In recent days I have seen a circle drawn around the category of persecution that minimizes what some folk are going through. You’ll find that someone looks at Fox Book of Martyrs and defines “real” persecution as the things that those people had experienced.  You don’t have to run too far down the Internet—do a search for “real persecution” and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Indeed, in a recent sermon I myself have downplayed persecution in the west showing that we don’t really know what this feels like (yet). There is another side to this that I think is important to mention.

Merriam-Webster defines persecute as “to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically: to cause to suffer because of belief”. This harassment can be for any belief. This punishment can be in any form—it doesn’t necessarily have to be a beheading or a lion’s den.

What the folk above are doing is taking a taxicab that let’s them off at their stop (beheadings or gladiator fights or prison) but anything further isn’t persecution. Ignore what the individuals are going through, move right along.

The Bible also doesn’t limit persecution to imprisonment or death. Surely it lists persecution that culminates in death (Jeremiah 26:20-23; Acts 7:52) but it doesn’t have to end there. For instance, Jesus began to be persecuted long before he was crucified (John 5:16)—but what form did that persecution take?

The fact is that the Bible lists persecution as things that one can suffer and get through (1 Corinthians 4:12). It lists it as things that a person can sometimes live to talk about and, somehow, take pleasure in (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Examples of Persecution in the Bible

• Abraham’s descendants were persecuted in Egypt for being Hebrews. The boys, of a certain age, were thrown into the Nile, they were enslaved, and the labor rules were ridiculous (Exodus 1-3)
• Some persecution led to people having to leave their homes and scatter (Acts 8:1).
• Being pulled out of your home and arrested (Acts 8:3).
• Suffering “reproach”, which is verbal persecution (Jeremiah 15:15; Romans 15:3; Proverbs 17:5)
• Someone lying about you (Psalm 119:86)
• Being hated and rejected (Isaiah 53:3)
• Changing work practice (necessity of bowing to idols in Dan 3:1)
• Changing legal code (prayers now offered to the king Daniel 6:5-10)
• Strict orders against the belief (Acts 5:28)
• A flogging (Acts 5:40)
• Distressing societal norms  (2 Peter 2:7)

What the Bible shows us is that when we humans employ diogmos, to harass or oppress or pursue, we are often incredibly creative. Making someone’s life a hell is much more satisfying when we can keep the target alive. Indeed, in some cases (like Lot’s) the target doesn’t necessarily have to be in the crosshairs. It could just be that folk are proudly reveling in their own depravity and persecute without even realizing it.

Reactions During Persecution

In some cases the persecuted cry out to God (Exodus 1) and in others they carry on their activity as they did the day before (Daniel 6). In some cases the entire culture around the persecuted changes resulting in them being the folk left standing (Daniel 3, Genesis 19) and in other cases they stand in direct opposition to the status quo resulting in their persecution (ie: Jesus). Sometimes the persecuted went to jail and sang in prison (Acts 16) and other times they invoked their civil rights (Acts 22:25) before the punishment was enacted. Sometimes the persecuted went silently to the slaughter and other times they openly cried out to God.

The persecution was a fact that varied in form. The reaction was just as varied, even with the call to consistently maintain faith in God who is even working out that persecution for the good of those who love Christ Jesus and thus ultimately a source for rejoicing.

Now, does that mean that every situation where someone says, “I’m being persecuted” is indeed a case of persecution? No. In some cases, it might just be victimology (to borrow a term). We might see the idea of being a victim, just as persecution, across multiple groups of people.

And yet, there are cases of legal action taken against a person for their beliefs, or a loss of job, or within academia, or being thrown into prison (instead of allowing a conscientious dissent), or business contracts being denied or, well whatever—like I said we’re creative—we shouldn’t be so hasty so as to dismiss the pain or ignore the reality of the persecution.  You can see some other modern examples in the book by DA Carson on intolerance.

Yes, the persecution has not succeeded to the ultimate level of death, but that chain of suffering that culminates in death has to start somewhere. Perhaps, in a civil society, it has to start further back before getting much worst.

Technorati Tags: persecution, perseverance, suffering

The post Sometimes, It Really Is Persecution appeared first on Rey Reynoso's Bible Archive.

On this side of eternity we will sin. I’m not saying we must sin. Sin is not necessary to human life but it is part of human life. On this side of eternity we will struggle with it. We will sin.

Indeed, there will be times in lives where we think we’re doing okay, where things seem to be going fine, and then we hear a sermon or see a passage in the Bible, or read an article, or hear an argument where we find ourselves convicted of sin. We wind up convicted of some specific thing that we thought was okay but now we see it is wrong.

Perhaps there is a specific sin that we keep slipping into, like a well-fitting sweater or comfy shoes.  Or the sin we’ve committed a long time ago, before even thinking it was a sin, and now we see it for what it is.  We’ve sinned.

In the blogging vogue, here are eleven things (to limit it to a readable number) to keep in mind in regards to sin.

01. Your Ignorance Isn’t Necessarily Sin (Though It Can Be)

Paul, in the early church, noted that there was a problem of meats offered to false gods and people participating in activity that could be misconstrued. But what to do if someone invites you over to a meal? Well, he says, If you want to eat, eat without asking where the meat came from so that you and your host’s conscience remain clear. Eat the meat to the glory of God but, if the problem point is brought to light, then don’t eat.  Realize there is a space for being honestly ignorant. That being said that doesn’t absolve you from responsibility in all cases. Sometimes your ignorance is God’s grace protecting you. At other times it is part of your maturing as a believer. What’s important here is that once your ignorance is informed, you need to act. (1 Corinthians 10; Numbers 15:22-31; Leviticus 4 ; 2 Tim 3:7).

02. You Are Part of a Company of Sinners (and Saints)

Paul—an apostle, a major contributor to the New Testament, and eventually a martyr—described himself as the chief sinner. John—the loved follower, took care of Jesus’ mom, also an apostle—eventually writes that if you say you don’t sin you’re a liar. Peter—an apostle, a follower of Christ, and eventually a martyr—denied Jesus and later in life had some major flubs. You are part of a family that sins; you’re not alone. (1 Tim 1:15; 1 John 1:8; Romans 5).

