Euthanasia

The Story
Last year just after the Terry Schiavo story broke in North America, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a controversy generated when a Catholic Italian man, after he spent years pleading for his respirator to be removed, finally succeeded. Piergiorgio Welby died soon after the respirator was removed. The Diocese of Rome refused permission for Welby to have a church funeral claiming that he had committed suicide and that he was doomed to Hell for eternity. In response, the former archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, wrote a letter to the Vatican asking for a reconsideration of its current position on end-of-life issues. While the Catholic Church is alone among Christian Denominations in its assertion that Hell is the punishment for euthanasia /suicide it is not alone in its negative views of euthanasia. Most denominations have in fact produced documents which are largely anti-euthanasia. The Church of England, the United Church of Canada, and to a lesser extent, the United Methodists (USA) and the Presbyterian Church in Canada represent some of the only dissenting voices and yet it would be wrong to consider their views “pro-euthanasia”.

The History
Hippocrates mentions euthanasia specifically in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.”
The English Common Law from the 1300’s until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. In 1828, euthanasia was explicitly outlawed in the U.S. Support grew in the 1900’s. Societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the U.S.A. in 1938 to promote aggressive Euthanasia. In 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain.
In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T4, euthanized children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered “life unworthy of life”.
In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed suit. In 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. At the same time in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia. In 1993, the Netherlands decriminalized doctor-assisted suicide, and in 2002, restrictions were loosened even further. During that year, physician-assisted suicide was approved in Belgium. An Australian province approved a euthanasia bill in 1995, but that was overturned by Australia’s legislative branch in 1997. Kevorkian was tried and convicted in 1999 in Michigan for a murder.
More recently, amid government roadblocks and controversy, Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who had been in a vegetative state since 1990, had her feeding tube removed in 2005. Her husband had won the right to take her off life support, which he claimed she would want but was difficult to confirm as she had no living will and the rest of her family claimed just the opposite.  

The Truth

Sadly the Bible is not always the end all and be all when it comes to hard questions. In short, the Bible does not specifically address every issue in a clear and simple manner. Perhaps this is a good thing. This means that we are not meant to be drones; it means that we are meant to be thinking and reasoning people of faith who investigate truth rather than proof-text our own beliefs. 
What the Bible does do – is give us some clues that can help us to come to a better understanding of life and death issues.
A Typical Bible Debate
Person 1) Thou shall not kill. (Deuteronomy 5:17) Euthanasia is Murder and that is all there is to it!

Person 2) It’s not murder. It’s taking people away from suffering.

1) …yeah by killing them; the ends just don’t justify the means.

2) You know “thou shall not kill” isn’t the end all be all. Right after that command is given, Moses starts listing exceptions. In Deuteronomy 22:23 God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. In other words there are times when ending a life is justifiable. Also in Deuteronomy 21:1-9 it says that capital punishment was an allowable way to deal with murderers. In other words – although the Bible says “You should not kill” it also gives us some times when it is allowable to do so. Euthanasia could just as easily be one of those times when it’s understandable to end a life!

1) Protecting people from murders is one thing; starving someone’s grandmother to death in a hospital where there is plenty of food all around her is whole different story. In Genesis it says that we are made in the image of God and that is the reason we are not to kill, because killing the image of God is like burning an effigy of God. (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:22-25) Is a person in the hospital somehow no longer made in the image of God?

2) The Bible doesn’t really say what the image of God is. It certainly isn’t how we look. I doubt very much that Good needs genitals or that God has to eat for sustenance! It may be that the image of God is our self-awareness. Really, it could be just about anything. In any case this is not about arbitrarily killing someone. This is about ending the suffering of someone who is already moments away from death. This is about being humane.

1) What you call humane – I call murder. Look this is simple… is that a carrot lying on the bed or is it a human being. Is that person still alive or not? ‘Cause where I’m from if something is both human and alive than killing him or her is called murder.

2) When someone is completely brain dead - that is it. It is just a body being forced to breath by machines and nothing more. It’s not really even human. It’s just a shell and there is nothing wrong with taking water away or food away from them if that is what they would have wanted. There is nothing wrong with allowing them to die peacefully. They’re already dead, the mind is gone. Why do you want to keep all these vegetables around taking up valuable space and time? Hospitals waste millions and millions of dollars on people that are already dead while people who need help can’t get it.

Besides there is nothing wrong with assisted suicide anyway. If your life is miserable and you are in constant pain and there is no getting better for you then you have every right to die with dignity!

1) Who determines what “dieing with dignity” is anyway. I think it’s the coward’s way out. Run and Hide – End it all – I think facing death head on is the only way to die with dignity. And the fact that hospitals don’t have enough money to deal with everybody doesn’t matter one bit! If a hospital only has $10 and two patients, the moral thing to do isn’t to just kill one off. The moral thing to do is to get the hospital more funds. Lack of money does not create morality!

2) The Bible says, “to every season there is an appointed time, a time to live and a time to die… a time to kill and a time to heal”. (Ecclesiastes 3)

The Verses up for discussion

Abimelech - Judges 9:50-54

Abimelech was a wicked man who usurped leadership of Israel. When a woman dropped a millstone on his head, as we was dying he had his armor-bearer kill him so people would not say he was killed by a woman.

Ahithophel - 2 Samuel 17:23 (read the commentary for them)

Ahithophel was an advisor who encouraged Absalom to rebel against David. He gave advice that would have led to David’s defeat, but the advice was not taken and David escaped. He hanged himself.

Zimri - 1 Kings 16:18

Zimri was a wicked man who killed the king of Israel and reigned 7 days. Then Omri led Israel against Zimri. Seeing he would be defeated, he burned his house down around himself.

Philippian jailer - Acts 16:27,28

If a jailer lost his prisoners, he was punished with torture and then death. Thinking his prisoners had escaped the jailer in Philippi was about to kill himself, but Paul stopped him.
Innocent - Exodus 23:7
Do not kill the innocent and righteous.

