SEPTEMBER 2014

    In the last edition, we began this series with an article entitled “A Clear Biblical Case for the Beginning of Life.” We examined several passages in the Bible that demonstrates three points: 1) Scripture considers that life begins immediately after conception, 2) Scripture acknowledges the full personhood and destiny of the pre-born, and, 3) Scripture does not see any difference in status between the pre-born and the post-born.    In this article, we will deal with some common objections to the Biblical case for the beginning of life. I acknowledge that many of these arguments have deep personal and emotional roots. However, we must push past the sentimentality of the issue and arrive at clear-minded truth lest more people make poor decisions about this issue, and lest more pre-born babies die needlessly.

    Viability. Some link life to viability and biological self-sufficiency: Personhood and life, they allege, only exist when the fetus is able to survive on its own outside the womb. This view, however, is based on a completely wrong understanding of life and dependency. Life is, by definition, a matter of dependency, not self-sufficiency; only God is self-sufficient. People were made to depend upon God, each other, and His created order for their biological, social and spiritual needs. Also, consider that people in accidents or in a comma who have to be on ventilation or life support are have lost a measure of their viability, and yet their personhood and right to life is not questioned. Neither should someone’s existence be questioned just because they are very dependent on others, especially if they are a pre-born or new-born baby.

    Birth defects. I must say that the argument that some children should be aborted because of a birth defect is an infantile and childish notion that sets the convenience of the parent against the life of another human being. This idea also, ironically, implies that those with birth defects are less human, less important and less entitled to legal protection, especially when they are labeled with the term, “unwanted children.” Imagine the implications of living in a society where we can kill people that we don’t want. At what point does the pendulum swing so far that people feel entitled to kill their young children who won’t sleep through the night, or their aging parents, or their teenagers! Convenience never justifies murder.

    Rather, Scripture continually demonstrates God’s concern for the weak and sick (Ex 15:26; 23:11, 25; Deut 7:15; 15:11; Psalm 9:18; 69:33; 72:13; Is 29:19; Jer 22:16; Matt 25:40; James 1:27; 5:14-15), including those with birth defects, deformities, or who are in difficult social or economic circumstances. Our own society frequently affords special recognition to those with birth defects or handicaps, such as the “Special Olympics,” or additional educational programs for mentally impaired. 

    Apologist Randy Alcorn demonstrates the danger of this view when he describes an example that a medical school professor used on his students: “The father had syphilis and the mother had tuberculosis. Of the four previous children, the first was blind, the second died, the third was both deaf and dumb, and the fourth had tuberculosis. What would you advise the woman to do when she finds that she is pregnant again?” A student answered, “I would advise an abortion.” The professor replied, “Congratulations . . . . You have just killed Beethoven” (Randy Alcorn, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments, 175).

    Pregnancies that result from rape or incest. This seems to be one of the most common arguments used to justify abortion. I will merely mention several Scriptural truths that overall answer this objection. The clinical nature of the following response is not intended to minimize the very real and heart-wrenching tragedies when rape and incest occur.

    In a fallen world system we are often the victims of the sins of other individuals. Scripture is replete with such examples, not to mention the fact that all human beings are in a fallen world system because of Adam’s original sin (Rom 5:12, 15, 19; 1 Cor 15:22). Awful tragedies and regrettable actions occur regularly as a ramification both of original sin and as a result of sin that occurs today. Yet, the wrong that someone accomplishes does not justify responding with wrong. The solution to rape is not killing a baby; the response to incest is not the murder of the unborn. Scripture is clear that people are put to death for their own mistakes, not those of others (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:20), and this holds true for our own justice system today, as well. The horror of rape is bad enough; killing a baby who was the product of rape and incest is completely unjust.

    The Life of the Mother. People bandy this argument around as thought millions of pregnancies in our society place the mother’s life in jeopardy.  However, instances where an abortion will save the life of the mother constitute 0.118% of all pregnancies (Jeanie Chang, et al., “Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance—United States, 1991-1999,” Center for Disease Control, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [Feb. 21, 2003] http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5202a1.htm). Unfortunately, again, because of the fallenness of this world, people are often put in the position of having to make excruciating decisions. In these instances, one can ask the question, does one believe that it is right to kill the child (handicapped, product of rape) after he or she is born? Since the Bible doesn’t distinguish between the pre-born and the new born, then it is no less right for these same children to be killed before they are born.

