Church History, Abortion, and Ensoulment

It's sad that for so many of us religious people, we have so little knowledge of the long history of adaptation within our beliefs. We tend to focus on the way our church or temple has been since either The Great Awakening of the 1700s or the Revivalism of the 1900s that led to the growth of Pentecostalism and a settling in of Dispensationalism. We have thousands of years of theological history prior to those events that are equally valid as the "faith and message" doctrines of today. 

Among those is the idea of ensoulment, or when the soul and the body join together, particularly in the area of abortion and how the church understands it, which, like all theological understanding has a larger scope and understanding in the faith at large and beyond merely what you denomination or church stance it. 

For reference, here's just one article about church history on the matter.  Apologies. It's quite long. 

From: "The Breath of Life: Christian Perspectives on Conception and Ensoulment" by Lindsey Disney and Larry Poston 

But the conviction that “human life begins at the moment of conception” is not the historic norm among religions in general. Even in the history of Christianity, there has never been a united voice on this issue. In actuality, neither the Christian Scriptures nor modern science provide sufficient data to enable us to draw indisputable conclusions regarding this topic. Much of our confusion may be attributed to our failure to distinguish between the concepts of “life” and “ensoulment.”

Distinguishing Between “Life” and “Ensoulment”

Our first order of business must be to define and discuss the distinction between “life” and “ensoulment.” There are several extant definitions and lists of criteria for establishing what comprises “life,” but a comprehensive definition may be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which states that “living entities [are those which] metabolize, grow, die, reproduce, respond, move, have complex organized functional structures, heritable variability, and lineages which can evolve over generational time, producing new and emergent functional structures that provide increased adaptive fitness in changing environments.”

Using such a definition leads to the conclusion that “life” is certainly not exclusive to human beings. The term “living” may be just as applicable to animals or even plants. Cows and owls, dogs and frogs, mice and lice; all are “alive” according to science. Until quite recently, however, no non-human creature has been accorded the same status as a human being. Each lacks “something” that distinguishes humans from all other living forms on the planet. Philosophically and religiously speaking, this distinctive aspect is called “the soul”: an immaterial “something” that endows a human being with an intellect, emotions, a will, and an autonomous “sense of self.” This “something” cannot be identified under a microscope; it cannot be described in terms of size, shape, texture, color, or the like. But it is presumed to exist nonetheless.

It is the matter of “ensoulment”—of when a soul becomes present in a human—that most concerns us in this essay. For it is one thing to speak of “when life begins,” but quite another to speak of when “the soul” enters or is present in a human body. These are entirely distinguishable items, and though they may be simultaneous in their origins, they are not necessarily so. One can maintain that “life” begins at the moment of conception without holding that “ensoulment” occurs at that same time, and such a distinction could potentially lead to very controversial convictions regarding various moral and ethical issues extant today.

Ensoulment in the History of Religions

Christianity

We will begin our study of ensoulment with the Christian religion. Views regarding the time and means of this phenomenon vary greatly even within this single religious system, and so Christianity’s theological considerations of this subject will provide us with a template for classifying the views of other religious systems of thought, both Eastern and Western.

It is important to note that when dealing with the topic of “ensoulment” within the parameters of Christianity, we will mainly be examining “Christian,” not necessarily “biblical,” views. Despite claims to the contrary, the canonical Scriptures of the Christian faith do not directly answer the question of when “life” begins or when “ensoulment” occurs. To illustrate: Psalm 139:13, which contains David’s conviction that “you [God] created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb,”6 is often used as a model verse for Christian pro-life activists. But what does this passage actually teach us? The literary genre of the Psalms in general, as well as the context of this particular psalm, are not scientific in orientation. The intent of the psalmist is to praise God, and David is using the forms that are appropriate in a psalm—poetry and metaphor—to get his point across: that God is to be praised because God cares enough to know David intimately.

