.
Basically, such a constitution would override the Irish constitution in constitutional matters.
It was rejected by some countries that held a referendum on it, meaning it moved into political limbo.
Until a couple of years later when Europe gave us the Lisbon Treaty, basically this treaty is the same without the slightly more federal nation slant.
This Treaty was one that was taken as seriously as the Constitution Treaty, it was said that if any nation state within the Union rejected it it would join it's predecessor in political limbo.
Ireland rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008, the EU did not respect the Irish people and their democratic right not to devolve power to the European parliament. As a nation we were walked all over, demoralised and told our voice was not important in a new, bigger, more powerful Europe.
It is true that the EU granted concessions to Ireland before Lisbon II could be voted on.
Those concessions included Ireland keeping:
This article and blog is going to be super long. Most of you will probably be bored reading all of it.
Here's some divisions:
- The History of the European Union's 'ever closer union' and the effects of such on Ireland.
- As Irish people should we be mourning Brexit or congratulating Britain?
- The future.
- What Should Enda Kenny do right now?
1. The History of the European Union's 'Ever Closer Union' and the effects on Ireland:
I believe the European Union has been overstepping what is politically wise and good since as far back as 2004 when the Treaty for a European Constitution came on the scene, a treaty that effectively sought to create a United States of Europe akin to the United States of America, though a little less politically unified.
Basically, such a constitution would override the Irish constitution in constitutional matters.
It was rejected by some countries that held a referendum on it, meaning it moved into political limbo.
Until a couple of years later when Europe gave us the Lisbon Treaty, basically this treaty is the same without the slightly more federal nation slant.
This Treaty was one that was taken as seriously as the Constitution Treaty, it was said that if any nation state within the Union rejected it it would join it's predecessor in political limbo.
Ireland rejected the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008, the EU did not respect the Irish people and their democratic right not to devolve power to the European parliament. As a nation we were walked all over, demoralised and told our voice was not important in a new, bigger, more powerful Europe.
It is true that the EU granted concessions to Ireland before Lisbon II could be voted on.
Those concessions included Ireland keeping:
- Taxation laws, so that the EU could not interfere with our corporate tax rate which attracts millions, if not billions in foreign investment annually. Hey, doesn't that sound like something Europe has been complaining about recently?
- Our neutrality even despite the creation of a united EU military. They're okay on this one so far.
- Our right to decide on the morality and legality of abortion in this country, something which in late 2010 the Human Rights court in Europe judged as against Article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention. Though the EU court did not go as far as the UN group did recently it was this decision that resulted in Ireland's first abortion bill, really meaning that Europe didn't stay out of Ireland's right to decide on the morality and legality of abortion ourselves.
On top of this the Lisbon Treaty took away the voice of Ireland by making voting based on population as well as country representation. So, 55% of countries representing 65% of the population of the EU now have to pass things in the Council of Ministers (the Council of the European Union) it acts a little like Seanad Éireann to the European Parliament (which by the way has 751 MEPs, of which 11 are Irish, that's 1.5% in comparison to Germany's 12.8%, France's 9.9%, Italy and the UK's 9.7% [up until today]).
There is some sense to the idea that a country of 4.5 million people cannot decide policy or block changes that those representing millions more have approved, but there is also some sense to the idea that each member state of the European Union should be treated equally, irrespective of how many people live in their country. Weighting by population will always unfairly favour bigger nations, allowing the present dominance in Europe that Germany has.
2. Should the Irish be mourning Brexit or congratulating Britain:
My honest thoughts on this is both.
Brexit changes the political landscape in Europe, especially on these two islands off the coast of Europe, in unprecedented ways. We are entering a situation that has never been seen before, one that could certainly qualify for the title of The Second Emergency of Ireland in the future dependent on how things go from here.
There is uncertainty about the border with Northern Ireland, there is uncertainty as the Scotland's [and maybe even Northern Ireland's] continuing position within the United Kingdom, there is uncertainty over the financial market and the position of the pound, there is uncertainty about trade with EU nations etc. etc.
Most importantly there is uncertainty for many many British people living in other EU member states and citizens of other EU member states living in the UK. That is hard, and in the coming days the first priority of a new United Kingdom government should be to clarify these things, to put people at ease or to allow them time to plan for leaving, if that is what will happen. That should be first priority for Boris once he becomes PM.
Change is always scary, but change is not always bad.
England and Wales have stood up for what they believe in. An England and Wales that are in control of their own future, who can decide on immigration themselves, who can make laws without being subject to the desires of France and Germany (which as we have seen above make up a fair amount of the decision making ability in the European Parliament).
It is exciting that a country would look at the current situation and think "you know, not better the devil you know" when that devil has become as bad as many UK voters believe. That's commendable. Certainly, it is a scary time, things definitely will be bleak and unclear for a year or two, but it is always great to see a smaller (even though the UK isn't small) power stand up to a bigger power and say "no, we've had enough".
I don't think Ireland should point the finger at Britain (or England and Wales specifically) and call them stupid, tell them they are unliked as a result of this, hate them etc. etc. Reacting in fear to things like this is what got Hitler into power, and will likely make Donald Trump the next US President. Time to learn from the mistakes of the past (even if they were the Leave campaign) and move forward, no more fear, no more accusations, but friendship.
3. The Future:
So, what does the future hold?
To quote Master Yoda, "clouded the future is", but here are some things I think could happen.
This is the big one, the one I really hope doesn't happen.
The European Union Reacts to Brexit (Worst Case Scenario).
