"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." ~ George Orwell, "The Freedom of the Press" (emphasis added)
My friends, this is a post that I have wanted to write for several years now. It has been a part of many conversations that I have had with friends, congregants, family, and many, many others over the past few years. Last year, with the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, my desire to write it has been "amped up," but yet, I have continued to let other things get in the way. One of those things is my perfectionist idolatry: there have been parts of this that I felt I was not prepared to write well and I struggle with idolizing perfection. (My idolatrous perfectionism is actually one of the things that keeps me from writing more, which I know God is working on in me but my progress is slow.) Yet, lately, it has been coming back in full-force through many conversations with graduate students in my church. In fact, I lead a graduate student Bible study on Virginia Tech campus, and we are studying the Old Testament book Daniel, which has brought this back up over and over again. We are about to finish with Daniel 6, and again, I have been reminded of this subject and felt compelled to write, whether or not I am prepared to do it perfectly. So, this post will partially be a study in Daniel 6 and partially my musings on current cultural trends in light of God's Word and history, and then, next week, Lord willing, I will write another talking about how Daniel and other believes have been faithful under harsh times.
That is why I started with a George Orwell quote. Many of you have probably read Animal Farm, and if you have not, I would be willing to bet you have at least heard of it. What you may not know is that Orwell wrote a preface to it that did not end up in the published work called "The Freedom of the Press," from which I quote above. In it, he talks about what we might call "cultural orthodoxy," which every culture has had, although it has taken many different forms. That cultural orthodoxy is, as Orwell writes, a body of ideas that all "right-thinking" people are assumed to hold, and anyone who descents from them in any way is never given a fair hearing, actively suppressed, and often persecuted. Sound familiar? It should. In Orwell's time, it was communist philosophy. In our time, in the West, it is sexual sovereignty: "I am sovereign over my own body and sexuality, and no one can tell me or believe otherwise." But, I think the real issue is not actually sexuality or really even cultural orthodoxy, per se: it is an issue of highest loyalty. To whom will we give our highest loyalty? The Kingdom of God or some kingdom of man?
Let me start with Daniel. Any Christian who grew up in the Church is familiar with Daniel 6: Daniel and the Lion's Den. It is a popular children's story, but, like almost all popular children's stories, it is often taught wrongly. It is often taught as "If you obey God and do what's right, everything will turn out fine for you." There is a grain of truth to that, but it depends on what we mean by "fine." Often by "fine" people mean that life will be generally comfortable and you will avoid most suffering. But, biblically-speaking, "fine" does not mean we will not suffer in this life; quite the contrary, actually. The biblical "fine" means God will use our suffering for our ultimate good, but we will still suffer. But, even that is not the point of the story. The point of the story comes out in the decree that the king is duped into making: "O King Darius, live forever! All the high officials of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions." (vv. 6-7)
We look at that and on the surface are tempted to think it is about praying and worship. That is part of it, but ultimately it goes deeper. The ESV gets the translation right because it is about making a petition not just praying. Praying is certainly in that category, but asking a satrap for tax money to fix a road would be as well, which is why they qualify it with "any god or man." So, then what are these enemies of Daniel doing? They are appealing to the vanity of King Darius--to his desire to be the highest dependence and highest loyalty in Babylon. Whatever we depend upon most will be the thing to which we are most loyal--our highest loyalty. In essence, they are saying, "Make a law, King Darius, that for thirty days no one can have a higher loyalty than you; no one can be more dependent on anyone else than you." That would be a tempting prospect to anyone, and, indeed, it is the original temptation: "You will be like God." (Ge. 3:5) They know Darius will love the idea of being everyone's highest loyalty, and they know that Daniel will not give in to that command. That is why in v. 5 his enemies say to one another, "We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God." Thus, they have set the trap: make the highest loyalty someone other than God and watch Daniel maintain his loyalty to God. It is a test of loyalty that they know Daniel will fail.
Such a situation is not unique in the history of God's people. This was also the main issue at stake when it came to the official Roman persecutions of Christians. (You can read my summary of early Church persecutions here.) The Romans were remarkably tolerant of religions, philosophies, worldviews, etc. so long as the Roman State was your highest loyalty. They deeply distrusted and hated anyone who had a higher loyalty than the State. If they ever found out that you had a higher loyalty than the State, you were persecuted, and that was exactly the issue that caused the first empire-wide persecutions of Christians from 250 AD onward. Before 250 AD, the persecutions of Christians were localized to various regions of the Empire, and they were not yet a matter of official Roman policy. Then, Emperior Decius came along. Decius issued a decree that commanded all people under Roman rule to offer a single sacrifice once a year to the Roman gods for the well-being of the emperor by burning incense before the local magistrate. When you did, you were given a libellus (the image above is a surviving libellus), which was your proof of sacrifice. If you could not present a libellus when ask for it, then you were sentenced to death. Do you see what he was doing? He was testing the loyalty of his people. If they were ultimately loyal to Rome, they would sacrifice, even if they also had other gods they served, but if they had a higher loyalty to their God, they would not sacrifice. The ones whose highest loyalty was not to the State could then be identified and erradicated. Rome was fine with your religious beliefs, so long as you were loyalty to it above all else. It was a test of loyalty that Decius knew many Christians would fail.
For Daniel and the early Christians, the test of cultural orthodoxy many have been different, but the underlying issue was the same: Who is your highest loyalty? Whom do you really serve above all else? And, what we are seeing today has the same underlying issue, even though the test of cultural orthodoxy is different. The real issue is not sexual autonomy. That is just a symptom of something deeper: a culture that deeply distrusts those who have a higher loyalty than the culture itself, e.g. Christians.
Our culture is fine with religious beliefs and "spirituality" and even encourages it, so long as those beliefs do not lead you to question the prevailing cultural dogma, so long as you pass the test of cultural orthodoxy. For, if you pass that test, it shows you are more loyal to the culture than you are your religious or spiritual beliefs. If you are willing to compromise on that one belief, it shows your highest loyalty is really to the culture; not the God of the Bible. Last year, Frank Bruni of the NY Times tipped this hand and revealed these cards in his article "Bigotry, the Bible and Lessons from Indiana." There he lays it on the line. He tells us that religious freedom is really "freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity." I added emphasis to show you his bottom line: all people, religious or not, must bow to the "enlightenments of modernity," i.e. all people should be more loyal to the culture than their god, religous text, or spiritual beliefs. It is a test of loyalty: Is our highest loyalty to the culture (the "enlightenments of modernity") or to our God?
