Jedi Versus Sith

While on vacation in Southern California with my family, we were able to attend a first-day showing of Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith. It was entertaining in the usual George Lucas, explosive-special-effects way, and this episode's plot answered most of the lingering questions fans of the Star Wars double-trilogy had. In the film, Lucas depicts the decline and fall of young Anakin Skywalker, who becomes Darth Vader, the dreaded villain of the original Star Wars trilogy (Episodes IV through VI). His downfall takes him from being perhaps the most powerful Jedi, using the Force for good, to being the still very powerful junior member of a Sith duo, practitioners of the Dark Side.

At one point in the film, Skywalker himself explains the difference between a Jedi and a Sith. The Jedi use their powers for the good of others, while the Sith employ theirs to bring about their selfish ends. While the Jedi and Sith are not in any way Christian figures, they represent the classic difference between good and evil. Those who are good put their own desires aside to work for the betterment of others or for society, while the evil undertake schemes and stratagems to amass for themselves. As Herbert Armstrong put it so simply, this is the way of give versus the way of get—the way of God as opposed to the way of Satan the Devil—the way of outgoing concern against the way of selfishness. It is choosing the Tree of Life in opposition to choosing the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Having strayed from the narrow, difficult, selfless path of the Jedi, Anakin takes the broad way that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13). His hubris in thinking he could find a way to forestall death—to save his wife's life—causes him to see events through a narrow prism of selfishness, and forces him to make terrible, escalating, life-altering decisions that place him squarely on the side of evil. By the film's end, he is no longer a man but a monster—and his wife dies anyway.

Literature is full of falls from grace, men making Faustian bargains in exchange for power, wealth, victory, or some other desire of their hearts. Lately, the trend of these stories has been to redeem the fallen hero with a deathbed repentance, much like the ultimate destiny of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, whom his son Luke "saves" in Episode VI. On the other hand, J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings far more realistically sends a similar character, Saruman, to his doom unrepentant. Tolkien, a devout Catholic and Oxford don who was well-read in Christian and Classical literature, had a better perspective on man's heart of darkness (Jeremiah 17:9) than does George Lucas, who leans more toward the mystical Eastern philosophies, which see the human heart as ultimately good.

Nevertheless, we can learn a few true, spiritual truths from Lucas' treatment of Anakin Skywalker, particularly about probably the most dangerous attitude of all: selfish pride or selfish ambition (see Philippians 2:3; James 3:14-16). This is the attitude Satan and Vader share and which blinds them both to their folly. Both start from positions of tremendous power and awesome potential but are not satisfied with what they have—both want more for themselves. Their discontent with their positions drives them to rash acts, though both probably have what they feel are valid justifications for their actions. Satan probably believed he could govern the universe just as well as God—if not better (Isaiah 14:13-14), while Vader's seemingly more complex motives boil down to the same thing: He wants to control everything around him.

Both villains meet with similar fates. The Covering Cherub is thrown down in ignominious defeat (Ezekiel 28:16) and restrained in power (Jude 6), becoming the terrible Satan, enemy of God and man. The Chosen One, prophesied to bring balance to the Force, is also cut down, hideously burned, three of his limbs severed, able to survive only through artificial means. What is more, from that time forward both wage unrelenting war on anything "good."

What lessons can we learn from this film?

1. The end does not justify the means. Just as good fruit cannot be produced from a bad tree (Matthew 7:18), good outcomes cannot result from evil deeds (see Romans 6:1-2, 12-14, 21, 23).
2. "Evil company corrupts good habits" (I Corinthians 15:33). Those with whom a person frequently fellowships have great influence on his thoughts, words, and deeds. Running with a bad crowd eventually makes one bad too (Proverbs 1:10-19).
3. Power corrupts if it is not constrained by even more powerful morals and ethics (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). God is all-powerful, but in His hands it is wielded with justice, mercy, and equity because He lives by the law of love (I John 4:8, 16), which is given to us in the principles of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5; see Matthew 22:36-40).
   
