Or, The Pine Beetle And The Fall

One particularly sad thing I’ve seen unfolding over the past few years has been the mountain pine beetle infestation in BC. It’s on my mind right now as we traveled to Kelowna for a wedding, and we passed huge areas of dead forest along the way. I grew up in those mountains and have always felt a strong attachment to them; when I was posted in Ontario and New Brunswick I missed them terribly (and was astonished by the molehills that the locals called “mountains” out there). So it’s been rather upsetting to watch vast swaths of the BC forest turning that dull, reddish hue that betrays the activity of the pine beetles; as they invade a tree, the needles gradually turn red as the tree dies slowly. I’ll never forget taking Highway 1 between Merritt and Kamloops, and seeing virtually all red and dead trees with nary a live one to be found for miles. Some one billion trees have died, apparently, about 25% of BC’s forest, and the BC government is on record as estimating that the total damage will eventually rise to 80% of its pines. That is staggering.

Over the last three years, Alberta has spent $210 million trying to prevent the spread of the beetle across the border. That’s nothing compared to the almost $1 billion spent in BC by the provincial and federal governments. As of last year, a slowdown in the infestation had been observed, but only because of the dwindling number of adult pines left for the beetles to attack. So, an astronomical amount of money has been spent trying to get this problem under control, but with little to show for it.

The beetles’ advance has been relentless, but in early 2009 a much lower number of newly attacked trees was observed in Alberta – less than a quarter of the previous year’s newly infested trees. Were the governments’ efforts successful that year? Hardly. The winter of 2008 was unusually cold compared to previous years, and the only two things known to reliably kill these beetles are fire and sustained cold temperatures (in the neighborhood of -35 degrees Celsius for five days, I think).

It’s an interesting and sobering comment on the limitations of mankind’s technological and scientific prowess. Last week I was writing about artificially synthesized DNA being placed in a cell and replicating – a monumental scientific accomplishment, “artificial life.” Yet at the same time, a beetle the size of a grain of rice has laid flat an area larger than California and New York combined, and the concerted efforts of the BC (and other) governments has failed to stop the little pest – despite the fact that BC is one of the more prosperous provinces of one of the richest nations on earth and has the motivation (as its economy depends heavily on forestry) to succeed. So we are reduced to hoping and praying that the next winter is cold.

I think of Alexander the Great, conquering the Mediterranean basin, destroying the Persian empire that had flattened the Babylonians and threatened Europe for centuries, even penetrating deep into India – and then he dies at a young age of malaria, a warrior king felled by a tiny mosquito.

The red forests of BC remind us that we are truly at God’s mercy. It is God who declares, “And all the trees of the field shall know that I am the Lord; I bring low the high tree, and make high the low tree, dry up the green tree, and make the dry tree flourish. I am the Lord.” (Ezekiel 17:24) His voice “makes the deer give birth and strips the forests bare, and in his temple all cry, ‘Glory!’” (Psalm 29:9) We are insignificant and impotent, absolutely dependent on his good will and mercy – even as we pridefully trumpet our meager accomplishments, nature itself testifies that we are insufficient to rule it.

Even that inability to exercise dominion over the earth is itself a result of our sin. God cursed the ground due to the very first sin in the Garden (Genesis 3). God warned rebellious Judah that “my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched.” (Jeremiah 7:20). As a result, “the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” (Romans 8:20-23)

Our sin had consequences for all creation. Now we find ourselves unable to fully complete the commission given us in the Garden to “fill the earth and subdue it.” Our hope of a healed and restored creation is beyond our human ability to accomplish; it depends on God’s favor. There are all too many people, many Christians among them, who are altogether too optimistic about human ability and progress. God reminds us regularly, in blatant and subtle ways both, that any optimism and confidence resting elsewhere than the person, work, and return of Christ is misplaced.