You see, friends, what we are seeing in culture is what Christians have experienced in all cultures in all times. It is just that the specifics of the test are different for us. Why do I point this out? For two reasons:
First, we Christians need to be reminded of this so that we do not begin to think that we are going through something no other Christian community has. We are not. Our struggle is not unique. The true Church of God's people has never been on the "right side" of human history and has always been at odds with cultural orthodoxy. And, in those times where we seemed not to be at odds with the surrounding culture, I would argue that those are the times we have been least faithful to God and His Word. It was not because the test was not there but because we passed it (from the culture's perspective). I will talk more about this in the next post, but we need to remember that because then we can look back on history and see that God sustained His people during all those times and tests, no matter how bad the persecution became. He will do the same today. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church (Mt. 16:18).
Second, I want us to realize that whatever the test of cultural orthodoxy is, the issue at the base is always spiritual. The fundamental issue is not sexuality, communism, or petitions. It is always a test of whether or not we will worship God and depend on Him above all else, even if it costs us everything we have in this world. In fact, these were really the issues at stake in devil's temptations of Jesus. And, if we are going to follow Christ through these tests, we need to see them for what they really are: spiritual battles. We need to look past the arguments over sexuality and see what lies behind it: Will we trust God, believe His Word, make use of His means of grace to sustain and train us, and make Him our highest loyalty? That is the question that really matters. It was what mattered for Daniel, the early Church, and all other Christians throughout space and time.
For now, I leave you with that to ponder. Next week, Lord willing, we will learn from Daniel and a little from Church history how we live as faithful Christians in the midst of these tests of cultural orthodoxy.
It is election time, and that, of course, brings a lot of debate, media articles, and (to be straightforward) distraction from other important issues going on in the world. Now, I am not saying politics is not important, but I am saying that sometimes we can get so caught up in candidates, debates, and primaries that we miss other events going on in our world that have equally profound and far-reaching ramifications for humanity (if not surpassing importance).
Yes, you read that correctly: the Francis Crick Institute is going to begin modifying the genome of human embryos with the expressed goal of "understanding the process by which embryos develop... that will help identify causes of miscarriage and infertility." Proponents of the research say that it could help scientists to understand why there is a such a high rate miscarriages, how to eliminate certain diseases, and how to treat infertility more effectively. So, you might ask, "Why is that an issue? Who could be against that?" Well, when we are talking about tampering with the human genome itself, such an endeavor has far-reaching implications that provide quite good reasons to be against it.
I am, of course, not the first person to point this out. In fact, there has been a widespread outcry against these efforts by scientists across the world, calling for a worldwide moratorium on the engineering of the human genome. In an open letter by the Center for Genetics and Society, dozens of scientists across the globe call for such research to be stopped before it does irreparable damage to the human race:
Some suggest that germline modification be allowed for therapeutic purposes but not for “enhancement.” But the distinction between these applications is subjective and would be difficult or impossible to implement as policy. Permitting germline intervention for any intended purpose would open the door to an era of high-tech consumer eugenics in which affluent parents seek to choose socially preferred qualities for their children. At a time when economic inequality is surging worldwide, heritable genetic modification could inscribe new forms of inequality and discrimination onto the human genome.
For these reasons, several dozen countries, including most of those with highly developed biotechnology sectors, have explicitly banned human germline modification. The Council of Europe’s binding 1997 Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine also prohibits it. Numerous opinion surveys show that the great majority of Americans and others worldwide believe that heritable genetic modification should be prohibited.
While we are encouraged by efforts on the part of scientific bodies to move the process of deliberation about acceptable uses of gene editing forward, we are concerned that much of the focus has been on technical issues of safety (implying that if it were safe it would be acceptable), rather than on broader ethical and social implications. We strongly believe that the National Academies’ initiative and international meeting should be considered a very early step of a broadly inclusive program of public discussion. Any recommendations emerging from the meeting or the initiative should make this clear.
In sum, there is no justification for, and many arguments against, human germline modification for reproductive purposes. We call for a prohibition on such germline modification and a robust and broadly inclusive discussion on the socially responsible uses of this and other emerging genetic technologies. (Emphasis added...)
Check out the open letter yourself to look at the signatures and who is arguing that this is far too dangerous for the human race to attempt. It is not just me or other Christians (and we will get into my reasons in a moment) but scientists from many religious worldviews across the globe. Here we have a group of scientists who understand that just because we have the technology and ability to do something does not mean we should do it. We must think about the implications of our scientific research and weigh that against what good (if any) it might accomplish. In an imperfect world like ours, there are times when we must not pursue some scientific research because whatever good it might accomplish cannot be justified and is far outweighed by the loss of human life, the destruction of human dignity, the unknown affects on the human race, and the implications for human society.
As I alluded above, many Christians have also discussed the ethics and dangers of such an endeavor. In this article, Church and Culture discusses some of the ethical implications of such research. In this one, Anjeanette "AJ" Roberts of Reasons to Believe discusses the implications the image of God has on such research as well as the unknown effects on humanity that such tampering could have. Both of them are worth reading along with the open letter mentioned above, but I would like to add another ethical implication that I have yet to hear discussed: the ethical implications of the process of this scientific research itself.
In a nutshell, this process of research will "deactivate genes in leftover embryos from IVF clinics to see if it hinders development." Basically, using CRISPR, the scientists will deactivate genes, allow the embryo to develop, and then see what happens--how the deactivation of that gene helps or hinders the overall development of the human embyro. (Currently, the growth process of the embryo will take place in a lab because it is not yet legal to insert a genetically modified embryo in a human host. Not yet, but that is the next step.) They must use this process because at our current level of technology, it is possible to isolate certain genes that affect or contribute to certain diseases, defects, or developmental stages, but it is generally not known how those genes function in the overall development of a human or affect the overall development of our genome (i.e. genetic makeup). Genes are not so isolated that one gene only has one function. How particular genes contribute to the overall gene expression of a being is largely unpredictable. So, just because a research group might know what genes affect certain developmental outcomes, they do not necessarily know how those genes affect the development of the entire genome of the individual. That means this research must proceed by making targeted changes to the genome of an embryo and then seeing whether or not the embryo develops properly with the desired outcome.
Now, think about that process as a whole: they will deactivate genes, allow the human embryo to develop (i.e. grow), and see what happens. What we are talking about here is taking a human life (a human person from conception, as I argue here), modifying its genome, and then seeing if it dies or not, develops healthily or not, develops unforeseen side effects or not, etc. It is akin to taking a baby, cutting off its leg, and then saying, "Now, let's what happens as it grows." This research goes even beyond current embryonic stem cell research (which is also a deplorable destruction of human life) because it doesn't just take cells from an embryo killing it in the process; it modifies the embryo and allows it to live on just to see how the modification affects its life. This is slavery at its worst, the likes of which our world, unfortunately, has seen in the past. Perhaps a few historical examples will help put some perspective on this research.
