Dorothy Louise

The birth of Dorothy Louise did not go exactly the way that I had planned.

One week prior to her due date "Baby Watch" was officially declared. Relatives were put on notice and the bags were packed. However, the watch waned when our baby never showed up.

After consulting with our doctor, we decided to induce and April 22 became Dorothy's official birth date.

We woke up at 5:45am. I showered and fixed my hair. I was determined to look nice in my post baby pictures. This was a goal that was not met. Nathaniel grabbed the bags and armed with cell phones, pillows, and a Flannery O'Connor anthology, we departed for Baptist Downtown.

Since I wasn't in labor, there was no rush. I calmly walked into the maternity ward and got situated into my room. I was warned that we would be there a while because the combination of this being my first child and being induced meant that the process would be long and slow. We settled in and Nathaniel began reading "A Good Man is Hard to Find" out loud to pass the time.

Contrary to the nurse's statement, my labor was not long and slow. It actually went rather quickly and by 2:00pm we were well on our way to having a baby. The nurses and the doctors all assured me that this was going extremely well and that we were going to have ourselves a baby in no time. A matter of minutes really.

And that's the moment when the wheels fell off of the bus.

I'll spare you the details, and for the sake of ending the suspense, at 4:49pm, on Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Dorothy Louise Simmons was born. She was beautiful, she had all 10 fingers and 10 toes, and my very first thought upon seeing her was, "She looks just like Nathaniel."

In the weeks since Dorothy was born, I have been on a pretty wild roller coaster. On one hand, I have a beautiful baby who is just beginning to baby talk (and it's just precious.) However, I have also experienced pain, exhaustion, and frustration like never before. The first two weeks of Dorothy's life are a blur due to pain medication and the unfortunate reality that the rap classic "Hard Out Here For Pimp" played on a loop in my head the entire time. At times it was hard to keep focused and remember that this suffering is not permanent. In order to keep my mind and my heart in check, I began to regularly remind myself of the many blessings that I have been given over the past months and I thought that I would use this post to share them with you.

1. Dorothy Louise

I mean, seriously? This baby is cute. This baby is also sweet and that is a true gift. She immediately fell into a routine, which meant that we could schedule all of my medicinal rituals around her. Her temperament has made this whole process so much more bearable and I couldn't be more thankful for that.

Photo by Beth Simmons Photography

2. Nathaniel

When you stand at the alter on your wedding day, and promise to love someone "for better or for worse," you typically don't consider everything that statement entails. Over the past two months, Nathaniel has routinely demonstrated to me what Christ-like love is and has certainly loved me during the "worse." He has served me, kept our house running, and made our little baby fall in love with him all at the same time. (For a long time Dorothy would only respond to his voice. It was cute and infuriating at the same time. Didn't she love her own mama?)  If marriage is designed to demonstrate the way that Christ loves the church, my understanding of that love has increased dramatically over the past two months because I have been the recipient of true sacrificial love. I am truly blessed.

3. The Davis Sisters

My Mom and her sisters, Kathy and Dayle, have gone above and beyond in their efforts to care for our family and to keep our spirits up. Mom practically moved in and made it her goal to care for Dorothy, which allowed Nathaniel the ability to continue to work. She woke up in the night to help me when Dorothy needed to eat, she came over in the afternoon to help with dinner and laundry, and all the while she was planning my sister's wedding.

My aunts Kathy and Dayle have also been an enormous blessing. While Nathaniel and Mom were at work, they rotated shifts to stay with me and Dorothy in the mornings. I so enjoyed this time with them because while they were serving me with their help, they were also encouraging me with their Godly conversation and wisdom. This has truly been an example of joy in suffering.

4. Beth and Naomi

My mother-in-law, Beth, and my sister-in-law, Naomi, visited us during this time and it was such a treat. Their travel plans went haywire in the process and what began as a simple day trip turned into a 4-day marathon of travel. While for them the trip may have been a bit exhausting, it was refreshing and encouraging for me and Nathaniel. It was so much fun to introduce Dorothy to her aunt Naomi and cousin Eloise. In addition to this visit, Beth came back and stayed with us for a number of days. She cooked, cleaned, and taught Dorothy to enjoy her bath times, which was a huge gift indeed!

