THE MAN GOD USES
by Ray C. Stedman
In discussing our subject the term, man, is used in a generic sense which includes women as well. Man or woman, there is no respect of persons with God. God delights to use anyone, boy or girl, man or woman, who makes himself available to him. I suspect that if we investigated we would find in most hearts here a basic hunger to be used of God. If you have been a Christian for any length of time you have experienced something of this and you know the joy of it, the glory of it, the sheer excitement of it. There is nothing quite like the sense of having been a channel of divine activity, of having been used to do God's work.
I suspect that there is a hunger in your heart to be used of God not merely occasionally, but consistently. And to be used, not despite yourself, as sometimes happens (for the Scripture tells us that God even uses the devil, so if you are resting upon that you are in pretty poor company), but to be used with full acquiescence and acceptance of God's program for you. Doubtless you desire to be used to heal, to make right, to restore, to break down middle walls of participation, to unite that which is shattered and fragmented, to deliver from oppressions, from bondage and enslavement, to enlighten and open eyes, to illuminate reality, to dispel mists, illusions and visions, and to empower, enrich, fulfill, and intensify. All these are descriptions of the work God is here to do, and what he will use you to do if you are available to him. It is exactly what God proposes to do with each one of us. and thus to be used is what gives meaning and purpose to life.
Without this, the best we can do results in a sense of deadness. meaninglessness and pointlessness. We might give a most impressive display of energy, vitality, and activity, but when we get to the end we shall have to ask ourselves, What's been the point of it all? In the day of the judgment of the believer before God he may say to us, "What you did was interesting, and active, but you missed the point." Thus I suspect that with many of us there is a very deep desire to be used of God. I confess, for my own part, that I will be quite content if it could be written on my tombstone what I once saw on another's, "He was used of God."
Spiritual maturity, becoming grown up as a Christian, is nothing more nor less than to be made ready for consistent use by the Spirit of God. When you have reached that place it will be marked by certain signs, which are unconsciously revealed to us by the apostle Paul in a well-known passage from the first chapter of Romans:
"I want you to know, brethren, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles. I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish: so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
It should be quite apparent that the apostle is not drawing a deliberate self-portrait. He does not intend to talk about himself or what kind of a man he is; he is simply breathing out to these Roman Christians, many of whom he has never met, a longstanding desire on his part to come to the capital of the Empire to visit them and to have a ministry among them. But in the process of doing this he unconsciously reveals the qualities of the man or woman that God uses. This we will look at together.
You are familiar with the three common divisions of this text, the three "I am's" of verse 14, 15, and 16. First, "I am under obligation [or as the Old Version puts it, "l am a debtor" both to Greeks and to barbarians." Here the apostle is breathing out his desire to be used to reach others. He is the man for others; he is under compulsion to travel incessantly to reach "both Greeks and barbarians" (or as we would put it in our modern terminology, both the squares and the hippies), "the wise and the foolish " (the eggheads and the hopheads). It does not make any difference what branch of society you are considering, the apostle says, I have a sense of obligation to any of them. I am under compulsion to reach them and to help them and change them. You see the beating of his heart for other people.
What does this all mean? We read these verses quite wrongly at times. We tend to read them as though he had in view the needs of these Greeks, with their culture and their refinement, and also the barbarian world with its primitive conditions, its lack of understanding and education and, seeing the need deep in each heart, he is desiring to meet it out of compassion. We hear much these days of the humanistic appeal, the need to help people who are in trouble. But we read this quite wrongly if we read it thus. This was not what drew the apostle out to people. These words reveal something quite different. They reveal a man in whom the power of self has been broken. The principle by which we normally live our lives, that is, "What's in it for me?" is a question which had lost its meaning for the apostle Paul. He was no longer asking himself, What's in it for me?, he was no longer concerned about what he got out of life, but he was breathing out a hunger to be involved, to be poured out, for the life of someone else. He was essentially and primarily the man for others.
Selfishness grips your heart as it does mine. It is hard to break its grip. We find ourselves inevitably and instinctively relating everything to what it is going to do to us, and what we will get out of it. As one Christian honestly put it,
I lived for myself, for myself alone,
For myself and none beside,
Just as if Jesus had never lived
And as if he had never died.
Unfortunately that is descriptive of much Christian living. There you have it. That is life as we know it in these mid twentieth-century days. We live for ourselves; what we want and hope to get.
But how different is the spirit of the apostle. He longs to risk his life, his health, and his fortune for the sake of others. He was most serious about it. You can see how seriously he took it in the eleventh chapter of 2 Corinthians,
"Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the cities, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches."
That is describing a man in whom the power of self has been broken. He no longer cares what happens to him, he is ready to risk anything, hazard anything, in order that he might discharge his debt to barbarian and to Greek alike.
It was not always so with this man. There was a time, he tells us, when he, too, lived for self-advantage. He counted up his resources to himself and found there were four things going for him. First was his ancestry. In the eyes of God Paul felt that was a great advantage. He was born a Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin. He had the right pedigree. Then too, there was his orthodoxy which he felt also gave him the right to claim the favor of God. He belonged to the strictest party of the Jews, the Pharisees, the fundamentalists. He was a member of the group that took the word of God most seriously and interpreted it most literally. Notice that in these things he was not trying to find favor in the eyes of men, but in the eyes of God. Even before his conversion Paul knew that no life is worth a snap of the finger if it is not somehow related to God. So these are the things he felt counted with God: his ancestry, his orthodoxy.
And then, his activity. He says he was a persecutor of the church. When this little cult of the Nazarenes arose around the troublemaker from Galilee, named Jesus, and threatened the Hebrew faith and the teachings of Moses, Paul was not merely content to tut-tut about it and wring his hands. He organized a band of patriots and moved out with soldiers to stamp them out. He was active in the persecution of the church, and he thought in all good conscience that God would be pleased with that kind of activity. Finally, he took pride in his morality. He was blameless, he says, before the Law. Whenever the Law condemned him he faced up to it and brought a sacrifice, and thus cleared up his conscience. He tried to walk upright and just before the Law, and he had a clear conscience in that respect. He thought these things ought to have brought God right over to his side.
But, he tells us, there came a night in the city of Damascus when they let him down over the wall in a basket. For the rest of his life he looked back to that event as the time when God began to teach him the most important lesson in his life. He had marshaled all his resources, all his human abilities, all the brilliance of his mind and the power of his educated intellect, to the task of reaching the Jews in Damascus for Christ, and that night it all came crashing down around his feet. He found himself hunted and hounded like a criminal, driven out of the city. and finally let over the wall in a basket. What a grinding humiliation for a man of proud spirit, as was this man! He went up to Jerusalem, and the disciples there wouldn't have anything to do with him. He went into the temple and the Lord ordered him out of Jerusalem and told him to leave immediately. He then did the hardest thing on earth to do; he went down to his home town and lived there in humility and obscurity for about five years. No one heard anything about the mighty apostle Paul. "Whatever happened to Paul?" people were asking. "He was converted in such a dramatic way on the Damascus road, and we thought something great would come of it, but who's heard of Paul lately?"
But Paul was learning what he expresses in Philippians 3. There he says, "I learned that the four things which I thought would greatly impress God were useless. They were nothing but garbage, pure dung, manure! I learned to count them as refuse, and to realize that in Jesus Christ I had everything I needed. If I would quit trying to live for myself, but give myself to him, to accomplish his goals, all that he is would be made available to me, and I could have everything I needed for whatever he wanted done." That is the secret he learned and that is what finally broke the grip of selfish concern in his life and turned him into "the man for others." He tells us himself how it works. "The love of Christ." he says, "constrains me." It drives me out, it constrains.
Now you see why I say we read these verses wrongly? It was not the need of the Greeks and the barbarians that drew him out. I confess, knowing my own heart, that I could read the most heart-rending stories of need in human lives and remain calloused and unmoved. Such is the selfishness of the human heart, and you well know this is true. You too can be exposed to terrible need, and if it makes too much demand upon you your temptation is to turn and look the other way, to pretend it isn't there, instead of responding. Well then, what is the answer? It is not the presentation of horrible need, the hideous suffering of humanity, that will move us to act, but we must find, as this man did, that the power of self can be broken only as we see the hunger of the heart of Jesus Christ. The love he awakens in us for him creates a desire to satisfy his hunger to have all men brought to him, Greek and barbarian alike. It is what he wants, that makes the difference. But one thing melts the hardness and selfishness of our hearts, and that is love for Jesus Christ.