If the EU chooses to react to Brexit in a negative way, attempting to make an example of the UK by imposing harsh export and import taxes on trade with the UK this would be a disaster!
The European Union is going to be shaking in their Italian shoes right now, and for the coming months, especially if (as many predict) a Brexit results in increased Euroskepticism.
If the EU see the possibility of more of the remaining 27 member states leaving then they may react by punishing and making an example of the British.
This would be disastrous for Ireland. The UK receive the second largest percent of our exports (15.1% in 2014, worth around €13.45 billion to our economy that year. Our biggest trading partner is the USA 22%, Belgium was next at 13%). The UK also send things to this country, making up 32.3% of our imports, or almost 1/3 of everything we import.
You can see that if the European Union were to place tariffs on exports to and imports from the UK it would have massive, devastating effects on the Irish economy.
In the event of an EU reaction to Brexit of this type Ireland would need to attempt to make our own trade agreements with the UK, despite the EU. If the EUs stance was hard enough it may result in Ireland having to give some serious consideration to Irexit.
However, we trade as much with our EU partners, more collectively, as we do with the UK. It is important for Ireland to maintain good relationships with the UK, as well as the EU and the USA. This will be tricky water to navigate, especially if my worst case scenario comes about.
The Norway Approach (Best Case Scenario for Ireland)
Norway is not part of the European Union, however, Norway have trade and movement of people agreements with the European Union.
This result would basically mean that the status quo continues as it has. Britain no longer are involved in the EU politically but are economically and demographically. The access to the free market and immigration rights of Europeans would remain the same, but the UK would be free of the undemocratic elements within the European Union for which it sought to leave in the first place.
However
I don't feel this scenario is the likely outcome (at least not immediately, perhaps in the future after a policy of self-sufficiency crippling the British economy is abandoned a la Ireland under DeValera). Sadly there was more to this Brexit than a dislike of the way Europe is run politically, there is also the issue of immigration. For Norway to have access to the European Free Market they also have to allow immigration and free movement of European citizens, that's the trade off. For the time being it is unlikely Britain would accept such an agreement.
My prediction is that in the next 20-50 years Britain (or what is left of her) will enter such an arrangement, but it is hard to see it happening in the next five or more.
Brexit Referendum II:
Europe have a long history of not accepting decisions of sovereign nations (part of why the UK are after voting to leave). Perhaps the EU will not accept the Brexit result and make concessions to the UK, as happened with Ireland, to secure their remaining in the European Union.
I imagine some people in Brussels are considering this line of talks right now.
This would surely only compound the perception of the EU as undemocratic in the UK and result in a Brexit anyway, just a delayed one.
Scottish Independence:
As they voted 'Remain' it is possible if not likely that a second Scottish independence vote will be held in the next five years and succeed this time. This is made even more likely if the vote comes in a time of instability in a year or two's time when Britain is struggling to stay relevant.
If Scotland become independent they will join the EU themselves.
A United Ireland?
Norn Iron also voted to 'Remain', the Republic is in the EU, already there are calls for a Referendum on a United Ireland and provisions exist for such an outcome since the Good Friday Agreement and other peace agreements.
A United Ireland Referendum will not pass, if it does go ahead.
EU Reform:
The opposite of my worst case scenario on the European Union side of things is that this Brexit makes people quake in their stylish Italian shoes and causes major reform in order to keep other countries from exiting with Britain in the coming years. This reform would need to be beneficial to Ireland, our sovereignty and democracy. It would be up to the government to fight for a fair outcome for Ireland, to take the initiative, seize the opportunity and lead, have their voices heard, instead of sitting back and allowing Europe to happen.
The potential negative consequences of an EU minus the UK is more power goes to Germany and France, the countries who have the most say in the EU right now.
The potential good consequences are an ever friendlier, but politically independent and democratic European community. This is the dream and the prayer.
4. What Should Enda Kenny Do Right Now?
1. Opportunity Knocks:
If I was Enda Kenny I would be very nervous, but also very excited right now. Enda Kenny has just been handed the opportunity of a lifetime. He could make himself the most important Taoiseach in Irish history, outshining even DeV, if he handles this right.
Unfortunately Enda and FG are not in a good position to rise to this challenge, they are a minority government being propped up by the opposition. However, I believe Kenny has the ability to be that Taoiseach if he is given the chance.
2. Government Stabilisation:
The first thing I would do right now if I were Taoiseach in his situation is hold a meeting with all the party leaders. Ireland needs to be united (the Republic parties, not the North and South necessarily), difficult change is coming and an unstable government is of no benefit to the Republic now. Difficult negotiations will have to be made in the lifetime of this government. Kenny needs to secure support from FF and maybe even SF that going forward the parties will discuss what is best to do in negotiations with the EU and the UK and not stand in the way of securing the best deal for Ireland within all of this.
That means that FF will need to concede to FG, but also FG will need to concede to FF, Lab, SF and others. There is no mandate on the government for dealing with this.
If the government parties cannot agree to move forward as one in these negotiations and areas then the government will collapse and a general election will be called. The benefit of this is the government would have a mandate going forward into EU and UK negotiations, the downside to this is it would waste valuable time as a hung Dáil is the likely outcome again.
3. Assure the People:
Of course this is hard, but there is a large British population living in the Republic of Ireland, there is the uncertainty over the borders with the North. It is important for Enda Kenny to reassure the people. To tell them he and his government, and all government parties, will do everything they can in order to minimise the disruption to life for these citizens.