King Saul - 1 Samuel 31:3-5

Saul rebelled against God, so God rejected Him as king. He was about to be captured in battle, and fearing torture, he asked his armor-bearer to kill him. He refused, so Saul fell on his sword and the armor-bearer did the same. [1 Chronicles 10:4,5; cf. 2 Samuel 1:1-16]
Life is a blessing from God - Gen. 2:7

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man    
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
1) dubious
h) activity of the will
1) dubious
i) activity of the character
1) dubious
Body without spirit is dead - James 2:26 (Different word for Spirit – a different language)

1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the “Holy” Spirit)
b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of “Truth”)
c) never referred to as a depersonalised force
2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides
b) the soul
3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting
a) a life giving spirit
b) a human soul that has left the body
c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel
1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men
2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ
4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one
a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.
5) a movement of air (a gentle blast)
a) of the wind, hence the wind itself
b) breath of nostrils or mouth
 

Good Questions

 Own Body. Does not God own the whole being? The argument that “everyone has a right to do with their own body as they see fit” does not seem all that solid. For example, prostitution is done to ones own body, so also is drug use – but are those things really crimes done only to ones own body or are their other effects? Nothing is done in a vacuum; all action has affects on others.

Quality of Life. Many of us believe that life is life only when it is healthy and comfortable or “average”. But what does this say about how we view the handicapped or the mentally challenged?

“Good Death” The term euthanasia has a long and complex history. In its original usage, meaning reflected etymology; “good death” referred to efforts to keep terminal patients free from pain. Who can condemn the desire for a good death? What does it mean to have a good death? What is the meaning of suffering? In an age of advanced medical technology, when do we cross the line between saving a life and causing a `bad death’?
Natural? What is so natural about being feed through a tube or having oxygen pumped into ones self mechanically?

Statements I am willing to make!

The comfortability of family and friends has no bearing on the morality of euthanasia.

Medical costs have nothing to do with the morality of euthanasia.

Dying with dignity is far too subjective as to provide any solid answers.  

Each side in the elective death debate can cite long-standing ethical principles to support their positions. Both sides, however, face some troubling difficulties should avoid attempts to set in stone their views as social policies.
Death can never be taken lightly and should always been seen as a tragic loss. 
In end-of-life dilemmas, participation involves a sense of awe and reverence, which leads to humility. Suffering and dying are deeply intimate and personal experiences.
No matter how well intentioned people are on both sides of the debate, we, all of us, remains limited by our own human understanding. We cannot see with the eyes of God and should not pretend as if we can. 
Where there are heated disputes within families or friends with differing recollections life should be the preferred choice.
The period just before death can be a profoundly spiritual time for both the ill and the loved ones. This should be remembered and respected.  

The church should be a frontrunner in providing spiritual, emotional and physical support for sufferers and families alike and should always be aware that the Bible has no specific or clear statements on euthanasia as we know it today – what it does have is “love your neighbor”.

Euthanasia

The Story
Last year just after the Terry Schiavo story broke in North America, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a controversy generated when a Catholic Italian man, after he spent years pleading for his respirator to be removed, finally succeeded. Piergiorgio Welby died soon after the respirator was removed. The Diocese of Rome refused permission for Welby to have a church funeral claiming that he had committed suicide and that he was doomed to Hell for eternity. In response, the former archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, wrote a letter to the Vatican asking for a reconsideration of its current position on end-of-life issues. While the Catholic Church is alone among Christian Denominations in its assertion that Hell is the punishment for euthanasia /suicide it is not alone in its negative views of euthanasia. Most denominations have in fact produced documents which are largely anti-euthanasia. The Church of England, the United Church of Canada, and to a lesser extent, the United Methodists (USA) and the Presbyterian Church in Canada represent some of the only dissenting voices and yet it would be wrong to consider their views “pro-euthanasia”.

The History
Hippocrates mentions euthanasia specifically in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.”
The English Common Law from the 1300’s until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. In 1828, euthanasia was explicitly outlawed in the U.S. Support grew in the 1900’s. Societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the U.S.A. in 1938 to promote aggressive Euthanasia. In 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain.
In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T4, euthanized children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered “life unworthy of life”.
In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed suit. In 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. At the same time in 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia. In 1993, the Netherlands decriminalized doctor-assisted suicide, and in 2002, restrictions were loosened even further. During that year, physician-assisted suicide was approved in Belgium. An Australian province approved a euthanasia bill in 1995, but that was overturned by Australia’s legislative branch in 1997. Kevorkian was tried and convicted in 1999 in Michigan for a murder.
More recently, amid government roadblocks and controversy, Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who had been in a vegetative state since 1990, had her feeding tube removed in 2005. Her husband had won the right to take her off life support, which he claimed she would want but was difficult to confirm as she had no living will and the rest of her family claimed just the opposite.  

The Truth

Sadly the Bible is not always the end all and be all when it comes to hard questions. In short, the Bible does not specifically address every issue in a clear and simple manner. Perhaps this is a good thing. This means that we are not meant to be drones; it means that we are meant to be thinking and reasoning people of faith who investigate truth rather than proof-text our own beliefs. 
What the Bible does do – is give us some clues that can help us to come to a better understanding of life and death issues.
A Typical Bible Debate
Person 1) Thou shall not kill. (Deuteronomy 5:17) Euthanasia is Murder and that is all there is to it!

Person 2) It’s not murder. It’s taking people away from suffering.

1) …yeah by killing them; the ends just don’t justify the means.

2) You know “thou shall not kill” isn’t the end all be all. Right after that command is given, Moses starts listing exceptions. In Deuteronomy 22:23 God declares that if someone breaks into your house at night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder. In other words there are times when ending a life is justifiable. Also in Deuteronomy 21:1-9 it says that capital punishment was an allowable way to deal with murderers. In other words – although the Bible says “You should not kill” it also gives us some times when it is allowable to do so. Euthanasia could just as easily be one of those times when it’s understandable to end a life!

