The Law of Baptism - Part Three

FOREWORD:

I was recently given for consideration a challenging article on the topic of baptism written by Lacy Crowell. Lacy graduated from Bear Valley Bible Institute and is clearly guided with humble and pure intent by Church of Christ doctrine.  I encourage you to read her article carefully and prayerfully before continuing with my response to her article.

http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

After you’ve read her article – please come back to this document and share with me in the process of evaluating such a theology of salvation through baptism – what I will call the “law of Baptism”.  My article is not intended as an argument with Mrs. Crowell and is more reflective of my own personal study and evaluation of the passages being used by ambassadors of the “Church of Christ” in their attempt to exclude other Christians from salvation who have not been baptized – or baptized properly.

I’ve divided this response into four parts – because so much scripture is involved.

Part One

Part Two

PART THREE:

There are a number of scripture references made by Crowell at this point – these references are surely made to solidify her point that baptism is necessary for salvation.  But in all of these examples given, baptism occurs after the message of the good news is received and “belief” is assured.  Because these scriptures are not specifically discussed by Crowell, I will also not specifically address how they do not support the necessity of baptism for salvation (though they obviously reflect that baptism is important).  That being said, there is one passage in particular referenced by Crowell which I find very interesting – Acts 10:48.  Here is the passage she references – with some context:

“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. (Acts 10:44-48 NIV)” 

In this passage, the people are clearly baptized – but the chronology of events is important if we want to establish a “law of Baptism”:

1. The Holy Spirit came on those who heard the message Peter was preaching.
2. The circumcised believers were surprised because Gentiles were given the Holy Spirit without circumcision. 
3. Peter stated that nothing could prevent them from being baptized – as they had already received the Holy Spirit.
4. The people were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

It is obvious that the Holy Spirit was given without the need for baptism.  And clearly, the baptism happened after these people received the Holy Spirit. Even more, the believers originally expected that circumcision was necessary for salvation…much like Crowell considers that baptism is necessary for salvation.  This irony shouldn’t be dismissed. 

The next passage presented in the defense baptism as necessary for salvation is 1 Peter 3:21.  In this context, Crowell goes so far as to ask and answer a rhetorical question subsequent to this verse, “What does this passage say saves us? Baptism.”  Here is the passage with some context:

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:18-21 NIV)”

What a cool passage? Christ’s death and resurrection was proclaimed to the people who were destroyed in the flood of Noah.  Amazingly, the water that destroyed so many sinful people – those not saved in the ark – is symbolized in the baptism that now saves us.  And there it is – baptism “saves” us.  But what is the last statement in verse 21? 

“…It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21b)”

 So is it baptism that saves us? Baptism saves us…by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  So which of these things is the critical ingredient for salvation?  Is the importance of baptism equal to the resurrection of Jesus Christ?  Surely not!

Even more, Peter clearly states that baptism isn’t significant because of the literal “removal of dirt” but because of a “pledge of a clear conscience toward God”.  There it is – according to this passage, the singular act in baptism that “saves” us is the “pledge of a clear conscience toward God.” 

If we are trying to establish a “law of Baptism”, then we must make a pledge of a clear conscience toward God.  As Peter states, the water is symbolic – even clearly stating that the washing off of the “dirt” isn’t what gives salvation.  It is the pledge made through the resurrection of Jesus Christ that saves us. Not the water…and not even the re-enactment we complete in baptism of Jesus death, burial and resurrection…

Next, Ephesians 4 is referenced so as to illustrate how those people not saved according to the “law of Baptism” are excluded from Christ.  Crowell states accordingly, “If someone has been baptized, but not in the way and for the reasons described in Scripture, they have not experienced the one baptism and are not yet in Christ.”  Here is the passage Crowell uses to exclude those who haven’t yet met the requirements of the law:

 “As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:1-6 NIV)”

What is the purpose of this passage?  The context and content of the passage is clearly on how we are to be humble and gentle, patient – bearing with each other in love.  Furthermore, the passage tells us to make “every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

The context of the statement “one Lord, one faith, one baptism…” was written to the church at Ephesus so as to help unify them – not so as to give the church at Ephesus ammunition on how to exclude others in the faith who didn’t receive salvation according to the “law of Baptism”. 

Here is the crux of the point – Crowell seeks to divide and exclude members from the body of Christ using a passage that was intended to unite and create peace among the fellowship.  This mis-application of the passage is the result of reading into the text a bias toward the singular importance of baptism for salvation.

Finally, in the last two paragraphs of the article there is a general discussion on the transliteration of the Greek word from which we derive the word, “Baptize”.  Crowell correctly states that this word means “to immerse”, but subsequently uses the Ephesians 4 passage to state that anyone who doesn’t get “immersed” hasn’t followed the “law of Baptism” and has therefore not experienced true baptism and is ultimately not in Christ.

The Law of Baptism - Part Two

FOREWORD:

I was recently given for consideration a challenging article on the topic of baptism written by Lacy Crowell. Lacy graduated from Bear Valley Bible Institute and is clearly guided with humble and pure intent by Church of Christ doctrine.  I encourage you to read her article carefully and prayerfully before continuing with my response to her article.

http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

After you’ve read her article – please come back to this document and share with me in the process of evaluating such a theology of salvation through baptism – what I will call the “law of Baptism”.  My article is not intended as an argument with Mrs. Crowell and is more reflective of my own personal study and evaluation of the passages being used by ambassadors of the “Church of Christ” in their attempt to exclude other Christians from salvation who have not been baptized – or baptized properly.

I’ve divided this response into four parts – because so much scripture is involved.

Part one was posted yesterday - I've provided it here, for anyone who hasn't yet read it.

PART TWO:

The author’s next scripture reference is the baptism described in Romans 6 as “a literal re-enactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ”. 

