Response & Rebuttal

I knew, when posting yesterday’s article, that I would come up against the opposing view.  And so it was offered on my social media page.  I’m concerned, however, that my arguments may have been lost in the satire or potentially inflammatory language; thus in the interest of informed dialogue, I’m reprinting (can one use that term when referencing the internet?) the opposing response and my own rebuttal to “3 Ways to be Pro-Life andAnti-Misogynistic, Concurrently.”   I’ve also added to my rebuttal, in the middle, because I noticed something that I missed.  To wit, I give you the following dialogue…  

Respondent:[1]  The overwhelming past and present voice in passing legislative law over women’s bodies, and I use bodies because its applicable to the debate and theme of the overarching argument and I do not see men or women discussing political legislature over penises or semen, is undeniably male dominated.  Whether, you are pro-life or (what anti-life?) is a matter that I do not necessarily care anything about, it has become too polarized to speak rationally about between two parties of ideologies.    The fact is, that women continually do not have political autonomy over issues that deal with their everyday, and certainly over matter that affect them most of all.  Women make up just 17% of all members of the U.S. House of Representatives; 16% of all U.S. senators; 16% of all governors; and 24% of all state legislators.  (WCF Foundation, 2010)  That means that the other 83%, 84%, and 76% of political offices are held by men.  I would say that give them plenty of opinion of my body and what I should and should not be doing with it.  If that makes me hysterical. Great.  Hysteria implies passion.  I would rather be hysterical, kicking and screaming all the way, than have my body made into a legal document signed and dated by a representative that I did not vote to represent me.  Maybe a little more hysteria would change something.  (I apologize for politicizing your ***** post, but I couldn’t keep quiet and while I respect your experience and your opinion, not because of your gender but because of your intellect and first-hand knowledge, I cannot however, apologize for mine.).[2]

Me:  In responding to your rebuttal, I must point out that your argument is based solely on straw men.  While I will address each of those momentarily, I point out that the issue at stake here is not one of women’s health care.  The issue I am arguing is whether or not men are permitted to engage in the abortion debate.  I argue that they are.  I offered three different arguments to this end, and in the spirit of fair play, I will summarize the premises I forwarded:

The Gender-Specific Intellect Argument

1.        Intellectual ability is not based on gender

2.        Therefore, men and women have equal reasoning abilities.

3.        Therefore, men are able to apply their reasoning abilities to the issue of abortion

The Human Life Argument

1.        The science of embryology and Pro-Abortion philosophy agrees that human life begins at insemination.

2.        Men and women are equally the result of successful insemination.

3.        Therefore, men and women can equally represent human life and the appeal for the protection thereof. 

4.       Therefore, men can engage in the abortion debates as a member of the human species. 

The Dual Party Responsibility Argument 

1.        Successful insemination results in human life.

2.        Successful insemination requires both male sperm and female ovum.

3.        Men hold 50% of the responsibility for new, individual human life.

4.       Therefore, men are equally able to engage in the abortion debate. 

If you would like to address the premises in any of these arguments, I would love to talk more about them. 

To clarify, I did not coin the term “Pro-Life.”  Though, in light of both my “Dual Party Responsibility” argument and “Human Life” argument above, I find the term highly appropriate.  I believe the wording used by the opposition is “Pro-Choice” for the pro-abortion movement and “Anti-Choice” for their opposition.  Thus we find that even in political and philosophical realms, branding is paramount.  

To assert that any issue, to include the topic of abortion, “has become too polarized to speak rationally about between two parties of ideologies,” is impossible to adhere to.  This standard would then have to be applied universally to all topics that are polarizing: socio-economic equality, immigration, gun control, gay rights, healthcare, etc…ad naseum, ad infinitum.  The polarizing effect of any topic cannot dictate its value in intelligent discourse.    