4. A person can fall from grace (Matthew 3:12; John 15:6; Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:26-31). There is no such thing as eternal security; one's salvation is conditional—if he continues to live God's way of life (see Colossians 1:21-23). No matter what one's potential, he must be constantly vigilant to reject evil and do good, or he will stumble and perhaps fall.
5. There are no shortcuts to eternal life. There is only one way to immortality, and that is through Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12; Romans 5:21; 6:23; I John 5:20). All other ways end in death.

There are doubtless many more lessons that we can learn from this iconic movie. Though we may joke about going over to the Dark Side, for Christians the struggle against it is a reality. As Paul writes in Romans 13:12: "The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast of the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light."

The West's Religion Problem

Church of the Great God is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, and as such, it is considered to be located in America's Bible Belt. Polls like those conducted by George Barna show repeatedly that the most religious Americans live in the South, and we have the churches on just about every corner to prove it. Many of our roads are named something like "Salem Church Road" and "Ebenezer Church Road." Some of our towns boast names like "St. Matthews," "Smyrna," "Chapel Hill," "Corinth," and "Trinity." South Carolina still has blue laws that restrict buying and selling on Sundays to certain items and times. And don't even think about buying an "adult beverage" on Sundays in certain locales!

On a broader level, the United States is considered by the rest of the world to be a religious nation. Church attendance across America dwarfs that in other Western, industrialized nations. Most of our citizens consider the U.S. to be a "Christian nation," and point out as evidence our founding documents, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Congressional chaplains, the Ten Commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court, and many other biblical or religious inscriptions, ceremonies, and traditions. Even the current administration's foreign policy is thought by many to be Fundamentalist Christian!

Even more broadly, religion played a key role in the development of Western civilization. Along with Classical Greek and Roman ideas, Judeo-Christian values and the unifying presence of the Catholic Church (and later the Protestant churches) molded the West's cultures, philosophies, sciences, governments, and traditions into the dominant force on earth. Like a religion itself, Western thought and culture has been exported worldwide by colonizing and trading nations, absorbing or at least changing its rivals in many perhaps irreversible ways.

Nevertheless, the West presently has a deep problem with religion. Some might describe it as a love-hate relationship, in that the powers that be—as well as the sheep that follow them—admire religion for its ability to unite, inspire, and motivate, but despise it for its perennial tendency to demand morality, equity, and accountability. In other words, as secular as the West has become, it sees religion as useful, but on its own terms. Because of this, in the present climate, religion as a force for encouraging moral conduct is practically powerless.

In his May 11, 2005, editorial titled "America's Basic Problem Is a Pastor Problem," Dr. Chuck Baldwin, pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida, makes a similar point. Holding up biblical heroes of faith as well as intrepid churchmen of history as examples, he complains that most church pastors in the U.S. are more interested in position and pay than in boldly proclaiming the truth of God. He is convinced that, if America is to turn from its present humanistic hedonism, godly leadership will have to return to its pulpits. Such a proposition is hard to disagree with.

There are many signs that churches in America and Western Europe are in a sad state of repair. The Catholic Church in America has the reputation of being a bastion of rebellion and liberal theology. For instance, American Catholic women are more likely to get an abortion than the national average, despite the fact that the Catholic Church itself is staunchly pro-life. American Catholics' visible angst over the election of conservative Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI only underlines its wayward inclination.

Mainline Protestant churches are little better, if not worse. For example, the Anglican/Episcopal churches in both Britain and America are in steep decline in terms of attendance and new converts. They are leading proponents of many liberal issues, acceptance of homosexuality being the most noteworthy. Their most outspoken theologians say and write the most controversial things, questioning the deity of Christ, the resurrection, Jesus' miracles, and the general authority of Scripture at just about every turn. In fact, what is truly Christian about them is disintegrating at an astounding rate!

