Faster Unto Thee

Image of God and Speciesism

The relevance of the classical Christian doctrine of the Image of God in humankind has always been seen in relation to the abortion and euthanasia issues, but it is also relevant to current discussions of the relationships between species on planet earth.

On the first two issues of abortion and euthanasia, the fact that humans bear the Image of God (Genesis 1:27) speaks of the uniqueness and high value of human beings given by God himself, thus the obvious sin of aborting children in the womb or terminating people who are miserable, old, or "useless" to society. The full horror is seen when one realizes that it is one image bearer killing another image bearer in the act of abortion or euthanasia.

On the issue of species, recent news stories have brought to the American public an "ism" that formerly kept itself in the halls of our universities: "speciesism" This term was made popular by Professor Peter Singer of Princeton, but coined in the 70's by Psychologist and Philosopher Richard D. Ryder. Just as a racist believes his or her race is superior to others, so a speciesist thinks his or her species is superior to others and puts his or her species' interests above others. Speciesism is "'the widespread discrimination...practiced by man against other species'" (see "Not One Sparrow" in Christianity Today, July 2009, page 19). Working with this line of thinking, when President Obama recently swatted a fly that had been tormenting him and said, "I got the sucker!", the PETA people jumped at the opportunity to scold the President for thinking and acting like his own species had the right to kill another based on the belief that human beings are more important than flys. 

This is where our society is going as it moves further and further away from a biblical worldview. Once the basic idea that human beings are the pinnacle of creation due to the Image of God they bear and from the divine mandate to rule over creation, along with the truth that animals do not bear the Image of God, are dropped, all manner of devaluing of human life and of raising other forms of life to the same level as people occurs. The Image of God is a crucial doctrine that we must teach our children if they are to keep animals in their proper place and humans at the top of creation with a deep responsibility to care for it. If we lose this truth completely, no one will be safe.

So, how do we define the Image of God and explain it? Defining it begins with two questions. First, since the Genesis 1:27 speaks of the Image of God in humankind, it makes sense to consider in what limited ways humankind is like God. Second, since animals are not said to bear the Image of God, it makes sense to contrast humans and animals, carefully defining how they are different.

I very much like Wayne Grudem's summary of the aspects of the Image of God in his Systematic Theology. Here is my summary of Grudem's points from pages 445-449:

1. There is the moral aspect - human beings are moral creatures. Animals are not.

     a. humans are accountable to God

     b. humans have a moral sense of right and wrong

     c. humans are able to express holiness with God's help

2. There is the spiritual aspect - human beings can personally relate to God.

     a. humans have capacity to know and relate to God

     b. humans have (or are) and immortal soul

3. There is the mental aspect

     a. humans have the ability to reason and think logically

     b. humans can have complex, abstract thoughts

     c. humans are aware of time – distant future, past

     d. humans are creative - we see it in art, design, problem-solving, etc.

     e. humans have deep and complext emotions

4. There is the relational aspect

     a. humans are capable of deep relationships – marriage, family, etc.

     b. humans have a mandate and responsibility to rule over creation

Grudem sums it up well:

“Yet we must remember that even fallen, sinful man has the status of being in God's image ... Every single human being, no matter how much the image of God is marred by sin, or illness, or weakness, or age, or any other disability, still has the status of being in God's image and therefore must be treated with the dignity and respect that is due to God's image-bearer. This has profound implications for our conduct toward others. It means that people of every race deserve equal dignity and rights. It means that elderly people, those seriously ill, the mentally retarded, and children yet unborn, deserve full protection and honor as human beings. If we ever deny our unique status in creation as God's only image-bearers, we will soon begin to depreciate the value of human life, will tend to see humans as merely a higher form of animal, and will begin to treat others as such. We will also lose much of our sense of meaning in life.”

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pages 449-450.

Sermon Synopsis - Untitled on Romans 1:24-27

I continue to work through a sermon series from the book of Romans on Sunday morning. This past Sunday I preached from 1:24-27 on Paul's understanding of homosexuality. I wrestled with a clear thesis for this sermon, but one did come out while preaching (better late than never!), and it has to do with standing firm on a biblical understanding of homosexuality amidst the societal pressure to do otherwise.  Here is the sermon outline, minus most illustrations, applications, transitions, etc., that make up a full sermon. I leave such things out so that people do not try to copy my sermons without engaging in real preparation themselves.