5. Raiford Road Church

Finally, I have to mention my church family. When Dorothy was born, Nathaniel and I had been members at Raiford Road for one-month. In the months prior to our move, we liked to talk about all of the ways that we were going to be able to serve this church, but instead, from the moment we've arrived, it's been the church that has served us. The old hymn, "They'll Know We Are Christians" comes to mind when I think about the love shown by our church family over the past two months. They have absolutely showered us with kindness, generosity, encouragement, and prayers. They have demonstrated to me what it means to serve others selflessly and their actions have challenged my heart and have stirred within me a desire to love well. I cannot overstate the blessing that this church has been to us, nor can I overstate how thankful I am that the Lord has brought our family here.

To everyone who has prayed for us, brought us dinner, snacks, and other treats, written us notes, and visited, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. To God be the glory for the great things he has done.

Evangelicals and Homosexuality: A Response to Rachel Held Evans

World Vision had a crazy go of it last week.

On Monday, March 24, they announced that they were revising their policies that barred married, same-sex couples from working with their charity organization. World Vision argued that this was a path that encouraged inclusiveness and they also stressed that this decision was not to be interpreted as a theological endorsement of same-sex marriage.

Following that announcement, and after intense backlash from the evangelical Christian community, World Vision changed course and reverted to their original rule. Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision, apologized for their "mistake," acknowledged that the decision was made without the consent of the World Vision board of directors, and thanked the Evangelical community for speaking out against their error.

Like I said, it was a crazy week. Both for World Vision, and for Evangelicals.

On one hand, World Vision received immense backlash over their decision and subsequently lost an enormous amount of financial support.

On the other hand, the Evangelical community got a thorough lashing of its own by individuals who saw their response as cruel, narrow-minded, and discriminatory.

The Uproar

I watched all of this controversy play out on various social media outlets. I had many friends who posted pleas on Facebook for people to pledge financial contributions to World Vision and I also had many friends who took to social media to express their intense frustration at the church's response. Similar themes popped up again and again. My friends and acquaintances wondered how withdrawing financial support from impoverished children was showing the love of Christ? Others asked why Evangelicals would expect an ecumenical (non-demoninational) organization to hold a strong stance against what is a very controversial theological perspective?

In all of the conversation swirling around the World Vision controversy, popular author and blogger, Rachel Held Evans, wrote a blog post explaining why she supported World Vision's controversial decision. Obviously, after World Vision's change of heart, Rachel again took to the internet to express her disappointment. This time her outlet was CNN's Belief Blog.

The blog post, titled "How Evangelicals Won A Culture War and Lost a Generation" was a scathing indictment of the Evangelical movement and the post served as Rachel's public renunciation of the evangelical mantel.

Leaving Evangelicalism Behind

In her article, which you can read in its entirety here, Rachel argues that the Evangelical community has a disproportionate fixation on homosexuality. She suggests that this fixation has caused the Evangelical church to set aside Christ's mandate to love one another, and this blunder is evidenced, in her opinion, by their continued opposition to same-sex marriage and, most recently, by calling on Evangelicals to withdraw their financial contributions from World Vision. Because of this, Rachel announced that she no longer considered herself Evangelical.

Rachel suggests that Evangelical priorities are "misaligned" and goes on to suggest that, "When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong."

As an Evangelical who opposed World Vision's original change, I take issue with Rachel's assessment. What I see are not misaligned priorities by the church, but a misunderstanding of love and of the purpose of the Evangelical community's stance on Rachel's part.  This misunderstanding is particularly evident in the series of questions that Rachel poses to the church. She asks:

Is a "victory" against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support?

Is a "victory" against gay marriage worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church? 

Is a "victory" against gay marriage worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?

The glaring problem here is that Rachel views the Evangelical outcry over World Vision's actions as a battle against the LGBT community and against gay marriage. This is a drastic over-simplification of the situation and one that is actually quite misleading. This wasn't a political endeavor against gay marriage or the Constitutional rights of the LGBT community. This was a theological disagreement and one that is significantly more important than whether or not a gay couple is legally allowed to marry. Rachel's article has minimized the importance of this debate by bringing the issue down to the political realm, and by refusing to acknowledge that there is a legitimate theological discussion at play.

The Church is responsible to uphold the Word of God and to defend the faith. When a Christian organization as large and influential as World Vision takes a stance that moves away from orthodoxy, it is the responsibility of the Church to call that stance for what it is.

This is a primarily a theological issue, not a political one, and the issue has profound implications for the lives of individuals world-wide. The ultimate question that Evangelicals are asking is: What does it matter if we feed the poor, but we so mar the gospel of Christ that the poor are lost for eternity?