Astoundingly, many Fundamentalist churches are little better. While they generally acknowledge the veracity and authority of the Bible—and for the most part preach traditional Christian doctrines—a growing majority of them are more interested in becoming mega-churches rather than forces for positive societal change. A quick look at a list of "pastoral helps" and "church growth" literature provides dozens of reasons for understanding that today's churches are businesses that must grow or die. Too many pastors study business models for ideas about church growth rather than biblical models for ideas about Christian growth.

The problem, then, is not that religion is absent from modern life but that it is feeble, emasculated, and distracted. There are plenty of churches, but they have little impact on their congregants. By compromising with God's Word, they have abdicated their position as the moral conscience of society. Even if they desired to "Cry aloud, [and] spare not" (Isaiah 58:1), who would listen? How much credibility do they have left after allowing decades of self-indulgence to transpire with hardly a challenge? The Bible tells us, "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well" (Proverbs 25:26).

A primary but long-term solution to the West's religion problem is righteousness in its ministers, who stand up to ungodliness and who preach righteousness to their congregations. As Paul urges Timothy: "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. . . . But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry" (II Timothy 4:2, 5). It does not need to be a mass-movement, backed by millions of dollars or accompanied by a slick marketing campaign. All it takes is a growing number of ministers who quietly and consistently uphold God's standards of righteousness within their congregations. God will supply the rest.

"Then [Jesus] said to His disciples, 'The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest'" (Matthew 9:37-38).

Eradicating Humanity

When I am not editing someone else's writing or writing something of my own, I am often found reading. It is something I have been doing with regularity since I plowed through a children's version of The Ugly Duckling when I was five years old. Seeing that I took to reading like, well, a duck—make that a swan—to water, my parents encouraged it with access to lots of books, and I am still in the habit.

My current fare is C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man, a skinny volume whose main theme is, according to the back cover, "how to best teach our children—and ourselves—not merely reading and writing, but also a sense of morality." The late Mr. Lewis was certainly qualified to discuss such a subject, since as a professor of medieval and Renaissance literature at both Oxford and Cambridge universities, he was involved in education all his life. The book is actually a transcript of a series of lectures he gave—obviously to a highly educated audience, as his prose is liberally salted with references to Classical literature and phrases in foreign tongues (Latin predominating). In a similar vein, his arguments are quite intellectual and logical in that Oxford don sort of way. Because of this, I have had to re-read many sections, many paragraphs, and many sentences two and three times to catch his drift. This is not a book for the faint of heart. Though it runs only 109 pages, it is not a quick read.

Beyond the main theme of education, however, lies a concept with which most Christians should be familiar, which is found in the title, The Abolition of Man. Lewis restricts his comments to the methods by which modern educators, whom he calls "Conditioners," are attempting to wean the younger generation away from adherence to natural law. In other words, modern education's premise, he posits, is to remove from humanity what makes it essentially human—its universal values. He argues that the products of today's educational system are "Men Without Chests," the title of his first chapter; the education-elite are ripping the heart out of mankind by mass-producing essentially valueless graduates. Their philosophy has come to be known as relativism or postmodernism, which is commonly understood to mean "there are no absolute truths."

Because he is speaking to a secular audience, Lewis does not take his argument the further step that a thinking Christian would. Lewis was a deeply religious man, and he probably contemplated the spiritual ramifications of his thesis in his private thoughts. Nevertheless, he does not mention the malevolent influence behind this valueless philosophy, Satan the Devil. Such an excursion into the realm of "the ruler of this world" (John 14:30) would not have been well-received by his audience. We, however, must take his presence, his power, and his participation in the affairs of humankind seriously.