1) Protecting people from murders is one thing; starving someone’s grandmother to death in a hospital where there is plenty of food all around her is whole different story. In Genesis it says that we are made in the image of God and that is the reason we are not to kill, because killing the image of God is like burning an effigy of God. (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:22-25) Is a person in the hospital somehow no longer made in the image of God?

2) The Bible doesn’t really say what the image of God is. It certainly isn’t how we look. I doubt very much that Good needs genitals or that God has to eat for sustenance! It may be that the image of God is our self-awareness. Really, it could be just about anything. In any case this is not about arbitrarily killing someone. This is about ending the suffering of someone who is already moments away from death. This is about being humane.

1) What you call humane – I call murder. Look this is simple… is that a carrot lying on the bed or is it a human being. Is that person still alive or not? ‘Cause where I’m from if something is both human and alive than killing him or her is called murder.

2) When someone is completely brain dead - that is it. It is just a body being forced to breath by machines and nothing more. It’s not really even human. It’s just a shell and there is nothing wrong with taking water away or food away from them if that is what they would have wanted. There is nothing wrong with allowing them to die peacefully. They’re already dead, the mind is gone. Why do you want to keep all these vegetables around taking up valuable space and time? Hospitals waste millions and millions of dollars on people that are already dead while people who need help can’t get it.

Besides there is nothing wrong with assisted suicide anyway. If your life is miserable and you are in constant pain and there is no getting better for you then you have every right to die with dignity!

1) Who determines what “dieing with dignity” is anyway. I think it’s the coward’s way out. Run and Hide – End it all – I think facing death head on is the only way to die with dignity. And the fact that hospitals don’t have enough money to deal with everybody doesn’t matter one bit! If a hospital only has $10 and two patients, the moral thing to do isn’t to just kill one off. The moral thing to do is to get the hospital more funds. Lack of money does not create morality!

2) The Bible says, “to every season there is an appointed time, a time to live and a time to die… a time to kill and a time to heal”. (Ecclesiastes 3)

The Verses up for discussion

Abimelech - Judges 9:50-54

Abimelech was a wicked man who usurped leadership of Israel. When a woman dropped a millstone on his head, as we was dying he had his armor-bearer kill him so people would not say he was killed by a woman.

Ahithophel - 2 Samuel 17:23 (read the commentary for them)

Ahithophel was an advisor who encouraged Absalom to rebel against David. He gave advice that would have led to David’s defeat, but the advice was not taken and David escaped. He hanged himself.

Zimri - 1 Kings 16:18

Zimri was a wicked man who killed the king of Israel and reigned 7 days. Then Omri led Israel against Zimri. Seeing he would be defeated, he burned his house down around himself.

Philippian jailer - Acts 16:27,28

If a jailer lost his prisoners, he was punished with torture and then death. Thinking his prisoners had escaped the jailer in Philippi was about to kill himself, but Paul stopped him.
Innocent - Exodus 23:7
Do not kill the innocent and righteous.

King Saul - 1 Samuel 31:3-5

Saul rebelled against God, so God rejected Him as king. He was about to be captured in battle, and fearing torture, he asked his armor-bearer to kill him. He refused, so Saul fell on his sword and the armor-bearer did the same. [1 Chronicles 10:4,5; cf. 2 Samuel 1:1-16]
Life is a blessing from God - Gen. 2:7

1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man    
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
1) dubious
h) activity of the will
1) dubious
i) activity of the character
1) dubious
Body without spirit is dead - James 2:26 (Different word for Spirit – a different language)

1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the “Holy” Spirit)
b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of “Truth”)
c) never referred to as a depersonalised force
2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated
a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides
b) the soul
3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting
a) a life giving spirit
b) a human soul that has left the body
c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel
1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men
2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ
4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one
a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc.
5) a movement of air (a gentle blast)
a) of the wind, hence the wind itself
b) breath of nostrils or mouth
 

Good Questions

 Own Body. Does not God own the whole being? The argument that “everyone has a right to do with their own body as they see fit” does not seem all that solid. For example, prostitution is done to ones own body, so also is drug use – but are those things really crimes done only to ones own body or are their other effects? Nothing is done in a vacuum; all action has affects on others.

Quality of Life. Many of us believe that life is life only when it is healthy and comfortable or “average”. But what does this say about how we view the handicapped or the mentally challenged?

“Good Death” The term euthanasia has a long and complex history. In its original usage, meaning reflected etymology; “good death” referred to efforts to keep terminal patients free from pain. Who can condemn the desire for a good death? What does it mean to have a good death? What is the meaning of suffering? In an age of advanced medical technology, when do we cross the line between saving a life and causing a `bad death’?
Natural? What is so natural about being feed through a tube or having oxygen pumped into ones self mechanically?

Statements I am willing to make!

The comfortability of family and friends has no bearing on the morality of euthanasia.

Medical costs have nothing to do with the morality of euthanasia.

Dying with dignity is far too subjective as to provide any solid answers.  

Each side in the elective death debate can cite long-standing ethical principles to support their positions. Both sides, however, face some troubling difficulties should avoid attempts to set in stone their views as social policies.
Death can never be taken lightly and should always been seen as a tragic loss. 
In end-of-life dilemmas, participation involves a sense of awe and reverence, which leads to humility. Suffering and dying are deeply intimate and personal experiences.
No matter how well intentioned people are on both sides of the debate, we, all of us, remains limited by our own human understanding. We cannot see with the eyes of God and should not pretend as if we can. 
Where there are heated disputes within families or friends with differing recollections life should be the preferred choice.
The period just before death can be a profoundly spiritual time for both the ill and the loved ones. This should be remembered and respected.  

The church should be a frontrunner in providing spiritual, emotional and physical support for sufferers and families alike and should always be aware that the Bible has no specific or clear statements on euthanasia as we know it today – what it does have is “love your neighbor”.

Women and the Church: A Case Study

A Case Study based on a book I recently read: 

David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw. Readings in Christian Ethics. Volume 2: Issues and Applications.