As for the straw men you present, I will address them now.  The first straw man, which was the topic of the under-representation of women in the governing bodies of United States, begs the question: as citizens of the United States, are we to only adhere to legislation that has been forwarded by the representative for whom we individually have voted?  Conversely, can we ignore the legislation that we didn’t, in effect, vote for?

For the second straw man, I offer three academically approved sources for a definition of terms.  Hysterical: a state in which your emotions (such as fear) are so strong that you behave in an uncontrolled way (Merriam-Webster).  Unable to control your emotions or behave because you are very frightened, excited, etc… (Cambridge Dictionaries).  Exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people (Oxford English Dictionary).  None of these imply passion.  What the word hysterical implies is lack of control, due to an extreme emotional response.  This is a frequent argument used against women, feminists in particular, to discount what the woman is saying.  My point in using this particular word, and I was exacting with my word selection, is that women who are arguing against the ability of men to engage in the abortion debate may not use slogans such as, “get out of my uterus,” as an acceptable rhetorical tactic.  Because it gives credence to the claim that women cannot be trusted to argue except in an emotionally uncontrollable manner.  A well thought out and reasoned, albeit passionately delivered, argument is required if we are to maintain our intellectual credibility.  It is what we expect of men; and we should hold ourselves to the same standard. 

I appreciate your passion, and I agree with you that women are grossly under-represented in our government and routinely undervalued in legislative discourse.  The latter is the reason for my appeal to feminist.  To employ straw men, however zealously, distracts from the issue being argued, and does not defeat the argument at hand.  I will also point out, in closing, that while I offered full disclosure of my personal experiences and ideological leanings, I did not use these in my arguments.  Therefore, they are not pertinent to my conclusion.  Regardless of passion, my premises stand: Men are able to, and should, engage in the abortion debate. 

---

[1] Name withheld to respect the identity of respondent.

[2] Social media outlet withheld to respect the identity of respondent.  

3 Ways to be Pro-Life & Anti-Misogynistic, Concurrently

But first, a satire titled:

Three premises to exempt men from the abortion debate.

1.        1.)  BECAUSE INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES ARE DETERMINED BY GENDER, demand that only the gender affected by certain topics may use their GENDER-SPECIFIC INTELLECT to come to a reasoned and logical conclusion.    

2.        2.) Argue against the science behind human development.  Throw out all the embryology textbooks, as well as the entire Human Genome Project.  Also, bury any and all evidence from Planned Parenthood’s campaign to legalize Birth Control – like THIS PLANNED PARENTHOOD BROCHURE FROM 1964.    

3.       3.)  Recognize that human life is the resultant of ANY volitional, loving RELATIONSHIP, so that any two partners may express their love for one another in a way that produces offspring.  As Sir Elton John crooned, “all you need is love.” 

Now for reason to step in, because satire feels condescending; and truth is far more desirable than falsehoods. 

In the spirit of full-disclosure, I am a feminist.  Granted, this is not a popular label amongst the evangelicals with whom I most frequently converse (did you catch that?  Yes, I’m also a Christian – another disclosure).  Yet I was raised and remain to this day a dyed-in-the-wool feminist.  In fact, it is my faith in Jesus that concretely grounds my whole-hearted belief that women have been endowed with the same existential qualities and should therefore be afforded the same ontological rights as their male counter parts. 

I am also post-abortive.  That means that I’ve had an abortion.  Yet, I’m Pro-Life.  Hypocritical?  No.  In truth, it is because I’ve had an abortion that I am Pro-Life.    

None of the above labels, nor any of my life experiences, exclude me from logically considering the issue of abortion.  To wit, I offer the following counter-points to the satirical premises above that seek to preclude men from engaging in the abortion debate.   

1.)  If we feminist are going to demand that gender has NO determinate effect on intellect or reasoning ability, in order to maintain our intellectual credibility, we have to hold this stance in the abortion debate as well.  We must honor and heed our convictions: gender has no bearing on one’s ability to reason.  Therefore, men may utilize their intellectual faculties and reasoning abilities when examining the issue of abortion. 