What is the primary aim of "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2)? The abolition of man! Ever since God created the first man and woman in the Garden of Eden, Satan has been interested in nothing else but the eradication of humanity from his "proper domain" (Jude 6). He sees mankind, made after the God-kind (Genesis 1:26-27) with the potential of being born again into the God Family (John 3:3-8; Revelation 14:1-5; 20:4-6; etc.), as interlopers, squatters, and vagrants in his realm. He is painfully aware that God intends humanity to replace him and his demons as rulers of this planet, and he is fighting like a cornered rat to retain his place and power. Though he has already been personally defeated by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:14), he still believes he can win or at least frustrate and perhaps ruin God's plan by deceiving, attacking, destroying, and killing as many human beings as he can (I Peter 5:8). He especially desires to derail and exterminate as many of God's begotten children as he can (Revelation 12:17).

Most people would probably laugh at such a notion, for it is not popular to believe in a being of ultimate evil like Satan the Devil. This is a very skeptical world. If people cannot see it, they do not believe it—and Satan has done a good job of deceiving the whole world into believing that he does not exist (Revelation 12:9). Now he can hide in plain sight and go virtually unnoticed. Mankind blithely ascribes his malicious works to "natural causes," "unfortunate accidents," "coincidences," "delusions," "mental illnesses," "misunderstandings," even "progress." Thus, the valueless educational methods Mr. Lewis decries are considered by the intelligentsia to be an evolutionary step forward for mankind—while the truth is that Satan has merely handed Western civilization a time bomb calibrated to render millions of people spiritually deaf to God's call.

The serpent is more subtle than any beast of the field (Genesis 3:1), and Adam and Eve's descendants are proving to be just as gullible and sinful as their first parents—perhaps more so in our degenerate age. It is interesting that when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their eyes were opened (verse 7), but in reality, now they had their eyes wide shut. Paul writes, ". . . whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them" (II Corinthians 4:4).

It is only when we are called by God and our eyes opened by His Holy Spirit that we can see what is really going on in the world (II Corinthians 3:16). We are in a life-and-death struggle "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). We have to "put on the whole armor of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil" (verse 11). In this battle, we have to recognize the real enemy and his stratagems and to "resist him, steadfast in the faith" (I Peter 5:9).

No worries. It is just the fate of humanity on the line.

Do You Believe—Really Believe?

The death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI made the Catholic Church—and the Catholic faith—front-page news around the globe. At least three days of wall-to-wall airtime were devoted to the Pope's death, his funeral, and the new Pope's election, and during this exclusive coverage, talking heads discussed wide-ranging linking topics, such as priestly celibacy, contraception, abortion, ordination of women, the centrality of Mary, the church's opposition to the Iraq war, and various other tenets of Catholicism. The news reporting also showed the world a great deal of the traditional ritual, liturgy, and trappings of the Vatican.

This week was also the lead-up to the Passover, so there have been a few articles, reports, and shows on Jewish beliefs and practices too. One public television show that I viewed briefly Thursday night employed an actor to recite and explain the whole traditional Pesach Seder. Each word and movement are carefully ordered (the meaning of the Hebrew word seder) so that nothing untoward creeps into the ritual. I was also reminded this week of how the Jews have combined the Passover—commanded by God to be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month—with the first day of Unleavened Bread—a holy day celebrated on the fifteenth day. By doing this, they have lost much of the meaning of both days.

We were also recently treated to the Anglican blessing of the marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Although the actual vows were spoken before a civil officer, the groom's mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who is also the head of the English church, permitted her son and new daughter-in-law this blessing if they confessed to their sinful premarital relationship. With the usual English pomp and circumstance, both priests and the royal couple read selections from the English Book of Prayer, sang a hymn or two, and looked contrite, and all was forgiven. For all this, the Prince of Wales gets to marry his longtime paramour, and Camilla receives a vaunted title, Duchess of Cornwall (she also can use "Princess of Wales," but for decorum's sake—at least for the time being—she has said she will refrain).

