Boundary Lines of our Lives are Sovereignly Dispensed

 Boundary lines in our lives are those uncomfortable places where we stand longingly looking at the green grass on the other side of the fence.  God has given us great and gracious room to live and work and enjoy our lives.  Boundary lines give us security so that we do not step out of our place.   David said that the boundary lines of his life have fallen for him in pleasant places.  But, like our first parents, we want to be gods, to go rogue against the plans and purposes of God.  The boundary lines are designed to teach us:

1. We are not sufficient. If we had no boundaries, we would believe we are self-sufficient and in need of nothing, not God or other people.  Limitations cause us to trust God.  As well, the ways in which we are limited are often the ways in which others are gifted.  We are made to be in relationship with God and each other.

2. Our design defines us. God sets the boundaries of our lives from the very beginning. Intelligence, physical strength, vulnerability to disease, gender and disability.   He arranges the boundaries, just like our times and circumstances, in order that we may feel our way toward Him and find Him.

 

3. Our boundaries are sovereignly dispensed. Like Paul's thorn, they teach us grace. God does as he pleases in the affairs of men.  Because He loves us, we learn to trust Him.

 

4. The motive for God's design is His glory and our good. As Matthew Henry has reminded us, God has twisted interests with us so that these two goals are really one.

 

A man's got to know his limitations.  We look to God to increase our borders (like Jabez) but we learn to rest in our limitations (like Paul) when God does not arrange things as we would desire.  A well-adjusted believer holds both ideas in his head:  He can ask God for great things, wider borders.  He will also be grateful for what God has done in his often inscrutable wisdom.   No boundary line is without purpose.  All boundary lines will one day be explained.

Abortion is a Touchstone

A recent internet dust-up between two pastors on the issue of Christian voting bothers me.  The media always has a field day enjoying the division and the conflict in the Body of Christ.  I love both these men:  One is a trusted exegete- the kind of pastor who displays a savage loyalty to scripture that I admire and wish to emulate.  The other pastor is known for his theological depth and social application, also traits that I admire and wish to emulate.  May the tribe of both these men increase!

Pastor A says no Christian should vote for a candidate who supports abortion.  Pastor B says voting is a matter of personal conscience.  Both are right, so we must explain ourselves in order to be clear.  Here’s my take:

1.        Voting is a matter of freedom and conscience.  Issues such as social policy, foreign and domestic policy, issues of security and redressing grievances, are matters about which serious Christians can disagree.  Churches ought to lay the biblical groundwork for decision-making (like the creation ordinances) but never exercise discipline or infringe on the right of members to vote their consciences.

2.       While we may disagree, it does not mean the church should be indifferent.  We may disagree, but that does not mean, ultimately and finally, that it doesn’t matter.  Never stop the task of reading and applying scripture to the issues of our day.  The arena of adiophora, the things indifferent, is never as wide or as deep as we think.

3.       In the battles over politics and social policy, Christ must have a voice.  The church must not accept the sacred/secular dichotomy worshipped in our generation.  It has been used to marginalize moral influence.  Abraham Kuyper is right:  “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!”

Now to the issue of abortion:  It is not an area of things indifferent.  The original setting in which man was created set apart the life of man as sacred.  Man is made in the image of God, the only being in the created world described in this way.  The image of God is the justification for our dominion.   It is the justification for the protection of life (Genesis 9:6).  Abortion denies the laws of creation which predate Moses.

If a politician supports abortion, will he respect the other creation ordinances?  Will he respect law grounded in the character of God?  Will he respect marriage and sexuality as God has created it as well as the boundaries God has set?  Will he respect work and rest as God has ordained?  The issue of abortion is the touchstone for evaluating a moral worldview.

Life, Law, Marriage, Work and Rest are designed in the moral fabric of man by a gracious God and they stand or fall together.  The contrasts are clear: 

             Absolute protection of life vs. a relative value of lives worthy to be lived

·                     Absolute view of law vs. relative law, enforced only by consensus or coercion.

·                     Absolute view of Marriage vs. blank slate sexual and gender freedom

·                     View of work as a necessary role of man, conferring dignity and respect, as he provides for himself and his family vs. the various views of socialism and communism which attempt to remove that responsibility from man

·                     View of rest as an essential feature of man’s week.  Sabbath rest is necessary for our physical and spiritual health vs. an ever-present material bottom line.

 

A politician who objects to the sanctity of life is likely to object to all of the creation ordinances.  A supporter of life is more likely at least to support the other parts of our moral design.  As leaders in the church, we must not let the media pit us against each other when we are really talking past each other.  May we find joy, satisfaction, and guidance as we faithfully search scripture and stand firmly with what we find.

The Lancet and the Psychological Effects of Quarantine

The Lancet (Lancet.com) posted a literature review of research on the psychological effects of Quarantine on February 28, 2020.  It is a great article that can help us as religious and community leaders to know what is happening among the people we serve.  It will be important for us to recognize the signs of post-trauma psychological issues so that we can help to mitigate them.  If we can understand the stressors inherent in a quarantine, we can provide healthy ministry when the quarantine ends.

The Lancet listed a collection of stressors people wrestle with during a quarantine.  Here are some a minister will likely see:  Infection fears, inadequate information, frustration, boredom, and financial loss.  Quarantine-related trauma among children is 4x higher that it is among children who were not quarantined.  Trauma-related mental health issues impacted 28 % of parents who were quarantined and 6% of those who were not.

Trauma-related mental health issues included:  Confusion, irritability and anger, detachment, anxiety and anxiety-induced insomnia, poor concentration, indecisiveness, and deteriorating work performance.  Low Mood and Irritability were the highest scores.  Most of the adverse effects came from the restriction of liberty according to the review.  Altruistic or voluntary quarantine was associated with less stress and fewer long-term consequences.

