Introduction
If nothing else, mankind is inventive. There is a dizzying array of programs, methods and techniques available for churches. Every few years there is a new fad that every church seems to participate. In his book Escape from Church Inc. Glenn Wagner observes, “First it was bus ministry. Then it was body life. Then it was identifying your market. Then the church unleashed. Then spiritual gifts, personality profiles, cell churches, mega churches, and meta churches. Then seeker services. Then purpose-driven churches.”1
It is tempting to think that small groups are one of these fads. Indeed small groups have also gone through their own identity crisis. Names have changed from small groups to cell groups, to care groups to home groups. With all these fads, it is tempting to think of small groups as just another fad, and a somewhat dated one at that.
This paper takes the position that small groups, if properly related to the gospel, have an enduring place. This paper will therefore examine the place of the gospel in small groups. Specifically it will argue that small groups must connect to a local body, they must revolve around study of the Bible, and they should demonstrate genuine fellowship.
God’s Design for Christian Gatherings
In asking the question, “How does the gospel shape small groups?” one needs to understand what relationship small groups have to the gospel. Like Sunday school, small groups are an extra-biblical entity; that is, there is no direct biblical command for their existence. If there is no biblical command for small groups, then it is legitimate to ask why any church should do them.
The gospel relates to mankind in at least a couple of different ways. First, as the gospel comes to a man, and he believes in Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins, he experiences justification. This personal salvation is familiar to most westerners.
The second way that the gospel relates to man is corporately. Ephesians 3:6 states, “This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”2 The gospel brings God’s elect into his body, the church (Col 1:18). The gospel brings people into a community. The local church was so much a part of first century Christian life that scripture simply assumes participation in it. Everywhere the gospel spread churches were established (Acts 14:21-23). The apostles wrote many of their epistles to churches. It is against the church that the gates of Hell will not prevail (Matt 16:18). The church has the authority to discipline (Matt 18:17). It is the church that commissions missionaries and ambassadors (Acts 11:22; 15:3, 22; 2 Cor 8:19) and it is the church that welcomes and receives (Acts 15:4). It is in the church that the gifts of the Spirit are predominately displayed (1 Cor 12). It is through the church that “the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph 3:10). The church is “a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
Individual salvation is the emphasis today. Although God saves individuals, scripture records that God often bestows his affections corporately. God “loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). He shed his blood for the church (Acts 20:28) and is its savior (Eph 5:23). He sanctifies the church (Eph 5:27). He nourishes and cherishes the church (Eph 5:29).
The New Testament knows nothing of individual believers operating outside of a local body. When a local gathering seems to be falling by the wayside it warrants a rebuke from the New Testament authors (Heb 10:25). As Dave Harvey says, “The local church is the New Testament structure for care, discipleship, and missions.”3 With such heavy biblical emphasis on church, it seems reasonable to conclude that small groups find their relationship to the gospel through the church.
Mark Dever states that, “Churches should be full of spiritually dynamic friendships in which older Christians are helping to teach and guide younger Christians in the Word, where peers get together regularly for accountability and prayer, and where Christians are reading nourishing Christian books and talking about how they can use them to grow spiritually.”4
Typical Sunday morning services cannot accomplish all of this. Although necessary marks of a true church, the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments does not represent the whole of the church. It would be quite distracting for people to be reading books, holding one another accountable, and mentoring one another while the pastor was trying to preach. In as much as small groups can fulfill some of these other aspects of church life, they fit within God’s design for the church and therefore find their proper relationship to the gospel.
1 Glenn Wagner, Escape From Church Inc.: The Return of the Pastor Shepherd (Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), 20.2 All scripture references are from the ESV unless otherwise noted.
3 Dave Harvey, Why Small Groups? Together Toward Maturity, ed. C.J. Mahaney (Gaithursburg, MD, Sovereign Grace Ministries, 1996), 104.