What is the common denominator in these three items? Each of the three religions claims the Bible, in whole or in part, as their source of belief and practice, but none of them seems to care that what they espouse and observe does not square with biblical teaching! Where does the Bible command priestly celibacy, the use of the title "Holy Father" for a man, or even the office of "Vicar of Christ"? Where does the Old Testament ordain the rigid formula of the Seder or allow Passover and the Night To Be Much Observed to be combined? In what epistle does God give a monarch authority over the church or permit and reward wanton, extramarital behavior in its next leader?

All of these religions are highly traditional faiths—to the extent that tradition has gained dominance in their practices, particularly in their rituals and governance. Jesus, of course, lambasted the Pharisees, the originators of the current rabbinical Judaism, on just this point:

. . . you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:6-9)

Tradition in religion is a wonderful thing when it has a firm basis in the truth of God, but it becomes a deceitful and corrupting influence when its foundations are in the shifting sands of human thought. It is especially diabolical when it masquerades as rich and sublime while actually directly contradicting God's Word! This, for instance, is the case with calling the Pope "Holy Father." What blasphemy! Jesus Himself instructs His disciples, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9). No matter how saintly a man any Pope might seem, he can never even in the smallest way be comparable to God the Father!

Truly, "now we see in a mirror, dimly" when it comes to the revelation of God; none of us has God's Word down perfectly. Nevertheless, there is a wide gulf between sincere seeking of God's revealed truth and blatant disregard for the plain teachings of Scripture! Keeping tradition despite God's commandment to the contrary is nothing less than idolatry—exalting human ideas and desires above God's. It is what has become known as humanism, and it is an identifying mark of false religion.

God's true church has and follows the Bible, God's Instruction Book for Christian practice, which is what religion is. It resists outside intrusions of worldly philosophies and measures all new ideas against pure, confirmed, God-breathed Word (II Peter 1:19-21). On the other side, false religions have eaten of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:9, 17; 3:1-11), mixing godly teaching with false, human self-righteousness. It is an extremely simple test but highly effective in exposing false or corrupted faiths.

Jesus says straightforwardly, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:29). God's efforts are engaged in getting us to believe in Jesus, sure, but believing in Jesus is far more than accepting that He died for the forgiveness of our sins—it is believing what He said for our instruction and what He lived as an example to us. It is following Him, imitating Him, obeying Him, and becoming more and more like Him every day!

So, do we really believe Him? Or, are we just treading water, ignorantly or even willfully continuing in the traditions of our parents because we are too lazy, too content, or too fearful to follow the truth? God is seeking men and women to worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:23), and these are the ones who really believe. Are we among them? Have we examined ourselves "as to whether [we] are in the faith" (II Corinthians 13:5)? Do we really and truly believe?

Religion and Politics

Two events occurred this morning to prime the old thinking pump: the funeral of Pope John Paul II in Vatican City and receiving the February 28, 2005, issue of The Journal: News of the Churches of God in the church's mailbox. I have not read through an issue of that publication for a long while, so I skimmed through it before passing it on. It did not surprise me one bit to read a litany of complaints, criticisms, and controversies from one end of it to the other. I usually do not read The Journal for this very reason. It depresses me, and I take that as a cue to continue to avoid it.

Regarding the Catholic Church, I have read and heard a great deal—especially over the last few weeks—about the deals, schemes, plots, and machinations among the members of the College of Cardinals when it is time to elect a new Pope. My essay of March 4, 2005, "John Paul II's Successor," summarizes some of the latest speculation about who will emerge as the next Roman Pontiff due to the various blocs that already exist among the electors. Between now and the first sign of white smoke over the Sistine Chapel, the media will carry blow-by-blow accounts of the cardinals' politicking.

Closer to home, right on the fold of The Journal's first page is the languid headline, "The United Church of God's council of elders chooses not to affirm Roy Holladay as president." Page 3 carries a commentary, "The UCG turns 10: It's now or never," in which the author advocates a grassroots push to make "ordinary members'" desires for the next president known. The next page is top to bottom on speculation about how the council will align itself to elect a certain man as president, as well as the tumultuous history of UCG's presidency. The rest of the issue was every Tom, Dick, and Mary's opinions on doctrinal issues ranging from Passover to church eras to the nature of God.