03. Your Conscience Can Notify You of Sin

One of God’s gifts to mankind is the conscience: innate knowledge of right or wrong that clues people in to when they’ve done wrong. There is a problem. Keep sinning while ignoring your conscience and eventually your conscience is numb to sin. If your conscience is recoiling about something, if you feel convicted, it’s wise to take notice because we stand before our Lord as a servant before his master: use his gifts to honor him. (Romans 14)

04. Admit You Have Sinned

Like the lawyer who had to be told the story of the Good Samaritan, we’re good at justifying ourselves. The danger with that route is that we get what we want; we justify ourselves in our own eyes at the expense of the truth. In so doing we deny dealing with the sin in favor of embracing it. So admit you sinned, not only to another but against the Lord himself. (Psalms 51; Luke 10:25-37)

05. God Understands Your Weakness

Jesus didn’t sin; he was tempted. Jesus didn’t fail; he remained true. He alone had the right to do whatever he wanted and instead what he wanted was to remain obedient. He went to the cross while remaining completely, totally, and utterly faithful. He did that for the glory of God, and in our place. That means that God gets it. He knows what we are going through. (Philippians 2, Hebrews 4)

06. Confess Your Sin

Scripture encourages us to confess our sins—not to every person on every corner, nor to a priest in a cubicle, but to the Father himself and to each other. We can boldly enter in to the very presence of God without fear of obliteration so that we can be honest before Him and tell him where we’ve done wrong. Sure he knows everything, but like the Dad who knows junior has done wrong, he wants us to come to him and say “I’m sorry. (James 5:16; 1 John 1:9)

07. When We’ve Sinned, God Remains on Our Side

This isn’t to say that God agrees with our sin but it is to say that we do have an advocate: Christ Himself. We’ve done wrong but Christ remains faithful. We’ve done wrong but the God who justifies us is the one who judges. We’ve done wrong but God remains on our side.  We have sinned but God is the one working in us to perfect us: nothing will separate us from his love and plan. (John 2:1-2; Romans 8; Phil 4)

08. Our Sins Have Been Paid For

The reason we won’t be separated from God’s love is because Christ’s scourging has healed us while our debt was paid for in Christ’s body on the cross. The list of rules against us has been nailed to his cross so that the debt for our trespass is removed. So much so that Paul can say that we’ve died in Christ—our sin is paid for. (1 Pet 2:24; Romans 5; Colossians 2)

09. Our Sin Is Replaced By Christ’s Righteousness

We’re not good enough. We never could be. The fact is that God has taken the very good of Christ and applied it on our behalf. We don’t stand on our own merit or righteousness but rather on the merit and righteousness of Christ which is credited on our behalf. This is a great thing because it means although we’ve majorly screwed up we are still declared righteous. (Romans 3)

10. Repent From Your Sin and Give It Another Go

Since we’ve been identified in Christ’s death we have also been identified in his resurrection. That means that our sinful self is swallowed up in Christ’s perfect and new life. Just like he got up from the dead and walked around, we can fail, have no threat of the condemnation of wrath, reject our sin, get up, and give life another go. (Romans 6, 8)

11. Do Better; Sin No More

We aren’t free to willfully sin so that we get God’s forgiveness. We’re not free to shrug at sin as if it isn’t any big deal. Nor are we to happily embrace our failure and nonchalantly admit that we deserve hell. Scripture repeatedly encourages us to take drastic measure. Run from the sin. Plan to turn from it. Actively excise it from your life. Like the man forgiven at the pool of Bethesda, we find God’s grace exceeds our ability but we still receive the mandate to “go and sin no more” and to “keep his commandments”. And yet, in all of this, take comfort that God has poured out the Holy Spirit within you so that you can stand in the day of trial and trouble. (John 14; Romans 6; 1 John 2; John 5)

Concluding Thoughts On Sin

More can be said. The nature of blog lists is that they are fabulously limited. The point here is this: we are not perfect, we do sin, and we have a savior who saves to the uttermost. Lean into him.

Technorati Tags: confession, gospel, sin, struggle, temptation

The post I’ve Sinned; Now What? Eleven Reminders For Dealing with Sin appeared first on Rey Reynoso's Bible Archive.

We are expecting our fifth child. That’s not an apology. Almost every time someone hears that I have more than two children, eyes widen, jaw drops, and questions are raised about my sanity. At the very least a suggestion is offered that my wife and I find a new hobby.

And, more often than not, men have recommended a vasectomy.

A vasectomy is a lightly invasive surgical procedure that makes men infertile. The man can do everything he could do before the surgery except (in a few rare cases) get a woman pregnant. At the end, couples can enjoy sex without the expectation that they’ll get pregnant. As such, there have been reports (surveys and some anecdotal—offered to me in sage counsel) of greater sexual enjoyment.

In this post, I want to offer my personal struggle with vasectomies, tubal ligations and any other forms of self-imposed permanent contraception. This is not a defense of the Quiverfull movement. It is a man wrestling with a specific issue.

Two up-front warnings: (1) although this post will not be needlessly graphic it is necessarily sensitive; (2) this post is long.

The Biblical Joys of Sex

Folks, the Bible talks about sex being enjoyable. There’s an entire book of the Old Testament, Song of Solomon, which is actually a steamy (often erotic) poem about a bride and her groom. Yes the poem can be read as an intimate description of Christ and the Church but on a straight reading you get straight up heat.

Song of Solomon 1:2, shows the bride thinking about her groom kissing her on the mouth with kisses that bring more enjoyment, satisfaction, and bliss than wine. And that’s only the second verse. The rest of the book has the woman openly and happily pursuing her groom, welcoming him in, asking him to stay, seeking his embrace, and fully expecting their union.

Proverbs 5:15-19, a book about advice and wisdom under God, encourages men to drink water from their own cistern—a poetic image for enjoying their wives. The passage can make you blush with its graphic description of how men are to enjoy their spouse.

So from both sexes, we see that the Biblical picture of sex includes pleasure and enjoyment.

And yet that’s not listed as the purpose of sex. It is a corollary but not the end goal.

The Bible also depicts sex as being used to comfort someone who has experienced loss 2 Samuel 2:24; something done out of a sense of companionship (Song 3:1); and even something done out of obligation (1 Cor 7:4). What’s important about that last passage is that not only is the wife obligated towards her husband but also the husband is obligated towards his wife. So Paul can tell both the husband and wife not to deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement and then only for a short time (1 Cor 7:5).

Sex creates oneness between husband and wife (Genesis 2:24), biologically used to properly fill the earth (Genesis 1:28—before the fall, Genesis 9:1,7—after the fall), but it is designed, says Paul, to depict the relationship of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). Paul looks at sex and marriage and says that the passage in Genesis 2:24—the two shall become one flesh—actually shows that the whole thing was a mystery that was explained when Christ joined himself to the Church.

This makes sex and marriage a full-orbed picture.

Sex and Children: God’s Perfect Gifts

This picture is God given. The Bible opens up with God’s creation and summarizes the whole thing—even the bit where God makes male and female in his image—as a very good thing (Gen 1:31). Then, to be explicit, sex is listed as a gift from God on par with food, wine and work (Eccl 9:7-9). James would later explain that every gift of God is good and perfect (James 5:17) which just makes the list of Ecclesiastes and the goodness of God’s creation all that much more meaningful.

Indeed, children are also listed as a gift from God. They are repeatedly listed as a blessing from God (Genesis 16:7; Leviticus 26:9; Deuteronomy 7:13; Deuteronomy 28:11; Nehemiah 9:23; Psalm 107:38; Psalm 127:3-5; Psalm 128:3). And although the fact that the closed womb finds its origin with God (Genesis 29:31; Genesis 30:2,22; 1 Samuel 1:5) it is not listed as the best state of affairs for the man or his bride. Repeatedly the picture is that the God-given sexual relationship between man and woman is blessed by God often in the form of children and that this is all good.