Enda Kenny needs to lead here, not back down, not wait to see what happens, but to put his head on the chopping block, to provide a figure for people with concerns to rally behind. He may make the wrong promises, the EU may come down heavy and make what we hope for impossible, but Kenny needs to stake his career on protecting the open border and the right of British citizens to live and work and vote here.
4. Follow His Assurance Up At the Negotiating Table:
Kenny, now with his position of Taoiseach on the line, then needs to go to the EU and go to the UK and fight for the best outcome for Ireland. If I were him I would be calling Downing Street as soon as a new PM is appointed and arranging a trade and movement of people meeting.
The agreements we have with the UK come more as a result of our former stance as a colony, dominion and member of the Commonwealth than from any formal agreements and laws, it is the status quo, not the rule of law.
This needs to change, the agreements between Ireland and the UK need to be formalised, before the European Union has time to react and say anything. Securing this deal is good for Irish people and our economy and citizens in the same way as it would be beneficial for the UK to formalise these agreements for the good of its own economy and citizenship.
This agenda will not be a priority for a new UK administration. This is where Kenny needs to step up again. He needs to hound the future PM and make sure that the relationship with Ireland is put on the agenda really quickly.
5. Push for EU Reform:
It has been outlined above what I think is rotten in the EU in relation to Ireland and our representation within that Union. I have already expressed that I do not wish for an 'ever closer union', nor do I wish for Ireland to leave the European Union, but EU Reform is certainly required.
I hope for
Conclusion:
This period offers us a great amount of uncertainty, but every challenge presents an opportunity far greater than the challenge. I hope and pray for greater relationships with the UK and Independent Scotland in the future and for great relationships with our European partners.
I see an ever friendlier, but politically independent and democratic European community as a real possibility for the future of the European Union.
Our politicians: Irish, UK and EU, all need to be sensible and reasonable with one another, maintaining friendship in the best interests of the country and in the relations between nations.
Irish politicians need to be 'aggressive' not passive. They need to keep the Irish agenda on the desk in Downing Street and the issue of an ever friendlier, but politically independent and democratic European community on the desk in Brussels and Berlin.
Friday, 10 June 2016
TotD: United Nations Human Rights Committee
On Thursday (09/06/16) it became widely known in the Irish media that the United Nations Human Rights Committee returned a verdict on a case brought to it by a Dublin lady who had to travel to England to get an abortion back in 2011.
The UN HR Committee has declared the treatment of this lady as inhumane and degrading. It is certainly an extreme case, the baby had a rare extra 18th chromosome that would likely have ended in still birth or death by the age of one. The pregnancy was also wanted, and the mother devastated by the news she would likely give birth to a stillborn baby when she was 21 weeks pregnant. She then had some psychological issues, imaging the baby already dead and other horrible things.
The reality of this situation has to be kept in mind, what this lady and those around her went through is undoubtably horrible, traumatic and difficult. However, we cannot make legal decisions based on extreme circumstances.
The UN has made a number of findings, or criticisms of Ireland's handling of abortion in circumstances like these.
The UN committee stated that options on abortion were not presented to this lady, bar from it being mentioned she could go to the UK. The UN points out a difficulty Irish support agencies have in providing information about abortion to those who want to go through with one and supporting and promoting abortion. Consequentially, she wasn't informed of where to go in the UK etc.
-This is a ridiculous comment. If something is illegal in a country it would never be a country's policy to tell you where you can do the illegal thing... That makes no sense. Obviously, issues surrounding abortion are sensitive and deep, but on a purely legal level the UN has suggested something similar to the following scenario:
A person addicted to cannabis moves from a country where it is legal to possess and use cannabis to Ireland. Consequentially, they suffer from various issues and distresses related to going cold turkey from not being able to get cannabis and wisely not trusting the black market. The person goes to a medical professional who tells them they can fly to Amsterdam, where it would be possible for them to get cannabis without having to use the illegal black market.
The person does so and comes back to Ireland, less financially stable than when they left, they decide to take Ireland to 'court' because of the distress they were caused in not being able to find cannabis legally in their familiar environment and not being provided with information such as where to go to get the cannabis once they got to Amsterdam.
Legally speaking, the system of not over providing information on abortion makes so much sense.
A second complaint was that she was unable to access public monies to pay for the abortion and so was out of pocket, not receiving the same support (otherwise and financially) she would have been able to receive had she decided to carry the child to stillbirth (or potentially birth).
-This actually makes me angry. This is from the UN's report:
"On 28 November 2011, she flew with her husband to Liverpool and the following day she received medication at the Women’s Hospital to begin the process of terminating her pregnancy. On 1 December she received further medication to induce labor. She was in labor for 36 hours and on 2 December she delivered a stillborn baby girl. Still feeling weak and bleeding, she had to travel back to Dublin, only 12 hours after the delivery, as they could not afford staying longer in the UK.a There is no financial assistance from the state or from private health insurers for women who terminate pregnancies abroad."
Really? Is she serious? There are a lot of other things not covered by medical cards that could do with coming under it faster than an abortion... like most dental work besides extractions (pretty much the only thing covered besides 2 metal fillings, and not on the same tooth within five years).
The lady in question stated that the reason she wanted to terminate the pregnancy was to avoid having to let the child go through pain. However, there is evidence to suggest that babies of 21 weeks can feel pain (this is difficult to tell as they cannot actually tell us they do); therefore her decision to kill the child to save her from pain is senseless. Her doctor attempted to dissuade her when they found a heartbeat after she heard the baby's diagnosis, but she chose to continue with the abortion. In this sense this case can be seen as euthanasia, the woman wanted to save pain for her daughter and so thought it best to kill her than to see her suffer. Euthanasia is also illegal (with the exception of switching off life support machines which is considered by some to be euthanasia).