I agree with John R.W. Stott who, at the Pastors' Conference at Mt. Hermon this past January, pointed out that the primary motive for evangelism is not the need of men, but a spirit of jealousy for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, a hunger that he might have all that is rightfully his. That is what jealousy is, an intolerance of rivals. There is a wrong jealousy based upon a wrong relationship. We have no right to be jealous of those with whom we do not have a proper relationship. But if a wife and husband give themselves to one another they have established a relationship. It a rival intrudes into that, the wife or husband has a right to be jealous because the other one has already given himself. It is that kind of jealousy Paul is speaking of when he says he is jealous for Christ. He says he desires that Christ might have that which belongs to him, which is his by right of sacrifice. As he sees the face of Jesus Christ and the hunger of his heart to have from every tribe and nation men and women to belong to him, this great apostle says, "I don't care how dirty they are, how filthy they may be, how proud or arrogant they may be in their intellectual conceit, I want to reach them for Christ's sake, that he might be satisfied and have that which belongs to him."
It is not the message of the hymn, Will there be any stars in my crown? I hate that hymn. It is so pettishly selfish. Or that other hymn which I must confess I don't like either, though it is a favorite of many, O That Will Be Glory For Me. Who cares about glory for you or for me? No, there is another hymn I think is much more appropriate.
Must I go, and empty handed
Must I meet my Savior so?
Not one soul with which to greet him,
Must I empty handed go?
Must I appear before him with nothing to show for what he has been to me, what he is through me; no word of witness, no changed lives, no transformed attitudes on the part of others because of what I have been, by his grace? Must I go and empty handed be? That is the primary thrust to evangelism. Will he have the full glory due to his name? That is what ought to constrain Christians. Here is a man who is constrained by the love of Christ. His heart is captured, his emotions are moved. That is an essential quality in the man or woman that God consistently uses, a constrained heart.
Look at the next quality.
"...so I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome."
"Not only are my emotions moved by love for the Lord Jesus," says Paul, "but my will is engaged as well. I am not only drawn, I am ready to act." I love this, because it emphasizes a time to stop talking and start doing. I read years ago of D.L. Moody who said to a man on one occasion, "Why don't you try doing so-and-so?" The man replied, "I've been aiming to do that for a long time." In his blunt way, Moody replied, "Well, brother, it's about time you quit aiming and started firing." It is not enough to talk, to think, or to dream. There must come moments of action. That is what Paul says. I'm ready to go, I'm eager to preach to you. It is action that turns belief into faith. You haven't exercised faith if you have simply believed the truth. You have exercised faith only when you have acted on the truth you have believed.
In Hebrews 11 we read, "Noah believed God and built an ark, to the saving of his household by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith." That is faith. Noah believed and acted. Abraham was called and obeyed. It is not enough to have wonderful desires and wonderful dreams of being used of God---act on them. Some of you have been talking a long time about inviting a friend to one of the outreach meetings this summer. Don't wait any longer, act. Some of you young people have been thinking about inviting a friend to the coffee house. Well, don't wait, act! Invite a lonely person to dinner. Move out! Manifest an eagerness, an ardency of spirit to fulfill what God lays upon your heart. That is the quality of faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God.
Faith, mighty faith the promise sees
And looks to God alone:
Laughs as impossibilities
And cries, "It shall be done."
That is the second quality of the man God uses; commitment. Paul here is committed to act. He not only is constrained. but he is committed.
Finally, the third thing, he is not ashamed of the gospel. He has reached the intelligent conclusion that the gospel has no rivals, that it can do what nothing else can do and therefore there is no need to be ashamed because it is pure. undiluted, undiminished power! And not merely power, but God's power, resurrection power, a unique kind of power which nothing in the world can rival. There is nothing like it anywhere. To me, this is the missing note above all else which we lack in our present life in the world today. Christians have forgotten that the gospel is absolutely unique. It does not borrow anything from any human source: it does not borrow from psychology, from history, from philosophy, from science, or from anything. It is an absolutely unique force. If Christians are not declaring this, there is no other body in the world capable of proclaiming it. That is why Paul says, I am not ashamed of it.
If anything could make him ashamed it would be the city of Rome. Rome sneered at the Christian story. These proud Roman citizens laughed at this fantastic tale of a man named Jesus who lived in an obscure Roman province, and who was supposedly raised from the dead after the procurator Pontius Pilate had put him to death. It was absurd to these practical hard-headed Romans. Rome ruled in haughty power as mistress of the earth. Rome was proud of its roads which ran throughout the whole empire and made trade and commerce possible everywhere. Rome was proud of its culture with its beautiful cities and its wonderful statues and art and music. Rome was proud of its conquests, of the fact that its armies were unbeatable. For over 1,000 years a kind of uneasy peace lay over the world called Pax Romana, the Roman Peace, because of the power and might of Rome's invincible armies.
But with all this display of power there were a lot of things Rome could not do. Rome was powerless when it came to freeing the slaves that abounded in the Empire. Half of the Roman Empire were slaves, and Rome could do nothing about that. Romans were seemingly powerless to curb their own lusts. At the close of this very chapter of Romans there is a terrible description of what their lusts led them to do. The seeds of disintegration were already manifest in Roman society, which would ultimately bring the whole thing crashing down around their ears. Romans were absolutely helpless when it came to vanquishing their fears. They lived in terror; terror of the barbarian hordes that were around the borders of the Empire; terror of death; and of nature. They were constantly engrossed in rank superstition because of their fears. They were powerless to cure or heal the inner agonies of their spirit. You only need to read the literature of that day to know their poignant cry for help against the meaninglessness of life. They were unable to awaken hope, and on tombstone after tombstone you find written in Latin, No Hope.
But all these needs the gospel meets. That is the uniqueness of it. Here is our world today, like Rome, powerless amid its display of power. It can do so many things of a technological nature, but one thing it cannot do: it cannot heal a human heart, it cannot awaken hope, and it cannot unite that which is fragmented and divided. It has no power in this realm. But when you have been used as an instrument of that kind of power, beside that the exercise of earthly power is dull and drab indeed.
Dr. Howard Hendricks from Dallas has been with us here for a few days. He was telling me about his visit to Campus Crusades Headquarters. He met there certain Christian young men who were wrestlers. They had joined a special athletic team that Campus Crusades was sending out in witness around the country. These men were top wrestlers and had been engaged in five or six matches in the Los Angeles area, matched against some of the top wrestlers from the colleges and universities around. They had won five out of six matches and had tied the sixth one. Mr. Hendricks was speaking to one of these young men, a champion wrestler. It is a thrill to be a champion in any sport, it is a good feeling, a great feeling. This young man said to Howard Hendricks, "You know, I've come to see that wrestling is just peanuts. Wrestling isn't important. I'm not a wrestler---I'm a witness." By those words he was expressing this fact: there is nothing more exciting than to have the power of the gospel flowing through you to change someone else's life.
Look at what Paul says about this, in closing. It is universal in its appeal. It is for Jews and for Greeks: these were the two divisions of the world from the Jewish point of view. Anyone, anywhere in the world, is a proper subject for this gospel. It is designed for all men. It is not provincial, it is not national; it is designed for men everywhere. Further, it is wholesome in its results. Notice what the result is salvation. Perhaps we do not like that word because it has been so badly abused. We think of salvation as some kind of religious piety; a kind of religious formaldehyde in which people are steeped, which has no attraction whatsoever. But that is a wrong use of the term. Salvation is nothing less than wholeness. It is to be a whole person, a person who is restored to what he ought to be, and what God intended him to be. That is what is the glorious thing about this gospel. It is not creating plaster saints who walk around in separation from the common, mundane things around them; it is creating people who live, who love to live, and to live at the heart of life, yet who live well-adjusted, wholesome lives, at peace with themselves and at peace with God.
Notice also that it is mighty in its nature. It is power, says the apostle, living power, a living force. It is not some kind of a peace tablet dropped into the heart which gives a momentary comfort. No, no. It is a force that goes to work and keeps on working away, driving you out of yourself, thrusting you on. You can't sleep sometimes because it keeps working on you. You can't run away from it, you can't evade it. It is there, and it keeps pushing and pushing relentlessly, driving you on. It is a living force at work in your life. It is the kind of power that nothing else can equal because it is resurrection power. It works in the midst of death. It works best in a cemetery. If you are living in a cemetery you are a fit candidate for the power of God. Resurrection power works when nothing else will work.
Finally, it is simple in its acceptance. It is by faith. By faith! That's all, by believing, by commitment to it. It comes by a man or a woman saying, "I don't understand everything about it, but I've seen enough to know that it's true---I'll follow it anyway." And they do. That commitment of faith to Jesus Christ is the door by which life is opened.
