Living at Peace While Living in War, Part 2

In last month’s post, I shared what encouragement I found from the book of Daniel while living in a time of devastating war here in the Middle East. Although he was overwhelmed by the amount of destruction that was revealed to him, even to the point of becoming physically ill, Daniel was strengthened by God and able to continue in his daily responsibilities. He was able to be at peace even while holding the knowledge of such tremendous suffering because of the strengthening power of God’s grace.

But what does it really mean to be at peace? Throughout this iteration of the decades-long war that has been waging in the Holy Land, we have been praying for a just peace—not simply for the war to end, but for it to end in such a way that the conditions at the end of it are favorable for freedom, equality of opportunity, and human flourishing for all peoples in this area. And yet, as I was reading a book on a (seemingly) unrelated topic a few weeks ago, a sentence about peace jumped out at me in a profound way.

In her book Missional Motherhood (which, by the way, is based on the premise that all Christian women are called to be mothers through discipleship regardless of whether or not they have biological or adopted children), Gloria Furman (who incidentally also lives in the Middle East, just in a different part) writes, “When our modern ears hear the word peace, we think of the absence of conflict, but the Hebrew word shalom speaks to the presence of wholeness.”[i] What a mind-blowingly transformative concept. And in true fashion, over the past few weeks since I first read that line, God has brought the same idea to my attention from multiple other sources, impressing upon me that this is something I should pay attention to.

Gloria Furman is right; we usually think of peace as the opposite of war, or perhaps as a state of calm and quiet, e.g., “This is such a peaceful night.” But what if we saw “the opposite of war” or “a state of calm” as really being a condition of wholeness? It makes sense when you stop to think about it. This war has created the opposite of wholeness. It has created incalculable fracturing and/or total destruction of homes, land, infrastructure, communities, families, bodies, and minds. And when we say we are praying for peace, are we not really praying for the wholeness of all these things to be restored? (Of course, there are some things this war has taken that can never be returned to us this side of heaven, such as dear brothers and sisters in the faith, but we trust that while their earthly bodies were shattered, their spirits are alive and well with the Lord, and we pray for the broken hearts of those who remain to be healed by the grace of God).

On an even deeper level, though, there is a sense in which the opposite of wholeness is not simply the effect of the war but is the preexisting state out of which this bloody, decades-long conflict has grown in the first place. There are those who seek satisfaction in possession of land, those who seek to fill the gaping hole of grief by enacting vengeance, those whose physical needs and imposed limitations drive them to desperation and violence, and those who find their identity in hating “the other.” In each case, whether they realize it or not, people are trying to fill a void in their lives. They are trying to make themselves whole, but because they don’t understand the nature of their need and the Source of the solution, they end up creating less peace instead of achieving it. 

In the days of ancient Judah, God reprimanded the southern kingdom’s leaders through the prophet Jeremiah: “from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 8:10b-11, ESV). The Jewish religious leaders looked at the brokenness of the people and brushed it off as no big deal. They proclaimed wholeness where there was none. What a grievous mistake to make. In reality, the people expressed their woundedness by forsaking the LORD their God:

“But this people has a stubborn and rebellious heart; they have turned aside and gone away. […] For wicked men are found among my people; they lurk like fowlers lying in wait. They set a trap; they catch men. Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; therefore they have become great and rich; they have grown fat and sleek. They know no bounds in deeds of evil; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the LORD, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?” (Jeremiah 5:23, 26-28, ESV).

And prior to this, God pointed out the same woundedness of the northern kingdom of Israel, through the prophet Isaiah, “Their feet run to evil, and they are swift to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; desolation and destruction are in their highways. The way of peace they do not know, and there is no justice in their paths; they have made their roads crooked; no one who treads on them knows peace. Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we hope for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom” (Isaiah 59:7-9, ESV, emphasis added).

We tend to think that justice must be established in order for peace to reign, but we see from these verses that justice, righteousness, and light are absent when peace (i.e., wholeness) is not present. The greatest capacity for justice and righteousness exists in a person who is whole. And therein lies our problem. The true nature of our need is that we are helplessly lacking without Christ. Yes, we have been given the common grace of life, health, and abilities, of intuition, intellect, emotions, and so much more. But even with all of those beautiful gifts, it is impossible for us to fulfill our intended purpose of being in right relationship with our Creator and glorifying His Name in the earth without our wounds being healed, without receiving a new heart and the reconciliation made available to us because of Jesus’s righteous life, sacrificial death, and victorious resurrection whereby our sins can be forgiven and the holiness of Christ can be imputed to us.

As the Holy Spirit said through the apostle Paul, “For in him [Jesus] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Colossians 1:19-20, ESV, emphasis added). Jesus is the one who makes peace between us and God. With our earlier discussion about the definition of peace in mind, we see that this doesn’t just mean Jesus resolved the conflict between us and God (although He did), but in a deeper sense, it means that He restored the state of wholeness in our relationship with God. No longer is our relationship fractured by rebellion, pride, and self-righteousness. No longer are we separated from our holy Creator because of our unholiness. In Jesus, we exchange our filthy rags for His pristine garments (see Isaiah 64:6; Isaiah 61:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21); we give up our heart of stone and receive a heart of flesh (see Ezekiel 36:26); we are revived from death to abundant life (see John 5:24, 10:10).