    Political Gymnastics. Here’s perhaps one that we can all agree on; the political gymnastics that some use to oppose the pro-life position are absolutely ridiculous. For instance, a politician may say, “I’m personally against abortion, but I just don’t support laws against abortion.” This is a common, spineless position taken by public officials who want to look like they are supporting choice, but are not for killing babies. This view confuses personal preferences with absolute morality and governmental responsibility, both of which affirm the protection and preservation of life. Wayne Grudem suggests: “This position would be similar to saying, ‘I’m personally opposed to drunk driving, and I wouldn’t personally recommend drunk driving, but I don’t support having laws against, because I think individual drivers should have the right to decide for themselves whether to drive when drunk” (Grudem, Politics - According to the Bible, 167).

    The Argument of Imposition. This argument is used of several issues where society claims that “Christians shouldn’t impose their morality on the rest of us!” The problem such people don’t understand is that the Christian cannot and need not separate morality from civics. Laws about murder, taxation, sexuality, commerce, etc., are based on one’s morality, whether society realizes it or not. Also, in our system of government, people don’t “impose” they “persuade” (Grudem, 169). Generally, the nation follows and votes for those who can persuade the best, either for good or ill. Laws that are created by those we vote for should be about the preservation of life and the destruction of anything that would harm or extinguish life: again, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 

    On the flip side, more pro-lifers should declare, “We don’t believe that the pro-choicers should ‘impose their morality’ of murder on the rest of us, especially on the pre-born!” I would rather impose a morality of life on society than a morality of death.

    These are just a few objections to the Biblical case for life. How would you handle these objections to a pro-life position? What other objections have you heard? Let us know by sending an e-mail to feedback@eclectickasper.com, and we’ll list them in a future article.

DEVELOPING A PASSION FOR GOD (PSALM 42): The Joy of the Throng (Psalm 42:4)

These things I remember and I am pouring out my soul, namely, that I crossed over with the throng and walked deliberately up to the house of the Lord, with the voice of ringing and praise, a religiously festive multitude.

    Sometimes I would just rather be alone. And this world often makes us feel alone.  Social media often isolates us more than it connects us, our lives are segmented into office cubicles, and church services are often painfully boring and lonely.  Thus, we have to ask if we are really missing a critical dynamic to developing a deeper passion for God by failing to develop a desire to be with His people. Are we missing out on the joy of the throng?

    In Psalm 42, the Psalmist finds himself alone, pursued and exhausted as though he were a hunted deer. He sheds tears of despair while he faces critics and opponents. In this moment the psalmist pours out his soul and remembers the joy of the throng.

    The idea of remembering in the Bible doesn’t mean that someone completely forgot something. Rather it means to bring to the forefront of one’s attention and actions a truth, experience or situation that was pushed to the back of one’s mind. The Hebrew word here is zakar, and is the same word used for God “remembering” Noah in Genesis 8:1. Of course, God never completely forgot Noah and the inhabitants of the ark – though they may have felt that way at times! – but at the appropriate time He intervened in a more obvious manner, and the Bible authors see this as “remembering.” Similarly, in Exodus 2:24, God “remembering” the Israelites means that He then – after four hundred years of apparent neglect – intervened dramatically for the sake of His people and put them on the forefront of His attention (see also Lev 26:42; Judg 16:28; Neh 1:8; 2 Chron 6:42; Lam 3:19). Similarly, the Psalmist in 42:4 pulls up memories of the throng, burning memories of joy that have been doused by his circumstances.

    As a result of these memories, the psalmist “pours” out his soul. He longs for the day when he can experience the joy of being with like-minded believers as they ascend to Jerusalem. The figure of “pouring out” resonates with the water imagery used in this Psalm including streams in v. 1, thirst in v. 2, and tears in v. 3.

