I really wasn't going to jump on the Harold Camping bandwagon, but I've been thinking about something my pastor, Eric Simmons, said on Sunday. In helping us process the controversy around Camping, Eric provided a broader perspective, which tempered my own (impatient) reaction to Camping's claims.
Of course Camping was (and still is) in great error and should be held accountable for his false prophecies that directly contradict Jesus' own words in Scripture (Matthew 24:36, 24:44 and 25:13; Luke 12:40, etc.). Yet there's also a responsibility that we bear as followers of Christ (not followers of particular human leaders) to know God's Word for ourselves. But as Eric pointed out, it's far more common for Christians to live as though Jesus isn't coming back anytime soon. Camping's false prophecy just highlights the errors on both sides.
That made me think hard. People who believed Camping's false predictions in 1988, 1994, and 2011 made some rash decisions and changed their lives dramatically in response to Camping's predictions. But is this what the Bible expects of us? As I study Matthew 25, and in particular the parable of the talents, I see exactly the opposite. We are always to be investing what has been given to us in order to be fruitful for the glory of God. Since we do not know when the Master will return, we aren't to live in a state of suspended animation -- giving away all we have and standing on a mountain top in white robes, awaiting Jesus. (See: Millerites. Interestingly, Camping is following the same recalculation model of William Miller.) We are to be busy multiplying all that we have, but for the glory of His name, not ours.
If I have to give an account of all that I have, do, and say in an hour I least expect ... am I ready? Have I squandered relationships, resources, spiritual gifts, and time? Or have I invested them? Do I denigrate what I've received because I covet something else? Do I judge God as a harsh taskmaster and do nothing with what I have because I deem it inferior in comparison to what I want (Matthew 25:24-25)?
If you want to prepare for the return of Jesus, then you should be busy multiplying what He's given you here and now with integrity and honor. Invest in your families, your church, your friends, your community. Be a wise steward of the money, time, and health that you have. Know that no matter how much or how little you have of anything, you can invest it and see a great return by the grace of God. And for that effort, Jesus promises you will not hear the dreaded words, "Depart from me." Instead you will hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant."
Could our Savior's pleasure at our faithfulness be eclipsed by anything else here on earth? If so, here's a hard truth: we are living just as foolishly as Camping and his followers, and making just as much of a mockery of God and the gospel. Ouch. Time to prayerfully review my priorities...
(Photo: I saw this sign on a rainy road trip last week.)
Sanctity of Life, Gendercide, and Science
Much of the history of the past two centuries has involved the expansion and enriching of the concept of life’s sacredness in various forms. It has expanded in that the logic of every human life has demanded universal application—to religious minorities, women, racial and ethnic minorities, the poor and property-less, the disabled, and so on.
At one level, the Roe v. Wade decision represented an attempt to value the sanctity of women’s lives by providing a legal freedom that some believed was necessary to protect it. Thus the most charitable reading of that decision was that it was an effort to stand in continuity with the trend toward the expansion of human dignity, in this case on behalf of women.
For those of us who believe that decision was wrong, we still face the task of showing not just that Roe opened the door to the mass destruction of developing human lives in utero, and that this assaults life’s sanctity. We must also show why Roe does not succeed in advancing the sanctity of women’s lives, and must offer both on-the-ground and legal alternatives that can do better.
Abortion was and is valued by supporters because it is seen in the continuum of the long march for women's rights. While I support many of those rights, I cannot say that pitting the life of an adult woman against her unborn child is a step-up in that progression. I urge pro-abortion supporters to study and know the ideas of people like Margaret Sanger, who purported to advance the cause of women but actually held to the Nazi idea of eugenics that some lives are worth more than others. This is why less than 100 years after Sanger began her crusade for women's reproductive rights, somewhere between 100 and 166 million girls worldwide are missing due to female gendercide, largely because of sex-selective abortions. The terrible irony is that abortion did not ensure that the lives of women were more valued after all.
When Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, the scientific argument in favor of it was based on the issue of "viability." Until a certain stage in the pregnancy, the fetus was seen as just an undeveloped blob of tissue and not a viable life. But even as that argument was being made in the early '70s, the ultrasound machine was being developed and our ability to actually see the wondrous development of human life undercut that argument. In fact, that development led to the famous conversion of an abortionist, a doctor who later made a film showing an abortion on ultrasound called Silent Scream.
With scientific advances like ultrasound technology and prenatal medicine, viability today is a medical collision course where doctors find themselves intervening to either create or save one fetus and then aborting another of the same fetal age. The only determining factor is whether the pregnant woman values or wants that life or not, a position akin to other abuses in history.
Therefore, as a culture we have not really made the progression in human rights that we believe we have.
Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, since the declaration of Sanctity of Human Life Sunday in 1984, the ethics surrounding sanctity of life have only gotten more complicated. As one bioethicist told The New York Times, "In an odd way, having more choices actually places a much greater burden on women, because we become the creators of our circumstance, whereas, before, we were the recipients of them. I’m not saying we should have less choices; I’m saying choices are not always as liberating and empowering as we hope they will be."
Though it may seem that the bitter disagreements surrounding this topic will never end, I see that some of the underlying assumptions for abortion have been challenged over time. Therefore, as some of us will acknowledge Sanctity of Human Life Sunday tomorrow, I hope we will not grow weary of standing up for the lives of the pre-born. I also pray our concern for the value of human life will also lead us to fearlessly challenge other human rights abuses, such as human trafficking, modern slavery, gendercide and more.
To study this topic further, I recommend a new e-book by John Piper, made free courtesy of the Desiring God ministry.
Posted at 04:53 PM in Abortion Issues, Comments on Our Culture, Current Events | Permalink | Comments (2)
| Reblog (0)