But our relationship with God isn’t the only one made whole by Jesus. Jesus also makes possible the restoration of wholeness in our broken relationships with our fellow humans. As the Holy Spirit said through Paul elsewhere, “For he [Jesus] himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.  For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:14-18, ESV, emphasis added).

Specifically talking about Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews), Paul explains that Jesus makes it possible for the hate-filled relationship between these two groups, which is marked by hostility, to be completely restored so that not only is there no hostility but also there is no fracturing. There are no longer two groups of people but rather one unified whole who are no longer blood-sworn enemies but are Blood-bought family. Only Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit can effect such profound change to the glory of God the Father!

But we must recognize our need and accept the Solution, because until we accept the gift of peace from God through Jesus, we will keep making war. It is when we “let the peace of Christ rule in [our] hearts, to which indeed [we] were called in one body” (Colossians 3:15, ESV) that we cease operating out of our brokenness. It is when we embrace the wholeness He offers that we cease trying to amass earthly property for ourselves, oppressing those who stand in our way, and we cease lashing out in desperation against our oppressors. It is when we walk in this wholeness that we are not threatened by the prospect of offering forgiveness and mercy to others nor by the idea of loving those we used to hate. It is when we live in the power of the Holy Spirit that we can be at peace in a time of war.

I can think of no better way to close than to leave you with the following benediction from 2 Thessalonians 3:16 (ESV): “Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you all.”  Amen.

To read the Arabic translation of this post, click here.

.لقراءة الترجمة العربية لهذا المنشور إضغط هنا

PC: Rose Creger Tankard. Used with permission.

---

[i] Gloria Furman, Missional Motherhood: The Everyday Ministry of Motherhood in the Grand Plan of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2016), 117.

Living at Peace While Living in War, Part 1

Today marks one year since the attack on Israel by Hamas and one year of increasing horrors levied against the Palestinian people by Israel. In many ways life has gone on as usual where we live in West Bank, but in other ways life is anything but normal.

As I cook a filling, nutritious meal, embrace my husband, or watch my daughter’s carefree play, I find my thoughts drifting to those who are barely managing to find something to eat, who don’t know whether they will ever embrace their kidnapped loved ones again, or who have experienced more paralyzing trauma as a child than most people experience in a full lifetime. As I go to sleep in a warm bed in an intact house, I think of those whose houses have been demolished, bombed, or made otherwise unlivable, who are living in tents while trying to find sustenance and make it out of this war alive, albeit never the same.

The horrible manner of deaths we hear of, even of some whom we know, the life-altering injuries, the humiliation and abuse, the current unthinkable standard of living that so very many people are enduring are enough to make my chest and throat tighten and my eyes spill over with tears if I think about it all long enough. We pray for the suffering to stop, for the war to end, for the oppression and violence (that this war is the latest expression of) to cease. And yet, even praying can be exhausting because it requires thinking of all these horrors over and over again.

As the burden has become increasingly heavy over the last year, I have found myself wrestling with how (i.e., in what way) I am to live my days as a follower of Jesus in the face of such darkness. How do I remain steadfast in prayer when the weight is so heavy? How do I display the goodness of God to our community when the circumstances around us seem anything but good? How do I love our enemies? How do I pray for those who persecute us? How do I graciously respond to those who are uninformed? How do I live at peace while living in war?

Finding how to balance carrying both lament over the ugliness of evil and enjoyment of the beauties that are still graciously present in our lives has been a daily journey. To try to embrace only one posture is unthinkable. I can’t simply relish in the comforts of my life and ignore the immense suffering that is so close, both geographically and relationally. But neither can I live my days bent over in paralyzing grief, frustration, and despair and refuse to accept and delight in the blessings I’ve been given. So what does it look like to carry both?

As has happened so many times before, God has shown Himself faithful through His perfect timing, the riches of His Word, and the wisdom of His children. Earlier this year, we began studying the book of Daniel in the life group that my husband and I lead at our church. Last month, just as I was in the midst of a peak of the above-mentioned struggle, we came to chapters 7-9. These are among the most daunting chapters to teach in all the Bible, and yet I am so glad we were led to press in and study them at this specific time.

Right in the middle of these three chapters, at the end of chapter 8, Daniel interrupts his recounting of the visions with a note about how they affected him: “And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king's business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it” (Daniel 8:27, ESV). Perhaps fittingly, I too became sick the week we were studying this passage, and we joked that the information had the same effect on me as it had on Daniel. But it wasn’t just physical sickness that made me see a connection between Daniel and myself.

Daniel L. Akin’s commentary on these verses resonated with me deeply. He writes, “What Daniel saw and took in wiped him out. It was personally overpowering. […] He is completely undone by the vision of chapter 8. It was more than he could bear.”[i] Similarly, what I have seen and taken in, not in a vision of the future but in present reality, is at times overpowering and more than I can bear (and yet still nothing compared to what others have actually experienced, which knowledge is even more overwhelming.)

But Akin continues, “He was comforted by the reality that God was in control and that his kingdom would eventually come (v. 25b), but to know that there would be so much evil in the world and so much suffering for God’s people before it arrived was overwhelming. It was too much, at least for a while.”[ii] And, I too, find comfort in the knowledge of God’s control and that His kingdom has come in part and will eventually come in full even as I, too, find it overwhelming to see such evil now in the world and so much suffering for God’s creatures and His redeemed.

