This is not filler material.

So I did plan on doing the first post about the topic I mentioned yesterday, but I ran out of time today as there were more urgent things to attend to. Like... school.

But I did have time to read Challies.com, as usual. And somewhat less usually (but not really surprisingly) he had not just one but two substantial posts in the same day that are of particular interest to me.

The first has to do with stewardship, specifically "frugality." College students are funny to me; sometimes we are so incredibly frugal as to be embarrassing (even unethical), and other times we may waste our not-always-very-hard-earned money on pretty dumb things. So, of course, I often struggle with or think carefully about using my resources wisely as a college student. On ther other hand, basically everyone agrees that we should be wise with our finances, and many would say that we are to live "wartime lifestyles" in order to give as generously as possible. But I wonder if the rules about what's okay to buy or not buy are allowed to change at all when I'm older if, perchance, I ever become a bit more financially secure than I am now. Tim Challies seems to think they do, and presents it very thoughtfully. Sweet.

The second post is a shorter one about the modern-day reality of healing miracles. Whether or not you believe that healing is a "spiritual gift" given to individuals or not, I can't think of a reason any Christian would not believe that prayer is powerful and that God can and does still miraculously heal, outside of mere modern medicine. But sometimes we act like praying for a miracle is silly. Maybe some of us don't need this reminder, but some of us do. Oh Western rationalism, God never said we had better only ask for things which were likely and within the scope of our experience. "Pain and suffering are not part of the kingdom."

No, I'm not merely stalling for time; I am stalling for time AND posting things I find worthwhile. So there.

The moral obligation of humanitarian aid

"Americans are blessed with great plenty; we are a generous people and we have a moral obligation to assist those who are suffering from poverty, disease, war and famine."
_Adam Schiff, US Representative

Are we really morally obligated to assist those who are suffering? What a question. In the next few posts (hopefully to conclude by Friday) I'd like to think about this question, using Scripture, conscience, philosophy, and whatever other threads strike my fancy. My goal is to avoid heresy. Yes, ambitious. More ambitiously, my goal is to do the hard work of searching, praying, and thinking through this and come to some conclusions about how to respond to this sort of statement.

To be considered:
Is great plenty always a blessing? Are we a generous people? What does true generosity mean? Are we morally obligated to give? What is moral obligation? Does such an obligation, if it exists, come with qualifications? If so, what are they? Perhaps most crucially, what sort of assistance are we obligated to give?

Fear not, little flock

"And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.

"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
_Luke 6

I just posted in my other blog about fear of man and how, as Christians, we need not fear anyone anymore - either for fear of being judged or being otherwise harmed. It got me thinking that, perhaps, fear comprises a great part of what holds us back from giving and serving.

Whether you call it suspicion or selfishness or worry or love of money or, sometimes, "financial prudence," I'm calling it fear, because that is what Jesus calls it here. Since the beginning of the chapter, he's been talking about both fear of man (hypocrisy, fearing those who kill the body), and money/possessions. Strange how he intermingles the two. After this passage, he's going to turn the conversation to preparing for the Kingdom. But right now, he's telling people not to "be worried" about earthly provisions, for two reasons - such cares are what godless Gentiles do and aren't becoming of God's people; and God knows perfectly well what you need and doesn't need your help. Then Jesus gives the famous line: "Instead, seek his kingdom."

So at first it seems like Jesus is just talking about us not fretting over bills or getting into a frenzy over sales at the mall. But then he started talking about the kingdom, which seems a little serious. Is he saying that, in some way, seeking the kingdom is somehow opposed to seeking worldly possessions? It looks like it... because he takes it even more seriously in the next sentence, which is one of my favorite quotations from Jesus' ministry:

Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

Let that sit with you for a minute. I love it. "Little flock." It strikes me as fond, protective, maybe sympathetic. (Sheep aren't that bright, remember.) "Your Father's good pleasure" - God loves the fact that he's giving us the Kingdom. He doesn't begrudgingly give us gifts, because it's his prerogative. He's GOD; and yet he is never stingy with us. Even though most of the time we have no idea how valuable his gifts are. Sheep.

And that's the point, I think. Jesus goes on to give the "therefore" (imperative flows out of the indicative) - "Sell your possessions, and give...." Jesus is saying, I'm asking you to do something that you're going to think is your undoing, but don't be scared! You don't have to hold so tightly to what you have. If you give freely as God has given to you, you won't be losing a thing, because your Father's possessions are never depleted, and you get to inherit it all.

Fear not! For it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

To dole or not to dole?

Should I give money to people on the street who ask for it?

What a question. My answer is Yes, and the above link is a qualification of that Yes. I guess it's a "Yes, but...."

Quite honestly, I don't completely agree with EVERYTHING the Internet Monk had to say about giving. He seems a little too reluctant (not out of pure selfishness, I don't think) and errs on the side of prudence, where I would err on the side of... what's the opposite of prudence? Extravagance? Yes, that's a good word. After all, I think that Christ's love for us is nothing if not lavish.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Of course, in God's case it was a little different - he was sure of the effectual nature of his actions; he is omniscient and omnipotent and elects people to salvation; and unlike him, we are not the owners of our resources but only stewards. Yet at the same time I think there is something to be said, again, for erring (if one must err) on the side of extravagance. We may not be able to predict the outcome like God can, but we may certainly trust him to bless our blessing of others.

Wisdom is still a necessary part of the equation, however, which is why I'm linking to iMonk in the first place. It's a good reminder if you tend to be a "bleeding heart liberal" as my dad loves to call me. He thinks it's teasing, but I think it's true.

So there you are. The answer is, "Discernment." What a cop out answer. :]

Abortion abolition.

The LA Times on banning partial-birth abortions.

"The legal battle turned on the question of whether a woman and her doctor, or elected lawmakers, should decide on abortion."

Ugh. I hope it's clear how sick this is. And how ludicrous - a fight over who gets to choose the ones who get to choose whether a baby should be allowed to live or not. And the most obvious absurdity of all: people are not only inconvenienced nor annoyed, but angry, belligerent, combative, because some people don't want them to kill children. I wish I could doubt, but I don't believe I can, that there are actually people in this country - especially women - who would become martyrs, who would give up their life in order to ensure that their right to kill their babies is preserved. It gives me such chills to think about it. The bad kind.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, currently the only female member of the Supreme Court, opined that the decision "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court."

She's right, you know. The Supreme Court is looking like a bunch of hypocrites right now. Well, in the strictest sense they are hypocrites. But I'm not about to argue that they should allow partial-birth abortions for the sake of consistency and loyalty to their past decisions. No, on the contrary, our wish and aim and prayer should be that they reverse Roe v. Wade completely, that their eyes are opened to the legalized atrocities of the last forty years.

This may sound overly romanticized, but this generation are the new abolitionists - and might I put forth that while only a few Christians were politically active in reversing slavery laws, I'm certain that many others of the devout prayed faithfully for the abolition of the travesties against all bearers of God's image. I'm not saying we all have to be protesters with signs; ll I'm really saying is that we have to care, and bring those cares to God.

Even when it's not in the news, it matters to God. It always matters.