Justice for Caylee?

Casey Anthony was found “not guilty” of murdering her child.(For those outside the United States, this was a highly publicized trial of a mother accused of murdering her two-year old daughter, Caylee).

As soon as the verdict was announced, Facebook buzzed with opinions. Most of the comments I read reflected amazement that she had been acquitted. Some posted comments about “no justice for Caylee”.

I did not watch all the trial, and I really don’t know if the mother is guilty or not. I have an opinion, but I’ll keep it to myself. So what happened?

(1)    Keep in mind “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent”.

(2)    Within our judicial system, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

(3)    A jury decided she was not guilty. Not the state, not the judge, not the judicial system, not the press (well, the press didn’t get to officially decide). A jury of twelve regular people, like you and me, made the decision.

(4)    For the jury to find a defendant guilty, the prosecution must convince the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” that she is guilty.

(5)    The jury, apparently, was not convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In fact, a Reuters news story stated that “State Attorney Lawson Lamar praised prosecutors' efforts and conceded that their circumstantial case was not enough to remove reasonable doubt for jurors.” Lamar added, "This is a dry-bones case. Very, very difficult to prove." One report claimed the problem was lack of convincing evidence, not superlative legal work by the defense. Regardless of the reason, the jury wasn’t convinced. And since we were not in the deliberation room, we don’t know why, exactly, they were not convinced.

So, where does “justice” fit into this scenario?

Some cases are messy. We want justice for the victim; we want the guilty party convicted. But, even if we think someone is guilty, even if the jury’s opinion is that the defendant is guilty, if the jurors aren’t convinced “beyond a reasonable doubt,” justice cannot allow them to say “guilty.” Justice must also protect the accused. And so sometimes we’re left frustrated. (I have no idea in this case what the jury thought. I’m just making the point that justice requires a higher standard than opinion).

Our system isn't perfect. Perfect justice hasn’t happened in Caylee’s situation. The guilty party is free, whether the mother actually did it, or someone else did it (and I'm not saying who is to blame for this). Sometimes justice doesn’t happen in this world. But I am grateful we have a perfectly righteous judge who will eventually sort everything out. He knows the truth in this case.

Personally, I am grateful God doesn’t always deal with us on the basis of justice. In myself, I deserve judgment because by nature and practice, I am a sinner. But He has dealt graciously with me when He forgave me of every single sin (Col. 2:13). Jesus satisfied God’s righteous demands for sin when “He who knew no sin became sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21). Justice: The price paid in full. Grace: Someone else paid it for us, and God freely gave eternal life when we believed in Jesus, the “someone” who satisfied God’s justice.

Out of touch?

Are we Christians out of touch?

In a survey of 16-29 year old American’s, two questions in particular disturbed me. When asked to indicate what phrases describe present day Christianity, 72% of outsiders (non church-goers) said Christianity was “out of touch with reality” and 70% said it was "insensitive to others”. By contrast, only 32% of church-goers said Christianity was out of touch and 29% said it was insensitive.

I know enough about surveys to take these numbers with a grain of salt. The questions might be biased; those surveyed might not be a statistically valid representation of the group.

I also know enough about the world we live in and the message of the Bible to know that a high percentage of “outsiders” will claim Christianity is out of touch with reality, in part because their view of reality and God’s view of reality are vastly different.

And, I know enough of the world’s standards that the definition of “tolerance” has changed to mean we must not only accept the person, we must condone their lifestyle. So, if we take a stand against a lifestyle, some may label us “insensitive”.

Even with these disclaimers, though, I think we can learn something from the numbers. Within the church, we need to be aware of real issues in our world and address them within the context of the Scriptures. We should be aware that “outsiders” really do see us differently than we see ourselves. And we should take those perceptions seriously.

Here’s just one example. About the same time I read about the survey above, I just happened to read of another disturbing survey. This second survey reports that only 6% of women in America (not limited to Christians) between the ages of 18 and 23 in a dating relationship are not having sex. Six out of every one hundred. Assuming the statistics are even close to valid (and I think they are!), if we ignore the sexualized world that confronts us, and if we don’t deal with this world honestly and openly, we are out of touch. We teach, correctly, to “flee immorality” and to abstain from sex until marriage. But, do we honestly help people – the 18-23 year olds inside the church - to deal with the artificial reality of the world that confronts them while challenging them to live out God’s reality? Do we help them live like the 6%, or do we just assume they'll make the right choice?

Do we look for ways to influence the world for the better; to change the artificial reality; to show the world that its “reality” is artificial, no matter what moral issue is addressed? I can't answer for the church at large. But I want to. I want the world to see that Christianity really does make a difference.

As we deal with the issues of the world, how do we respond to people who disagree with us, or with people who need help? That’s the heart of the second issue – insensitivity. Of course, some will always see Christianity as “insensitive” because we cannot condone certain behaviors or because we don’t respond the way they think we should. Regardless, we can always deal graciously with those “outside” the church (or inside the church, for that matter). I recall a young man who once lived a gay lifestyle saying he couldn’t start listening to the words of Christ seriously until someone started loving him with the love of Christ. As our culture slides further into a post-Christian culture, let’s make sure that if people are offended by us or believe we are “insensitive,” we have not given them any real basis for their conclusion. Let’s exhibit the love of Christ to a world that desperately needs to see the reality of Christ through His people.

(Sources: The first survey was reported in The Hole in Our Gospel, by Richard Stearns. He, in turn was citing data reported in UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. The second survey was reported in Premarital Sex in America by Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker)

Marriage - redefined?

The groom and groomsmen wore zoot suits; the bride was stunning in her gown as she walked the aisle. Family and friends celebrated with the couple as they committed their lives to one another, and I had the privilege of performing the ceremony. They gave me one simple statement to include in the content of what I said: “We would like to place strong emphasis that marriage is FOREVER, and that is the only way we see it. Our trials and hard times will only bring us closer to one another, and closer to God.” This couple got it right.

That’s the good news.

Now for some bad news.

Earlier in the week, seventy clergy of a particular denomination signed a statement at their state conference that said they would “offer the grace of the Church’s blessing to any prepared couple desiring Christian marriage,” including same-sex couples. They added, “We realize that our church’s discriminatory policies tarnish the witness of the church to the world, and we are complicit.” Granted, seventy signatures represent less than 10% of the voting membership of the convention, but that such a statement originated within a church conference is noteworthy.

A few days later, I read this concerning a different, but historically more conservative, denomination: “The church has abandoned its denominational commitment to traditional marriage. Gone is the standard for ordination that requires pastors, ‘to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman …, or chastity in singleness.’”   The change removes a celibacy requirement that kept many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from becoming ministers.

When the church starts declaring “this is okay” in relationships, she does so with the presumption that she is representing God. So, how does she know God’s purposes? Does she read it through human experience, human opinions, church leaders, cultural forces, (all of which are subject to change) or someplace else?

I vote “someplace else”.

 To know God’s purposes with certainty, God must reveal Himself. And I believe He did so through the Bible. And in this book, He defined marriage very clearly:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24, see also Matt. 19:5, Eph. 5:31)

 According to these words, marriage unites one man to one woman (his wife, singular) for life (“joined”). God formed the union, designed for permanence (“let no man separate, Matt. 19:6).

Our culture redefines marriage, or says it isn’t even important. The message of the Bible swims upstream against the flow of culture. We shouldn’t be surprised when the world acts like the world, when it says something different that the Bible. We should do what we can to influence the world positively to align with biblical principles, but nonetheless, we shouldn’t be surprised.

But we should be surprised when any church or denomination says “the world’s way is okay” contrary to God’s Word. Standing for God’s Word isn’t wrongly “discriminatory,” it’s standing for what is right.

A crucial message from the past...

Deet and her fiancé lived in Holland before World War two started. They watched Hitler rise to power; they saw Jewish neighbors lose their property only because they had been born Jewish. They became involved with the resistance, and helped rescue many Jews. She lived in fear, but continued to do what she was convinced was right. “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you” and love of Jesus motivated her. Shortly before the war ended, her fiancé was killed by the Nazis. She lived in the world at its darkest; she chose to “love her neighbor” despite the risk to her own life.

Deet turned 91 years old today. She spoke at the conference I attended this week (Acton University). She spoke of how she “played dumb” with the Gestapo to protect her friends. She spoke of how hard it was to forgive the Nazis after the war. She spoke of the life she lived in order to avoid capture.  In the Q & A time that followed, I asked her, based on her experience, “what message should I pass on to my grand children”?

Her answer was the epitome of simplicity: Know God’s Word; Love Jesus; Live God’s Word.

It worked in the darkest of times. What better advice for any time, any place?

Disagreeing agreeably?

Ever been called a false teacher? I have.

Ever been told your views are “flawed” by someone who disagrees with your views? I have.

In both cases, the person and I differed on our understanding of some biblical principle (I won’t bore you with the details). But in neither case was the issue one of a cardinal doctrine of Scripture. Both cases raise the question, how should we respond when we disagree with one another? (By the way – if any person who said these things to me is reading this, I’m not throwing rocks at you. I promise!)

The fact that Christians disagree about what the Bible says is a given. The problem isn’t the book; it’s our understanding of the book. For a host of reasons (that I won’t go into), two people can look at the same passage and understand it differently. Or, we might understand it similarly but apply it differently. I think we can learn some skills to help us read the Bible more effectively and perhaps reduce the number of differences, but differences will always exist. How should we respond when we disagree?

Jesus came “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Paul admonishes us to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). Somehow, we too often miss the grace and love part. We attack (because we have “the truth”); we won’t listen; we defend ourselves. I’ve been guilty of this, but I’m trying to be more sensitive about how I respond.

One of the most common approaches that ignores grace and love attacks the person in some way instead of the person’s position (an ad hominem attack). What does this look like?

The “Christian” standing on one street corner calling the atheist standing on the opposite corner a “faggot”.

The young-earth apologist declaring that those who don’t hold a young-earth view deny the inerrancy of Scripture.

The writer who declares those who don’t hold to his dispensational views are “false teachers”.

The theologian who labels another theological viewpoint using “loaded” terms to discredit the view (since I won’t give the details here, several such instances might pop up in your thinking!).

All true stories by the way. And I won’t belabor the point with more examples (there are many!). What does this approach accomplish?

Nothing constructive.

What should we do instead?  A recent foxnews.com opinion column, reposted on Yahoo! News, nailed it:

 “Five words could prevent the public brawls between Christians who differ in their opinions on social and theological issues.

‘…but I might be wrong.’

It would be disingenuous if we attached these words to the end of every sentence. We all have spiritual and moral convictions we believe are non-negotiable, but can’t the humility associated with those five words define the tone of our dialog?”

 (Ian Morgan Cron, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/31/words-save-church/#ixzz1O9QpROia)

What does this humility look like – even when we know (??) we’re right?

First, always begin with a desire to understand what the Bible says. We may still disagree on what the text means, but at least we’re focused on objective truth. Look at the text. Wrestle with the text.

Second, listen to the other view. We might learn something – even if we do not end up agreeing completely with the other person. And we might even discover we were wrong on some points!

Third, avoid critical or “loaded” words.  Instead, ask questions like, “have you considered this?” or “How does xxxx fit?” (xxxx is a passage in the Scriptures), or “could you show me how you came to your conclusion?”