I. It is impure 9v. 24).

One term Paul uses to describe homosexuality is impure. In biblical thinking, a good thing is impure when it is twisted for sinful purposes and reflects humanity's fallen nature. Paul frequently uses this term in his letters when speaking of sexual sin (see 2 Cor. 2:21, Gal. 5:19, Eph. 4:19, 5:3, and more). Something impure is sinful, dirty, morally grimy in God's eyes. It is not whole.

Applying this to the issue of homosexuality is easy. With examples such as Bishop Gene Robinson, other "Christian" churches and denominations that have given the OK to homosexual practice and even unions, it was easy to come up with examples of people who speak as though the union of two persons of the same sex could be holy. But, biblically speaking, there is not such thing as "Holy Matrimony" if both persons are of the same sex. The union of two such people, no matter how much they love each other, not matter how much they claim what have is good and right in the eyes of God, no matter how stable a home they are able to build, will always be impure. Goodness has everything to do with conforming to God's standards and character, and is not present when God's Word is disobeyed.

II.  It is unnatural (vs. 26-27).

Paul explains that sexual relations between two persons of the same sex is unnatural. What is his reference point here for determining what is natural and unnatural? It is the pattern God set forth in creation. He looks to Genesis 1 and 2 to define what is normal. He looks there for God's intention, which can be seen there before the Fall distorted man's heart. There we see one man and one woman brought together by God himself. So to go against the creator's plan is to rebel agaist the creator himself.

Frequently, homosexuals will say, "I was born this way. I have had these urges since I was a child. It is natural for me. I do not have a choice." Our answer needs to include this: "Your urges and inclinations do not determine what is natural and right in God's eyes. God does. His pattern is a man and woman together. Your urges, like the urges of every other human being, are corrupted by sin. They are not reliable and will led you astray." The Bible is to be our moral compass, not our urges.

III. It is penal (v. 27).

There is a curious phrase at the end of verse 27: "in themselves the due pentalty for their error" (ESV). The error is rejecting the true God, the penalty is the existence of homosexuality and other sins. To put it another way, the penalty is God removing his restraining grace and allowing us humans to run full speed into all kinds of destructive sins. To say it another way, the fact that God permits such things as homosexuality to take place reveals that we are already under the judgment of God. He has "given us up."

Let me explain what I mean. I think of a child learning to ride his or her fist two-wheeled bicycle. The tricycle is done with and it is time for a big boy or big girl bike. The child is chafing at the bit to get on that bike. So dad holds the bike steady while Jr. gets on. The bike wobbles a bit as he mounts it and dad and son begin to move down the sidewalk. Dad has one hand on the seat and the other on the handlebars as they start. He can tell that the child does not have the feel for it yet – as soon as dad loosens his grip the bike starts to tip over. So they keep moving together down the sidewalk, with dad waiting for the magic moment when he can tell his child is starting to get a feel for how to balance the bike. But suddenly, the child says, "Let go! Let me try!" Dad knows it is way too early to let go and he is pretty sure they are out of band-aids so he does not let go. But the child pleads over and over, "Let me try! I can do it!" The child is rejecting his dad's judgment. Finally, dad says, "Okay, but your mom will kill me," and he lets go. The child gets about two feet before he turns the handlebars too sharply and ends up crashing hard resulting in two bloody knees.

What did the dad do? He let the child go – he withdrew his restraint on the child's behavior and let the child experience the consequences of his impulse to go it alone.

Sometimes people say, "Look at how society is going? Do you think God will judge us?" Folks, he already has. The fact that he permits such behavior to take place means that he has "given us up" to the sinful impulses of our hearts. Homosexuality reflects the judgment of God, so do not take it lightly.

Watson on Grown Atheism and Doubting

I have not read much of Thomas Watson (to my shame), but as my Wednesday night Bible study works through the Beatitudes, one source I consult after my own exegesis and work with exegetical commentaries is Thomas Watson's The Beatitudes.

Yesterday I came across a paragraph on page 31 that struck me as having some parallels with today's situation:

We live in times wherein many are grown atheists. They have run through all opinions, an now of professors they are turned epicures; they have drunk in so much of the poison of error that they are quite intoxicated and fallen asleep, and begin to dream there is no such state of blessedness after this life; and this opinion is to them above the Bible. When men have the spiritual staggers, it sadly presages they will die. Oh, it is a dangerous thing to hesitate and waver about fundamentals; like Pythagoras, who doubted whether there was a God or no; so, whether there be a blessedness or no. Doubting of principles is the next way to the denying of principles. Let it be a maxim with every good Christian, there is a blessedness in reversion. 'There remains a rest for the people of God' (Hebrews 4:9).