Even if for the sake of argument we were to consider Psalm 139:13 literally rather than metaphorically, the passage could still be construed as saying no more than that God sovereignly brought about the life of David, one of God’s closest followers and “a man after his own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). The passage does not necessarily imply that God “creates the inmost being” of every fetus in every womb; it could well be that God sovereignly chooses to “create the inmost being” only of those that he knows through his foreknowledge will reach full-term in their development. Neither does the passage address the issue of when such an inner-being creation occurs for those in which God does choose to do so.

A parallel example would be that of Jeremiah 1:5, which says: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Some have concluded that this verse proves that God considers fetuses in the womb to be human beings, loved and known by him. Others, however, are persuaded that the passage says only that God knew that this particular fetus in this particular womb would become Jeremiah—an important prophet—and indicates that God in his sovereignty planned the creation of Jeremiah even before his conception, just as Ephesians 1:4 indicates that all of God’s elect were chosen “before the creation of the world.”

Because of the ambiguity of these and other scriptural passages, the history of Christianity has seen the development of three distinct views with respect to ensoulment: Pre-existentianism, Traducianism, and Creationism.

Pre-existentianism. 

Pre-existentianism is the belief that souls are preexistent entities who await bodies to enter. According to this concept, the body is essentially “accidental” and relatively unimportant; a human being is complete without a physical body. Historically, very few within Christian circles have held or taught this view, though the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints adopted it in the nineteenth century...

Traducianism. 

The doctrine of Traducianism teaches that the “soul” is present in both the sperm and the egg when they unite. The combination forms a new “soul” automatically and immediately. Traducianism has been held by at least some Christians since the church’s earliest years. Tertullian (c.160–c.225), for instance, wrote that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.”7 

Clement of Alexandria presented a much more detailed description: The embryo is a living thing; for that the soul entering into the womb after it has been by cleansing prepared for conception, and introduced by one of the angels who preside over generation, and who knows the time for conception, moves the woman to intercourse; and that, on the seed being deposited, the spirit, which is in the seed, is, so to speak, appropriated, and is thus assumed into conjunction in the process of formation.8

The Traducianist view was also held by Gregory of Nyssa (335–c.394) and Maximus the Confessor (c.580–662). The latter’s argument was based on the example of Christ, who had been pronounced by the Ecumenical Church councils to be fully human and fully divine from the first moment of his conception—implying that he possessed a spiritual soul from that instant. If, as the Bible teaches, Christ was like us (humans) in all things except for sin, then it must be true that all human beings receive a spiritual soul at conception as well.9 

Some scholars hold that the Traducianist view best explains the transmission of original sin. Bruce Waltke, for instance, concludes that “on the basis of inherited sin, . . . man’s spiritual element is passed on mediately from Adam and not as the immediate creation of God, who does not author sin.”10 If the soul is automatically generated by the joining of sperm and egg, God avoids the accusation that he has indirectly been party to the transmission of sin. But here a question arises: if the soul is brought forth by the union of the parents, then are they to be seen as the true creators of life and God only an interested (or even disinterested) observer? Traducianism is essentially deistic in that God’s creative powers are held to have initiated life—including the soul—only in the case of Adam and Eve. Since that time, the generation of “life” and “soul” has been the prerogative of humans alone.

Creationism. 

The doctrine of Creationism maintains that the “soul” is created and introduced into a fetus by God at a point of his choosing, either at the time of a fetus’s first breath, as was the case with Adam in Genesis 2:7, or when God in his sovereignty knows that a fetus is not going to be spontaneously (meaning “naturally”) or intentionally aborted.

