Sacrifice

So, a few years ago I was challenged by a definition of sacrifice that has had me scratching my head since.

sacrifice: giving up something of great value for something of lesser value

This gives a greater understanding of Christ's sacrifice for us (the righteous for the unrighteous, God for man, the Prince of Glory for sinners), but on another level, it brings up so many questions! With this definition, is it truly possible for us to sacrifice anything for Christ? What we give up is worth so much less than what we gain, that is it truly any kind of sacrifice? Yet, we are clearly told that God delights in our sacrifices. This has been a great puzzlement.

We discussed I Peter 2:1-5 with a small group of folks from church and the confusion began to be cleared away. Drew and I discussed it more as we drove home and I think I've got a much better handle on it.

I think there's a place for the above definition on a horizontal level, and when we think of the Lord sacrificing himself for us, but it falls short when we think vertically in an upward direction.

Horizontally: we must ask ourselves if we're really sacrificing when we want to think we are. If a mother says that she sacrificed her career for her children, isn't she really saying that her career was the more important of the two? If I claim to sacrifice my time in order to educate my children, aren't I really valuing my time above my children? Am I proud of my sacrifices? Hmmm … questions to consider.

Vertically: the sacrifice the Lord demands of us isn't based on any kind of valuation of what's offered (that's because of his grace in receiving our meager, dirty-rag offerings, not because our offerings are so high and valuable). Rather it's based on the fact that, biblically, sacrifices are dedicated totally to the Lord. When we're told to offer ourselves as living sacrifices, Paul isn't implying that we're more important that what we get in return, relationship with the Lord and the opportunity to glorify him; rather that we should wholly devote ourselves to serving and glorifying the Lord. It's about whole-hearted dedication, devotion, and passion for Christ.

And, to loosely paraphrase John Piper, as we serve Christ, we also enjoy him, which brings him the most glory.

SDG!

Socialized Medicine: Disaster or Opportunity?

The recently-passed pork package 'Stimulus bill' contained several provisions to start us on the road toward socialized medicine. As wrong as I think this is on a philosophical and Constitutional level, our family still has to deal with the fall-out of this decision.

Caring for the sick is a mandate from Christ to his people. Up until the 20th Century, life spans were short and hard, filled with pain and suffering.

As the church matured, caring for the sick became an important focus of ministry. According to Wikipedia:

The adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the [Roman] empire drove an expansion of the provision of care. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. urged the Church to provide for the poor, sick, widows, and strangers. It ordered the construction of a hospital in every cathedral town. Among the earliest were those built by the physician Saint Sampson in Constantinople and by Basil, bishop of Caesarea. The latter was attached to a monastery and provided lodgings for poor and travelers, as well as treating the sick and infirm. There was a separate section for lepers.

Health care, in the context of the Christian church, was viewed as an opportunity for ministry.  Just as we will always have the poor with us, so we will always have the sick with us, simply because we live in a fallen world.  This attitude, that caring for the sick is a ministry, continued on for most of history.  Think about the country doctor who would deliver a baby in exchange for a couple of chickens.  He lived among those he ministered to and, even if he didn't become rich, was held in high esteem by the community.  His care wasn't just technical; it was ministry, based on love and compassion.  (edit: A friend told me Sunday evening that he knew doctors who worked like this up to the 1980's.)

Then someone, somewhere, suggested that, if we wanted more doctors of better quality, we should pay them more and medical care became a business. This lead to people entering the medical profession for the money, not for the sake of ministry and compassion.  Doctors became businessmen more than ministers.  (Do I have to say it?  Okay.  Not all doctors are in it for the money - I know those who aren't - I'm speaking in general terms.)

This new attitude brings us to our current situation.  Health care is big business.  But it's not really a free market.  Because of tax laws that don't tax health insurance benefits, to save money and attract high-quality employees, employers began offering health insurance as an extra benefit.  However, those who were covered forgot that their health benefits were part of their pay, earned just as their paychecks are earned.  Because costs of health-care weren't coming directly from their own pockets, they stopped comparison shopping and considering if certain tests and procedures were truly necessary and beneficial.  We haven't had a free market in health care.  (There are exceptions in certain specialties that aren't covered by insurance, such as cosmetic surgery, and the free market has worked well, encouraging competition, comparison shopping, dropping prices, and higher quality.  No, I'm not planning on cosmetic surgery - it's simply an interesting microcosm of what the free market could do for medicine in general, if it were given a chance, although it wouldn't solve every problem (more below).)

