True Freedom and Its Costs

Early yesterday morning, shortly after midnight, the freedom that a young man (younger than I am) named James Holmes had to own an assault rifle, legally, cost 12 people (maybe more) their lives. It cost 12 families their loved ones and it cost the world 12 individuals who could have made it a better place.

James Holmes was free to own the weapons that he used to shoot those 71 people yesterday. He legally purchased those guns, all that ammunition, and likely anything that he used to booby trap his apartment which he knew he would never return to.

James was free, like you and I. He had a right, a freedom, to own those guns.

Interestingly enough, that freedom that James enjoyed was paid for by the lives of soldiers who fought courageously both here in the States and abroad so that no one would take away that freedom. People lost loved ones in war, terrorist attacks, and random acts of violence, all because we were fighting to maintain our freedom. Simply put: we must defend ourselves in order to keep our freedom.

This concept isn't new. We know this. In order for us to have freedom, we must defend our freedom. But it does get more complicated.

Last night I asked a still-unanswered question via the wonderful world of social media and it went something like this: Is there any reason that non-military or non-police citizens should be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle? I didn't phrase the question well, and I was unsure of what verbs to use, but I think the message was semi-clear: what good, honorable reason would there be for someone to own a weapon like James used in Aurora? Should it be legal to own a weapon that can do that much damage?

Of course, as many of my posts do, it sparked controversy. Americans are only as free as they can defend themselves to be! People attack us? We must fight back! We are only as free as we can assure ourselves that we are. Otherwise, those attacking us impending on our freedom have every opportunity to take away our freedom, which makes it so that we aren't truly free.

I should be clear: I think this is a giant load of crap.

If we define freedom in this way then we are saying that freedom only comes from the way in which we defend ourselves.

Friends, this isn't freedom. This is fear.

I'd invite you to take a step back and look at what this freedom has brought us: countless wars ending with much of the world hating our arrogance, machines in airports that send radiation into our bodies, racism, patent wars, and undying greed.

I have family members that carry a pistol wherever they go. The idea is that if anyone were to attack our family, they'd have a way to defend themselves. Again, I ask, is this freedom? Can we truly enjoy such a "freedom" if we are always concerned with who might be following us, ready to attack us? What is it that this freedom truly gives us?

Perhaps the question really is: what is the point of such a freedom? What is this freedom all about anyway? Is freedom the right to bear arms? Is freedom the right to say whatever we want, even if it is harmful? Is freedom the right to put up a fence so that the neighbor can't see me mowing the lawn? Is freedom the chance to eat BBQ, drink beer, and party with fireworks?

This, to me, doesn't sound like real freedom. It doesnt sound like a culture ready and willing to make this world a better place. It doesn't sound like a culture who cares about one another. No, this freedom sounds like a culture in which online bullying meets crazy heights and encourages suicide. This freedom sounds like a culture that encourages the defense of religion rather than the religion itself. This freedom sounds like a culture that has at least one mass shooting a year. This freedom sounds like a culture that is so obsessed with the work of the individual that it encourages such an individual to refuse to recognize the assistance they've received that led to their success.

In short: this freedom sounds like it delivers a worse product and costs more. It costs us the lives of soldiers overseas. It costs us the lives of moviegoers in a theater. It costs us a dying reputation. And what do we get? A degraded culture who cares nothing about what we should care about.

I sense a very different freedom in Christ. Christ assures us, because of his death and resurrection that the chains that once bound us through sin are broken forever. This freedom, true freedom, allows us to live into the people we have been made to be. This freedom, true freedom, allows us to recognize the gifts and graces of one another. This freedom, true freedom, inspires us to live as one with the peace that only Christ can give us. This freedom, true freedom, gives us life and life abundantly. The other freedom results in death; this freedom, true freedom, results in resurrection.

And the best part: the price for this freedom has been paid. The sacrifice has been given, by the very one who gives us life! It costs us nothing but the willingness to follow in the steps of the one who said "Come, follow me."

Many may say, "Wrong! This freedom costs us everyday. It costs us because the life of discipleship is one of martyrdom. It costs us because of the persecution of the world." AHA! The world wants us to buy into its version of freedom. But we must not. It wants us to pay the cost (and many many before us have). But we must not. Even if we are persecuted on this earth, we know that true freedom of being forgiven for our brokenness is still had. That price has been paid.

This freedom is not concerned with our rights as individuals, it is concerned with our holiness. It is concerned with who God wants us to be. It has nothing to do with our individualistic rights, it has to do with our calling.

In America, for some silly reason, we have been defining freedom in terms of the right to defend ourselves and right to do what we want. That freedom has a poor outcome and costs a lot. And that doesn't end well. It ends with dead bodies on the floor. It ends up with bloodied theater seats.

If only we would desire true freedom.

-B

We remember the lives of those who were shot in Aurora yesterday morning. May God's hand of comfort be on their souls and their family members. May God's comforting and guiding hand help this nation to recover from such a tragedy, and guide the world toward true freedom, for which the price has already been paid. We are a broken people. Let us remember that we are also a forgiven people.

Posted with Blogsy

Yes, Use Words When You Preach the Gospel

You can say a lot of things about Mark Driscoll, and I often do, but he is one of the preachers in today's world who is actually using theological concepts in his sermons.  He doesn't sugar coat anything and he doesn't preach simply for the sake of his own voice (though he is often accused of such things).  His sermons are passionate, clear, long, and theological. There's not any fluff in Mark's sermons.     In case there is any confusion, this is the way things once were.  Pastors have served as theological guides since the beginning.  They've described hard concepts for parishioners to get and they've outlined things like salvation so that their understanding of the Scriptures is clear.   Mark may be wrong in many ways, but he is doing what others, recently, haven't been.   Yesterday he said this, in regards to the St. Francis attribution, "Preach the Gospel at all times; when necessary, use words.":   [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm6j_Bxy6wI&w=640&h=385]Mark's view is clear: The Gospel must be preached, with words.  Demonstration is not enough.  This is not a new idea by any means.  At first though, I was struck by his tone.  I mean, it's St. Francis for God's sake.   St. Francis was all about demonstration of the Gospel.  We remember St. Francis and his lifestyle more than many many who have preached the Gospel.   Mark's understanding hinges around his conception of salvation, and I've made it clear in the past that I don't agree with his concept of elected salvation much at all.   However, I tend to agree with him here.  I suppose that Jesus's command to preach the Gospel is significant, but Jesus's command takes different forms at different points. In Mark, Jesus commands his disciples to enter ministry by casting out demons.  In Matthew, Jesus gives direct command to the disciples after his resurrection to go make more disciples by baptizing them and telling others to follow his teachings. What, then, is ministry truly supposed to look like?    Probably, both and.   I agree with Driscoll.     Not because it might lead to damnation if you don't, but because it is practical for the spreading of the message.  Mercy, hospitality, help, etc are all important for the livelihood of the Gospel. They are things that Jesus and Christian history has spoken of time and time again. But, in practicality, are they enough to spread the Gospel?   The truth is, we communicate with each other through words.  Sometimes these are developed languages, sometime they are little more than grunts.  But we communicate with each other through vocal inflections that we mutually agree mean something.  These inflections help us to understand things.  These inflections help us to understand each other.  These inflections help us to understand our actions.   Evangelism is, I think, a word that was hijacked by those trying to save souls. They used it for all kinds of things: monetary gain, bigger churches, among others.  They used the crap out of it, over and over, even distinguishing themselves from the mainline denominations with it.   I think St. Francis's quote has been used a lot as of late because society has begun to regard evangelists as crazed, religious people who fight with whatever powers they can until their bullhorns run out.  Society hasn't appreciated the Christian television programs because they seem inauthentic.  So, Christians not associated with these people have turned to other ways of spreading the Gospel.  And the quote has found a new home, within people who want to spread Christ's love, and care little about telling people why.   But evangelism is a call upon Christians.  A call for the future of the Church.   And it's a call that some Christians are afraid to approach now because of the connotations of it in our society. And that's a problem.  Less and less churches in America have a steady string of members and attendees. Which means less and less Christians are being formed.  And less and less Christians are being inspired to go and spread the Gospel.  Which means that less and less Christians are hearing the Gospel story.  Which means there are less and less Christians.   Which means that Jesus's command isn't being followed.   We should exhibit works of mercy.  We should also preach, with words.   Both, and.   -B

Salvation As An Art Form

Last night, Allison and I were presented with the opportunity that every customer at Family Christian Stores has when they purchase anything.  You can predict it: Cue the line, "Would you like to donate $5 to buy a Bible for a child in need?"