I am very humbled by this passage – so will approach it with an extra measure of carefulness.  Here is a summary of what Paul says in Romans 6 – the chronology of events is less important, but I’ve kept my notes in order, nonetheless.  Also, because the first verse of chapter 6 refers to what was previously just stated, I’ve included the last few verses of chapter 5 in my summary.  

• Grace through righteousness brings eternal life through Jesus. From this passage alone, we see the formula: Grace + Righteousness + Jesus = Eternal Life
• Sinning more doesn’t increase the grace applied to us because righteousness is also part of the equation.
• Paul reminds us of baptism in two components – death and resurrection.
• We are united with Christ in this baptism…so that in his death, our sinful life dies. And because we are united with Christ, we also are resurrected as he was.
• Paul says those “who were baptized” were also “buried” and “raised from the dead”.  He then states that we were “crucified with him [Jesus]” so that the old self has died and we are now free from sin.
• Paul reminds us that Christ has conquered death – conquering it for all of us. 
• For this reason we should live as if we are dead to sin and alive in Christ.
• If we are dead to sin, we should stop submitting ourselves to it.
• We are no longer to live as slaves to sin because we are no longer under the law – but under grace.
• That said, we are slaves to the “one you [we] obey”.  Obey sin and die or obey righteousness and live.
• Paul expects that we have obedience “from your heart the pattern of teaching” of Jesus Christ.
• Paul admits that he is making an analogy using the terms of slavery. 
• We should be ashamed of the acts we committed while we were slaves to sin.
• Those acts resulted in our death.
• But – praise the Lord – we’ve been set free from that sin and can now receive the benefit of being slaves to God – holiness, which leads to eternal life. 
• The formula is restated in last two verses:
• In verse 22 we have this concept – being slave to sin results in death.  But being slave to righteousness leads to eternal life.
• And in verse 23 we have this concept – God’s gift (grace) is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Again, Paul is not specifically giving instructions on the importance of baptism in this chapter.  He speaks purposefully about baptism in verses 3 & 4 – using our baptism in Christ as a poignant method of illustrating how we are unified with him in death and resurrection.  But the purpose of that statement is not to emphasize the importance of baptism – but to illustrate the overarching themes of God’s grace, our newfound allegiance to righteousness and the result which is eternal life.

Now, if we were seeking to establish a “law of Baptism”, then we must consider some additional concepts.  First, as Crowell states, baptism “is a literal re-enactment…” So we must properly follow the steps so as to get this right.  And if we are to literally re-enact Christ’s death, burial and resurrection – then should we not all actually be crucified, buried and physically resurrected so as to receive salvation?  Literal means literal.  

Next, Crowell clarifies that through baptism we “contact the blood of Christ”.  OK…so we aren’t literally crucified, etc.  But there does appear to be some symbolism being used here.  If not, then to "come into contact with the blood of Christ" would imply that the baptismal water literally turns to blood?!?  Honestly, every literal explanation of this is really weird.  

Paul’s baptism – along with all of those people on record being baptized in the name of Jesus – were not literally crucified, buried and resurrected.   Jesus was.  Therefore, the concept of baptism is loaded with analogies…and Paul mentions it in Chapter 6 of Romans so as to bring our minds back to how we are unified with Christ. He is not mentioning baptism here so as to draw a literal example of how it works…  If he was, then we should all literally be crucified, buried and resurrected so as to receive salvation.  Even more, if Paul was trying to communicate to us about the “law of Baptism” in Romans 6, then the other themes in the chapter about God’s gift of grace, the pattern of our hearts toward righteousness and eternal life through Jesus Christ would be necessarily minimized and in their place, the importance of baptism would be obvious.

In Romans 6, should we focus on the details of the baptismal analogy Paul used to describe the grace and gift of God – or should we focus on the gift itself?  If we make a law of Baptism from this passage, then we will certainly miss out on being “slaves to righteousness leading to holiness” – which then leads to eternal life through Jesus Christ.

The next passage referenced is a very brief mention of Colossians 2:12 to support the idea of a literal baptism being necessary for salvation.  Here is Colossians 2:11-12 for just a bit more context:

“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12 NIV)”

Because of the time we devoted to the Romans 6 reference, I will address this passage very briefly…

Is the circumcision being referenced in verse 11 also to be a literal re-enactment?  Certainly not.  This verse is an analogy of how Christ removes the sin of our flesh.  If we accept that Christ does this without the need of our actual re-enactment of the event of circumcision, then why would we – in the very next verse – attempt to make a literal application for the necessity of baptism to accomplish the purpose of receiving salvation?  There is no justification to interpret two sister-passages differently.

Nonetheless, if we are attempting to use Colossians 2:12 to establish a “law of Baptism”, then the literal act of baptism must also be preceded with the literal act of circumcision.  Have fun with that.  You can't take one verse literally and not the other.  And while this is pretty rough for men (no pun intended), I feel even worse for women - who, no matter how hard they try, because circumcision is impossible...salvation just doesn't apply to them according to this passage.  Unless we see the figurative language being used here, circumcision and baptism are both literally required for salvation.

Next, we have Acts 2.  This is a beautiful example of the power of the Holy Spirit.  Crowell references this chapter as an example of how baptism is the conduit for all conversions in the New Testament (along with a slew of other verse citations).  Focusing primarily on Acts 2, she states, “In fact, every time we see a conversion in the New Testament, it is through baptism…”

First, read all of Acts 2.  As I first stated, this chapter is an example of the power of the Holy Spirit – not intended a lesson on the importance of baptism.  Peter didn’t spend an afternoon trying to convince people that baptism was how they’d be saved.  Instead, he laid out – in each person’s own natural language – how their experience at pentecost was a fulfillment of the prophet Joel’s words (from Joel 2:28-32).  Interestingly, the final words of Joel, quoted by Peter, are this:

‘And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ (Acts 2:21 NIV)

These words don’t say anything about the necessity of baptism. 