Warping Sex

These good and perfect gifts (of sex and children) have a good and proper use so that the full-orbed picture continues to do what it is supposed to do. Sex is reserved for, and only within, the boundaries of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2; Heb 13:4). Sex outside of marriage is repeatedly rejected (2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7; Rev 21:8). Fornication is explicitly condemned as is adultery and every other form of sexual twisting like being unchaste (Acts 15:20,29), licentiousness (Jude 4), being perverse (1 Cor 5:1, 6:16-18), and others (1 Cor. 6:9,10). Some acts are explicitly condemned not only as being against nature but being an act that depicts the open rebellion of mankind against God (Rom 1:18 – 32).

God doesn’t take Onan’s life for merely spilling his seed or refusing to have children. He takes his life because he acts in rebellion to his familial duties. The man enjoyed the pleasure of sex but in open rebellion acted out his refusal to get Tamar pregnant so that his brother’s line wouldn’t continue. (Gen 38:10-11). His actions said something against his brother, family, and God.

Elsewhere God can depict the relationship between him and Israel as a marriage where his bride repeatedly cheats on him. In one graphic passage, he says that Israel is worse than a prostitute who takes money for sex (Eze 16:34). Israel actually went about paying people to join with her in her spiritual adultery and the Bible graphically depicts Israel spreading her legs for everyone who passes by. The graphic imagery is used to depict the deep betrayal against God when his covenant people joined themselves to idols. Israel is so bad that God depicts Israel taking her many children and offering them to the fire. (Ezekiel 16)

We’re supposed to read the passage and be offended. Israel, the wife and mother of God’s children, isn’t supposed to act this way. Her actions say something about her relationship.

In Hosea, God expands on this picture of adulterous Israel. She is to put away her adultery or God will shame her (Hosea 2:1-13) before he then turns to her and proves himself as the faithful one. He will allure her, speak kindly to her, and he will betroth Israel to himself forever in loving, kind, covenant faithfulness and compassion (Hosea 2:14-23). The picture of God as a faithful husband in light of Israel’s unfaithfulness says something.

Jesus deepens the breach on how we twist the sexual picture. The picture should be a man and his wife, but we twisted it with divorce, which Jesus says Moses allowed because of the hardness of people’s hearts (Matt 19:8). The picture should be one man and one wife until death (as it was in the beginning) but people have twisted the picture by putting a man or woman in the position of being once-married-and-now-separated.

The end-actions aren’t the fundamental problem; it’s actually the heart. This is why, at one point, he condemns looking at a woman lustfully by equating it with adultery (Matt 5:27-28). The fact that we perform the acts isn’t the problem as much as the fact that the acts bubble up from within, twisting every good thing that belong s to God. We might have different reasons for the twisting, but they all bubble up from the same source.

This is why the sexual acts in Romans 1 are listed as a package of open rebellion of mankind. This perfect gift from God is being twisted in such a way to that it now gives a new message: people doing unnatural things reflects our unnatural rebellion.

Pictures in the Bible

The Bible is full of pictures with intent. Pictures that depict a point.  And sometimes, the point is so complex that no man-made editions are allowed.

God tells Abraham about a picture. He says that Abraham’s family is different from others. They’ve been taken apart from the nations and now they belong to God. They’re to take their most intimate member and cut off what makes them like other men. As a picture. That action is now a picture that shows that Abraham’s family is different (Genesis 17).

But how would people know? It’s not like Abraham and boys would walk around with their shorts around their ankles. And yet, it was so important that years later God would attack Moses for not doing it to his own children. (Exodus 4:24-26).

In the first commandment, God rejects some pictures. They’re not supposed to come up with is a picture of Himself. They can’t properly represent Him in wood or gold. He’d give them instructions on how to create a place for him and that points to him but depicting him wasn’t their job. He’d do that himself when he sends his son. (Exodus 20).

His son gave pictures that were to be repeated. One picture he gave was baptism: to do towards all of his disciples (Matthew 28:19). The other picture he gave was the bread and the cup. Do this—the breaking of the bread, the taking of the cup—he commanded, in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19)

And yet, when Paul finds out that a local assembly is messing with the picture, he tells people to stop the picture. The Corinthians come together to “Do this in remembrance of me” and they’re getting full and drunk. Paul tells them that what they’re doing is so bad that it would be better if they just didn’t show up at all. Don’t enact the picture. Do not do this in remembrance of Him. The picture is too important for the Corinthians to be treating it this way. Indeed, he goes on to say that the very reason some of them were sick and dead was because the assembly had so improperly behaved with these pictures. (1 Corinthians 11)

There are some pictures that we just shouldn’t mess with. Ephesians 5 seems to indicate that marriage is one of those pictures.

The Telos of Sex and Marriage

Designed things have a purpose. You might enjoy your iPhone and might only use it to play video games but that is in spite of (not because of) the purpose of the iPhone. One of the benefits of the iPhone includes entertainment, but the purpose lies closer to its mobility, portability, and power. There’s a reason why it’s lighter, more durable, faster processor, and packed with a bigger battery life while integrating into your computing needs. Because it was designed with a purpose.

The biological purpose behind sexual union is multifaceted. It is definitely tied to the reproduction of a species but it might also be tied to generate the endorphins that emphasize the pack mentality.

But humans are more than biology. And Scripture shows that sex is part of marriage.

Here’s the main point that I get from Scripture: sex and marriage are designed. 

This design that depicts the relationship of God with people is a full package that contains oneness, enjoyment, pleasure, desire, passion, work, self-giving, the other person’s enjoyment and reproduction. Those things aren’t strings that hold back the enjoyment of sex or life: they’re all part of the picture.

This applies to Christians and Non-Christians—even if they don’t know it. It’s why it’s so messed up when anyone misuses sex or marriage. The picture that is supposed to be saying one thing now says something drastically different.

A husband abuses his wife—the picture says the wrong thing. A wife cheats on her husband—the picture says the wrong thing. A man refuses to marry but has plenty of kids—the picture says the wrong thing. A woman rejects every man to follow her own ambitions—the picture says the wrong thing. A couple cohabitates without public confirmation of their commitment—the picture says the wrong thing.

Temporary contraceptive methods like condoms, non-abortive chemical contraception, timing, diaphragms, cervical caps, and coitus interruptus seem fine to me (and others, obviously). They can be easily reversed without redefining the picture.

Permanent contraception, on the other hand, does something different. It permanently removes an element from the sexual union of man and wife. In so doing, it changes the picture of marriage. It makes the picture say the wrong thing.

Marriage is good, sex in marriage is better, but sex without the possibility of children is greatest yet.

Here the response might be “Rey, you’re reading a lot into that picture. Can’t it just be ‘we don’t want to have anymore kids and enjoy sex’?” and I’d respond that that is exactly my point. It’s taking the enjoyment of sex as the chief end when all of it, children included, is part of the picture.