Theologian Louis Berkhof—a staunch proponent of Creationism—sees a marked distinction in the Bible between the body, which is taken from earth, and the soul, which is given by God. Significantly, the creation story is the first example of this distinction. Genesis 2:7 says that “God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Ecclesiastes 12:7 adds the comment that “the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” And Hebrews 12:9 makes the distinction between “human fathers” and the “Father of spirits,” concerning which the seventeeth-century Swiss Reformed clergyman Francis Turretin comments, “Why should God be called ‘the Father of spirits’ in contradistinction to ‘the fathers of the flesh’ unless the origin of each was different?”11 While these passages are not sufficient to bring us to a conclusion as to when the soul is introduced into the body, they do allow us to conclude that “body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins.”12 

Physical substance comes from physical origins, and spiritual essence from a spiritual source. Berkhof maintains that Creationism is the most biblically-based view, claiming that “it is more consistent with the prevailing representations of Scripture than Traducianism.”13 

Berkhof is just one of the more recent representatives of a stream of thought that is rooted both in ancient Hebrew beliefs and in Aristotelian philosophy, a stream that is shared today by rabbinic Judaism and by much of Islam. Aristotle equated “life” and “soul,” but described different kinds of the latter: vegetative, sensitive, locomotive, and intellectual. 

“In general,” Aristotle believed, “soul is imparted to the body in stages as each part is formed, and the specific soul is not actually present until the form is complete.”14 This “completion of form” takes place on the fortieth day after conception for males, and on the eightieth day for females. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was a proponent of this view, and Thomas Aquinas (1205–1274) adopted Aristotle’s schema practically in its entirety. Aquinas held that the body was formed gradually through the power transmitted by the male seed but the spiritual soul was directly created by God when the body was ready to receive it. Thus the embryo was believed to live at first the life of a plant, then the life of a simple animal, and only after all its organs, including the brain, had been formed, was it given, by the direct and creative act of God, an immortal spiritual soul.15

The Creationist views of Augustine and Aquinas were the norm in the Christian West from the early fifth century to the late nineteenth century. The Justinian Code of the sixth century excused from penalty abortions performed prior to forty days after conception.

Pope Innocent III (c. 1216) and Pope Gregory IX (c. 1241) both affirmed the distinction between "vivified” fetuses (older than forty days) and those younger than so.16 Not until the Effraenatum of Pope Sixtus V in 1588 did the forty-day rule vanish and abortion was declared illegal at any stage of fetal existence. But this ruling was rescinded by Sixtus’s successor Gregory XIV, and this repeal lasted until 1869, when Pius IX reinstated the earlier decision. Even so, Pius’s decree did not become canon law until 1918—a mere ninety years ago.17

With respect to Protestantism, the writings of John Calvin and Martin Luther were interpreted by their immediate successors as supportive of the Traducianist position. Over time, however, many in the Calvinistic stream returned to the Creationist position, while Evangelical Protestants—derived mainly from Lutheran Pietism—have remained nearly unanimous today in their advocacy of Traducianism.

Judaism

In Jewish law, a fetus becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before that moment, the principle that applies is that of ubar yerekh imo: “the fetus is the thigh of its mother,” meaning that it may not be considered an independent entity but is instead a “partial life.”18 This view is based on Exodus 21:22, which says that if a woman miscarries due to being struck by men fighting, and she herself is not seriously injured, the offender is to pay the husband of the woman a monetary fine for the loss. What is significant here is that the Mosaic Law requires “life for life” (Exodus 21:23). The above scenario, then, implies that the fetus is of worth (since payment is required for its destruction) but not of equal worth to, say, the life of the mother (or the punishment of the offender would have been death). The distinction is made here because the fetus is not considered to be nefesh adam (“a man”) but rather lav nefesh hu (“not a person”) until it is born.19 

Philo (20 bce – 50 ce) was the first to address seriously the issue of ensoulment, using the scenario of Exodus 21:22 as his starting point. The Septuagint translation of the Tanakh had rendered the word ason in this passage as “form” rather than “harm,” thus changing the meaning from “if [there be] no harm [that is, death, to the mother], he shall be fined” to “if [there be] no form [yet, to the fetus], he shall be fined.... But if [there be] form, then shalt thou give life for life.”20

Whereas the previous (and correct) translation would require only a fine for an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, Philo makes a “before and after” distinction. He writes: If one have a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry; if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature—which was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being—from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived has assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, which had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent into the world.21

Philo held that the time of having assumed “a distinct shape in all its parts” was the fortieth day after conception, following the Aristotelian line of thinking.