4 Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, The Deliberate Church (Wheaton IL, Crossway Books, 2005) 109-110.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has to do with fundamental limits of certainty in conjugate 
variables, in this case momentum and position. One can measure a particle by bouncing light off it. The error in measurement of the particle’s position is:
1. ΔX=λ/θ
where λ is the wavelength of light and θ is the angle of focus into the lens. The uncertainty of the momentum of the particle is:
2. ΔMx=Ml(θ/2)
Ml is the momentum of the light (photon). Taken together:
3. ΔX(ΔMx)=λ(Ml)/2
So far so good. However, the momentum of light is inversely related to the wavelength of light by the equation:
4. Ml=h/λ
Substituting 4 into 3, the combined uncertainty can never be less than h/2. If the wavelength is small in order to get good resolution on the position (equation 1), then the momentum is large (because of equation 4) making the error of measurement of the particle’s momentum large (see equation 2). One must pick which variable to measure accurately since both cannot be known accurately at the same time. The problem with all of this is that these measurements are mediated.
It is commonly stated (and Boyd affirms) that “Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that this uncertainty is not due to our limited measuring devices; it is actually rooted in the nature of things.”1 To a certain extent that is true. However, the uncertainty, as shown above, is linked to light as the measuring tool. God, as opposed to humans, does not learn things as he takes measurements on a system. God’s knowledge is immediate. He does not require a scale to know how much a truck weighs, he does not need a measuring cup to know how much flower is in a bag, nor does God need light to know the position and momentum of a particle. God’s knowledge is not mediated to him. This is the fundamental problem with linking open theism to quantum mechanics. The assumption is that God must know things in the same way people know things. However, if God does not need to smash photons into the electrons orbiting atoms in order to know their position, then none of these equations apply and the uncertainty disappears.
1 Greg Boyd, God of the Possible, 109.
Greg Boyd in his article “Scientific Support for the Open View” makes the following point:
Prior to a ‘quantum event’ (viz. the observed behavior of a quantum particle in an experimental situation) there is only a range (‘wave packet’) of possibilities: during the quantum event the wave packet collapses down to one. After ‘the event’ there is one definite outcome which could not have been predicted with certainty ahead of time.
“If this is true of reality, it must be true of God’s knowledge of reality as well, for God’s omniscience is by definition exhaustive and perfectly accurate. In this view, the unpredictability of the future and the unchangeability of the past constitute two sides of the same metaphysical coin: they are both necessary facts.1
Quantum mechanics proves more than Boyd is likely willing to concede. Before the quantum event, according to Boyd, “there is only a range (’wave packet’) of possibilities.” He makes much of not being able to determine beforehand which possibility will actuate (thus the implications for a partially open future) but it seems that he fails to grant this indeterminacy in the present.
There are certain quantum events (such as passing electrons through a barrier) which are more in line with the analogy Boyd wants to draw. However, this uncertainty also exists in the present in quantum states (such as the position and momentum of a particle). Uncertainty attends both quantum events (future) which could not be foreknown and quantum states (present).
This means that the present has some uncertainty to it. If uncertainty in quantum events supports an open future, then it seems uncertainty in quantum states supports an open present. In order for this “wave packet” to collapse a measurement must be taken. At the point of interaction the packet collapses to a definable entity. However, if one never makes a measurement then the unknowable wave packet continues to be unknowable. Given the number of subatomic particles in the universe, and given the few that have actually been measured, this means that nearly an infinite number of quantum wave packets from the time of creation have gone unmeasured and therefore unknown. This means that God’s past knowledge has uncertainty to it as well.1 Greg Boyd, “Scientific Support for the Open View” Christus Victor Ministries, http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-open-theism/scientific-support/ (accessed November 1, 2008).
Prior to a ‘quantum event’ (viz. the observed behavior of a quantum particle in an experimental situation) there is only a range (‘wave packet’) of possibilities: during the quantum event the wave packet collapses down to one. After ‘the event’ there is one definite outcome which could not have been predicted with certainty ahead of time.