There we have it. Here is the man God uses consistently, continuously: the man who is confident in the power of God, confident that God is at work, confident that he will be at work in his life. Because this is not just for apostles, it is for everyone. Paul said that he was a pattern for everyone of how this Christian life works. The first note of it is that to become confident God is at work, that he can work, does work, and will work, and that he is quite able to do what nothing else can do.
Second, here is a man who is constrained, moved, and is motivated, not by the need around him but by the face before him---by the love of the Lord Jesus and the expectation of that day when he will stand at last in his presence and all of his life will be in review. I think it is a salutary thing to think often of that moment. I do. What is the Lord going to say about my life when I stand before him? What is he going to say about yours? How much of it has been self-centered, and how much has been risked, ventured, hazarded for his dear sake?
Finally, because of these two things, the man God uses is a man who is committed, who is eager, who says, "Lord, whatever you want, whenever you want it, I'm ready to follow you." I remember a friend telling me he followed one of these great fruit trucks down the road and on the back of it was a sign that read, "Any load, any place, any time." That is a wonderful motto for Christians. Any load. Lord, any place, Lord, any time. I don't live up to that, but I tell you, I want to, and may God help me to do so. I trust you will join me in that.
Discovery Publishing Catalog No. 281
Copyright (C) 1995 Discovery Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church. This data file is the sole property of Discovery Publishing, a ministry of Peninsula Bible Church. It may be copied only in its entirety for circulation freely without charge. All copies of this data file must contain the above copyright notice. This data file may not be copied in part, edited, revised, copied for resale or incorporated in any commercial publications, recordings, broadcasts, performances, displays or other products offered for sale, without the written permission of Discovery Publishing. Requests for permission should be made in writing and addressed to Discovery Publishing, 3505 Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto, CA. 94306-3695.
Sabtu, 22 Mei 2010
How I Read a Book" by Tim Challies
How I Read a Book" by Tim Challies
Last week I encouraged you to Read More and Read Better. Then I got both busy and distracted and didn't give you the second part. So let me do that today. Let me tell you how I read a book.
Overview
Before I do anything else, I want to get an overview of the book. Very rarely will I read a book without really knowing what it is about. Here I learn about the reason it exists, whether it is attempting to make its mark in the world of ideas or the world of entertainment. Here I learn about its significance. And, most importantly, here I learn about its purpose. From the back cover, from the Foreword and Preface, I can learn what the book is trying to do, to teach. I may also turn to a review or two, though generally I prefer not to since I prefer to form my own opinion of it. (The less familiar I am with the topic, the more likely I am to read some reviews.) I also tend to read the Acknowledgements since this tends to help me understand the author a bit more.
The overview stage is typically where I decide whether or not I will try to read the book. Like everyone else, I'm probably unduly influenced by the cover copy and even by the cover itself.
What & Why
At this point I have decided to read a book--or at least to start reading a book. I probably finish about two thirds of the books I start. The rest fall along the wayside for one reason or another. I am not afraid to walk away from a book that is not living up to its promise. I've got better things to do than read inferior books.
Next I determine what kind of a book it is and why I'm reading it. Is it a heavy and dense book or a light and easy one? Is it the kind of book I am going to have to study to understand it, or will it need only a quick read? And having asked those questions, I want to know why I'm reading it. Am I reading it for fun or study? Am I reading it because I really want to absorb every word or am I reading it just for the experience of reading it? Or maybe I am reading it quickly just to understand why there is so much buzz about it. There are nearly as many reasons to read a book as there are books. So I always want to answer the what and why questions before I dive in. These in turn tell me how I am going to read it.
How
If the book is one that I am reading primarily for fun rather than some kind of profound spiritual or intellectual profit, I will typically read it quickly. I will often take no notes and will usually read at the fastest pace I can manage while still managing a decent level of comprehension. With this kind of book I am very willing to trade retention for speed. These are the books I tend to read on my Kindle or, in a pinch, on my iPhone. I still prefer to do serious reading with paper and ink, but light reading suits the Kindle with its lower prices and and limited interactivity.
If the book is one that I am hoping to both comprehend and retain, I make it a much slower and more interactive process.
I've already read the cover and the Preface or Introduction, so I know what the book is going to be about. I've often also read a handful of reviews, so I know what others are saying about the book's importance. I will keep that in mind as I begin.
The first pages are generally absolutely crucial for comprehension. Here I almost always find the author's purpose for writing the book along with his assessment of who the audience is. I need to know this if I am going to understand the book. When I find this information, I mark it and make sure I keep it in mind. It really does matter. If he is writing for a young and relatively uninformed audience, I will have to assess the book far differently than if he is writing for a knowledgeable audience. This may effect what he says and it may effect the way he says it. Think, for example, of the way Tim Keller writes--how he always keeps in mind his audience of young, unchurched New Yorkers. This makes his presentation radically different than, say, a book by John Piper. They may write a book on a similar theme, but how they say what they say will be very different.
If I want to understand and remember, I always benefit from taking notes and making highlights. There was a time when I considered it near-sacrilege to deface my books with anything other than light pencil marks. But I soon realized there is great benefit in marking up a book. This is part of the process of making the book my own, of really owning it. In fact, I don't know at this point how I'd retain much at all without doing this. I arrived at my own system for marking and its a very simple one. Some people just write, some write and highlight, some use a series of symbols. I write and highlight. When reading I almost always keep a highlighter and one of those mini Sharpie's in my hand. I highlight anything I deem to be important in understanding the book. I tend to write questions; questions I would ask the author if he was there, questions I expect the book to answer for me. I also write notes about what I'll want to remember as I write a review. And I write notes about anything else that bears mention, either good or bad. I also try to keep a notebook in hand where I can jot down ideas for something I may want to blog about. It is a good idea, at the end of a chapter, to write a brief review of just that chapter; this will help you make sure you are staying in the flow of the book.
The purpose in all of this is to make reading an interactive experience. I do not want to be a passive receptor; rather, I want to be active in absorbing what the author is teaching and in interacting with it. I want to talk back to the author, to have a conversation through reading. I talk back through my pen.
Review
Part of my system for remembering a book and for making sure I understand it involves writing a review. Book reviews have always been a part of this blog for that very reason. For more advice on writing reviews, check out my article How To Review a Book. If writing a review does not interest you, at least consider talking about the book with someone else (and, if possible, someone who has also read it). A good discussion about the book will further both comprehension and retention.
For an especially good book, file it away and come back to it a year later. There are some books that merit reading every year for a few years consecutively. I pretty much guarantee that each time you read it, you will learn something new and will pick up on new emphases within it.
Conclusion
I don't think I have said anything too radical here. I really do only what others have done for ages. I view reading as one of, if not the, primary way I learn. I am a reader more than a listener and certainly more than a watcher. I love to learn and thus I love to read. It's my hope that by reading and perhaps implementing these tips, maybe, just maybe, you can learn to read a bit better and, as you grow in your ability, grow in your love.
Last week I encouraged you to Read More and Read Better. Then I got both busy and distracted and didn't give you the second part. So let me do that today. Let me tell you how I read a book.
Overview
Before I do anything else, I want to get an overview of the book. Very rarely will I read a book without really knowing what it is about. Here I learn about the reason it exists, whether it is attempting to make its mark in the world of ideas or the world of entertainment. Here I learn about its significance. And, most importantly, here I learn about its purpose. From the back cover, from the Foreword and Preface, I can learn what the book is trying to do, to teach. I may also turn to a review or two, though generally I prefer not to since I prefer to form my own opinion of it. (The less familiar I am with the topic, the more likely I am to read some reviews.) I also tend to read the Acknowledgements since this tends to help me understand the author a bit more.
The overview stage is typically where I decide whether or not I will try to read the book. Like everyone else, I'm probably unduly influenced by the cover copy and even by the cover itself.
What & Why
At this point I have decided to read a book--or at least to start reading a book. I probably finish about two thirds of the books I start. The rest fall along the wayside for one reason or another. I am not afraid to walk away from a book that is not living up to its promise. I've got better things to do than read inferior books.
Next I determine what kind of a book it is and why I'm reading it. Is it a heavy and dense book or a light and easy one? Is it the kind of book I am going to have to study to understand it, or will it need only a quick read? And having asked those questions, I want to know why I'm reading it. Am I reading it for fun or study? Am I reading it because I really want to absorb every word or am I reading it just for the experience of reading it? Or maybe I am reading it quickly just to understand why there is so much buzz about it. There are nearly as many reasons to read a book as there are books. So I always want to answer the what and why questions before I dive in. These in turn tell me how I am going to read it.
How
If the book is one that I am reading primarily for fun rather than some kind of profound spiritual or intellectual profit, I will typically read it quickly. I will often take no notes and will usually read at the fastest pace I can manage while still managing a decent level of comprehension. With this kind of book I am very willing to trade retention for speed. These are the books I tend to read on my Kindle or, in a pinch, on my iPhone. I still prefer to do serious reading with paper and ink, but light reading suits the Kindle with its lower prices and and limited interactivity.
If the book is one that I am hoping to both comprehend and retain, I make it a much slower and more interactive process.
I've already read the cover and the Preface or Introduction, so I know what the book is going to be about. I've often also read a handful of reviews, so I know what others are saying about the book's importance. I will keep that in mind as I begin.
The first pages are generally absolutely crucial for comprehension. Here I almost always find the author's purpose for writing the book along with his assessment of who the audience is. I need to know this if I am going to understand the book. When I find this information, I mark it and make sure I keep it in mind. It really does matter. If he is writing for a young and relatively uninformed audience, I will have to assess the book far differently than if he is writing for a knowledgeable audience. This may effect what he says and it may effect the way he says it. Think, for example, of the way Tim Keller writes--how he always keeps in mind his audience of young, unchurched New Yorkers. This makes his presentation radically different than, say, a book by John Piper. They may write a book on a similar theme, but how they say what they say will be very different.
If I want to understand and remember, I always benefit from taking notes and making highlights. There was a time when I considered it near-sacrilege to deface my books with anything other than light pencil marks. But I soon realized there is great benefit in marking up a book. This is part of the process of making the book my own, of really owning it. In fact, I don't know at this point how I'd retain much at all without doing this. I arrived at my own system for marking and its a very simple one. Some people just write, some write and highlight, some use a series of symbols. I write and highlight. When reading I almost always keep a highlighter and one of those mini Sharpie's in my hand. I highlight anything I deem to be important in understanding the book. I tend to write questions; questions I would ask the author if he was there, questions I expect the book to answer for me. I also write notes about what I'll want to remember as I write a review. And I write notes about anything else that bears mention, either good or bad. I also try to keep a notebook in hand where I can jot down ideas for something I may want to blog about. It is a good idea, at the end of a chapter, to write a brief review of just that chapter; this will help you make sure you are staying in the flow of the book.
The purpose in all of this is to make reading an interactive experience. I do not want to be a passive receptor; rather, I want to be active in absorbing what the author is teaching and in interacting with it. I want to talk back to the author, to have a conversation through reading. I talk back through my pen.
Review
Part of my system for remembering a book and for making sure I understand it involves writing a review. Book reviews have always been a part of this blog for that very reason. For more advice on writing reviews, check out my article How To Review a Book. If writing a review does not interest you, at least consider talking about the book with someone else (and, if possible, someone who has also read it). A good discussion about the book will further both comprehension and retention.
For an especially good book, file it away and come back to it a year later. There are some books that merit reading every year for a few years consecutively. I pretty much guarantee that each time you read it, you will learn something new and will pick up on new emphases within it.
Conclusion
I don't think I have said anything too radical here. I really do only what others have done for ages. I view reading as one of, if not the, primary way I learn. I am a reader more than a listener and certainly more than a watcher. I love to learn and thus I love to read. It's my hope that by reading and perhaps implementing these tips, maybe, just maybe, you can learn to read a bit better and, as you grow in your ability, grow in your love.
Rabu, 19 Mei 2010
The Image of God and The Practice of Medicine
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness...And God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Gen.1:26-27.
Our attempt to develop biblical principles for the practice of medicine is necessarily based upon systematic theology. When one puts together the pieces of a puzzle, they will not fit anywhere except where they were made to contribute to the whole. A system requires that pieces fit, not be randomly placed anywhere. When Christians speak of a world view, they are speaking of a unified system of knowledge. It is not enough to understand Bible verses or the ethics that are derived from them. One must fit each piece of knowledge into the whole; otherwise, one never has the completed picture (worldview) and, worse, one does not know what pieces may be present that do not belong, and what pieces may be missing. Christians are too often satisfied with a pile of pieces, some of which don’t belong and others that are missing. Dr. Dough Heimburger has given examples of an application of the Biblical world-view to medicine in a previous issue.1
Man made in the image of God is a crucial piece to the puzzle for the practice of medicine. This article will make a beginning attempt to shape the piece and determine where it interdigitates with medical practice and ethics. It is with some embarrassment that this concept does not appear in my foundational book!
Its Importance
The image of God in man is extremely important within a culture dominated by an evolutionary hypothesis for the development of man. It is not carrying this image too far to say that it is the one factor, even for the creationist, that separates man from the animals. If, as God created living things, He had created man without this distinction, then man could indeed be placed with the animals and the focus on man in the Bible beginning with the second chapter of Genesis would seem strange and without basis. Even the theistic evolutionist (and probably the majority of Christians hold this position) must confess that God did not merely develop man by progression up the phylogenetic ladder, but did something unique in His creation of man.
What Is It?
Theologians are not entirely agreed upon the answer to this question. Further, their answer is predicted upon their “brand” of theology. Generally, they fall into three categories: Armenian, Roman Catholic, and Reformed.2 I will focus on the latter as the more complete and biblical. Even so, the subject is not simple. Certain assumptions are necessary. (This references cited will discuss these assumptions for those interested.)
(1)”Image” and “likeness” are synonyms. All the references are agreed upon this point. (2) The image of God, even though severely marred, is still present in man after his Fall (1 Cor. 11:7, James 3-9). (3) Man is dichotomous, consisting of body and soul (or spirit)3 A trichotomous view of man (body, soul and spirit) would not necessarily change the following presentation, but would make it more complicated.
We shall begin with a simple list of all the possibilities and then work our way through them. The image of God could include the physical body, the mind and all its faculties (intellect, judgement, rationality, understanding, communication or fellowship, will, emotions, morality, intuition, and self-consciousness), dominion over the earth, the soul or spirit, and righteousness. The easiest to exclude as the image of God is the body. God is a spirit without form or physical substance. The body, as the dwelling place of the soul and the Holy Spirit in the believer, has great significance, but it cannot be the image of God.
At first glance the soul, as the immaterial or non-physical dimension of man, might seem to be the image of God. Further consideration, however reveals that animals have a soul. In fact both words used for soul and spirit in the Old Testament are ascribed to animals: soul (nephesh) in Gen. 1:21,24, 6:17. 7:15 and spirit (ruach) in Gen. 6:17, 7:15; Eccl. 3:19, 21. Further, angels and demons are spirits, but are never identified in the Bible as being made in the image of God. Thus, the simple presence of the soul or spirit is not the image of God in man.
Man’s righteousness can be viewed in two ways: perfect or complete righteousness and a degree of righteousness. Obviously, when Adam and Eve fell, man lost all identity with perfect or complete righteousness. Thus, this definition of righteousness cannot be the image. Then, might some degree of righteousness be the image? Many men and women do at times behave in both ordinary and extraordinary ways that would seem to please God. Further, they have some understanding of the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). These two arguments, however, will not hold as the image. First, righteousness consists of more than behavior; it consists of one’s standing before God and one’s motives. Second, man’s sinful nature prevents a clear perception of the law of God and a willingness to obey it. This argument concerns the central tenets of justification and sanctification and is more extensive than we can manage here. It will stand, however, as a fundamental of orthodox Christianity.
Dominion over all living things and the earth is one dimension of the image. Man is God’s vice-gerent, exercising a limited authority of God’s total authority. This dominion, however, is only possible be a more important part of the image.
Finally, and most importantly, we come to man’s mind and its faculties. Conservative theologians almost (if not all) agree that man’s mind is a function of his soul (spirit). Although I have listed various faculties of the mind, they can be simplified into two: rational (logical) though and knowledge (intellect). To “think God;s thoughts after Him” requires knowledge of them and the ability to follow his reasoning process. Although Adam and Eve did not have total knowledge (as we can never have either), they were able to reason infallibly.4 Obviously, we are not now able to reason infallibly, and this loss represents a major tarnish upon that image. Nevertheless, we are able to know some things truly and to reason accurately.
The other faculties that we have listed are predicted upon these two. Judgement is reasoning based upon available knowledge. Understanding is the reasoning that gives explanation and coherence to knowledge. Morality is judgment of right and wrong according to on;e knowledge. Intuition is inborn knowledge5 and probably subconscious judgment. Self-consciousness is the knowledge that “I” exist as an entity distinct from all other things. Communication is the ability to reason what knowledge is or is not to be given to someone else and how it is to be stated. The will is more complex than can be presented here, b simply it is truth put into action (energized, if you will). In other words what is actually believed to be true will be acted upon by the will. Similarly, the emotions are more complex. With some careful thought, however, it can be demonstrated that God does not have emotions because He is immutable and emotions represent a change in psychological state.6
Fellowship needs special attention. Surprisingly, it is almost absent from discussion of the image of God, even though it is orthodox belief that the Trinity is the ultimate fellowship. This ability may be closer to the reality of the image than anything considered so far. Simply, fellowship is conveyed in the New Testament as the Greek koinonia as sharing or having something in common (Acts 2:44;Phil.4:14, John 1:3,6,7). It is surely not coincidental that koinonia is the word for Communion (ICor.10:16), the most intimate fellowship between God and man.
