Abortion: This Subject is a Matter of Life or Death
Thinking about abortion is very difficult but very important. I hope to look at it with grace and candor. So, out front, I want to say two things: First, abortion is wrong and a grave sin against a holy God. Second, there is grace and forgiveness and reconciliation through Jesus Christ! So even as we think about this difficult subject, I do not want us to have a holier-than-thou mind set. We are all sinners saved by the grace of God. 1 John 1:9 gives us all hope: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
I also want us to realize that the problem of abortion cannot be fixed by mere legislation (abortion was happening when it was against the law and infanticide has sadly been around for thousands of years). Legislation is important however. Yet, the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed is people’s hearts; people need to be transformed by God from the inside out. So, the problem is not just abortion, that is a fruit, albeit perhaps the ugliest fruit, of this society’s worldview.[1] This fruit is seen all over the place just in different flavors. However, the underlying problem is the same, idolatry. People worship convenience, their unhindered sexual lifestyle, their accomplishments, or a thousand other things above the one true God. We know from Romans chapter one the chaos that ensues when things usurp God’s place on the throne. When we make a god out of what is no god, it is its own punishment. God gives people up to a debased mind; to do what ought not to be done.
Society often paints things in a thin veneer. It looks attractive. When examined closely, however, it is most worthless, even poisons. It is interesting that many have abortions to escape consequences but end up instead sadly multiplying them as the Scriptures say (cf. Rom. 1). The immediate physical and psychological consequences of an abortion are often many, to speak nothing of long term affects. However, these sadly are just a foretaste of what awaits those who do not turn to Jesus for forgiveness.
Statistics Regarding Abortion in America
• Since 1973, there have been 53,000,000 reported and legal abortions. This is equal to the population of 19 western states.
• There are 1.21 Million abortions per year (2005)
• There are approximately 3,700 abortions per day.
• 1/3 of American women will have an abortion by the time they are forty-five.
• Reasons why women have an abortion:
o 1% of all abortion occur because of rape or incest
o 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems
o 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons:
Some say they have responsibility to other people
Cannot afford a child
Having a child would interfere with work, school, etc.
Don’t want to be a single parent or would have problems with the father of the child
• Partial birth abortion (the name alone is sad) is used to abort women who are 20 to 30 weeks pregnant.
• Some studies report that up to 90% of women chose not to have an abortion after seeing an ultrasound.
• The heartbeat begins on the 21st day after conception.
• Babies of 22 weeks gestation have survived, though this is still very rare.
• Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days.
• There are several health risks for the woman:
o Breast cancer
o Ectopic (tubal) pregnancy
o Bad effects on future pregnancies
o Becoming sterile
o Sexual dysfunction
o Mental health risks
(From The Village Church)
Why is Abortion Wrong?
First, because Genesis 1:26-27 tells us we are created in image of God. Second, because Exodus 20:13 tells us, “Thou shall not murder.”
However, are these texts enough? Or could people object that that is all well and good but what is inside a woman womb is not a human. What can we say about that from Scripture?
Exodus 21:22-25 says:
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. [23] But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, [24] eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [25] burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (See Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, 159-60, 160n2 and Frame, 718-21).
There is quite a few things to note on this significant passage. First, notice what the result is if there is no harm to the child (see v. 22)? Just a fine. However, what happens if there is harm? “Life for life,” it says. Notice that this still means it is an accident but the punishment is still life for life. In other cases of accidental manslaughter this was not the mandate but provision of “house arrest” and protection was made. Therefore, this shows the seriousness of protecting unborn life. If God has such hatred for the accidental death of an unborn child what is His reaction to intentional death? Wrath (cf. Jer. 7:30-34).
Meredith G. Kline points out that
“Induced abortion was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a specific prohibition dealing with it in the Mosaic law. The Middle Assyrian laws attest to the abhorrence that was felt for this crime even in the midst of the heathendom around Israel, lacking though it did the illumination of special revelation. For in those laws a woman guilty of abortion was condemned to be impaled on stakes. Even if she managed to lose her own life in producing abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in shame as an expression of the community’s repudiation of such an abomination. It is hard to imagine a more damning commentary on what is taking place in enlightened America today than that provided by this legal witness of the conscience of benighted ancient paganism” (“Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus,” 200-01).
Psalm 139:13-16 (cf. Job 31:15-18; Ps. 22:9; Hos. 12:3; Gen. 25:23-26) says:
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. [14] I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. [15] My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. [16] Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”
Psalm 51:5 says: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Remember the context? David is repenting of his sin. What is David saying here? He is saying he has a sinful nature inherited from Adam. He is not saying it was his mother’s fault. Note, “Sin in Scripture is a personal quality, never an impersonal one. It is never a property of things, only of persons” (Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, 722). Thus, we see here a very strong argument for personhood beginning at conception. If he had a sin nature in his mother’s womb than it follows that he was a real human being with a soul. “Fetal tissue” or any type of tissue or inanimate object for that matter is not sinful, people alone are sinful. Do you see the conclusion here? David was a person, a real human person, in his mother’s womb.
We could also look at Judges 13:3-5 and Luke 1:35. Jesus too was a divine-human person from conception (cf. Heb 2:17-18; 4:15; Lk. 41-44 cf. 2:16).
We see in Scripture that we should take precautions so as to avoid the possible destruction of life (Deut. 22:8 cf. 19:5). Thus, even if you are not entirely persuaded by these arguments the principle that we see in Scripture would lead us not to agree with abortion. As Frame says, “Even if the above arguments are only, say, 80 percent certain, they make it highly probable that abortion destroys human lives. And God’s law clearly tells us not to take that risk. So our practical response should be exactly the same as if we were persuaded 100 percent” (Frame, 724).
To illustrate this point imagine I go hunting with you. We go out into the thick woods and after a while I hear a rustling in the grass so I do what any hunter should do, I don’t hesitate, I point in that general direction, and fire a few shots hoping I hit my intended target. Would you hunt with me very long if that was my practice? No, because you would be either to scared or dead. Do you see the principal? You don’t just shoot at any rustling noise because a human could be making the noise and not a deer. We take precautions to protect life!
The United States Military goes by an ROE, Rules of Engagement. They for instance have to have positive identity before they engage an enemy force. Or they have to use escalation of force. Our military personnel take great precautions to not destroy innocent life, even to the point of putting their own self in great harm, and yet in our own country we do not take these same precautions with our unborn. We do not have “positive identity” and yet many are okay with taking life. Should we not rather take great precautions even if we are not exactly sure when life begins? If we as a country make people put hand rails up on their own house and enforce all sorts of other codes, should we not also protect the unborn even if their is disagreement when life begins?
