Eternal Perspectives

Whatever else might said about Michael Schiavo - and there is no lack of things to say about the man who insisted that his wife be starved and dehydrated to death - this much is certain: he cared about and was emotionally attached to Terri.

Hear me out: I am not necessarily saying that he cared for Terri. His commitment - to a premeditated plan to end Terri’s life - was unwavering and determined. He was relentlessly involved every step of the way, refusing to yield to pressure or transfer legal responsibility to her parents. He was a man on a mission.

Love . . .

There are at least two ways to be emotionally attached to another person: positively or negatively. When it is positive, we call it love; when negative, hate. Either way, there is an attachment. The opposite of love is not hate; the opposite of love is apathy.

Michael Schiavo was anything but apathetic when it came to his wife; thus, he cared about Terri. He was profoundly emotionally involved with her. The question, of course, is this: in what way did he care about her? The choices, it seems to me, come down to two.

First, he could have loved her so deeply that he committed himself to granting her what he believed to be her true desire. His love for Terri could have emboldened him to stand strong against the stiffest opposition: her parents. Perhaps torn by the love he felt for her and the love he knew her parents felt for their child, he chose to remain devoted to her. He pursued his quest without flinching.

He stayed on course even when it meant that he was to be vilified and have his name associated with cold, callous indifference to the suffering that his actions brought to her mother and father. He may have loved Terri so much that he wished to spend the last moments of his time alone with her, to privately suffer and anguish over his decision with her. Maybe he thought he was protecting them somehow. He may have seen himself not as an angel of death, but as an angel of mercy.

That’s the first option.

(more…)

Adrian Warnock, a Christian in Britain, finds himself trying to make sense of the death of Terri Schiavo. He writes:

I have to ask, is there something wrong with a system that seems to allow one judge to condemn this woman to death? Can anyone explain to me how it is possible that the government could do nothing about this?

You will go crazy trying to make sense of sin. It is not sensible; sin is ungodly and nonsensical. I posted a comment on his site and my response is reproduced here:

There is most certainly something wrong with the U.S. system: Sin. You are aware of this, as most Christians are when they stop to think about it.

We in the States began sowing the wind decades ago and now we are begin to reap the smallest of horrific harvests yet to come. It was inevitable that a culture that, thirty-plus years ago, pronounced when life began would soon determine when life should end.

There is no just government but one. When He returns - and only when He returns - will wrongs be made right and the poor and helpless be cared for as they should be.

As an American, I am guilty of the sins of my government; as members of the human race, we all are guilty and share the responsibility of such heinous and unconscionable crimes against God.

Truly, the death of Terri Schiavo diminishes us all.

For additional posts on Terri, go to Wittenberg Gate.

In a previous post, I reviewed the various positions of four theologgers who have written about the constitution of the person and what happens immediately following death. In this post, I will present my own positions on these two issues that are determinative in plotting a course of action in such difficult situations as Terri Schiavo’s.

Nonreductive Physicalism

I have written in depth - and length! - elsewhere my understanding of the nature of the human constitution. Rather than send you to another site (you can do that later, if you like, or now: I don’t want to tell you how to live your life), I’ll quote some of it here:

The position taken in the present work concerning the nature of the mind-brain connection is nonreductive physicalism. It is physicalism in that all of human nature and experience is understood to be dependent upon human physical existence: apart from the temporary state after death (wherein existence depends upon the special, sustaining activity of God), there is no sense of personhood apart from connection with the physical body.

The position is nonreductive in that the immaterial aspect of human nature cannot be explained by or reduced to physical properties of the body: the activity and properties of the neurons firing in the brain do not explain the existence of such experiences such as faith, hope, or love. In this view, there is more to being a person than can be explained by physical attributes or activities.

What constitutes the human brain is easy to describe: the neurological section above identified what the brain is, how it operates, and how it contributes to human existence. It is not so evident, however, what the mind is.

Negatively speaking, the mind or [spirit] is that dimension of human existence which cannot be explained by the physiology of the brain . . . Nobel laureate Roger Sperry has stated, “The meaning of the message will not be found in the chemistry of the ink;” in the same way, what it means to be a person cannot be explained simply by looking at neurology . . .

That there is a connection between the mind and the brain is well-established. The previously described tragedy of Alzheimer’s Disease illustrates the link, as does the remarkable story of an accident in 1848 involving a young man named Phineas Gage:

(more…)

Spurred by the ongoing tragedy that presently wears the face of Terri Schiavo, several theologgers have reflected upon and discussed the nature of human existence following death. Four in particular have examined the biblical presentation of what constitutes the soul and what transpires after death:

All these posts are well-written and reflect serious, theological considerations of a few of the issues undergirding the discussion about Terri’s situation. Hers is a situation that cannot be handled with a knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all approach to the ethical difficulties posed in such dilemmas, although sadly it frequently is. The church in general and every Christian in particular needs to think through such complicated and emotionally-charged matters.