Further in Acts 2, Peter assures the Jewish listeners that  “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” (Acts 2:36 NIV).  In response to this sermon, they were “cut to the heart”.  So Peter tells them “…Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38 NIV)

And finally, this is the single verse referenced by Crowell to indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation:

“Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:41 NIV)”

This is important – Crowell improperly paraphrased verse 41.  Here is the statement quoted from her article:

“Verse 41 tells us that GOD added those who were baptized that day to the church.” [italics mine]

Read the verse again more slowly – and without bias. 

“Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:41 NIV)” [emphasis mine]

To focus on the word baptism and therefore exclude the phrase “accepted his message” unduly places importance on one concept in the place of the other. And because Peter wasn’t trying to preach a sermon about baptism – the whole idea of focusing singularly on that verse from this chapter to claim the necessity of baptism misses the point of Peter’s testimony about Jesus and the foreknowledge of God throughout history.

But if we wanted to establish a “law of Baptism” from this chapter, then we should also require re-enactment of all the other circumstances of that particular event.  Here, everyone heard the words spoken in their own native tongue.  Also, later in verse 45 of the same chapter, everyone was selling their possessions and giving to anyone who had need.  We cannot create a law from that chapter regarding Baptism if we are unwilling to also create a law from that same chapter regarding the hearing of the word in our own language, the selling of our possessions and giving to the poor.

At this point, if we want to make baptism "required", then there are lots of other works we must do so as to be properly saved.  And very quickly, the Law of Baptism starts to sound a lot like a new way to be saved by "the Law".

The Law of Baptism - Part One

FOREWORD:

I was recently given for consideration a challenging article on the topic of baptism written by Lacy Crowell. Lacy graduated from Bear Valley Bible Institute and is clearly guided with humble and pure intent by Church of Christ doctrine.  I encourage you to read her article carefully and prayerfully before continuing with the first part of my response to her article.

http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

After you’ve read her article – please come back to this document and share with me in the process of evaluating such a theology of salvation through baptism – what I will call the “law of Baptism”.  My article is not intended as an argument with Mrs. Crowell and is more reflective of my own personal study and evaluation of the passages being used by ambassadors of the “Church of Christ” in their attempt to exclude other Christians from salvation who have not been baptized – or baptized properly.

I’ve divided this response into four parts – because so much scripture is involved.  

PART ONE:

The first passage referenced by Crowell on the topic of baptism is Acts 9, where we have the story of Saul on the road to Damascus.  He is blinded by a light from Heaven, encounters Jesus on the road and then remains blind for three days. 

What is the purpose of this passage?  While baptism occurs in the passage, it is a single word from a single sentence.  And if we aren’t trying to read into the text a meaning based on our existing biases, then the passage is most obviously about how God chose Saul for the purpose of proclaiming his “…name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.” (Acts 9:15, NIV)

The purpose of this passage is NOT to establish a “law of Baptism” nor was it to lay out the rules for the order of operations for receiving salvation. But if we wanted to make a rule based on the events of this passage, there are several things that happened chronologically and need to be repeated so as to fulfill such a law:

1. First, Saul was blinded by an earthly encounter with Jesus.
2. Then it is recorded that Ananias placed his hands on Saul and that Ananias spoke Jesus’ message to Saul. 
3. After these events, Saul regained his sight.
4. Next, Saul was baptized.
5. Finally, after he was baptized, Saul ate and regained his strength.

We know that Ananias was sent to Saul so that he would “see again and be filled with the Holy Spirt.” (Acts 9:17, NIV).  Regrettably, for the purposes of establishing a “law of Baptism”, we aren’t given the chronology of when Saul received the Holy Spirit in this passage.  Did Saul receive the Holy Spirit after Ananias placed his hands on him and spoke the message to him?  That is apparently what caused Saul to regain his sight…  Or was the Holy Spirit given to Saul after baptism?  Or was there something special about eating after baptism? These things are written down…so they are obviously worth having been recorded.

In the end, Paul does get baptized – so it is surely important – but we cannot state from the description of the events in this passage that baptism was the action that “saved” Saul.

Next in Crowell’s article on Baptism, Matthew 7 is referenced as evidence that many will be denied salvation – even though they claimed to believe in Jesus.  Nonetheless, it is important to take the entire chapter in context.  Here is a summary of the chapter’s events in chronological order (but please also read it for yourself):

1. Jesus tells the people that they will be judged by the same measure they use to judge others.
2. Jesus calls out hypocrites who point out the faults of others without first dealing with their own sins. 
3. Jesus states that God will give generously to those who ask from Him.
4. Jesus summarizes the Law and the Prophets by this phrase, “…do to others what you would have them do to you…”
5. Jesus warns against taking the easy path…and states clearly that the way to life is only discovered by a few (“the narrow gate”).
6. Jesus warns that false prophets will come, but says that we will be able to discern between true and false prophets by their fruits.
7. Jesus further states that many will say “Lord, Lord” even performing signs and miracles “in his  name”, but Jesus will tell them on that day, “…I never knew you…” (Matthew 7:23, NIV)
8. Of those who say, “Lord, Lord”, only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 7:21, NIV).
9. The chapter ends with Jesus urging people to to put his words into practice.  Warning that those who do not put his words into practice will be washed away like a house built on sand – while those who do put his words into practice will stand firm during the storm.
10. Finally, people were amazed at his words. 

This chapter has nothing to do with baptism, but the author of the article references the chapter to support the concept that many who expect to be saved will – in fact – be denied by Jesus.  In the context of her article, at least some of those people who expect to be saved will be denied by Jesus because their baptism was incorrect or non-existent.  