This is why the error can go the other way. Let’s say that we thought sex was only for reproduction and we removed any elements that made it enjoyable. Temporarily it might be for a good reason (maybe the man gets too excited) but let’s say there was a permanent surgery that removed all pleasure from sex so that we could focus on having kids—wouldn’t that say the wrong thing about sex in marriage? In that same way, I think permanent contraception twists the picture.

Sex and Infertility

So what is the difference between a couple who have chosen permanent contraception and the couple who are infertile? In a word: choice.

The infertile couple didn’t choose to be in a state of infertility. This was God acting upon them in some way—be it by “closing the womb” or by circumstance (like a hysterectomy, age, or some other issue).  The Bible and biology both show that infertility is not the way things should be even if God chooses that this is the way it would be.

This infertile couple should be having sex. They should be enjoying it. They should be actively participating in it and they should continue in the activity trusting God as the one in control.

But the couple that has opted for permanent contraception has chosen the situation of the infertile as the best option.

In saying this, I don’t think that permanent contraception is a sin in itself. I think that there are cases where one must choose in favor of it. For example, the woman that is warned that if she gets pregnant one more time, she will die. Or the couple that knows that at this advanced age, a pregnancy, even though a gift could actually be life threatening. In these cases (and some other complex ones) I think it’s possible (and right) to get permanent contraception and willingly embrace infertility as an unwanted, but necessary, option.

An Issue of Conscience

Folk sometimes try to search the Scriptures for explicit verses that either excuse or condemn X before, noting that the Scriptures are silent on specifically X, they decide that X is a matter of freedom. But that completely misses the point of being adult in our thinking and convictions. If X is a corollary of Q then you need to figure out if the Bible deals with Q.

You’re not going to find permanent contraception in Scripture. Closed wombs and eunuchs (born, man-made or self-made) are completely off the mark.

The Bible clearly teaches that marriage is a picture. The Bible clearly teaches that people have messed up the picture in different ways. What the Bible doesn’t outright teach is if this new thing messes with the picture of marriage. I, and I’m sure the reader, has to struggle with that.

I am not embarrassed by the amount of children I have. I don’t regret a single one. Indeed, although I wish I had personally known them, there are several other children I will see in glory one day. This current picture, with my wife and I clinging to each other, and tightening the budget for the sake of supporting the kids is one I can live with. The picture of me rejecting any of my children so that I could have more stuff is one that would speak more of my selfishness than anything else.

But, the picture that I think is dangerous is when I start depicting a different emphasis altogether for marriage. That it’s all about the enjoyment of the union without including what it can produce.

I know there are many others who have made the decision for permanent contraception. Some haven’t given it a second thought and others might have gone through this same struggle and come up with a different conclusion and yet others might be reading this now and noting that they didn’t think things through—I don’t know. The fact remains that I have thought this through and find myself in a state of personal concern. My conscience is (with a chuckle at this point) pricked.

What, after all, differentiates the picture I’m depicting from the picture of Romans 1? Is my hypothetical post-vasectomy sexual union any different from that which is unnatural simply on the basis that these parts fit together?

Mind you, there are other things that really get me about how I treat marriage. Maybe I shouldn’t look at that movie because of those scenes. Or maybe I shouldn’t have taken that second look at that gal who just walked by. And I should treat my wife better—I’m an obnoxious jerk. Surely these are things that mess with the picture of marriage.

But are these things permanent changes to the marriage picture? Can I change these things by going back to the cross and asking forgiveness and for more grace then repenting before my wife? Can I do the same thing with a permanent surgical solution? Yeah, there are reversal surgeries—I get that—but do I really want to be at the point where I’m deciding on a costly surgery because I didn’t wrestle with this matter up front?

I do see a possible, even if hypocritical, way out for myself. Maybe if I got the surgery and didn’t tell anyone—not even my wife. But in this case am I not personally sinning before my Lord? Wouldn’t I be sinning, at the very least, against my wife?

But maybe this is simply a weakness. Something I need to get the proper knowledge and perspective on. What should I read that I haven’t read? What passage of Scripture have I glossed over? Which church father have I ignored?  What counsel should I receive that I haven’t received? After all, I stand in a culture that sees no issue with permanent contraception and in this matter I (and the Roman Catholic church) am the oddball out.

So do you now understand my struggle?

Further Questions

Here are some questions that I can see being raised.

Wouldn’t a permanent use of temporary contraception be equally wrong?
I think so, yes.

So doesn’t that make temporary contraception just as equally picture-twisting?
Potentially yes, but not until it is employed in such a way.

Why isn’t every act of sexual union therefore a picture? I mean, how can you get away with any use of contraception if it’s supposed to be a full-orbed picture?
I think because the union isn’t the end in itself. It’s the whole package. What permanent contraception does is draw a line that defines the fertile state as a state of adversity or risk or danger. It isn’t.

Why worry about this when you should be worrying about more pervasive things like pornography, the sexualization of children, the objectification of women, and so on?
I worry about those too. One wrong doesn’t negate the wrong in another area.

My conscience isn’t bothered by this. Therefore I’m not wrong to get the surgery., Consciences can be dulled, calloused, confused or uninformed. Better to find out if this thing is wrong or not before deciding that you’re lack of conviction towards it justifies the action.

I already got a vasectomy and I think I’ve done wrong. What should I do now?
This is another post that I have been working on, but in short, God’s grace is effective.

Couldn’t being a good steward of our finances be a wise reason that justifies permanent contraception?
I think it depends on what we mean by our finances. An American definition of fiscal necessity differs drastically from many parts of the world. Sometimes I think we justify a lot of our actions as good stewardship when they might actually just be upright manifestations of the old man.

Rey, you’re a hypocrite. You admitted that you do other things that mess with the picture and yet you’re harping on this thing.
As above, one wrong doesn’t justify the other. Also, I think this wrong might have more volume.

Is this a gospel issue?
I’m sure someone can make it a gospel issue. I don’t think it is.

You disprove yourself: is it not true that we are to accept a full quiver from God?
If he so deems it, but it seems to me that the mandate to fill the earth is not a mandate for each individual couple to do their bestest.

I personally have not heard of this argument from design-and-depiction before. Even the articles you linked to seemed to speak only about being concerned for the life of the unborn and nothing really about the picture being painted. Why would you even argue this way?
Probably because I am an artist by trade.

Technorati Tags: condoms, contraception, procreation, sex, vasectomy

The post Sex Without Strings: A Theological View of Vasectomies appeared first on Rey Reynoso's Bible Archive.

Rap. Rock. Hip Hop. Jazz. Chants. Acappella. Choral. Guitars. Harmonicas. Pianos. Flutes. Organs. Drums. There are so many styles and ways of making music that the question comes up all the time: what kind of music should you use in church?

If someone hates a certain style, lovers of that style get personally offended—you’re judging them! Because of that, music has been at the heart of sometimes totally changing the local assembly and at other times splitting it right down the middle.

What I want to do is, beside touching the third-rail of Christian discussions, cut through the ways most people deal with this then move to where the questions really lie.