Through careful reasoning fellowship is recognized as shared knowledge, or better, shared truth. Shared possessions may exist among people who otherwise hate each other, often exemplified when inheritances are divided. So, physical sharing is not fellowship. What is it that causes joy and happiness when certain people are together? It is not just the physical presence of the person, but the knowledge of thoughts (beliefs and experiences) that are valued by both. The more extensive that knowledge and experience, the greater the fellowship.
Applied to man’s relationship with God, close fellowship existed between Adam and Eve and God before their sin. Gen. 3:8 implies that “the presence of the Lord” was common in the Garden. After their sin God continued to reveals Himself throughout biblical history until His revelation (the Bible) is completed. Even at the very moment of their sin, He provided a way to know (fellowship with) Him again (Gen. 3:14, “He shall bruise you on the head,” the first prophecy of the forgiveness to be provided in Jesus Christ). IT is not without meaningful intent that being a “new creature” in Christ is conveyed by a transformation of the mind (Rom. 12:2) and repentance (II Cor. 7:10, literally a change of mind).
The Presence of the Image
The next question that must be answered is whether or not this image is present throughout the life span of the individual. Adam was created as an adult, but pro-life Christians have argued rightly that individual human life begins at conception. How is the image of God present, then, in the conceptus (union of the sperm and egg), the embryo (the first two weeks after conception), and the fetus (the medical term for the unborn child). The argument is both biblical and physiological. We deal with it briefly in order to focus on the application.
The simple but decisive argument is that man is the image of God regardless of what that image is conceived to be, not that he manifests or contains or achieves the image of God.7 A person is not wholly defined by what he is at a given point in time, but his potential, his actuality, and his experience. Each of these is not only determined by the life of the person on earth, but his eternal destiny.
Perhaps, the concept that every human being is a member of the human race most clearly demonstrates the presence of the image of God in the mentally retarded, those with severe birth defects and those who otherwise do not seem to have any readily identifiable characteristic with the image of God. As Christians, we know that all people of all times are divided into the saved and the unsaved (Mt. 25:31-46) or those who are in Christ and those who are not (Rom. 5:12-21). Further, Christ speaks of the entire church as a person, that is, one body (I Cor.12:12-30) and one bride (Mt. 9:15). Thus, there is a definite sense in which every person, regardless of his or her characteristics, has identity with the whole "image" of the human race.8
Other lesser arguments may be simply stated because of space. In the womb man is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14), an indirect correspondence to the image. A person may be regenerated from the time of conception.9 John the Baptist in his mother’s womb was “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Lk. 1:15b) and showed a conscious response the Jesus’ presence (Lk. 1:41). Throughout life each person has the innate ability of knowledge and reason, even though his physical condition may not allow the expression of his abilities.10
Applications in Medicine
The first, and possibly the most important, is that man is unique. Simply, man is or his is not. The technological dilemmas created by modern medicine have compelled some scholars to derive categories for man under certain conditions where he may be treated differently than at other times. Even Christians have been swayed under this compulsion. Dr. Norman Geisler describes the unborn child as “not fully human,” “a potentially human being,” and “pre-human,”11 As he discusses people with severe medical conditions (e.g. the permanently comatose and terminally ill), he uses the description “sub-human,” “post-human,” and not “truly-human.”12 Dr. Gareth Jones in his discussion of abortion and early gestational life uses “potential person,” “personhood,” and “personal and non-personal fetuses.”13 Dr. Jones even states that “the fetus is being built into the image and likeness of God.”14
These descriptions, which are also categories, are inconsistent with the presence of the image of God in man even with the distortion of that image by sin. The only allowable categories for human beings are alive or dead. The union of an egg and sperm produces a person who is fully human regardless of defects or lace of “normality” until the time of his or her death. No philosophical or moral qualification of a “person” is possible. A person is (alive) or is not (dead). To make a category for humans other than alive or dead is to allow abortion for a variety of reasons, to allow experimentation of the unborn (as is current in England with the human embryo up to two weeks), and to allow the use of a drug or other means to kill or aid in the suicide of a terminally-ill person.
The second application is a prohibition of the union of a human gamete (egg or sperm), with a non-human gamete (sperm or egg). First, God created every “kind” to procreate after its own “kind” (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Second, He specifically proscribes the mixing of kinds in certain situations (Lev. 19:19, Dt. 22:9). One distinction, however, is necessary in this prohibition: the substitution of parts rather than the whole is allowable. That is, a whole person is an entity that is entirely distinct from his isolated liver or heart. Pertaining to our discussion, parts of animals (from whole organs, such as hearts, to sequences of genes) sequences could be transferred to humans.15
The third application is the elevated status given to all humans, especially those encountered routinely in medical practice who are markedly deformed. Physically, they may be children who are severely retarded or otherwise brain-damaged, adults crippled with metastatic cancer, or the elderly patient whose mind no longer functions rationally or responds minimally to external stimuli. Spiritually, they may be the obnoxious alcoholic who presents at the emergency room in the middle of the night, the persistent hypochondriac who defies any concrete diagnosis or response to treatment, or the devastated wife who has been infected with gonorrhea by her unfaithful husband. The contrast in behavior wrought be differences in the terms that describe man is striking. A health care worker either approaches patients first to determine whether they are persons and then treats them accordingly or he approaches patients first to determine whether they are persons and then treats them accordingly or he approaches them with the conscious attitude that they are created in the image of God. In other words does “personhood” or “image of God” more greatly enhance the treatment of the patient. Further, which concept gives direction to solutions to their problems?
The fourth application is that the image of God does not require that everything medically be done for all people. Sickness and injury are directly or indirectly a result of the sine of Adam and Eve and personal sin.1 The state of sin is spiritual, not physical. That is, medicine cannot restore the fullness of the image of God in man. The image conditions man’s treatment of other men, but it should not be the goal of men to restore it physically. The dream to cure all medical problems and make man immortal can be seen as an attempt to restore the image of God in man. The care and treatment of the body is not to be minimized, but it must be considered along with the other biblical responsibilities of individuals, families, churches, and societies.
A fifth application concerns eugenics. Although the application of this concept to genetic engineering seems new, eugenics has been a focus of some social planners for the last hundred years. Most states still have laws that certain people who are mentally retarded or have mental illness may not have children and may even be sterilized. Eugenics, then, is the attempt to breed men and women in ways that will enhance certain characteristics, such as intelligence and athletic ability. Again, however, the major problem with man is his deformed spirit, not his physical limitations. Is a mental retardate who is faithful to his wife “better” than the Nobel laureate who is unfaithful to his marriage? This position is not, however, to exclude the correction of genetic abnormalities that have been clearly identified with physical problems. A chapter in a book soon to be published by me will discuss eugenics at some length.
At certain points we reach our limitations. We have reached that limitation in current expenditures, as indicated by the forced cutbacks in federal and private spending for medical care. We reach that point when medical treatment no longer offers a reasonable chance of cure in terminally ill patients or prolongs their inevitable death. We are not God who can restore that image; neither are we God to harm or destroy that image. We are finite in our ability even to correct the physical damage of sin upon that image. The image of God both enhances our attitude toward patients and places God-ordained limits on what we are able to do.
References
1. Heimburger, Dough, “A Biblical Model for Medical Ethics,” 1(1):5-10, 1987.
2. If any reader is not familiar with these categories, he cannot seriously pursue biblical ethics in medicine. Many principles are necessarily different according to which category is believed. My primary sources for the Reformed position are:
Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939. pp.202-210.
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. I. Trans. by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979, pp. 162-167.
Clark, Gordon H., The Biblical Doctrine of Man, Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1984, pp. 5-19.
Kuyper, Abraham, The Work of the Holy Spirit. Trans. by J. Hendri De Vries, Reprint. Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1900. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979, pp. 203-251.
Murray, John, Collected Writings. Vol. II., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976, pp. 34-46.
3. Adams, Jay E., More Than Redemption. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979, pp. 108-118.
4. Kuyper, Abraham, Principles of Sacred Theology. Trans. by J. Hendrik De Vries, Reprint. Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology Its Principles. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980, pp. 106-149; Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man. pp. 14-19.
5. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man. pp. 34-46.