DNA: “From the point of conception, unborn children have a full complement of chromosomes… Therefore, the child is not ‘part of his mother’s body.’ His genetic makeup is different from hers. So we should not treat the unborn child as we treat hair or fingernails, or even as we treat organs like the gall bladder or liver. The unborn child is a separate and unique human being” (Frame, 725). Yes the child is dependent on his mother yet he will also be after he is outside of the womb and that in no way gives his mother the right to kill him. Though there are helpful scientific observations, “Personhood is a metaphysical, religious, theological, and ethical category, not a scientific one. There are no scientific observations or experiments that can detect a difference between a person and a nonperson” (Frame, 726). Yet, as we saw above, if we have a ROE for combat how much more should we go to great lengths to protect human unborn life!
I read an article about a teenage boy that falsely admitted to a crime and later was proven innocent from DNA. People are sometime proven guilty and proven innocent by their DNA and yet not proven to be human by their DNA this does not make sense to me.
Objections that People Raise (see Grudem, Politics, 162-63 regarding this section)
1. Unable to interact or survive on its own: I have already said how I think this argument is faulty above. A young baby is also unable to survive on its own and that in no way justifies starving it, for example.
2. Birth defects: The question here is whether we would think it is right to put a child to death after it is born because it may have problems. There have also been predictions about the capabilities of child that have been wrong. So, no, potential birth defect or known birth defects cannot justify an abortion (cf. Ex. 4:11; Jn. 9:2-3).
3. Pregnancies resulting from rape or incest: These situations, though few (around 1% or less of all abortions), should be treated with much sensitivity and love. However, the child should not be punished for the sin of the father (Deut. 24:16).
4. Abortion to save the life of the mother: People make it seem like this problem arises very often however the truth is it does not (less than 0.118% of all abortions). This situation is different from the ones above because the choice is between the loss of one life (the baby) and the loss of two lives (the baby and the mother). As we have seen, the Scriptures teach the importance of protecting human life. So if both lives cannot be protected I believe the right thing to do is protect the life that can be protected. I agree with Grudem, though this is a difficult subject.
“I cannot see a reason to say this would be morally wrong, and in fact, I believe it would be morally right for doctors to save the life that can be saved and take the life of the preborn child from the mother’s body (for example from the Fallopain tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy) results from directly intending to save the life of the mother, not from directly intending to take the child’s life. If the medical technology exists to save the child’s life in such cases, then of course the child’s life should also be saved. But if abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, this would seem to be the only situation in which it is morally justified” (Politics, 163-64).
5. If Abortion is not allowed it is a wrongful restriction of freedom: However, does that make any sense? I think not. Does not the government make restrictions, isn’t that what we have empowered them to do? Did you know I do not have the freedom to drink and drive, the madness! I am not allowed to shoot guns at people, the government is so restrictive… not even in the city limits… As we can see, the government restricts people and that is right and good. We should not be able to drink and drive, shoot guns at people, etc.
6. “All children should be wanted children”: This, to tell you the truth, makes me sick. Yes! Duh! All children should be wanted children. But the problem is with the parents. It saddens me that we have taken consumerism and applied to human life as a society. Today, there are many people that want to customize their children. However, once a child is born can you just put him or her to death because you don’t want them? Surely not (at least yet)! So, again, this argument holds no ground. It simply pushes the problem back. Children should be wanted. However, the child should not be killed because they are not wanted, the parent should change to want the child. Of course, there is also adoption which is also a good option for many people.
7. Others say, “I’m personally against abortion, but I just don’t support laws against abortion”: That is akin to saying, “I am personally against drunk driving (or murdering for that matter) and I recommend people not do it but don’t support laws against it because individuals should make that decision themselves.” Do you see how silly that is?! Let’s just have no laws! That is foolish and unbiblical. This is especially foolish in a country where we actually have a say.
8. Others say, “We should reduce the causes of abortion but not have laws against abortion”: That would be like saying lets reverse the laws on murder and just have more classes on anger management. That is ridicules. Yes, classes on anger management are important and we should have them but that alone will never do.
9. Yet others say, “Christians should not try to impose their moral standards on other people”: I would agree that we should not impose our religion on people. However, moral standards are a different thing, especially when we live in a country that essentially lets the consensus of the majority make the rules (See Gen. 41:37-45; 42:6; 45:8-9, 26; Dan. 4:27; Jer. 29:7; Neh. 1:1; Esther 5:1-8; 7:1-6; 8:3-13; 9:4,12-15, 20-32; 10:3 for the NT cf. Mark 6:14-20; Matt. 14:1-12; Acts 16:35-39; 24:25; 1 Tim. 2:1-4 for people “imposing” their moral standards). Plus, non-Christians saying this are acturally wanting to impose their moral standard on people. However, their moral standard says that their should be no moral standard, or it should be very low, or it should allow abortion, or it should allow everything except pedophelia.
[1] One person has said, “What an irony that a society confronted with plastic bags filled with the remains of aborted babies should be more concerned about the problem of recycling the plastic.”
Are the Gifts of the Spirit for Today? A Brief Exploration
Introduction
“Are the gifts of the Spirit for today?” This is a big question and an important one because it impacts the church, missions, and individual’s spiritual lives. It is an important question because many denominations and individuals are divided over it.
Truly and sadly very often “those who [speak] most loudly of being led by the Spirit [are] the very persons responsible for quenching the Spirit’s work.”[1] Interestingly, this was also true of the Corinthians of Paul’s day. Yet, Paul does not say, “Away with the Spirit!” Instead, he says, “Don’t quench the Spirit” (1 Thess. 5:19)! The Spirit is not the problem; we are.
I think both camps, cessationists (they believe the gifts have seized) and continuationists (they believe the gifts continue), are right on some points and wrong on others. “Error is much more likely to be propagated, when it is mixed with truth. This hides deformity and makes it go down more easily.”[2] Those who believe that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit continue and those that believe they do not both very often sound right. This likely means that both arguments have been construed wrongly.
Neither side is understanding the question rightly. Of course, I will not satisfy everyone, or, perhaps, anyone. But this is my attempt to satisfy myself on this subject. And I hope to bring you along as well.
We will first look at four negative arguments that people make that believe the charismatic gifts have seized. Then we will look at one positive argument in favor of the continuation of the charismatic gifts. I also have included a long excursus that outlines a somewhat chronological example of the ongoing powerful and uncommon work of the Spirit since Pentecost. Finally, we will look at a few practical reflections.