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?"

Of course, no one is arguing that the recipients of World Vision's charity are gaining the whole world. They are being provided with basic food, clothing, and shelter. But what if in our attempt to provide these basic necessities, we also communicate a gospel that doesn't save? This is the heart of the Evangelical outcry against World Vision.

An Unbalanced Perspective

Ultimately I believe that Rachel's definition of love is unbalanced and this unbalanced understanding is what is limiting her ability to understand the true motives of the Evangelical community. 

When God became flesh, he loved people. He loved the outcast, the downtrodden, the hurt, the sick, the poor. How did he love them? He loved them in two distinct ways:

1. He loved them, first and foremost, by dying on the cross and rising from the dead, thereby providing a way for the lost and downtrodden (i.e. all of us) to have a relationship with Him (i.e. the God of the universe). - (Rom. 5:8, John 14:6, 1 Cor. 15:3-6)
2. Secondly, He loved them by caring for them. By becoming their friend. (Luke 8:1-3, John 19:25) By healing them. (Matt. 8:2-3) By feeding them. (Luke 5:4-10) By bringing them into close relationship with himself.

While the second example of love is important and is greatly emphasized by Christ in the New Testament (Matt. 22:34-40), the first example is an imperative that cannot be ignored or diminished.

When the question of homosexuality was first encountered by the modern church, it often appeared as if they focused on the first type of love to the almost complete exclusion of the second type. Homosexuality was a sin and without repentance and acceptance of Christ, one would spend eternity separated from the Creator. However, after preaching this Gospel message, the Church seemed to forget that Christ also loved sinners through acts of service, through kindness, through care. Instead, what the Church seemed to offer up was a self-righteous proclamation of the first type of love that was accompanied by, not loving acts of service, but by mockery and repulsion. The Church seemed to forget the words of Paul, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love I am a noisy gong or a clanging symbol."

This was an unbalanced understanding of love. 

In response to this misunderstanding by the Church at large, many churches and individuals began an attempt to resolve this imbalance. They stressed kindness, relationship, inclusion, and acceptance. They were so keenly aware of the lack of love shown to the homosexual community that they wanted to emphasize the reality that the Church is loving, and so they loved. However, this approach also became imbalanced because in this attempt to show the true love of Christ, many within this group began to question how it could be loving to call homosexuality a sin. They wondered how a loving God could condemn someone from acting upon their natural desires and affections. And in an attempt to show love, this group began to move away from a steady proclamation that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and moved towards an emphasis on Biblical love through acts of service alone.

This also is an unbalanced understanding of love.  

Finding the Right Balance

Christ-like love without the gospel, or without the full gospel, is an incomplete love, because it marginalizes or diminishes the true needs of the soul. We have physical needs that ought to be met by Christians every where, but more important than our physical needs, we have spiritual needs. To emphasize our spiritual needs to the detriment of our physical needs is not Christ-like, but emphasizing physical needs to the detriment of spiritual needs is short-sighted, has grave eternal consequences, and is ultimately unloving.

So, to respond to Rachel's questions:

Is a "victory" against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support, worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church, and worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?

For a victory against gay marriage, maybe not, but this isn't a political stance against gay marriage on the part of the Evangelical community. This is an attempt to protect the Biblical understanding of sin and man's need of redemption. Is this fight worth it? Absolutely, because it ensures that those thousands of needy children, who are in need of salvation and nourishment, will have access to the only information that can save their souls.

SB1062: A History

"An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic." -Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

Today, Jefferson's quote is my guide post. My goal is to make myself more of an informed citizen and if you want to join me on that quest, you are welcome to come along for the ride.

I'm a knee-jerker. I often read one article, feel like I have the gist of the situation, and then proceed to form a staunch position on the subject. It's embarrassing, but I have a hunch that I'm not alone in this folly. After reading about Arizona's amendment to their Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I began to consider where I stood on the issue and how I would present my opinion to others. However, as is so often the case, the more I looked into the issue, the more I realized that my knowledge of the law in this instance was insufficient. The purpose of this post is to explain, as best I can, the legal history behind religious freedom that preceded Arizona's SB1062. I can't cover everything, but what I can do is try to summarize the important issues at stake.

For the sake of clarity, I am going to write this blog chronologically. I can't possibly cover everything and I am going to try and be both thorough and concise. However, I am going to link to as many sources as I can and if you find information that you think deserves consideration, let me know.