The parallel that jumps out at me is the idea of "grown atheists." Today, students in universities and people in other places are fed pluralism in such a way that all religions are leveled in their minds, leading to the conclusion that none is better than the others, and/or that all are wrong or simply have their origin in the imagination of man. This leads to the practice of never giving their heart to any firm religious conviction except that there ought to be none. This "presages they will die"; but in a sense they are dead already and don't even know it.

The other parallel I see speaks to Christians who live without deep conviction of the truths of the Bible. Certainly, to be a genuine Christian one must believe the gospel message of the Bible, but some do not operate their spiritual lives from the position that every word, concept, promise, etc., is really true, no matter what other prevailing philosophies say. The pluralism and relativism of our day has greatly infected the church (I see it all the time in the listless worship, dead devotional lives, lack of holiness among believers) so that the great promises of the Bible regarding the deeper life are not clung to. The promises of the Beatitudes, for example, require death to self, as becoming "poor in spirit," "meek", "hungering and thirsting after righteousness", etc., all require a rejection of the thinking of this world and a deep humbling before God. But so many believers will not give up all to take on these traits and thus forfeit their corresponding promises of inheriting the kingdom, earth, and spiritual satisfaction. It is as though, like the atheists Watson mentions, they are "doubting the principles" and, in effect, "denying the principles." This is all driven by a lack of surrender and a lack of conviction that the Bible really is true in all its details and promises and truly lays out the path of the best life, and does not offer merely general spiritual truths.

Sermon Synopses - "Seeking a Harvest" - Romans 1:18-25

I have begun a new sermon series from the letter of Paul to the Romans. Almost 6 years ago I did a Wednesday night Bible study which covered Romans and lasted about a year. It was very rich, and I have been waiting for the right time to work through the letter in sermonic form on Sunday mornings in which I will have a wider audience than on Wednesday nights.

Here are some notes from the second sermon - minus, as always, introductions, most illustrations, transitions, most applications, etc. - all things that make a sermon complete.

"Seeking a Harvest"
Romans 1:8-15

After the introduction came this paragraph:

How can I become more mission-minded?  Certainly, the words and example of fiery guy like Paul can give us some insights. There are two insights in this passage that can help us answer that question of how can I, how we, can become more mission-minded. Now, verses 16 and 17 give us big motivators for sharing the gospel, but that's next week's sermon!

I.  Seek mutual encouragement.

The point I made here is that Paul wants to be with other mission-minded believers. He wants to spend time with some other believers who are dead serious about living for Christ and sharing the good news with others. Some of the other churches he wrote different letters to that we have in our Bible he did not write to because they were wonderful, but because they were messed up in their thinking and living. But here – he is hungry to visit Rome because he knows that the relationship will not be merely one-way with him encouraging them and they being a drain on him, but that their zeal and love for God and heart for evangelism will stir him up all the more.

II.  Seek expansion of influence (vs. 13-15).

Paul wants to go to Rome to give and receive encouragement. But he also wants to go there because he wants to expand his influence for the gospel.

Look again at verse 13 and following: "I want you to know, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles." He hopes that when he visits Rome he can win some people to Christ in that region, too. He is assigned by God to reach Gentile people (a gentile is anyone who is not a Jew), and he is always looking to expand his influence in the world. He is not content to just be faithful in one neighborhood, or one part of a city or even in one country, but his mind and heart are always looking for new territory, new connections, new regions to explore and plant the gospel. He is always looking to expand.

Givers and Takers

It has been said that there are two basic kinds of people in this world, givers and takers. Takers hoard, volunteer little or none of their time to church or community, are always reluctant or decline when asked to help with something, use up supplies without a second thought, and more. Givers, on the other hand, are marked by generosity in offering up their time, money, and hearts. When asked to help with a project, they quickly say yes, but if they cannot, they find a way to support the project otherwise. They offer their funds for worthy causes, and don't mind picking up the neighborhood kids for a church program. They have giving spirits, and they know what the takers do not: that great joy and contentment comes from self-denial. They know that if they give up their lives they will find life. The takers believe the opposite.

Our church has a new bread ministry in which we give away free bread that we pickup from the local Panera Bread restaurant. You see, each day Panera Bread donates their unsold bread to approved charities. We are signed up to pick up bread on Thursday nights at closing time and then we give it away to the community on Friday mornings at the church. It is wonderful to give quality bread away for free to a community that is hurting deeply as our local Delphi and Chrysler employers continue to shrink to near nothingness. Last night we picked up over $800 worth of bread from Panera.