Another context bearing upon this issue is that of the Sabbath laws, which contain no general permission for a violation in order to save a fetus. The wording of the Talmudic discussion of this issue suggests two conclusions: “The fetus is not a person, not a man; but the fetus is indeed potential life and is to be treated as such.”22 

One further illustration will serve to show just how complex this subject can actually become. There is within Judaism a factor known as “doubtful viability,” which holds that an embryo remains an embryo until thirty days after its birth, becoming only then a bar kayyama, a viable, living being.23 We find, then, in Judaism the same ambiguity regarding fetal life that we noted in Christianity. ...

First, we must teach in our classrooms and in other venues in such a way that the general public learns that the matter of ensoulment is an enormously complex issue. We must show by example that the implications of such an issue should not be undermined by denial or neutrality, but should be approached in a loving, fair, and nonjudgmental fashion. We must explain that religious beliefs regarding this subject—even within a single religion such as Christianity—span a very wide spectrum, and all attempts to simplify these matters in an unrealistic manner will doom us to continued misunderstanding and acrimony. Neither natural science nor revelation—natural or special— has produced sufficient data for surety regarding these issues. Consequently, discussion and debate regarding contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research must be brought to a higher level of sophistication than is currently extant.

Second, in the course of our discussions we should adopt a vocabulary that avoids hyperbole and unwarranted assumptions. Terminology that is brutal and accusatory, such as “murderers” and “baby-killers,” should be eliminated. After all, can we know with absolute certainty that the abovementioned activities do indeed involve “murder”? If there is no incontrovertible revelational teaching regarding this issue, might one not essentially be violating a moral requirement that is incontrovertible (for example, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”) by misinforming the public concerning “what God has said” regarding these subjects? Why not focus our attention and resources on larger issues, such as the spiritual, sociological, psychological, and physiological tragedies that give rise to the very ethical issues we are discussing?

...It is a tragedy that the church is often the last place a woman who has had an abortion will go. A simplistic judgmentalism will succeed only in polarizing individuals and groups. Anonymous letters such as one received by Dr. George Woodward that threatened, “If you continue I will hunt you down like any other wild beast and kill you,”54 are all too often highlighted by the media and do nothing to resolve the situation.

We believe that a majority of Christians do not condone such behavior. They are instead embarrassed by and apologetic concerning such fanatical attitudes. But separating themselves from extremists in the eyes of a watching world will require more from spirituallyminded persons than pink-cheeked apologies. Such separation will require patient listening, careful and thoughtful discussion, and selfsacrificing compassion. It will require a frank willingness to acknowledge a multitude of possible truths, and, therefore, a necessary change in the overall approach of opponents to abortion to these issues.

These are truly awesome responsibilities. As ambassadors of the kingdom of heaven, our words and our actions concerning these issues can have profound implications for social structures, for moral and ethical considerations, and for the psyches of both women and men. Let us therefore be “shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) in our stewardship of the concept of “ensoulment” and of its implications for humanity.

[Link] “He Gets Us” Is The Ultimate Evangelical Hypocrisy

by Keith Giles

Everyone’s talking about the HE GETS US Super Bowl ad that ran during last night’s big game.

While some Evangelical Christians complained about the ad for suggesting that Jesus would ever show love and compassion to Abortionists, Immigrants, Refugees and Gay people [the people they hate]…..

...it’s the overwhelming lack of self-awareness from those who funded the ad which is the most staggering to me.

...

So, I guess the Christians who paid for this ad seem to think that Jesus is the one who needs a new marketing message. They think the reason so many young people are leaving the Evangelical Church in record numbers is because they don’t understand how awesome Jesus is.

What they seem to be oblivious to is the fact that all of those people are leaving the Evangelical Church because the Evangelical Church is nothing like Jesus.

Read the full article: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/keithgiles/2024/02/he-gets-us-is-the-ultimate-evangelical-hypocrisy/

[Link] The Origins of America’s Unique and Spectacular Cruelty

What Happens When Societies Don’t Invest in Civilizing Themselves?

By Umair Haque

A friend, recently, told me a very interesting and telling story. She’d recently been in the States, where she was taking the subway to work, and she fell down, injuring her wrist. Not a single person helped her up — they all stared at her angrily as if to say: “you are going to make us late for work!!”. (Ironically, the train was full of doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers).

She contrasted that with London — where, the last year, when she’d broken a limb, and had a cast on, people would regularly, and very courteously, give up their seats on the tube.

It’s a tiny example. And perhaps you will say it’s just a meaningless anecdote. But by now, American cruelty is both legendary — and one of the world’s great unsolved mysteries. Just why would people in a rich country leave their neighbours to die for a lack of basic medicine, their young without good jobs or retirements, make their elderly work until their dying day, cripple students with lifelong debt, charge new mothers half of average income just to have a baby — not to mention shrug when their kids begin massacring each other at school? What motivates the kind of spectacular, unique, unimiaginable, and gruesome cruelty that we see in America, which exists nowhere else in the world?

See that pic above? It’s kids huddling under bulletproof blankets, doing “active shooter drills”. That’s what I mean by “unique and spectacular cruelty”. No kid should — ever — have to be traumatized and victimized like that, and indeed, even kids in Pakistan and Iran aren’t.

(And no, I don’t mean “all Americans”. I just mean something like “more” or maybe “enough”, if you want to think statistically, that the distribution of cruelty has fatter tails and a higher peak.)

My answer goes something like this. Americans, you must remember, grew up in the shadow of endless war. With two “sides” who championed atomic individualism, lionized competition and brutality, and despised weakness and fragility. And thus, America forgot — or maybe never evolved — the notion of a public interest. Each man for himself, everyone against everyone himself. So all there is left in America is extreme capitalism now. Few championed a more balanced, saner, healthier way of life, about a common good, about virtue, about a higher purpose. And in that way, America has become something like, ironically enough, a mirror image of its great enemy, the Soviet Union. It is a totalist society, run by and for one end — only a slightly different one: money.

Read the full article: https://eand.co/the-origins-of-americas-unique-and-spectacular-cruelty-74a91f53ce29

[Link] What Non-Christians Want Christians To Hear

by John Shore

Blog Editor's Note: Interesting article. And the kind of thing I think it would do us Christians good to just listen too without reacting to immediately to either defend ourselves or debate any theological clarifications. This is one of those "stop talking and just listen" moments that my wife tells me about.

By way of researching my book I’m OK – You’re Not: The Message We’re Sending Nonbelievers and Why We Should Stop, I posted a notice on Craigslist sites all over the country asking non-Christians to send me any short, personal statement they would like Christians to read.

“Specifically,” I wrote, “I’d like to hear how you feel about being on the receiving end of the efforts of Christian evangelicals to convert you. I want to be very clear that this is not a Christian-bashing book; it’s coming from a place that only means well for everyone. Thanks.”

Within three days I had in my inbox over 300 emails from non-Christians across the country. Reading them was one of the more depressing experiences of my life. I had expected their cumulative sentiment to be one of mostly anger. But if you boiled down to a single feeling what was most often expressed in the nonbelievers’ statements, it would be Why do Christians hate us so much?

Read the full article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2013/07/what-non-christians-want-christians-to-hear/

To hate is the devil's work

So, a friend of mine posted this: "If God is love then why do Christians spread so much hate? Rather than cast a stone, love and pray for the person. To hate is the devil's work."

Because he asked, I responded, and I figured I'd share it here too because I get asked this a great deal by people who know me, both my faith and my personality (and try to make sense of putting the two together).

Speaking as a Christian, by and large it's a cultural thing. Since Constantine, Christians have held the power to define morality for the rest of culture. And as we're starting to lose that, it has a lot of us in a sort of attack mode in order to safeguard our territory morally. That's it, I think, in a nutshell for the bulk of cultural Christians nowadays.