The Irish State representatives responded saying that the current provisions regarding abortion, as expressed in the 8th Amendment of the Constitution, represented the electorate of Ireland's stance on this issue. The lady questioned this, saying opinion polls show support for abortion. While this is certainly true, from a purely legal standpoint the law is the law, and until the Referendum, which is likely to occur in the lifetime of the present government, it remains the law. Whatever you think of the law, you can't just say "yeah, but people don't actually like that law" and it be a viable prosecuting point.
Again, the UN has been idiotic here. They state that even though something might be illegal in domestic law that it could still be in violation of UN law.
-So now the UN, an unelected body, has decided that it has the right to decide on whether laws surrounding moral actions are right or wrong? Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice this should make your blood boil. If we truly hold that democracy is the best of a bad bunch of ways of governing ourselves then the United Nations, an unelected body, saying something like that should be an affront to you.
Presently, Britain debates Brexit, often stated grounds are the fact that the European Union, largely unelected, makes decisions and supersedes Britain's own made laws. In a time when countries are beginning to realise that being part of these bigger organisations sometimes presents a cost that is too great in terms of sovereignty, the United Nations would be wise not to step beyond its charter and start making pronouncements about the international legality of laws.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee is perfectly entitled to believe what it will but to suggest as it has: "The State party should amend its law on voluntary termination of pregnancy, including if necessary its Constitution, to ensure compliance with the Covenant, including effective, timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy termination in Ireland, and take measures to ensure that healthcare providers are in a position to supply full information on safe abortion services without fearing being subjected to criminal sanctions." certainly oversteps that.
It has often been a question in the abortion debate as to whether a foetus counts as a human being, is a baby a baby from conception or from birth. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) unfortunately begins with "from birth", making its position known.
It is part of a repeating cycle of history that certain people are considered as less than human.
-In Sparta it was those who couldn't hold their own in a battle, and they would be left to die.
-In some cultures it was the elderly, who became an unnecessary burden and would be left to die or leave to die.
-Other times it has been baby girls.
-Other places it was children born with a disability.
-For a long time it was anyone who wasn't white.
-For a period in Europe it was someone who had a Jewish grandparent.
Over and over again we, as the human race, have devised these theories and schemes to convince ourselves that 'the other' (whoever that other is for the particular period) is so other that they could not be human as we are.
For this generation it is unborn babies that we have come up with theories and methods and ideas until, for many of us, we have convinced ourselves that unborn babies are not actually babies (except in the case of Kate Middleton's unborn babies, who were seldom if ever called foetuses, but unborn babies in even the most liberal of media outlets. So, is the difference between an unborn baby and a foetus not the amount of time, but how wanted the child is, because that's certainly the message!)
Some, if not most, of the above list are considered crimes against humanity now.
I am 100% sure that at some point in the future people will sit down and have a good think for themselves; I'm sure a cup of Barry's Tea will be involved in the scenario, and they will realise, "hey wait, unborn babies are people too." William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln and others like them will have to come on the scene again and fight this inhumane practice, this crime against humanity (because unborn babies are humans), in our courts and governments, and Civil Wars [let's hope not].
Then we'll have the word unbornists added to our vocabulary (please come up with a better word people of the future).
The distress caused to the woman who took out the case against Ireland was severe and intense, no one can deny that. However, distress, no matter how severe and intense, does not make her right in this instance.
The UN HR Committee has declared the treatment of this lady as inhumane and degrading. It is certainly an extreme case, the baby had a rare extra 18th chromosome that would likely have ended in still birth or death by the age of one. The pregnancy was also wanted, and the mother devastated by the news she would likely give birth to a stillborn baby when she was 21 weeks pregnant. She then had some psychological issues, imaging the baby already dead and other horrible things.
The reality of this situation has to be kept in mind, what this lady and those around her went through is undoubtably horrible, traumatic and difficult. However, we cannot make legal decisions based on extreme circumstances.
The UN has made a number of findings, or criticisms of Ireland's handling of abortion in circumstances like these.
The UN committee stated that options on abortion were not presented to this lady, bar from it being mentioned she could go to the UK. The UN points out a difficulty Irish support agencies have in providing information about abortion to those who want to go through with one and supporting and promoting abortion. Consequentially, she wasn't informed of where to go in the UK etc.
-This is a ridiculous comment. If something is illegal in a country it would never be a country's policy to tell you where you can do the illegal thing... That makes no sense. Obviously, issues surrounding abortion are sensitive and deep, but on a purely legal level the UN has suggested something similar to the following scenario:
A person addicted to cannabis moves from a country where it is legal to possess and use cannabis to Ireland. Consequentially, they suffer from various issues and distresses related to going cold turkey from not being able to get cannabis and wisely not trusting the black market. The person goes to a medical professional who tells them they can fly to Amsterdam, where it would be possible for them to get cannabis without having to use the illegal black market.
The person does so and comes back to Ireland, less financially stable than when they left, they decide to take Ireland to 'court' because of the distress they were caused in not being able to find cannabis legally in their familiar environment and not being provided with information such as where to go to get the cannabis once they got to Amsterdam.
Legally speaking, the system of not over providing information on abortion makes so much sense.
A second complaint was that she was unable to access public monies to pay for the abortion and so was out of pocket, not receiving the same support (otherwise and financially) she would have been able to receive had she decided to carry the child to stillbirth (or potentially birth).