Grand Rapids: Baker, pg 332-333.
Case: Missionary strategy
      Two women missionaries serve in a remote tribal context.  The fledgling church in their care needs leadership, so one of the women seeks ordination in order to preach and give the sacraments.  Another missionary in the next valley, however, opposes women’s ordination.  So he decides to take the hazardous plane rides to the women’s area, taking time away from his duties, so he can preach for the women.  He believes God will bless the mission if it honors the divine order for male and female roles.  The field leader for the mission believes that the church should not normally ordain women, but he also thinks that in unusual circumstances, women should preach and give the sacraments.  The women believe the man is intruding and trivializing their ministry.  The man is acting out of strong convictions.  What should the field leader do?  Are concessions possible or would they compromise important principles?  How can the field leader best affirm his missionaries and preserve the ministry?

Answers Provided by Brad Childs 

(1)   The Facts
The facts we have
      The two women are already missionaries serving in a remote area. This means that the missionary organization has already granted them a certain amount of authority (though exactly what this entails is unclear). In addition one of the two women is seeking ordination. Another missionary in the next valley believes that this course of action is unbiblical; as a result he has begun to travel to the women’s location in order to take upon himself the leadership role. We also know that this mans actions have resulted in some negative results on his original missionary tasks as shown to us by the statement: It “take[s] time away from his duties”.  We also know that the man is at least somewhat unwanted and possibly uninvited. We also know that the man seems to have genuine and caring motives and that these are due to the fact that he believes God will bless the mission for keeping what he calls “the divine order”. We also know that the field leader is normally not in agreement with the ordination of women but that he does believe “in unusual circumstances, women should preach and give the sacraments”.
The facts we don’t have
      In reading this case study I found myself wondering about a few issues. For example: Is the missionary in the next valley of the same denomination and or organization? What is the official position of the female missionaries’ denomination? Have women previously been allowed ordination due to similar circumstances. As well, what restrictions have been applied to the leadership of these women prior to this experience? Furthermore if the women are called “missionaries” but they have not previously been ordained and seemingly have not been in any kind of teaching or leadership positions what is meant by the word “missionary”. Along the same lines, what background and or qualifications do these women have and what role do these qualifications play in the ordination of ministers within their particular denomination. Lastly because we are given no indication of who is to assume the financial strain of the traveling expenses for the male missionary, I am left to my own assumptions.
Assumptions
      In this analysis I will be working under the following assumptions: First I assume that the women in question will be presiding over men although it is not stated. I will also assume that the woman seeking ordination is not against the ordination of women in general. I will also assume that all of the above mentioned characters belong to the same denomination and organization. In addition I presuppose that the phrase “take[s] time away from his duties” suggests that the additional work for the aforementioned male missionary has been to the detriment of his own congregation in some way. I sill also suppose that the field leader has had much difficulty in filling the apparently open position and that no male missionary is set to take the open position for some time. In addition, I assume that the field leader is unable to fill the position himself and that he holds the authority to ordain others to this position. I also assume that no males within the mission could affectively fill the open leadership role and certainly not to the same degree as the two female missionaries. I assume as well that only ordained ministers are allowed to administer the sacraments within this group. I assume that the proposal of ordination is not simply a reaction to the circumstances at hand and that the woman in question feels a genuine call to ministry and that she has proper qualifications. Additionally, I assume that the male missionary has had to rely (at least to some degree) on both mission communities to fund his travels. Most noticeably I will be acting under the (most likely incorrect) assumption that the seemingly egalitarian denomination in question has properly interpreted the scriptures. It is also an assumption that the ordination and leadership of women would not impede the proclamation of the gospel to these societies in any way. 
(2)  The Ethical Issues
1)      First it is clear that the so-called “fledgling church” deserves proper care.
2)      It is also clear that the objecting male missionary’s church also deserves quality care.
3)      Third it is unethical for either partly to attempt to manipulate the field director.
4)      Fourth the field director should not act out of character with neither his missionary organization, nor scriptures.
5)      Fifth I would suggest that the field director should not ordain a women if he has not been given the authority to do so within the organization.
6)      Lastly and ultimately this issue is an issue of ends and means. Is God’s apparent limitation in the roles of women in ministry held above God’s call to make disciples of all nations?  However, under the assumptions of egalitarianism this is no longer an issue.
(3)  The Alternatives
      Of course there are a number of applicable alternatives in this situation. First the leader could simply allow the man to continue coming to preach and give the sacraments. Second the male missionary could simply allow the women to seek ordination and return promptly to his original duties. Third the women could be allowed to preach in more informal ways but not to give the sacraments without ordination. Fourth the leader could allow the woman to preach and to give the sacraments both without ordination. Fifth the field director could allow the woman to preach but have the male missionary come in occasionally to give the sacraments. Sixth the field director could allow the man to continue with his dual work until ordination for the female missionary is complete. And finally, the female missionary could simple teach from pre-prepared information provided by the male missionary on mutually agreed upon grounds.
(4)  The Norms that Have a Bearing on the Case
      Though interpretations may vary, clearly all parties involved are interested in the sharing of the Gospel message and what the Word of God has to say on this issue as the primary authority. It is also clear that everyone must be respectful of each other and attempt to understand the opposition’s opinions. Obviously nothing should be done that might result in the loss of missionaries or future missionaries or to the detriment of either of these two missionary communities. In addition, no party should be forced to act against his or her own conscience.
Also it is clear that the prohibitions applied to these women should not exceed the limits of what has already been set down either by biblical interpretation or by denominational standards.
(5)  Comparison of the Alternatives with the Norms
      1. The idea that the women could simply allow the man to continue coming to preach and give the sacraments seems to be the wrong choice based on the idea that this would be to the detriment of both missionary communities. Because of this it is not a viable option.
      2. The idea that the women could be allowed to preach in more informal ways but not to give the sacraments without ordination is clearly incorrect as this would also lead to the detriment of both missionary communities especially if the time frame for the hiring of a new male missionary became exceedingly lengthy.
      3. The idea that the field leader could allow the women to preach and to give the sacraments both without ordination also appear unethical. Most likely this is not to be in keeping with the guidelines of the denomination. As such it is disrespectful of the authorities appointed above them by God.
      4. Fourth, the idea that the field director could allow the women to preach formally but have the male missionary come in occasionally to give the sacraments also seems incorrect. Although this seems in keeping with this particular community of faiths interpretation of scripture it also includes what seems to be unnecessary financial stress on the two communities.
      5. The idea that the male missionary could simply allow the woman to seek ordination and return promptly to his original duties seems quite applicable. Given the interpretive slant of this particular community, this appears a viable option. 
      6. The idea that the female missionaries could simply teach from pre-prepared information provided by the male missionary on mutually agreed upon grounds seems to be a good option for both egalitarians as well as complementariness however again the issues of financial stress as well as the detriment of both communities comes into play; as such this does not appear to be an ethical solution.
      7. Lastly there is the option whereby the field director could allow the man to continue with his dual work until the female missionary has completed her ordination. This also appears to be a good option.
(6)  Assessment and Consequences
      Clearly the possible ethical options and consequences of the situation depend heavily on proper interpretation of God’s Word. Again I draw attention to the assumption that the denomination in question has interpreted correctly. As such the following two options appear to be most in keeping with Christian ethics.
      Option 5: The idea that the male missionary should simply allow the women to seek ordination and return promptly to his original duties:
Negatives: There would be no ordained person present to preach and or give the sacraments. While preaching by the women might be allowed, most likely this denomination would not allow an unordained person to present the sacraments. As such, this is a possible option only if the sacraments are not to be administered at all, or if there were some other denominational consensus that can allow for the dispensing of them.
Positives: The positives are quite clear. In going with this option both missionary communities will eventually have ordained ministers, lowered financial stress, and diverse theological communities that provide more options of interpretation for new converts.
      Option 7: The option whereby the field director could allow the man to continue with his dual work until the female missionary has completed her ordination: If there is truly an egalitarian theology present in this particular denomination and if ordination is required within the denomination as a prerequisite for preaching and for the giving of the sacraments this seems in keeping with the general theological views of this group. In addition the relatively short time frame for this type of ordination could substantially lower the amount of financial as well as over all stress and harm of the two missionary communities. 
Negatives: Most likely a certain amount of monetary concerns might remain in the short-term while transitions are being made. As well as the possibility of animosity between the two theological perspectives seems likely. Division and contentions would have to be closely monitored.
Positives: The Gospel message would be of primary importance. As well proper respect for the authority of scriptures would be upheld. As well proper respect for ones authorities within the denomination would be upheld. It is also clear that little damage could result from the short-term transition. This option would also allow for little financial strain on the communities, it would force no one to act against his or her own will or conscience. In addition the theological standard of the denomination would be upheld concerning ordination, proclamation and the administration of the sacraments. Also diversity within the Christian theological community could result in more interpretive options. This might prove especially important to the native women within these two missionary communities.
(7)  The Ethical Decision
      Clearly then Option 7 would prove to be the most ethical solution to this problem given the assumptions made in section (1).
 