Eschatology and Ethics
Eschatology (i.e. the teaching on end times) is not mainly about charts and predictions. It is about worship, longing, and hoping. It is about crying out, How long, O’ Lord?! (Rev. 6:10) and “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22:20). Eschatology is about motivation. Motivation to not live for this world that will soon be dissolved but for one that is unfading (cf. 1 Pet. 1:4; 2 Pet. 3:10-12). When we hope in Christ’s return we have motivation to be pure as He is pure (1 Jn. 3:3). Motivation to labor diligently and constantly because our Master is expected at any time (e.g. Matt. 24:36ff; 25:13; 1 Thess. 5:1-2). We are to constantly remind ourselves of His nearing advent and of the feast we shall share with Him (cf. Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:16; 1 Cor.11:26; Rev. 19:9).[1]
I do think it is good to be well-informed when it comes to Christ’s return. We should understand the main arguments for the different views on eschatology. However, I don’t think we should be dogmatic about how and when exactly it will happen (cf. e.g. Mk. 13:32). But that it will happen and will be glorious. And that it should motivate us as we seek to live faithful lives here as exiles waiting for our blessed hope.
“It is a pity that the church’s teaching on eschatology, the last days, has been concerned mostly with arguments about the order of events. In Scripture itself, the primary thrust of eschatology is ethical,” says John Frame.[2] I agree with Frame, although that should not be a cop-out for studying the book of Revelations and all the other relevant passages.
Yet, if we are just concerned with revealing that which Jesus said would be unrevealed until He came back then we are in a fruitless pursuit (cf. Matt 24:36; Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 4:13-5:3). However, I do think it is profitable to have general convictions regarding end times. But, in my opinion, a dogmatic conviction is simply unbiblical and unwise. Most of the Pharisees, for example, were so dogmatic they missed Jesus the Messiah. They were so stuck in their ingrained thoughts (and convictions) that they couldn’t see their long Promised Savior before their eyes. Instead, we should be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). We should know and search the Scriptures; but we should not have every jot and tittle of eschatology dogmatically lined out to a t.
Seven ways the Main Thrust of Eschatology is Ethical[3]:
- We live in the “already but not yet.” That is, the Kingdom of God has been ushered in but it has not been decisively established yet. “So while we are risen with Christ, we must seek the things that are above (Col. 3:1-4). We have died to sin (v. 3), but we must ‘put to death’ the sins of this life (v. 5). So the Christian life is an attempt, motivated by God’s grace, to live according to the principles of the age to come.”[4]
- Peter reminds us that since the present world will be dissolved we should not then live for this world but the next. And thus have morals shaped by the next Kingdom and not this evil one (2 Peter 3:11; 1 Cor. 7:26, 29).
- We “purify ourselves as He is pure,” why? Because we eagerly await the return of Jesus (Phil. 3:20; 2 Peter 3:12; 1 Jn. 3:3). Thus, we see that eschatology is not about hanging up charts that map out when Jesus will return, we clearly cannot know that, but about being found ready when He does come (Matt. 24).
- We can be sure that since Christ resurrected from the grave and was the “firstfruits” that we also will be raised. Therefore,we are told, to be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the labor of the Lord, because our labor in the Lord is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58)! When we remember that we too will be raised and receive glorified bodies and enjoy God forever we are motivated to labor for the Lord.
- “We look to the return of Christ as our deliverance from tribulation and thus a source of hope (Luke 21:28).”[5]
- We must always be ready to meet the Lord, always! This is a great prod to faithfulness ( 24:44; 1 Thess. 5:1-10; 1 Peter 1:7; 2 Peter 3:14).
- We also think of the reward that God will give in heaven and this also encourages us to labor for Him (see for example Matt. 5:12, 46; 6:1; Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:8-15; James 1:12; Rev. 11:18).
Take Away
1) We should study end times. We need to seek to accurately handle the Word of truth (I speak to myself!). Yet we should not dogmatically hold to our position on this subject.
2) We need to remember, that the end of the story, and the main point of the Revelations, is to show that God through Jesus the Christ is victorious! This truth encouraged John who was exiled on Patmos and all the churches that were being persecuted to whom the letter went. If we read the letter, especially in that context, we will respond, not so much with a certain view of how everything will happen, but by saying, “Come Lord Jesus, come”! And that is the more powerful takeaway from the book.
3) Thus, we need to understand that all talk of end times does, or should, have a very practical thrust.
Conclusion
A person can have charts on the wall, even fairly accurate ones, and yet not have Christ in their heart and exuding out of their heart. If our study of the second coming of Christ and the future Kingdom of God does not have a very practical thrust, I don’t care how much we think we understand eschatology, we don’t understand eschatology. May we meditate on eschatology, but may it change not merely our view of the end times, but our ethics!
_____________________________________________________
[1] “We are called to be a people of memory, who are shaped by a tradition that is millennia older than the last Billboard chart. And we are called also called to be a people of expectation, praying for and looking forward to a coming kingdom that will break in upon our present as a thief in the night” (James K. A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 159).
[2] John Frame, The Doctrine of God, p. 277.
[3] These seven points are taken from John Frame.
[4] Ibid., 277.
[5] Ibid., 278.
Biblical Mysticism?
A Mystic’s Meter
The rhythms of a mystic’s faith are not drudgery upon duty and duty upon drudgery. The mystic’s meter, rather, is delight. Delight in a God they know. Yet, as much freedom as rhythm and cadence have, there is still structure. So, I want to look at the structure of the meter. What cadence does knowing God take?
Is Mysticism Wrong?
Is mysticism wrong? I think a lot depends on how it is defined. If you define mysticism as subjective vain emotional longings, then yes it is wrong. If you define mysticism as unbiblical, then yes it is wrong. If mysticism is set on anything else then God in the face of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), then yes, mysticism is wrong.
Mysticism, however, is not wrong in itself. It is the focus that can be wrong. It is the information, or perhaps more often, the lack of information, that can be wrong.
Don Whitney instructs us:
“Don’t be deceived by a complex spirituality that gives the appearance of wisdom but doesn’t start with ‘Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Colossians 2:3). And don’t become entangled in any spiritual practices that sound good but incline your mind and heart away from the ‘things that are above’” (“Practice True Spirituality”).[1]
Not All Mysticism is Created Equal
Mysticism does not have “inalienable rights.” That is, not all mysticism is created equal.