With the nationalization of health care, rationing will be the order of the day.  The first thing done was to create a national committee to oversee health care (signed into law today in Denver).  You may pay for a procedure or a medicine (either out of your own pocket or through your insurance company), but this committee can and will call your doctor and tell him not to do the procedure or to stop the medication, all in the name of cutting costs.  Doctors who try to buck the system will be fined and fined heavily.  They won't be able to do what you and the doctor together think is best, but will have to abide by decisions of an unelected (and thus unaccountable) bureaucrat in Washington.

Nationalized medicine is a very bad thing, but it could turn out to be a golden opportunity for the church.  The church must step back in and care for the sick as a ministry.  Families should be prepared to care for their own.  When there is no family available, or if the family is unable to care fully for their own, then the church should step in to help.  At this point, we won't be able to offer medications (there's even a drive to make medicinal herbs available by prescription only), but we can offer comfort, compassion, nourishment for body and soul, a human touch, and love.  These are vital components of caring for the sick that have been largely lost in the rush to make it a business instead of a ministry, components that the family and the church can and must offer.

We will be learning how to care well for someone who is sick: how to change bedsheets while someone is in the bed, how to avoid bed sores, how to feed the sick so as to help and comfort them, possibly light massage to help ease aching muscles.  I'm going to work more on my kids' ability to read aloud well, in preparation for caring for someone who needs human companionship, to hear a human voice, yet who might not be up to conversing.

And yes, I've got some selfish motivations here.  As cost becomes everything, euthanasia will grow, not all of it voluntary (do a little research on euthanasia in the Netherlands for a peek at where we're headed).  My kids have assured me that I won't be left to the vicissitudes of a bureaucrat's arbitrary decisions regarding whether I live or die if I ever become simply a 'worthless eater'.  They plan to care for me at home out of appreciation for my work in caring for, educating, and raising them.  Now that's a health care system I can believe in.

SDG!

Transitions

To continue my last post...

Given Cindy's comment (her concern isn't a possibility at our church as there are well over 500 members), I've been thinking about the balance between community and cleaving.

For a single person who has been rightly encouraged to be involved in the lives of others, investing in them and letting them invest in him in return, there's a huge transition in getting married.

Instead of thinking of the feelings of lots of others, one's new spouse becomes pre-eminent and that one person must be considered above and possibly against all others (after the Lord, I'm talkin' horizontal relationships in this post).

That doesn't mean that the new couple doesn't continue to invest in the lives of others, but it does change the nature of that investment and those other relationships.

SDG!

Theology of Wedding Planning

Anna mentioned something to me in an email today. She's been contemplating a 'theology of wedding planning'. This is a great thing to think about and I'm going to join her in musing about it.

First of all: (to quote CJ Mahaney) the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. 'What is the main thing?' you ask. As always, for those of us who have been regenerated by the power of Christ through the gospel - the glory of Christ and a focus on that saving gospel is the main thing.

Secondly: it's important to remember the purpose of a wedding - that two people end up married at the end of the day.

Community is also an important factor. Marriages don't take place in a vacuum. Even though it's a limited relationship between one man and one woman, what that one man and that one woman do in the privacy of their home has repercussions throughout the community. It works the other way, too. The community influences and underpins the marriage relationship. When two sinners say 'I do', they will need the help and support of that community to glorify the Lord in their marriage (back to the main thing). Sin always rears its ugly head and when it does, those not so emotionally involved, yet who love the couple, need to come alongside and help (help each party see his or her own sin, repent, and then to forgive the sin of the other as well as to provide accountability). Biblical marriages happen in the context of community.

How does that work out practically in the arena of wedding planning? Ah, that's the question! I'll continue this train of thought as I talk with Anna about it.

SDG!

Engage…

He's done it! Drew proposed to Anna last night and she joyfully agreed to be his wife!