-This actually makes me angry. This is from the UN's report:
"On 28 November 2011, she flew with her husband to Liverpool and the following day she received medication at the Women’s Hospital to begin the process of terminating her pregnancy. On 1 December she received further medication to induce labor. She was in labor for 36 hours and on 2 December she delivered a stillborn baby girl. Still feeling weak and bleeding, she had to travel back to Dublin, only 12 hours after the delivery, as they could not afford staying longer in the UK.a There is no financial assistance from the state or from private health insurers for women who terminate pregnancies abroad."
Really? Is she serious? There are a lot of other things not covered by medical cards that could do with coming under it faster than an abortion... like most dental work besides extractions (pretty much the only thing covered besides 2 metal fillings, and not on the same tooth within five years).
The lady in question stated that the reason she wanted to terminate the pregnancy was to avoid having to let the child go through pain. However, there is evidence to suggest that babies of 21 weeks can feel pain (this is difficult to tell as they cannot actually tell us they do); therefore her decision to kill the child to save her from pain is senseless. Her doctor attempted to dissuade her when they found a heartbeat after she heard the baby's diagnosis, but she chose to continue with the abortion. In this sense this case can be seen as euthanasia, the woman wanted to save pain for her daughter and so thought it best to kill her than to see her suffer. Euthanasia is also illegal (with the exception of switching off life support machines which is considered by some to be euthanasia).
The Irish State representatives responded saying that the current provisions regarding abortion, as expressed in the 8th Amendment of the Constitution, represented the electorate of Ireland's stance on this issue. The lady questioned this, saying opinion polls show support for abortion. While this is certainly true, from a purely legal standpoint the law is the law, and until the Referendum, which is likely to occur in the lifetime of the present government, it remains the law. Whatever you think of the law, you can't just say "yeah, but people don't actually like that law" and it be a viable prosecuting point.
Again, the UN has been idiotic here. They state that even though something might be illegal in domestic law that it could still be in violation of UN law.
-So now the UN, an unelected body, has decided that it has the right to decide on whether laws surrounding moral actions are right or wrong? Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice this should make your blood boil. If we truly hold that democracy is the best of a bad bunch of ways of governing ourselves then the United Nations, an unelected body, saying something like that should be an affront to you.
Presently, Britain debates Brexit, often stated grounds are the fact that the European Union, largely unelected, makes decisions and supersedes Britain's own made laws. In a time when countries are beginning to realise that being part of these bigger organisations sometimes presents a cost that is too great in terms of sovereignty, the United Nations would be wise not to step beyond its charter and start making pronouncements about the international legality of laws.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee is perfectly entitled to believe what it will but to suggest as it has: "The State party should amend its law on voluntary termination of pregnancy, including if necessary its Constitution, to ensure compliance with the Covenant, including effective, timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy termination in Ireland, and take measures to ensure that healthcare providers are in a position to supply full information on safe abortion services without fearing being subjected to criminal sanctions." certainly oversteps that.
It has often been a question in the abortion debate as to whether a foetus counts as a human being, is a baby a baby from conception or from birth. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) unfortunately begins with "from birth", making its position known.
It is part of a repeating cycle of history that certain people are considered as less than human.
-In Sparta it was those who couldn't hold their own in a battle, and they would be left to die.
-In some cultures it was the elderly, who became an unnecessary burden and would be left to die or leave to die.
-Other times it has been baby girls.
-Other places it was children born with a disability.
-For a long time it was anyone who wasn't white.
-For a period in Europe it was someone who had a Jewish grandparent.
Over and over again we, as the human race, have devised these theories and schemes to convince ourselves that 'the other' (whoever that other is for the particular period) is so other that they could not be human as we are.
For this generation it is unborn babies that we have come up with theories and methods and ideas until, for many of us, we have convinced ourselves that unborn babies are not actually babies (except in the case of Kate Middleton's unborn babies, who were seldom if ever called foetuses, but unborn babies in even the most liberal of media outlets. So, is the difference between an unborn baby and a foetus not the amount of time, but how wanted the child is, because that's certainly the message!)
Some, if not most, of the above list are considered crimes against humanity now.
I am 100% sure that at some point in the future people will sit down and have a good think for themselves; I'm sure a cup of Barry's Tea will be involved in the scenario, and they will realise, "hey wait, unborn babies are people too." William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln and others like them will have to come on the scene again and fight this inhumane practice, this crime against humanity (because unborn babies are humans), in our courts and governments, and Civil Wars [let's hope not].
Then we'll have the word unbornists added to our vocabulary (please come up with a better word people of the future).
The distress caused to the woman who took out the case against Ireland was severe and intense, no one can deny that. However, distress, no matter how severe and intense, does not make her right in this instance.
Wednesday, 11 May 2016
Love Wins: A Review
To start off, Love Wins is the title of a 2011 Christian book by a guy called Rob Bell, that is what is being reviewed here, not the marriage referendum or the decision of the United States Supreme Court to federally legalise gay marriages. This book has nothing to do with homosexuality, but everything to do with the Gospel.
I've been meaning to read Rob Bell's Love Wins for some time. Since its publication in 2011 it has been surrounded by criticism, rejection and the cry of heresy. When there is such a strong reaction to anything it really makes you curious about what is being said. For the longest time I have had on my Kindle the orthodox (small o) Christian response to this book by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle.
Rob Bell, in my opinion, writes to a Christianity that does not officially exist. I have found it quite difficult to see where he is coming from in this book, he is often not very clear in his thought trains (and this book is written like a train of thought).
So, he never defines the Christianity he is speaking against, but here are some of the elements I have concluded from what he says about the Christianity he is denouncing.