Fourth, be slow to play the “false teaching” card. False teaching is not, “we disagree, therefore, you are a false teacher”.  Biblically, false teaching encompasses teaching contrary to core, essential doctrines. The “guarantee” of the rapture on May 21^st was false teaching because of Camping’s guarantee that God would do certain things that day, not because of any particular view of the rapture. Denial of the deity of Christ is false teaching. Teaching salvation by anything other than faith in Jesus Christ is false teaching. I’ve yet to encounter a false teacher who responds to the accusation of being a false teacher by admitting they are a false teacher, so calling them such will not help the situation. At the end of the day, we may well need to label some teaching as “false”, but we shouldn’t start our conversation there!

Humility in action looks like my friends Zach and Abbie. Instead of ignoring the atheist and the name-caller on the opposite corner, they talked to them. They didn’t start by pointing out the errors of either man. They asked questions and listened. Now they better understand why each person believes what they believe. They better understand why they act like they act. Time will tell where the conversation will end, but by choosing to avoid critical words, they’ve kept the door open.  

Disagreeing agreeably. Applying love and grace with truth. It’s a crucial art form for every believer to learn.

Will the rapture occur Saturday?

Will the rapture happen tomorrow – Saturday, May 21^st ?

Harold Camping guarantees it.  He recalculated the calculations he uses that incorrectly predicted the same event in 1994. Here’s my vote: I’m still preparing a sermon for Sunday!

So, what might really happen?

(a)    Camping is right and the rapture occurs Saturday. Not likely, since the Bible clearly tells us “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only” (Matt. 24:36, 24:42-44). Granted, someone could accidentally predict the right day, but not because they calculated it using the Bible, in contradiction to the Bible itself. I tried looking at Camping's calculations, but got lost in the assumptions and details. 

(b)   Skeptics and unbelievers will make fun of Christians in general. Even those of us who don’t agree with Camping (and others like him) will get lumped in. Not surprisingly, this is already happening: “Some of those skeptical of the prophecy are planning on celebrating Saturday with tongue-in-cheek ‘rapture parties,’ LiveScience reports. Tacoma, Wash., non-believer Paul Case told the Seattle Times that he wants to celebrate on Saturday because if the Rapture does happen, and all Christians are lifted to heaven, ‘we know as atheists, we're not going.’” (“PR campaign for the apocalypse seems to be working”, Yahoo! News, posted Thursday, May 19).

(c)    Camping is wrong, and the world will wake up to a normal regular Sunday like it has for centuries.

 
I vote (b) and (c).
 
How can believers respond when stories like this pop up in our world?
 
First, remember Jesus is, in fact, returning some day. I don’t know when He will come, but the Scriptures make it clear that He will return (1 Thess. 4:15, for example). We may disagree on the details of how His coming will unfold (pre-trib, pre-wrath, mid-trib, post-trib, premillenial, post millennial, amillenial, and the list goes on), but not on the fact of His coming!
 
Second, believing He will return should impact our living today. “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (2 Pet. 3:10-11). Knowing the end of the story should influence what we do while we are still someplace in the middle of the story!
 
Third, when people talk about Camping’s predictions, talk with them. Don’t ridicule Camping (I think plenty of others will take care of that), but instead ask questions about what they believe. Remember the movie, 2012? Not a great movie (I wouldn’t even rank it high enough to be a really bad movie!), but knowing that people went to the movie opened doors to talk with them about the future. Camping’s predictions can do the same. We can use false prophesies about the future to open doors to talk to people about the truth, especially when they start the conversation!

Will the rapture happen Saturday? I don’t think so. See you Sunday!

What about someone in deepest, darkest, downtown Dallas who has never heard the gospel?

Do I really believe that the only way to eternal life and entering into God’s presence for eternity (whether you call this “heaven”, the “kingdom”, or the “new heavens and new earth”) is by faith in Jesus Christ?

Absolutely! 

Doesn’t that make me “narrow minded”? What about the person in deepest, darkest, downtown Dallas who have never heard about Jesus? Is that fair for them?

