As promised, I'm going to tackle the very difficult issue of abortion and the very real case of pregnancy secondary to forced intercourse like rape and incest. As I do, please know that I have not considered this in a vacuum; that is, this very situation is reported to be the reason for obtaining an abortion for at least 10,000 women per year (Guttmacher Institute Study, p. 297). This is a substantial number of women who have been violated and who are faced with this almost unimaginable situation. We need to consider this in anything we might say on the issue: real people have been hurt greatly in our broken and unredeemed world. The typical 'pro-life' response to this question is something akin to saying (yes, I present it as a caricature here) "Don't have an abortion now that you're pregnant because two wrongs don't make a right." This (somewhat callous) response is natural if one is working from the typical argument that the embryo or fetus is a person and shouldn't be terminated as a result because they are a) innocent and b) have rights. I talked a lot about why I think this isn't the foundational line of thinking we Christians should hold to, as a people called to faith, on the abortion issue. That goes for the issue in general, as discussed in my message over the weekend and in my post the other day, as well as for the issue in this specific context. Yet others, who are to be respected, make this a chief line of argumentation. This is understandable and works better in secular debate but misses (I think) the very gift we must offer women facing this circumstance. It also misses the best of what we are called to as a people of faith. The gift we have to offer - a great gift indeed - is best seen in retrospect. Not a retrospective look at how this has played out in any woman's life but rather how it worked out in one man's life. This man, who was a few years younger than me, was brutally tortured and then unjustly executed. To say that he was unjustly executed is an understatement; he was completely innocent of the crimes of which he was accused. Yet this man, while being tortured, held no anger in his heart against his torturers, but rather, sought their good. Of course I'm talking about Jesus, crucified on a cross. To be tortured on the cross was an unimaginable horror and yet, because of his trust in our Father, Jesus endured it and remarkable things happened as a result. The bible says that we were redeemed (Romans 3:23-25) because Jesus refused to cut short our Father's redemptive plan (Matthew 26:39; Romans 3:26). Not only that, but all of creation was redeemed because Jesus refused to go his own way (Colossians 1:20). And in a remarkable turn, even the very image of injustice itself - the cross - was redeemed from being a symbol of oppression, injustice, and pain and was transformed into the very picture of hope, justice, and salvation for billions of souls. All this happened through as Jesus trusted in His Father's power and love. Jesus endured that cross because of the hope and joy set before him - the hope of a redeeming Father on the other side (Hebrews 12:2). The gift that we have to offer any woman facing this situation is this hope. Hope in the redemptive power of our God beyond any circumstance, beyond any cross, beyond any wrong even rape or incest. The gift that we have to offer - and which we must offer - is hope in the God who can bring good into the world and into our lives even beyond a terrible evil that has occurred. I have read of women for whom such redemption has occurred either through the blessing their child became to them personally or to others through adoption. Perhaps this is the healing they needed, not the healing of forgetting the past, but the healing that comes as God changes the meaning of the past by working in the present to bring good from evil. As the people of Christ, we are not about what people shouldn't do but rather about the fact that there is good news to be found in Jesus. To offer only the former or even mostly the former is to fail in our call to be a blessing in our world. And the good news is that we know a God who redeems not only individuals but the broken pieces of our history, corporate and individual. It is to this God that we must point everyone. It is to this loving God which we must especially point those who've been trampled under by the feet of injustice. And then, in reflection of this redeeming God we must love those in need as he loves them, with a radical, self-sacrificing, healing love, expressed daily on behalf of another. There is no easy answer here. But the answer we have to give - Christ and the healing that comes through faith and trust in him even in this - we must give. To anything less is to cheat another human being from the hope we find so transforming.