- Christians are saved to leave earth forever and go to heaven.
- The Earth is destroyed at the end of time.
- When we are saved we have to work to maintain our salvation or make God happy.
- The God other Christians believe in is actually not good because He would allow people to choose hell.
- You have to be told about Jesus to believe in Him (as opposed to having a vision in Bagdad or something similar)
- That God is not interested in the restoration of all things, only a select number of human beings.
Now, I don't know about you, but that isn't the Christianity I follow, that isn't the God I know, that isn't the Gospel that was preached to me, that is not the testimony of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me.
The fact that many Christians in America may believe in that form of Christianity is sad, it really saddens me. If it is true that there are many Christians believing the above list of things about God and Jesus and the Gospel then a book certainly needs to be written in order to address those issues scripturally and biblically, which of course they all can be.
However,
This is not that book! Rob Bell has chosen the worst aspects people believe about the Gospel and Christianity and used them as his backdrop for a belief that simply is not right.
That means that there is a tonne of good stuff in this book, so much gold! However, Bell uses it all to say Hell is what we make it, basically. It's not a real place and we can all be happy and go skipping through the Fields of Ashphodel because they all lead to Elysium anyway... That's simply not the case and is misleading.
The blend of great truth after great truth with a conclusion that is a lie reminds me of something else, someone else, somewhere else who said "Did God say?" That's strong, I know... but that's often how the conclusions (where they were clearly stated which did not happen often) left me feeling.
Below are my notes that I took as I read through the book. I'm including them here because I think it can help you see better what I mean by all of the above, better than just aluding to it but showing you examples of the different things and places and areas I found what I have just introduced.
As always, please feel free to comment or enter dialogue about any of this, and if you want to ask an anonymous question you can do so at ask.fm/Wavey1111
Bell, R. (2011) Love Wins: At the Heart of Life's Big Questions, London: Collins
I've been meaning to read Rob Bell's Love Wins for some time. Since its publication in 2011 it has been surrounded by criticism, rejection and the cry of heresy. When there is such a strong reaction to anything it really makes you curious about what is being said. For the longest time I have had on my Kindle the orthodox (small o) Christian response to this book by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle.
Rob Bell, in my opinion, writes to a Christianity that does not officially exist. I have found it quite difficult to see where he is coming from in this book, he is often not very clear in his thought trains (and this book is written like a train of thought).
So, he never defines the Christianity he is speaking against, but here are some of the elements I have concluded from what he says about the Christianity he is denouncing.
- Christians are saved to leave earth forever and go to heaven.
- The Earth is destroyed at the end of time.
- When we are saved we have to work to maintain our salvation or make God happy.
- The God other Christians believe in is actually not good because He would allow people to choose hell.
- You have to be told about Jesus to believe in Him (as opposed to having a vision in Bagdad or something similar)
- That God is not interested in the restoration of all things, only a select number of human beings.
Now, I don't know about you, but that isn't the Christianity I follow, that isn't the God I know, that isn't the Gospel that was preached to me, that is not the testimony of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me.
The fact that many Christians in America may believe in that form of Christianity is sad, it really saddens me. If it is true that there are many Christians believing the above list of things about God and Jesus and the Gospel then a book certainly needs to be written in order to address those issues scripturally and biblically, which of course they all can be.
However,
This is not that book! Rob Bell has chosen the worst aspects people believe about the Gospel and Christianity and used them as his backdrop for a belief that simply is not right.
That means that there is a tonne of good stuff in this book, so much gold! However, Bell uses it all to say Hell is what we make it, basically. It's not a real place and we can all be happy and go skipping through the Fields of Ashphodel because they all lead to Elysium anyway... That's simply not the case and is misleading.
The blend of great truth after great truth with a conclusion that is a lie reminds me of something else, someone else, somewhere else who said "Did God say?" That's strong, I know... but that's often how the conclusions (where they were clearly stated which did not happen often) left me feeling.
Below are my notes that I took as I read through the book. I'm including them here because I think it can help you see better what I mean by all of the above, better than just aluding to it but showing you examples of the different things and places and areas I found what I have just introduced.
As always, please feel free to comment or enter dialogue about any of this, and if you want to ask an anonymous question you can do so at ask.fm/Wavey1111
Bell, R. (2011) Love Wins: At the Heart of Life's Big Questions, London: Collins
People who have read this book have said that Bell isn't as overtly universalist as people have interpreted. However, in the preface he states:
"A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian Faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus's message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." (VIII)
Nope, Bell seems to think the book is exactly what his detractors say it's about!
In the preface you can clearly see the influence of postmodern thinking on Bell:
"The ancient sages said the words of the sacred text were black letters on a white page-- there's all that white space, waiting to be filled with our responses and discussions and debates and opinions and longings and desires and wisdom and insights." (X)
Note how Bell does not specify where the quote of the ancients ends and his own thoughts on it begin. He is saying that this is exactly what the ancients meant. When likely the quote means Scripture is black and white!
In the preface also, Bell tries to point out that this way of thinking is the ancient Christian way of thinking without backing it up.