“If this is true of reality, it must be true of God’s knowledge of reality as well, for God’s omniscience is by definition exhaustive and perfectly accurate. In this view, the unpredictability of the future and the unchangeability of the past constitute two sides of the same metaphysical coin: they are both necessary facts.8
Quantum mechanics proves more than Boyd is likely willing to concede. Before the quantum event, according to Boyd, “there is only a range (’wave packet’) of possibilities.” He makes much of not being able to determine beforehand which possibility will actuate (thus the implications for a partially open future) but it seems that he fails to grant this indeterminacy in the present.
There are certain quantum events (such as passing electrons through a barrier) which are more in line with the analogy Boyd wants to draw. However, this uncertainty also exists in the present in quantum states (such as the position and momentum of a particle). Uncertainty attends both quantum events (future) which could not be foreknown and quantum states (present).
This means that the present has some uncertainty to it. If uncertainty in quantum events supports an open future, then it seems uncertainty in quantum states supports an open present. In order for this “wave packet” to collapse a measurement must be taken. At the point of interaction the packet collapses to a definable entity. However, if one never makes a measurement then the unknowable wave packet continues to be unknowable. Given the number of subatomic particles in the universe, and given the few that have actually been measured, this means that nearly an infinite number of quantum wave packets from the time of creation have gone unmeasured and therefore unknown. This means that God’s past knowledge has uncertainty to it as well.
Here is an excerpt from philosopher Victor Reppert’s blog Dangerous Idea:
How would a compatibilist analyze the case of an effective love potion, which the Hasker passage appeals to in his reference to Harry Potter? In the case of Voldemort’s mother Merope, she cast a spell on Tom Riddle, Sr., causing him to love her, only to become frustrated by the fact that the love produced by the potion was compelled. So she stopped using the spell, and he dumped her.
What accounts for the frustration and disappointment with a love compelled by the one being loved?
Although framed in a more philosophical manner, this is a fairly common question. I sense that most theologically conservative Christians who are not compatiblists also hold to a more subdued or less obvious form of compatiblism. Unless one is a pure unadulterated palagian, most Christians would hold that God’s grace is necessary for us to come to him. They feel the weight of Jn 6 and replace effective grace with prevenient grace. God does not gives us enough grace to certainly choose him, but enough grace to overcome our inherent depravity so that we can “freely” choose one way or another.
The first though I’d like to persue is to ask, “In your system, if God gives prevenient grace to 100 people and two of them respond positively, were those two people coerced?” So far everyone has answered “No.” What if 75 people respond positively? What if 99 or 100 respond positively? In other words, is failure a necessary requisite to freedom? Is lack of failure retroactive? If person number 2 accepts Christ freely, what happens when person number 100 also accepts, does number two’s conversion become forced all of a sudden? Is everyone is libertarian limbo until sombody finally decides against God? There seems to be not reason why failure is a necessary element of freedom. If that is the case, where is the objection against the compatiblist when he holds that God’s grace has a 100% success rate?
The second concept I’d like to explore is when God’s grace becomes irresistible. In the prevenient grace system, people are totally depraved. People need God’s grace in order to overcome their depravity to make a decision for him. At that point there is no turning back. They are secure in Christ. Some who embrace the doctrine of perseverance would deny this, but even they posit a point of no return. In heaven, all will be secure. There will be no sin in heaven. So at some point in everyone’s system there is a point that God’s grace in a person’s life is irresistible. The compatiblist says at regeneration, the mainstream Christian says at justification, the full arminian says in heaven. If everyone posits a point where God’s grace makes a persons future certain, then how can they raise a philosophical objection against another?
Since there is no reason why failure is a necessary element of freedom, compatibilist grace can kick in at any time. The only question is when it will kick in. It seems that these people are really closet compatibilists.
