The Gospel is Not Amnesty
Amnesty is undoubtedly easier, but maybe true reconciliation is worth the necessary work in a family or society. God certainly didn’t choose an easy route. He makes us his children by inviting us to humble ourselves as he offers full forgiveness to bring us into the closest possible relationship with Him. That invitation is in light of all he has done in Jesus’ atoning death on the cross. God doesn’t hide from our sin; he dealt with it in full and then invited us to humble ourselves and accept genuine forgiveness.
Recently an article in The Atlantic has created a stir. In it, Emily Oster called for a pandemic amnesty. She gave the examples of cloth masks and closed beaches, which both turned out to be pointless actions – but at the time, she points out, we didn’t know. She writes that we need to learn from our mistakes and move on, focussing on the future rather than getting into a “repetitive doom loop” by analysing what went wrong. She recalls being called a “teacher killer” for advocating that children were a low-risk group and should be allowed back into school. She thinks it best that we do not dwell on things from a time when people just didn’t know better.
I generally do not flag up articles from political publications of any persuasion, but I think this is important. Why? Because if the media decides to push an idea, that idea will become part of our everyday vocabulary. I can imagine well-meaning Christians then taking that notion and seeking to co-opt it for the communication of the Gospel. But the Gospel is not an amnesty.
What is amnesty? An amnesty is an official pardon generally offered by governments to political prisoners for specific offences. Technically, it differs from a pardon because it is offered to those not yet convicted but subject to prosecution. A pardon relieves the convicted from the burden of punishment, but an amnesty forgets the offence ever took place. An amnesty allows a nation to move on after political turmoil, especially where punishing such crimes would only entrench division and make national unity impossible.
Notice that the cultural contradiction here is striking. On the one hand, if we did anything wrong in the past two years, then there should be an amnesty. After all, we didn’t know. (And if we “fact-checked,” censored and silenced every scientist and doctor who did not support the official narrative; or if we vilified anyone who dared to question the prescribed behaviours; or if we dismissed the many voices who tried to tell us otherwise? Well, that doesn’t matter because we are saying that we didn’t know.)
However, let’s say someone in the distant past can be connected somehow to a current issue of concern. If that person ever expressed an opinion or even wrote a footnote that is now considered unacceptable, what then? Well, there can be no pardon or understanding that they lived in a different time. They will be tarred with one vast brushstroke of condemnation if we choose. Then we must tear down their statues, ban their books, and erase them from our museums, libraries and education system.
Of course, there is something incredibly self-serving in this contradiction. If the offender was in the past, I can signal my virtue by raging without knowing anything about them. If the offender might have been me, I can protect myself and my tribe from scrutiny or accountability by signalling my virtue and calling for amnesty. In the recent past, we didn’t know, so amnesty will allow us all to move forward. In the distant past, they didn’t know, but we will show no mercy!
What are the implications of this call for amnesty? Don’t investigate me or my tribe, we don’t want any scrutiny; let’s just move on. Don’t convict me or any of my tribe; let us be considered innocent. Don’t hold me or anyone I like accountable; let’s forget our offences. (I mentioned at the beginning of this post that the article’s author, Emily Oster, pushed for schools to re-open.
-
The Glory of the Incarnation (John 1:14)
In the incarnation, the Son of God took on flesh to dwell among man, die for us, be raised for us, and will come again for us one day. In all these things, He is glorious, and as we love Him, we will one day see His incarnate glory forevermore!2
John 1:14 captures the incarnation of the Son of God and the glory thereof in these memorable words: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
The Incarnation of the Word
By this point in John 1:14, John has already identified the Word. Summarizing John 1:1–9, the Word was in the beginning with God, created all things, has life in Himself, and is the light of the world. The Word is clearly the eternal Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
By calling Jesus the Word, John repurposed a philosophical term from his day and, more importantly, pointed to Jesus as the One who personifies the acts of God in the Old Testament. Consider these passages: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made”; (Ps 33:6); “Now the word of the Lord came to me” (Jer 1:4); “He sent out his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction” (Ps 107:20). As the Word, Jesus is Creator, Revealer, and Deliverer. He created all things, reveals the truth of God, and delivers man from sin and its punishment.
“And the Word became flesh”—the Son of God became human. He was “born of woman” (Gal 4:4), “being born in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7).
Read More
Related Posts: -
Rich Toward God
James’ problem with the rich is not their money but their master. In serving money they oppressed the poor, ran roughshod over the helpless, and exploited whomever they could for their own gain. Rejecting the model of the Master, they sought to be served rather than serve.
You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. (James 5:5, ESV)
My guess is that we won’t find James 5:1 in one of those verse-a-day packets: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you” (James 5:1). Yet that verse and the contrast it presents captures the tension we face each and every day as disciples of Jesus Christ, seeking of first importance the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Earlier in his letter, James discourages believers from discrimination on the basis of station. He says they should not give preference in the assembly to a man wearing fine clothes over someone sporting shabby clothing. Beyond the level playing field of all being mired in the same sin and all being in need of the same grace, James levels particular criticism of the rich. “Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?” (James 2:6)
Now as he winds down his letter, James addresses the rich themselves. “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.” (James 5:1–3).
What is James’s problem with those who have wealth?
Read More
Related Posts: -
Alabama Supreme Court, Embryos, and the Confusing Ethics of IVF
In the Alabama case, the court established that the moral nature of an embryo gives it the same legal protections as a born human under the state’s “wrongful death” statute. Why, then, should the same embryos not be afforded protection from imprisonment, trafficking, experimentation, and eventual destruction? Strictly speaking, IVF can be done in a way that does not lead to the creation of “excess” embryos.
A decision by the Supreme Court of Alabama, that the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to “all unborn children, regardless of their location” including “extrauterine” embryos stored in a “cryogenic nursery,” has resulted in at least three fertility clinics suspending in vitro fertilization (IVF) services. In an interview on The Daily podcast, New York Times reporter Azeen Ghorayshi claimed that the decision “puts all fertility care in Alabama in limbo.”
It sets a huge and quite scary precedent for anyone who is undergoing IVF, anyone who works in the fertility industry in Alabama who is working with these embryos that are suddenly considered children.
That panic, which has been typical of the media coverage about the decision, makes sense given that the court finally addressed the central question of IVF, a question that the IVF industry has largely depended upon not being answered in order to grow and expand. Specifically, the court’s decision has only put a certain kind of fertility care “in limbo”: fertility care that involves the creating, storing, preserving, and destroying of human embryos. Asking the question “what are they?” was long overdue, given that approximately 1.5 million embryos left over from IVF services are currently stored in freezers in the United States, the vast majority of which are destined for either destruction or donation for medical testing,
Even if late in coming, pro-lifers have been right to celebrate this small bit of ethical clarity for an industry with little of it. During IVF, eggs are fertilized with sperm in a lab. Often, multiple embryos are created and tested for viability before being transferred into the uterus of the mother or a surrogate. This is done in rounds of one to five embryos at a time. If a pregnancy occurs, the remaining embryos are frozen.
Read More
Related Posts:
