Saturday, December 1, 2012

Romans, Death, and Life

When you read Romans 6 and 7, you find many statements by Paul that the Christian has "died to sin" (6:2), has been "buried" (6:4) and was "crucified" (6:6). Though I encourage you to read the whole chapters, but here are some key sections:

How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised form the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

For, if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin.

(6:2-7)
Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [...] Now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive.
(7:4,6)

Now, those who know me know that I am still living in the same physical body I have had since I was born. So what does Paul mean that I, as a Christian, have died or even been crucified?

Well, it revolves around the concept called the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ, meaning that Christ died as our substitute: we, as sinful humans, deserved death but Christ died instead—and, even more, Christ deserved life but we sinful humans got life instead!

Now I would say most Christians understand Substitutionary Atonement at this basic level but, paying attention to Paul's wording here, he is taking the concept deeper. My old self—before I became a Christian—was sinful and did not care for God or His law. This self deserved condemnation and punishment. And now, when God looks at me, does He say, "that is one sinful man, but each of those sins was paid for by Jesus, so he owes me nothing?" No. What Paul is saying is that in God's eyes, God killed that man when He killed Jesus. (Yes, it was ultimately God, not Jews or Romans, who killed Jesus. "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him" (Isaiah 53:10). Amazing love!) Let me say again: in God's eyes, my old self is dead. Not only were my sins punished in Jesus' death, but my old man was punished—with death, as required by the law.

And thus the symbol of baptism: our old self enters the water and is "buried with him [...] into death" (6:4) and our new man rises from the water "in a resurrection like his" (6:5). And thus, as well, why Paul is so adamant that the Christian must not sin: it is utterly incompatible with the life we live. I must not say, "well, that was wrong, but it was just one more sin Jesus had to pay for," but instead, "I am a new man now. The old man was the sinner, but this new man is to walk in newness of life."

Now this isn't a brand new truth to me and may not be to you either, but I was quite encouraged as I read and dwelt on this doctrine this morning so I wanted to write about it: mostly for my sake but by hopefully for yours as well. If you are reading this as a Christian, you are raised from the dead! And that is not a metaphor: that is actually how God sees you. So walk in newness of life!

Sunday, November 4, 2012

2012 General Election

How I am voting in the Florida 2012 General Election. (It's a beast of a ballot!)

Offices

President and Vice President

Romney and Ryan. I was never too excited about Romney and have lately become disgusted with his campaign (e.g., the Jeep to China thing), but Obama has been terribly divisive, big-government, and opposed to God's moral law. The one thing Romney has going for him in my book is Paul Ryan, who has real ideas for helping our nation and seems to care about implementing them. I hope he can follow through as Vice President!

United States Senator

Bill Nelson. This one is a toughie for me. I think Bill Nelson has been a fair, cooperative senator during his tenure—and I don't think the same could be said for his politico opponent Connie Mack IV. On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to abortion while Bill Nelson strongly supports it. Bill Gaylor, and independent in the race, seems on point but a little to rough and inexperienced for a US Senator. If Congress was behaving normally my vote would have gone to Connie Mack just for the abortion issue, but Congress has become so politicized we need people who are willing to compromise and work with each other to solve our nation's problems. Bill Nelson therefore gets my reluctant vote.

House District 8

Richard H. Gillmor. Bill Posey lines up with me on most issues and his office did help me and my wife out with something, but he has been too hardline Republican in his tenure. From a birth certificate amendment to the Grover Norquist pledge, he has shown a lack of wisdom that is "gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, and sincere" (James 3:17). We need that kind of wisdom in Washington right now. I am not sure whether Gillmor will demonstrate it, but he shows a displeasure with both parties which puts him on the right track!

State Attorney, 18th Judicial Circuit

Phil Archer, for multiple newspaper recommendations, impressive experience, and a good platform.

State Senator

Thad Altman. His opponent, Dominic A Fallo II, doesn't seem to care much about winning. Altman by default.

Constitutional Amendments

Amendment 1

No. While I oppose any government requiring me to purchase anything just because I happen to live in its jurisdiction, the amendment is too complex and too targeted at a short-term issue. The Florida Constitution has been and may be around for quite some time, so let's keep it simple and future-proof.

Amendment 2

No. Of course I am proud of our American military and its veterans, but we don't need to give veterans every possible benefit and reward for their service. They already receive much through the VA and other laws directed specifically at them, and the benefit of this tax discount is small compared to the unfairness in the tax code that it compounds.

Amendment 3

No. This revenue limit is a solution in search of a problem and has more chance of having negative than positive effects down the road.

Amendment 4

No! Sure, I'd like to pay less property tax, but please don't do it through a super-complicated amendment that favors certain classes of people over others. We can handle this at the local government level, thanks. And my local government is pretty reasonable about how it collects and spends my money.

Amendment 5

A tentative no. I'm pretty happy with how our federal selection process works and, in a vacuum, my tendency would be to move towards it at the Florida level. Our Florida legislature, however, is a little crazy (e.g., the amendments presented to us this year) and I think this amendment is just callous retribution by our legislature on the courts for their rejection of some other amendments. In other words, while I agree with this change on principle, I don't think this is the right time for it.

Amendment 6

Yes. This amendment has two parts: (1) enshrining current law regarding public funding of abortions in the State's constitution, and (2) preventing challenges against anti-abortion laws based on the right of privacy already in the Florida constitution. Even though (1) would have no immediate effect, it is my hope that the abortion issue will eventually be handed back to the states and (1) would help make Florida a pro-life state. (2) also contributes to Florida being a pro-life state but also, and more importantly, prevents opponents of anti-abortion laws from using Florida's right of privacy against those laws. I'm all for privacy rights, but abortion is murder and that trumps privacy rights.

Amendment 8

Yes. I strongly support the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution, but the separation of church and state should end there. The current Blaine Amendment is just another case of the strict secularization of our government which I oppose.

Amendment 9

No. See Amendment 2.

Amendment 10

No. Not sure about the $50,000 exemption, but allowing local governments to raise the exemption further is a recipe for inequality: businesses with big pocketbooks could easily lobby the governments into providing higher exemptions, forcing the general public to bear more of the tax burden.

Amendment 11

No. I like the intent to give low-income seniors a tax break, but the provisions are not well-thought-out. A senior who has lived in his house for 25 years and makes $25,000/year will get the tax break, but a senior who has lived in his house for 24 years and makes $12,000/year will not. The $250,000 value limit is also not indexed to inflation. Let's not pollute our constitution with poorly-done provisions like this.

Amendment 12

No. The current system works OK—at least OK enough that it doesn't deserve a change to the Florida Constitution. This amendment seems to just be the result of an FSU dispute about Florida Student Association fees.