Intriguingly, the page-4 predictive article, "Here is how council will select Jim Franks as UCG president," by Dave Havir, devotes its last handful of paragraphs to a comparison between the College of Cardinals' and the UCG council's processes for selecting a new head. Havir writes, "Whether loyal Catholics like to admit it or not, political maneuvering behind the scenes by the well-entrenched College of Cardinals is going on. . . . The same is true with an organization like United." The entire article illustrates step by step the wheeling and dealing that has already been done among the council members.

Is this surprising?

It should not be. When United decided to adopt a quasi-democratic, corporate governmental structure, politicking became an instant by-product. But this is not confined to United. When other churches chose their forms of government—hierarchy, presbyterianism, congregationalism—politics resulted for them as well because it is not a product of government but of human nature. It is essentially a human approach to accrue power or to end up on the winning side of a dispute.

A survey of the New Testament on the subject of politics proves to be an interesting study. We discover that those who stoop to politics or other devious means to get their own way are the bad guys. The ones in white hats are the apostles, evangelists, and other saints who submit to the will of God concerning His delegation of authority. Did our Savior once condescend to become involved in the political maneuverings of the Jewish sects of His day? Did he try to make an under-the-table deal with Pilate? In the church council at Jerusalem, do we find evidence of back-room "discussions" to push through the apostles' agenda? Do Paul and James take pot shots at each other over law and grace, pitting church members against one another?

No. They are all shown to be men and women who "walk[ed] by faith, not by sight" (II Corinthians 5:7). Sure, they disagreed at times—Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch is the best known (Galatians 2:11-16), as well as Paul's dispute with Barnabas over Mark (Acts 15:36-41)—but they never took the road to factions and voting blocs to get their way. They exercised the fruit of the Spirit to work in accord, or at the very least not to get in each other's way (II Corinthians 10:13-18).

While attending Ambassador College in Pasadena during the mid-1980s, I had the opportunity to work as an "Office Assistant" in Church Administration (August 1985-August 1987, that incredible period during the last half-year of Herbert Armstrong's life and the first years of Joseph Tkach's tenure). However, even from my lowly position, I could see politics at work in the corporate environment of the Worldwide Church of God. Running errands to every department on campus, where corporate intrigue thrived, I grew to abhor church politics because its worldliness and destructiveness were plain to see.

My brush with church politics nearly twenty years ago brings back frustration and sadness when I see it happening again within the churches of God. It does not bode well for the organizations that practice it because, frankly, they are exposing before the church and the world their works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21) rather than godly fruits of the Holy Spirit working in them (verses 22-23). The apostle Paul warns in a preceding verse, "But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another" (verse 15).

If this is symptomatic of the majority of the converted membership, the whole church of God has a great deal yet to overcome. We still have not shaken off from ourselves the ways of this world. We have a frightfully long way to go before we recapture the "one accord" of the early church (Acts 2:1, 42-47). Let us contemplate this as Passover approaches (II Corinthians 13:5).

Judging Life and Death

Many Protestants and Catholics probably recognized the irony in the fact that the Terri Schiavo "right to life" case came to a head during their "Holy Week," in which the faithful contemplate the death and life of Jesus Christ. Schiavo's parents' wishes regarding her fate, pitted against her husband's—and purportedly hers—were argued in courtrooms in Florida, Georgia, and Washington, DC, and in the paneled halls of Congress, which took the unprecedented step of writing a bill for the benefit of one individual. President Bush obliged by signing it into law after midnight, hurriedly flying in from his Texas ranch to seal the deal.