The commentary continues, “Daniel’s sickness passed. God’s grace was sufficient. Regaining his strength, God’s prophet got up and went back to work as he normally would […]. Sinclair Ferguson says it well: ‘He returned to the duties to which God had called him. He did not retire from the world in view of the evil days that were coming. Nor did he go to the opposite extreme and live on a “high” visionary excitement. Instead he did his duty.’”[iii] Daniel embodied the duality of feeling overwhelmed at suffering and yet continuing his daily responsibilities in the strength of God. Even when he didn’t understand, he got up and got to work.

Akin again quotes Ferguson, saying, “‘How then should we live? Passage after passage gives the same answer: Do the King’s business; walk in obedience; live in holiness; purify yourself as He is pure,’” before concluding on his own, “The vision ‘greatly disturbed’ [Daniel] and he ‘could not understand it.’ Nevertheless, Daniel did not let it paralyze him. He did his job, and he trusted in his God. He is an example to all of us.”[iv] And how thankful for that example I am.

How comforting it is to be reminded that living in this tension is not unique to me and to see how a saint who has gone before me handled going about daily life while holding the knowledge of overwhelming terrors. It is okay to be overwhelmed. It is okay to not understand everything. It is okay if there are days when performing my various duties seems hard in the face of so much evil—because God’s grace is sufficient, and His power can shine through in my weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).

As Gloria Furman says, “Because Christ burst through the de-creating cords of death and into eternal, resurrection life, suffering is not the end of our story.”[v] And I can cling to that truth even as suffering literally surrounds me. I can rely on His strength when I don’t understand, when I feel overcome, and remember that He has given abundant life to me and all who will follow Him.

So while I still don’t have all the answers, I have a renewed sense of peace that I can depend on God the Spirit to guide and strengthen me, on God the Son to intercede for me, and on God the Father to be patient and gracious with me as I seek to be obedient to my calling to make Him known and bring Him glory in my home, my church, my community, my region, and my world. And until the day when He destroys evil once and for all, I can keep on keeping on, keep on showing His love, and keep on sharing the good news that the Prince of Peace is alive and well and offers something so much better than anything this world could ever offer.

To read the Arabic translation of this post, click here.

لقراءة الترجمة العربية لهذا المنشور إضغط هنا.

PC: Bobbie Roberts Kyle. Used with permission.

---

[i] Daniel L. Akin, Christ-centered Exposition: Exalting Jesus in Daniel (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2017), 104.

[ii] Ibid., 104-105.

[iii] Ibid., 105.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Gloria Furman, Missional Motherhood: The Everyday Ministry of Motherhood in the Grand Plan of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2016), 131.

When Hindsight Is Still Blind Sight, History Still Comes to the Rescue

This post was originally published in 2017 under the title, "When Hindsight Is Blind Sight, History Comes to the Rescue." Although written five years ago, it is just as applicable today, hence the addition of "still" to the title.

Chances are, most of you are familiar with the phrase “Hindsight is 20/20.” The idea is that when we look back on certain choices or events we are able to see more clearly what course should have been taken or why it was imperative or fortunate that we took the course we did. Closely related is the principle that we can and should learn from our mistakes, and there is certainly an element of truth to these concepts, but there is also a flipside.

 

The opposite of 20/20 hindsight is what I’ll call the “Good Ol’ Days syndrome,” i.e. looking at the past through rose-colored glasses resulting in (or perhaps resulting from) a chronic dissatisfaction with life as it is in the present, a discontentment with circumstances and with society, a pining for the glory days when all was well--or at least better--with the world.  This kind of past-gazing, I’ve found, is rarely 20/20. In fact, it’s more akin to blindness. How so? Let’s explore a bit...

 

Have you noticed lately that there have been increasing cries for unity in America as constituents, pundits, and politicians alike bemoan the harsh and often vitriolic tirades that are so prevalent all across the political spectrum? Certainly verbal assaults and physical violence are uncalled for and are rightly rejected, but a careful observance of the sentiments expressed by those who point out just how out of hand the political culture is becoming reveals that there is a good bit of the “Good Ol’ Days syndrome” sneaking in.

 

Time and time again, I’ve heard pundits and commentators remark, “I haven’t seen anything like this in my lifetime,” or, “Tensions are higher than they’ve ever been, at least in my time.” And maybe they are, but the implication is that our current state is far worse than anything most people have seen. Woe are us.

 

What so many seem to be missing is the fact that, in many ways, the level of hostility among us is nowhere near what it was during numerous periods of our country’s past. To illustrate this point, let’s play a game, shall we?

 

Below are three sections with several statements each, all describing the state of affairs of a given time in American history. Read them and decide if you think that given time is today (i.e. 21st century) or not.

 

Section 1:

a.     Critics of the President highly object to his extended absences from the capital.

b.     A high-profile individual expressly wishes bodily harm to befall the President.

c.      People who previously were cordial, even close friends, go out of their way to avoid each other due to deep ideological differences.

d.     Differences of opinion and conviction result in physical violence.

e.     Divisions exist not just between parties but within parties as well.

f.       The media uses inflammatory language to rile up supporters and opponents of the administration and of each party.

 

Section 2:

a.     Americans find that politicians in neither party represent their views.

b.     Members of Congress take personal offense at the President’s decisions and let that offense influence their vote on bills.

c.      The Secretary of State, nurturing Presidential aims, calculates what advice to give to the President in such a way as to be able to benefit from association with the administration if things go well yet to avoid blame if things go badly.