Frist, some mysticism is based on illusionary dreams and speculation. However, there is a problem with this (1 Jn. 4:1). Satan parades himself around like an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14) so that he may devoir like a lion (1 Pet. 5:8). Subjective experiences alone cannot be our guide.[2]
Second, some mysticism contradicts the Word of God. Any word that contradicts His Word should not be our word. God is our authority. And His Word is our authority. There are many other good and important texts but they are not ultimate. They are subordinate.
Third, any form of mysticism that does not prize and exalt Messiah and His work is defective (1 Jn. 4:2). Mysticism is about knowing God. Jesus the Messiah is God in the flesh (Jn. 1:14). It is through Him that we can know God (e.g. 2 Cor. 4:4); that we can go boldly before the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16). Jesus reveals God. If we conceal Him, belittle Him, or don’t rightfully honor Him, we are not practicing mysticism but anti-mysticism; we are concealing God.
Good Mysticism
Mysticism, I believe, at it’s heart, is about knowing God deeply and experientially.[3] So then, how do we know God? We know Him through His Spirit, amen![4] And the Spirit, most typically, uses the means of His own inspired Word, the Bible. We meditate on His Word, as well as other good texts, and God, by the Spirit, reveals Himself to us. Good Christian mysticism thus relies on: 1) The Spirit for illumination, not vain visions or the like (Rom. 8:26; 1 Cor. 2:12-16; Eph. 3:14-19; 1 Jn. 4:1); 2) The inspired Word of God, not primarily other sources (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:3-4); 3) The Incarnate Son to show us God, and not visions (Jn. 1:1-14; 14:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3).
Good biblical mysticism (some may prefer “spirituality”) is about having a deeper sense of God’s truth. It’s seeking for God to open our eyes that we would be deeply impacted by His truth (Ps. 119:18). It is about knowing God’s love that surpasses knowledge that we may be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph. 3:19). It’s about being renewed by the transformation of our minds (Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:23-24; Col. 3:10). It is about revival.
It short, mysticism does not seek mere knowledge. It seeks to also experience the truth of that knowledge. So, it seeks to taste the sweetness, and not just know hypothetically and intellectually that something is sweet.
Jonathan Edwards words are enlightening:
“There is such a thing as a spiritual and divine light immediately imparted to the soul by God, of a different nature from any that is obtained by natural means… This spiritual light that I am speaking of, is quite a different thing from inspiration: it reveals no new doctrine, it suggests no new proposition to the mind, it teaches no new thing of God, or Christ, or another world, not taught in the Bible, but only gives a due apprehension of those things that are taught in the word of God… There is a difference between having an opinion, that God is holy and gracious, and having a sense of the loveliness and beauty of that holiness and grace. There is a difference between having a rational judgment that honey is sweet, and having a sense of its sweetness.”[5]
Mystics, so to speak, not only want to know that something is sweet, they want to taste it’s sweetness.
A.W. Tozer: A Good Example of a Good Mystic
James L. Snyder points out that “the word ‘mystic’ did not scare Tozer. The term ‘mysticism’ simply means ‘the practice of the presence of God,’ the belief that the heart can commune with God directly, moment by moment, without the aid of outward ritual. He saw this belief at the very core of real Christianity, the sweetest and most soul-satisfying experience a child of God can know.”[6]
Tozer rightly reminds us—how sad that we need reminded!—that salvation is “not an end but an inception, for now begins the glorious pursuit, the heart’s happy exploration of the infinite riches of the Godhead.”[7] Conversion is meant to lead to communion. Orthodoxy must, if it is to be true orthodoxy, result in doxology. “’You can be straight as a gun barrel theologically,’ Tozer often remarked, ‘and as empty as one spiritually.’”[8]
The true Christian mystic should be heat and light. Heart, head, and hand. He should love the LORD with all that he is, his heart, soul, mind and strength; and his neighbor as himself.
Conclusion
So, you might say, a mystic’s meter, what gives him his aesthetic poetry and music, is knowing God by the Spirit, though the Word, and in Christ. This is where he can find true delight. He can know God and true joy in this rhythmic triad; instead of the clashing and subjective thrashings found elsewhere. A mystic’s meter in sum, should be rhythmic, not chaotic. It should have a distinguished element to it, not destructive and haphazard vague desires. God has, Paul reminds us, revealed Himself; we don’t worship Him as unknown, but as known (Acts 17:23). We can know God truly, if not fully.
Will you seek to know God? Will you dance to the melodious meter? Will you use the means He has given you? Will you be a Christian mystic?
_______________________________________
[1] Don Whitney, “Practice True Spirituality.”
[2] Let it be noted that exceptional things may likely still happen. See 2 Cor. 12:2-4, for example.
[3] Mysticism is “the belief and practice that seeks a personal, experiential… knowledge of God by means of a direct, nonabstract and loving encounter or union with God. Although a psychophysical dimension (including visions, dreams or special revelation) may be part of the mystical experience, this dimension is not necessary. Instead, Christian mystics generally teach that the true test of the experience is the resulting fruit of the Spirit in the mystic’s life” (Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, 81). “The mystic,” Tozer said, “differs from the ordinary orthodox Christian only because he experiences his faith down in the depths of his sentient being while the other does not. He is quietly, deeply and sometimes almost ecstatically aware of the presence of God in his own nature and in the world around him” (The Christian Book of Mystical Verse).
[4] Mysticism, at least, true accurate mysticism, can only take place after the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (see Jn. 3:3).
[5] Jonathan Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light”).
[6] The Life of A.W. Tozer: In Pursuit of God, 155.
[7] The Pursuit of God, 13 cf. Jn. 17:3. Brother Lawrence reminds us that “Many do not advance in the Christian progress because they stick in penances and particular exercises, while they neglect the love of God, which is the end” (Brother Lawrence, The Practice of the Presence of God, 24).
[8] The Life of A.W. Tozer: In Pursuit of God, 155.
The Grave Necessity for a Hideous Hell
Hell is unashamedly a dreadful doctrine; yet, as we will see, a necessary doctrine.[1] C. S. Lewis’ said,
“There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason.”[2]
We don’t desire controversy for the sake of controversy.[3] Rather, we want to be convinced biblically,[4] logically, and practically that hell is a necessary doctrine.