When we think of the great commission, we normally think of evangelism. Our mind go directly to somebody saying the sinners prayer, or coming forward at the invitation, or signing a card saying that they have accepted Christs as their personal savior. But examining the Great Commission itself we find something rather different.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
The imperative of this command is not “Go” as many people think. The imperative is “make disciples.”1 It is tempting to look at this list and conclude that they are all separate items. However, the remainder of the passage explains more of what is meant by “make disciples.” This includes “baptizing” and “teaching.”Pure evangelism is not explicitly a part of this passage. The closest we get to evangelism in this passage is “baptizing” which assumes that the gospel has been presented and that the person has made a credible profession of faith in the work of Christ. The aim of the Great Commission, therefore is not to make “converts” but to make genuine followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. This will require a much more comprehensive strategy than is normally given to the Great Commission. We cannot separate this commission from a robust church life.
1. David Sills, The Missionary Call, 56.
There seems to be a great deal of confusing and opinion regarding how we think through issues. This is nowhere more obvious than in the political landscape. Politics is very much a field filled with moral issues. This post is not aimed so much at rendering conclusions on political issues or candidates so much as using politics as a talking point for how Christians should utilize scripture in developing their worldview.
Gather the Data
The first and most obvious step is to take a particular issue, say poverty, and go to scripture to see what it has to say about the matter. I have heard it said that Jesus had more to say about the poor than anything else. Similarly I have also heard it said that Jesus talked about money more than anything else. Anyone familiar with the life of our Lord will know that such claims are patently false. Still, scripture does have a lot to say about the poor. But what does that mean? Can we infer from that that the poor are important to him? Possibly. But a quick search will also reveal that scripture talks a lot about sheep, in fact slightly more than the poor. Does this mean that God cares more about sheep than the poor? Certainly not. So the first step is to simply gather the relevant data.
Sort the Data
The second thing we need to do is examine all our data to see what exactly scripture is saying about our topic. How is the subject broken up? There will be general categories like, “How they came to be poor” and “How God views the poor” and “How we should treat the poor.” There may be many other categories that we can sort all of the data into. Naves Topical Bible or Torrey’s Topical Textbook are good resources for this kind of thing. We just need to remember that these categories are not hard and fast categories. There may be overlap and there may be additional, or more appropriate categories in which to place things. This is just a tool, for beginning to think through things.
Evaluate the Data
Having sorted the data we now begin to evaluate it all. Let us take the category, “How they came to be poor” and evaluate it. Most of this data comes from Proverbs. “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, 11 and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man” (Proverbs 6:10).
We need to recognize that although there is often a negative association with how people become poor, that is not always the case. Proverbs are not concrete truths but sayings that, in general, describe life. We do have positive appraisals of the poor, “Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool” (Proverbs 19:1). This poor person is not a sluggard for he has integrity. “Whoever loves pleasure will be a poor man;
he who loves wine and oil will not be rich” (Proverbs 21:17). Some of the poor are so through no fault of their own while others are poor through no fault but their own. This truth should contribute to our overall worldview.
We then take another category, perhaps “Justice” and then another category, perhaps “Acts of mercy” and we tie all of this data into our existing work on the poor. Would care for the poor fall under “justice or “mercy?” Pretty soon it becomes clear that we cannot have any blanket stance on how we deal with the disadvantaged. There are many more factors that come to play in this.
Admonition & Encouragement
This task can be quite daunting at the outset. This is hard work, but we must not avoid it. I recently had a discussion with someone on whether one should vote if he were not informed on the issues. He was surprised at this last election how many people absolutely insisted that we must vote - it is our right and duty! But this fervent desire for all people to vote did not seem to be accompanied by a desire for competency. Yes, we should do our duty, and part of doing our duty is doing it in a competent manner. Preachers should preach, but they must be responsible students of the word. Doctors must doctor, but they should be competent in medicine. Engineers should engineer, but they must also be competent science. Citizens should vote, but they must be informed and thoughtful voters. This is my admonition: Do the hard work! Christians should be the foremost in this as we are working corem deo. Voting aside, Christians still must do the hard work of studying the word so we will have an ever deepening worldview. This makes a massive difference in how we live, but we must do it.