Music In Scripture

Music is throughout the Bible. In the first book of the Bible (Gen 4:21), we hear lyre and pipe players have taken up their functional father’s trade. The last book of the Bible let’s us hear songs in heaven (Rev 15:3) and shows us a judged city that now lacks joy-making instruments (Rev 18:22). And in the middle of the Bible a massive hymnbook that is repeatedly quoted in the New Testament—the book of Psalms.

We hear double-pipes (the dulcimer: Dan 3:5), harps (the Ancient Near East equivalent of a banjo: Psalm 137:2), tambourines (called a timbrel), cymbals (not crashed on top of a drum set but the type you crash with your hands: 1 Chronicles 15:19), pipes, trumpets and more.

Musical instruments are used for everything: giving marching orders (Numbers 10), announce the anointing of the King (1 Kings 1:34), the honor of God (Psalm 98:6), worshipping him (Psalm 81:2; 149:3), and the worship of men in opposition to God (Daniel 3).

Music is used corporately and individually (Col 3:16; Eph 5:19), casually (Acts 16:25) and formally (1 Cor 14:26).

Music is so assumed that Paul can teach the lesson of order within the local assembly by talking about an orchestra (1 Cor. 14:7-8).

Here, therefore, is the conclusion you can make about music in Scripture: it’s there.

Music In Church History

Historically, music has been part of the church.  Pliny, writing a letter to the emperor in (112 AD) said this about Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed…

St. Basil (330 – 379 AD), commenting on the book of Psalms notes how the entire book teaches history, prophesies the future, gives advice—everything, but in song. In essence, God used music to trick messed up people to get good doctrine:

For when the Holy Spirit saw that mankind was ill-inclined toward virtue and that we were heedless of the righteous life because of our inclination to pleasure, what did he do? He blended the delight of melody with doctrine in order that, through the pleasantness and softness of the sound, we might unawares receive what was useful in the words according to the practice of wise physicians who, when they give the more bitter drafts to the sick, often smear the rim of the cup with honey. For this purpose, these harmonious melodies of the psalms have been designed for us, that those who are of boyish age or wholly youthful in their character, while in appearance they sing, may in reality be educating their souls. For hardly a single one of the many, and even of the indolent, has gone away retaining in his memory any precept of the apostles or of the prophets, but the oracles of the Psalms they both sing at home and disseminate in the marketplace.

He continues to underscore that it isn’t the musical instruments or the music that make the Psalms great:

Although there are many musical instruments, the prophet made this book suited to the psaltery, as it is called, revealing, it seems to me, the grace from on high which sounded in him through the Holy Spirit, since this alone, of all musical instruments, has the source of its sound above.

From there we see cantors, group singing, chants, hymn-writing, jingles (Arius, a guy who taught that Jesus was created and not eternal was apparently really good at this), choirs, orchestras, and even discussions about which music to use. Aquinas at one point says:

Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.

What church history teaches is that the church has used many styles of music and sometimes made choices on the kind of music.

Music In Culture

Culture, like Scripture and Church history, shows us that music is part of the human experience.

Music is used to announce sporting events, claim allegiance, direct troops, cure boredom, accentuate scenery, sooth children, enrage, entice, encourage, and enamor.

Music is found everywhere: from bars to churches, zoos to offices, nurseries to stadiums, and board room to bathroom stall.

All of this isn’t to say that the use of music in culture is always right. Music, like certain words, often has a cultural screen by which they’re appropriated. In other words, just like certain words wind up being impolite to use in regular conversation, there are certain styles of music that temporarily wind up being impolite. It’s not a permanent state, and it has less to do with the music or the instruments than it does with the context.

If anything, the use of music in Scripture and culture reveals one thing: humans use it.

Music: Can-Do Versus Should-Do?

With all of the above information many (correctly) note that there is nothing inherently wrong with music in itself. One might appropriately suggest that although there might be times when certain types of instruments and musical styles might be temporarily avoided, there is no cultural mandate that automatically renders the use of any musical sound, by it’s nature, wrong.  Therefore, some (incorrectly) conclude, we both can and should use any musical sound in the assembling of the church.

But that’s a categorical mistake.

The question isn’t “what can be done by any church” but rather “what should be done in your church”.

St. Paul underscores this point when he (if you allow it) quotes the Corinthians “’All things are lawful for me’, but not all things are profitable. ‘All things are lawful for me’ but I will not be mastered by anything.” (1 Cor. 6)

In that context he’s talking about the human body belonging to the Lord and how it isn’t to be owned by anything else—specifically immorality but even food: something that is integral to the human experience.  It isn’t the fact that you have a desire that can be satisfied but rather that you should properly order your desires.

Don’t jump ahead and define music as a desire-satisfier (it may be), but rather hear the main point: a can doesn’t translate into a should. In other words, you have to discern what’s best.

Paul’s expands on this in his long discussion about meat offered to idols. Sure you can eat, says Paul, but should you? In 1 Corinthians 9 he spends a very long time pointing out his rights: he could have accepted support from Corinth, he could have married, he could have enjoyed the fruit of his labor—but he lay his rights aside as an act of service to the Corinthians and to the Lord.

So just because the church can use any style of music it doesn’t mean it should use any type of music.

Music And Ecclesiology

Someone, somewhere, gets paid money to use a big word like “ecclesiology” but what it means, in short, is figuring out the church. That gets deep pretty fast. It’s not only about this or that church—it’s about Church history, how the church is governed, how it’s set-up, what’s it here for and so on.

Folk automatically jump to what they can do without wondering if there are questions to figure out way before that.

Let me be clear: when trying to decide what music you should be using in your local assembly you need to first figure out what the assembly is supposed to be doing when they’re assembling.

What is the church for? Why do we gather? What are we doing on Sunday mornings? Why are we here instead of home? What are we supposed to be doing in our corporate gatherings? What are we trying to accomplish in these gatherings?

All of these questions must be rightly answered before jumping to choice of music—the question of freedom to use the music is secondary to ecclesiology.

After figuring out the purpose, then one can properly decide if the musical choice helps achieve the purpose of the gathering.  If the musical choice detracts from the purpose (be it sound, style, or cultural setting, etc.) then wisdom dictates that it would be better not to use that specific musical choice.

This is to say that after answering the first set of questions you ask goal-centered, instead of merely freedom-centered, questions.

• Will this type of music help the group achieve our corporate purpose?
• Will this type of music detract from our corporate purpose?
• Is there anything we can do to ensure that this music doesn’t detract from attaining our goal?
• Will this type of music cause division as we try to achieve our purpose?
• Does it edify the church?

For example, if you (wrongly) conclude that the purpose of gathering as a church is to attract as many people as possible, then the best choice of musical style is that which attracts the widest audience—not which music you are free to use. If you (wrongly) conclude that the purpose of the gathering is to show what each individually likes, then the best option is to play all the musical options at the same time.

Music In This or That Specific Situation

Questions about the purpose of the church deserve a series of posts but, in regards to music, the leadership needs to be thinking in those terms and examining the state of the gathering as it stands before trying on any form of music.