History of Religious Freedom:

The First Amendment grants Americans five basic freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Out of the five, the protection of religious liberty is given the longest treatment. This protection is made up of two clauses:

1. Establishment Clause- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
2. Free-Exercise Clause- "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

While there are a host of current debates surrounding the Establishment Clause, our current concern is the Free-Exercise Clause. Congress can't pass a law that limits the free exercise of religion. What in the world does that mean? The following examples are just a small sample of the types of questions that arise in an attempt to define the Free-Exercise Clause:

• Can a state pass a law that requires students to recite the pledge allegiance even if their religion prohibits that type of action? - West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
• Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a citizen who was fired in relation to her religious beliefs?- Sherbert v. Verner (1963)
• Can Congress pass a law requiring businesses to provide health coverage that includes services religiously opposed by the employer? - Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

For decades, the Supreme Court case Sherbert v. Verner was the standard and it provided an interpretational framework by which Congress and the states could determine whether or not their laws infringed upon someone's religious liberty.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Adele Sherbert

In Sherbert, the Supreme Court acknowledged that sometimes government must infringe upon a person's religious freedoms. However, the Court set forth very stringent guidelines as to when that action was acceptable. In what became known as the "Sherbert Test" the Supreme Court stated that only "the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation."

Furthermore, the Court stated that the government would have to demonstrate a "compelling interest" if they were to limit the free exercise of their citizen's religious beliefs. In this case, the Court ruled that denying Adele Sherbert benefits because she was fired from a job due to religious reasons was a violation of her First Amendment freedoms as it forced her to choose between practicing her religion and receiving state benefits.

This standard imposed a very strict test upon the laws passed by Congress and the states and was the established precedent until 1990.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

In this case, Smith and Black, Native Americans, were fired from their job at a drug rehabilitation clinic because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic substance, during a religious ceremony.  They applied for unemployment benefits through the state of Oregon and were denied due to the nature of their termination. They sued the state of Oregon and won. The Supreme Court's ruling greatly backtracked on the Sherbert ruling. Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia stated that while the government cannot ban an action based solely on religious considerations, but:

Antonin Scalia

The [Free Exercise] Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.

Furthermore:

The [Sherbert] test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by "compelling governmental interest" on the basis of religious belief. 

In short, as long as a law is not directed specifically to a religious practice, the law is valid even if it requires a citizen to act in a way that is contrary to their religious belief.

Sources:

Cornell Law

Oyez.com

Congress Responds and is Rebuffed

Following Smith, the United States Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The vote was unanimous in the House of Representatives and was opposed by only 3 Senators. President Clinton signed the bill into law on November 16, 1993. Specifically, the law refuted Scalia's claim that religiously neutral laws did not deny a person's religious liberty. The law reinstated the Sherbert Test for both federal and state government.

In 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the provision in the RFRA that applied to the states and in response, many states, including Arizona, passed their own version of the RFRA. SB1062 is a revision to Arizona's RFRA law that was passed in 1999.

Sources

City of Boerne v. Flores- 1996

The Difference Between "Is" and "Ought"

Of course just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean that it ought to be that way. I'll stop my history lesson here and I hope to have my personal perspective on SB1062 published soon. In the meantime, feel free to leave comments and feedback!

Sources and Recommended Reading

Supreme Court Cases on Religious Liberty- Find Law
Arizona's Religious Freedom Debate and the Sherbert Test- Constitution Daily
Was Vetoed Arizona Bill Misrepresented? What Constitutional Scholars Say- CSMonitor

The Wall of Separation

In the 1960 presidential election, Republican Richard Nixon was running against Democrat John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was a Catholic and Nixon was a Quaker. The topic of religion became a hot button issue in light of Kennedy's Catholic faith. Many Americans were concerned that if Kennedy was elected, the foreign Pope would have undue influence on American politics. In response to this fear, Kennedy gave a speech before a group of Houston ministers arguing that:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

President Kennedy certainly made valid points during his speech. However, on the whole, Kennedy's speech reveals that he has misinterpreted the meaning of "the wall of separation."

Theologian of the Month: Augustine of Hippo

It's February and I don't know about you, but for me, February is a pretty depressing month. It is sandwiched between January, which holds abundant promise for the new year and March, which brings St. Patrick's Day and my birthday. So what does February have to offer? In my experience, not much, but today I am going to remedy that problem: I am introducing my Theologian of the Month! So without further delay, let me present St. Augustine....