Oh boy, politics and the church... in the church! What a combination. Truth be told I was looking forward to studying this topic and after that, to sharing on this topic (posted here). As I mentioned in my sermon, I believe that politics can steal what should never be stolen: a part of our identity, at least a piece of our allegiance, and a whole lot of our hope. With regard to identity, we can pull from anywhere to define ourselves. This "anywhere" might be our roles within our family, our work, our education, our sports teams, or even our political party. Paul has a list of what he used to identify himself by in Philippians 3:3-6. After coming to Christ though, he seems to have come to the understanding that we must hold tentatively to those things that are not God-given (e.g., our job, our education, our religious zeal, our political registration) while we hold tenaciously to those things that are God-given, especially our relationship with Jesus Christ. He states this stronger than I do, but the principle is at work, nevertheless (see Philippians 3:7-8 where Paul calls his badges of honor skubalon...here's what it means...and says he defines himself by one thing...his relationship with and pursuit of Christ). This has implications for how we define ourselves, for our identity. We must define the Christian by their relationship with Christ, rather than their political party. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case as some (though perhaps not many) have trouble seeing how a person could really be a Christian and yet vote for candidate 'D' or candidate 'R' (depending upon the church culture one is in). If we do indeed fall into this trap of defining ourselves or someone else by any of these things - even by a political affiliation - we have an intrusion into our true identity, which is one thing only: followers of Christ. As I studied for this message, the key for me was a deeper understanding of Philippians 3:20, where Paul tells the citizens of Philippi, many of whom were also citizens of Rome, something remarkable. Whereas others may be citizens of this or that colony or empire, you Christians, Paul says, are first citizens of heaven. We need to keep in mind that this probably meant something different to the original readers of Philippians than it does on first blush to us. NT Wright sums up how these early Christians would have read Paul's words:

At once many modern Christians misunderstand what he means. We naturally suppose he means "and so we're waiting until we can go and live I heaven where we belong." But that's not what he says, and it's certainly not what he means. If someone in Philippi said, "We are citizens of Rome," they certainly wouldn't mean "so we're looking forward to going to live there." Being a colony works the other way round. The last thing the emperors wanted was a whole lot of colonists coming back to Rome. The capital was already overcrowded and underemployed. No: the task of the Roman citizen in a place like Philippi was to bring Roman culture and rule to northern Greece, to expand Roman influence there. [emphasis mine / quote from Paul for Everyone]

This being the case, what are we to understand? We are to understand that first and foremost our allegience is not to the nation of our origin but to the land of our Father. We are citizens of heaven and as such we must seek his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. We are to expand his influence here! Now, as citizens of heaven - as people who's first allegiance is to our heavenly country - we must be better citizens of these United States. No, that's not strong enough: we should be exemplary citizens (see, for example, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and Titus 3:1). But politics tries to steal us away from this truth and make us first citizens of the United States instead of citizens of heaven. This is backward for the Christian: our first allegiance is to our heavenly home (and this makes us better here in the US)! Don't fall prey to this political intrusion into your life, sink into the truth of your citizenship! Finally, the most insidious of political intrusions is an intrusion into the fundamentals of our hope. Politics is great at generating hope in what this candidate or that or this party or that can do for us or for our nation or for our world. But our hope is found only in Christ, as Paul says in Philippians 3:20! Whereas those apart from Christ (Philippians 3:19) hope in the kingdoms of this world and their power, we believe the hope for the world is found nowhere else but in Jesus Christ. And we must never give this up, we must never allow this part of us - our hope - to be taken away! In the end, the danger of politics in the church is the danger that we will use it to define our identity or anothers and that it will steal our allegiance away from the Kingdom of Heaven and, if it succeeds there, that it will steal away our very hope. So, there are three truths we must never forget: We are followers of Christ, not any political party or politician. We are citizens of heaven first, and citizens of other lands second. We are people who hope only in Christ, not in any other leader this world has to offer!

The discussion in this week's installment of 'Neglected' (message will be posted here later this week) was posed to me in two different ways:

• I have a friend of ______ religion. They don't believe that Jesus is who he says he is. Are they going to hell?
• I think we need to talk about the relationship of the Christian to members of other faiths - Islam, Judaism, Buddhism - and the church's relationship to those other faiths. In an increasingly interconnected world do we insist on evangelism and conversion, or do we find another way to work together?