    In moments of fear, loneliness, and disillusionment, the Psalmist remembers the joy when he would “go along” with the throng. The word “to go along” is ‘avar, which means “to pass over, through, by, pass on.” It is sometimes used of crossing over a boundary or border of some kind. In the context of this Psalm, it envisions the group of people arriving at their destination in Jerusalem for one of the prescribed religious feasts. Perhaps the idea of passing through or over refers to arriving at a point where the pilgrims get their first glimpse of Jerusalem, and then passing over the boundary to the outer district, and then crossing into the city of David, and finally enter into the temple precincts. But the idea of going along was not just geographical; the psalmist was going along with people who shared his destination because they shared his faith. They, too, were drawing close to the city where God dwelt, and they radiated with that joy as they approached together.

    The parallel verb “lead” is the Hebrew verb dadah, the particular form of which means “to lead slowly” or “to walk deliberately.” The word is only used here and in Isaiah 35:18 in the OT, where it refers more to shuffling from sorrow. The reason for the slowness and the measured pace here is different. Usually the traffic of the masses in the crowded squares and marketplaces would bother someone, but here, the energy of the ambling crowd is thrilling and the deliberate pace points to a specific destination. That destination is “the house of the Lord”; that destination dictates the joy of the journey.

    He continues to mention the noise that accompanies this procession. When discouraged and alone, the psalmist finds joy by recalling the joy of the throng of worshippers. There is “a voice” of joy and thanksgiving. Oddly, the word “voice” is singular, rather than the plural word “voices.” The multitude of voices, noises, cries, and songs that the author remembers hearing weave themselves together into one united voice to reflect the solidarity of God’s people. The last phrase is probably better captured in the NIV’s rendering: “a festive throng” or “a chattering crowd going to a festival.” The word chagag is used 16 times in the OT, sometimes of a generic festival or a happy pilgrimage of some sort (Exod 5:1; 12:14; 23:14; Lev 23:39, 41; Num 29:12; Deut 16:15; 1 Sam 30:16; Ps 42:5; 107:27; Nah 2:1; Zech 14:16, 18).

    While the specific event is meaningful, the Psalmist revels also in the joy of going to the event with the throng of God’s people. It is that religious, spiritual and social dynamic among God’s people that the Psalmist remembers; he recalls the thanksgiving and the unity and the celebration and the joy. This memory alone brings him joy when his present joy evaporates because of his circumstances. It is amazing how we so easily lose our joy and we fail to remember the things that bring us gladness. Is spiritual gladness really that fleeting?  Is genuine joy really that fragile?    Growing up, I remember preachers saying that heaven was going to be like one big worship service. This was, of course, extremely de-motivating to a youngster, and made the alternative look slightly more appealing. Even now, when I read passages about the heavenly throng singing before the Lord I think about all the things that I would rather be doing than participating in a spiritual Woodstock. I often think that I would rather be alone, with a book, away from the masses, out in the woods, or sitting on a beach.

    But the Psalmist sees in this throng a host of people sharing his views, values, enthusiasm, and ultimately, his God; he sees in this throng a source of joy, purpose, comfort, solidarity. Even at times when he feels isolated and surrounded by enemies, he can recall those moments with the multitude that made him realize that he was not alone in this big lonely world!

    In hindsight, I do remember how some of the greatest spiritual moments of my life were with large groups of people. My first Moody Founder’s Week Conference as part of the Moody student body was such an event.  With hundreds of other students and thousands of alumni and other attendees I sung beautiful hymns and heard teachers like Ravi Zacharias, John MacArthur, Josh McDowell, and Joe Stowell. Similarly, there was a profound joy in a recent excursion that I had with teens at our church as we ministered and learned together. I have enjoyed outings at Christian camps, youth rallies, men’s retreats, holiday services. 

    There is a festive nature to our religion, one that is clearly captured in the rituals of the Old Testament. While Christians don’t celebrate the same feasts and religious gatherings in the New Testament, the festal nature of our faith is surely intended to cross the testaments. When corporate prayer, regular gatherings for Bible study, worship services, special services, when these have become rote, tedious and boring, then we have profoundly missed the joy that corporate solidarity is supposed to bring. There is, of course, the other side of this spectrum, or the error of a church that emits nothing but insubstantial entertainment, abandoning the truth and doctrines from God’s Word that are supposed to bring us closer to God both corporately and as individuals. But somewhere between the two is a balance where the truths and practices of the worship service are edifying, engaging, motivating, and . . . fun.