But to do a ministry like this, you need givers. Someone has to sacrifice an evening to pick up the bread, as the pickup time is 8:40 p.m. Then it has to be hauled back to the church, sorted, put in bags, etc. Then someone needs to be at the church the next morning to oversee distribution. As I have sought out volunteers for this, the two types of people, even among Christians, stand out. The givers are eager to help, will rearrange their personal schedules, give up an evening at home, and more to pitch in, because, as they say, "this is a great ministry!" They see the value of the ministry and their giving hearts naturally join in. The takers cannot be burdened with helping, but they sure want some free bread.

Are you a giver or taker? Do you seek to help, sacrificing time, energy, comfort, and money for good causes? Or do you put yourself first, hold back, avoid pitching in, and keep to yourself?

Book Review - Beer, Wine & Spirits by Bastian

Vacation, busyness, and other things have kept me from posting for quite a while. Beginning with this week, I hope to resume my efforts to post twice a week.

Bishop Emeritus Donald N. Bastian has written a wonderful booklet about why those in the Wesleyan family of churches typically do not drink alcoholic beverages. The booklet is called, Beer, Wine & Spirits: What's the Big Deal, and is published by Light and LIfe Communications and is available here. In the past, so I am told, good reasons were commonly known among our church members for abstaining, but not so anymore. With both young and old asking "Why not?", a restatement of the old (and still valid!) reasons is due. Bastian has provided good, introductory answers to those questions in a booklet designed for the average person who needs a brief but quality overview of why abstinence from alcohol is a good stance to take.

His reasons can be summarized as follows, and I will not elaborate on them because I could end up summarizing the whole 21-page booklet!:

1. To avoid alcohol's destructive effects
2. To avoid hindering ministry to those who struggle with alcohol-related problems
3. To avoid being a cause for stumbling in another Christian's walk with God
4. To honor God with our bodies

Notice how the first three all have to do with loving others, and the last has to do with loving God? Sounds like sanctification to me. As Bastian writes,

"The destructive effect of alcohol on individuals and, in fact, on society as a whole is the primary reason we in the Wesleyan tradition take a clear abstinence position. We abstain out of love" (page 13).

Here is his son's way of turning down a drink at social functions: he declines, then says, if asked why, "I've taken a vow" (page 12). That answer has never failed to satisfy the questioner.

This little booklet is only $1.50. Buy a few for your church lobby and one for yourself. It is a solid tool for ministry and for developing personal conviction.

Sermon Synopsis - The Greatest Is Love

Sunday I preached a sermon from 1 Corinthians 13. The text naturally falls into three divisions, which made it easy to expound. This synopsis will be like the rest, notes from my sermon minus most illustrations, transitions, most applications, introuction, conclusion, etc. But it will be different as well, since I will mostly provide thoughts on point #2.

I.  The High Priority of Love (vs. 1-3). Here Paul asserts that love has a higher value than spiritual gifts and personal sacrifice apart from love. Sandwhiched between two chapters which focus on the use and abuse of spiritual gifts by the Corinthian believers, Paul shows them "a better way." Those folks to emulate are not necessarily those with the flashiest spiritual gifts, but those who demonstrate the greatest love.

II. The Costly Definition of Love (vs. 4-7). Here I labored over the different affirmations and denials Paul makes about love, showing that the common theme among them all is self-denial. A couple of examples:

"Love is patient and kind." To be patient, one has to set aside one's own timetable for when something should be completed. It means to fully live in the moment, not be itching to get on to something else. I find that when I am impatient in teaching my daughter something, it is because I think she "should just get this by now." And then if I peel back the layers of my heart a bit deeper I find that I really want to get his lesson over with so I can get on to something else I'd rather be doing. In other words, my impatience reveals my own selfishness. Deep down, sometimes I want life to be all about me. But if I am focused on her and her needs and set aside my own, it seems like I have all time in the world. Love is all about self-denial. Love gives time for committee or board members to come around to a good idea. Love is patient.

Verse 4 also says that love "does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful." It puts the needs of others first. Love does not have to win an argument to feel good. Love does not have to be first in line. Love does not have to be heard first. Irritability is an interesting thing. It is a lot like impatience. Things are not going our way and life has been tough and so we are irritable. Doesn’t the boss know he is supposed to treat us better? Doesn't that kid understand that other people don't want to hear the loud music coming out of his car? Doesn't the world know that my preferences and my way and my needs are supposed to come … first? When we get irritable it is usually because something has not gone our way and we are brooding over it and that mood colors everything else and we start feeling that people should just straighten up or get out of our way. But love says, life is not about me. I gave up my life when I got saved. Now life is all about God and the needs of others. I heard a Christian say that when he comes home from work, no matter how tired or worn out, or no matter how bad a day he has had, a man should enter the house thinking, "How can I bring peace here?" If he walks in and finds one kid screaming, a pan boiling over on the stove, an overwhelmed wife, and the other kid begging for help in the bathroom, love says, "My need to rest will have to wait; I must be a soothing and helpful husband right now." Love is all about self-denial.