Ponder that as you consider your own sin. Ponder its weakening, incapacitating nature, its danger to not just yourself but all you hold dear on this earth. And consider how your very ability to complete the tasks God has given you – whether it is filling and subduing the earth, proclaiming the Gospel to the nations, or growing in conformity to the image of Christ – depends on grace. Think about that – think about how small we are! Read Job 38 through 41, if that does not affect you.

And thank God for his grace the next time the mercury drops below 40 on the minus side…

Some Theological Implications of Genetic Programming

When I was in high school I was something of a slacker. I didn’t apply myself like I could have, preferring to waste time reading novels and other stuff. Even in class I was prone to squander the opportunities I was given, such as in my senior high computer class. My long-suffering teacher was a kindly old Czech woman named Dr. Nosal, who was decidedly out of her depth teaching the class. It wasn’t her fault; she was a brilliant woman, with a Ph.D. in mathematics. She taught math and calculus most of the time, and moonlighted at the university, I think. The school had needed a computer teacher, and evidently someone had thought that she, being a math and numbers expert, would take quite naturally to computers. Makes sense, right?

Things don’t quite work that way. Dr. Nosal didn’t really know the first thing about computers, and as a result most of the substantial teaching in the class fell to one of the Grade 12 students. This ill-considered decision left Dr. Nosal at the mercy of kids like me. I was beginning to fiddle with programming at that time, in QBASIC if I recall correctly, and was learning how to play with the settings in MS-DOS. (I feel old just writing that – anyone remember DOS prompts?) I’ll never forget her leaving the class, fearing the worst, to pull her Grade 12 assistant out of another lecture because I had changed the “C:/” DOS prompt on several of the computers to read “YOU HAVE A VIRUS!!!!:/” instead.

It took me until I was 25 years old to develop a real academic work ethic, to my everlasting shame. Youth is a terrible thing to waste…

I thought back to this incident this week when I noticed something in the news. A group of people who evidently were far more dedicated and disciplined in their own studies than I ever was succeeded in creating what’s being called by some as “artificial life.” That’s something of a misnomer, but what they’ve basically done is created a string of synthetic DNA using a computer, implanted it in another cell, and “booted it up.” DNA, in simple terms, is a chemical “code” that contains all the genetic information for the cell and its activities, and which is copied each time the cell reproduces. The resulting hybrid cell – natural cytoplasm and man-made DNA – can reproduce itself like any other cell.

The story tells us that initially, the scientists couldn’t get the cell to reproduce:

The team scrambled to find out why, creating a genetic version of a computer proofreading program to spell-check the DNA fragments they'd pieced together. They found that a typo in the genetic code was rendering the manmade DNA inactive, delaying the project three months to find and restore that bit.

How were they certain that the “daughter” cells that had been produced were in fact genetic copies of the scientists’ synthetic version? Times Online explains that “several inert DNA ‘watermarks’ were added to distinguish the synthetic genome from the natural version.”

Some observations, then, from my admittedly unscientific point of view:

1) It’s remarkable how precise DNA needs to be in order to work. One “typo” in the genetic code – that is, one wrong nucleic acid out of millions – messed it all up and rendered it inoperative.

One implication is that in order to work, a DNA strand for even the simplest cell has to be assembled in toto right from the start. There is no possibility that the DNA “evolved” over time from, say, three or four nucleotides to multiple millions. You couldn’t have a succession of more and more complex strands over millions of years, since a strand that didn’t have all the necessary information will not “boot up” its cell. The whole thing has to be right from the start. How would evolution explain the first strand of DNA, then? Millions of nucleotides just happened to line up at exactly the right time and in exactly the right sequence, inside a cellular cytoplasm that just happened to helpfully assemble itself for the occasion?

2) The scientists “watermarked” the DNA to know which strands were copies of their own work. This helps not only themselves, but the scientific community, verify the reality of “intelligent design” from the experiment.