On the other hand, there are those who genuinely are trying to show their love by trying to encourage others to "turn from sin." And too often because the language used is "we're right, you're wrong" it comes off as hateful, when even in many cases, it's not hate, it's zeal to see their friends and love ones "get saved" or become "right."

However, in many times, even that seemingly hateful speech is coming from a heart that loves, but doesn't know how to get attention other than shouting rather than taking the time to get to know people as people first.

A friend of mine once compared it to this story, which I think really helped me have more patience for those folks...

A man drove along in a torrential downpour, and just barely missed driving off a cliff where a bridge had been washed away. He looked around for a "bridge out" sign but the rain was too heavy and no one could see it. So he started running through the street trying to stop the oncoming traffic and tell them that the bridge was out and they were rushing to their doom.

In doing so, though, some thought he was crazy, and others thought he was rude. I'll believe it when I see it, others thought.

A simplistic tale, I'll warrant, but it does help to explain the viewpoint of a person of faith and zeal. If someone truly believes he or she is doing a good and loving thing by shouting that the "bridge is out," it is an action done out of love, no matter how the hearer interprets the words or actions.

Now, that doesn't mean that the warn-er doesn't need to learn to speak with compassion and tact, and the onus should be on him or her to do so.

And then there are those who have redefined anything short of abject approval as hate. I only use gay rights here below because it's the most violently discussed among such topics, it seems.

There is the acceptance of a person as a person of value and worth, and then there is the full acceptance of everything that person believes and does -- and we currently live in a world that seems to be unable to realize (or value) the difference between those two things. To be able to value and love a gay person and yet not condone everything that person does should be one of the things that makes us human -- the ability to disapprove of someone's actions and still approve of him or her as a human being created in God's image. Telling someone you believe their actions are wrong isn't hate speech. Calling out violence against someone because you disagree with their lifestyle or actions, however, is hate speech. No matter the issue -- abortion, politics, gender rights, sexual preferences, religion, etc. -- we are each created in the image of God, and therefore we have the ability to form our own opinions. That also means we should be able to hold such opinions in a world where we will be disagreed with often, period.

And we need to all put on our big-boy and big-girl pants and deal with the fact that people will disagree with us.

Are you a religious person who bemoans the fact that the world is changing and that its idea of morality is different than yours? Get over it. Put on your big-boy pants.

Are you a non-religious person who wants people who do believe a faith to shut up and stop talking about it because it's infringing on your so-called rights to not have listen to opinions you disagree with? Get over it. Put on your big-girl pants.

Are you gay and hate it that there are people you will never win over to support you and believe as you do? Get over it. Put on your big-boy pants.

Are you straight and want to change the world so that the rest of the world goes back into the closet and doesn't rain on your parade? Get over it. Put on your big-girl pants.

How do I feel about the topic? I feel like regardless of what I think about it, that it shouldn't be able to come between us and keep us from being friends (or at the very least, friendly).

In other words, vote based on your worldview. Get involved in organizations that you believe in. Be pro. Be con. But be human. Don't wear your crap on your sleeve if it makes you an asshole. Believe what you will or what you won't, but don't let it keep you from all kinds of people. Don't let it build walls between you and the rest of humanity.

Then again, there are those from all viewpoints -- militant religionists, millitant non-religionists, militant genderists, militant non-genderists, militant racists, militant non-racists, militant pro-abortionists, militant anti-abortionists, militant pro-gay, militant anti-gay, etc. -- who seem to relish the hateful attitudes because it's easier to fight straw men than to honestly address the real issues of any subject. And to those who embrace hateful attitudes who still claim to be Christian and to be basing that on the fact that you're following Christ, well, I  have trouble believing any of those people truly Christian in any way, shape, or form.

But then, these are just my opinions. If you don't like 'em, you don't have to. Put on your big-boy pants. *grins*

The Merely Annoying Gospel

We’re killing the gospel to get people to listen.