6. The Westminster Confession of Faith, II.I., states that God is “without body, parts, or passions.” See a discussion of this description in What Presbyterians Believe. Gordon H. Clark, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1965.
7. Clark, Biblical Doctrine of Man, p.9.
8. Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, pp. 150-182.
9. Kuyper, Work of the Holy Spirit, pp. 107-308.
10. Clark, Biblical Doctrine of Man, p.15.
11. Geisler, N.L. Ethics: Issues and Alternatives, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971, pp. 219, 234.
12. Ibid., p. 234.
13. Jones, D>G., Brave New People, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984, pp. 156-184.
14. Ibid., p. 172.
15. This statement is not to endorse every substitution of animal parts for humans’ parts. The issue is a separate ethical subject in itself. For example, the brain, testicles and ovaries may come so close to the identity of the whole, that these should not be transplanted.
16. Payne, F.E., Biblical/Medical Ethics, Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1985, p. 79--83.
Additional Literature
Christian couples with fertility problems may benefit from The Beginnings of Life: Human Fertilization and Embryo Research.
This twelve-page pamphlet deals succinctly and Biblically with modern medical methods of dealing with infertility problems. The pain of childlessness is compassionately discussed in light of Biblical principles, followed by a lucid analysis of their application to in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination by donor and by husband. It is written to be comprehensible by readers with no medical training. The pamphlet was published in 1986 by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and is available from: Covenanter Book Shop, 98 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 or Evangelical Book Shop, 15 College Square East, Belfast BT16DD. The cost depends upon the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate with the British pound.
Our mail brought some information relating to literature and other helps for homosexuals and those ministering to them.
Healing for the Homosexual, a booklet of testimonies containing sound Biblical principles regarding this life-consuming but escapable sin, is available from Presbyterian & Reformed Renewal Ministries, Int’l, 2245 N.W. 39th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73112.
Transformation Ministries, P.O. box 55805, Seattle, WA 98155, offering a number of resources for homosexuals seeking release through obedience to Jesus Christ.
Another resource for making contact with ministries and material related to homosexuality is Exodus International, P.O. Box 2121, San Rafael, CA 94912.
http://www.bmei.org/jbem/volume1/num4/the_image_of_god_and_the_practice_of_medicine.php
Gen.1:26-27.
Our attempt to develop biblical principles for the practice of medicine is necessarily based upon systematic theology. When one puts together the pieces of a puzzle, they will not fit anywhere except where they were made to contribute to the whole. A system requires that pieces fit, not be randomly placed anywhere. When Christians speak of a world view, they are speaking of a unified system of knowledge. It is not enough to understand Bible verses or the ethics that are derived from them. One must fit each piece of knowledge into the whole; otherwise, one never has the completed picture (worldview) and, worse, one does not know what pieces may be present that do not belong, and what pieces may be missing. Christians are too often satisfied with a pile of pieces, some of which don’t belong and others that are missing. Dr. Dough Heimburger has given examples of an application of the Biblical world-view to medicine in a previous issue.1
Man made in the image of God is a crucial piece to the puzzle for the practice of medicine. This article will make a beginning attempt to shape the piece and determine where it interdigitates with medical practice and ethics. It is with some embarrassment that this concept does not appear in my foundational book!
Its Importance
The image of God in man is extremely important within a culture dominated by an evolutionary hypothesis for the development of man. It is not carrying this image too far to say that it is the one factor, even for the creationist, that separates man from the animals. If, as God created living things, He had created man without this distinction, then man could indeed be placed with the animals and the focus on man in the Bible beginning with the second chapter of Genesis would seem strange and without basis. Even the theistic evolutionist (and probably the majority of Christians hold this position) must confess that God did not merely develop man by progression up the phylogenetic ladder, but did something unique in His creation of man.
What Is It?
Theologians are not entirely agreed upon the answer to this question. Further, their answer is predicted upon their “brand” of theology. Generally, they fall into three categories: Armenian, Roman Catholic, and Reformed.2 I will focus on the latter as the more complete and biblical. Even so, the subject is not simple. Certain assumptions are necessary. (This references cited will discuss these assumptions for those interested.)
(1)”Image” and “likeness” are synonyms. All the references are agreed upon this point. (2) The image of God, even though severely marred, is still present in man after his Fall (1 Cor. 11:7, James 3-9). (3) Man is dichotomous, consisting of body and soul (or spirit)3 A trichotomous view of man (body, soul and spirit) would not necessarily change the following presentation, but would make it more complicated.
We shall begin with a simple list of all the possibilities and then work our way through them. The image of God could include the physical body, the mind and all its faculties (intellect, judgement, rationality, understanding, communication or fellowship, will, emotions, morality, intuition, and self-consciousness), dominion over the earth, the soul or spirit, and righteousness. The easiest to exclude as the image of God is the body. God is a spirit without form or physical substance. The body, as the dwelling place of the soul and the Holy Spirit in the believer, has great significance, but it cannot be the image of God.
At first glance the soul, as the immaterial or non-physical dimension of man, might seem to be the image of God. Further consideration, however reveals that animals have a soul. In fact both words used for soul and spirit in the Old Testament are ascribed to animals: soul (nephesh) in Gen. 1:21,24, 6:17. 7:15 and spirit (ruach) in Gen. 6:17, 7:15; Eccl. 3:19, 21. Further, angels and demons are spirits, but are never identified in the Bible as being made in the image of God. Thus, the simple presence of the soul or spirit is not the image of God in man.
Man’s righteousness can be viewed in two ways: perfect or complete righteousness and a degree of righteousness. Obviously, when Adam and Eve fell, man lost all identity with perfect or complete righteousness. Thus, this definition of righteousness cannot be the image. Then, might some degree of righteousness be the image? Many men and women do at times behave in both ordinary and extraordinary ways that would seem to please God. Further, they have some understanding of the law of God written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15). These two arguments, however, will not hold as the image. First, righteousness consists of more than behavior; it consists of one’s standing before God and one’s motives. Second, man’s sinful nature prevents a clear perception of the law of God and a willingness to obey it. This argument concerns the central tenets of justification and sanctification and is more extensive than we can manage here. It will stand, however, as a fundamental of orthodox Christianity.
Dominion over all living things and the earth is one dimension of the image. Man is God’s vice-gerent, exercising a limited authority of God’s total authority. This dominion, however, is only possible be a more important part of the image.
Finally, and most importantly, we come to man’s mind and its faculties. Conservative theologians almost (if not all) agree that man’s mind is a function of his soul (spirit). Although I have listed various faculties of the mind, they can be simplified into two: rational (logical) though and knowledge (intellect). To “think God;s thoughts after Him” requires knowledge of them and the ability to follow his reasoning process. Although Adam and Eve did not have total knowledge (as we can never have either), they were able to reason infallibly.4 Obviously, we are not now able to reason infallibly, and this loss represents a major tarnish upon that image. Nevertheless, we are able to know some things truly and to reason accurately.
The other faculties that we have listed are predicted upon these two. Judgement is reasoning based upon available knowledge. Understanding is the reasoning that gives explanation and coherence to knowledge. Morality is judgment of right and wrong according to on;e knowledge. Intuition is inborn knowledge5 and probably subconscious judgment. Self-consciousness is the knowledge that “I” exist as an entity distinct from all other things. Communication is the ability to reason what knowledge is or is not to be given to someone else and how it is to be stated. The will is more complex than can be presented here, b simply it is truth put into action (energized, if you will). In other words what is actually believed to be true will be acted upon by the will. Similarly, the emotions are more complex. With some careful thought, however, it can be demonstrated that God does not have emotions because He is immutable and emotions represent a change in psychological state.6
Fellowship needs special attention. Surprisingly, it is almost absent from discussion of the image of God, even though it is orthodox belief that the Trinity is the ultimate fellowship. This ability may be closer to the reality of the image than anything considered so far. Simply, fellowship is conveyed in the New Testament as the Greek koinonia as sharing or having something in common (Acts 2:44;Phil.4:14, John 1:3,6,7). It is surely not coincidental that koinonia is the word for Communion (ICor.10:16), the most intimate fellowship between God and man.
Through careful reasoning fellowship is recognized as shared knowledge, or better, shared truth. Shared possessions may exist among people who otherwise hate each other, often exemplified when inheritances are divided. So, physical sharing is not fellowship. What is it that causes joy and happiness when certain people are together? It is not just the physical presence of the person, but the knowledge of thoughts (beliefs and experiences) that are valued by both. The more extensive that knowledge and experience, the greater the fellowship.