2.) We have to examine the science behind human development.  Seriously.  Pick up an embryology textbook.  Admit that the nation’s largest abortion broker, Planned Parenthood, defined abortion as a procedure that “kills the life of a baby after it has begun,” to encourage the palatability of birth control in the 1960’s.  Realize that even cognizant Pro-Abortion philosophers recognize that individual human life begins at insemination. 

“A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage of his or her development.”

-- David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion[1] 

Therefore, arguing on behalf of the life of another member of the species, Homo sapiens, is not a gender-specific endeavor.  Thus, males are able to argue against anything that ends the life of another human, be that lethal injection, guns, or abortions.  Because at any stage of our development, we are all still human.    

3.) We have to recognize that in order to produce human offspring, sperm from a male is one of two requisite ingredients for a human child.  Thus, every embryo has two parties responsible for its existence.  One Female.  One Male.  Ergo, males DO have an inherent responsibility in reference to the resulting human life.  This irrefutable truth means that ABORTION IS A MAN’S ISSUE, TOO. 

These premises indicate that every human may engage in the debate regarding abortion.  It is illogical and irresponsible, and frankly makes us look like hysterical alarmists, for women to scream “Get Out of My Uterus” to men who are respectfully and thoughtfully arguing either for or against abortion. 

And looking like hysterical alarmists is detrimental to the feminist movement they are claiming to promote.     

---

[1] David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion .  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 20  

Here's the thing: Enthrall me with a Love Story

At 35, I can confidently say that I’ve done my lifetime’s share of reading.  I treasure the mantle, “bibliophile,” and will add to my ever-expanding library until my time on earth has passed, even if I have to create pathways through my stacks to make my home livable.  It is telling that I am both giddy and comforted at the thought of that many books lingering in my home.   I’ve also watched my share of movies.  I majored in film for a few semesters as an undergrad, and still hoard the good ones as greedily as the books I love.  I get to both the local and national theater as often as I can.  I’m a card-carrying, lifetime thespian; though prefer now to watch others tread the boards more deftly than I ever could.  And as every aspiring novelist, I strive for publication, daily (ish) disciplining myself to take the pictures in my head and paint them on the paper with the words tucked in my heart. 

               Suffice it to say: I’m a big fan of a good story.

But there is a troubling theme rampant throughout all these mediums.  One that has put me off more books than I care to count or more movies than I am want to mention, and has kept me out of more theaters than I would like.   Sadly, this theme has to do with love.

It has become the prevailing notion that love is only exiting when it is new.  Very Romeo and Juliet, albeit; but it has been taken to an even more ridiculous extreme in contemporary art.  It has come to the point where love, when seemingly dulled by time and familiarity, flickers out.  And afterward, the only hope for the individual is to find new and fresh love again.  Elsewhere.

And while it feels exciting, with troupes of butterflies storming our insides, might I suggest that elsewhere is exactly the opposite of what beautiful love looks like?  That elsewhere is, in reality, the lazy, self-indulgent, narcissistic mockery of genuine love.  And quite frankly, it is this theme that should be routed from our art for the lie that it is. 

I have come to learn, with almost no help from the stories I’ve read and seen, that it is the journey that makes the love story enchanting.  Not the beginning.  And it is the end – the sweet, old couple all wrinkled and hunched, sitting together, hand-in-hand, stealing a peck in the I-know-you silence between them – that we are all striving for. 

                Because, honestly, have you ever heard of anyone who wants to die alone?  
                              Or with someone they just met?

Yes, marriage is hard.  Damn hard.  Which is likely why we are so entertained by the idea of abandoning it altogether.  But more than that, it is beautiful.  And joyful.  And full of struggle.  And sacrificial.  And defining.  And refining as well. 

But the messages we're getting through society and art is that most of the things above are “bad.”  