What follows is my attempt to do just that. I do this because my own mother has been neurologically hijacked for the past few years and a stranger now seems to inhabit her body. As her best friend of 60-plus years said after leaving her hospital room,

(more…)

Within the population that seeks for counseling and psychotherapy, there is a significant segment that is largely invisible. These are those homosexuals who, for whatever reasons, seek to change their orientation. They have been intentionally ignored and/or re-defined by the psychological community to eradicate their problem and even their existence from the therapeutic scene.

These homosexuals seeking change may be referred to as “ego-dystonic” homosexuals: it is disagreeable to them to have the same-sex desires that they do and therefore want - often desperately - to change. “Ego-syntonic” homosexuals, in contrast, find the desires to be natural and normal: they do not show up for “reorientation therapy.”

These ego-dystonic homosexuals have been rendered non-existent or diagnosed by the American Psychiatric Association for non-clinical reason. Over the course of 50 years the “disorder” of homoerotic desires has been gradually eliminated; thus, the problem no longer exists. In its place has arisen a new disorder: those who seek to change their orientation are deemed to be the ones with the problem and the goal of therapy is to get them to accept who they “are.”

So much for “value-free” counseling. It is, always has been, and always will be a myth.

Those of us who work with this invisible population - or those of us who sit next to them in church week after week, whether we know it or not - should find an interview in Christianity Today to be of great interest. It is a brief discussion with a self-described Jewish atheist who supports the belief that homoerotic individuals can change their orientation. To read the interview (”Therapeutically Incorrect”), click here.
.

Early on Sunday morning, as the new day was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out to see the tomb. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, because an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and rolled aside the stone and sat on it. His face shone like lightning, and his clothing was as white as snow. The guards shook with fear when they saw him, and they fell into a dead faint.

The women ran quickly from the tomb. They were very frightened but also filled with great joy, and they rushed to find the disciples to give them the angel’s message. And as they went, Jesus met them. “Greetings!” he said. And they ran to him, held his feet, and worshiped him. - Mt 28.1-9 (New Living Translation)

One of the worst feelings for most of us is that of feeling helpless and out of control. Now, as we read about inept, corrupt, and politically motivated judges sentencing an innocent person to a horrible death, the feeling covers us like a cloak of dread. It is out of control. We lose. They win. It’s over.

Or is it?

Maybe it only seems that way to us because we do not know the rest of the story. Perhaps, if we read more closely and think about it, we’ll realize that the pending death of an innocent person isn’t really what it seems to be. Let’s read the story again.

The story, of course, is found in the gospels; the innocent one is Jesus. If we look closely, we see that unfolding events were never as out of control as it seemed to us or to the original audience or the witnesses at the trial and crucifixion of our Lord.

The account we’ll consider is Jn 18-19, which relates the various trials, testimony, and punishment of Jesus Christ before the Jews and the Romans. We’ll pick up the story in 18.4, as the soldiers are coming to arrest Him with the assistance of Judas:

So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and *said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered Him, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He *said to them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. So when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. Therefore He again asked them, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way,” to fulfill the word which He spoke, “Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one.” - Jn 18.4-9 (NASB)

Jesus goes to them; He does not wait for them to find Him. He asks the questions, He knocks them flat with His answer, and then ensures the safe passage of His disciples. He is being arrested, it is true, but He is far from being out of control. In fact, as John tells us, this happened exactly as planned in order to fulfill prophecy regarding Him. He will drink the cup that the Father has given Him (v. 11). Jesus is completely and entirely in control.

(more…)

This is the third of four posts on the twin issues of divorce and remarriage as presented in the Bible. Part One examined the cultural context of the New Testament, paying careful attention to the teachings of the Pharisees.

Based on interpretations of Deu 24.1, the School of Shammai taught that a man could divorce his wife for “a matter of indecency,” whereas the School of Hillel understood the verse to allow for divorce for “any matter.” Neither school, however, limited the biblical grounds for divorce to this single cause: both understood the Old Testament (based on Ex 21.10-11) to allow for divorce for a stubborn, unrepentant refusal to provide food, clothing, and/or conjugal rights.

Part Two explored the teachings of Jesus, found principally in Mt 19 and Mk 10. In His debate with the two schools of Pharisaic thought, Jesus corrected misunderstandings and rejected the “any matter” ground of divorce advanced by Hillel. He argued that God had always intended marriage to be lifelong, that Moses did not command divorce but only allowed it because of hardness of heart, and that monogamy was God’s ideal, not polygamy. He also declared that marriage and having children was optional, not mandatory, that men as well as women could be guilty of adultery, and that divorce was allowable when there was a continuing lack of repentance by the sinning partner.