Applied to man’s relationship with God, close fellowship existed between Adam and Eve and God before their sin. Gen. 3:8 implies that “the presence of the Lord” was common in the Garden. After their sin God continued to reveals Himself throughout biblical history until His revelation (the Bible) is completed. Even at the very moment of their sin, He provided a way to know (fellowship with) Him again (Gen. 3:14, “He shall bruise you on the head,” the first prophecy of the forgiveness to be provided in Jesus Christ). IT is not without meaningful intent that being a “new creature” in Christ is conveyed by a transformation of the mind (Rom. 12:2) and repentance (II Cor. 7:10, literally a change of mind).
The Presence of the Image
The next question that must be answered is whether or not this image is present throughout the life span of the individual. Adam was created as an adult, but pro-life Christians have argued rightly that individual human life begins at conception. How is the image of God present, then, in the conceptus (union of the sperm and egg), the embryo (the first two weeks after conception), and the fetus (the medical term for the unborn child). The argument is both biblical and physiological. We deal with it briefly in order to focus on the application.
The simple but decisive argument is that man is the image of God regardless of what that image is conceived to be, not that he manifests or contains or achieves the image of God.7 A person is not wholly defined by what he is at a given point in time, but his potential, his actuality, and his experience. Each of these is not only determined by the life of the person on earth, but his eternal destiny.
Perhaps, the concept that every human being is a member of the human race most clearly demonstrates the presence of the image of God in the mentally retarded, those with severe birth defects and those who otherwise do not seem to have any readily identifiable characteristic with the image of God. As Christians, we know that all people of all times are divided into the saved and the unsaved (Mt. 25:31-46) or those who are in Christ and those who are not (Rom. 5:12-21). Further, Christ speaks of the entire church as a person, that is, one body (I Cor.12:12-30) and one bride (Mt. 9:15). Thus, there is a definite sense in which every person, regardless of his or her characteristics, has identity with the whole "image" of the human race.8
Other lesser arguments may be simply stated because of space. In the womb man is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14), an indirect correspondence to the image. A person may be regenerated from the time of conception.9 John the Baptist in his mother’s womb was “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Lk. 1:15b) and showed a conscious response the Jesus’ presence (Lk. 1:41). Throughout life each person has the innate ability of knowledge and reason, even though his physical condition may not allow the expression of his abilities.10
Applications in Medicine
The first, and possibly the most important, is that man is unique. Simply, man is or his is not. The technological dilemmas created by modern medicine have compelled some scholars to derive categories for man under certain conditions where he may be treated differently than at other times. Even Christians have been swayed under this compulsion. Dr. Norman Geisler describes the unborn child as “not fully human,” “a potentially human being,” and “pre-human,”11 As he discusses people with severe medical conditions (e.g. the permanently comatose and terminally ill), he uses the description “sub-human,” “post-human,” and not “truly-human.”12 Dr. Gareth Jones in his discussion of abortion and early gestational life uses “potential person,” “personhood,” and “personal and non-personal fetuses.”13 Dr. Jones even states that “the fetus is being built into the image and likeness of God.”14
These descriptions, which are also categories, are inconsistent with the presence of the image of God in man even with the distortion of that image by sin. The only allowable categories for human beings are alive or dead. The union of an egg and sperm produces a person who is fully human regardless of defects or lace of “normality” until the time of his or her death. No philosophical or moral qualification of a “person” is possible. A person is (alive) or is not (dead). To make a category for humans other than alive or dead is to allow abortion for a variety of reasons, to allow experimentation of the unborn (as is current in England with the human embryo up to two weeks), and to allow the use of a drug or other means to kill or aid in the suicide of a terminally-ill person.
The second application is a prohibition of the union of a human gamete (egg or sperm), with a non-human gamete (sperm or egg). First, God created every “kind” to procreate after its own “kind” (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Second, He specifically proscribes the mixing of kinds in certain situations (Lev. 19:19, Dt. 22:9). One distinction, however, is necessary in this prohibition: the substitution of parts rather than the whole is allowable. That is, a whole person is an entity that is entirely distinct from his isolated liver or heart. Pertaining to our discussion, parts of animals (from whole organs, such as hearts, to sequences of genes) sequences could be transferred to humans.15
The third application is the elevated status given to all humans, especially those encountered routinely in medical practice who are markedly deformed. Physically, they may be children who are severely retarded or otherwise brain-damaged, adults crippled with metastatic cancer, or the elderly patient whose mind no longer functions rationally or responds minimally to external stimuli. Spiritually, they may be the obnoxious alcoholic who presents at the emergency room in the middle of the night, the persistent hypochondriac who defies any concrete diagnosis or response to treatment, or the devastated wife who has been infected with gonorrhea by her unfaithful husband. The contrast in behavior wrought be differences in the terms that describe man is striking. A health care worker either approaches patients first to determine whether they are persons and then treats them accordingly or he approaches patients first to determine whether they are persons and then treats them accordingly or he approaches them with the conscious attitude that they are created in the image of God. In other words does “personhood” or “image of God” more greatly enhance the treatment of the patient. Further, which concept gives direction to solutions to their problems?
The fourth application is that the image of God does not require that everything medically be done for all people. Sickness and injury are directly or indirectly a result of the sine of Adam and Eve and personal sin.1 The state of sin is spiritual, not physical. That is, medicine cannot restore the fullness of the image of God in man. The image conditions man’s treatment of other men, but it should not be the goal of men to restore it physically. The dream to cure all medical problems and make man immortal can be seen as an attempt to restore the image of God in man. The care and treatment of the body is not to be minimized, but it must be considered along with the other biblical responsibilities of individuals, families, churches, and societies.
A fifth application concerns eugenics. Although the application of this concept to genetic engineering seems new, eugenics has been a focus of some social planners for the last hundred years. Most states still have laws that certain people who are mentally retarded or have mental illness may not have children and may even be sterilized. Eugenics, then, is the attempt to breed men and women in ways that will enhance certain characteristics, such as intelligence and athletic ability. Again, however, the major problem with man is his deformed spirit, not his physical limitations. Is a mental retardate who is faithful to his wife “better” than the Nobel laureate who is unfaithful to his marriage? This position is not, however, to exclude the correction of genetic abnormalities that have been clearly identified with physical problems. A chapter in a book soon to be published by me will discuss eugenics at some length.
At certain points we reach our limitations. We have reached that limitation in current expenditures, as indicated by the forced cutbacks in federal and private spending for medical care. We reach that point when medical treatment no longer offers a reasonable chance of cure in terminally ill patients or prolongs their inevitable death. We are not God who can restore that image; neither are we God to harm or destroy that image. We are finite in our ability even to correct the physical damage of sin upon that image. The image of God both enhances our attitude toward patients and places God-ordained limits on what we are able to do.
References
1. Heimburger, Dough, “A Biblical Model for Medical Ethics,” 1(1):5-10, 1987.
2. If any reader is not familiar with these categories, he cannot seriously pursue biblical ethics in medicine. Many principles are necessarily different according to which category is believed. My primary sources for the Reformed position are:
Berkhof, L., Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939. pp.202-210.
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. I. Trans. by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979, pp. 162-167.
Clark, Gordon H., The Biblical Doctrine of Man, Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1984, pp. 5-19.
Kuyper, Abraham, The Work of the Holy Spirit. Trans. by J. Hendri De Vries, Reprint. Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1900. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979, pp. 203-251.
Murray, John, Collected Writings. Vol. II., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976, pp. 34-46.
3. Adams, Jay E., More Than Redemption. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979, pp. 108-118.
4. Kuyper, Abraham, Principles of Sacred Theology. Trans. by J. Hendrik De Vries, Reprint. Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology Its Principles. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1898. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980, pp. 106-149; Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man. pp. 14-19.
5. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man. pp. 34-46.
6. The Westminster Confession of Faith, II.I., states that God is “without body, parts, or passions.” See a discussion of this description in What Presbyterians Believe. Gordon H. Clark, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1965.
7. Clark, Biblical Doctrine of Man, p.9.
8. Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, pp. 150-182.
9. Kuyper, Work of the Holy Spirit, pp. 107-308.
10. Clark, Biblical Doctrine of Man, p.15.
11. Geisler, N.L. Ethics: Issues and Alternatives, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971, pp. 219, 234.
12. Ibid., p. 234.
13. Jones, D>G., Brave New People, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984, pp. 156-184.
14. Ibid., p. 172.
15. This statement is not to endorse every substitution of animal parts for humans’ parts. The issue is a separate ethical subject in itself. For example, the brain, testicles and ovaries may come so close to the identity of the whole, that these should not be transplanted.
16. Payne, F.E., Biblical/Medical Ethics, Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1985, p. 79--83.
Additional Literature
Christian couples with fertility problems may benefit from The Beginnings of Life: Human Fertilization and Embryo Research.