While this task seems daunting (and it is work) it need not be as hard as we first expect. The first step is to simply read the Bible on a daily basis. Commit to reading through the whole Bible every year. My Bible (not a study Bible) has 1022 pages in it. This works out to less than 3 pages per day. As you read, pick a couple of topics (in our example perhaps it is “poverty” and “justice”) and highlight every reference. Perhaps you can keep a notebook of some sort to jot down thoughts or observations. Some days there may a lot, but then you may go a few days or weeks before your topic pops up again. Meditate a bit on what you read during the course of the day. Establishing this as a habit makes the work quite easy. So take courage! At the end of the year you may be surprised to find how much you have learned.
You can speed all of this up by sitting down with a concordance (or bible software) to speed up the data collection process, but don’t rely on that. Reading everyday will make sure that you are reading the appropriate verses in context rather than shoe-horning them into your preconcieved notions. Regular reading is also a more thorough way of studing because the concept you are studying may not always be translated in the manner you expect when you go to look it up in a concordance. You may miss a lot of relevent data by not reading.
Do the same thing the next year picking different topics. The next year will be even easier because of the habit you have developed. Also, since a lot of topics overlap there will not be quite as much work as at first since you have already covered some of that ground. The growth is not linear. Year 1 you learned one topic. But year two you not only learned a new topic, but you have begun to make many connections to your first topic and you are able to stand upon some of the work you did in the first topic. Your returns therefore increase each year. So take courage! The hardest part of all of this is not the actual work in Scripture, but the dedication to make such study a habit. If you try to cover all the political topics 10 days before the election, then yes you will be overwhelmed - so don’t do that. Just make regular, purposeful study a part of your daily routine and you will be amazed at the results!
Happy studying!
Bruce Ware has been instated as the president of the ETS.
http://www.towersonline.net/story.php?grp=news&id=581
That is very good news since the ETS is in serious need of reform. Dr. Ware is a fine scholar who will stand up for truth, but do so in grace. I am very pleased about this development!
Right out of the starting blocks, a case must be made for why indeterminacy in quantum mechanics (QM) has any bearing on free-will and the openness of the future on account of human volition. Millard Erickson notes:
“Boyd also holds that individual human actions are unknowable and unpredictable by God, but that the behavior of groups of people is predictable. That, however, requires some linkage or connection between the behavior of quantum particles and individual humans. If this is not the case, it is difficult to understand why Boyd considers these phenomenon to confirm what the Bible teaches.”1
The uncertainty that exists at the quantum level is due to the wave-aspect of the wave-particle duality of nature for small particles. The deBroglie wavelength of a particle is equal to Plank’s constant divided by the momentum of the particle. The momentum is the velocity times the mass of a particle. Thus for a BB which weights about 100mg with a velocity of 1mm/s, its momentum is .0000001 kg*m/s. The deBroglie wavelength is therefore 6E-27m, or .000000000000000000000000006m. This means that quantum effects are not manifested beyond particles the size of a large molecule. In short there is no quantum mechanical effect expected in humans.
The second difficulty that faces Boyd’s QM-Open Theism link is the fact that the physical realm is not all there is. John Beckman observes:
This lack of a physical cause for whether a particular particle tunnels or reflects raises the question of whether or not non-physical causes exist for such quantum mechanical events. For example, God might determine (by Divine fiat or by non-physical secondary causes) which particles tunnel and which particles reflect.2
However, Boyd suggests, “If this [uncertainty] is true of reality, it must be true of God’s knowledge of reality as well, for God’s omniscience is by definition exhaustive and perfectly accurate.”3
It appears then that Boyd is aware of these problems since the link he makes is not to human neurology as a physical claim, but to God’s knowledge as a metaphysical claim. The link to Open Theism is therefore not a necessary link either empirically or metaphysically. It simply opens the door of possibility. If God’s knowledge is uncertain in one area, perhaps it is uncertain in other areas as well (e.g. human volition). This is analogous to a man who is on trial for murder (and pleads his innocence) and the prosecutor claims that if this man lied on his taxes, then perhaps he is lying about the murder. There is no causal link of any kind, it simply opens the door of possibility that the man could be lying. With no necessary link, the force of the argument is severely reduced.