Perhaps it is because of my guilty conscience, or perhaps it is because I think that it is a good idea, I usually donate. Last night's exchange was a bit different. They still offered the Bible for $5, but this time it was for a women's center in our area sent to encourage women in the midst of a pregnancy to "choose life" in their own situation.

You can read more about the program here.

Not paying any attention to how the donation of a Bible would convince a pregnant mother not to proceed with an abortion in the first place, something still struck me as odd. And I didn't know why.

I generally don't oppose the giving of the book that tells the story of our Savior and Lord and often donate for the cause. But something about this marketing scheme seemed...off to me.  How can a Christian oppose the giving of the Bible to one whom might benefit from the reading of it?

I realized that I didn't oppose the idea as much as I let the marketing and phrasing around the promotion bother me. But I still didn't know why.

At first, I thought, "There's the typical Conservative side of things, maybe that's just annoying." That certainly played a role, but that didn't seem deep enough. Surely that wouldn't bother me that much. Then I thought, what is it about "choose life" that is so bothersome? And I realized, the typical Right Wing of America uses the phrase politically and in the midst of their own political ambitions judges those who are not members of their political party.  Mostly this judgement manifests itself inside of the assumption that those who aren't members of their party have different beliefs. As in, you aren't a Republican, you aren't pro life. And I don't care what political party I align myself with, I'm not sure that my being pro-life can be decided by what party I decide to join. Aren't all humans in some sense "pro life" when it comes to most things?

So perhaps my problem with the Bible donation was that the "choose life" phrase assumes that one might NOT choose life. 

And then I thought, "Wait a second, how are we defining life?" Do we not have faith that the God who had the foresight to bring us into the world would not save us no matter what action our earthly potential parent might take?  It seemed to me like maybe we weren't putting enough emphasis on the life to come. 

I'm not defending abortion, I think that dangers and problems in pregnancy ought to be taken into consideration because it is SUCH a case by case, situation by situation basis? I just think that when we implore others to "choose life" perhaps we are not taking into account much of the future: salvation.

I had to figure out how this type of logic would make sense. Because I can't believe that these people who exercise these thoughts WOULDN'T think that salvation isn't of utmost importance.  Another realization: what does the salvation rely on? Oh yeah, their idea of salvation hangs on a conversion experience. A single point in time when Jesus was invited into their heart. From then on, they were "saved".

While I whole heartedly believe that the Christian life requires a conversion experience of some sort and a conscious decision to follow Christ with an outward sign of that (baptism, confirmation, etc), I have always struggled with the salvation factor. I believe that God came to earth to save all. Not just Israel.  Not just Calvinists. God came to save adults.  God came to save those that will never hear the Gospel. God came to save those who will never be born. 

And I had that sinking feeling that we all have every once in awhile when we are thinking about God and the work of God in our own lives and the world:  I. Don't. Get. It.  I. Will. Never. Get. It. 

I can't understand. Because it isn't up to me to understand. 

Humans do this, don't we? We have an issue, something that doesn't make sense, and we try to rationalize it.

But we will never understand it. And it is still beautiful. Like art.

If we believe that God and God alone can and does provide salvation, and that nothing of our own merit earns us a way to living with God eternally, then we have to look at God's way of providing salvation as art, something that is so beautiful that we can't stop looking and will never be able to either explain it, fully comprehend it, or recreate it.

It is like when you read through one of Aaron Sorkin's dialogues. Or when you watch Kobe Bryant shoot a three.  Or when you hear Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau sing Lieder. Or when you look at anything Da Vinci. Or when you watch Barack Obama deliver a speech. Or when you read a Shakespearian plot line. Or when you watch Julia Roberts act. Or look at the design of an Apple product.  Or watch Nolan Ryan throw a fastball. Or watch Jim Parsons deliver a Sheldon line. Or listen to Steve Wozniak describe building the first personal computer. 

It is brilliance. And all are art forms that we can't understand. Can't figure out, and can't help but see the beauty in.

I can't help but think that God's saving grace works in the same way.

Perhaps, rather than trying to decide what God is doing in the world and force it on others, we would do well to take a step back every once in awhile, take in the beauty of what it means to be a child that God has saved from sin, and let that inspiration that is bound to appear speak for itself.

-B