During WWII, the Nazi's conducted experiments on Jews at many of their concentration camps, but the majority were performed at Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck. If you have not read about these experiments, they are not for the faint of heart. Nazi doctors performed all sorts of horrific experiments on those who were considered "untermensch" ("sub-human") to see what would happen and/or to see if they could develop medical treatments that would be beneficial to German soldiers. And, after WWII, at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, these doctors were tried and convicted of war crimes against humanity. What they did was absolutely deplorable and deserved to be tried as crimes against humanity, but it is not ethically different from what HFEA has just granted the Francis Crick Institute permission to do: experiment on humans to see what will happen and/or try to development medical treatments that will be beneficial for other humans. Just because these humans are less developed physically they the rest of us, just because they do not have a voice to cry out for help, just because they do not have the ability to try to flee the scientists does not mean they are any less human than you or me (cf. the SLED test for more detail on this).
Perhaps one more example from America history will help. Have you ever heard of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? American physicians studied about 600 black males in Alabama who had syphilis, and they told the men that they were getting "free medical care." What these doctors were really doing was refusing to treat their syphilis so that the doctors could study the progression of untreated syphilis in humans. They let these men suffer and die just to see what would happen--to see how syphilis would progress when untreated. This also was a gross and deplorable misuse of scientific research that cost the lives of hundreds of men, but, again, it is not ethically different from what HFEA has just granted the Francis Crick Institute permission to do.
If the Francis Crick Institute is allowed to continue its research or if others follow suit, then these "left over" human embryos from IVF will become a slave class in our world, kept alive simply for experimentation not unlike what the Nazis did in WWII or what happened in Tuskegee, AL. Yes, the researchers are trying to do good with their experiments, but that does not justify the process. The end does not justify the means--developing treatments for humans by taking human life or, indeed, altering human life and allowing it to develop to see what happens is unacceptable. The end of this research may have profound implications on the human race in the future that we cannot predict, as the above articles and letters show, but even the process of this research itself should be condemned by us.
I hope and pray the outcry of scientists across the globe will bring this research to an end soon, and perhaps this blog post will help in that process. May God have mercy on us for how we treat His images.
This fall at my church, I have had the pleasure of teaching an adult Sunday school class on bioethics, which is the ethics of medical decisions. It has been a great class so far, with great discussion and participation from my congregation. The class is designed to focus on practical issues that will likely come to bear on our lives personally sometime in our years and not so much on social issues, but it does still address social issues tangentially. This past Sunday what we discussed certainly does that: I began a two-week portion of the class on beginning-of-life issues. And, as God's providence would have it, a few days before I had to teach, Bill Nye decided he was going to post a video attempting to argue a pro-choice perspective. Now, to be completely honest and frank, the video is so lacking in actual, robust pro-choice argumentation that I almost skipped over writing about it. However, since Bill Nye is still popular and what he posted relates to what we discussed on Sunday, I changed my mind. But, before I discuss the video, you should watch it for yourself:
I am not going to try to critique the whole video but instead argue for why life and personhood begins at conception, which does address his argument; just not in a direct critique. There are others who have critiqued this video well enough. (See "Bill Nye the logical fallacy guy on abortion" for one such critique.) But, even though I am not going to critique his whole video, I do feel compelled to mention one thing.
Over and over again in the video Mr. Nye appeals to his listeners to "respect the facts." He emphasizes over and over again that there are scientific facts that pro-lifers need to hear and to which we need to pay attention. Yet, Mr. Nye only mentions two such "facts" in this video and both are wildly incorrect. He opens the video by saying "many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans... fertilization is not all you need; you have to attach to the uterine wall." Now, since his argument is sloppy, it is difficult to know exactly what he means, but it sounds like he is saying that hundreds more eggs are fertilized than attach to the uterus. Okay, that is fact number one, and it grossly, grossly, grossly inaccurate. It is very difficult to determine what the actual rate of implantation is, but all estimates fall between 30-80% of fertilized eggs attach (this paper estimates 70% attach/30% loss; this one also estimates 30% loss; this one estimates 25% fail to implant; and, this one estimates 20% do not attach). If we average these results, we get one out of four fertilized eggs does not attach, i.e. three out of four do attach to the uterine wall. Even if we use the lowest estimate of 30% implantation (i.e. only about one out of three attach to the uterus), Mr. Nye is still off by a factor of one hundred in his statement. Now, his entire argument is a logical fallacy, which I will get to below, but the point is that his "facts" are not facts at all but something he is either grossly misinformed about or is simply making up.
His second "fact" is that the Bible was written 5,000 year ago. Now, he does not technically say "Bible." He says, "I know it was written or your interpretation of a book written 5,000 years ago, 50 centuries ago, makes you think..." [sic] Given that pro-lifers are often Christians, one can only assume he is referring to the Bible. Well, again Mr. Nye is either misinformed or making things up, because the first books of the Bible were written in the 15th century BC, which means it began to be written about 3,500 years ago. Now, this is not as grossly inaccurate as his implantation "fact," but it still shows sloppy argumentation. If Mr. Nye wants us to "respect the facts," then perhaps he should give some and perhaps he should try to get it right when he does.
That is all I really want to say about the video directly. Again, there are good critiques written (e.g. see the one linked above). Instead, I want to argue why both Scripture and the scientific data point to life and personhood beginning at conception. Now, I have added "personhood" because most contemporary and decent pro-choice arguments have given up trying to argue for life not beginning at conception. That is because there is really little debate anymore that a human embryo is life from its earliest days. What is argued more often today is that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, or whatever term one uses are not persons and therefore do not deserve to be protected with the rights of personhood. Peter Singer of Princeton, for example, argues that a person is "A being of rational awareness--who they are existing beyond simply the physical organism." He even acknowledges that this excludes infants, but he does say that the law can protect them, if it so chooses. (Just to elaborate a little more: Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood and, therefore, "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.") So, we need to determine where personhood begins, where life begins, and if these are the same point. (I have already written some on personhood here in response to the Kermit Gosnell case, and here from the standpoint of the image of God.)
I think we can answer these questions all at once by looking at both the biblical and scientific information. I am first going to give a quick overview of the biblical data. It is going to be fast for two reasons: 1) most who take the Bible seriously do not really question that a human life is a person from its earliest days and 2) those who do not take the Bible seriously are not going to find this part of the argument very convincing anyway. If you are of that persuasion, stick with me please. You will get educated on what the Bible says on this subject and also (hopefully) see that the scientific data agrees (when interpreted rightly, and I make that caveat that because of what I have written about data and interpretation in this series on science).