But in the immediate context of this verse, Jesus is speaking about false prophets.  Giving us instructions on how to discern between the good and the bad through their fruits – not through their baptism.  And then he states that “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Mathew 7:21, NIV).  This statement would most naturally be referring to those false prophets whose fruits weren’t aligned with the Father in heaven.  

Nonetheless, the only stated requirement for entering the kingdom of heaven – as clearly described by this passage – is to “do the will of the Father”.  In this regard, baptism isn’t even mentioned.  

The next scripture referenced in Crowell's article is Acts 22:16, which according to the Crowll “defines calling on the name of the Lord as being done through the act of baptism, not through saying a prayer.”

But Paul isn’t giving specific instructions about baptism instructions in this passage.  In the context of Acts 22, Paul is recounting this very same experience on the road to Damascus when at the end of his story, he states that Ananias told him, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ (Acts 22:16 NIV) [emphasis mine].

In the same sense that Paul is not speaking here so as to give instructions on baptism, this is also clearly not intended to be a formal definition of the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” as Mrs. Crowell indicates.  Paul did not precede his testimony with, “Here is how and why you should call upon the name of the Lord through baptism…”  Interestingly, the addition of the phrase, “calling on his name” does tell us the type of baptism Paul received. And to the primary and the secondary readers, this qualifier tells us that Paul was baptized in Jesus’ name.  There are other places in the New Testament where the “name” used in baptism is called into question.  

And while Mrs. Crowell doesn’t reference this next passage, I have investigated Acts 19 because of the similarity of “calling on the name of the Lord” used in Acts 22..  In Acts 19, Paul encountered some men who were alreaady baptized but had not received the Holy Spirit.  After a quick conversation, he recognized that they were baptized in John’s name and didn’t even know about the Holy Spirit – which is given by Jesus.  Here’s how the events go down:

"So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:3-5 NIV)

And there it is –  “He [John] told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” (v. 4)  And still, quite obviously, baptism happens immediately after belief.  The two seem to go together.

The most intriguing part of this story is the very next verse:

“When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:6 NIV)

Here is the summarized chronology of events from this story in the first part of Acts 19:

1. Paul asked the disciples if they had received the Holy Spirit “when they believed” (v. 2)
2. Here it is important to note that Paul asks these men expectantly – expecting that when they believed, they should also have received the Holy Spirit.
3. They answered “No” because they didn’t even know about the Spirit.
4. Paul explains to them the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus.  Afterward, they are immediately baptized IN JESUS’ NAME (not BY Jesus).
5. Finally, Paul lays hands upon them and they receive the Holy Spirit, speak in tongues and then prophecy.

If we are trying to establish a “law of Baptism”, then things just got more complicated.  In this passage, the Holy Spirit isn’t received through baptism – but through the laying on of hands.

-------------

This is part one of a four-part response to the use of scripture and conclusions in the article "What About Baptism?" written by Lacy Crowell.  Her original article can be found here: http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

Six Perspectives...No More

While Six Perspectives is no more, please consider reading my personal blog:

Writers Gonna Write

In all of my past efforts with blogging, I've only attempted community oriented blogs...ones where I am writing with a group of other writers.  This will be my first attempt at a solo blog - please wish me luck.

Maybe, someday, I will resurrect Six Perspectives.  But for now, I expect that social media has taken the place of online communal discourse.  Sadly, I personally believe social media allows us to share our ideas without consequence or discussion.  And without real online community, people can spew vitriol without being held responsible for the inappropriateness of their words.  

Writing thoughts within a cohesive, responsible framework forces a person to think.  And with this thoughtfulness, we are forced to consider if the words make sense.  And if the words make sense, do they inspire action?  Further we should ask our selves, "Is the action worth taking?"  "Will I change something about myself today?"  "Or will you change something about yourself today?"

I believe that words - in the context of engaging discussion - have the power to change us all.  But social media is the equivalent of a protestor's painted sign or a street corner preacher screaming loudly for all to hear - and with no one to discuss.  John Mayer wrote a song called "Belief", with lyrics that I believe now apply to how we use social media:

Is there anyone who ever remembers changing their mind from the paint on a sign? Is there anyone who really recalls ever breaking record off for something someone yelled real loud one time? Oh, everyone believes...in how they think it ought to be. Oh, everyone believes...and they're not going easily.

Should mentally competent, terminally ill patients be able to end their lives?

#1 A Declaration in Favor of the Value of a Life

This is one of those laws that seems so laughable, if it weren't so sad.  We don't want people to commit suicide, so we outlaw it?  Because people won't end their own lives if we threaten them with legal punishment?  This is a pointless rule.

I don't want anyone to commit suicide, for any reason.  I think suicide is the ultimate abandonment of those who love you, even if it's just days short of a natural death.  And no matter how passionately I feel that no one should ever ever commit suicide, it will never be my right to make that decision for another person.

The natural extension of this question is, "if I am allowed to choose suicide, shouldn't I be able to require my health care provider to assist me in carrying out this personal decision?"  And I think this would be a really dangerous line to cross.  

While a law against suicide is silly and unenforceable, I can imagine why it exists.  Because if it's acceptable for me to decide that life is hopeless, and that I should end it, then why wouldn't it be ok for my spouse or my friend to help me?  And if ending a hopeless life by suicide is ok, then why isn't it ok for my doctor to decide that my life isn't worth living when my health comes to a certain level of hopelessness?

Maybe the law against suicide is a declaration in favor of the value of a life.  A legislative stand that says, "each life is important, and no one, not even the person in possession of that life, should have the right to end it prematurely."  Maybe i like that law after all.

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#2 We Are All Terminally ill!

We are all terminally ill!  I am going to plead that we should not allow patients to decide or be allowed to end their lives.  

The first reason is society’s inability to determine a set of concrete guidelines for who would be considered terminally ill.  We all know that as soon as this “Pandora’s box” is opened, it would only continue to be challenged and pushed further and further.  

The second reason is this would be a devastating step in the wrong direction for the valuing of human life.  Let’s assume that we begin to allow terminally ill patients this option.  Ten years later, insurance companies might just begin to cover the fees associated with that “procedure”.  (They would definitely do this because think of the money they would save….yet it would be considered a new “service” or “option”)  Ten more years pass and insurance companies would begin to offer policies that were cheaper if you had a “terminally ill” clause that meant they didn’t have to cover health-care for “terminally-ill” cases.  It would seem like a great idea, because you could save so much money, until you are the one deemed “terminally-ill”.  Don’t think that’s true...try getting a transplant if you’re obese.


The third reason is simply, we cannot play God.  I do agree with choosing not to take “drastic” measures because that is the essence of leaving a situation in God’s hands, however; willingly ending one’s life is the essence of taking things out of God’s hands.  

Submitted by Paul Buchanan.

#3 Everyone Else Should Honor And Respect That Choice

Yes.

Whether or not a person continues to live is nobody else's choice but their own. I'd go farther and say that terminal illness shouldn't be a constraining factor. If a person decides that they are done living, then everyone else should honor and respect that choice.

To me, this is a basic human right. It is so obvious that marshaling arguments for it is actually more difficult because it is hard to predict what kind of complaints could be made. Of course, I'll do my best.

Q: What about all the loved ones this person will hurt by ending their life?

A: Those that truly love this person will stand by them and respect their choices. If that choice is to withdraw from life, then so be it. Those who wish to override the choice are not displaying love. They are displaying fear and selfishness. Now, I am NOT saying that loved ones shouldn't try to convince the person to change their mind. We do that for each other all the time when we don't agree about important decisions. By all means, make the case that sticking around is a better choice. But remember who gets to make that choice, when all is said and done.

Q: What kind of example will this set for kids?

A: Actually, I think that it might have a positive impact in areas like teen suicide. If we actually embraced the idea, sat down and talked frankly about it, explored the implications and understood the impacts... Perhaps a little reality would take the romance out of it. Also, our culture would adapt. There would be a transitional period, but eventually, we'd use such opportunities to explain death to those children who had reached an age where they were ready to understand it.

Q: Doesn't God say it is a sin?

A: I am not sure. I haven't talked with God today. I think the real issue here is that some beliefs count it as a sin. But since when is it okay to enforce our beliefs on someone who clearly does not share them? I don't think this is a valid argument. If a person has decided on suicide, then they have obviously dealt with any spiritual issues they might have had with it, and those issues WE might have with it are irrelevant.

I can see no compelling reason to forbid suicide, especially for those who are mentally competent and terminally ill.

Submitted by Matthew Rohr.

#4 I'll Reserve Judgment For Someone Who Makes That Choice

It's really sad when terminally ill people linger on in severe pain and suffering. I'd really like to say I thought it would be alright for them to choose to end their own life, but I do not. I'll not quote any scripture. There are several applicable, but my mind is made up that God does not want us to end our own life. While I do not think suicide is an unforgivable sin, as some Christians do, I do not think life should be ended by anyone but God.

Some might suggest that that would preclude capital punishment, but that issue was covered in the Old Testament. Also in war lives are taken, and I do not consider that murder either. My understanding is that the command “Thou shalt not kill” would have been more accurately translated “Thou shalt do no murder.” Murder would denote the taking of an innocent life, as in abortion.

I have no problem with life support being removed, since that is an artificial means to prolong life. When it comes to removing a feeding tube, that gets sticky. I'll not judge that. I certainly do have sympathy for situations where someone begs to die to end the pain, but I cannot give my permission for euthanasia. I'll reserve judgment for someone who makes that choice, but if asked what God would want, I'll have to say I don't approve of allowing someone to end their own life.

Submitted by David Parker.

#5 The Taking Of A Life is Murder

I just want to go on the record here and say that this was/is difficult for me to sort out. On the one hand, who am I to tell someone who is suffering unspeakable pain with absolutely no quality of life remaining that they don't have the right to end their suffering? 

On the other hand, medical miracles happen everyday. What if someone unnecessarily ends his or her life when there is still some hope? And where do we draw the line? To me, the taking of a life is murder. May seem like a simplistic viewpoint, but there you have it. So to begin with, we allow these terminally ill people to end their loves because their quality of life is bad. Then we allow people to voluntarily end their lives because they're lonely or unhappy. Their quality of life may seem just as bad to them. So now we are allowing people with a poor quality of life to make the decision to end it all. 

What's next? Allowing people to kill other people because they're bad or because they negatively affect quality of life? Where does it end? Where is the ethical line? 

Submitted by Lauri Lenox

#6 There Really Isn't Anymore Hope

If you believe in the right for every human to be able to make his or her own decisions, then you should believe in this option as well.

If mentally competent, that patient has the ability to comprehend the situation and decide to choose an end result that is not only best for their own well being, but also the well being of those around: family, friends, etc. I believe there are times when the pain and suffering of an ill patient is more difficult to handle than the lingering anticipation for the day goodbye is said to the world and their family.  It is at that point that someone may call it quits. We can not fault the family members who want to hang on a little longer or the doctor that may have a few more tricks up his sleeve.  They are human and respectively they are afraid of loss and afraid of failure.  

If there are no other options, then why not have the ability to choose this option?  When a hurting loved one passes, we always hear the same self-comforting reasoning from the family members, "They are in a better place now, they are no longer in pain."  If dying is what makes this peace a reality and everyone wants this peace, then let dying be the reality.  Otherwise, the patient's reality is pain, and everyone else is stuck in a fantasy because they refuse to accept the inevitable.