What do I mean?

Well, remember how following Christ is supposed to be offensive, divisive, renewing (as in overwriting the old, not just refreshing it), death-to-self inducing and all that other “hard stuff.”

The gospel is designed by God to offend every sense of human strength. It flies in the face of every thought that we can “make it on our own” or “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps” or “DIY.” It stands in front of those notions and screams a very loud, “No! I’m sorry, but no. It just ain’t happening.”

Then it says, “But I’ll do it for you. All you have to do is follow.”

And every bone within us free-willed humans shouts, “No thanks, if I can’t do it myself, then I don’t want to do it. I don’t mind the gift, but the terms are too high. You can’t get me to admit that without you, I’m nothing.”

And like the rich young ruler, we often turn away.

But that’s the gospel. Or at least that’s the gospel God designed. The one we’re preaching nowadays has lost all that power. The sharp, dividing edge has been dulled. The offensiveness has been downgraded to mere annoyance.

The gospel is not  practical guidelines for a happy life.

The gospel is not a self-help book.

The gospel is not something you can take part of and ignore the rest.

The gospel is not something you can face without either admitting or ignoring the truth about your own spiritual state.

The gospel is not something that gives you the ability to feel “meh” about—it either offends you deeply and drives you away or it draws you to it deeply and offers you hope for change based on someone else’s ability.

Our modern gospel has been converted from something life-changing to something value-added.

Ironically, in doing so, in our efforts to make the “gospel” more appealing and less offensive to the average “unchurched Harry and Mary,” it is we ourselves, the Christian people who have become offensive. It is our “self-improved,” value-added, holier-than-thou-ness that offends our unbelieving friends and neighbors. We’ve stopped telling people that we’re just like them -- “such a worm as I” -- and we all need the offensive gospel that cuts us off at the kneecaps spiritually, and we’ve somehow started conveying the message that we’ve improved and that they can become more like us if they follow the same practical rules and spiritual guidelines.

We’ve taken the idea of an offensive gospel delivered by the “beautiful feet” of a loving and merciful and forgiving and thoroughly inoffensive people and turned it into an inoffensive (and thoroughly ineffective) gospel delivered by an offensive people. Seems to me we’re missing the point somewhere in all that.

I don’t mind people being offended by what I believe.

I do mind them being offended by me.

And I could be wrong, but isn’t that kind of the point of being salt and light in the world? I mean, isn't salt supposed to taste good?

Equals/Unequals and Other Human Equations

It seems to me that people from opposite sides of religious, social, political, cultural, etc. issues should be able to disagree about things without being jackasses.

I'm sure that I'm as different from my progressive friends as I am from my conservative ones, from my devotedly religious friends as from my most un-religious ones. I'm sure I probably agree with many of my readers AND disagree with an equal number of my readers on subjects like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, whether Jesus is the son of God or just a fictional character, supporting the poor, affirmative action, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc.

Having different opinions doesn't make me a dick. Nor does it make you a dick.

It's how we treat each about the differences that becomes an issue.

I wish we could realize that just having differing opinions, even about vital, important, crucial, life-changing stuff, doesn't make ANYONE less a person. I'm still proud to have you as a friend no matter how you vote or what church you attend (or don't) -- just as long as you don't become a jerk about it.

I know as many jackass democrats as republicans as independents. I know as many jackass Christians as Wiccans as atheists as agnostics. I know as many jackass straights as gays, and pro-gay as pro-straight. And I've know just as many -- thankfully more -- wonderful human beings who are democrats, republicans, independents, gay, straight, pro-life, pro-choice, Christian, Wiccan, agnostic, atheist, NRA members, pro-gun control folks, etc.

The trouble is that so few of us can beyond our own worldviews to actually listen to anyone else who believes differently or see them as anything but an opponent.

I think for me it gets down to is what setting my filter is adjusted to. Am I walking around looking for the differences or looking for what we have in common? Am I searching for opponents or for fellow humans?