Scripture:What does the Bible say about the beginning of life? Well, Christians must admit from the start that it does not really say anything directly about where life begins. There is no statement in Scripture that says, "Life and personhood begin at conception," but there are a lot of indirect statements in Scripture that show the Bible teaches that humans beings are life and persons from the earliest days in the womb. Here are a few passages that show us this:
Ex. 21:22-25: Here we see in the OT law code that if a woman is injured in such a way that she gives birth prematurely (which would cover miscarriages) and the baby dies, the responsible party receives the death penalty. Here we see that the in utero life is as valuable as the fully developed life that caused its harm or death.
Jdg. 13:13-14: Here we are in the beginning of the story about Samson. His mother is being told that she will conceive a child that will be a judge of Israel. His mother is also told that Samson is to be a Nazarite from the womb (for what that is, see Nu. 6). As a Nazarite, there were certain things that Samson could not eat or touch because they would make him unclean. But, in this verse we learn that Samson's mother also could not eat or touch those things because they would make Samson unclean through her. So, Samson in the womb, from conception onward could potentially become unclean. But, he would become an unclean what? An unclean person. Masses of tissue cannot become unclean with respect to the OT legal code.
Ps. 51:5: Ps. 51 is a very informative passage in general. David talks about himself in the womb and he uses personal pronouns to refer to himself. And, in this particular verse he identifies as an implicated sinner from conception. Tissue cannot be a sinner, but persons are sinners. Now, it is worthy of note that David's idea of conception was probably different from ours, but it does show that from the earliest days of pregnancy, in utero babies are considered human persons in Scripture.
Ps. 139:13-16: Here David again talks about his in utero self in personal terms, and he knows that God paid special, personal attention to him from the earliest days of pregnancy onward. The Bible does not speak this way about animals, much less masses of impersonal tissue but only about persons who can have a personal relationship with God.
Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:14-15: I will take these two together since they are similar situations. In these passages we see that Jeremiah and John the Baptists were "consecrated" (i.e. sanctified) and "filled with the Holy Spirit" in the womb. These men were regenerate (a theological term for new spiritual life being given, cf. e.g. Eze. 36:26; Jn. 3:5) from the womb. The question is a regenerate what? They were regenerate persons. Masses of impersonal tissue cannot be regenerated in theological terms.
Those are just a few examples of how the Scripture views life in the womb, and it views life in the womb as human persons from the earliest days of pregnancy onward. Now, we must admit that Scripture does not have the precision of a scientific study, but it does take us a long way back. Fortunately, God has revealed His truth in nature as well as in Scripture, and where Scripture is not as precise, nature picks up and we see that knowledge in the detailed studies of human development that modern scientific studies have revealed.
Scientific Data:What does the scientific data have to tell us about where human personhood begins? Most Christians would, of course, argue for the decisiveness of fertilization as the point where life and personhood begins, but why is that the case? Would medical information support that claim? I think so, and here is why.
In summary this is the argument: from the knowledge that we have of the human development process, fertilization is a unique, radical, and decisive event unlike any that occurs later on in development, and if one is going to assign personhood as an objective, non-arbitrary point, it must be here. Before fertilization, sperm and eggs are merely cells and do not have any possibility of developing into a full-grown human being or anything beyond themselves. Before fertilization, sperm and eggs really are part of the father and mother's bodies. But, after fertilization, the embryo is genetically unique and distinct, and he/she experiences an unbroken, continuous development unless something outside the embryo acts upon it, and at no other point does the child undergo a decisive and radical transformation into some other sort of being.
Fertilization is a process that takes about 24 hours, during which the egg's cytoplasm and sperm's nuclear contents merge in a process called syngamy and form the 46 chromosomes that define a human's physical existence. This newly formed entity is called a zygote and it is clearly genetically different from both the sperm and egg. The mitochondrial DNA matches the mother, the Y-chromosome (if it is there) matches the father, but the autosomal DNA is a completely unique genetic makeup, making the lifeform something completely new. WebMD notes (Emphasis added):
At the instant of fertilization, your baby's genome and sex are set. If the sperm has a Y chromosome, your baby will be a boy. If it has an X chromosome, the baby will be a girl.
At this point, the embryo will continue to develop towards fully independent life. This is crucial: the sperm and egg are living cells but have no possibility of independent life or life of further development (i.e. not persons), but the embryo is a new, genetically unique and complete individual that will follow human development unless otherwise interrupted by something outside itself. He/she is no longer part of the father or mother but a being all its own. The embryo is precisely not the mother's body, even though Mr. Nye and so many others keep sounding that mantra. Once fertilization occurs, the child is not a growth of cells or tissues like some kind of tumor in the woman's uterus. It is a genetically unique life that is distinct from both the father and the mother. And, it is scientific knowledge, to which Mr. Nye so often appeals, that gives us this insight. Christians and other's who are pro-life are not basing that determination based solely on Scripture but on what Scripture and scientific knowledge show us. Scripture only takes us so far (though it is far enough to protect persons in the womb), but scientific data takes us all the way back to conception. Mr. Nye is correct when he says:
You wouldn’t know how big a human egg was if it weren’t for microscopes, if it weren’t for scientists, medical researchers looking diligently. You wouldn’t know the process. You wouldn’t have that shot, the famous shot or shots where the sperm are bumping up against the egg. You wouldn’t have that without science.
But, that knowledge leads in the opposite direction of the conclusion that he (and others) is attempting to draw. Perhaps before the modern scientific knowledge about human development one could argue that the fetus is part of the "woman's body," but now scientific knowledge has shown us that from the moment of conception onward, it is not her body. It might be in her body and it might be dependent on her body for initial development, but it is not her body. It is a distinct, unique human being. (Some out there might be aware of the "violinist" argument that attempts to say that it does not matter that the baby is not part of the mother's body. I do not have the space to deal with that here and others have dealt with it adequately. For a critique of that argument, see this article.)
So, again, this is a radical transformation in which two entities (genetically different from one another) combine to form a genetically unique living human that will become a full-grown human under normal circumstances. If one is going to assign personhood not based on something external to the embryo and/or arbitrary in its development, that must be here. Other proposed points do not reflect any similar level of change within the human being or other points propose a definition of personhood that is arbitrary, at best. Let's take a look at the other proposed points. I will start at the latest points and move to the earliest (with the exception of the last, for a reason that will be explained then).
Birth: While birth is certainly a decisive event in human life, the baby undergoes no change in itself. Its location changes, but the baby does not change in any defining way. The day on which the mother happened to go into labor had no effect on the baby's ability to living independently of the mother (again, under normal circumstances) and no effect on its existence other than location. In fact, a few years ago, in The Journal of Medical Ethics, a couple of doctors argued for the validity of after birth abortions. This, of course, is the logical extension of pre-birth abortions because there is no moral or personal distinction between the unborn child and the newly-born child. Moving down the birth canal does not change the personhood of the baby. (Of course, this logical extension should lead our culture to realize killing the unborn is wrong, but unfortunately, some, like the above linked article, use that realization to argue for infanticide.) So, again, birth is an important event, but it changes nothing about the personhood of the baby.