In working through this, it is very important to me that we begin where Jesus began. Interestingly, he made statements relating to these questions that were both inclusive and exclusive in nature. In Matthew 28:18, for example, Jesus made both an inclusive and an exclusive claim. His statement here was inclusive in the sense that there wasn't any area in all of creation that was outside of his authority - it was and is all included. His statement was also exclusive in that it claimed that he, and he alone, was in charge. His point: there is no decision that escapes his authority. If this is true, and I believe his words to be true or I would not be his disciple, then decisions about who is saved and who is not are up to nobody but him. He has the authority in this domain. So we must ask, "What does he say about who is saved?" Again, he is both inclusive and exlusive in his statements. On the one hand, he says that God loves the (whole) world (John 3:16-17) and Jesus' first century followers Peter and Paul expressed similar thoughts in 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4, respectively. These statements are inclusive in nature. But there is particularity, or exclusivity, in Jesus' statements, too. He states that a person must believe in him to find salvation because by rejecting him the wrath of God remains on a person (John 3:35-36). Elsewhere, in an explicitly exclusive claim, Jesus claims to be the only path to the Father (John 14:6). So again, Jesus' statements as they relate to salvation are both inclusive (everyone is invited) and exclusive (there is only one Savior, himself, for any who would come receive the gift). With this background, we can move on to the questions that were raised earlier. Starting with the more general of the two, I would say that we must not insist on evangelism for those of other faiths and instead should work for even more, inviting those of other faiths to become Jesus' disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). This was Jesus' call to the followers with whom he had shared life before taking the cross; by extension, it is his call to us. It is not enough for us to end at mere evangelism because our call is to walk with others toward maturity in Christ. That being said, I am also of the mind that the Church has been woefully neglectful of building bridges with other faiths. To have to choose between evangelism (or discipleship as I've expanded it to be) or collaboration with those of other faiths is not something I am willing to do. Rather, to insist on both seems to give Christ the greatest honor. We must seek opportunities to converse and work with those of other faiths. Our call requires this and the world needs us to do this. In fact, I see this bridge-building to be an application of 1 Peter 3:15. Where, in the course of every day life (and particularly in the course of our shared work with those of other faiths), we will have opportunity to share our hope. But this is too general, isn't it? What about the specific question of your friend and their destiny. The key here is to remember that Christ alone has all authority. It is his decision, not mine, not yours. He is both the bridge to God (as the way, the truth, and the life) and the one who determines access to the bridge (no one comes to the Father except through him). Because I believe he is both wise and loving, I am comforted that he will work this out in every individual's life. I also trust his words that the whole question can only be put to rest in our lives when we believe in him (again, John 3:16-17,35-36). Because he is wise, I believe his words to be truth; because he is compassionate, I believe his words to be shared because he desires to help people find salvation and peace and to put the nagging question of eternal destiny to rest. There is only one way to do this, and he has stated it clearly. So what, in the end, are we to do? We are to have confidence that there is salvation in no one other than Jesus (Acts 4:12). We are to have confidence in Jesus' authority and his goodness. And finally, we are to make disciples knowing that no person is better off having never heard the good news of Jesus.

As most of you know, we're in the middle of a series called 'Neglected' where I've taken suggestions from CRCC members on what topics the church as a whole tends to neglect. Last Sunday's topic was Hell. In my preparation for my sermon, I had to laugh because so many of the resources I looked at repeated a familiar refrain, which went something like this: "Most Christians will never hear a sermon on the subject of hell." I found it humorous given that I knew I was going to be talking on the subject. As I promised at the close of yesterday's service (podcast site) you can find additional thoughts posted below. As I mentioned in the message, Jesus 'favorite' word for hell - that is, his most often used term - was gehenna, which has an interesting history:

Sulfur fires were part of life for those who lived in the Jerusalem of Bible times. Southwest of the city was the Valley of Hinnom, an area that had a long history of desecration. The steep gorge was once used to burn children in sacrifice to the Ammonite god Molech (2 Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35). Jeremiah denounced such practices by saying that Hinnom Valley would become the valley of God's judgment, a place of slaughter (Jeremiah 7:32; 19:5-7). As the years passed, a sense of foreboding hung over the valley. People began to burn their garbage and offal there, using sulfure, the flammable substance we now use in matches and in gunpowder. Eventually, the Hebrew name ge-hinnon (canyon of Hinnom) evolved into geenna (gehenna), the familiar greek word for hell (Matthew 5:22, 29; 10:28; 18:9; 23:33; Mark 9:43,45; Luke 12:5). Thus, when the Jews talked about punishment in the next life, what better image could they use than the smoldering valley they called gehenna? (William Crocket in Four Views on Hell)

All tallied, gehenna is used in the New Testament 12 times, 11 of which occur in the synoptics. Beyond this, he described hell as "the outer darkness" (e.g., Matthew 8:12) and with descriptive terms like "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 25:41), the place "where their worm does not die" (Mark 9:43-45), and as a place where there "will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (e.g., Matthew 8:12). Interestingly, most scholars do not associate sheol (used 66 times in the Old Testament) or hades (used 10 times in the New Testament) with hell.

