No matter how many times I come across examples in the Old Testament, I am continually shocked at the accounts of people sacrificing their children to deities, often by burning them as offerings to the Ammonite god Molech (see Lev. 18:21; 20:2ff.; 2 Kings 16:3; Jer. 32:35; Ezek. 16:21). In our age of Western "enlightenment," we all see human sacrifice--whether voluntary or not--as an ignorant, if not brutal, act. So when I read that this is still being practiced in many sites around the world, particularly among African tribal peoples, it shocks me.
But should it?
Human sacrifice has been practiced for thousands of years, from the earliest of human times. Though we modern folk deride and decry it--and Christians rightly hate it for the evil, life-desecrating work of Satan that it is--there are innate truths in human sacrifice that perhaps many of us today have forgotten.
Some people sacrifice themselves or another member of their community as an offering of devotion to please their god(s). They rightly see that the greater powers deserve nothing less than all that we can offer to them, and that a life given in their honor is the supreme gift. Do we even think about the fact that we owe our lives to a higher being?
Other cultures sacrifice those who are thought to bear curses. (Here is a sad story of Ethiopians who kill off children who are mingi, or "cursed," and who thereby endanger their communities--and of how Christians' hope in Jesus and love for their neighbors is redeeming this situation.) Only by removing the accursed person can prosperity be restored to the community. In some situations the sacrifice himself isn't considered cursed, but the community as a whole is, and amends can only be made by placating the deity's anger with sacrifices. Do we today feel any sense of guilt before the Divine for our wrongdoing?
Strangely enough, these motives for sacrifice point us to the Gospel, the message about the one true and final human sacrifice: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. He lived an unblemished life and "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21) and willingly "gave himself up as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (Eph. 5:2 NIV). He held back none of himself in perfect submission and devotion to God.
But of this same man it is written, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us [i.e., in our place as a substitute]--for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'--so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith" (Gal. 3:13-14). Jesus' untarnished dedication to God both motivated him and enabled him to become a worthy, once-for-all-time sacrifice who took upon himself our guilt and accursedness as his very own so that we might be absolved and welcomed into the family of God (2 Cor. 5:21).
So while human sacrifices can point people toward the gospel, by themselves they only lead to despair. Such offerings must continually be repeated because they inevitably fall short of the wholehearted consecration God desires and the extent of sacrifice he justly requires--because these can only be fulfilled in the God-man Jesus. But the wonderful truth is that they have been fulfilled! And everywhere this good news spreads--as it did to the Celts--people will begin to joyfully offer up sacrifices of a different kind: praise and thanks to God in Jesus' name and charity and generosity toward mankind (Heb. 13:15-16).
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
"It's financial socialism"
I'm not someone who is very politically active, but the call to follow Jesus is certainly a call to politics of a sort. "There's a new Caesar in town," they say. The Treasury's proposed $700B bailout of investment firms is quite the conundrum, and I'd appreciate others' voices on this as well, especially thoughts marked by Scripture and Jesus' teachings.
Most of the companies getting bailed out are mortgage companies which rise and fall upon property values and people's desire and ability to buy and build homes. Others are investment firms tying up billions of dollars of Americans' retirement money. If these companies disappear, so might your 401(k) or 403(b). With failed mortgage lenders, fewer people can buy or sell homes, further crippling our economy. With dead investment brokers, more money is withdrawn from circulation as people scrimp and save for the rainy days ahead. With these problems in view, it sounds like $700 billion well spent.
But something feels a little too "Big Brother" about all this. In a recent CNN.com article, senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky (who also happens to be a former Detroit Tigers pitcher) said that "This massive bailout is not a solution. It's financial socialism and it's un-American." About as un-American as eminent domain, I say! The U.S. Treasury now owns 80% of AIG, which means that it basically controls its operations. If they do this enough times, how far apart from Communism will we really be?
To add to that, why should I shoulder a massive tax increase to pay off someone else's mortgage? Worse yet, why should my tax dollars help rescue firms whose executives have made millions and tanked their own company through irresponsible greed? After all, that's what the subprime/adjustable-rate mortgages were all about, as I see it. Homebuyers weren't disciplined enough to save money; they wanted homes now and bit off more than they could chew. Lenders wanted high-interest revenue from myopic lendees who failed to see how stupid and irresponsible it is to take on a high-interest loan with no fixed rates. Both were greedy, and now both are hurting. Will the Fed's deus ex machina end up sanctioning such behavior? It's not unlike having an abortion: Neither party thought about the future; they wanted only the moment's pleasure. But instead of learning accountability for one's actions by keeping the child, let's just let them have a quick-fix abortion instead. Sure, that's sad, but at least it gets out of the way and life can get back to normal.
Of course, you see that my Libertarian tendencies are peeking through a bit. I realize that this is a huge deal for many common people's livelihood. No, our present economic crisis is probably not what the media would like to have you fear, but it's still nonetheless a call for sobriety. We (read: I) need to have grace and compassion on those who erred, even sinned (gulp!), in this ordeal: I too will likely be a homeowner someday. Perhaps the government's rescue is a necessary evil.
What's a good government to do? And, dare I ask, What would Jesus do?
________________
Ron Paul (remember him?) also has some helpful insight on this economic SNAFU which is now FUBAR.
Most of the companies getting bailed out are mortgage companies which rise and fall upon property values and people's desire and ability to buy and build homes. Others are investment firms tying up billions of dollars of Americans' retirement money. If these companies disappear, so might your 401(k) or 403(b). With failed mortgage lenders, fewer people can buy or sell homes, further crippling our economy. With dead investment brokers, more money is withdrawn from circulation as people scrimp and save for the rainy days ahead. With these problems in view, it sounds like $700 billion well spent.
But something feels a little too "Big Brother" about all this. In a recent CNN.com article, senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky (who also happens to be a former Detroit Tigers pitcher) said that "This massive bailout is not a solution. It's financial socialism and it's un-American." About as un-American as eminent domain, I say! The U.S. Treasury now owns 80% of AIG, which means that it basically controls its operations. If they do this enough times, how far apart from Communism will we really be?
To add to that, why should I shoulder a massive tax increase to pay off someone else's mortgage? Worse yet, why should my tax dollars help rescue firms whose executives have made millions and tanked their own company through irresponsible greed? After all, that's what the subprime/adjustable-rate mortgages were all about, as I see it. Homebuyers weren't disciplined enough to save money; they wanted homes now and bit off more than they could chew. Lenders wanted high-interest revenue from myopic lendees who failed to see how stupid and irresponsible it is to take on a high-interest loan with no fixed rates. Both were greedy, and now both are hurting. Will the Fed's deus ex machina end up sanctioning such behavior? It's not unlike having an abortion: Neither party thought about the future; they wanted only the moment's pleasure. But instead of learning accountability for one's actions by keeping the child, let's just let them have a quick-fix abortion instead. Sure, that's sad, but at least it gets out of the way and life can get back to normal.
Of course, you see that my Libertarian tendencies are peeking through a bit. I realize that this is a huge deal for many common people's livelihood. No, our present economic crisis is probably not what the media would like to have you fear, but it's still nonetheless a call for sobriety. We (read: I) need to have grace and compassion on those who erred, even sinned (gulp!), in this ordeal: I too will likely be a homeowner someday. Perhaps the government's rescue is a necessary evil.
What's a good government to do? And, dare I ask, What would Jesus do?
________________
Ron Paul (remember him?) also has some helpful insight on this economic SNAFU which is now FUBAR.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)