It is important before considering the evidence to think about our a priori assumptions. For instance, in Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mocking Bird the correct verdict could not have been given in that context (i.e. Maycomb’s racist white community) because people excluded the possibility that anyone other than the black man, Tom Robinson, was guilty. Despite the strong evidence that Atticus Finch put forward Tom was convicted. Why? Because people were prejudice against the truth. The people’s a priori assumption, that Tom was guilty because he’s black, led them to not honestly look at the evidence and pronounce the correct verdict.
This sadly still happens. It happens in the court of law and it happens when people consider other forms of evidence. This is especially likely to occur when emotional issues are involved. So when people consider what the Bible teaches on certain subjects they come with tinted glasses. One theologian, for instance, admits that he “was led to question the traditional belief in everlasting conscious torment because of moral revulsion and broader theological considerations, not first of all on scriptural grounds.”[6]
John Stott believed in annihilationism. Stott, by his own admission, left the ranks of what is “traditional orthodoxy for most of the church fathers, the medieval theological and the Reformers.” Even as Stott emotionally wrestled with the doctrine of hell he said, “our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it. As a committed evangelical, my question must be—and is—not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?”[7]
As we look at the wrath of God we look from a certain vantage point in the cultural climate in which we live. This inevitably shades our perception of things. One book I read told of a Korean man that struggled not with the wrath of God (and even hell) but with the love and grace of God.[8] This was because he had seen horrible wickedness and clearly understood that wickedness deserves justice.
Timothy Keller tells about a woman that told him that the very idea of a judging God was offensive. Keller responded by asking why she wasn’t offended by the idea of a forgiving God. The woman was puzzled so Keller continued:
“’I respectfully urge you to consider your cultural location when you find the Christian teaching about hell offensive.’ …Westerns get upset by the Christian doctrine of hell, but they find Biblical teaching about turning the other cheek and forgiving enemies appealing. I then asked her to consider how someone from a very different culture sees Christianity. In traditional societies the teaching about ‘turning the other cheek’ makes absolutely no sense. It offends people’s deepest instincts about what is right. For them the doctrine of judgment, however, is no problem at all. That society is repulsed by aspects of Christianity that Western people enjoy, and are attracted by the aspects that secular Westerns can’t stand.”[9]
Many people are chronological or geographical snobs. That is, they have baseless biases and think their place in space and time has the unique vantage point to decipher morals, values, and truth claims of people in different times and cultures than their own. However, why should one think that non-Western cultures are inferior to our own?
The various aspects of the unpopularity of Christianity actually show that it is transcultural. Keller says,
“For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place. Maybe this is the place, the Christian doctrine of divine judgment.”[10]
Let’s, as Keller says, for the sake of argument, listen to the transcultural truth of Scripture. Let’s not be biased. Let’s take our tinted glasses off and seek to see why hell is necessary.
A Brief Christian Perspective on Psychoactive Medication
Depression, OCD, ADHD, bipolar disorder, are just a few of the things we are taking psychoactive medication for.[1] However, have we given the use of these drugs any thought? That is, if we use them, do we use them with a well-informed understanding? If we do not use them, or believe we should not, do we make the decision on the basis of hard thinking?[2]
I want to look briefly at the question and give you my conclusion. I would also like to know your thoughts. I would also encourage you to do more research on the subject.[3] Of course, as you read my opinion, know that I am not an M.D., PSY.D., Dr., or D.Min.; I’m a blogger that was employed as a heavy equipment operator when I wrote this.[4]
What must we consider as we consider the question of psychoactive medication?
We Must Consider Common Grace
There are many things we can look at regarding common grace. God pours out grace on all men (Ps. 145:9; Matt. 5:45). God has given us many good things to eat (Gen. 1:29). God has given us medicine, coffee, and doctors.[5] He keeps the universe from imploding; which He did not have to do (Heb. 1:2-3; Jn. 1:1-4). God gives some form of conscience to humans (Rom. 2:14-15) which in turn means that generally speaking parents love and provide for their children (Matt. 7:9-10; Acts 14:16-17). God, through various means, has restrained much evil (Gen. 20:6, 1 Sam. 25:26; Rom. 13:1, 6). The world is not as bad as it could be. God has also graciously preserved a semblance of His image in humans (Gen. 9:6: 1 Cor. 11:7). Humanity is not as evil as they could be. In fact, because of common grace, humans can give true, accurate, and even helpful descriptions of reality (think of Edison and Einstein).
As Eric Johnson says, because of common grace “unredeemed humans are capable of accurately understanding aspects of God’s creation (including human nature, psychopathology, and facets of its remediation)—except insofar as it requires spiritual illumination—and this understanding is the gift of God.”[6] John Calvin, also agreed that there is a lot we can gain from unregenerate humanity.[7]
Most evangelicals gratefully, or forgetfully, accept modern medicine (a form of common grace).
Yet, realizing there are extremes and overprescribing of psychoactive medication (laid out well in Carlat’s book Unhinged),[8] why do evangelicals so often, and so easily, disregard psychoactive medication? Is it because they are well-informed? Because if that is the case then fine, let it be disregarded. So long as the decision is justified on the basis of thought; and not vain hearsay.
However, I am led to believe that many are not well-informed on this subject so I will continue. We live in a fallen world and by God’s grace we have been granted medicine to reverse or alleviate some of the impacts of the curse. If there are in fact biological factors involved in someone’s depression, for example, then why not help them with medication (again, a form of common grace)?[9]
Eric Johnson, gives a helpful point. God created marriage and food “to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:3-5). Johnson says, “Paul was admittedly addressing a very different subject than we are, but a legitimate analogy can be drawn. Like food and marriage, medication for a biological problem (such as the improper production of a neurotransmitter)… is not intrinsically evil… On the contrary, when used consciously and explicitly in dependence on God, biological and psychosocial soul-care assistance is ultimately a gift of God.”[10]
God has given us—all of us—minds. And the means by which to explore our minds. Given there is much that is shrouded in mystery. There’s probably less explored between our two ears than in the depth of the ocean and the limitless expanse in space. [11] Yet, we can speculate and know some things. And for that, we must be grateful to God.
Thus, because of common grace, I believe psychoactive medication can be beneficial in certain cases. See below.
We Must Consider that we are Psychosomatic Unities
Many today believe that we consist of mere biology. We, and everything about us, emotions, actions, thoughts, etc., are determined by the determinism of biological and neurological activity. This, as you can imagine, has all kinds of negative implications (e.g. think of the penal system).
Christians, however, believe in the material and also in the nonmaterial. We believe that we have a body and a soul.[12] We are what is known as psychosomatic unities.[13] The body is the vehicle of our soul. It provides the soul a means of expression. The body and soul are so closely tied, perhaps you could say interwoven even, that when the soul is absent from the body the result is death (esp. James 2:26; cf. Gen. 35:18; Ps. 31:5; Lk. 12:20; 23:43, 46; Acts 7:59; Phil. 1:23-24; 2 Cor. 5:8; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 6:9; 20:4). This understanding has historically had implications for various counseling issues and still has implications for us today.[14]
We see in Genesis 2:7 that when God made man He made him out of dust (i.e. material, the body) and He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (i.e. the immaterial, the soul). We are spiritual beings but God has provided us with bodies as our earthly habitation (2 Cor. 5:1ff).[15] We are to be holy in body and soul, Paul tells us (1 Cor. 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1). This implies that we are body and soul.
There should be certain implications if we believe we are body and soul. For one, we should realize that the body and soul are not unrelated. They have affects upon each other. So, for example, if you go without food or sleep (physical, bodily) you will be more irritable and prone to sin (spiritual, related to the soul). Thus as we minister to people (and think of sanctification for our self) the fact that we are psychosomatic unities should not go forgotten.
“Ministry must address the whole range of human needs if it is to minister to the whole person. God has constituted us as beings who exist as a unity but a complex unity that includes physical, psychological, spiritual, mental, and emotional faculties.”[16]
So, we believe we are soul and body. But, is this what we really believe? If this is what we believe does it show in the way that we minister to people? If we are body and soul (i.e. psychosomatic unities), which Scripture makes clear we are, then why is it wrong to take medication? We take medication if our knees ache, we take medication if we have a headache. So, if we can be fairly sure that medication will help for psychological problems, then why should we not take it?
Thus, because we are body and soul, I believe psychoactive medication can be beneficial in certain cases. See below.
We Must Consider that We are to Have Dominion
Many today believe that man is no different than animals (1 Cor. 15:39). However, it is clear both biblically and logically that we are more. We are sentient and rational beings. We are created in the image of God. We are more than animals, we are to have dominion over the animals.
Our dominion over the earth is derived from the fact that we are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28). That’s why we’re vice-regents. God is Lord over all the earth (cf. Lev. 25:23; Ps. 24:1; 50:10-11; Matt. 5:45; 6:26, 28, 30) yet He has put us over the work of His hands (Ps. 8:6). So man is supposed to work. We see this teaching in Scripture and it is often referred to as the Protestant work ethic (cf. Gen. 1:28; 2:8, 15; 4:17-20; Ps. 128:2; Prov. 12:11; 13:4; 14:23; 16:3; 20:4; 22:29; Eccl. 2:20, 24; 3:22; 9:10; Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 10:31; 15:58; Eph. 4:28; Col. 3:17, 23; 2 Thess. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:10-11). We are to subdue the land with our hands and our heads.
We are to bring good out of what was cursed (cf. Gen. 1:26, 28-29; 2:15; esp. 3:23).[17] Of course, we can’t take away all the groaning, only the Lord can ultimately do that (Rom. 8:19ff). However, an implication of our dominion function and work ethic is that if we can relieve some of the strain caused by mental illness we should.
God has said, subdue the earth. Work the earth. Bring good out of what was cursed . God has also said work hard. Do a good job, and do it for my glory. I believe scientists, neurologists, and psychiatrists can do all of these things.[18] I believe God has commanded them to.
Thus, because we called to have dominion and bring good out of what was cursed and because we are to work hard to God’s glory in whatever we do, I believe psychoactive medication can be beneficial in certain cases. See below.
Principals for taking Psychoactive Medication
- We should be fairly sure that the medication will help us before we take it.
- We should understand that psychoactive medications are not the elixir of life. They cannot, nor should we seek for them to, fix all our problems.[19]
- We should understand that they often have negative side effects. We should understand what the possible side effects are and inform those closest to us.
- We should seek the advice of a competent doctor or psychiatrist; preferably with Christian convictions or sympathies.
- We should know the limitations of psychoactive medication. The medication cannot save or sanctify. However, that is not to say that God cannot use the medication to more easily facilitate the process.
- We should receive psychoactive medication, like all medication, with thankfulness. We must consciously thank God for His common grace in the provision of modern science and medicine.[20]
- We should take psychoactive medication, like all medication, in reliance on God asking Him to bless its use.
- We should realize that people, you and me, and even psychiatrists and neurologists, come to the data with a certain worldview bias that shapes the interpretation of things.[21]
- We should realize that the use of psychoactive medication does not do away with the need for reformational counseling (when counseling is needed) and vice versa, the presence of counseling does not mean that medication may not be needed.[22]
- We should understand that sometimes, as Hezekiah says, it is to our benefit that we have great bitterness (Is. 38:17). It just may be the fire alarm of our soul. It may be sounding to warn of imminent danger. Thus, to “smash” the “fire alarm” in this case would likely not be helpful.[23] Instead, we should seek counsel to root out the real underlying heart issue.
- We should understand that there is quite a bit of speculation involved in our understanding of how exactly psychoactive medications work. We cannot, for example, cut a patient’s head wide-open and see what’s going on.[24]
- We should understand that some physical ailments are the result of direct sin in our lives (Ps. 31:10; Prov. 14:30), others are not (e.g. Jn. 9:3), and still other ailments are a complex and interwoven mix of the two. It can be very difficult to know the difference between a spiritual and physical issue.[25]
- We should understand that the issue is complex. We must ask God to guide us with His wisdom. We must also remember His grace and love in the midst of uncertainty.
- We should hope in Jesus in the midst of suffering. It is through Jesus’ death and resurrection that all those who trust in Him have hope of glorified bodies where suffering and sin will be done away with (cf. Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:35-49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Jn. 3:2). We also have the hope of Jesus wiping every tear from our eyes and making all things new (Rev. 21:1-8).
Conclusion
Mike Emlet agrees that there are times to use medication. He says, “Medications are a gift of God’s grace and they can be used idolatrously. Any good gift can be used in a way that displaces God, his glory and his good purposes and makes something else (comfort, escape, even ‘normality’) more ultimate. We have freedom to use—but not abuse.”[26]
So, my perspective is one of caution and thankfulness. I praise God that He has allowed medication that can relieve great suffering. And I am cautious because we must realize that psychoactive medication is not anyone’s savior and it can be overprescribed. I conclude by echoing Jeremy Pierre’s words:
“Applying this teaching practically is no simple matter. The psychiatric medication industry is largely driven by naturalistic assumptions and compelled by profit margins, and mental illness has been stigmatized in many of our churches. Thinking about how to navigate the process practically would require a discussion beyond the present one.”[27]
Notes
[1] Psychoactive or psychotropic substances can cross the blood-brain barrier and affect brain function. They impact alertness, perception, consciousness, cognition, mood, and behavior. They alter brain function and subsequently behavior (E. John Kuhnley, “Psychopharmacology,” 58 and Frank Minirth “Psychoactive Drugs,” 66 in The Popular Encyclopedia of Christian Counseling).