Sheol as conceived in the Old Testament differs from the later doctrine of Hell in that it is the place where all the dead are gathered indiscriminately, both the good and the bad, the saints and the sinners. To die means to be joined to those who have gone before. When a Jew dies he is “gathered unto his people” (cf. Gn 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29; etc.) ... In the New Testament, 'Sheol' is tranlated into the Greek 'Hades'. (Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker encyclopedia of the Bible.)

The passage from which we worked most was Mark 9:43-48 where I believe Jesus point to be this: "Do whatever it takes to resolve unresolved sin, because unresolved sin will separate you from God." His use of the language of hell (gehenna) cannot be missed. It is a horrible place to "go into" - it is worse than you can imagine - because you are separated from God there. And why is there such a separation? It is not because God desires some to perish (2 Peter 3:9), rather, it is because of sin at its root, which is hostility toward God, a heart hardened toward him, not given to him or accepting his salvation, grace, and lead (Romans 3:9-12; 8:5-8). In such a case, what is there left to do? Jesus responds, seeing better than any the pain and suffering of a life apart from God, by choosing to give his life to bring us back to our Father (Philippians 2:4-11; 1 Timothy 1:15). Jesus deals with sin not only through a transaction of justice, a clearing of the record books through a sacrifice for pasts sins, but also by calling us to give up our life and give it to him (Luke 9:23-25). By accepting him as Savior and Lord, our sins and the root of sin are both dealt with: He cleanses us from our sinful ways (1 John 1:9) and heals us of our enmity toward God so that we become his children (John 1:11-12; 2 Corinthians 5:17). I know by looking at my own thoughts and feelings about the fact that Jesus speaks of hell that this subject is a tough one for us to grapple with. In light of that, I would like to open up a discussion with you CRCCers. So if you have a question or comment on this post of the message I gave on Sunday, post it here and we'll begin.

I had one explicit question that came up last night after the service that I’ll address this morning in the blog. I also had another question given to me verbally about the relationship between acts of service and the practice of secrecy. I’ll address the latter question in two weeks as we move forward in our series on spiritual disciplines: “Living a Life of Promise.” Again, if you have not yet heard the first message in this series, please check it out here, as it provides an important foundation for the whole topic. Also, please know that the whole reason that God desires us to enter into training for Godliness, as Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:7-8, is because there is a life of promise to be found there. God desires that you might experience his grace more and more often. So now, with that, to our question.

In the message I shared a personal illustration of when at a conference luncheon I offered to help in a few different ways with the project that was being presented. It was given by a domestic violence prevention organization in our area and I wanted to offer my assistance in grant-writing or evaluation (which is my business, in partnership with another psychologist). Anyway, after sharing my ideas on this for a little while one of the leaders turned to me and said: “You know what the narcissist did when the choir was warming up? Instead of singing ‘do re me fa so la ti do’ all he did was sing ‘me me me me me.’” I then shared in the message that I didn’t quite get where he was coming from at first; however, after a few seconds I realized that he perceived me as tooting my own horn (or blowing my own trumpet to keep within the framework of last night’s passage, Matthew 6:1-4). So here was the question I received: “Did you think the guy who said that to you was a jerk?”

Being very honest, I would have to say, “yes” I thought he was pretty abrasive in that comment to me. In fact, I struggled with the comment for the rest of the day as I felt very misunderstood. While he took me to be offering good works to help myself get noticed, what Jesus suggests we should not do, I was simply wanting to be of service to something I believed in, and in a pro bono fashion at that. But that’s not the point. Remember the Dallas Willard quote from last night? “We tend to lose our peace joy and purpose when we feel as if we are overlooked or unknown or misunderstood.” That’s exactly where I was! What it says to me is that I’m still at some level quite invested in how others perceive me; I care a lot that I’m perceived as a guy who wouldn’t do something like he was suggesting and was knocked down a peg or two or three because of the misunderstanding.

So what’s the grace God desires me to have? It is the grace of living beyond that, living to have God’s opinion of me be the one opinion on which I base my worth as a person. This is where the training in the practice of secrecy comes into play. It is the tool that allows me to care more and more and more about His thoughts while simultaneously having the thoughts and opinions (and misunderstandings) of others shape my own worth less and less. In that, God is offering nothing less than real freedom from something that tends to plague us, and diminish our joy, on a regular basis!

Thanks for the great question! Reed