If the local leadership realizes that the purpose of the church is to remember the Lord, take the bread and the cup, and sit corporately under the word of God then the music choice has to be examined under those parameters. But, even while examining the music under those parameters the leadership also has to decide which music option is the best for that situation.

For example, if the gathering were in an area prone to persecution, then the type of music with the loudest singing wouldn’t be the best option. If the style of music is used by the local whorehouses, then it’s probably better to steer away from the music until the culture changes. If the gathering is musically challenged, it’s probably best to avoid arrangements that necessitate serious vocal expertise. If the gathering doesn’t sing very powerfully, then adding instruments that drown out the congregation wouldn’t be the wisest option.

All of these things are thoroughly situational. They vary. They’re not the same in every assembly. There can be many more like “is it too cold to sing in the building?” or “are these all new believers that need to learn hymns?” or “are there more women than men thus reducing the range of vocals” and so on.

To re-apply Paul in his response to the Corinthians, all things might be okay but not all things helpful. If there is a Biblical goal to the gathering of the saints (there is), and if we’re doing everything in our situation to edify the corporate body when it comes to music (adjusting temperature, right key, proper theology, etc.), then the question regarding the type of music should be naturally weighed.

So, Which Music Then?

Honestly, you still have work to do. There are other questions that you need to answer. Things like, is this music style better for individual worship or corporate participation? Is this style of music better for silent corporate contemplation or robust group integration? They’re not only situational but they’re also about weighing the actual musical styles. And I haven’t even touched content which is one of the major questions to answer!

So what music should you use in your local assembly? Well, you and your local church leadership have some work to do first. You can’t make your choice on what you’re free to do because the answer lies elsewhere.

Be it rap, rock, hip hop, jazz, chants, psalms, a choir, guitars, harmonicas, pianos, flutes, organs or drums—everything needs to be done with the right order and with the proper concern regarding the purpose of the assembly. As the Proverbs teach us, decisions need to be properly ordered under God and tough choices take God-fearing wisdom.

Technorati Tags: basil, church history, music

The post What Kind of Music Should You Use In Your Church? appeared first on Rey Reynoso's Bible Archive.

What is Chiropractic

Chiropractic is type of alternative medicine. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) defines alternative medicine as “medicine that is not generally considered part of conventional medicine”. The reason that it Chiropractic not considered part of conventional medicine is because, like other forms of alternative medicine, the claims of the practice lack observable, repeatable, and scientifically rigorous evidence.

This isn’t to say that there isn’t any evidence (there’s a bunch of anecdotal evidence); it is to say that the evidence is not scientifically established nor is it repeatable. So one of the NCCAM’s missions is to study through scientific investigation the usefulness and safety of complementary and alternative medicine.

According to the American Chiropractic Association (ACA), chiropractic is a health care profession “that focuses on disorders of the musculoskeletal system and the nervous system, and the effects of these disorders on general health”. It is the practice of seeing how the nervous system and disorders of the muscular and skeletal system affect (not spinal health but rather) general health. Then they list what is the common used of  Chiropractic without limiting the scope to the following areas: back, neck, joint, arm and leg pain as well as headaches.

You’ll therefore find that chiropractic is also used to offer solutions regarding high blood pressure, bedwetting, irritable bowel syndrome, scoliosis, menstrual pain, phobias, asthma, PMS, colic, and so on.

Chiropractors, they say, provide a hands-on, drug-free, approach to health care that focuses on exercise, nutrition, lifestyle counseling and “spinal manipulation” or “chiropractic adjustment”.

The basis of this “spinal manipulation” is the theory of subluxation which chirocolleges.org defines as “a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health.”

The World Health Organization differentiates between medical subluxation and chiropractic subluxation. Medical subluxation is a “significant structural displacement” that is visible in static imaging.  Chiropractic subluxation is a “lesion or dysfunction in a joint or motion segment” which alters the function or movement of said joint while the contact between the joint surfaces remains intact. They say, “it is essentially a functional entity, which may influence biomechanical and neural integrity”.

A majority of practitioners within the profession would maintain that the philosophy of chiropractic includes, but is not limited to, concepts of holism, vitalism, naturalism, conservatism, critical rationalism, humanism and ethics (9). The relationship between structure, especially the spine and musculoskeletal system, and function, especially as coordinated by the nervous system, is central to chiropractic and its approach to the restoration and preservation of health (9, 10:167). It is hypothesized that significant neurophysiological consequences may occur as a result of mechanical spinal functional disturbances, described by chiropractors as subluxation and the vertebral subluxation complex (9, 10:169‐170, 11).

The History of Chiropractic

The American Chiropractic Association states (rather than actually tracing) the roots of Chiropractic to ancient Chinese writings. They then quote Hippocrates, “Get knowledge of the spine, for this is the requisite for many diseases.” Afterwards they hop to Daniel David Palmer who “was well read in medical journals of his time and had great knowledge of the developments that were occurring throughout the world regarding anatomy and physiology.”

If you read Palmer’s autobiography, you’ll find that for years he was a magnetic healer who had discovered that many diseases were inextricably linked to the “derangements of the stomach, kidneys and other organs”.

Keating says that Palmer thought he had a gift that gave him insight on “inflammatory lesions” in a person and thus could cool off the tissue by pouring excess magnetic force into the diseased area. It was during this time that Palmer wondered if dis-ease (as he later called it) was connected to the displacement of internal parts—sort of like a machine that runs better when all the parts are in the right place.

For years DD Palmer wondered why you could have a person with pneumonia, typhoid or rheumatism while a fellow right next to such a person didn’t have it. The question, he says, was answered when he met a Mr. Harvey Lillard who became (partially) deaf after exerting himself in a bad physical position. After an examination, Palmer noted that the man’s vertebra was moved from its normal position so he used a lever to move the man’s spine. Several days later, the janitor reported that he thought his hearing was improved: Palmer says that the man’s hearing was healed.

Afterwards he says he was able to alleviate a case of heart trouble by moving a vertebra that was pressing against nerves.

Palmer said the reason for the connection is that  “spirit, soul and body compose the being, the source of mentality. Innate and Educated, two. mentalities, look after the welfare of the body physically and its surrounding environments.”

Wikipedia says that speaking to a patient and friend, Samuel Weed, he had help in naming the practice: cheriros and praktikos. Originally he planned to keep the discovery a secret, but then he added it to his magnetic healing school thinking that this was the solution to all sicknesses.

Eventually he developed his theory by stating that the cause of dis-ease was “those anatomic displacements involving osseous pinching of nerves, i.e., the subluxation.” . He believed that 95% of all diseases was caused by subluxation.

Palmer’s son, BJ Palmer, ran with this theory as Palmer writes “B.J. Palmer was the first person who learned that a light pressure produced inflammation, an excessive amount of heat, over functional activity; while a heavy pressure caused paralysis, lack of function. This new thought brought much light on what was otherwise obscure. It explains why mental and physical magnetic influence returned the functions of nerves to their normal amount of action, the healer controlling, more or less, the nerves of the patient…” (Palmer, 1906). Indeed, BJ eventually stopped speaking to his father but admits that it has to do with personal reasons and not professional ones.