While I believe the choice should be an option for a mentally competent patient, I hope that if they do make the decision to end their life, it is because they want to and not because they have to. I hope they don't choose to end their life because of the financial cost or because any other options are unaffordable or too burdensome for the family.  I guess what I am saying is that I hope that the only time a patient has to make such a decision is because there really isn't anymore hope for their condition.

Submitted by Damian Trudell.

Should We Decriminalize Prostitution?

#1 Our Religious Rights End Where the Freedoms of Others Begin

Yes, prostitution should be decriminalized. But that is not enough. It must be well regulated, organized, and taxed.

We have slowly begun to understand that not everyone shares the same moral standards, and that it is not ethical to force our moral standards on someone else simply because it is our moral standard and we believe that it was handed to us by some higher power. Most people believe that their moral standards are approved by or generated by a higher power. Those that don't most likely don't recognize any higher power at all.

Our religious rights end where the freedoms of others begin.

In addition, keeping it criminalized has not eradicated prostitution. It has made it more dangerous, less healthy, and more likely to lead people into other forms of crime. In decriminalizing it, we must go further. We must regulate it - ensure the health of those who would work in that industry. We must organize it - put power in the hands of the labor in the form of unions. We must tax it - there will be costs, and the money to pay those costs should be generated from within the industry as much as possible, seeing as a majority of people (at least in the short term) will not approve of it.

Submitted by Matthew Rohr.

#2 Prostitution Threatens to Cheapen the Experience of Human Sexuality

In a practical sense, moral laws are established so as to discourage actions that would harm the character of individuals or the community.  In particular, prostitution threatens to cheapen the experience of human sexuality by making intercourse more available and more frequent than is common (think economics…”dumping” product on a market decreases the price and the value).  Shared sexuality is a core component of our lives, so it has been historically justifiable to protect it and make it sacred.

Though the U.S. constitution does not, our state and local laws have made human sexuality sacred by reserving it for specific circumstances.  For example, we do not consider it acceptable for people to have public intercourse.  We also encourage young women and men to refrain from having intercourse until reaching the age of consent.  Further, we prohibit intercourse between adults and children, humans and animals and a myriad of other things that we commonly find morally deviant.  In essence, our laws regarding human sexuality represent what is commonly acceptable as being “legal” and oppositely represent what is uncommon as being “criminal” (e.g. “deviant behavior”).  Even though it has never been uncommon in the United States, prostitution has always been commonly unacceptable and is banned in 49 states for this reason.

Interestingly, two consenting adults having sex before marriage was once uncommon and therefore labeled deviant behavior under the law.  Also, two consenting adults having sex with people other than their spouses was once uncommon and considered deviant behavior under the law.  And finally, for a breathe of current air, two consenting adults of the same gender having sex together was once considered uncommon and deviant behavior under the law.  It should be obvious that what is common behavior has the tendency of changing over time. And as a result of changes in behavior over time, deviance from the standard of what is commonly acceptable should not be labeled criminal behavior.  But if we no longer have at least some standards based on our common morality, we should also expect eventually to commonly dissolve sanctity from our shared human sexuality.

Submitted by Jason Buchanan.

#3 The Constitution of the United States Protects the Right of the Individual to Make Horrible Personal Decisions

We live in a nation defined by a constitution which was written to ensure each individual the freedom to make their own decisions. And that freedom should be impeded only when it damages the rights of others to make their own decisions. And no matter how strongly I feel about the profession of prostitution, I believe that the constitution of the United States protects the right of the individual to make horrible personal decisions.

I think it is very important that those of us who so strongly believe in the importance of American freedom of religion, remember that freedom is for everyone. We do not have the right to legislate the interactions of two consenting adults, based on our religious beliefs, no matter how firmly held.

Aside from religious reasons, the only reason I can think of for a law against prostitution is the hope of protecting men or women from being victimized or trapped in a life of sexual abuse by strangers. And I simply cannot see how making a person a criminal for being a participant in a less than optimal way of life, benefits anyone, least of all the prostitute. It is a policy that is counterproductive to allowing these people to find a way out.

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#4 Seems Like a Win-Win

The only real victims of prostitution as it stands are the women themselves. The world's oldest profession lends itself to violence, degradation and abuse. But let's just say for a moment that it didn't have to. Let's say that it was legalized. Let's go a step further. Say it was even taxed by the government. If there were houses run by madams, where the women were tested and received regular medical care and kept safe, this would solve a myriad of problems. It would get the women off the streets, prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, reduce the violence and abuse that is rampant among this type of profession, all the while making money for the government. Seems like a win-win. 

Submitted by Lauri Lennox.

#5 Last Time I Checked The McGriddle Was Still Legal

Absolutely. The only two things being accomplished by the criminalization of prostitution is, 1) further driving a sinister black market for the exploitation of women and girls, and 2) further victimizing these women and girls at the hands of the criminal justice system. I've represented COUNTLESS women (and men) who have been charged with prostitution or its offspring (e.g., "failure to register" as a sex offender and "crime against nature"). Guess how many men I've represented for patronizing these individuals? NONE. If we as a society have decided we morally want this to be a behavior subject to criminal penalties, then why is this the case? 

There is a serious double standard being used to persecute women and girls who have most often already been subjected to circumstances in their lives which would horrify us. And for what? Some puritanical notion that prostitution is a sin? Well, so is gluttony, but last time I checked the McGriddle was still legal. So is greed, but Wall Street's still too big to fail. At least in the case of prostitution, if it were legalized we'd stop perpetuating an often insurmountable barrier to the "perpetrators" being able to become productive, non-puritanical belief system-offending citizens. For instance, I'd often see rap sheets three pages long or more that had "prostitution" or some derivative of it listed as the first charge followed by, "failure to register: no address provided," "failure to register: failure to pay registration fees," "failure to register: no notices sent," etc., and then low and behold, another conviction for "prostitution" would pop up... Some of these "failure to register" charges are felonies, mind you, so guess who can't get a job? Guess who can't find housing because no one wants to rent to a felon? Guess who can't register or send notices because they don't have a home much less the ability to pay any registration fees? And hmmm, if you were a woman in this position who society had already tagged with a scarlet letter anyway with little to no means of raising yourself out of these circumstances, what might be one way to feed yourself or put a roof over your head for a day or so? 