[2] LifeWay Research has come out with a “Study of Acute Mental Illness and Christian Faith” that helps us to see where American evangelicalism is in regards to this question.
[3] I encourage you to read at least three things; (1) “Listening to Prozac… and to the Scriptures: A Primer on Psychoactive Medications,” by Michael R. Emlet, (2) “Psychiatric Medication and the Image of God,” by Jeremy Pierre, and (3) Blame it on the Brain? Distinguishing Chemical Imbalances, Brain Disorders, and Disobedience, by Edward T. Welch.
[4] I am happy to see that the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors came out with a “Statement Regarding Mental Disorders, Medicine, and Counseling.” I believe that their statement is helpful, biblical, and balanced.
[v] It may be helpful to realize that along with alcohol and nicotine, caffeine is also a type of psychoactive drug. And notice that Paul thus, in a sense, told Timothy something like, take some psychoactive medication (see 1 Tim. 5:23). Some have construed Paul’s words in in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 as showing the importance of whole person care. Paul says, may your whole spirit (the theological), soul (the psychological), and body (the physiological) be blameless (v. 24 may lend to this view because we will in fact be made finally “blameless” in all of these spheres). Also, notice that the Bible does not speak negatively about doctors or medication; Luke himself was a doctor (Matt. 9:12; Col. 4:14; 1 Tim. 5:23).
[6] Johnson, Foundations of Soul Care, 113.
[7] See The Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.1.8; 2.2.18-25. “In reference to the science and philosophy of which he was aware, Calvin argued strongly that Christians are to make constructive use of it. ‘If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God'” (Johnson, “Reformational Counseling: A Middle Way,” 20).
[8] Daniel Carlat, a secular psychiatrist who trained at Harvard Medical School, wrote Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry–A Doctor’s Revelations about a Profession in Crisis (New York: Free Press, 2010). In it he says, “The term ‘chemical imbalance’ is commonly used by laypeople as a shorthand explanation for mental illness. It is a convenient myth because it destigmatizes their condition—if the problem is a chemical imbalance, it is not their fault” (Ibid., 13). Later he says, “When psychiatrists start using what I call neurobabble, beware, because we rarely know what we are talking about” (Ibid., 74-75). Thus Edward T. Welch has said, “As Christians, we can’t just ‘listen to Prozac’; we need a biblically-based philosophy to guide the use or non-use of medications. We need to know not only the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of psychoactive medication use, but also the ‘why’ or ‘why not’ (“Listening to Prozac… and to the Scriptures: A Primer on Psychoactive Medications” in the The Journal of Biblical Counseling, 12). He goes on to say that the medications are “less like ‘smart bombs’ that work with laser precision, and more like conventional bombs with widespread effect on systems of neurotransmitters in the brain” (Ibid.). In fact, “in the majority of trials conducted by drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as—or better than—antidepressants” (Shankar Vedantam, “Against Depression, a Sugar Pill Is Hard to Beat,” in Washington Post (May 7, 2002): A01. See also David Powlison, “Biological Psychiatry,” in Journal of Biblical Counseling 17 (Spring 1999). Richard Baxter, writing in the 1600s said, “If other means will not do, neglect not medicine” (“The Cure of Melancholy and Overmuch Sorrow, by Faith”).
[9] It is important to note here what Welch has said. Antidepressants “do seem to work—that is, improve mood and other symptoms of depression—in some people, some of the time, but they certainly are not the ‘silver bullet’ that some make them out to be. Even if we conclude that medications are or might be effective for a particular person, they comprise only a part of the total approach to the person” (“Listening to Prozac… and to the Scriptures,” 16).
[10] Johnson, Foundations, 375-76.
[11] There is still an awful lot that is still a secret. So, for example, in response to a study on a piece of a mouse’s brain the size of a piece of salt, Jeff Lightman, a neuroscientist and Professor at Harvard said, “It’s a wake-up call to how much more complicated brains are than the way we think of them” (“Secrets of the Brain“).
[12] The three contrasting anthropologies are: (1) tracheotomy; humans are made up of three parts, spirit, soul, and body, (2) dichotomy; humans are made up of two parts, soul and body, and (3) monism; humans are simply made up of physical organisms; what is commonly considered soul or mind is rather chemical and neurological processes.
[13] “Scripture does presuppose and explicitly teaches a distinction between the body and the soul—the view known as dichotomy—especially in its affirmation of the soul’s living presence before God at bodily death. However,… this view in no way entails, much less requires, a radical anthropological dualism. In that light, I would prefer a term such as psychosomatic holism, since dichotomy implies that the distinction between soul and body is more basic than its unity. The important point is that human nature is not to be identified exclusively or even primarily with the soul; the ‘real self’ is the whole self—body and soul” (Michael Hortan, The Christian Faith, 377).
[14] Early on various puritan writers knew the significance of the fact that we are psychosomatic unities. Here’s a clip from Jonathan Edwards: “This seems to be the reason why persons that are under the disease of melancholy, are commonly so visibly and remarkably subject to the suggestions and temptations of Satan: that being a disease which peculiarly affects the animal spirits, and is attended with weakness of that part of the body which is the fountain of the animal spirits, even the brain, which is, as it were, the seat of the phantasy. ‘Tis by impressions made on the brain, that any ideas are excited in the mind, by the motion of the animal spirits, or any changes made in the body. The brain being thus weakened and diseased, ’tis less under the command of the higher faculties of the soul, and yields the more easily to extrinsic impressions, and is overpowered by the disordered motions of the animal spirits; and so the devil has greater advantage to affect the mind, by working on the imagination” (The Religious Affections, 289-90). Also, earlier in the same work, he said, “Also, early on Jonathan Edwards realized this. He said, “Such seems to be our nature, and such the laws of soul and body, that there never is any case whatsoever, any lively and vigorous exercise of the inclination, without some effect upon the body.” Thus, he shows the interrelatedness of our body and soul. Richard Baxter, writing in the 1600s said, “If other means will not do, neglect not medicine” (“The Cure of Melancholy and Overmuch Sorrow, by Faith”). Martyn Lloyd-Jones, also considered a puritan in a sense, talked about the physical and the spiritual. And he was a medical doctor and in a sense doctor of theology. Lloyd-Jones said, “You cannot isolate the spiritual from the physical” (Spiritual Depression, 9).