What does this mean for ministries?  As I'm thinking through our re-opening, I have a few ideas (and I would be glad to hear yours).

1.  I want to restore the sense of self-confidence in making decisions.  I want my parishioners to know, even if we open as soon as it is legal to do so, it will be their choice.  Come when you feel safe, wear a mask or don't wear a mask, and sit where you want to sit.  No judgement.

2.  At the end of a quarantine, only 5% reported feelings of happiness, 4% feelings of relief.  Issues of anger and depression continued in some people for 4-6 months.  We will need a listening ear as we return, being careful not to sing songs to a heavy heart.

3.  Ministers should speak clearly and compassionately about the results of quarantine and a Christian response.  They should speak with respect about the political leaders who made decisions with which they might disagree.  Perhaps this time everyone should get a pass.  There will be time afterwards to discuss the merits of quarantine and the restriction of liberty.

4.  Financial stress may linger long after the quarantine has ended.  Lack of employment can eat into savings, and cause conflict in marriages, at the workplace, and anxiety within.  Some financial bondage is self-inflicted but the quarantine was beyond their control.  Benevolence at this time could be money well-spent.  Be careful about making the recipient jump through hoops.  Now is not the time for regulation.

5.  On the first Sunday back, we'll take it easy.  Coffee and fellowship in the vestibule at 9:00am.  Private prayer in the sanctuary.  One service at 11:00am.  No hoopla.  Big party later, but for now, we minister peace, rest, and contentment to be together worshiping again.

I would love to hear ideas from others as they contemplate life after the quarantine.  We have not been this way before and in the multitude of counselors, there is safety.

Natural Rights, Civil Rights, and the Pandemic

          Now, in the midst of the pandemic, is a good time to review what we should already have known.  There is a difference between human or natural rights and civil rights.  Civil rights are rights that are conferred upon us by the government.  They are given or taken away by the government as it desires. 
          Human rights, however, are different.  They exist as part of who we are and what it means to be human.  They exist whether government chooses to recognize them or not.  Human rights are conveyed to us by God as part of what it means to be made in the image of God. A government that chooses not to recognize them, as our Declaration of Independence says, is the definition of tyrannical.
          How does this apply in the current crisis?  Behind every statement about the quarantine is an assumption:  The executive either recognizes that the people under his authority have natural rights or they don't.  If a government chooses to curtail human rights, it better have a quick, ready, convincing reason for doing so. 
          In my mind, an executive who believes in natural rights will explain the crisis with as much evidence as possible, all that he has available..  He will then invite his people to join in the voluntary curtailing of rights until the crisis has passed.  The weakness here is that convincing explanations take time.  The strength is that people will understand the crisis and the responsibility will remain with the people for the consequences.    Consensus may be hard to build, especially in this polarized climate, but you will have the heart of the people as together you work through the aftermath. 
          It will be easy to spot the executive who does not believe in anything but conditional rights.  He will say things like "I have looked at the evidence and I have made the choice to..."  In a paternal manner, he will look at the evidence and make the decision on behalf of the people.  The people will be left to trust without evidence, and obey without a voice.  When the executive moves unilaterally, then he is responsible for the political, economic, social, and legal consequences.
          What will happen during the next quarantine?  Have we lost human rights in perpetuity?  We are paupers if all we have left at the end of the day are arbitrary rights from a short-sighted government.

COVID 19, the Hornet, and the Call to Risk

                At the midweek service of our church, I began the night by asking our members about how the coronavirus was affecting them.  I was excited to see how buoyant their spirits were.  No one expressed worry over their 401k accounts or their health.  No one really got engaged until we began to talk about the call of Christians to protect the vulnerable.  As I listed some of the ones in our community who might be at risk,  I began to get volunteers. Members wanted to run errands for these shut-ins, to help wherever we could.   We were displaying the heart of Christ.  This pandemic might well make us stronger as believers.

               There are those who will lament the loss of control.  They will be anxious about the unknown and about man’s inability to answer the illness immediately.  It turns out that most of our lives are out of our control, but we know the one who cares for us and brings peace in the midst of a storm.

               There are also those who will be anxious about the economic fallout and the loss of future economic security.  But, we know that it is God who gives us the power to get wealth, and that David observes that he has never seen the righteous forsaken or his seed begging bread.

               This will also be a good corrective for those who have a desperate dependence on government.  Their first thought is to blame one political party or another for lack of leadership, lack of funding, lack of compassion.  When the other party is in power, everything will be ok.  The problem, of course, is not the political party in power.  The problem is that government itself is not omnipotent.  They cannot provide instant security, protection, and answers to all issues.  Only God can anchor our souls like that.

               Some will put too much confidence in government.  Others will put too much confidence in science.  Science has given us amazing advances in healthcare but, like government, they are not omnipotent.  Where we put our trust in the midst of a storm displays our God.

               Fear has a way of making us desperate.  It can feed our hypochondria, our paranoia.  What if this is not a time for binge-watching the news and wringing our hands or retreating into our shells until the danger has passed.  What if this is a time to lean in, to meet others at their point of need?  What if our fear can be replaced by a God-centered confidence.

               Every community has those who are vulnerable to illnesses like COVID 19:  The elderly, the cancer patient, the patient recovering from surgery or one with a persistent infection, the newborn and the mother.  Immune responses are low and that vulnerable member of our community can be filled with fear.  Christians, by their presence, can help to allay that fear.  We are called to risk in order to display the compassion of Christ.  May God awaken his army to move against the fear with the love of Christ.