Our Generations Tomb of Jesus

Just in case you are unaware, Jesus’ family tomb has been found complete with 10 caskets including one for Jesus and one for Mary Magdalene and one for their son! At least that’s the story.

For many years now the Talpiot Tomb has been touted by some to be the final resting place for the Jesus of the Christian Bible. Located in the industrial regions of Palpiyot; just outside the city of Jerusalem, the tomb was first discovered in 1980 by a construction crew set to build an apartment complex.

Inside the tomb were ten “ossuaries” or coffins. Also found were inscriptions. Some of these are seemingly of little to no importance and have been largely ignored but the other names are sometimes associated with figures from the Christian gospels. Some of these include the names Jesus, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary (written differently), Jofa and Judah.

Why is this so important? Well it may not be but on the other hand, famed Titanic director James Cameron and Discovery Channel money machine Simcha Jacobovici have recently stated this as proof against the orthodox Christian view of the resurrection of Jesus from Nazareth. In other words the two have produced a new docudrama claiming the central tenet of Christianity is nothing more than myth and that Jesus died as was buried like an ordinary man. Additionally the proposal includes the idea that this is a family tomb and that Jesus and Mary were married and had a child who is also found in the cave.

It is worth noting that this information was “sat on” for some time. This is because lead archeologist Amos Kloner (expert on burials and burial customs in the 2nd Temple period of Jerusalem) has reportedly declared that no solid relationship between this find can be made with the biblical Jesus or any other New Testament persons. We should of course expect Kloner to be skeptical of such finds; it was after all he who recently proved the famous James (the brother of Jesus) ossuary to be hoax saying, “It is clear that the engraving on the bone box dates from a different period than its original installation. The inscription appears new. The writer tried giving the letters an ancient appearance by using samples from contemporaneous inscriptions.” On the topic of this new film Kloner has stated that the films purported evidences are “nonsense” saying additionally that it “makes a great story for a TV film”.

Kloner is not alone in his skepticism concerning the films conclusions. While the statistical information concerning probability of another family in this region having these same five names is around 600 to 1, it seems several difficulties have escaped the producers view. The inscriptions for example were strangely written in different languages and with different variations on the names in question. In fact, though some have pointed out the overwhelming popularity of such names, the combination of names as they are written does seem quit interesting and worthy of much investigation. What is damaging to the case however, is the possibility that the inscriptions were not original to the ossuaries or that this small tomb was originally unmarked or altered in some way. There is of course no scientific way to tell if the inscribers were telling the truth. Anyone after all could have inscribed these names on any number of family tombs with only little effort. In any case the inscriptions are of great interest.