He spent yesterday setting up a scavenger hunt for her. She started here when she arrived home from work. He had left a package with a new dress, shoes, her favorite scent, a beautiful necklace and earrings that coordinated with the shoes and dress, a letter, and a hint. She was in a bit of shock. She began to suspect what he was up to, but wouldn't let herself go down that path because if he wasn't going to propose last night, she didn't want to disappointed in whatever he was doing.

Then she came to us and we spent some time encouraging her with the evidence of God's grace that we've been seeing in her life and we prayed for her. Then we gave her a yellow rose and another card that contained a clue about where she would be going next.

She had five other stops, where her friends, care group leaders, and pastors encouraged her and spoke about the Lord's work in her and in Drew. They each also gave her a rose and a letter from Drew.

Her last stop was at Tempe Town Lake where Drew was waiting nervously for her. He met her with another six roses to make a dozen and shared with her how thankful he was for what the Lord had done for the two of them. Then he dropped to one knee and asked if she would be willing to be his wife. She dropped to two knees and said, 'Yes, yes, yes!!!'

Then they came to a friend's house where about 40 of us were waiting to celebrate with them. What joy! I was asked a few times how I was feeling, with the expectation that I must be weepy and view this as bittersweet, but I'm not and I don't. We've been working to prepare her for this for over 21 years. How can it be bittersweet when the Lord answers our prayers for her? I feel nothing but joy and gratitude at the blessing that young Drew is to Anna.

So, now we move into wedding planning mode. Since I write about what I'm thinking about and what I'm doing and what the kids are doing, expect to see wedding musings and progress reports.

I think it's time to go watch Father of the Bride again!

SDG!

Harmony

Last night, there were a dozen of us at care group, sitting around a friend's living room, singing to the Lord - no electric guitars, no electronic amplification, no sound board - just a simple acoustic guitar accompanied us. Each voice added its own timbre, its own harmony, its own color. The result was a beauty that none of us individually could have created.

Corporate worship is a striking metaphor of the body of Christ. Each contributes his own gift toward the beauty of the whole. As our voices blend together, filling the room, rising in prayer, we begin to understand how the body works and the utter beauty of it.

It doesn't happen in a rush or a hurry.

Unlike a concert, where the music from the stage must be loud enough to drown out those who sing along (after all, you didn't pay to hear me sing, but to hear the band), during worship, we must be able to hear one another and we must be willing to listen to one another in order to harmonize or the result is simply jarring discord.

We must adjust ourselves to what we hear, rather than trying to make others adjust to us. We must be willing to step out and sing the notes that we have been given, rather than trying to sing the notes of another.

However, we must sing the same song, submitting to the one who is leading, or the result is cacophony rather than beauty. Yet the leader must lead people of varying musical abilities. Rather than singing a soaring solo with syncopated rhythms that are difficult to follow, the leader must submit to the duty of leading in a way that makes following not only possible, but agreeable.

This mutual submission makes the beauty of sung worship possible. Mutual submission also makes the beauty of lived worship in the context of covenant community possible. The one is a fitting metaphor for the other.

SDG!

No Condemnation!

Romans 8:1 tells us that, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” I’ve been loosely tethered to this verse for the last couple of months, trying to understand it, to bring it from the confessional level to the functional level. Last night, at church, one of our pastors worked hard to drill this joyful idea deeply into our souls.

Tracy Lee Simmons wrote: "Ideas are shadowy and inert without [words]. But with words to clothe them, ideas take on form."

And he’s right. On the way home, I decided that I just didn’t really understand what condemnation means. It was the Invisible Man and needed words to clothe it so I could get a better glimpse of it.

My best guess was destined to be punished because of guilt. While this isn’t wrong, it’s only part of the story.

When I looked it up in Webster’s New World Dictionary and Noah Webster’s 1848 Facsimile Dictionary, I learned that this word means a great deal more than I’d ever imagined. From the two dictionaries, I discovered quite a bit that made this verse come alive.

There is therefore now no condemnation (no guilt, no punishment, no doom, no rejection, no censure, no blame, no disapprobation, no disapproval, no declaration of being unfit, no determination of being wrong) for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Now there’s an Invisible Man made visible!