Through His silence, Jesus appears to have accepted the grounds for divorce which were not debated or questioned, i.e., those based on Ex 21. Thus, our Lord stressed the value and importance of marriage while upholding the Old Testament allowances for divorce under certain conditions.

Before turning our attention to the teachings of Paul, it is worth returning to the teachings of Jesus briefly to elaborate on His choice of words in His “exception clause.” Jesus says that anyone who divorces of the basis of the “any matter” grounds of Hillel is not legitimately divorced; thus, if he remarries, he is committing adultery. The exception is when “any matter” refers to immorality (Gk., porneia).

(more…)

The first post in this series started with an exploration of what constituted biblical grounds for divorce in NT times. The accepted grounds for divorce in the first century C.E., which provide the background for Jesus’’ interaction with the Pharisees on the subject, were four: adultery, provision of food, provision of clothing, and conjugal rights. This post will examine our Lord’’s teachings on the issues of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

The key teachings of Jesus on the subject of divorce are found in the accounts of His conflict with the Pharisees in Mt 19 and Mk 10, with additional information gleaned from Mt 5:

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” – Mt 19.3-9 (NASB)

Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.”

But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery” – Mk 10.2-12 (NASB)

“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” – Mt 5.31-32 (NASB)

The first post in this series provided the historical context for this exchange between the three parties involved in the discussion: the School of Hillel granted divorces for “any matter” and the School of Shammai for “a matter of indecency.” Both based their position on their understanding of Deu 24.1. The two schools of Pharisaic thought came to Jesus to hear Him on the matter.

(more…)

An unsettling conversation the other day gave me pause and caused me to explore the issue of divorce and remarriage once again. I have done this in the past and do it periodically because (a) new resources come available almost daily, (b) I forget important aspects of the discussion, and (c) although the teaching of Scripture does not change, my own understanding of the teaching continues to develop and deepen. The last point reflects my conviction of my own fallibility and the need for periodic review of my “intractable” positions.

The conversation occurred when a friend told me of woman at a local church who has taken it upon herself to begin teaching that viewing pornography is tantamount to adultery and, since adultery is grounds for divorce, therefore viewing pornography is a valid reason to divorce. Her biblical basis for the teaching is Mt 5.27-28:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (NASB).

This makes sense syllogistically:

All viewing of pornography is adultery.
Adultery is grounds for divorce.
Therefore, viewing of pornography is grounds for divorce.

Of course, what is logical is not always biblical, so it became important (for me, anyway) to examine the question once again. My primary resource for doing so, apart from the Bible, is David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. His book is an in-depth exploration of the cultural and religious context of the NT discussion of the issue of divorce; the context is critical in understanding what Jesus said and, just as importantly, what He did not say in His discourses and debates with His contemporaries.

Instone-Brewer is a research fellow at Tyndale house in Cambridge, England; interestingly, he wrote the book online, welcoming input while pleading for integrity from those who would “borrow” his findings and conclusions. It is an important and vital reference for any or all who find themselves confronted with the possible divorce of fellow believers. Unless otherwise indicated, all quotations in this series is from his book.

In this series, I hope to address only a few of the many aspects involved in this troubling and all-too prevalent issue. The teachings of Jesus and Paul will be considered along with the context in which those teachings took place, as well as more contemporary interpretations and applications of the passages involved. It is necessary to understand first the background of the NT discussions.

(more…)

Like many of you, I was welcomed this morning by the news that a federal judge has refused to intervene on behalf of Terri Schiavo, thereby passively sentencing an innocent and helpless individual to a lingering death. A few thoughts crossed my mind:

- Without a doubt, I have read and blogged more about Terri than I have prayed for her. I’ve spent hours doing the former and less than an hour on the latter, but my total time of praying specifically for Terri is a very small percentage of the total. What does that say about me and my belief in the power of prayer? More importantly, what does it say about how I view God?

- Some “experts” have stated that starving Terri to death will be peaceful. Really? OK, then how ’bout this: instead of wasting money on drugs or electrical current, let’s just starve condemned criminals as a way of executing them. It would be so peaceful for them, you know? And, apparently, very humane.

- The percentages of people feeling that the government should not “meddle” in such matters is sadly high. Around 60 percent say so, while 63 percent say Terri needs to die. Two-thirds believe that Congress and President Bush were motivated by political, not humanitarian, reasons in trying to stop the murder. But 83 percent believe that Jesus rose from the dead! This is a sorry commentary on the state of Christianity in the United States: the disconnect between faith and life is tragic.

- Speaking only for myself, I wonder if my faith has been more in the government and “good” elected officials or in God. If my faith is in God, why did I feel so defeated when I read that the judge had been so lacking in mercy?