It is no wonder that Terri Schiavo's case has sparked such debate across America, as two opposing values collide within it: the right to life, championed in the Declaration of Independence and by a host of devout advocates, and for lack of a better term, the right to a natural death, the desire of many not to prolong their lives artificially and pointlessly. Also in this case, religious beliefs square off against legal ethics, just as it sets medical ethics against parental love for their child. Surely, this is a case for the wisdom of Solomon!

We in the church of God believe that God is preparing us to be kings and priests in His coming Kingdom (Revelation 5:10), and kings and priests both have the function of judges—one in civil matters and the other in religious matters. If this case were brought before us to judge, how would we rule? What laws or principles would we base our decision upon?

Most of the arguments in the media are emotional. These arguments have their place, but a judge must first consider what is just and true before he has any basis for extending mercy. There must be a standard by which he measures the merits of each side in a dispute, and he rules according to the standard—not according to the fervency of one side's line of reasoning or the background, stature, or acumen of the other party's advocate. God lays out a judge's responsibility in Deuteronomy 16:18-20:

You shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates, which the LORD your God gives you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with just judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. You shall follow what is altogether just. . . . (see also II Chronicles 19:5-7)

The standard a godly judge must follow is, of course, God's law along with the statutes and the judgments. This is how God says it should be done: "In controversy [the priests] shall stand as judges, and judge it according to My judgments. They shall keep My laws and My statutes in all My appointed meetings, and they shall hallow My Sabbaths" (Ezekiel 44:24). This command, by the way, is given to the Millennial priesthood precisely because the priests of ancient Israel failed to judge as God had directed them. God prophesies, "I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city" (Isaiah 1:26).

Obviously, in the Schiavo case, the sixth commandment comes into play: "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). For many, the argument ends right here, for they prioritize a person's right to life above all others. Certainly, the value of any life is precious, but does it trump all others? The monkey wrench in this case is that, without the measures modern medicine has taken, including the insertion of a feeding tube, Terri Schiavo would have been dead years ago. On top of this, several doctors have examined her and concluded that she is essentially brain-dead—in a vegetative state—and has no chance to live a "normal" life. Though her heart is beating involuntarily, her brain has shut down. What is the godly definition of "life"?

Does the fifth commandment come into play? Some might say it does, using it to justify following her parents' wishes over her husband's. Those on the other side of the case might counter with Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man [or woman] shall leave his [or her] father and mother and be joined to his wife [or her husband], and they shall be one flesh." Which is the more important principle? Whose wishes should the court grant?

Another scripture that could be brought forward is Deuteronomy 19:15: ". . . by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established" (see also Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1; I Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28). Though Terri Schiavo did not have a "Living Will," a document that sets out a person's wishes should he or she continue to live only on life-support equipment, her husband and several friends have testified that she expressed her desire to them to be allowed to die naturally if she ever landed in such a circumstance. Does the lack of a piece of signed and notarized paper trump the testimony of more than the required "two or three witnesses"?

Some advocates might even bring up Paul's statement in II Corinthians 5:8, "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." Nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist Neal Boortz, who is also a lawyer, has advanced such an argument. Is Terri Schiavo better off dead, awaiting the judgment of God? Or is she better off living out her physical life, lying on a hospice-care bed, and needing constant medical attention?

Being a judge is not so easy, is it? Nevertheless, these and other thorny questions are what a just judge must face—not only in the "big" cases, but also in the routine ones. It is easy to jump to a conclusion that "he is wrong" or "she is right" (Proverbs 18:13, 17), but as the old saw warns, "The devil is in the details." Matters are not always cut-and-dried, which is why God is taking the time to train us in the skill and art of judgment, allowing us to ponder the questions of our time, great and small, and come to wise and godly conclusions without the pressure of having to make the actual decisions.

Take this opportunity to wrap your head around this case and come to a biblically sound conclusion. You may discover a budding Solomonic wisdom in yourself—or an area of understanding that could use some improvement!