Yet many in the scientific community, perhaps even some of these scientists themselves, would reject divine creation/intelligent design as an explanation for the question I posed above. This, despite the repeated and persistent analogies throughout the stories, and even in the words of the scientists themselves, comparing the DNA to computer software – definitely an artifact of intelligent design. Look at the links yourself and see the computer comparisons. See, DNA is very much like the operating system (i.e., Windows, MS-DOS, Mac OS) that runs the “hardware” of the cell; the nucleic acids that pair up and link into DNA strands form a “programming” language much like BASIC or C++. Notice that the scientists did not write their own programming language here – they used the language already in operation in the cells. They copied the DNA of another organism – moved the “OS” of another “computer” onto a blank “computer.”

The scientists’ inert tagging of the DNA is, following the analogy, exactly what I did to MS-DOS in my computer class – leaving a harmless identifier (“YOU HAVE A VIRUS!!!”) that has no impact on actual operation but is obvious to those looking at it. Yet many would recognize that inert “tagging” as design while simultaneously denying that the DNA “OS” or the protein “programming language” are the product of intelligent (divine) design.

This story and its reception in the scientific community betrays the double standard and displays the hypocrisy. It’s like someone took the computers I fiddled with, copied their MS-DOS operating system into other computers, and then acknowledged the “YOU HAVE A VIRUS!!!:/” prompt as an example of software design while stubbornly denying the existence of Microsoft and claiming that MS-DOS and C++ are random accidents.

So this story has two lessons for us as believers. First, the complexity and precision of our genetic “programming” is a tribute to the wisdom and power of our Creator. Truly, it should move us to worship, as it did the Psalmist:

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth. (Psalm 139:13-15)

Second, the double standard that this story exposes reminds us that unbelief is not fundamentally an intellectual problem. The unbelievers in the scientific community are not stupid people; they’re certainly smarter than I am! I can hardly read this story and say, “I could do that. I just don’t want to,” could I? Scientists are people who have incredible intellectual gifts, and yet many of them refuse to acknowledge what is so brutally obvious to others. Why? Because, the Bible tells us, unbelievers actually know the truth; they just actively repress that truth:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools… (Romans 18:22)

But for the grace of God, there we are as well. So let’s humbly thank God that he has rescued us from such darkness by replacing our old, stubborn, stony hearts and giving us new ones that are open to the truth. And let’s pray for those who are still in darkness even as we proclaim the truth, for without a miracle, they cannot believe.

*UPDATE, May 23: I changed "proteins" in the original to the correct "nucleic acids" and "nucleotides." DNA is not composed of proteins but gives instructions on how to build proteins. We're blessed in our church with someone studying biochemistry at a doctoral level, who pointed out my error. Thanks!

A Friendly Response to Ibrahim Ali of www.goldenduas.com

This was emailed to Ibrahim earlier today, in response to a letter sent to Calvary Grace Church.

Hello Ibrahim,

Thank you for contacting our church. We also thank you for your kind words and the sentiment that lies behind them, and we pray that God in his mercy will grant a measure of earthly peace between our peoples.

However, we would be unfaithful to God and the Scriptures if we passed by the opportunity to comment upon your words from a Christian perspective. Allow me to respond to a few things you said:

1)      You said, “Christianity and Islam are mutual friends as per Quranic verse 5:82.” I understand the desire to find common ground between our faiths for the sake of peace; however, the fact remains that on both Christian and Islamic grounds, our faiths are fundamentally and irreconcilably different.

Islam requires submission to Allah, and defines Allah as Unitarian (that is, Allah has no Son and there is no Trinity). Islam denies that Jesus was God and that he was crucified, which are fundamental tenets of Christian faith.

Christianity worships Jesus Christ as Lord and God (1 John 5:20), being of the same substance as the Father (Philippians 2:6, John 10:30). He is no mere rasul or prophet, though a prophet he certainly is; he is the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16), God become flesh (John 1:1, 14) who died as a substitute to pay for the sins of men (Isaiah 53), and who was raised (Romans 8:34, 1 Thessalonians 4:14) on the third day. Moreover, this Jesus Christ shall return to judge the living and the dead (2 Corinthians 5:10). This belief in Christ is, in the Islamic perspective, the sin of shirk or idolatry, but it is the very essence of Christianity.