[15] “The body is the material component of human nature distinct from–but intimately linked with–the immaterial component, commonly called the soul (or spirit)” (Gregg R. Allison, “Toward a Theology of Human Embodiment,” 5). It should also be noted that our human bodies are not in themselves bad. The Bible teaches that we will receive resurrection bodies (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 21:1-22:5). So the physical is not bad. It is good. But it needs resurrected.
[16] “The Doctrine of Humanity” in A Theology of the Church, 350.
[17] “More than 6,000 years from Eden, God’s creation is marred with many biological defects, including defects of brain structure and function. Sometimes these defects result in alterations in our abilities to reason, think clearly, and accurately perceive reality. In such a state, it is more difficult to discern truth and come to the knowledge of God. To the degree we can intervene with medication and restore the ability to reason clearly and perceive reality accurately, we increase the ability to know God and work with the Holy Spirit to restore the image of God in man. Antipsychotic medications are tools we can utilize to help those suffering with physical brain illness to think and function more clearly” (Timothy R. Jennings, “Antipsychotic Drugs,” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Christian Counseling, 66).
[18] I think Sarah Rainer is a good example of this. See “The Integration of Christianity and Psychology: A guest post by Sarah Rainer“ Jeff Forrey also offers some helpful thoughts on her comments in “A Response to ‘The Integration of Christianity and Psychology: A Guest Post by Sarah Rainer.’”
[19] John Piper has said, “I do not want to give the impression that medication should be the first or main solution to spiritual darkness. Of course, by itself medicine is never a solution to spiritual darkness. All the fundamental issues of life remain to be brought into proper relation to Christ when the medicine has done its work. Antidepressants are not decisive savior. Christ is. In fact, the almost automatic use of pills for child misbehavior and adult sorrows is probably going to hurt us as a society (When the Darkness Will Not Lift: Doing What We Can While We Wait for God, 27).
[20] “Taking depression medication that improves brain function gives God some glory, since God is the ultimate source of all medical improvement, and because he designed brains to function properly. However, if the medication is taken in God’s name, that is, with conscious and explicit gratitude to God (e.g., by thanking God for the creation grace that led to its use), God is given much greater glory, because the biological order is transposed into the spiritual by thanksgiving” (Johnson, Foundations, 374).
[21] As unregenerate humanity wades into the areas where Scripture is more explicitly relevant we will see that they bring more distortions. “Christians ought to expect that human scientific activity will yield some distortions in human understanding, particularly when dealing with the issues of ultimate significance” (Johnson, Foundations, 101). “Counseling concepts, in particular, are loaded with connotations shaped by worldview beliefs” (Ibid., 94 cf. 97).
[22] “Many mild conditions respond to non-medication approaches. For moderate to severe impairment, medication is often necessary. Studies indicate that medication alone may be sufficient for a few individuals. More commonly, an integrative approach is necessary to achieve optimum results” (E. John Kuhnley, “Psychopharmacology” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Christian Counseling, 60).
[23] cf. Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 103.
[24] See for example Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health by Elliot Valenstein. On page 65 he gives a helpful and brief overview of his opinion.
[25] See Heath Lambert, “How Can Christians Tell the Difference Between a Spiritual Issue and a Physical One?”
[26] Mike Emlet, “The Doctor is IN – Part 4.”
[27] Jeremy Pierre, “Psychiatric Medication and the Image of God.”
Politics?
Christians and politics?
How can we know as Christians if we should be involved in politics or even care about politics? Does the Bible teach us anything regarding this question? The Bible is our authority “for faith and practice.” So, yes, the Bible does address politics. Which I personally thank God for, because without God’s Word I’d be on the metaphorical back-roads of eastern Kentucky without a working GPS.
What does Scripture teach us? It teaches, “Significant Christian influence.”[1] The Bible does not tell us what exactly each individual must do. However, we can establish principals that help guide us through the maze that is politics. First, we must realize that we all have different callings, we are not all called to be a William Wilberforce. However, we are called to have significant Christian influence. Ok, you may ask, but where do we see this in Scripture. I am glad you asked.
We see many examples of this in both the New Testament (NT) and Old Testament (OT). Most of the prophets in the OT addressed the sin of Israel and even the sin of other nations. Daniel had a lot of influence in a secular government and used it well (Dan. 4:27). Jeremiah told the Jewish exiles to have a good influence on the city in which they lived. This would surly mean influencing laws and the government within that city (Jer. 29:7). Remember, also, the role that Joseph had? He had a huge influence on the government (Gen. 41:37-45; 42:6; 45:8-9, 26) and, of course, there’s Moses. We should also note Nehemiah (Neh. 1:1), Mordecai (Esther 10:3 and also 9:4), and Esther (Esther 5:1-8; 7:1-6; 8:3-13; 9:12-15, 20-32). Thus, we see a precedence for political involvement in the OT.
In the NT, we also see political involvement. I think of John the Baptizer and the Apostle Paul for example (Mark 6:14-20; Matt. 14:1-12; Acts 16:35-39; 24:25; 1 Tim. 2:1-4 also see Rom. 13 and 1 Peter 2). Wayne Grudem rightly says, “Influencing government for good on the basis of the wisdom found in God’s own word is a theme that runs throughout the entire Bible.”[2]
The overarching principle we see is that we are called to political involvement, though this is to varying degrees. We are not all called to be the President, congressmen (Excuses me, “congressional representatives,” I should be politically correct here!), or mayor, and I, for one, thank God for that! But that does not mean politics don’t have their place and importance, they do. We as Christian Americans have ample opportunity and thus responsibility to effect good change in this country. And we, unlike Daniel’s friends, won’t be thrown into a big furnace for it (yet!).
I, obviously, can’t tell you who or what to vote for on certain things but there is clear scriptural warrant for us to vote since we have the freedom to and to vote in a way that accords with the teachings of Scripture. May we be faithful with the stewardship that God has given to us as Americans who have such freedom, indeed a responsibility, to do good to God’s glory.
For further study I recommend Russel Moore’s book Onward and Wayne Grudem’s book Politics According to the Bible.
________________________________________________________
[1] See Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010) esp. 58-62.
[2] Ibid., 61.
in X 