 

Section 3:

a.     Campaign financing is corrupt.

b.     Immigrants not yet eligible for citizenship are allowed to vote anyway.

c.      Party workers incentivize specific ethnic groups to win their votes.

d.     Partisan media outlets use extreme language and condone violence against their ideological opponents.

 

Section 4:

a.     A former President rebukes the incumbent, accusing him of hypocrisy and immorality for his positions.

b.     A man disgruntled with the current political system detonates a bomb in the middle of a crowded street.

 

So what do you think? Would you be surprised to learn that the statements in Section 1 all describe the late 1790s, that those in Section 2 describe the 1840s, those in Section 3, the 1850s, and in Section 4, the 1910s-1920?  Take a look below the signature in this post to see the exact years and exposition on each statement from David McCullough’s biography John Adams for Section 1, Robert W. Merry’s A Country of Vast Designs (Section 2), James M. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom (Section 3), and David Pietrusza’s 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents (Section 4). It’s fascinating stuff, largely because the similarities to today are so striking.

 

So what are we to learn from this? Well for one, we’re really not worse off today than we’ve ever been. Granted, I am in no way diminishing the seriousness of the current climate. Instead, I’m hoping to put it in perspective, helping us make more informed and relevant observations, which in turn can lead to more effective solutions. When it comes to observations, here are just a few:

 

1. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

When we see tensions rise, slurs abound, and vilification of “the other” increase, we don’t need to be surprised or think that these are new human phenomena. Sure, the specifics might change, but the underlying issues are the same, which brings me to my next observation:

 

2. Man is fallen.

 

We deal with the same issues as our forebears because we, like they, are human, and there are certain things that are always (with the exception of Jesus’ case) included in being human after the Fall—namely, a sinful nature. Because we inherit the fallen nature of our first ancestors, we are given to pride, selfishness, anger, hatred, callousness, and the list goes on. We are, in short, at complete odds with our Creator who also happens to be the supreme God of the universe.

 

When we understand this fact about ourselves, we begin to see why there is so much commonality across eras, and we see that, while there is capacity for good in humanity because we are made in the image of God, our default is evil because that image has been marred by selfish rebellion. This leads to the next point:

 

3. Only an outside Entity can effect the fundamental heart-transformation that is necessary for changed conduct.

 

There are schools of thought that either posit that we are inherently and overridingly good or that we are somewhat defective but on our way to becoming the best version of ourselves, evolving into a purer state. Yet the reality of the steadiness of vice across generations should be evidence enough to convince anyone otherwise.

 

The very fact that the same division and viciousness among fellow humans exists today as it did in each previous decade, century, and millennium shows that no amount of education or legislation can root out the evil seed in our hearts. The only solution is for us to get new hearts, for our souls to be made alive, and this can only happen “by grace, through faith” in Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for us (see Ephesians 2:8-9).

 

So we want to work towards a more unified nation? A more compassionate and considerate citizenry? Let’s do a heart check, examining our own lives for evidence of belief and one-step-at-a-time change (i.e. sanctification). Once we, through faith, have received a new heart from God, then let’s help others examine their own hearts, lovingly, graciously, walking them through the process of assessing their own lives and their own standing before God and helping them discover the new life that is to be found in Jesus.

 

As God draws us closer to Himself, we can lose those rose-colored hindsight glasses, put off the “Good Ol’ Days syndrome,” and, with imparted wisdom, start using our understanding of the past to inform our present and shape our future.

1a. 1799: “Convinced he could run the government as well from Quincy as at Philadelphia [then the nation’s capital], [John] Adams stretched his stay at home from late March to September, fully seven months. From the views expressed by his vociferous critics, it was hard to say which annoyed them more, his presence at the capital or his absence. At worst, his absence seemed an arrogant abdication of responsibility. At best, it seemed a kind of eccentric scholarly detachment” (McCullough, 526).

1b. 1799: “Another riled Federalist [of the same party as Adams], Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, Hamilton’s chief spokesman in the House, privately expressed the hope that on Adams’s way home to Quincy, his horses might run away with him and break his neck” (McCullough, 524).

1c. 1797: “Feelings ran deep, dividing the parties, dividing old friends. ‘Men who have been intimate all their lives,’ wrote [Thomas] Jefferson, ‘cross the streets to avoid meeting and turn their heads another way, lest they should be obliged to touch their hats’” (McCullough, 493).

1d. 1798: “Vicious animosity of a kind previously confined to newspaper attacks broke out in the first physical assault to occur in Congress. In the midst of debate, when Federalist Roger Griswold of Connecticut insulted Republican [not to be confused with the modern Republican party] Matthew Lyon of Vermont, Lyon crossed the chamber and spat in Griswold’s face. Soon after, Griswold retaliated with a cane. Lyon grabbed fire tongs from the fireplace, and the two went at each other until, kicking and rolling on the floor, they were pulled apart” (McCullough, 494).

1e-f. 1797: “Regional and party differences had made a tinderbox of American politics. It was not only that Republicans were divided from Federalists, but Federalists were sharply at odds with themselves, and the role of the strident, often vicious press was changing the whole political atmosphere” (McCullough, 484).

 

2a. 1844 “Whatever might be said about the eloquence and soundness of these arguments [on whether or not to annex Texas], their underlying significance was clear: The political establishment of both parties had taken a position at variance with the strong sentiment of the broad electorate” (Merry, 77).