Viability: Others suggest that viability is the radical point where personhood begins--the point where the baby could survive outside the mother. Hopefully you can see that this is as transparently false as birth as a possibility. The point of viability is quite independent of the child itself. Viability depends on medical technology. This recent paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association shows how dramatically things have changed when it comes to viability even in the past 20 years. It shows that in 1993, only 52% of infants born at 24 weeks survived. Compare that with 2012: 65% survived. The percentage increase in healthy premature infants is also striking: 47% of infants born at 27 weeks in 2012 survived without major illnesses, compared to 29% in 1993. As medical technology progresses, viability gets pushed further back in pregnancy.
Therefore, it is impossible to determine a decisive viability point in the child's development because it depends on medical technology. It is conceivable and even likely that eventually human beings will be able to develop in a lab. Furthermore, because it depends on medical technology, a baby that is viable today may not have been viable 50 years ago. Did human personhood change in the past 50 years? Or, to make it even more acute: If a mother travels form America to Cuba, a baby that is viable in the morning can become unviable in the afternoon. How does that change its personhood? Assigning personhood to viability is completely arbitrary.
Quickening: Others have suggested "quickening," which is the point at which the mother can first feel the baby move. This has historical precedence even in Christianity because hundreds of years ago (i.e. before we understood human development like we do now), it was believed by a few theologians that quickening was the point the soul was placed in the baby. But, quickening fails to demonstrate a decisive change to personhood from both a scientific and biblical perspective. From a scientific perspective, knowledge of human development shows us there is no substantial change in the child at that point, but that is simply the point at which they started moving enough for the mother to feel it. Furthermore, any mother who has had more than one baby knows that in the second pregnancy she could feel it earlier because she knew what she is feeling for. How can that affect personhood? It does not. From a biblical perspective, there is no information in Scripture about when the soul comes into existence or even if it is directly created by God or comes about by a physical process God designed. And, the above mentioned biblical data would certainly push personhood further back than quickening.
Full Nervous System Integration: Still others have suggested that personhood should be placed at the point where the fetus' nervous system is fully integrated (roughly about the 20th week of pregnancy). With this argument, rationality is made completely integral to personhood, and it is argued, then, that the fetus does not have the physical apparatus capable of rationality until this point, therefore the child is not a person until this point.
Attempting to place personhood at this point has several problems (at least). First, this argument depends on definition of personhood that overemphasizes rationality. I would first point out that to some degree "rational" is a subjective term. Furthermore, some elderly with Alzheimer's are not rational, at least not as we would define it in normal usage. Are they no longer persons? Sometimes a mental handicap makes the individual unable to be achieve rationality beyond that of an infant, so should we not consider them persons? A definition of personhood which depends heavily on rationality is dubious, at best. Second, just because the nervous system is integrated and the neurological structure for rationality is there, the fetus hardly thinks or acts rational at that time. That activity requires much more development that extends into early childhood. And, even before the nervous system is integrated, the potential is there; just at an earlier stage of development. And, finally, there is no consensus on when the nervous system is truly, fully integrated, so there is no identifiable point in time anyway. Therefore, attempting to assign personhood to the point of full nervous system integration is as arbitrary as any other point.
Implantation: Finally, we are back around to what Mr. Nye seems to suggest in his video: that implantation is the point at which life and personhood begins. (Although, again, since his argument is not very coherent, it is difficult to tell what point he is actually trying to make.) But, let's think about implantation. This generally happens 3-4 days after fertilization, and it is argued by many, not just Mr. Nye, that this is the point at which we should start to protect life, i.e. where personhood begins.
There are two parts of this argument that need to be addressed. First, those who simply say that personhood should begin at implantation commit the logical fallacy of assuming that location can somehow affect the personhood of an entity. Nothing changes in the embryo itself when it attaches, but it simply continues to develop like normal. In fact, comparing a successful pregnancy to an ectopic pregnancy shows that development does not change at all whether the baby is in the uterus or a Fallopian tube. The only thing that changes is location. How can a change of location change personhood? The answer is "It can't." (For more argumentation along this line, see this article on the SLED test.)
There is, however, another version of this argument that references the rate of implantation, which may be what Mr. Nye was attempting to argue, just with inaccurate numbers and little clarity. The argument is generally presented as follows: "Well, one in four fertilized embryos does not implant naturally, so this if it happens naturally, what is the problem with making it happen with a pill?" To this we can respond: just because something happens naturally (i.e. out of the control of the mother and father) does not make it moral for us to do it intentionally. One might simply point out that infant mortality rate in some third-world countries is one in four, so does that give parents the right to kill their newborns? And, of course, no one would say yes to that.
Both of the above versions of the implantation argument fail to demonstrate a change from non-person to person. Furthermore, even if personhood were to begin here, it would rule out almost all forms of abortion except for some forms of birth control and the so-called "morning after pills." Now, do not get me wrong, I still argue against those because life and personhood both begin at conception, but arguing for implantation as the point of personhood does not really help the major pro-choice agenda.
Individuation: There is one final point that some attempt establish personhood, which is more challenging than all the previous ones, which is why I broke the pattern of moving further back in human development and saved it for last. There is a stage in pregnancy that is often called "individuation." This is the point at which twinning is no longer possible, which is about two weeks after fertilization.
Twinning (or more precisely monozygotic twinning) is where a single embryo can split into two embryos of the exact same genetic makeup and therefore these can develop into identical twins. This is rare (three to four occurrences per one thousand births) but possible and perhaps even possible in any pregnancy (but no one is sure, see below about the mystery of this process). It is even rarer but still possible that the embryos will recombine into one embryo again. But, it is not possible, as far as we presently know, for this to occur after two weeks, which is where individuation is said to happen. So, some use this argument for the two-week mark to be the point where personhood begins. As the argument goes, we cannot claim the embryo is an individual because it could potentially become two (or more) individuals for the first two weeks. It is not an individual until that possibility has passed, it is argued. Advocates of this argument would say the embryo is a living being at fertilization but not a person because they have not individualized yet.
I think you can probably see why this is the most challenging and robust point to challenge conception for personhood. It does sound compelling at first because how can someone be a person and not an individual? Most of us would say, "Well, they cannot." But, there are some major problems with this point that I think render it unacceptable as well.
First, I would argue that twinning is extremely rare. Most embryos experience a continuous line of development from conception onward and nothing decisive happens at the two-week mark that changes that its being. While twinning may effect a change in the being, the lack of twinning does not change the being. So, for most pregnancies, there is no reason to argue that the embryo is not an individual before this point since if they do not twin, nothing decisive happens.