This brings us to further questions. For instance, there is the issue of location. Though it could be argued that a poor carpenters family with no land in Jerusalem could not possibly have been able to afford such a tomb this is not proof in and of itself After all a collection for Jesus could easily have been taken up to pay for such a resting place. But if this were the tomb of Jesus and it was so simply found and labeled then why was this evidence not produced in the late first central when persecution was common among those who professed a belief in the resurrection. For me it is the combination of these two things that it most compelling.

Though the accuracy of the inscriptions will remain a topic of debate, the film still insists that DNA can be used to make a good connection between Jesus and the tomb. To produce such evidence the Discovery channel paid for the DNA tests. But what exactly was done? We of course have no Jesus DNA around from which to compare; so what was done was a cross-reference. So assuming that the poor Galilean family might have been buried outside Jerusalem and assuming that the martyrs died for unknowable reasons, and assuming that the existence of inscribed names are accurate, and assuming that Jesus and Mary Magdalene did have a reason to be buried in the same family tomb, then the DNA of one of the Mary’s (who is assumed to be Mary Magdalene) was cross-referenced with the DNA found in the Jesus ossuary. No match was made concerning a blood relation. From this, another assumption was made that these two individuals in question then must have been married and from this yet another assumption was made concerning the child (of whom I am told, no DNA remains) claiming that this must be the child of the assumed Jesus and assumed Mary found in the cave who are also the only two testable samples.

As someone with an obvious bias, I must state that I am not particularly impressed by the limited information available to me at this time. However, I believe we should all patiently await the presentation of evidence and participate thoughtfully and respectfully in dialogue. It may be that my initials thoughts chance dramatically in the following week. It may be that hysteria ha already ensued and that the assertions of the film have already been misrepresented. We should also remember that it is rare for Christians to get a chance to discuss such controversial issues within the public forum. Both sides should remember that there is of course absolutely no way to prove if this was actually the body of the Jesus spoken of in the Bible. Without a DNA sample on record, given by the Bible’s Jesus 2000 years ago, we have absolutely nothing to compare this “Jesus” with. In short, people of faith will simply have to rely on their faith as always, and skeptics will have to rely on their skepticism. Either way, there is no proof.

Above all we in the Christian community must remember that it is not offensive for non-believers to make claims such as these. To say that Jesus was a man or that he was married or that he had children is not offensive in anyway. It is we who believe the offence. We believe in the offense of the cross, it is we that believe that Jesus was both fully man and yet also fully God. It is we who believe that blood cleanses away sin and that the body of Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. This film in question is destined to make its mark. It has been done by two of our times most amazing documentary filmmakers and no one, Christian or not, should dismiss this film outright without giving it a fair change. So to Christians and Skeptics alike, keep your brains turned on and your hearts in the right place.

Blessings, - HaKohen

Some of my thoughts on Homosexuality and the Church - Ha Kohen

Here at Letter from a Concerned Follower we often struggle with the marriage of our culture and our faith. Among the most divisive issues in Christianity today is that of Homosexuality. We like many Christians do not see things being as completely one sided as we used to. Our world is changing as is our understanding of scripture. How are we to love someone and yet label a sin something that they claim to be at the very core of their being? How do genetics play a role and how does choice? In order to answer these difficult questions I think it to be only fair to reveal my own biases. 1) The Bible is the word of God and if my personal opinions differ from His, I am in the wrong and must accept that. 2) Culture does not determine morality, neither does “Might make Right” or “majority rule”.

With that aside I hear proclaim a number of thoughts posted for Christian readers. They are my personal views and are by no means perfect and by no means do they represent the entire Christian Community or even this site. And please remember, above all “Love thy neighbor”.

·        While many have argued that “in the New Testament we have no record of Jesus’ saying anything about homosexuality”. I have never personally understood the relevance of such a debate. Is not the whole Bible the Word of God? While it is true that I may take the Christological Canonical view of Scripture farther than some, it seems to me a clear biblical principle that God is the author of Scripture. Jesus’ words are then found not only in the memories of the evangelists but also in the words of Paul and even in the words of Moses. As such, for Christians this line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
·        Some people have argued that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is more about hospitality than sexuality. This I agree with, but I would also remind these people to take into account that homosexuality is certainly not revered in these text. Rather, even if it is mentioned only in passing, it appears that it is assumed to be immoral.
·        Lev 18:22, 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:18 may actually be more about the abuse of captives or about the worship of other gods than homosexuality as we think of it today. It is possible that this is true and that these special circumstances may have influenced the writing of these passages, but again I would like to state that homosexuality is not spoken well of anywhere in ancient Jewish writings; rather these verses seem well in line with Hebrew concepts of morality in condemning homosexual acts in general. In addition these condemnations seem more likely to be influences by notions of purity or natural order than by notions of violence. As such, though they may possibly reflect the denunciation of rape or idol worship, they also seem to represent the upholding of natural order. What’s more this natural order seems clearly heterosexual in its context.
·        It is also possible that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 may be about molestation or prostitution. However, similar to the references from Lev. and Deut. these verses also seem steeped in Jewish traditions concerning purity and natural order. It seems to me highly unlikely that Paul would ever speak about anyone “acting against there own nature” as if he were condemning only heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts (or visa versa) as some have suggested. This seems completely out of line with what we know about Jewish culture and about Paul. It seems very unlikely that Paul would say anything about individual sexual orientation. That is eisegetical and Paul simply would not ever imagine any act as being “genetic” or “innate”. Rather it is exceedingly clear that “natural relations” and “unnatural ones” refers not to individual preferences but to the order of creation (Rom. 1:26).
·        Although I can find no clear or compelling reason to believe anything other than the conclusion that God finds homosexuals acts sinful, I am uncertain how churches should deal with this issue. What sins keep people from worshiping in our churches for example? Do any? Because the original purpose of Church Discipline is no longer applicable how are we do deal with issues such as these? If gluttony is a sin against the flesh (as Christians often refer to homosexuality), why then do we allow gluttonous ministers and not homosexual ones? How can we allow obese people into membership but not homosexual ones? How can the church love the sinner and yet maintain a strong position against the sin where to two may in fact be impossible to separate? Can we allow this issue to divide the Body? These questions I cannot seem to answer.