Finally, reports Keating, David Palmer came up with a new idea whereby he rejected his earlier ideas that vertebral subluxation was pinching nerves. Rather he embraced the thought that “the misalignment of joint surfaces anywhere in the body produced nerve-impingement, thereby altering the tension of the affected nerve and changing its vibratory frequency. Palmer held to a vibrational theory of impulse transmission, a notion that was one of several explanations of nervous system function offered by physiologists of that time.”

Since 1907, chiropractic was fraught with legal battles. First, it battled osteopathic practitioners, then it battled other chiropractors, then it fought a political battle where it sought licensing in all states (Kansas, 1913 – Louisiana, 1974). Indeed, as late as 1987, the American Medical Association (formed in 1847) labeled chiropractic quackery (1966) and later “an unscientific cult” (1983) until it lost an anti-trust case (Wilk vs American Medical Association ,1987) with a permanent injunction.

Judge Getzendanner’s statement for the plaintiff was interesting:

“The plaintiffs clearly want more from the court. They want a judicial pronouncement that chiropractic is a valid, efficacious, even scientific health care service. I believe that the answer to that question can only be provided by a well designed, controlled, scientific study… No such study has ever been done. In the absence of such a study, the court is left to decide the issue on the basis of largely anecdotal evidence. I decline to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence.”

The Judge also noted that:

“The plaintiffs, however, point out that the anecdotal evidence in the record favors chiropractors. The patients who testified were helped by chiropractors and not by medical physicians.”

But then proceeded to add:

“The defendants have offered some evidence as to the unscientific nature of chiropractic. The study of how the five original named plaintiffs diagnosed and actually treated patients with common symptoms was particularly impressive. (Tr. 2208-319.) This study demonstrated that the plaintiffs do not use common methods in treating common symptoms and that the treatment of patients appears to be undertaken on an ad hoc rather than on a scientific basis. And there was evidence of the use of cranial adjustments to cure cerebral palsy and other equally alarming practices by some chiropractors. (Tr. 917.)”

But, in the end the judge stated:

“I do not minimize the negative evidence. But most of the defense witnesses, surprisingly, appeared to be testifying for the plaintiffs. Taking into account all of the evidence, I conclude only that the AMA has failed to meet its burden on the issue of whether its concern for the scientific method in support of the boycott of the entire chiropractic profession was objectively reasonable throughout the entire period of the boycott. This finding is not and should not be construed as a judicial endorsement of chiropractic.”

All of this is to say that chiropractic is diverse but can be split into three main camps: straights, mixers, and reformers.

The Religion of Chiropractic

In editing The Chiropractic Adjuster, BJ Palmer, David Palmer’s son, felt compelled to edit his Father’s writings by removing any of the personal attacks against him. He reasoned that the field needed his father’s work, unpolluted, with his personal views and attacks against other persons to allow chiropractors to gain deep knowledge about the field. In some cases, BJ couldn’t remove the personal attacks because it was central to the thought-flow, but at the core he tried to include only the things that were central to chiropractic.

Therefore, BJ kept this in, the fact that David Palmer describes chiropractic as a moral and religious duty. Palmer says that the practice of chiropractic is a religious right protected by the Constitution’s freedom of religion clause.

DD says this is the case because chiropractic, when properly understood, actually treats with the character and attributes of God—the All-pervading Universal Intelligence. Chiropractic possibilities are without limit and able to lesson disease, poverty, crime and prepare people for the after-life. He says this is so because the ideas of chiropractic “originated in Divinity, the Universal Intelligence, and constitute qualities of life which, having begun in this world, are never ending.”

In its mission, Chiropractic literature uses technical terms with the purpose of teaching people about Universal Intelligence, which, he points out, the Christian world has decided to label as God.

“Chiropractors declare that God is the All-pervading Intelligence, that each individual, segmented portion of spirit is a part of that intelligent creative principle; that only matter changes its form; that spirit modifies its environment, and dissolution is but a process of reproduction.” (p. 14)

Of course, Palmer goes on to say that Chiropractic is not being re-labeled as a religion because all religious are based upon superstition. The reason Chiropractic isn’t a religion is because it’s not based on superstition: it’s based on the knowledge of principles and facts. (p. 16)

Indeed, DD Palmer said all of this thinking wasn’t developed in a void. He said he got the idea of chiropractic from the spiritual world the same way that Mrs. Eddy did in Christian science. Indeed, Palmer unabashedly says that he’s the religious head of this religion. He’s like Christ, or Mohammed or Martin Luther.

He says  that as he spoke to his long dead friend, he got the idea of this physical phenomenon:

“The knowledge and philosophy given me by Dr. Jim Atkinson, an intelligent spiritual being, together with explanations of phenomena, principles resolved from causes, effects, powers, laws and utility, appealed to my reason. The method by which I obtained an explanation of certain physical phenomena, from an intelligence in the spiritual world, is known in biblical language as inspiration. In a great measure The Chiropractor’s Adjuster was written under such spiritual promptings.” (p. 5)

Noting the greatness of his discovery, he boldly claims that he has “answered the time-worn question—what is life?”

B.J. Palmer, allowing all of these writings to stand, eventually writes a pamphlet asking “Do Chiropractors Pray?” The answer? Not to some exterior intelligence but rather to the innate intelligence within man. The views continue today when Mike Reid in “The Seven Laws of the Power of Attraction” writes:

“We are spiritual beings who are a piece of an entire bigger picture with a purpose in life … As chiropractors, we already know that the universal intelligence lies within us as innate intelligence, causes our heart to beat, digests our food, and allows us to think as free people … Listen to your innate … Sit in a lotus position with your palms opened up. See yourself as one and the same with the universe.”

The Science of Chiropractic

From within the ranks, several Chiropractors state that their profession “has an obligation to actively divorce itself from metaphysical explanations of health and disease as well as to actively regulate itself in refusing to tolerate fraud, abuse and quackery, which are more rampant in our profession than in other healthcare professions”   Here they cite Carter R: Subluxation – the silent killer. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2000, 44(1):9-18.

Indeed, the AMA at one point labeled Chiropractors “rabid dogs” and the practice as“quackery” before losing an anti-trust lawsuit (Wilk vs. AMA). You can read through the Quackwatch site and view the Chirobase with significant data reports.

Here are some facts:

• There is no supportive evidence found for chiropractic subluxation.
• There is no supportive evidence found for subluxations associated with any disease.
• There is no scientific basis for mis-alignments of the spine causing other diseases and yet the government was covering it with medicare
• Chiropractic degrees are given out by only 15 colleges in the US in half the time it takes to become an actual MD
• There is no credible evidence to support the use of spinal manipulation for anything other than uncomplicated mechanical-type back pain and … no evidence at all to support chiropractic subluxation theory
• Chiropractic manipulation can actually cause a stroke ( here and here)
• Most neck and back pain go away within 6 to 12 weeks.
• Chiropractic and spinal manipulation is not the same thing. You can actually go to a Physiatrist (an actual doctor) who can treat lower back pain with a team of neurologists, orthopedic surgeons, and physical therapists.
• NYU points out that although Chiropractic has gained acceptance and millions of people have reported relief by means of “spinal manipulation”, at present the research record is inconclusive. Indeed, NYU notes that most of the studies have been of the sort that pit chiropractic care versus no treatment whatsoever which means that there is no way to scientifically establish if chiropractic was the solution or the fact that they had someone checking their problem out!