    Could it be that I allow myself to become so selfish and isolated through media, TV, internet, confining myself to my little office and my little world, that I have missed the joy of the throng? While we all want some “me time” now and then, we were created as social creatures. Our gatherings should be opportunities both to receive joy as well as to give it; to encourage and exhort one another before we go back into the world and struggle against it. Could it be that our ecclesiology – the theology of the church – is so skewed, un-Scriptural and rotten, that we have constructed a bizarre and unbliblical divorce between faith and fun, between church and joy?

    In moments of loneliness when he is pursued like a deer, the Psalmist finds strength not only in God, but also in his recollection of being with godly people. The unity in faith, the shared experience of worshiping, learning and serving, and the ability to carry one another’s burdens can bring a joy that loneliness never will.

ECLECTIC FLASHBACK -- THE ESSENTIALS OF THE FAITH: Part 2, Verbal Plenary Inspiration

    The following article originally appeared in the February 2011 edition of The Eclectic Kasper; it is presented here with only minor modifications.

    In January 2011, we discussed the first of eleven “Essentials of the Faith,” namely, the Trinity. This time, we will discuss the next essential, which is also the first of five “Fundamentals” from the beginning of the 1900s. (I know that's a bit confusing, so I've put together a chart on the left to help you out!)

    This obscurity and unfamiliarity is what GOTG was up against. They tried hard to introduce believable and likeable characters. However, probably the unfamiliarity with the characters and the alien settings – literally! – made it more difficult to connect with them as when the Avengers are saving New York or even when superheroes are saving fictional earth cities like Metropolis or Gotham. I have to say that while I really wanted to love GOTG, instead I just liked it; I have to give it a B rather than an A.    My biggest critique of this movie? Marvel has created a culture of highly anticipated mid- or post-credit scenes that connect a specific move with the bigger franchise. These scenes award the faithful viewer with a teaser for future installments. Notable post-credits scenes occur after the otherwise-average The Wolverine, or the Thor tease at the end of Iron Man 2.

    Having endured an above-average though not wildly awesome movie, I was at least looking forward to a great post credits scene. Instead, the post-credits scene in GOTG was childish and insulting. Any lunge at humor that it was trying to make failed completely. There are several weak explanations attempting to justify the validity – or even the inclusion – of the Cosmonaut and Howard the Duck (such as here at Screenrant). However, the scene was still a petulant insult to Marvel acolytes, who took a risk on GOTG and were, until that moment, generally rewarded for their faithfulness.

    Sequels are, of course, notoriously worse than previous installments. The magic that made the first installment so great often evaporates with the second and is completely absent in the third or fourth. Franchises get lazy and sequels become increasingly implausible and cluttered with characters. A relatively recent example of this phenomenon includes the 1989-1997 Batman series, which descended into complete nonsense by the fourth installment.  Other examples are the second and third Matrix movies, which completely jettisoned everything good about the original installment, and I would even put the aforementioned Iron Man 3 in this category.

    Sequels also seem to challenge the audience less; franchises seem to aim for lower common denominators the longer they go. Here, I would cite the original Transformers trilogy and the third installment of the X-Men trilogy as well.

    However, these 2014 movies – while not all of them completely perfect and awesome – seemed aware of their own challenges and generally hurdled those obstacles surprisingly well to provide satisfying installments.

    So what do you think about these sequels? Or what great sequels have you seen lately? What are some of the secrets to making a great sequel? Send us your thought at feedback@eclectickasper.com.

EMERGING CONCERNS: How To Respond to an Emerging Christian

    We have discussed the Emerging church frequently in the virtual pages of The Eclectic Kasper. If you are new to this series, check out some of our previous articles about this phenomenon:

• The Demise of Orthodoxy (July 2011)

• Manifestly Lacking (August 2012)

• Off the Deep End (June/ July 2012)

• The Bizarreness that is Rob Bell, Part 2 (May 2014)

    Also, you can find a full list of our “Emerging Concerns” articles in our Eclectic Archives here.