"I haven't come up with a radical new teaching that's any kind of departure from what's been said an untold number of times. That's the beauty of the historic, orthodox Christian faith." (X)
1 What about the Flat Tire?
Again we have the issue of people going to Hell. Bell brings up Ghandi as a good, peaceful non-Christian man, and the idea that we can never know whether someone is in hell or not. (2)
He then goes on to ask questions about the fairness of God and the difficulty of being part of the "in" Christian crowd (2-3)
Bell basically goes on to question every Christian salvation doctrine to raise doubt in people's minds, it seems to me he's attempting to make orthodox Christian soteriology out to be nonsensical and even horrible. I have to say... This sounds like the actions of someone else who questioned God in a like manner (Genesis 3). The similarities between Satan's questioning of God and Bell's questioning are obvious, though he says he is questioning like Jesus is; the irreverence in the tone and word choice is not something you would ever see in the questions asked by Jesus. (5)
All this leads to the good point that often Christians only care if someone is going to heaven or not and abandon the earth because their limited theology sees heaven as their destination and Earth as something to leave be burned up. (6)
I agree with Bell here, mainstream Christianity needs to take more interest in the world around them and care about what's going on: feed the sick etc. (7) however. That doesn't mean we reject Scripture in order to do social good. That's foolishness!
"Some Jesuses should be rejected." (9)
Here here, possibly including yours... Not sure I haven't met him yet!
He points out that the term "personal relationship with Jesus" is found nowhere in the Bible or Christian history until the 19th century. (10)
He also points out that Christianity is called a free gift that is by grace not put actions and that accepting and believing are verbs and so actions so how does that work together? (11)
Finally a good couple of points. Let's see how he sorts these out. Though I think I can guess!
2 Here is the New There:
He is talking about heaven as being somewhere else, as if it is wrong that heaven is somewhere else. This guy is in serious need of a Bible!
“We might call them “eras” or “periods of time”: this age—the one we’re living in—and the age to come… So according to Jesus there is this age, this aion—the one they, and we, are living in—and then a coming age, also called “the world to come” or simply “eternity”.
“Seeing the present and future in terms of two ages was not a concept or teaching that originated with Jesus.” (30-2)
Does he hear himself? He has just spent a page and a half explaining that there are two different periods and then concludes there isn’t...
“heaven on earth” (33). Yes, well done, that’s orthodox Christian teaching, but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a heaven in heaven between this and the new earth.
When he is talking about the new age being on earth, as if some day it will just happen… What about everyone who has died? (40)
“the more actively you participate now in ordering and working to bring about God’s kind of world, the more ready you will be to assume an even greater role in the age to come.” (40) Agreed!
"Taking heaven seriously, then, means taking suffering seriously, now. Not because we've bought into the myth that we can create a utopia given enough time, technology and good voting choices, but because we have great confidence that God has not abandoned human history and is actively at work within it, taking it somewhere." (45) Amen!
Bell quotes verses such as "away from me you evil doer". Interesting to see how this fits with everyone gets to heaven ideas. (52)
Ok, so as weirdly as some things are worded this chapter is orthodox Christianity through and through. The new earth is this earth, the earth won't be destroyed, eternal life isn't just then but it starts now, those who are faithful with a little now are given a lot then, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven", what will last besides activities that will be done in heaven so do those now. All great stuff, but the preface points that something will go wrong in future chapters!
3 Hell:
“Do I believe in a literal hell? Of course. Those aren’t metaphorical missing arms and legs.” (71)
Though Bell’s theology of heaven is more accurate than this statement about hell seems to be, it does appear that there is a descending work in Bell’s theology. He brings heaven down to being on earth, and hell down to only being on earth.
He talks about Luke 16 and the carrying of Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom as him going to heaven. Not usually an accepted idea. Abraham’s bosom is thought to be the good part of Sheol, the part where people were waiting for the Messiah in faith. (74)
Bell points out that the rich man asking Lazarus to bring him water is asking Lazarus to serve him. That he still believes Lazarus to be below him as he was in life. He then concludes that the chasm between them is the condition of the man’s heart, because in death he still sees Lazarus as below him. (75) I think that’s reading into the story a bit much!
“The gospel Jesus spreads in the book of Luke has as one of its main themes that Jesus brings a social revolution… Everybody is a brother, a sister. Equals, children of the God who shows no favoritism. To reject this new social order was to reject Jesus.” (75-6)
Really? That’s a very low view of what Jesus came to do. Salvation is much more than that, and the Bible talks about serving God in your present position, whether slave or free.
“This is not to say that hell is not a pointed, urgent warning or that it isn’t intimately connected with what we actually do believe, but simply to point out that Jesus talked about hell to the people who considered themselves “in,” warning them that their hard hearts were putting their “in-ness” at risk, reminding them that whatever “chosen-ness” or “election” meant, whatever special standing they believed they had with God was always, only, ever about their being the kind of transformed, generous, loving people through whom God could show the world what God’s love looks like in flesh and blood.” (82-3)
Bell talks about how there is hope for Sodom and Gomorrah even now, and he cites Ezekiel 16 to back up his position (85). Ezekiel 16 is all about how Judah has been ‘whoring’ after other gods and using the good things god has given to pay those who she whores with for sex with her (she isn’t making money, but spending God’s money). Then God compares her to Samaria and to Sodom and says that by comparison the deeds of Judah make Sodom look righteous (v. 52) I don’t know how literal this Sodom restoration is?
Bell mentions Isaiah 19 where it says there will be an altar in Egypt and remarks that the enemies of God will even worship Him, he interprets this as those who presently don’t worship God in the twenty-first century, will live on and worship God on the New Earth. That’s reading too much into it. The point is probably more that the great mystery of the Gospel, Jews and Gentiles as one, would be fulfilled and even Egyptians would become part of God’s family. (88)
4 Does God Get What God Wants?
“Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants [based on 1 Timothy 2]? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?” (98) As if our failure to come to God, to enter into Covenant with Him, is somehow a failure on His part?