John Paul II's Successor

Last week's leading news story dealt with Pope John Paul II's illness, described as a relapse of a viral infection that was making it difficult for him to breathe. He reentered the hospital where he is routinely treated, but his symptoms persisted. Ultimately, doctors performed a tracheotomy on the ailing pontiff, and this seemed to do the trick, as he was soon resting comfortably and eating heartily. He is expected to recover from this bout of illness by Easter.

Nevertheless, his recent ill health—on top of his Parkinson's disease and his 84 years of age—has started observers' tongues wagging (again) about his successor. It is unlikely that any of his closest aides and advisers will become the next Pope, as various factors (for instance, their age) render them improbable candidates. The pope's most important aide is his longtime private secretary, recently elevated Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, 65, but he also closely relies on Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 77, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, 71, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops; and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, 77, the Vatican secretary of state. However, these men will have great influence on the College of Cardinals when they meet in conclave within twenty days of the pope's death to elect the next pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

The conventional wisdom runs along the lines of this sentence from a February 24, 2005, Reuters article by Phillip Pullella, "Pope's illness prompts questions about succession": "The Pope has appointed all but three of some 120 cardinals who can enter the conclave, stacking the odds that the new leader will think like him and not tamper with his rulings like bans on contraception and women priests." Those who favor this line of thought consider Ratzinger to be the likely candidate, despite his age, as a kind of transitional figure, allowing some of the younger, conservative cardinals time to age (as many cardinals feel that a 60-year-old papal candidate is too young).

Because 65% of Catholics live in Africa, Asia, and South America, many believe it is time for a non-European Pope. The cardinals could choose an African, Nigeria's Cardinal Francis Arinze, 72, who is known for his expertise on Islam and interreligious affairs. Latin America, which has never produced a pope, could entice electors with "Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, 62, a telegenic Honduran; Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 68, of Argentina, who is known for his expertise on social issues; or Cardinal Claudio Hummes, 70, of Sao Paulo, Brazil, the largest diocese in the world's largest Catholic country," opines Julia Duin of the Washington Times in her February 3, 2005 article "Pope's illness stirs talk of succession."

Despite this common prognostication, longtime National Catholic Reporter Vatican correspondent John Allen, Jr., warns that we will be surprised by whom the College of Cardinals picks (Paula Doyle, "Next pope: 'We are going to be surprised,' says Allen," Tidings Online, March 4, 2005). Historically, he says, Popes who "stack" the College with their own appointees fail in getting a successor in their image: "[For instance,] Pope Pius XII appointed all but two of the 51 cardinals who elected his successor, [yet] the next pope elected was the 'strikingly' different Pope John XXIII." He believes that the cardinals will size up John Paul II's strengths and weaknesses and choose someone who will shore up areas that the present pope neglected. Writes Doyle: "Allen said a majority of cardinals that he has interviewed identify the top three challenges facing the church as: internal church governance, growing secularization and the relationship between Christianity and Islam."

Allen sees the College splitting into four voting blocs:

1. "Border Patrol" — Cardinals who favor strong boundaries between the secular and religious;
2. "Reform Party" — Cardinals who desire "moving forward with the reforms of Vatican II";
3. "Social Justice" — Cardinals who "seek to promote understanding across cultural and ethnic divisions"; and
4. "Integralists" — Cultural warrior Cardinals who "want to see the church's teaching on such issues as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research incorporated into civil law."

As each of these blocs consists of about a quarter of the eligible College members, alliances will have to be made, likely between the first and last groups and between the second and third groups. From that point, they will have to compromise to find a candidate that will "satisfy" the necessary two-thirds majority.

There is no telling when the enduring John Paul II will die, as he has already survived an assassination attempt, Parkinson's, and numerous illnesses. However, we could be in for an interesting papal election within the next year or so. We can be thankful that God is in charge, and the selection will move events forward toward the return of Jesus Christ: "For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Romans 13:1).