Why Hitler is No Longer a Sure Bet

We've all been there. You're debating absolute truth and morality with a person who denies objective truth and for you, the conversation is going rather poorly. You can't appeal to the Bible because they don't believe that the Bible is a) the Word of God or b) has any more significance in regard to their spiritual well-being than Poor Richard's Almanac. What to do?! Well naturally, you ask, "What about Hitler?" That's it! You've just played the trump card. How can they get out of this? Answer: they can't. Everybody knows that Hitler is the most horrible person to have ever lived and that he was appallingly cruel and narcissistic and...dare I say it...evil. And there, after hours of slogging through various meta-physical arguments and "what-if" scenarios, the conversation has ended and you have victoriously made your point. No one can deny that Hitler was awful and horrible (except perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but everyone knows that he is crazy too) and this realization is what makes objective moral truth a legitimate thought to consider.

The Conviction of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Over the summer I read a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. It was, without a doubt, one of the most compelling books that I have ever read. This book outlined the struggle that Bonheoffer had with understanding how personal faith affects a person's actions. He lived in Germany during the early 20th century. He witnessed Germany's defeat in World War I, the devastating ramifications of the Versailles Peace Treaty, and the rise of Nazism and of Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer had a brilliant and keen mind and through all of this, he noticed that the idea of Germany as a "christian nation" was a fallacy.

Yes, Germany was the birth place of Martin Luther and Protestantism, but Germany had long since ceased to be a nation driven by the Word of God. Germany was a nation that was complacent in its religion and because of this, because of this false confidence in their own spirituality, the people of Germany were not prepared to withstand or even fully comprehend the evils perpetuated by the Nazi party. For many Germans Christianity was a fact, not a practice. It was a birth rite, not a gift of grace. Because of this, and because of a fierce loyalty to the idea of the German nation, there were few in Germany who were willing to oppose Hitler, and this troubled Bonhoeffer greatly.

For Bonhoeffer, the problem was a misunderstanding of grace. He believed that most of his countrymen had a view he called, "cheap grace," the idea that salvation didn't require anything of the believer. Bonhoeffer however, vehemently disagreed. Instead, he argued that grace was costly. He said:

"Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son...and what has cost God so much cannot be cheap for us."

Bonhoeffer insisted that a life lived in fear or inaction was no Christian life at all, it was a misunderstanding of what grace is. Christians must conform their lives to that of Christ because a dear price was paid so that we could have the ability to do so. Therefore, Christians must advocate for the oppressed because that is how Christ lived his life. Christians must oppose evil because we are to be a light in the world. Bonhoeffer said, "We are not simply to bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself." This is action. This isn't complacency. The grace shown to the Christian should compel us to action, for the benefit of both the oppressed and the oppressor.

I personally, find the message of Bonhoeffer to be incredibly convicting. It's easy to ignore the injustice and the evil in the world, and it is even easier to think only of the benefit that Christ's grace brings to me.

Rights and the Bible

Over the past year, our middle school students have been studying a curriculum on church history.  We have covered all of the major topics (Nicea, Augustine, Luther, Aquinas) and now, as our time together draws to a close, we are looking at the various ideologies of the 19th century and their influence on the church.  Now, we completed this section yesterday, unfortunately closing with a rather dismal discussion of Nazism, which included a lively discussion concerning a comparison I made between the Fuhrer Principle and the Pope...clearly not my best moment.  However, the section began, brightly enough, with a look at the idea of "American Individualism" and that lesson prompted me to write this post.

In a rather desperate attempt to jump start the conversation on the American idea of the individual, we treated the kids, and ourselves, to clips of Braveheart and Independence Day.  It did everything we hoped it would do and more.  The kids were cheering and some, for the first time, began to see Randy Quaid for the gem that he is.  However, while Braveheart makes me weep like a baby and Independence Day draws out a deep longing for bar-b-que and Will Smith movies, they also reveal a very emotional attachment to freedom, and that was exactly that point we were trying to make.

Personal freedom and individual liberty had a grand start during the American Revolution and while freedom, equality and liberty are to be desired, they cannot be considered paramount, especially to the Christian.  In an attempt to ensure that all people posses these liberties, we have developed the idea of rights.  These rights have taken on many different forms during the 250 years that the United States has existed, but I want to consider the legitimacy of these rights.  Not whether they are correct political developments, but whether the attitude behind them is the correct attitude to have if we are seeking to imitate the model of Christ.