2b. 1846 “By July 11 [President Polk] feared many northeastern Democrats [members of his own party] would line up against the [tariff] bill—in part, he surmised, because of lingering animosities over his patronage decisions. ‘There is more selfishness among members of Congress which is made to bear upon great public measures, than the people have any knowledge of,’ he wrote” (Merry, 274).

2c. 1848: “Polk wasn’t fooled by [Secretary of State] Buchanan’s machinations. Though the conversation was ‘unpleasant to me,’ he put in his diary, ‘. . . I thought I ought to rebuke him, and let him understand that I understood the motive that governed him”—namely, Buchanan’s presidential ambition. He wished Polk to send up the treaty [ending the Mexican-American War] against his advice because he would then be well positioned irrespective of the outcome. ‘If it was received well by the country,’ speculated the president, ‘being a member of my administration, he would not be injured by it in his Presidential aspirations, for these govern all his opinions and acts lately; but if, on the other hand, it should not be received well, he could say, ‘I advised against it’” (Merry, 428).  

 

3a-c. 1856, 1858: “The War and Navy departments had awarded contracts without competitive bidding to firms that made contributions to the Democratic party. Postmasters in New York and Chicago under both [Presidents] Pierce and Buchanan had siphoned public funds into party coffers for years. Democrats had used some of this money in congressional contests in 1858. They had also bribed judges to naturalize immigrants prematurely so they could vote in the crucial states of Pennsylvania and Indiana in 1856, and had “colonized” Irish railroad construction workers in Indiana to help swing that state to Buchanan” (McPherson, 226).

3d. 1856: “The Richmond Enquirer pronounced ‘the act [of caning Senator Charles Sumner] good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequence. The vulgar Abolitionists in the Senate are getting above themselves. . . . They have grown saucy, and dare to be impudent to gentlemen! . . . The truth is, they have been suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission’” (McPherson, 151).

 

4a. 1917 Teddy Roosevelt on a Woodrow Wilson speech: “I do not regard any speech as a great speech when it is obviously hypocritical and in bad faith; nor do I regard the making of such a speech of service to the world. I regard it as a damage to the cause of morality and decency. So far as concerns what Wilson has done in the past few months, I think on the whole it has been badly done; and, what is more, that it has been badly done because of very evil traits on his part” (in Pietrusza, 62).

4b. 1920 “When authorities indicted [anarchists] Sacco and Vanzetti (‘the best friends I had in America,’ said Buda), he swore revenge on the capitalist system and headed for New York. After obtaining a horse and wagon—and a hundred pounds of dynamite—Buda, at noon on Monday, September 16, parked at Wall and Broad Streets, in front of the House of Morgan. [...] A minute later, 12:01 P.M.—lunchtime, with the streets packed with workers—hell broke loose. Five hundred pounds of shrapnel perforated the sky. [...] The blast would eventually claim thirty-three lives” (Pietrusza, 153).

 

Sources:

McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Ballantine Books, 1989.

Merry, Robert W. A Country of Vast Designs. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.

Pietrusza, David. 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents. New York: Basic Books, 2007.

Rethinking the Right to Life: 2022 Edition

I honestly never thought I would see the day when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. O me of little faith. But even though the country of the United States now officially affirms that there is no constitutional right to abort a pregnancy, the population still remains very polarized when it comes to the issue of abortion. Those in favor of abortion ironically see it as an issue of human dignity, despite the fact that it dehumanizes the unborn, while those opposed to abortion often cite the “right to life” as the main reason that abortion is wrong. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling this past weekend, I thought it would be a good time to reshare an updated version of a post I initially published back in 2019.

Abortion has been in the national limelight more than usual lately [in 2019] with New York’s passage of the Reproductive Health Act, which legalized “abortions after 24 weeks in cases where there is an ‘absence of foetal [sic] viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.’”[1] This legislative action came right on the heels of the annual March for Life and Sanctity of Human Life Day in January and in the midst of other abortion-related legislation being proposed or adjudicated in other states such as Vermont, Virginia, and Iowa.

Heightening the emotional impact of the New York law, is a particularly strong irony that came in the governor’s celebratory act of lighting One World Trade Center in pink. While the new World Trade Center was lit in celebration of the potential for ending unborn lives, the memorial at the old World Trade Center site lists the unborn among those killed in 2001. The contrast is beyond chilling. Also chilling is a contemporaneous video showing a Virginia state representative blank-facedly admitting that her proposed bill would allow abortions to take place even up to the moment of birth. Thankfully, that bill was defeated.

This issue raises incredibly strong feelings on all sides. However, my intent with this post is not to go into the medical arguments against the presuppositions in these laws; others have shared their expertise to show that while delivery might be necessary to save a mother’s life, abortion is not. Neither is my intent to answer the myriad of arguments that self-proclaimed “pro-choice” individuals offer up to rationalize abortion, nor to delve into the scientific and technological advancements that increasingly support the claim that life begins at conception. Instead, my purpose is to share how I have come to rethink what is referred to as the “right to life” and to call us all to expand our view of what we are truly dealing with when we make the case for the protection of the unborn.

Oftentimes in the Right to Life movement, the persuasive arguments center around the unborn themselves: babies (fetuses) are alive, and they have the right to live; extinguishing their lives before they are born robs them of the opportunity to live, to love, and to experience love outside the womb; taking their lives removes their choice for what they want to do with their lives. All of these statements are true, but are they really the fundamental reason why abortion is wrong? In other words, is killing others wrong because they deserve the chance to live and thrive?

Our Declaration of Independence asserts that all of humanity has a right to life. But where does this right come from? Is it a right we give to ourselves? Is it something our Founding Fathers just came up with? As the Declaration acknowledges, the right to life comes from our Creator, i.e. the God of the Bible. There is nothing we bring to the table in and of ourselves that makes us deserving of life. What makes us deserving is not who we are but Who our Creator is. He has made us and, in doing so, has imparted His image to us. That’s what makes us valuable, i.e. worthy of living. So because He is the One who gives us life and who imputes value to us, He is the only One who has the right to take our lives away. Let that sink in for a moment. God is the only One who has the legitimate authority to end a human life.[2]

So when it comes to abortion, while it can be emotionally persuasive to talk about the unborn, to make us feel empathy for their utterly defenseless condition, to horrify us at the callousness it takes to cause a defenseless person pain and then to extinguish their life, I have come to see that these are not the most important reasons we should stand against it.

What is? Just this: to end the life of an unborn human is fundamentally about usurping the power and authority of the almighty God of the universe. And that is a profoundly dangerous thing to do. Look at the consequences of those who tried to become like God—Satan, who incurred eternal damnation, and Adam and Eve, who ensured that they and the entirety of their descendants would be unable to have a relationship with God were it not for God’s intervention through Jesus, are the ones that immediately come to mind. Bottom-line: trying to be like God is not something to mess around with. God is the only all-powerful being and the only all-wise being, so to attempt to assert our own “power” and “wisdom” over His is incredibly foolish. The point, when it comes to abortion, is not so much that the unborn have a right to live as it is that we do not have the right to kill them.

Of course, this is a less palatable point to raise because it heightens the onus placed on those consenting to and performing the abortion. If we’re not careful, making such a point can be interpreted as heaping guilt on an already struggling individual. And in a pro-life culture that has (sometimes justifiably) been accused of doing a less-than-stellar job of showing compassionate care and real tangible and emotional support to mothers and families contemplating abortion, it can be scary to argue for life from this perspective because it increases the risk of coming across as heartless and judgmental.

That is why we must learn how to simultaneously hold onto the appropriately big view of God, including the thoroughly inherent rights He has by nature of Who He is, and to practically demonstrate His love for women who are carrying the lives He has created. We don’t have the right to take a human life, because that right only belongs to God, but we also don’t have the right to devalue those whom He has created in His image, which includes not only the unborn but also the teens and adults connected to them.

Thankfully, many in the Church have already been stepping up to tangibly love and support the unborn, the born, and the mothers of both. Whether through financial giving to pregnancy centers that provide free counseling, ultrasounds, clothing, diapers, etc. to families in need or through personal care for families and children via foster care and adoption, followers of Christ have been demonstrating His compassion to mothers, fathers, babies, and children alike. I personally know at least twenty families who have fostered and/or adopted over forty children (not counting those who have helped raise family members), and many more who have been part of their support network. But there is always more to be done. And in a post-Roe America, the Church has a remarkable opportunity to expand their efforts to actionably demonstrate the love and hope of Christ to women who, for whatever reason, do not want to give birth to their babies.

So as we think about the issue of abortion in the coming days and years, let us consider the greatness of God and our own smallness in comparison. Let us acknowledge that we cannot rightfully end another human’s life, because that right only belongs to Him. He is the one who numbers our days and who allots our time in His perfect design (see Psalm 139:16). Let us not presume to know better than He. And in contemplating His greatness, may we also be overcome by His goodness such that we are filled with compassion for those who are hurting and scared, for those who are conflicted, and for those who are convinced. At the end of our earthly lives, when we stand before God to give an account, may we be able to say, “I stood for preserving your gift of life, and I showed your love to all.”

PC: Rose Creger Tankard. Used with permission.

---

[1] Pierpont, George, BBC News, “New York abortion law: Why are so many people talking about it?” accessed 29 January 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46994583

[2]  In some cases, e.g. in punishing a human who has killed another human in cold blood, God has delegated this authority, but in the case of the unborn, He has not done so.

Convicting Questions in Light of the European Conflict

In my last post, I shared a couple of reasons we outside observers of the current conflict in Eastern Europe shouldn’t be shocked that such turmoil still exists in our world. But as I’ve been burdened by these recent events, there has been more to my thought process as I’ve been submitting my own perspectives and preconceptions to scrutiny. So today, I challenge you to join me in asking these questions of ourselves. They are difficult and painful to answer but worth answering honestly, no matter how uncomfortable it might be. Are you ready? Here we go...

Am I quick to have negative assumptions of individuals simply because of their nationality?

I’ve been encouraged in recent days to see many people reminding others that the Russian people are distinct from the Russian government (as could be said for Ukrainians and their government). It’s been heartening to see people verbalizing the truth that we shouldn’t be angry at all Russian citizens simply because we’re angry their government decided to invade another country. But it’s also telling and somewhat saddening that there is a need to verbalize such a truth, that it isn’t something everyone already understands and exhibits.

And yet, it still has to be said. Why? Because prejudice runs deep in the human heart, and humans, who love to take the easy path, tend to oversimplify things. Put those two things together, and it becomes understandable why we like to lump people into categories and ignore the nuances that make individuals different from each other. It’s a lot easier to think of all people who share a certain characteristic, like nationality, for instance, as falling into the same category to which we can apply a single value in our minds, either positive or negative. It’s more difficult to take the time and mental effort to parse the points of divergence among those people, especially when Person A might agree with Person B on one thing but with Person C on another thing, and Persons B and C, disagreeing on the first two things, might agree with each other but disagree with Person A on a third thing.