From the chirobase: “Chiropractic’s legitimate scope of practice is too limited and its adherence to pseudoscience is too entrenched to promote optimal physical medicine.”

But I’ve Visited a Chiropractor And It Worked (or My Theological Problems with Chiropractic, Yoga, Reiki, and Anything Else that Works)

If you have gotten this far through the post, you probably have enough evidence to know the problem areas. Chiropractic is based on no consistent observation, it seems to have originated in a vision from the dead, it was promoted as a catchall solution for all diseases, promoted as a religion, and there is actual science-based medicine that is safer. All of this should have Christians quickly agreeing, “This is not something a Christian should be participating in”.

That was actually the case some thirty or some forty or so years ago—but it has all changed.

Today, not only do Christians visit and recommend Chiropractors, some have even opted to become Chiropractors.  In fact, I’m fairly sure this post will meet with no small amount of resistance. I’m sure this will even come from Christians who, in some cases, are openly hostile against Halloween (or Christmas!) because of its (alleged) pagan origins.

Theologically there is something going on that is currently reflected in the culture today. After all, Christian Chiropractic is only one color on the spectrum. Today we also highlight Christian Yoga, Christian Reiki, Christian Buddhism, and even Christian Wicca.

Recently, Albert Mohler had a conversation with Candy Gunther Brown  ( “Are We All Syncretists Now?”) highlighted some of these troubling aspects in our culture.

Brown noted that Christians rejected yoga and chiropractic as idolatry because of a sort of divide between actions and intent. She said that Catholics have historically believed in conveying belief through actions and symbols but Evangelicals focus on intent: if no one says it is religious then Evangelicals tend to think it isn’t religious.

So in one case the practitioners may call something the Inner Intelligence or the Force and Evangelicals just call it The Holy Spirit but she offers a cogent warning: Simply relabeling “Brahman” as “Holy Spirit,” or relabeling “becoming one with God” as “coming into closer relationship with God” doesn’t necessarily change the effect of engaging in that practice.

Let me break the third wall and plead with you. I know you’ve visited a Chiropractor. I know you’re okay with it. I know that it worked for you. I really do believe you. I also believe that Reiki works. And Yoga works. And even Wicca works. At least sometimes.

All of that is beside the point. My problem isn’t with it working (even if the science doesn’t come up Millhouse when it puts it under the microscope). My problem is deeper.

Christians, here’s the basic problem: because our comfort is primary we uncritically adopt practices.

We didn’t examine Chiropractic. We didn’t critique it. We noted that in some anecdotal cases it worked and therefore it must be okay.  We may have even tried it, and it worked, and that made it okay.

We ignored the way the Bereans worked (Acts 17:11), ignored how John worked (1 John 4:1), ignored how Paul worked (1 Thess 5:21) and subsequently downplayed the very real warnings about the spiritual forces that are actually out there (Galatians 5:20, Eph 6:12, 1 Corinthians 10) simply because it worked. That was enough to embrace it.

The world tells us that our comfort is number one and we believe it then act out our belief.

Our backs should always feel right. Our eyes should always feel right. We shouldn’t be getting up a million times at night to pee. We should be sleeping straight through. Our sex life should be active. Our heads shouldn’t hurt.

And yeah, there’s some truth there. CS Lewis said, “The fact that our hearts yearn for something Earth can’t supply is proof that heaven is our home.”

The lie that world tells us, and the modern prosperity Gospel, is that those yearnings can be addressed now.

That’s the ugly lie.

Ease is ultimately important and therefore suffering is only an option when there are no more options. Paul stopped after three times, we would have kept asking (2 Cor 12:7-9).

Today, we might justify the ministry of a demon-possessed girl because her message was right (Acts 16:16-18) and it made things easier.

That’s the problem.

Oh sure, I know the response. “We know that girl was demon-possessed: we can’t say the same about a practice.” The thing is, the practice is still grounded in religion. In effect, we’re still visiting the witch in Endor but justifying it because sometimes it works (1 Samuel 28:9-19) and that makes life easier.

We’re given no assurances about this life beside the fact that the Lord does care for us (Matt 6:25-34), feels our pain (Psalm 116:15) and that we will suffer (Phil 1:29) while he’s working everything out for good (Romans 8). Indeed, we’re told that we’re to expect it (2 Tim 3:12). Know that suffering comes from all sorts of places (2 Corinthians 4:8–9) but it is part of the package for the people of God (Col 1:24 cf.  Daniel 12:10) because it’s how we’re made ready (2 Corinthians 4:17–18; Romans 5). Expect suffering.

And unfortunately, I hear the false assurance of the prosperity gospel—the promise that you won’t suffer—all the time. Do the right thing and you won’t suffer. Follow this program and you won’t suffer. Trust God and he won’t let you suffer.

All lies.

The fact is that the one who eminently trusted God suffered and he told us to follow in his footsteps (Matthew 16:24-26). When you trust God and act accordingly, you may very well suffer greatly.

Sometimes, that means that there will be pains that cannot, and maybe should not, be fixed by just any means the world, or the Abyss, provides.

Be careful, Christians. By rejecting even these comparatively light crosses, we, like Saul, can have our solutions and satisfaction but also have a party at the precipice of the abyss (1 Samuel 28:23-25).

What Now?

Now you’re wondering if you’re sinning if you go to a Chiropractor. Or you’re wondering if there are any Physiatrists in your area as an alternative to a Chiropractor. Or if you should be stewing in the pain you have in your lower back instead of just visiting this guy that everyone has told you actually works.

In some cases, you might be thinking that I am just another close-minded Christian, but note that this post is primarily aimed at confessing Christians. If you are not a Christian and are comfortable with the lack of scientific data, I do not have much to offer you.

But some of you Christians are wondering if I’m making a mountain out of a dust-pile. If I am off, once again, fighting wind-mills. If I’ve committed a genetic fallacy by condemning a whole practice based on the origins. Or perhaps thinking that I haven’t done enough research to actually condemn this practice (or even the others).

Perhaps you think that Wicca, Yoga, Reiki and Chiropractic are actually all compatible with Christianity in different ways. Perhaps all truth is God’s truth and the bits that are actually true in all of these things are actually legitimate and should be embraced.

Indeed, you’re probably even what I would say to such-and-such individual.

To all of this I now remain silent.

Technorati Tags: chiropractic, chiropractor, reiki, yoga

The post Should Christians Go To A Chiropractor? appeared first on Rey Reynoso's Bible Archive.