Consider the following hypothetical situation.
Friend: Joe, I've been thinking. I've always tried to be a good guy. I never lie, cheat or steal but somehow I still don't feel like I measure up to God's standards. What do I have to do to go heaven?
Joe Christian: Well my friend, you're right that you can never meet God's standards. The bible says that we are all sinners and that the only way that we can be saved and go to heaven is by believing in Jesus and repenting of our sin. Jesus took our punishment for us when he died on the cross. This gift is free to anyone that is willing to surrender to him. Jesus will then help you by his spirit to grow more like him everyday.
Friend: That sounds great! What a gift. I'm going to do this right now.
Is Joe's friend saved? Maybe. Joe certainly gave a decent response but I don't think that he was explicit enough. Unfortunately he didn't help his friends count the cost of what true surrender would really entail. Now consider how Jesus responded to a similar question.
Now someone came up to him and said, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?” He said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he was very rich.
How many people in our churches would have turned away from Christianity if the person who initially witnessed to them told them that they needed to go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. We ought to be careful that we don't let people that would have walked away from Jesus think that they have become Christians.
A quote by Rich Mullins? to ponder: "You guys are all into that born again thing, which is great. We do need to be born again, since Jesus said that to a guy named Nicodemus. But if you tell me I have to be born again to enter the kingdom of God, I can tell you that you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor, because Jesus said that to one guy, too...But I guess that's why God invented highlighters, so we can highlight the parts we like and ignore the rest."
I've been through a number of different church situations and I've recently noticed that my understanding of what it means to be a part of a church has changed fundamentally. Originally I felt that my identity as a Christian was closely related to the local congregation that I was a part of. I'm now coming to see myself as identifying less with a specific congregation and more with the universal church.
I'm starting to feel more that my church community are those Christians that I regularly meet with and share my spiritual life with. If that means that I'm not a member of a specific local congregation then so be it. I've not quit meeting with the body of believers; it's just that my community is more distributed. This also means that if my community happens mostly all be a part of one larger local congregation and I happen to attend their services I don't feel obligated to commit to that church organization. What I feel like I need to be committed to is building up the universal church and building into the lives of my community.
I hope that I've explained myself adequately. I am committed to my church. While I my feel no obligation to tithe to a local Christian society (church) I do feel obligated to share all that I can with fellow christians. I also think that all believers need to share their spiritual and day-to-day lives with other believers. We are meant to operate as a body and not as individual organs independent of one another. All that I'm trying to say is that being a member of the church means more that you are Christian then that you've filled out a membership form at a local christian group.
I had a comment on my post "Why I am a Pro-Life Activist". I want to share it, and my response, with everyone. It defintely fueled some good thought for me.
I am very torn on the issue of perspective.On the one-hand you have, as you say, the life an unborn child. On the other hand, you have the woman's freedom to carry or not carry the unborn child.
I think to argue that "life" should be given priority over "freedom" is over-simplistic. For example, thousands are dying in Africa for basic lack of water, food, etc. Should we send America's rich people to prison unless they all of their money to these causes at least until those people are no longer dying? Why is a woman who is impregnated through rape any more responsible for the life of another than, say, a millionaire who gives nothing to help the starving in Africa?
So, I'm on the fence on this one, putting me in an extreme minority of Americans. The one thing that I think pro-life and pro-choice should agree on however is that the number of abortions should be minimized. If pro-lifers want to meet that goal, they ought to spend less time picketing and more time letting young unwed mothers know that, if they have the baby, their needs and the needs of their baby will be adequately met. I'm amazed how the "religious right" cares an awful lot about the lives of babies up until birth, but after that, do not expect any handouts.
Thank you for your feedback on this issue. I'm definitely open to having rational conversations with people about this topic.
I think that the problem with your argument is that there is a difference between neglect causing death and active killing. Our laws acknowledge this as well. With abortion there is someone actively taking the life of another human being. How would you feel about someone arguing that mothers had no responsibility to feed their babies? They could argue that it wasn't their body and therefore they could just be grossly neglectful of their children. Obviously most people would think that this would be insane. Interestingly enough, though, we would convict someone who is grossly neglectful of a dependent and inadvertently cause their death with a different crime then someone that actively does it. I think that abortion is a situation where someone is actively taking the life of another person. While I think that all abortion is wrong, I also think that there are different levels of guilt for those who have abortions based on how much they know of what they are doing and how pressured they are by life situations. In this regard, I don't think that abortion is directly parallel to someone who sneaks up on an unsuspecting child and shoots them in the head. Both kill a child but one assailant is likely more aware of what they are doing.
Personally, I also think that people should be willing to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles for the sake of those that are starving in other countries. A big part of my blog is trying to encourage people, but especially Christians, to do just that. While I know that you're not a Christian I want to point out that this is what the Bible instructs people to do. Jesus says that we are to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. How are we loving others as we love ourselves if we live in luxury while other are starving? 1 John 3:17 asks, "if anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?". I think that the calling of Christ is to do as much good for others as we possibly can. Out of appreciation for what God has done for me and in recognition that I am no better then anyone else I seek to love others as he loves us.
The more that I think about it the more I realize that neglecting charity is essentially gross neglect causing death. If someone left a child on my doorstep and I left it out in the cold to die this would essentially be no different then refusing to help others across the world. I guess that this situation also comes down to ones level of awareness of their crime although I don't think that is why the crimes are handled differently by the law. I think that the reason that we have laws against the one and not the other is that our laws are set up to protect our society rather then people. This is why we have tax funded social programs, which are basically mandated charity, but we only give a token for international aid. This is why we have minimum wage for our people but our happy inflicting sweat shop labour on other people. In my opinion, this is also why we have legal abortion but illegal homicide of other people.