Age, gender, and ethnicity stereotypes are talked about a lot, but stereotyping nationalities is just as problematic. Often nationality stereotypes are tied to government actions. For example, individuals from a country might view individuals from a rival country with contempt, simply because the two countries are rivals. Or, people might assume that an individual from another country agrees with that country’s position on every issue. From traveling to multiple countries to now living in the Middle East, I know what it’s like to be viewed through the lens of my government, and it’s not fun to say the least.

So I have to ask myself: Do I do the same to other people? Do I think less of them because I don’t like what their government is doing? Do I think citizens of a corrupt government are correspondingly corrupt? Do I impute certain characteristics, mindsets, or motives onto people without first hearing from them directly—or even knowing them personally at all?

The current conflict in Europe is a good reminder to us to reevaluate our attitudes toward other people. And for those of us who are followers of Jesus, we have all the more reason to put to death our prejudices regarding nationality. Not only are we called to die to ourselves, but we are also commanded to treat others as we would want to be treated and are reminded in Scripture that God does not show favoritism, which stated another way, means He also shows no prejudice. May we submit our attitudes and opinions to Christ, allowing Him to refine us and remove the impurities of a prejudicial heart and mind.

But there’s another way we can exhibit latent prejudice in response to conflicts such as those we have seen in recent weeks, which brings me to another question:

Have I been so burdened by what is happening with Russia and Ukraine because I think Europeans are somehow above this kind of conflict in contrast to other parts of the world?

We are rightly burdened when we hear the stories and see the videos of children hunkered down in bomb shelters, of teenagers finding themselves in need of defending their homes with force, of babies being born underground, of people from all walks of life taking up arms to defend their cities. Brokenness in our world should hurt our hearts and fill us with compassion, just as it does our Savior. So, just as the last blog post was not minimizing the traumatic shock that those living through an earthly hell are experiencing, this section is in no way to diminish the suffering that is happening right now in Eastern Europe.

But as I have heard people’s heartrending stories straight from their mouths, I’ve had this nagging conviction press upon my heart. Am I burdened to the extent that I am because these people look like me and come from a part of the world whose way of life is very similar to my own? Do I think that somehow the experience of the Ukrainians and the Russian soldiers is more horrific than that of the people experiencing similar violence in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa because I think Europeans should be “past that kind of barbarity?” Or, put another way, do I think less of the oppression and violence on other continents because I think people from those parts of the world are less sophisticated and thus oppression and violence are just part of their way of life?

Remember when I said these questions wouldn’t be fun? As much as I’m ashamed to admit it, a part of me did look at the suffering in Europe differently from the suffering in other parts of the world, and I had to repent of my prejudice in this area.

Now some have said, and it is true, that it is not wrong for us to be more focused on some issues more than others. As David Platt has expressed in his book Counter Culture, God did not create us with the emotional capacity to carry the burdens of the entire world—only He can do that. So my challenge in this area is not to say that we have to give equally of our time, money, or care to every single conflict across the globe. God has laid different causes on different people’s hearts and given people particular passions to meet particular needs. But what I am doing is challenging us to examine our mindsets, to evaluate the way we think about people experiencing trauma whether from occupation, invasion, oppression, persecution, abuse, famine, disease, or natural disasters, and not to show favoritism or prejudice in our attitudes toward them.  

Every human being is created in the image of God and therefore has inherent value. Just because someone is born into a culture that tends to be more violent than another does not mean the trauma experienced is any less significant, any less horrific, or any less moving to God. So may we ask God to give us the heart of Christ, a heart of compassion for all who are suffering, regardless of what they look like or what country they are from. And as we continue to pray for Europe and to follow the Lord’s leading in sending support to the suffering, may we remember to do the same for other parts of the world as well, and may we find peace in knowing that God is strong enough to carry the burdens of all those we cannot reach or do not know. After all, He loves them more than anyone could ever imagine—just as He loves us. 

Food for Thought from the Breadbasket of Europe: Reflections on Ukraine, Russia, and the World in which We Live

I was planning this week on writing a second installment about Bible verses that are taken out of context, but with recent developments in Eastern Europe, I found my thoughts coalescing around other topics. So instead, I’ll be sharing some of my multi-track-train of thought regarding these current events and how they can serve as a reminder to us of some important truths.

In the early hours after Russia’s attacks on Ukraine began on Thursday, I heard multiple people on the news, on social media, and through private conversations express amazement that such a turn of events was possible in the 21^st century. It was as if they were genuinely stunned that with all our technological advancement, global collaboration, and general “progress,” it was still possible for countries to want to forcibly take over other countries and for individuals to be so power-hungry that they are willing to sacrifice countless lives to get what they want. “I can’t believe this is happening in 2022.” “This is just unreal that we are facing this in the 21^st century.” Such were the general utterances.

I’ll admit, when I first heard this sentiment expressed, I was inclined to agree. As much as we hear talk of “world peace,” a “global community,” showing kindness to others, and just “getting along,” it can be hard to imagine that there are still people who seek to cause division, assert dominance, and fracture harmony on the world stage. As much as we hear about the past cruelties of Hitler and Stalin, it can be hard to imagine that similarly-minded men are able to rise to and remain in places of power in the present. But once I started to ruminate on the shock that so many people were showing, I realized there are two reasons the recent conflict in the breadbasket of Europe shouldn’t shock us at all.