This twelve-page pamphlet deals succinctly and Biblically with modern medical methods of dealing with infertility problems. The pain of childlessness is compassionately discussed in light of Biblical principles, followed by a lucid analysis of their application to in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination by donor and by husband. It is written to be comprehensible by readers with no medical training. The pamphlet was published in 1986 by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and is available from: Covenanter Book Shop, 98 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 or Evangelical Book Shop, 15 College Square East, Belfast BT16DD. The cost depends upon the U.S. dollar’s exchange rate with the British pound.
Our mail brought some information relating to literature and other helps for homosexuals and those ministering to them.
Healing for the Homosexual, a booklet of testimonies containing sound Biblical principles regarding this life-consuming but escapable sin, is available from Presbyterian & Reformed Renewal Ministries, Int’l, 2245 N.W. 39th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73112.
Transformation Ministries, P.O. box 55805, Seattle, WA 98155, offering a number of resources for homosexuals seeking release through obedience to Jesus Christ.
Another resource for making contact with ministries and material related to homosexuality is Exodus International, P.O. Box 2121, San Rafael, CA 94912.
http://www.bmei.org/jbem/volume1/num4/the_image_of_god_and_the_practice_of_medicine.php
Minggu, 16 Mei 2010
Galatians 5
The Galatians was in danger of a false teaching that day, so thus we are nowadays. Misunderstanding of the grace though the cross. How people understand the Moses’ law and the works of Christ, the savior.
The law about circumcision is a Good mark for his beloved people that He keep them in becoming the channel of salvation. These people has been trusted by GOD alone. Abraham was given a promise by GOD and He alone established the covenant that mark by circumcision. That make them special because of GOD faithful promise to human kind, to those He love, those whom GOD choice.
When Christ went up and died on the cross, the promise was fulfill. The masterpiece of GOD’s love was shown on the cross. It is because of GOD alone the work of salvation. The law doesn’t save human. It show us to know our sin and fault. By the law, we are proclaimed guilty and we are need to be punished. The death is the penalty. However, Christ on the cross, He take the death penalty, the wrath of GOD, so His beloved one, doesn’t have to dead, but to live with HIM forever.
Paul said, “The person who accepts the ways of circumcision trades all the advantages of the free life in Christ for the obligations of the slave life of the law.”
Somewhat the Galatians think that they need to fulfill the law in order to gain the salvation. It is totally wrong ! nothing can replace the God’s work on salvation. Salvation is in Christ alone !
Come on... don’t be obsessive about Circumcision. you are about to castrate your self from God promise and grace.
Next, Paul teach us about freedom. God called us to be free in Christ however we shall not use this kind freedom to do what ever we want and then destroy the freedom it self. We aren’t slave anymore, we are not the slave of sin. God has set us free. Therefore in our freedom we should serve one another in love. Love is the one to set us free. So free to love the other and grow in love. As GOD’s second ultimate command to love the other as to love our self. watch out—in no time at all you will be annihilating each other, and where will your precious freedom be then?
My counsel is this: Live freely, animated and motivated by God's Spirit. Then you won't feed the compulsions of selfishness. For there is a root of sinful self-interest in us that is at odds with a free spirit, just as the free spirit is incompatible with selfishness. These two ways of life are antithetical, so that you cannot live at times one way and at times another way according to how you feel on any given day. Why don't you choose to be led by the Spirit and so escape the erratic compulsions of a law-dominated existence?
sometime or many time in our life, we live like this condition. We are become those two ways that contradicted one another. our selfishness is the one that hold us back from what we should to be. The will of our flesh and the will of GOD. Therefore, live in the spirit. Let you be free to live in the spirit. Give our live to be led by spirit, and we won’t live under the law anymore.
If we want to live by our own way, live in flesh and follow its sinful desire. The result of this action are repetitive, loveless, cheap sex; a stinking accumulation of mental and emotional garbage; frenzied and joyless grabs for happiness; trinket gods; magic-show religion; paranoid loneliness; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; uncontrolled and uncontrollable addictions; ugly parodies of community.
If you use your freedom this way, you will not inherit God's kingdom !!
So... What shall we get if we live in spirit ??
We will produce fruit with many taste. Here is the fruit : things like affection for others, exuberance about life, serenity. We develop a willingness to stick with things, a sense of compassion in the heart, and a conviction that a basic holiness permeates things and people. We find ourselves involved in loyal commitments, not needing to force our way in life, able to marshal and direct our energies wisely.
Don’t be a legalist !! legalism is helpless in bringing this about. It won’t produce salvation. Rather you will find your way lead nowhere but destruction.
Among those who belong to Christ, everything connected with getting our own way and mindlessly (the act of flesh and sin) responding to what everyone else calls necessities is killed off for good—it is being crucified with Christ on the cross.
Since this is the kind of life we have chosen, the life of the Spirit, let us make sure that we do not just hold it as an idea in our heads or a sentiment in our hearts, but work out its implications in every detail of our lives. That means we will not compare ourselves with each other as if one of us were better and another worse. We have far more interesting things to do with our lives. Each of us is an original.
(Some passage is taken from the message)
The law about circumcision is a Good mark for his beloved people that He keep them in becoming the channel of salvation. These people has been trusted by GOD alone. Abraham was given a promise by GOD and He alone established the covenant that mark by circumcision. That make them special because of GOD faithful promise to human kind, to those He love, those whom GOD choice.
When Christ went up and died on the cross, the promise was fulfill. The masterpiece of GOD’s love was shown on the cross. It is because of GOD alone the work of salvation. The law doesn’t save human. It show us to know our sin and fault. By the law, we are proclaimed guilty and we are need to be punished. The death is the penalty. However, Christ on the cross, He take the death penalty, the wrath of GOD, so His beloved one, doesn’t have to dead, but to live with HIM forever.
Paul said, “The person who accepts the ways of circumcision trades all the advantages of the free life in Christ for the obligations of the slave life of the law.”
Somewhat the Galatians think that they need to fulfill the law in order to gain the salvation. It is totally wrong ! nothing can replace the God’s work on salvation. Salvation is in Christ alone !
Come on... don’t be obsessive about Circumcision. you are about to castrate your self from God promise and grace.
Next, Paul teach us about freedom. God called us to be free in Christ however we shall not use this kind freedom to do what ever we want and then destroy the freedom it self. We aren’t slave anymore, we are not the slave of sin. God has set us free. Therefore in our freedom we should serve one another in love. Love is the one to set us free. So free to love the other and grow in love. As GOD’s second ultimate command to love the other as to love our self. watch out—in no time at all you will be annihilating each other, and where will your precious freedom be then?
My counsel is this: Live freely, animated and motivated by God's Spirit. Then you won't feed the compulsions of selfishness. For there is a root of sinful self-interest in us that is at odds with a free spirit, just as the free spirit is incompatible with selfishness. These two ways of life are antithetical, so that you cannot live at times one way and at times another way according to how you feel on any given day. Why don't you choose to be led by the Spirit and so escape the erratic compulsions of a law-dominated existence?
sometime or many time in our life, we live like this condition. We are become those two ways that contradicted one another. our selfishness is the one that hold us back from what we should to be. The will of our flesh and the will of GOD. Therefore, live in the spirit. Let you be free to live in the spirit. Give our live to be led by spirit, and we won’t live under the law anymore.
If we want to live by our own way, live in flesh and follow its sinful desire. The result of this action are repetitive, loveless, cheap sex; a stinking accumulation of mental and emotional garbage; frenzied and joyless grabs for happiness; trinket gods; magic-show religion; paranoid loneliness; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; uncontrolled and uncontrollable addictions; ugly parodies of community.
If you use your freedom this way, you will not inherit God's kingdom !!
So... What shall we get if we live in spirit ??
We will produce fruit with many taste. Here is the fruit : things like affection for others, exuberance about life, serenity. We develop a willingness to stick with things, a sense of compassion in the heart, and a conviction that a basic holiness permeates things and people. We find ourselves involved in loyal commitments, not needing to force our way in life, able to marshal and direct our energies wisely.
Don’t be a legalist !! legalism is helpless in bringing this about. It won’t produce salvation. Rather you will find your way lead nowhere but destruction.
Among those who belong to Christ, everything connected with getting our own way and mindlessly (the act of flesh and sin) responding to what everyone else calls necessities is killed off for good—it is being crucified with Christ on the cross.
Since this is the kind of life we have chosen, the life of the Spirit, let us make sure that we do not just hold it as an idea in our heads or a sentiment in our hearts, but work out its implications in every detail of our lives. That means we will not compare ourselves with each other as if one of us were better and another worse. We have far more interesting things to do with our lives. Each of us is an original.
(Some passage is taken from the message)
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)