The criminalization of prostitution is doing absolutely NOTHING but hurting any chance these women and girls have to getting out of this vicious cycle. Luckily, states have been taking prostitution out of the lists of crimes for which one has to register as a sex offender (a designation originally designed to identify sexual predators but expanded by religious zealots to include every possible sex-related offense under the sun), and some have even forgone prosecution of prostitutes as felons. However, more needs to be done to decriminalize something that is inherently should not be criminal in the first place. I could talk all day about how not every moral tenet needs to be turned into a criminal statute, but that's for another post. However, in particular to prostitution, it is especially harmful to target the women and girls who engage in it and not take a good hard look at whether doing so actually solves any society ills.

Further, I firmly believe that if some version of prostitution were legal, there would be more of an outlet for people's sexual desires who wanted to engage in such behavior and perhaps, less of a black market for exploiting young girls by the way of human trafficking or other predatory behavior. As a judge once told a peeping tom client of mine while he was admonishing him during sentencing, "listen, if you need to do that, I can tell you where to go." He was referencing a strip club down the street from the courthouse. In a roundabout way, my sentiments exactly.

The simple truth is that the criminalization of prostitution hurts women and young girls, and it is not the answer to the problem, even if you are of the persuasion that prostitution is a sin. For more about how damaging the criminalization of prostitution is for especially young girls, how our criminal justice system is failing them, and how this topic intersects with the issue of human trafficking, see:

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1028191/should-child-sex-trafficking-victims-go-to-jail-for-prostitution

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-raphael/legalize-prostitution_1_b_4251956.html

Submitted by Amanda Love, Esq.

#6 Prostitution Will Not Go Away

While I try not to adhere myself to political labels, I’d have to admit up front that I typically land more within the Libertarian camp than anything else. This position is not due to any particular party loyalty, I simply believe that all things being equal, grown adults should and can be responsible for themselves.

There are no easy answers to such horrors as the sex slave trade, poverty, public health issues and the other types of criminal activity that go along with the sex industry in general. However, I believe wholeheartedly that a decriminalization of prostitution would be a step in the right direction.

Taking the world's oldest profession out of the back alleys and into government regulated, taxed and protected arenas would, in my opinion, make considerable improvements in an industry that refuses to be abolished no matter what steps are taken to prohibit such activities.  The current criminalization of prostitution is a key component in the victimization of the women and men who choose that profession. For those inside it who haven’t chosen it, but instead have been sold into the industry, the darkness under which they must stay hidden provides the very cloak of oppression that keeps them in such a horrific situation. Decriminalizing prostitution would help to bring those dark places into the light of public and governmental accountability and regulation.

Governmental regulation would also mean that, like the porn industry, regular testing and governmental oversight would help protect public health much more than the aforementioned cloak of darkness. It also means a potential tax on a multi-billion dollar industry, providing tax dollars that could help educate those in the profession, assist those in need who may be choosing it out of a multi-faceted poverty structure, and also help stop sex slave trades. 

In short, prostitution will not go away. We can either continue to fight it in our current strategy and continue to lose, or work with it to minimize the casualties. If the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect different results, then the continued criminalization of prostitution is, indeed, insane. I believe decriminalizing it would be a much better step in the direction of solving the base issues that both feed into the industry and arise out of it. 

Submitted by Shae Cotter.

Whose responsibility is it to care for the poor, the orphans, the widows and the homeless?

#1 The Church Relegated This Responsibility to The Government

Deuteronomy 14: 28-29 describes one of 3 tithes mentioned in the Old Testament. This particular tithe was taken every 3 years, and it's purpose was to take care of the poor. This tells us that at the time this was written, the church took care of the poor in this manner. This was not the same tithe that was to be used to support the temple.

It appears to me that the church relegated this responsibility to the government, who through taxes use various programs to satisfy the needs of the poor. Certainly the New Testament teaches us that we should be benevolent, but at this point in time, the church would not be able to meet all the needs of the poor.

Submitted by David Parker.

#2 Humans Have This Pesky Little Incorporation Called Individuality

This question leads one to believe that there is one answer, and that orphans, the homeless, the poor, and widows, are all in the same boat. They are not. To be clear, not all homeless people are in the same boat as each other, necessarily; and the same with widows and the poor.

The question of orphans, on the other hand, is a category all its own. It represents, to me, ultimate helplessness, especially in the instance of young children who are orphaned.

But you were looking for an answer, not a new question.

I believe that it is the responsibility of every individual to take care of him or herself in as much as that person has the ability. Everyone, of every ability level, has times when they must rely on someone else for something. That is a part of the human condition, something that forces us to enter into community with each other. The more a society learns to use each person's strengths to benefit his neighbors and to work together, the more it can thrive. But this is not something that can be accomplished on a corporate level with true success. Humans have this pesky little incorporation called individuality, and that ingredient will forever make it impossible for any society to have a utopia on this earth. That is why communism, while it sounds fantastic on paper, fails miserably in every application. It's because someone has to lead and manage, and because humans need ambition, however small, in order to be happy, and because they desire deeply, uncontrollably, to be happy. It is part of our nature to want to become something. We simply cannot peacefully and happily live in the “ideal” situation where we all work toward the greater good, as defined by someone other than ourselves.

Compassion, however, must drive us to care for those who cannot care for themselves. We must care for our own families, our own old, our own sick. Morally and Biblically, that is our obligation, and also a system which makes sense. If we all cared for our own, there would be a great deal fewer helpless who were not cared for.

But there are very very many in our world who are not cared for and need to be. Whose responsibility is to care for them? That's a very difficult question. As a citizen of our nation, is it my responsibility to care for a helpless stranger. I say no. As a human, however, and especially if you consider yourself a Christian, it is not an option to leave the helpless without help, if it is in anyway within your power to assist.

The answer, then, i think, in short, is "MINE."

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#3 This Is What Matters!!

I believe the Bible is very clear about our requirements as God’s children to care for the Orphans and Widows.  The book of Deuteronomy has several instructions about caring for Orphans, Widows, and those unable to work, i.e. the Poor and Homeless.  The first thing Jesus states in Matthew 5, The Beatitudes, is blessed are the Meek, the Hungry, and the Thirsty.  Right after that he states blessed are the Merciful.  In James 1 and 2, James, the brother of Jesus, is also very clear about taking care of the less fortunate.  

But 1st Timothy 5:16 explains it a little further by giving an explanation of those who are truly needy. These passages explain that those who have relatives to care for them, or can work for themselves, are not truly needy of our support.  The book of Ruth is a great story about a redeemer kinsman for both the widow Ruth and her widow mother-in law, Naomi.  Ruth turns out to be the great grandmother of King David. Another example can be found in Acts 3 with the Story of Peter and John being asked by a beggar for money.  They tell him they have no money for him and offer him salvation instead.  One point is they probably had some small amount of money they could have given him, at that time the Church was strong and sharing all things with each other.  But they didn't offer the beggar a “Gift”, they offered hope and salvation.  So there appears to be some level of accountability presented in the Bible.

When Jesus was pressed about the greatest of the laws he states to Love God, to Love Others.  Two of the Fruits of the Spirit are Love and Kindness.  When you really do Love someone, you hurt when they hurt.  If you are a follower of Christ and do as he commanded you will feel a certain level of love and compassion for those who are truly needy.  The Church has always been surrounded by the poor and the needy have always been with us.  History tells us that.  It seems sometimes that the poorer or more destitute a person is, the more they realize their need for God and are receptive to hearing his voice and command.  Why is it that Jesus stated how hard it will be for the rich man to enter heaven?  Why did he say if you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor and then you will have treasure in heaven? Then come follow me?


If you open the eyes of your heart, stop, be still, and listen, you will hear the voice of God on many occasions.  I had that happen recently while on a South Dallas mission trip to help the homeless.  My Christian joy was being stunted by several silly and petty issues within my Church life.  I was having issues with the church band, the quality of music we are playing, how we are being lead in worship, and even some of our bible studies and men’s retreat topics.  These seemed to be big and important topics for me and I was not the happiest camper in the building.   While downtown and talking with some of the homeless (who really do sleep under a bridge) I had a break through moment with the Lord.  I clearly heard his voice say to me “This is what matters!!”  I could powerfully feel Christ’s compassion for the needy and lost.  I knew he was talking to me about taking care of those who are truly less fortunate than us and to stop worrying about things that don’t really affect salvation and the message of the Cross.  If you’re honest with yourself and seek, you will see the needs of poor and homeless, those who truly need our help.  They are all around us.

Submitted by Dave Forrest.

#4 Requiring People to Give of Themselves Breeds Resentment & Contempt

The easy answer to the question of who’s ultimately responsible for the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the homeless would be “the government,” but the question itself is not that simple.  In an ideal world there would be no forced charity because requiring people to give of themselves (through taxation) breeds resentment and contempt vis a vis Mitt Romney’s infamous “47%.”  Our government spends untold billions on social programs that tend to instill a learned helplessness on recipients instead of giving them the motivation to overcome their situation and flourish on their own.  Charitable giving should come via people looking within themselves and giving readily and altruistically to causes designed to help those in need.  In return these non-governmental agencies would be responsible for giving the needy a hand-up instead of a handout.  

Submitted by Neal Harkner.

#5 A Microscopic Solution to A Macro-Cosmic Problem

Aside from the fact that I feel we are asking the wrong question here, I think there is a multifaceted answer. The question we should be asking is not who, but how. Determining how we solve the problem is more vital to the solution than determining who solves the problem, and I think it would lend itself to the answer we are seeking. Nevertheless,  I believe that above all else, we have a personal responsibility to take care of our own.  Just as it is my responsibility to take care of myself and my family, it is your responsibility to care for yours.  This may seem like a microcosmic solution to a macro-cosmic problem, but starting on a small scale is an effort worth making.  Solving the problem on a larger, governmental scale, has proven ineffective.  Large scale solutions are the government’s way of placing a band aid over a gaping wound.  They offer the same assistance to all poverty stricken families without considering that not every person is needy in the same way, or for the same reasons.  If we could localize, and perhaps privatize the care that the needy receive, we could go a long way toward minimizing, or possibly alleviating the problem. Charity starts at home, after all.   

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#6 Rich In Material Things, But Poor In Spirit

In short, everyone's. I've spent my legal career advocating on behalf of the poor, and from experience I can tell you that the needs of, “the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the homeless,” are multifaceted and cannot be fully addressed by mere donations of money or well-meaning charities. In addition, I am of the mind that the verse from the Bible this phrase is taken from is not necessarily literal. There are those that are rich in material things, but poor in spirit. There are those that have mothers or husbands or homes in a technical sense, but not within the true meanings of those words. To me, the notion of caring for the poor, etc., speaks to the desire from God or the shared humanistic value for us to be more compassionate toward and to take care of one another, and yes, even create a government that represents that notion.   

Submitted by Amanda Love, Esq.