We shouldn’t be defined by another person.  We shouldn’t have to sacrifice parts of ourselves or our dreams for the sake of someone else.  Our relationships shouldn’t change us.  And we shouldn’t have to struggle.  Ever.  But let me tell you: society lies.  Art lies.    

The truth is that the very action of love is to sacrifice for the good of another person.  Sometimes it’s big – giving up your life for one you love.  Sometimes it’s small – getting up every morning and making coffee before the one you love wakes.  But sacrifice is the existential expression of what love is. 

And yes, to define ourselves by another person is also what love does.  I am still me.  You are still you.  But there is a new and overriding entity called US that takes precedent.  And yes, we slowly become more US than you or me.  Because that’s what happens when you meld two lives into one.  I start thinking about your needs over my own, and then consider our needs over mine.  And you do the same for me.  So the US that is who we are jointly becoming is more important than you or me.  That is how it was designed to be.     

We all change.  Throughout our lives, we morph into different version of ourselves based on our experiences up to that point.  So it is within marriage.  The beauty here is that there is another person helping refine us, rubbing off the sharp edges of self to reveal the soft truth of who we were meant to be.     

And struggle.  Well, that is just a part of life on this fallen rock.  There is no life apart from it.  Until the dawn of eternity, each person given even one heartbeat here will struggle.  And when you merge two lives into one, this truth holds for the new US as well. 

Mignon MacLaughlin said, 

“A successful marriage requires falling in love many times, always with the same person.”  

I would amend this quote.  Not only a successful marriage, but a happy and thriving and beautiful one.  Love is an on-going, ever adapting, constant.  And it is the foundation that marriage should be built on.  So that we don’t crave elsewhere, either in reality or in our entertainment. 

A final note –

As for the crass and ridiculous assault on marital intimacy in contemporary media, I have two answers: 

Experiential: Fourteen years and a twice post-baby/post-breast-feeding, now peri-menopausal, body later, and I am more delighted with the intimate moments in my marriage than I ever was as a new, perky, peak of physical perfection bride discovering her groom.  Truly, I can only imagine it gets even better from here. 

From Scripture: King Solomon, the man whom Hugh Hefner could only fantasize of being, penned a number of proverbs and, eventually, the book of Ecclesiastes.  Bearing in mind that the Song of Solomon, the most erotic and beautiful poetry in the sixty-six books of scripture, is also attributed to his pen, Solomon admonished his reader to “rejoice in the wife of your youth,” and “enjoy life with your wife, whom you love.”[1]    

--*--*--*--

Fellow sojourners, I urge you to cast off the lies that love is only about beginnings; that love is only beautiful in youth and newness.  Do not buy into the lie that one love can overtake another, if the first has grown still.  The second, dear one, is not love.  It is a vicious pirate and unabashed charlatan.  Do not stand for this theme in your entertainment.  Look for stories of love that are genuine, stories that honor the journey.  Beginnings are exciting.  But it is the endings that matter most.   For while art may mimic life, artist also have to eat.  And if you don't buy what they're selling, they might just explore new topics.  

Strain for that golden-aged park bench, with two lovers covered in the lines of their shared histories, fingers entwined and spirits at rest with the ease of the other’s nearness. 

For the best love story Disney every told was that of 

Carl & Ellie.      

Found this delightful fanart at Norke's deviantart site.  I get teary just looking at it.  Go here to see more. 

  

---

[1]Proverbs 5:18 and Ecclesiastes 9:9  |   These admonitions are easily applicable to wives as well, now that women have the power to seek divorce with the same ease as men.  Whereas when these words of wisdom were written, women were not permitted to seek divorce; thus there was no need to admonish women against leaving the husband of her youth.                 

Shalom aleikhem

Peace be upon you.