Second, why embryos twin or do not twin is entirely a mystery at present. No one knows if it is something genetically inherent in the embryo or whether it is forced on it from an outside source. But, those seem like the two possibilities, so let's examine both:
If twinning is caused by something genetically inherent in the embryo, then most embryos have no potential of twinning and therefore they are individuals from the beginning. And, furthermore, since it is part of the embryo's genome, could we not say that before twinning we have two (or possibly more) individuals? If it is genetically guaranteed that the embryo will twin, then we have multiple individuals in the process of development before the two-week mark, they simply have not separated yet. And, if we have multiple individuals from conception onward, then there is still no compelling reason to argue they are not persons.
If twinning is caused by something external to the baby, then just because something can force a change in an entity does not mean that entity is not an individual. That does not necessarily follow at all.
Twinning is a mysterious process, and the current state of scientific knowledge does not prove the lack of individuality in the first two weeks. At this point, one could invoke the "hunter" analogy. When a hunter sees something rustling in the bushes, any responsible hunter knows they must not shoot until they know what is rustling. Just because it is mysterious does not give the hunter the right to squeeze the trigger. This type of reasoning applies to the mystery of the twinning process. Prudence and responsibility require that we err on the side of caution, not taking the risk and hoping everything comes out okay.
In conclusion: Scripture compels us to the conclusion that a fetus is a human being and person from the earliest days, and where Scripture is not explicit, scientific knowledge comes back and shows us that there is radical change in the fetus only at fertilization, so if one is going to assign personhood not based on an arbitrary time or something outside of the child, then conception is the only identifiable, definable, objective point. All other points are extraneous definitions put on the child by others, and external definitions are subjective, not objective. And, subjective definitions are dubious, at best. If there is no authoritative, objective point, then personhood becomes defined by community (which is what Singer tries to do) or the laws that protect non-persons are defined by community. Either way, if definitions are made by the community, then a vote determines the life or death of millions. And, if that is the case, why do we get angry about atrocities like, for example, what the Nazis did? They defined personhood in such a way that Jews did not count in their community. In fact, they had a name for it: Untermensch--sub-human. Only by putting personhood and life at conception can we avoid such arbitrary dehumanizing of those made in God's image and give them the dignity and value they deserve.
Note: This was written as a devotional for my congregation on June 26, the day the results of Obergefell v. Hodges were announced. So, it is a little behind; yet it still applies today.
We do not need to cave or panic. Yes, this will likely mean more persecution for Christians in America as the ramifications of this decision play themselves out. But, let's sit back and take a historical perspective. Rarely has the true, invisible Church existed in an environment where the culture around them was not hostile to their beliefs (and Jesus warned us of this), and God has continued to sustain, love, and care for His Church in whatever environment they live. The Hebrew people had to learn this in Ex. 1-2, and the Church has learned it ever since. Persecution has never stopped God's people or the spread of the gospel. In fact, it has only served to fuel the spread. We have seen this in Ex. 1, the book of Acts, the Roman persecutions of the early Church, the Reformation, and even today in places like Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. And, this is because the life of the Church is not in our selves, our strength, or anything else from us at all. The life of the Church is the resurrection life of Christ, against which even the gates of hell cannot prevail. As Russell Moore said in the above article, "The Supreme Court can do many things, but the Supreme Court cannot get Jesus back in that tomb." Nothing can stop the Church, and Christ will continue to sustain and protect His Bride until He returns again to take her home.
And, speaking of home, that is another aspect of the Exodus story and our lives as the Church that we need to remember. Yes, this latest decision will likely mean greater persecution for us as a Church and as individuals, but that should remind us that the gospel shows us that this world is not our home. He. 11:26 tells us that Moses "considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward." Even Moses knew that the promises of God and the coming Redeemer were greater than all the treasures of Egypt. Why? Because he knew that this world is not his home. The "reward" towards which he was looking is told to us by the author of Hebrews in v. 16: "a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city." Moses and all of God's people have "a better country, that is, a heavenly one" coming--the new heavens and the new earth. Jesus, through His work of redemption, has secured for us a home that far surpasses this world in every category, and while we may suffer here for Christ because we stand with Him against our culture, as the gospel tells us, "The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Yes, we may suffer in the future as the implications from today play themselves out, but that suffering should remind us that this world is not our home. We are strangers and foreigners here, exiles as Peter puts it, but that is only for a short time. America is not really our country but simply a place to sojourn for a while on this earth. We have "a better country, that is, a heavenly one" coming. Christ secured it; the gospel displays it.
“The Christmas message is that there is hope for a ruined humanity—hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory—because at the Father’s will Jesus Christ became poor and was born in a stable so that thirty years later He might hang on a cross.” ~ J. I. Packer, Knowing God
The Advent season starts tomorrow, and over the next few weeks, I will post a short Scripture reading and devotional each day. But, before that, we must ask ourselves, “Why do I want to observe Advent? What is its purpose?” Since it wasn’t commanded by Christ and taught to us by His apostles, we can’t insist that anyone observe the Advent season. If someone tries to convince you that you must observe Advent because you are a Christian, ask them where that is commanded in Scripture, and then humbly remind them that our Lord Himself taught us not to teach “as doctrines the commandments of men.” So, if Advent isn’t a commanded season of preparation, why would I spend time writing Advent devotionals—a tool to use in the observation of Advent? Well, we’ll get to that in a moment.
First, it would be helpful to talk briefly about the history of Advent. Why did it arise as a Church tradition in the first place? When the Church emerged from almost three centuries of persecution, a Church year—a cycle of regularly occurring annual Christian festivals—began to form. Now, a religious year wasn’t a new idea in the fourth century, for there was a religious year in Old Testament worship, and even several pagan religions observed a religious year. However, the distinctiveness of the Church year is that it centers on a particular person and His Work, i.e. Jesus Christ and His work of redemption. This focus on Christ and His work for annual Christian festivals naturally formed three primary festivals: Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. These festivals center our attention on the three major events of the Christian gospel: Christ’s incarnation, His death and resurrection, and His outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Church. The great Church historian, Philip Schaff, states concerning this cycle, “The church year is, so to speak, a chronological confession of faith; a moving panorama of the great events of salvation; a dramatic exhibition of the gospel for the Christian people.”