-
Millard Erickson, “What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 184.
-
John Beckman, “Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Physics and the Open View of God,” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 4, no. 1 (Summer 2002), 208.
-
Greg Boyd, “Scientific Support for the Open View”; Accessed 19 November 2008; Available from http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-open-theism/scientific-support/; Internet.
Jean-Paul Sartre has described mankind as a “useless passion.” At times it seems as if he is onto something. We tend always toward one extreme or another. This is why it is so vital for Christians to have their roots sunk deep in Scripture. Too often we have one foot in scripture and one foot in the world. When we see the lunacy of Switzerland in giving rights to plants, we react in the other direction by saying that plants and the rest of creation are simply for our use and we may use them any way we want. While there is some correction in that, we have missed the creation mandate that makes us stewards, not masters, of creation. It is our to use, but not to abuse.
The same kind of thing happens on a sociological level. We too often play the part of Sartre’s “useless passion” and swing from one pendulum to another. In considering the poor, there are several things that we need to keep in balance. First, we must recognize that in this fallen world the poor are often abused or taken advantage of. We really need to guard against this injustice. At the same time, in our zeal for providing justice for the poor, we must guard against making the pendulum swing too far in the other direction so that the poor will not gain special privileges, nor will the rich receive injustice. It must be justice for all people.
Second, the heart of a Christian should reflect the compassion of Christ. It is out of the overflow of our love for God that we love His image bearers. Some may react to the justice issue and reason that since I am not required by principles of justice to give my house, car, or money to the poor that I therefore hold no moral obligation to them at all. The money which I worked for is mine and I am free to do with it as I please. But a Christian touched by the grace and mercy of God will recognize the principle “freely you have received, freely you shall give.” Although I am not required to give good things to my kids, out of my love for them I want to give them good things. Love should so motivate us toward others such as the poor.
Third, we recognize that not all who are poor came into that condition in the same way. Some were born into it, some came into it through the horrors of war as is seen in the exiles, some came to it through loss of the breadwinner (see the plight of widows in Scripture), others fall into poverty completely on their own (Prov 6:10-11; 10:4; 32:21; 2 Thess 3:10-12). Our acts of mercy must bear these things in mind.
Fourth, as we strive to care for the disadvantaged, it must be done in a way that will not enable any sinful tendencies. This is why we teach our children to do chores, take on responsibility for pets, etc. Our aim is to genuinely help them, not simply meet their needs or enable any sin. The single most important factor to accomplish this is the gospel. In fact, the gospel trumps all temporal needs. But from a pragmatic standpoint, a heart captured by Christ is the most powerful thing that can happen to a person in lifting them above their present circumstances. Secondarily, the transformation of the mind is another powerful way to help the poor. Hence the saying, “give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.”
Needless to say I was quite surprised to read this lament:
I’ve heard conservatives rail on about the evils of abortion as part of a so-called “pro-life” community, and yet once the mother does right by carrying to term and having the child, she - and her newborn - are left to fend for themselves, vulnerable to judgment and condemnation when they seek the government aid they need to fill their stomachs and keep a roof over their heads.
I’ve heard pundit after pundit, friend after friend, Christian after Christian, call on those kids growing up in violent, drug-ridden neighborhoods to “buck it up and do something about their situation because it’s their American right and ability to do so,” but unilaterally deny them every opportunity to rise above circumstance. From refusing them proper education to condemning them for their parents’ or neighbors’ sins. We call them out of the life of poverty and crime we’ve abandoned them to, refuse them aid, and then condemn them for continuing the only cycle of life they’ve ever known. As if, put in their situation, we’re certain we would know exactly what to do and how to do it (and have the confidence to achieve it).