There were only two of them.  Placidly pacing the sidewalk, placards held aloft with only their cold-pinked noses, cheerful eyes, and unfettered smiles protruding from cinched parkas.  The snow fell like down from heavy, goose clouds flocked over both mountain and city.  The world was muted with thick beauty; edges softened by the crystalline blanket of white.  Flakes landed on their lashes, coating them with purity and gemstones. 

There were only two.  Because the snow heralded more to come; the winter storm bearing down on the city as its inhabitants scurried to the welcome warmth of hearth and home.  And ignored the two women on the sidewalk. 

The light stopped us as we, too, hurried about, hoping to make it back up the mountain before the snow became too much.  Sitting there in a car full of family and agendas, I felt my shoulders fall as I wrestled with what I wanted the focus of my year to be.  Stillness?  Silence?  Listening? 

God, please just tell me what to do.  I want to want the same things You do. 

She turned as we pulled alongside.  Her smile free and open.   She lifted an arm to wave at no one in particular, our eyes caught one another, and her face brightened.  I read her sign.  Jarred, I examined her colleague’s.  One word.  There on the corner in the midst of the falling snow, the week after Christmas, mere days into the new year, one word:

Peace.

Not peace for Israel.  Not peace between two opposing factions.  Not peace as a commodity in a consumerist culture.  Just peace. 

And in that moment, my soul was filled.  After all my half-joking statements that it would be easier if God would just overnight me the memo, He did what He does: exceed even my pettiest expectations.  He sent a sign.  Literally.  Struck by the audacity of His love, I put the pieces together, like bookends to my question.  The week before Christmas our family had been given the opportunity to present the readings and light the Advent candle at our church. 

          It had been the candle of Peace.               

A chiasm of words, with the Prince of Peace at their points; God was answering my prayer before I knew that I was praying it. 

******************************

{read: John 20: 1-29}

“On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, 

Jesus 

came and stood among them and said, 

‘Peace be with you!’”

He comes to us.

Jesus seeks us out in our hiding; breaking through our barriers of fear to prove to us the glorious, miraculous, life-altering Truth of His resurrection.  And He doesn’t do it with shame or condemnation or even reluctant resignation.  He does it with Shalom – with peace – and for peace, by bringing His peace to us and speaking it over us as His greeting and blessing.  

*******************************

A few weeks before, I stared at the screen and wept.  I had, not as immediately or dramatically as she described, been close to giving up a piece of hope.*  There had been much gained in the past six months; but there had been much loss, too.  As if a life is a static thing.  A self-contained universe with fixed matter, so that in acquisition there must be release to maintain balance.  And with each loss, slivers of hope fluttered away.  So that as I read her words, I asked aloud:

                Where is my blue morph butterfly?  
                When do I get a right-here-right-now sign of Your love? 

The answer didn’t come from above.  It was truth already settled in me: Christ is sufficient.  His love and hope are alive within me, even when I can’t feel them.  I plucked up and carried on as dawn met dusk again and again.  Because that is what living is.

But as is true with so much of life, looking back I can see the scope and shape of His movements in my days.  Unlike the beloved author, I wasn’t Mary, seeking her Lord at His last known resting place, looking for hope out in the open – for herself and her friends.  I wasn’t on the road, demanding an explanation for a rolled-away stone, and then fetching others to this glorious revelation.  So I couldn’t find a butterfly with open wing to give flight to hope.

I, rather, was the disciples; penned up with fear and failure.  Tucked away from that which might harm, unable to apprehend the miracle of Hope.  Eyes weary with the walls around so that I could not move.  Until, with bookended signs, Jesus walks in.  Through doors locked with fear, to a table laden with failure and grieving.  Declaring peace – eirehnh, shalom – upon those within. 

            Peace be upon you!

He always seeks out those He loves.  He does not chastise.  He offers His peace: His wholeness, His harmony, His security, His prosperity, His righteousness.  He brings it in to those who have shuttered themselves away.  He gives them shalom so that they can be His peace to a world in so much need.