An important side note: the shock that I am referring to here is not the experiential shock that those who are actually living through these events first-hand are facing but rather the perplexed shock of outside observers whose day-to-day lives are continuing essentially as usual. The traumatic shock of being forced to flee your home on foot, of being separated from family members you might never see again, of seeing and hearing and feeling the places you know and love be obliterated by a neighboring, foreign military—the shock that these things are happening to your home and you are the one having to make unthinkable decisions is completely warranted, and nothing said in this post should be construed as trivializing or belittling that. Now that that’s cleared up, let’s get to those reasons that outside observers of these events shouldn’t really be surprised.

Understanding current events is next to impossible when accurate history is not understood.

I would venture a guess that most people have the association “Hitler=bad” in their awareness of world history. But how many people know why he is one of the most infamous men in history? Other than the fact that his regime killed millions of people, how many people know what motivated him, why he was able to rise to power in the first place, or what his goal in life was? How many people know about the causal connection between how the end of World War I was handled and how World War II began? How many people comprehend the nature of shifting alliances throughout history, or are even aware, for example, that the United States and the Soviets were allies before they were enemies? How many people understand the ways in which the map of Europe was drawn and redrawn and redrawn again over the course of the past several hundred years?

It’s a famous saying from George Santayana that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” and an equally famous variation on the theme, from Winston Churchill, that “those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I would wholeheartedly agree with both men, but I would go one step further and say that those who do not understand history are not able to recognize when others—or themselves—repeat it. When we fail to understand how events cause other events, how actions (or lack of actions) have ripple effects, how past atrocities are not unconnected from the present but rather fall within a succession of days, each one touching the one after it until tomorrow becomes today, then it is no wonder we find ourselves shocked when the things we thought were reserved to the history books suddenly splash into our insulated “peace, love, and harmony” lives.

History is not just dusty old stories of days long gone. History is the events of the past that have had direct consequences on events of today. And if we want to avoid seeing more repeats of the world’s lowlight reel, we would do well to seek out accurate accounts of the past, to become students of the mistakes, successes, triumphs, and failures of those who have gone before us, and to become well-informed citizens of our local communities, our nations, and our world, so that we can understand where we’ve been and where we’re headed and course-correct accordingly. When we do understand these things, we won’t be so shocked by what we see on the news. But there’s another reason we shouldn’t be shocked that “something like this is happening in our modern (or post-modern) society.”

Human nature is just as fallen today as it has been throughout history.

Some of the astonished remarks mentioned above revealed a lack of historical awareness, but what they also reveal is a misplaced hope in the betterment of humanity through human striving. We have global athletic events such as the Olympics with themes focusing on togetherness; we have diplomatic bodies with at least a stated purpose of preserving world peace; we have technological advancements that were the stuff of science fiction mere decades ago; we have remote work and social media networks that connect and humanize people around the world in a way never before experienced. Shouldn’t we be past ethnic conflicts? Shouldn’t we be past reckless hubris? Shouldn’t we be past bloody wars over pieces of land? So the thinking goes.

But the answer to those questions is, “No, we shouldn’t.” Because no amount of technological, diplomatic, or goodwill-engendering “progress” will change the fact that the default of human beings is self-serving, self-righteous self-exaltation that seeks personal glory instead of God’s glory, that seeks to live by our own law instead of God’s, and that seeks to build our own thrones instead of kneeling in worship at the throne of the King of Kings. We have no reason to expect humanity to be doing better today than it did in previous centuries.

Humans cannot evolve into morally superior beings; we can’t work our way into an unblemished state; we can’t repair the seared consciences we were born with. “As it is written: ‘None are righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one’” (Romans 3:10-12, ESV). This means that all the self-help books, all the sensitivity trainings, all the social harmony exercises are impotent to root out the problems of pride, prejudice, racism, hatred, envy, and greed that characterize our fallenness. Only one thing has the power to do that, or rather, only one Person.

The One who created the unblemished human nature is the only one able to remove the blemishes that disfigured that nature once Adam and Eve disobeyed. He can do this because He came himself to live among us as Jesus Christ, fully man yet still fully God, and lived the perfect, righteous, blameless life that none of us are able to. Then He took our punishment for us—nothing less than death—so that anyone who believes in Him can be rescued from experiencing that punishment themselves. And finally, He sent His Spirit to give new life to those who believe in Him, enabling those people to forsake the vices of their old, fallen nature and be changed from the inside out. In the absence of this regenerative work, then, there is no lasting hope of peace on earth and goodwill among men.

In short, we can hardly be surprised when those enslaved to sin keep on sinning against God and against their fellow human beings. And until we recognize that none of us has the power to fix anyone else, we will keep being surprised when our collective efforts to “make the world a better place” and “live in peace” fail time and time again. May the horrid brokenness that we see in our world today drive us to admit that we cannot help ourselves. May it cause us to cry out to the mercy of the good Creator God whose kindness draws people to repentance (see Romans 2:4). May it prompt us to kneel in humility and raise our hands in surrender, acknowledging that we are powerless to do better—to be better—on our own. And may it light a fire within us to carry the hope of Jesus into the darkness with an urgency like never before.