Jesus himeslf taught that if anyone wished to follow Him, he must deny himself and take up his cross.

III. The Eternal Value of Love (vs. 8-13). Few things will carry over into the life to come. Riches will not. Neither will spiritual gifts. However, love will, for it has eternal value. It is wise, then, to invest in something that God places eternal value upon, and it is good and pure to pursue love for we ought to desire what God puts a premium on.

Sermon Synopsis: Whenever the Doors Are Open

Here is another sermon synopsis, minus, as always, illustrations, transitions, introduction, conclusion, applications, and more.

Sunday I preached a sermon entitled, "Whenever the Doors Are Open." It addressed the common conception that a person can separate their relationship with the Lord from a relationship with His Church. This notion is prevalent as people today separate "spirituality" from "organized religion," an idea that may young Christians buy into.  I argued that one cannot do this for four reasons.

1. True spirituality obeys God's commands. God commands that we assemble for worship and edification (Hebrews 10:24-25) and we see the assembling of believers in Scripture as an assumed norm for Christian life (Acts 2, I Cor. 12, 14). The point I made here is that if God requires us to assemble for worship and edification and we do not, then we are living in disobedience, and that puts us out of fellowship with God. Spirituality has the legs cut out from under it if disobedience is the norm.

2. True spirituality employs spiritual gifts. God gives spiritual gifts to be used (1 Cor. 12, 14). They are given to a believer for that believer to minister with. To do this best, assembly with other believers is necessary. When I skip church for no good reason, I rob other believers of the benefit of my God-given spiritual gifts. Also when I skip, I rob other believers of the opportunity to exercise their gifts for my benefit. In the end, skipping can be a violation of the love command, not merely a sin of omission in regard to using gifts as God intends. Spirituality that refuses to employ gifts in community and thus be accountable to a community of believers is not biblical spirituality at all.

3. True spirituality fosters a longing for corporate worship (Psalm 84, Acts 2:48). The Bible holds up as spiritual models people who love to be among God's people in worship. There is a craving for God's presence as especially experienced among the assembly of believers and a true recognition that one's spiritual life is dependent upon, to a great degree, relationships with other believers. If that desire to be in the assembly is not there, neither is biblical spirituality. True believers long for the courts of the Lord and love to be among his people.

4. True spirituality persuades the world (John 13:35). True spirituality persuades the world that we belong to Jesus. Jesus said that the love the disciples were to have for one another (modeled for them as Jesus washed their feet) would be the chief identifying mark of a disciple of Jesus. Wow. That tells me that if I am reluctant to be a faithful part of a church community, I am bereft of a key marker of belonging to Jesus. Unbelievers will be far more persuaded of my belonging to Jesus if I am in relationship with other believers and demonstrate love to those other believers. So disconnecting my spirituality from church involvement undercuts my identity with Christ and lessens my impact on unbelievers.

Horton on Joel Osteen

Joel Osteen is a new type of prosperity teacher, one who has taken the hokey antics of a former generation of the Word-Faith movement, stripped them away, and taken his message mainstream. Because of this approach, normally discerning evangelicals have let his program come into their homes and thinking because at first glance it does not appear to be the same thing as the old Word-Faith teaching. Some of my own parishioners regularly watch him on TV, seemingly unaware that the God he preaches is not the one of the Bible or classic Christianity. Michael S. Horton has written a helpful article that demonstrates key problems in Osteen's theology. Check it out.

New Blog by Bishop Donald N. Bastian

Bishop Emeritus Donald N. Bastian has a new blog, Just Call Me Pastor. It should prove worthy of regular visits.

Bastian was a Bishop in the Free Methodist Church of North America and then the first Bishop of the Free Methodist Church of Canada. His pastoral wisdom and writing style make for good reading. Pastors will want to visit his blog along with laypeople who wish to benefit from a seasoned minister's reflections on ministry, theology, and the Christian life.

His book God's House Rules was reviewed here a few years ago. His sermons on Christian family life are still available as Mp3 files through that post as well.