Christmas and Advent were comparatively late additions to the Church calendar with Easter and Pentecost developing early in the second century, Christmas developing in the fourth, and Advent near the end of the sixth century. It was inevitable that Christmas be added to the Church year, for it celebrates the groundwork for all other festivals—the coming of Christ. John Chrysostom (bishop of Constantinople in the fourth century) defended the addition of Christmas to the Church calendar by reminding his congregation that “without the birth of Christ there were also no baptism, passion, resurrection, or ascension and no outpouring of the Holy Spirit….” That is, without a celebration of Christ’s birth there is no foundation for the celebration of Easter, Pentecost, or any other festival based on His work in this world. By the end of the sixth century, seasons of preparation for these key celebrations had been added, and thus Advent became a traditional part of the Church year. It was designed to anticipate and prepare the Church for the celebration of Christ’s birth by reminding us of the yearning for the Messiah in the long ages before His incarnation, of our hope of redemption in Him alone, of our continual need of Him, and of our future hope in His second coming. It is the anticipation and preparation for our celebration of the coming of the “hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory,” which came through Christ alone.
“How long is the Advent season?” might be a question on your mind. Well, the Advent season begins on the fourth Sunday before Christmas, which means it’s a season that varies in length depending on day on which Christmas falls. It can be as short as 22 days (if Christmas falls on a Monday) or as long as 28 days (if Christmas falls on a Sunday).
But, we need to get back to the original question, "Why observe Advent?" Why anticipate and prepare for a celebration, even one as important as Christmas? Well, I can’t tell you why you should observe Advent because it’s not a God-given command, and therefore neither I nor anyone else can demand you observe Advent as if it were a command. Rather, I’m going to tell you why I observe Advent, and then leave your reasons between you and the Lord.
Now, let’s be honest, most believers get caught up in the consumerism and materialism of the Christmas season just like the rest of our culture. I’m no exception to that statement. During this season I find myself getting frustrated by our culture’s views on Christmas, mostly because I find those views affecting me just as much as others, and I don’t like that. At times I’ve been called a “Christmas scrooge” because I’m pretty cynical about Christmas traditions and generally don’t have much “Christmas spirit.” Therefore, I need to have my cynical, wayward heart drawn away from the consumerism and materialism of cultural Christmas and back towards Jesus and the glorious truth of His incarnation in this world. That’s why I need to observe Advent and perhaps why it might be helpful for you as well.
Observing Advent doesn’t have some special spiritual power, and the Advent Sundays are no more holy than any other Lord’s Day in the rest of the year. What it does do is give me a daily pause and reminder of what this time of year means to the Christian faith and why we celebrate the birth of Christ in the first place. It provides me with a much-needed corrective for everything else I hear and see from the world during the Christmas season. In this sense, it helps me reset myself from anticipating presents, stockings, decorations, or Christmas traditions, and it focuses me back on celebrating the incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Observing Advent gets my mind back on the fact that our Lord has come, that He has accomplished complete redemption for His people, and that He is coming again one day to usher in the new heavens and new earth. That’s why I like observing Advent and why I think it might be helpful for you as well. If you find that reason compelling or perhaps it brings to your mind another good reason for you to observe Advent, then come back each day and keep reading.
A few words need to be said about the title of this post (and the subsequent posts). From where did I get “Solus Christus”? “Sola” is the Latin word for “alone” or “only,” and during the Reformation, five Latin sola-statements (commonly called the “Five Solas”) emerged. These were intended to summarize the Reformers’ basic theological principles and distinctions from Roman Catholic theology. The Five Solas are sola fide (“by faith alone”), sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), sola gratia (“by grace alone”), soli deo gloria (“glory to God alone”), and, finally, solus Christus (“through Christ alone”). Since Advent focuses our hearts and minds on the coming of Christ and the hope of redemption through Him alone, I thought it a fitting title for a set of Advent meditations.
This Sunday's sermon post will focus on God's sovereignty, which is clearly seen in Ge. 45-46 in several ways. One of those ways is providence. Providence has been one of the two major themes that we've seen weaving its way through this narrative thus far, and we have had the chance to talk about it in several ways in several of the past sermons. We are not going to discuss the details of providence in this devotion because the sermon will talk about that, but we are going to discuss the comfort that the knowledge of God's providence can bring to our lives.
The Heidelberg Catechism has a really good statement about the comfort that God's providence can bring to our lives. In question 28 (which will be our confession of faith this Sunday) it asks, "How does the knowledge of God’s creation and providence help us?" And, it answers:
We can be patient when things go against us, thankful when things go well, and for the future we can have good confidence in our faithful God and Father that nothing will separate us from His love. All creatures are so completely in His hand that without His will they can neither move nor be moved.
Let's consider this a line at a time. First: "we can be patient when things go against us." When we remember that God is in sovereign control of everything that happens to us and that He is our loving, faithful, heavenly Father (which are the two parts to providence), then "we can be patient when things go against us" and don't seem to make any sense because we can know that one day He will work them out for our good (Ge. 50:20; Ro. 8:28). Joseph's sale, slavery, and imprisonment didn't make any sense to him at first, but in our passage for Sunday, we see that he finally understands (at least in part) God's purpose in it. His patience paid off. The enslavement of the Israelite nation didn't make any sense to the Jews at first, but it does now that we can see the whole story. The crucifixion didn't make any sense to the apostles at first (even though Jesus had told them it was coming), and yet they soon figured out how crucial and important it is. And, I bet there are many things in your life that didn't make sense at first, but now that you can look back on them, you can see at least some part that God worked for your good or the good of others in them. Of course, you may be in the middle of something against you right now and cannot see any good reason for it, but be patient for your heavenly Father is working it for your good. As Spurgeon once said, "When you can't trace God's hand, trust His heart."
The next line is, "we can... be thankful when things go well." This is a convicting line in a comforting answer. How often do we pray for God to act and then forget to thank Him when He answers our prayers in the way we'd hoped? How often do we attribute success or prosperity to our abilities? When we realize that God in His providence never for a moment removes His hand from our lives, we'll start to see all things as a reason for rejoicing and thanksgiving; we'll start to realize that everything good is a gift of grace from our loving, faithful, heavenly Father (cf. Js. 1:17).
The third line says, "...for the future we can have good confidence in our faithful God and Father that nothing will separate us from His love." This is simply a restatement of Ro. 8:38-39. Since God is always in sovereign control of everything that happens to us and, again, since He is our loving, faithful, heavenly Father, then we can know that nothing will separate us from His love. Since He is sovereign over this universe, nothing can take us out of His hand, and since God loves us with a never-stopping, never-giving-up, unbreaking, always-and-forever love, He will not let us go. His providence guarantees this comfort and makes promises like Ro. 8:38-39 absolutely certain.