If the people described above are really guilty of such behavior, then I join in their condemnation. But it is a position that I do not recognize. This is not my position, nor is it the position of any Christian I know. Nonetheless, given the context of this quote I feel it would be worthwhile to set forth a conservative response.
I believe strongly in educating the next generation (including the poor). I believe that much of the existing philosophy of education is flawed. If we really want to give a decent education to the poor, there needs to be some serious reform. Still, I strongly support educating the next generation.
I believe strongly in voluntary ministries of mercy. All things being equal, I’d like the ability to choose how I want to help the poor. I’d like the freedom to support some particular groups of poor people. Not intending to take away from real needs in the US, I think there are more pressing needs internationally; places like Haiti. See here for example.
So as a Christian who does care for the poor, who wants to help them rise out of poverty, who supports education, how should I now approach the abortion issue?
All things being equal, the deliberate taking of life is assigned greater moral weight (and therefore higher priority) than the accidental loss of life. To place these on the same level is not a legitimate move. Thus in a decision between a pro-life Larry who does not really care for the poor and pro-choice Charlie who does care for the poor, the greater moral weight suggests that one should support Larry.
All other things being equal, the expectation of help is higher with innocence than it is with self-induced circumstances. All babies who are aborted are innocent (on the human level). Some(important qualifier) of the poor in the US are so because they are lazy and irresponsible. Thus, all other things being equal, one would expect aid to go first toward the innocent and secondarily to those who share in the responsibility for their condition.
All this being said, it is difficult for me to see a biblical case for supporting a pro-abortion candidate.
Update: For those interested the discussion has moved over here.
Someone has posted some post election thoughts here that I though I’d interact with.
What excites me about the prospects with Obama in office - and intrigues me about the widespread fearful response of so many Believers to his election - is that the system which so many call and fear as “socialist” (implicitly evil and utterly wrong) is actually the kind of community living Christ Himself designed, sanctioned, and ordained for the Church. What we see happening in Acts 2 is exactly that: socialism, if not communism, even. The equal distribution and sharing of all wealth, goods, and property among all people so that no one is richer and thus more significant, or poorer and thus less significant.
First, one will notice that Jesus is not even present. This is after his death, resurrection and ascension. Nor is Christ even present in a glorified sense as he would later appear to Paul. He is certainly not seen in this passage to be designing, sanctioning, much less ordaining the kind of community the church must live in.
Second, we must consider that the church, not the government, is the primary subject here. There are distinct roles given to church and distinct roles given to government. What is the right and responsibility of one is not necessarily the right and responsibility of the other.
Third, Acts is written as historical narrative. It is not didactic in nature so what we find there is a record of what happened, but not necessarily what should be. A good example of this is the life of the patriarchs described in Genesis. Many were polygamists. We cannot make the leap that just because something is recorded that it therefore has God’s sanction. We must go elsewhere for our doctrine of marriage. In Acts we see that people are doing something (sharing their things), but that in no way makes it normative. So even in the church we cannot mandate that everyone sell everything and redistribute it evenly.
Fourth, we need to note the difference between grace and justice. There is no endorsement of what went on in Acts 2, but neither is there any condemnation. We must go elsewhere to assess the matter. We can draw upon other virtues revealed in Scripture and say that this was a legitimate outworking of it. Can Christians form communes? Yes, in fact some do (interestingly enough the author is not in one of them). Should Christians be gracious? Yes. Compassionate? Yes. But here is the catch: grace cannot be mandated. For grace to be grace it cannot be a requirement. If it is required (such as a wage) it is justice, not grace. The church can therefore encourage its members to live out these virtues, but not even the church can put it into ecclesiastical law. This is born out a few chapters later in chapter 5 when Ananias and Sapphira sell their goods and give it to the church (as we saw in ch 2). Their problem was that they lied. Peter makes it quite clear (v4) that they had no obligation to give it to the church. It was their money to do with as they pleased.
If not even the church, as God’s ordained institution for effecting his will on earth, can make such demands on people, how can we legitimately make the leap to the government doing it?
Next Page »