    The Emerging Church movement is a philosophy and strategy adopted by many leaders and churches for engaging with post-modern culture through creativity, conversation and collaboration, but unfortunately these efforts often minimize Christian content and certainty in the process. Emerging individuals integrate postmodern patterns and thinking into their reinterpretation of church. While they bring many helpful correctives to the table, they also bring a great deal of postmodern thinking and methods that seem to diverge significantly from Scripture.

    Most adherents of any belief system or religious movement should not be mischaracterized by the most extreme edges of that system. Similarly, most individuals in the emergent community would reject the radical and liberal fringes of the movement such as those expressed by Terry Jones, Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt.

    This article is about dealing with the less extreme emerging believers and leaders who may still be won to or won back to the truth of the Bible. Specifically, they need to embrace the conviction that Biblical truth is certain, not relative, and that it can be proclaimed with boldness and simultaneously lived with humility.

    But responding to even nominal emergents is not easy. They are dead-set on their worship style and some are skeptical about the value of propositional truth, which they perceive as dogmatism. I believe that many emergent churches grip people emotionally, and, frankly, it is difficult to argue someone out of a style of worship or church that they are attached to emotionally. They don’t want to go back to some archaic style of worship nor do they want to endure overly academic sermons.

    So, how do we respond to churches, teachers, and parishioners who embrace emergent tenets uncritically? Here are a few tips to help you recognize and interact with emerging believers and emerging tendencies in churches.

    Show charity. A protestant/ fundamentalist/ evangelical should avoid overreaction, jumping to conclusions, or unnecessarily demonizing or alienating someone who claims to align with the Emergent movement. We must exercise Christian charity, kindness and wisdom first (Rom 14:1; Eph 4:2-3; Phil 2:2-4; James 1:19). We should pray for them, build a relationship with them (emergents love relationships!), and help them to grow in to a deeper appreciation of God’s truth and how to apply it in their lives.

    Highlight truth. Believers must compassionately reflect the truth about truth. Truth is certain (known and knowable), universal (rooted in transcendence and applicable to everyone, everywhere), and exclusive (truth is always narrow, there are not many ways to heaven). Revelation and the ability to believe in truth are gifts of God’s grace; we would be lost an unable to understand truth without God generously imparting it to us, and that should keep us humble.

    When discussing with an emergent individual, evangelicals must assert their faith commitment to and our understanding of the profound spiritual significance of fundamental Christian beliefs (the Trinity, the authority and inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, the deity and penal substitutionary atonement of Christ and His literal second return) and essential Christian practices (propositional preaching of Scripture, ordinances, weekly gatherings, evangelism, discipleship, social concern, refuting heresy).

    Promote balance: As we have discussed before, emergents use many unnecessary false and destructive dichotomies that they have constructed.  We should deconstruct these dichotomies: Christianity is a person and a message; it is about what we believe and what we do; it is about adhering to certain truths and living them out missionally in the world. 

    Part of that balance is that healthy, doctrinally-sound churches should also emphasize the implications and ethics that stem from those doctrines. We are both what we believe and what we do. These doctrines and practice are transformative; when carried out faithfully, they can transform culture and society, which is want emergents want to see. The truth of the Bible can positively impact society; the humility of Christ’s substitutionary death should translate into compassion from God’s people; the proclamation of the Gospel can touch hearts and lives with the counter-cultural message of divine love through Christ. We must offer true Christianity that is Biblically accurate, doctrinally sound, socially concerned and that creates a loving and nurturing community of people.

    Encourage certainty. Many emergents do not like that some believers are so heavy handed and condemnatory with truth.  By the way, I don’t like this too much either!  Some emergent authors have consequently developed a false dichotomy between certainty and humility.  But certainty about truth and humility in lifestyle are both Biblical virtues; we don’t have to pick one or the other.  I can boldly proclaim and teach Biblical truth, but have a humble, and even conversational spirit while I deal with other believers as well as with unbelievers. Certainty and humility are not opposites, but are compatible Biblical goals. Our certainty should not make us hostile, arrogant, or condemnatory. 

    Emerging believers must be challenged to embrace the foundational doctrines and practices of Christianity with confidence and without regard for what the world thinks or how culture changes. Hopefully, enough emerging Christians will wake up to the beauty and nobility of certainty in the faith especially in light of an increasingly uncertain world.