In I Corinthians, Paul spends a great deal of time scolding the Corinthians for their rather selfish behavior.  "Selfish? I thought we were talking about rights, not about being selfish!" Ah, but they are closely connected aren't they?

"But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.  Food will not commend us to God.  We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.  But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.  For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?  And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.  Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.  Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." I Corinthians 8:7-13

Yes, we have rights.  Yes, we oftentimes have knowledge that allows us a freedom that we didn't know before, but boasting in that knowledge and cherishing those rights is not how we are to use them.  Instead, we are to hold them loosely, we are to be constantly aware of our brothers and sisters.  We should be more concerned with their conscience and their struggles than with our ability to live out our freedoms.  This is where things become difficult for me.  It fights against my instinct which says, "Why have rights if I can't enjoy them? " or "What is the purpose of gaining freedom if I just subject myself to someone else?"  Thankfully, Paul continues:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.  To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.  I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.  I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." I Corinthians 9:19-23

The Christian life isn't about gaining rights and living the easy life.  While devotion to Scripture and to the model Christ set before us brings certain advantages, our focus should be on the Gospel.  Earlier in I Corinthians, Paul encouraged his readers to "imitate me, as I imitate Christ" and that imitation is far removed from protecting one's freedom.

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, hum humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

The Conscience- An Overivew

When I was in the 8th grade, my sister owned a 1987 Monte Carlo.  It was roughly the length of a school bus.  One night, leaving the McDonald's drive through, Kara turned the wrong way and started driving North in a Southbound lane.  Our only resort was to try a three point turn, but in a Monte Carlo, a three point turn is no easy feat and we hit a road sign.  When we returned home, I got out of the car and scurried inside while my Dad questioned Kara as to the reason the car had a new dent.  Kara, bold as ever, refused to cave and insisted she knew nothing about it, but Dad knew how to get the information he needed.  He let me stew for about 30 minutes and then knocked on my door.  "Kanon, do you know anything about the dent in Kara's car?" I caved.  I was a rat.

When considering the conscience, I feel especially equipped as my conscience has been over active since the moment I could talk.

But what is the conscience?  It is something that everyone has, or at least is aware of.  To put it quite simply, the conscience is an aspect of the mind that helps to distinguish what is right from that which is wrong.  Now, from this point on, discussions of the conscience will differ dramatically depending on your philosophical and religious perspectives.  I will proceed from the traditional perspective of Christianity (although I will discuss other ideas on the conscience in a later post.)

Thomas Aquinas, a medieval theologian, argued that the conscience has two aspects.  On one hand, the conscience is fueled by man's ability to reason.  "I can determine that an action is good because I look at points x, y, and z as evidence."  On the other hand, this reason is guided by a remnant of innate knowledge concerning absolute truth, Aquinas called this knowledge, "synderesis."  So the conscience then, is a joint venture between man's ability to reason and his innate knowledge of absolute truth.  But there is a problem...

According to Aquinas, the conscience has limited functionality.  Our ability to know and properly perceive absolute truth was desperately handicapped after Adam and Eve's experience in Genesis 3, hence his use of the word "remnant."  Man's desire to be like God, drove a wedge between us and God.  This division, while mended through Christ, still affects us while we remain on earth.  We still suffer from the physical effects of "the fall" and our loss of knowledge regarding absolute truth was a bitter result.  Romans 1:21-23 gives us a picture of the situation, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."    

So our conscience is broken.  That which is supposed to point us toward the right, deceives us and in fact, is deceived by us.  In a perfect world, it would be a perfect indicator of what is right.  However in an imperfect world, assuming that the conscience is always correct is more akin to assuming that your compass is correct when you have a magnet in your pocket.

Follow Your Conscience?

A lot of emphasis is placed upon the idea of the conscience. It is the mystical way that individuals know what they are supposed to do in those tough, moral situations. One's conscience is often honored as the supreme moral authority in life and thanks to Jiminy Cricket's oft quoted statement, "Let your conscience be your guide," this trend is likely to continue.

But doesn't this seem odd?  What in the world is a conscience and why does it have so much power and prestige in my life and in my decision-making process? Should I ignore my conscience? Should I afford it a place of less importance? In the next few blog posts I am going to explore the idea of the conscience. I am going to consider what the conscience is, why it is good, why it can be bad, how it can be cultivated and then I will consider practical out-workings of a grounded conscience.

Here is a link to R.C. Sproul's recent article entitled, "Ethics and the Conscience." It will give you a preview of what is to come.