[Link] Sterile Christianity

“A Christian should be in the world, but not of the world.”

How many times have you heard, or maybe even said something like this?

This is a mantra of Christianity, the functional approach that many Christians apply to life. It expresses the intent to be fully immersed and engaged in worldly affairs without being compromised by its stink and corrosive effects.

This quasi-biblical command is based passages like John 17, Romans 12, and 1 Corinthians 5. It’s solid theology.

Unfortunately, the problem is in the execution.

Many Christians really struggle with what it means to live in this world while not being tainted or stained by it. I’ve struggled with it myself for much of my faith life (more about that, later).

Wrongly executing the “In/not Of” ideal often results in an effort to self-quarantine from the world and its effects. People who do this reason that until they die and are in heaven, they are “in” the world. Until then, the best, noblest thing they can do is pursue the life of the ascetic, shunning any engagement with the world (inasmuch as possible).

Author John Fischer calls this “the three monkey approach,” a lifestyle defined by “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” These people feel like the only way to be “untainted” is to be segregated from the world. Unfortunately, this is an Eastern philosophy hearkening back to Confucius, not a Christian philosophy issued by Jesus.

Consequently, an entire sub-culture of Christianity has emerged that, while technically “in the world,” it has little or nothing to actually do with the world. I call these people Sterile Christians. Well, not to their face, because that would be rude. Sterile Christians practice Sterile Christianity.

In this series of blog posts, I intend to bust the myth of Sterile Christianity and offer the better way taught, exemplified, and enabled through Jesus.

---------------------

Well worth checking out this series from Bryan.

In due time

by John Fischer

NOTE: Reposted in entirety from http://catchjohnfischer.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/in-due-time/ 

I remain with Daniel’s influential place in court of Nebuchadnezzar, ruler of the Babylonian empire, during a time when the children of Israel were in captivity there. I find this similar to the place a follower of Christ has in the marketplace today. As believers, Christians are in exile in a foreign country since their true home is in heaven, yet, while on this earth, they are required to take part in the “secular” culture in which they find themselves – to “build homes, and plan to stay. Plant gardens, and eat the food they produce. Marry and have children. Then find spouses for them so that you may have many grandchildren. Multiply! Do not dwindle away! And work for the peace and prosperity of the city where I sent you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, for its welfare will determine your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:5-7 NLT).

And when, in the course of living in an environment sometimes hostile to their faith, Daniel’s example would be to remain true to his God whatever the cost. In Daniel’s case, that’s what got him famously thrown into the lion’s den, where his survival impressed the king, making him respect not only Daniel, but Daniel’s god, and causing the king to put him in a place of high influence in his empire. At all times Daniel conducted himself with humility and respect for those around him – looking after their welfare as he would his own. These were pagan people following pagan gods, and though they were hostile towards him at times, he was never hostile towards them.

Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar was so impressed with Daniel and Daniel’s god (I use the lower case “g” to indicate the king’s perspective) that he named him Belteshazzer, a name after his own god, and claimed “the spirit of the holy gods is in him” (Daniel 4:9). This is Nebuchadnezzar putting Daniel and Daniel’s faith into terms he understands. And Daniel does not appear to resist this. Why should he? If anything, it’s a compliment, and Nebuchadnezzar will find out for himself whose god is God in due time.

Christians of recent years have tried to gain ground in society through confrontation, in some cases creating animosity and then claiming “persecution” over the reaction that animosity engendered. I do not find this to be in keeping with the way God works. Daniel’s approach is much more suited for representatives of the kingdom of God who are living in and taking part in the secular culture in which they find themselves.

Daniel never tried to turn Babylon into Israel. At all times, he operated without compromise, remaining true to his God while respecting the people and the religion of the nation to which he was exiled.

And in the end, after recovering from a period of insanity during which he lost everything (something also predicted in a dream Daniel interpreted) Nebuchadnezzar claimed, “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and glorify and honor the King of heaven. All his acts are just and true, and he is able to humble those who are proud” (Daniel 4:37).