·        Another question concerns homosexuality itself. For me it seems that there is merit to both sides of the genetic debate. Clearly some people do choose to commit homosexual acts. Prisoners are a clear example of this. On top of that, there are many recorded cases of identical twins whereby one is homosexual and the other heterosexual. This is obvious proof (being that the two are genetically identical) that choice or possible “nurture” does play at least some role in orientation. On the other hand science seems equally clear that some genetic factors may influence sexual behavior.

·        But does sexual orientation really matter or is it a mute point? What if some day scientists prove that pedophilia (just an example – not a parallel) is something caused by our genetics? Does that then automatically mean pedophiles have a right to commit sexual acts with “consenting” minors? Would that make pedophilia all of the sudden a moral choice? Would pedophiles simply claim “that is who God made me”? These are not attacking questions; they are valid queries. What’s more, if it is genetic a “cure” may in fact be possible – in this case would such a “cure” really be moral?

Here are some additional points:

• It is unfair of people to expect all Christians to abandon their sacred texts and thousands of years of history simply to embrace a lifestyle that has only recently become visibly prominent.
• The church must recognize special difficulties people in the homosexual community face and seek to elevate suffering. We should not express hate or violence against homosexual peoples in any way. The church should be available to address the high suicide rates among gay youth and provide comfort and non-judgmental counseling. We should remain a “sanctuary” rather than turn ourselves into fortresses.
• It is foolish of us to speak so heavy handed upon the gay community for seeking marriage rights. We who now have an equal divorce rate with the secular world have no right to speak “high and mighty” about “the sanctity of marriage” when our own marriages are failing. Perhaps our energy has been directed to outwardly and no inwardly enough.
• Non-Christians should not pretend to be theologians. Quoting verses that concern dietary laws or ancient cultural ideas do nothing for your case but show your ignorance of the Christian Bible. If you are not a Christian do not attempt to appeal to our sacred scriptures with insufficient knowledge of them.
• Perhaps most importantly – Christians have no right to impose our views upon secular society. If an individual church determines that it will speak out against homosexuality, that speech must only be directed towards other Christians who claim to follow the same scriptures, morals and faith traditions presented in the Bible. Christians have no more right to impose our religious views upon other faiths or secular communities than they do ours.
• At the same time, other faiths and the secular community must respect our traditions as they are taught within our own homes and walls so much as they do not teach hate or violence or stray from orthodoxy.
• Christians must accept not only the verses that they quote against homosexual people but also the context of those verses. Context creates meaning. The bible says, “Take your son, whom you love and sacrifice Him to me” but this is not a command for all people at all times; it was a “test” given to a particular person at a particular time. We must recognize context as essential to our understanding of all texts including those concerning homosexuality. If you do not have an in depth understanding of the context of a verse – do not quote it as if you do.
• The Christian community should not “hobby-house” any issue. There are literally hundreds of commands in the Bible for us to “feed the hungry”, “care for widows and orphans” and “visit those in prison” and only 6 verses about homosexuality (5 of them with highly debated context). We should continually be reevaluating the levels of energy and recourses we put into each issue and why.
• We must above all else remember: The Church’s primary task is to lead people into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ not to spread our morality but rather the “Kingdom”.
• Lastly the church must remember that we are, all of us, a collection of sinners in need of a savior.

Abortion Part 3. Disabilities

Abortion: Disabilities

            Often an argument is made that women should be allowed to abort a fetus if it might some day have a disability. This too I find morally repugnant. This idea suggests that intelligence and or physical form determine morality. If indeed abortion is the killing of a human being, what then does the appearance or mental capacity of that person have to do with anything? If the fetus is a living human being then there is no difference between shooting handicapped children at a local daycare and aborting fetus’ that may be disabled. (In fact it may be more immoral to abort being that many of the so-called disabled fetuses might not have been accurately diagnosed.)

Questions about recycling: America’s Eight billion dollar Investment

First I should state that I am all for taking care of the environment. As God’s Image here on earth I believe that we have been entrusted with this planet to care for it as God would have us. If all creation is redeemed through Christ then Christians must be concerned about the care of creation too. But… is it really cheap and easy? The way recycling is today – what good does it really do (other than make us feel like good people)? Are we running out of recourses? Does it always help the environment? Is it worth the money we spend on it, or could we simply use that money to help the environment without recycling?

Well, the original EPA (Jay Winston Porter) who wrote the guidelines on recycling in the United States says – It may not be worth it. In reality recycling spends huge amounts of money, man power, and space (more so than already established landfills).In addition, recycling cost far more than landfilling (most of which becomes compost naturally). Landfills for instance costs around $50 a ton for disposal. Recycling on the other hand cost around $140 dollars per ton for disposal. Just think of what else we might be able to do with that money – 8 billion dollars a year! With the exception of aluminum cans which are the only recycled items that cost less to reuse than to create from scratch.

Here is another example of some problems. Paper: Most paper is made from tree farmed producers. This means that we plant trees just to make paper and then replant MORE trees (twice as many) once they have been cut down for use. And here is a little fact you won’t learn from Greenpeace - we now have 3 times more trees in North America than we did 50 years ago. Recycling however uses large factories that go through longer more costly processes (also making more expensive products), that produce more pollution in their factories (plus the doubled cost of transporting it) than simply making paper from farmed trees.

Here is just one more thing. Aren’t landfills gross (I know it isn’t smart – but it is essentially a common “green” argument). Well maybe, most of us wouldn’t want to live by a landfill while it is in its relatively short operations mode. Still landfill spaces produce small amounts of methane gas (that’s an energy source just in case you’re wondering) and they do it for free. Next this environmentally friendly gas is used to create energy to power entire homes and in only a few short years those very same landfills are then used to build some of North America’s most beautiful golf courses.

So apparently much of today’s recycling is actually quite bad for the environment, costs more money (and tax money) produces more expensive products, takes up more space, but seems to make us feel good.

Now I am not against environmentalism, in fact I think I am one in some regards, but what I am not is stupid. And I am not about to simply accept the arguments of a bunch of drugged up hippies, that can’t do their research and think protests and bongo parties are the same thing.

Abortion: Part 2 - The Babies life over the mother’s freedom

Often I have heard this kind of banter. Many people today would suggest that the fully human female’s decision to end the life, or “would-be life” of a fetus takes priority over the fetus’ right to life. The suggestion has always been based on a kind of first come first served mentality. I however, would suggest the exact opposite view. It seems to me that even in a case where the mother might die but the child might live, that it is in fact the child who deserves the right to life. The child’s life, in my opinion takes priority because it has not yet been allowed the same opportunities the mother has been given. It’s rather like putting the children in the lifeboats first on a sinking ship. The mother on the other hand has most likely enjoyed fifteen or more years of life already. Besides if the fetus is truly a living human person then the question must be asked: would any decent mother allow her child to die in order to live herself? In my life I have never met one mentally stable mother who would not give her own life for the life of her child. In fact, if a mother were to suggest differently, most people would then consider her unfit.

Sadly the life of the mother usually has nothing to do with the realities of this debate at all; instead it is the comfort of the mother. In this I find even less room to move on my position. There is of course the pro-choice illustration where a person awakes in a hospital to find that he is forced to share his kidneys with another human being while he was unconscious. The story is then supposed to show us that the fetus is acting much like an unwanted parasite. But I would suggest that while no person should be forced into helping another human being against their will; it is clearly the moral thing to do and not to help is then immoral. The same is true of a fetus. For example pro-choice activists will often bring up rape as a good reason to allow abortion. The reason is because the baby has been forced upon the women without her consent. At the same time they might make the argument that no one has the right to force anyone else to do anything. The problem comes with the following question: Does that then translate into eye-witnesses of rape? In other words, if I were to witness a rape in progress or see what seems to be the beginning of a rape situation, would I not then be immoral not to attempt to stop it or not to call the police? While it may be immoral to force someone into a moral act, it is still immoral for that person not to comply. It may be immoral for someone to point a gun to my head and make me call the police, but calling the police is still the ethical choice. Likewise, while it may be immoral to force someone to have a child: having the child is remains nonetheless the moral decision.

Abortion: Part 1. When does life begin?

During the time of Socrates he taught that a person did not yet posses a human soul until some time between the ages of 6-9 months (Socrates suggested that males were imparted with a soul at 6 months and females at 9). For Socrates, before this time of “insoulment”, where a soul was imparted to human children thy held in their possession a soul, more or less similar to a plant and then later an animal as the child grew closer to the age of what constituted “full humanity”. Like most people today I would have to disagree with the great Socrates in this case. No such evidence exists today which would make this view viable to any intelligent person. So when does a person become fully human? When is a soul imparted?

In a world where basically everyone I know believes in a “soul” this question can have huge implication on issues such as abortion. In the interest of revealing my own bias, my personal opinion is that a soul can never be separated from a person; that the two are indivisible. I believe that a life has been formed from the first minute of conception. My evidence…as soon as the egg is fertilized, replication of cells begins, the organic organism initiates metabolism, and so life begins. This is, I might add, the dictionary definition of “life” as we know it.

Unlike Socrates and his modern equivalents who suggest that a soul develops much like an early form of puberty, I cannot image a human baby having anything less than a human soul at the instant of its establishment. By our own scientific definition the organism growing within an impregnated woman is alive from the very point of conception. The next question of course is this – what classification of life is this? Is it as Socrates suggested a form of plant life or animal life? It is an interesting question, not because it is difficult but rather because it is so simple to answer. The life growing within a pregnant human being is of course, a human life.

The Art of Shutting Up

This article was originally posted in the Athabasca Advocate on September 12, 2006

Most people think that I love to talk. People even consider it a kind of family trait: the Richards’ have the genetic ability to use their vocal chords with great efficiency and speed. However, it’s not just talking I love, but conversation… and that is an important difference. Talking is just filling the silence with the sound of your own voice, hoping that someone is listening. Kind of like a DJ on the radio spouting one way communication that may or may not reach the ears of another person (it’s pretty easy to turn a radio off… or tune a person out). Conversation is different.

Our friends at Merriam-Webster (the dictionary people) define conversation as an “oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas.” The key word here is ‘exchange.’ It requires that more than one party is present, and that both are sharing with each other rather than just shooting words at the other person (we’ve all tried to have conversations with people who really just want to ‘talk’).

Which is why it breaks my heart that so many people view prayer as talking at God rather than having a conversation with God. We want to have the kind of intimacy with Him where we can just sit down and share our hearts with God. Unfortunately, the vast majority of us have given up on ever hearing from God, ever having real communication with Him. We assume that it’s a one-way request line, and all we can do is hope that someone is listening on the other end.

If you feel that way, have I got some great news for you. God wants to have a conversation with you, He longs for it. So why can’t we hear Him? Let’s take a look at this story about a man named Elijah, a man who was a messenger from God during a time of terrible persecution of the Israelites. After a particularly bad spell, Elijah was despairing and looking for answers from God:

“The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.”
    Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
       Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”” (I Kings 19:11-13 TNIV)

God spoke to Elijah in the gentle whisper, the “still, small voice” as some translations put it. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone who has a voice like that? The only way you can hear them is to, quite frankly, shut up and listen. Can I be so bold as to suggest that maybe this is the first step to hearing God’s voice, simply being quiet and listening? In our busy world with our hectic lives, maybe we can’t hear God speaking because it’s just too noisy.

Now, I know that it’s easier said than done, and I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But give it a try, look for books on the subject (a good one is Can You Hear Me?: Tuning in to the God Who Speaks by Brad Jersak), and look for others who are learning to listen. Me, I’ll be practicing my “conversation skills.”