Thursday, October 02, 2003

I'm going to blog about a controversial topic now. Abortion is back in the news. Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 281-142 in favor of banning partial-birth abortion, or late-term abortion. Critics of the bill say it is an attack on Roe v. Wade. Or, an attack on the right to an abortion itself. The critics are absolutely right. Roe v. Wade is most likely the most unconstitutional piece of garbage ever to become the law of the land. Rather than secure "health care" for millions of people, it has caused the death of fifty million people, and ruined the lives of millions of others. Why won't pro-lifers permit a heath exception? Because prominent abortion doctors have admitted that they would classify the most blatantly elective abortion as a health-related one. "Life" or "rape" is clear enough; health is not. And an overturn of Roe would not mean automatic illegality, as most perceive. Rather, individual state laws would be reinstituted. So pro-life forces would have to prevail in every state. Some states have laws opposed; some in favor. The high court forced all people to submit to the social mores of an amoral few when it federalized abortion in 1973. A constitutional amendment would shorten the battle. If I were acting as a conservative, I would malign an activist court. But activism is precisely what will be required. An overturn of Roe v. Wade by judicial fiat could reverse the prevailing social climate (as it did in 1973) and pave the way for an Amendment. The 14th Amendment would provide the basis and context. It stipulates who is a citizen, and thus, compels states to abide by federal law. The 14th Amendment eliminated the ability of states to deny rights to black people since they had complete control over citizenship. Therefore, the new amendment might say:

"Pursuant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, all preborn children are citizens of the United States, protected under law."

This presents some moral dilemmas as we consider exceptions, but we'll burn that bridge when we get there.

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

That last post is a great transition, because the next section of Colossians tells us some important things about Jesus. Without further delay, let's read Colossians 1:15-29.

What does this passage say about Jesus and the Father?

What does this say about Jesus and creation?

What was the purpose of creation?

What does it mean that "he is before all things"?

What function does a head have for a body?

What must happen before the resurrection on the last day?

What does verse 19 mean? (This is HUGE)

How does Jesus make peace, and with whom?

Who is "you" in verse 21?

What then is true about all people, whether they are Christians or not?

Why is Christ's death important?

How are we holy and blameless?

How will we be made holy and blameless? Are these two truths contradictory?

How can we be stable and steadfast? Why does the gospel help us do that?

Are the afflictions of Christ not complete enough for the church? (Must ask a Pastor)

If the truth of Jesus Christ is the Word of God fully known, what does that say about God's plan before Jesus? Was it different?

Why do you think God is making himself (mostly) known through the Gentiles? (Non-Jews)

Why does the church proclaim Christ?

And by whose strength do we do this?

Monday, September 29, 2003

What is Christology? Good question. Christology is the study of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Or, "Who is Jesus, and what did He come to do?" That, I think, is the most important question that anyone could ask. Your answer determines your destiny. Christians take the rock-solid foundational answer to this question for granted. It's not obvious to everyone that Jesus is the Lord, the Son of God, the author and perfecter of our faith. If you believe Jesus in this way, it is a miracle. We are then vessels for His glory, and nothing else. Most heresies that have ever appeared undermine Jesus and his work. They have to do that very thing, because He is the center of it all.
I would encourage everyone to buy (or just read) The Many Faces of Christology by Tyron L. Inbody. There's a great chapter on evangelical Christology (think: Christian Christology) so that's worth it all by itself. According to the author, "evangelical" does not simply mean Protestant, either. It was simply the Reformation that demanded the real Church stand up and identify itself. The book's also useful to look at unorthodox hermaneutical approaches (like Marxist Christology) for comparison.