The answer would be “absolutely not” (well, humanly speaking), if not for two crucial truths.  

The first truth is, God in His general revelation reveals Himself to all men so that they are “without excuse”. The second truth is, God can sovereignly send the gospel message to any who want to know the truth. So, let’s say a Dallas native looks into creation, concludes that God must exist and wants to know the truth. God then works whatever details He needs in order to get the message to that person.

How has God revealed Himself to everyone? Look at these two verses from the Bible: 

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1)

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20)

The universe around us reveals something about God. About His glory. About His invisible attributes. I think of things like His power, vastness, majesty, and creativity when I stare at the night sky. In fact, God so clearly reveals Himself that people have no excuse for failing to respond to Him as creator. The universe – creation – proclaims that God exists.

Someone might argue – rightfully – that creation does not provide adequate revelation to understand our need for salvation, let alone the means of that salvation. That’s where trust in the character and ability of God comes in. Job learned at the end of his trials that God “can do everything” and not one of God’s purposes can be thwarted. In other words, if the person in deepest, darkest, downtown Dallas responds by wanting to know about the God revealed in the night sky, it is God’s business to ensure the message gets to him or her. And He is perfectly capable of doing so!  

Most often, He uses people to take that message to others (Romans 10:14). Rob Bell, however, overstates this role of the human messenger in salvation (I promise, I’m not really writing just to point out where I disagree with Bell. It’s just that his words touch on my topics): “If our salvation, our future, our destiny is dependent on others bringing the message to us, teaching us, showing us – what happens if they don’t do their part? What if the missionary gets a flat tire?” (Love Wins, p. 9). The subtle error lies in the first part of his statement. Ultimately, our destiny is not dependent on others bringing the message. It is dependent upon God revealing Himself and ensuring the message gets to the person. I am not ultimately responsible for someone’s destiny, although God can use me in the process.

Look at God’s creative working in these four examples from Acts:

God moves Philip to explain the Scriptures to the Ethiopian eunuch, and then beams him out after the Eunuch believes. (Acts 8:26-40)

Jesus revealed Himself directly to Saul on the road to Damascus through a bright light (blinding Saul) and a voice from heaven. Saul responds, “What do you want me to do?” (Acts 9:1-9) 

Cornelius, a “God fearer”, was told in a vision by an angel of God to send for Peter. Meanwhile, God prepares Peter’s heart for this visit with the vision of the sheet with all kinds of animals, declaring the unclean, clean. Peter meets with Cornelius, and Cornelius responds in faith. (Acts 10:1-11:48)

Paul and Silas were imprisoned in Philippi. While incarcerated, an earthquake hit, opening the doors of the jail and loosening chains of the prisoners (not a “routine” earthquake, based on these results). When the jailor wants to know what he must do to be saved, Paul gives him the gospel message.

 
So, what about the person in deepest, darkest, downtown Dallas who has never heard? He (or she) has no excuse because God revealed Himself to every person through creation. And if he (or she) really wants to know the God of creation, God can (and, in my opinion, will) do whatever He needs to do to bring the message to that person, sometimes doing so very creatively. A flat tire on the freeway will not stop the process.
 
By no means am I saying we should sit back and do nothing to reach a lost world under the umbrella of “trusting God” to get the message out. He usually uses people to tell the good news, and I should be one of them he uses. Jesus commands us to “go” (Matt. 28:19-20). But the eternal destiny of that other person does not ultimately rest on my faithfulness, but on God’s. If I am not obedient, He can work around my disobedience to accomplish His purposes to get the message out.  I, however, would much rather be used by Him than be a disobedient someone God must “work around”!
 
What about those unable to believe because they don’t have the mental capacity to understand and respond to the gospel? What about babies or the mentally challenged? That will have to wait for a future post. Before I tackle that one, though, I want to write about something else. Stephen Hawking this week said “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” Is the afterlife “a fairy story”? Because if it is, none of this matters.