99-100 quote a load of ‘all’ and ‘nations’ and ‘peoples’ verses and concludes this means all people will be saved, I don’t think it’s a fair conclusion. Ireland is often represented abroad by the President of Ireland, one man represents 4,500,000. If the President was at an event a commentator could correctly identify Ireland as being present, though not all 4,500,000 of us were.
Luther, asked about whether he believed after death there would be a second chance, basically said he wouldn’t put it past God, and if one second chance why not more, as many as it takes, so people eventually get to heaven, only staying in Hell as long as they ‘want’ to. (106-7)
Part of his "everyone goes to heaven" argument is that it makes a better story that God would do that than the story that God would allow people to be punished for eternity and not give second chances. (110-1) It’s not your story to decide Bell, it’s God’s!
He concludes that God loves us enough to give us what we want, heaven or hell. (118-9)
5 Dying to Live:
“When people say that Jesus came to die on the cross so that we can have a relationship with God, yes, that is true. But that explanation as the first explanation puts us at the center. For the first Christians, the story was, first foremost, bigger, grander. More massive. When Jesus is presented only as the answer that saves individuals from their sin and death, we run the risk of shrinking the Gospel down to something just for humans, when God has inaugurated a moment in Jesus’s resurrection to renew, restore, and reconcile everything “on earth or in heaven” (Col. 1), just as God originally intended it.” (134) Keller says this too, in Center Church, a better read than this book.
6 There are Rocks Everywhere:
The rock is the one in Exodus that Paul says is Christ.
He says that people can experience Christ (in a rock like experience) and not even know it is Christ, and be saved.
I think Acts 17 about the former times of ignorance counters this.
However, I agree completely that people can come to a saving knowledge of Jesus anywhere in the world, with or without contact from Christians… but they have to know who they are relying on, it can’t be some ‘force’, it has to be Jesus.
7 The Good News is Better Than That:
In Luke 15 the older brother is at the party. I cannot exactly tell what conclusions Bell is drawing from that, but it sounds like he is saying Hell isn’t one place and heaven another, it’s a state of our hearts… This is certainly not respecting the genre of parable. Parables tell a story, a relatable story, with a point. This story has three main points, one for each character (though the main main point is likely the older brother). The story contains truth about God, those of us in rebellion against God and those of us who are religious but whose hearts are far from God. The fact that it ends at a party says nothing about heaven and hell, and that is reading too much in to things in my opinion. (168-70)
“We believe all sorts of things about ourselves. What the gospel does is confront our version of the story with God’s version of the story.” (171)
“Again, then, we create hell whenever we fail to trust God’s retelling of our story.” (173) How?
He talks about God being loving and merciful and forgiving and patient etc. until the moment of death if we don’t believe the right things. Then He becomes ‘cruel and a torturer’. Bell says this is not the sort of God he wants to follow. (174) The wording here makes it sound like we deserve the goodness of God. The fact that we do not face the wrath of God constantly is a sheer act of God’s love, mercy and patience. That God has allotted times for men to come to Him does not make Him any less loving or merciful.
“And that is the secret deep in the heart of many people, especially Christians: they don’t love God. They can’t, because the God they’ve been presented with and taught about can’t be loved. That God is terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable.” (174-5)
This line actually made me very angry. I love that God is merciful and forgiving and does not treat me as my sins deserve. I love that He pours common grace out on this world. I love that every second of every day He is sustaining and maintaining this world, and stopping it from descending into chaos. However, I also love that God is just, that He has no intentions of letting people who have hurt me and have hurt Him get away with those things scot free (yeah, it freaks me out that He will also judge me, but I would rather that than nothing). I love that those people who have hurt me and Him are, like I was, given a chance to know Him and come into fellowship both with me and Him, just as I was. I love that some day He will wipe away every tear and make all things right. I love that He loves us enough not to force us to love Him, not to overtake the free will He gave us and coerce us into knowing Him and being in relationship with Him. It pains Him, as it should pain me, to see anyone die separated from Him, but the reality is He loves us enough to let us decide, and I love Him for that.
“When the gospel is understood primarily in terms of entrance rather than joyous participation, it can actually serve to cut people off from the explosive, liberating experience of the God who is an endless giving circle of joy and creativity.” (179) Very true.
“God is not a slave driver. The good news is better than that.” (181) Agreed, but don’t agree with Bell's conclusions about people living it up while we go to church and work away for God instead of experience life to the full.
“This is crucial for our peace, because we shape our God, and then our God shapes us.” (182) Okay, that’s stupid! God is God is God!
The older brother “thinks the Father owes him.” (186)
“Our badness can separate us from God’s love, that’s clear. But our goodness can separate us from God’s love as well.” (187) So true, relying on our works and not Christ will never bring us to heaven.
“Our trusting, our change of heart, our believing God’s version of our story doesn’t bring it [our place in His kingdom] into existence, make it happen or create it. It simply is.” (188). I agree, but not with the tone of the book around it. We can still not take our place, like how when SF was elected to the second Dáil and didn’t take their seats. The position was there, they just didn’t take it. I think the testimony of Scripture is that God has made a way and a place for us, but we need to enter into it, not that we are automatically in.
8 The End is Here:
In this last chapter, or conclusion really, he finally address some of the Scripture that has been missing from anywhere above, and he offers no different explanation for why Jesus talks about the five bridesmaids being left outside the wedding because they weren’t ready, except to say “live like the end is here, now, today.” (197). It really isn’t an adequate explanation of what he has just called “strong, shocking images of judgment and separation in which people miss out on rewards and celebrations and opportunities.” (197)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)