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,

when sorrow like sea billows roll; 

whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say:

It is well, it is well with my soul.**

Peace.  That is my focus for the year.  The signs have quite literally pointed the way.  And my soul rejoices, as though Heaven’s gates have been flung open.    

Delirious Farewell Tour: Did you feel the mountains tremble?

*Anne Voskamp, "When You're This Close to Giving Up Hope," at A Holy Experience.  accessed on 1/8/14 at 10:13 mst.
**It Is Well with My Soul, written by Horatio Spafford. 

            

        

Here's the thing: the Newest Year

Everyone enjoys a new start.  I don’t need to tell you that it’s New Year’s Eve; and the interwebs are a-buzz with resolutions, reflections, suggestions, plans and lots and lots of hope.  So many chirps, statuses, and instapics waxing poetic on a variation of

                This is the year I ___{fill in the blank}_______.

I am not immune to this excitement.  I refuse to act as if I have nothing in me that needs changing.  And yes, I am pinning quite a few expectations on the first day of 2014. 

While it is fun (and useful, according to “the experts”) to set a date on which you plan initiate change, I am reminded that for those made alive in Christ, this is the reality of every day.  And for those who are not, it is the offer of every, single, breath-drawing day.

Followers, you are a new creation in Christ.  The old has gone and the new is made alive in you -- through the glory of God, the resurrection of Jesus, and the power of the Holy Spirit.  God’s mercies are new with every dawn.  You have living in you the power of the God of the universe; and you are given the grace to shake off that which fetters your soul.  To unhook the moorings that hold you back from being the best, most beautiful, most glorifying version of you.  I pray that 2014 is the year that we, each, can embrace and embody this truth. 

Fellow sojourners, you are offered, every moment of your beautiful and precious life, the chance to be made new.  To be filled with hope and promise and possibility and change.  To be made alive so that even death has no hold over you.  To let go of the worst parts of your past, and to grab hold of the best parts of who you are and who you might be.  Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the grace and glory of Almighty God.  If you would only believe and accept this gift of sacrifice.    

          

Dearest reader, you have the chance to live as if every day is 
          New Year’s Day. 

May you take this opportunity, so freely and lovingly given, to be whom you were created to be.  For the glory of the Father, the witness of the Son, and the honor of the Holy Spirit.

May 2014 be your NEWEST year yet.    

Broken: the nature of sin

        I had, repeatedly, cautioned my firefly to be careful while hanging the heirloom ornament on one of the highest branches, so it wouldn’t be disturbed later by excitable and boundless puppy energy.  She hesitated, turning the treasure over in her hand, and assured me that she would be.  Stretching, she reached for a sturdy perch; but the desired branch proved too flimsy.  She pulled it back from the tree, ornament outstretched toward me, and humbly asked that I put it on in her stead.  I lauded her wisdom, smiling while grouping three branches together to support the weight of her prize.  When, without pretense, the ribbon unwound and my haughty hold was compromised.  The ornament fell; six feet, with the sickening, slow-motion plummet that foreshadows the loss to come.  And clattered on the wooden floor.  Pieces fled hither and yon, under the tree skirt and into the living room.  Mouth agape, I turned wide eyes to the firefly.  Hers, shimmering with disappointment, answered my disbelief. 

Broken.

        We had just discussed the inherent irreplaceability of particular things.  We had talked, this ornament nestled safely in its box, about how you can’t go back to certain times, can’t redo certain events, can’t relive certain memories.  The best we can do is try to fix them in the present, mending to the best of our abilities, and learning to muddle through with the cracks and dents our hands have caused.  Or to live without that which was formerly so precious. 

        The firefly’s tears in check, we comforted, and then we did the best we could.  The Officer went into town the next day to procure the right kind of glue.  I adhered flesh to flesh, skin to counter, and dermis to ornament in the process; but eventually the ornament held.  Nonetheless, it remains broken.  The cracks, not visible unless you know where to look, are there.  And they are fragile.  It will require extra care every year, in both packing away and hanging.  There will likely be times that it fractures again, so prone because of the fissures already there. 