And, finally, the HC states, "All creatures are so completely in His hand that without His will they can neither move nor be moved." This is the doctrinal statement that comes from passages like Ps. 115:3; 135:5-6; 145:11-13; Jer. 27:5; Ac. 2:23; 4:23-31; 17:24-26; Eph. 1:11 that makes the three preceding comforts absolute and certain. Without God working "all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11), we can't have the comforts of patience during the hard times, thankfulness for the good, and knowing that nothing can pluck us out of God's hand (Jn. 10:29) or separate us from His love (Ro. 8:38-39).
Now, at this point, the modern, Western sense of autonomy with which most of us grew up tends to recoil and question whether this is really good or fair. Naturally, we want to be masters of our own "fate" or "destiny." But, consider that alternative carefully. I can maybe control the way I respond to what's going on around me in the world, but I can't control the world around me itself. So, how can I possibly think that I can be the master of my own destiny? The best I can do is attempt to respond circumstances that are largely out of my control in way that helps my future, but even then, I'm a sinful man and my even responses are not to be trusted. So, with such sinful, limited ability, how is it at all good for me to be the master of my own fate? Where's the comfort or peace in that? Yet, if God is sovereign and my loving, faithful, heavenly Father, then I can trust Him and rest in His hands. That's what Joseph does, and we'll get to see more of that, Lord willing, in Sunday's sermon post.
“The Christmas message is that there is hope for a ruined humanity—hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory—because at the Father’s will Jesus Christ became poor and was born in a stable so that thirty years later He might hang on a cross.” ~ J. I. Packer, Knowing God
The Advent season starts tomorrow, and over the next few weeks, I will post a short Scripture reading and devotional each day. But, before that, we must ask ourselves, “Why do I want to observe Advent? What is its purpose?” Since it wasn’t commanded by Christ and taught to us by His apostles, we can’t insist that anyone observe the Advent season. If someone tries to convince you that you must observe Advent because you are a Christian, ask them where that is commanded in Scripture, and then humbly remind them that our Lord Himself taught us not to teach “as doctrines the commandments of men.” So, if Advent isn’t a commanded season of preparation, why would I spend time writing Advent devotionals—a tool to use in the observation of Advent? Well, we’ll get to that in a moment.
First, it would be helpful to talk briefly about the history of Advent. Why did it arise as a Church tradition in the first place? When the Church emerged from almost three centuries of persecution, a Church year—a cycle of regularly occurring annual Christian festivals—began to form. Now, a religious year wasn’t a new idea in the fourth century, for there was a religious year in Old Testament worship, and even several pagan religions observed a religious year. However, the distinctiveness of the Church year is that it centers on a particular person and His Work, i.e. Jesus Christ and His work of redemption. This focus on Christ and His work for annual Christian festivals naturally formed three primary festivals: Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. These festivals center our attention on the three major events of the Christian gospel: Christ’s incarnation, His death and resurrection, and His outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Church. The great Church historian, Philip Schaff, states concerning this cycle, “The church year is, so to speak, a chronological confession of faith; a moving panorama of the great events of salvation; a dramatic exhibition of the gospel for the Christian people.”
Christmas and Advent were comparatively late additions to the Church calendar with Easter and Pentecost developing early in the second century, Christmas developing in the fourth, and Advent near the end of the sixth century. It was inevitable that Christmas be added to the Church year, for it celebrates the groundwork for all other festivals—the coming of Christ. John Chrysostom (bishop of Constantinople in the fourth century) defended the addition of Christmas to the Church calendar by reminding his congregation that “without the birth of Christ there were also no baptism, passion, resurrection, or ascension and no outpouring of the Holy Spirit….” That is, without a celebration of Christ’s birth there is no foundation for the celebration of Easter, Pentecost, or any other festival based on His work in this world. By the end of the sixth century, seasons of preparation for these key celebrations had been added, and thus Advent became a traditional part of the Church year. It was designed to anticipate and prepare the Church for the celebration of Christ’s birth by reminding us of the yearning for the Messiah in the long ages before His incarnation, of our hope of redemption in Him alone, of our continual need of Him, and of our future hope in His second coming. It is the anticipation and preparation for our celebration of the coming of the “hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory,” which came through Christ alone.
“How long is the Advent season?” might be a question on your mind. Well, the Advent season begins on the fourth Sunday before Christmas, which means it’s a season that varies in length depending on day on which Christmas falls. It can be as short as 22 days (if Christmas falls on a Monday) or as long as 28 days (if Christmas falls on a Sunday).
But, we need to get back to the original question, "Why observe Advent?" Why anticipate and prepare for a celebration, even one as important as Christmas? Well, I can’t tell you why you should observe Advent because it’s not a God-given command, and therefore neither I nor anyone else can demand you observe Advent as if it were a command. Rather, I’m going to tell you why I observe Advent, and then leave your reasons between you and the Lord.
Now, let’s be honest, most believers get caught up in the consumerism and materialism of the Christmas season just like the rest of our culture. I’m no exception to that statement. During this season I find myself getting frustrated by our culture’s views on Christmas, mostly because I find those views affecting me just as much as others, and I don’t like that. At times I’ve been called a “Christmas scrooge” because I’m pretty cynical about Christmas traditions and generally don’t have much “Christmas spirit.” Therefore, I need to have my cynical, wayward heart drawn away from the consumerism and materialism of cultural Christmas and back towards Jesus and the glorious truth of His incarnation in this world. That’s why I need to observe Advent and perhaps why it might be helpful for you as well.
Observing Advent doesn’t have some special spiritual power, and the Advent Sundays are no more holy than any other Lord’s Day in the rest of the year. What it does do is give me a daily pause and reminder of what this time of year means to the Christian faith and why we celebrate the birth of Christ in the first place. It provides me with a much-needed corrective for everything else I hear and see from the world during the Christmas season. In this sense, it helps me reset myself from anticipating presents, stockings, decorations, or Christmas traditions, and it focuses me back on celebrating the incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Observing Advent gets my mind back on the fact that our Lord has come, that He has accomplished complete redemption for His people, and that He is coming again one day to usher in the new heavens and new earth. That’s why I like observing Advent and why I think it might be helpful for you as well. If you find that reason compelling or perhaps it brings to your mind another good reason for you to observe Advent, then come back each day and keep reading.
A few words need to be said about the title of this post (and the subsequent posts). From where did I get “Solus Christus”? “Sola” is the Latin word for “alone” or “only,” and during the Reformation, five Latin sola-statements (commonly called the “Five Solas”) emerged. These were intended to summarize the Reformers’ basic theological principles and distinctions from Roman Catholic theology. The Five Solas are sola fide (“by faith alone”), sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”), sola gratia (“by grace alone”), soli deo gloria (“glory to God alone”), and, finally, solus Christus (“through Christ alone”). Since Advent focuses our hearts and minds on the coming of Christ and the hope of redemption through Him alone, I thought it a fitting title for a set of Advent meditations.