For there is nothing I can do to make it all the way whole again.

        It is the condition of human being to live thus.  We are each broken.  Our cracks sometimes visible in the right light, other times, they remain hidden deep within.  We are especially fragile and prone to break in specific, familiar ways.   

        Yet, we were not created so.  Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis assert that the Imago Dei remains ontologically[1] “undestroyed” in “all persons, however dominated they may be by the works of the flesh…all humans in their being remain constitutionally image-bearers.”[2]  However, these two learned men assert that all people inherited depravity or hereditary corruption and guilt for Adam’s sin.[3]  They utilize Jesus’ statement in John 8:34 to accommodate their belief:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said, “everyone who sins is a slave to sin.”

And they affirm that Paul says in Romans 7:5 “in our fallen condition, [human being is] ‘controlled by the sinful nature.’”[4]  Thus, Demarest and Lewis articulate that all of humanity’s slavery to and control by sin illustrates that the sin nature is transmitted from Adam, generationally, to all of human as members of the same race.   

Ray Dunning, though agreeing that all of humanity is sinful, does not agree that in a fallen and sinful state, humanity can retain the Imago Dei.  He points out that the entire New Testament is devoted to the process of salvation, which is the restoration humanity, through Jesus Christ, to the image of God because “man is ‘essentially good but existentially estranged.’”[5]  If this restoration is necessary, then humanity is assumed to have fallen away from rightly bearing the image of God.[6]  Prior to the Fall, there existed between human being and God a filial relationship [a son or daughter relationship].  It is in this unbroken relationship that Adam could reflect the image of God.[7]  However, after the Fall, humanity became sinful, because “sin does not exist independently of human beings,” nor is it “to be regarded as some flawed or defective part of human nature.”[8]  Sin is the perversion of the natural drives within material creation; in action, it is the misuse of the created order, a moral condition of a personal being.[9]  Thus, while sin thwarts God’s purposes, it does not ontologically change the nature of human being. 

                In the end, Demarest, Lewis, and Dunning all agree that the sin nature inherent in each human being does not change his or her ontological composition.  This premise can be extremely important in the communication of the gospel, so that no matter what sin a person has engaged in, nothing makes him, or her, an inherently bad person.  This also translates into the realm of spiritual development; for many Christians continue to struggle with certain temptations or sins after conversion and would likely benefit from the knowledge that they are created “good.”  Finally, for our treatment of fellow human beings, we have to recognize that a person’s sin is not the sum of his/her identity.  Rather everyone should find their identity and worth in Christ; and those who call themselves His followers, ought to see the Imago Dei in the lost, even if the lost cannot.     

                We are all broken; we are all estranged.  But we can be mended.  We can be healed.  We can be made whole.  All by the finished work that started with an infant in a manger.  A Creator God, having made inherently good beings who chose evil and self over relationship, put aside the gravitas of heaven to be born into this fallen world, to live among sinners, to die to restore humanity and all of creation to what it was meant to be. 

This is the truth of Immanuel, God with us.       

Want to know where we've been in this series?  Click the links below for more. 

Why Theology? | How do we do this? | What are attributes? | What's Omnipresence? | What's Transcendence? | What's Revelation? | Is Scripture Inerrant? | Jesus as the Revelation of God | How do God and humans relate? | Made in God's image?

---

[1] Existentially

[2] Demarest, Bruce and Gordon Lewis.  Integrated Theology: Knowing the Ultimate Reality of the Living God. vols 1 & 2.  Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1987.  Volume 2, page 237.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Dunning, H. Ray.  Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology.  Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1988.  Page 160.

[6] Ibid., page 151.

[7] Ibid., page 157.

[8] Ibid., page 275

[9] Ibid., pages 246, 275.