2)      You said, “We have sent the following messages to the governments of the world, media centers, churches, synagogues and islamic foundations to spread the message of universal peace,brotherhood, security and prosperity for all mankind in these troubled times.”

We long for peace as well. Christians are to strive to live at peace with everyone (Hebrews 12:14). Christians believe that faith cannot be imposed by force, because the deepest need of man is for a new heart that longs for God and seeks to follow him (Jeremiah 31:31-34). And so we reject any attempt to proselytize by force of arms or anything else. Christianity rejects the idea that the state is to be controlled by the church or to do the church’s work, seeing the church and state as institutions ordained by God for different purposes (Matthew 22:21, Romans 13:1-7). Christian history has shown that the state is a secularizing and compromising influence that needs to be kept separate from the church’s activities. A failure to see the corrupting influence of secular power upon the church and her faith was what resulted in disasters like the Crusades. Sadly, much of Islam has not yet learned this lesson, and the results of the combination of religious fervor with the weapons that properly belong to the state are all too evident in the actions of radical militant Muslims.

Peace is not possible without justice. Universal peace requires universal justice. And universal justice cannot take place until the entire world is in subjection to its Creator. On that point, Muslims and Christians say the same thing, but they mean different things. In Islam, the world is to be united under Sharia and a universal Caliphate. The state and the mosque are to be one, the highest earthly religious authority is to be the highest earthly political authority. This utopian view fails to see that no mere man can wield such power without corruption. Indeed, universal peace by earthly means – military or political – is impossible because all of humanity is deeply and inherently sinful. Read Romans 1:28-32 – this is a description of the depravity of man. This depravity is a result of and a judgment in response to man’s failure to acknowledge God.  Which God? The God of the Bible – the Triune God of the Old and New Testaments, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the God who became flesh to pay the price that divine justice requires for satisfaction of sin. And how bad is this depravity? It is so total that it blinds men to the truth (1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 8:7-8) and so makes it impossible for men to be saved unless the Father draws them to Jesus Christ (John 6:35-40).

One day, there will be peace – when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:11).

See, this is the heart of the matter. The Scriptures point not to Mohammed but to Christ. It was Christ whom the Old Testament speaks of and anticipates (Luke 24:27, Acts 13:27; see Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 for chillingly accurate predictions and descriptions of the death of Christ from the Old Testament). It is Christ who is the only path to salvation, who says “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me” (John 14:6), who says that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him will have eternal life (John 6:40).

Mark these words, for they are the only hope for peace – and your only hope of eternal life: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” (John 3:17)

When you stand before Almighty God, what hope do you have, as Muslims, that you will be counted acceptable to him? Your good deeds and your obedience, the five pillars and the prayers? Even Islam teaches that your good deeds will be weighed against your sins; you can have no assurance or guarantee that God will accept you (unless you die in jihad). I know this is true, for I heard it myself from a Muslim imam – you can have no assurance or certainty of your salvation. And the Scriptures teach that all your “righteous deeds” are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). Jesus saves not because of works done in righteousness, but by regeneration (creating a new heart – Jeremiah 31:31-34) and the washing of the Holy Spirit.

A person is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Christ alone (Galatians 2:16).

And so I pray for you. I pray that God will draw you to His Son (John 6:44). I pray that your heart will be changed and renewed by the Spirit (Jeremiah 31:31-34). I pray that you will believe the promise of Romans 10:9, that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

No Muslim could ever write these words to another: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13). But if you repent and trust in Christ, you may know this for certain. You may have the inner peace that comes from knowing you are reconciled to God. Only in Christ is this possible.

Then, and only then, will there be true, lasting peace between us, for we will be brothers in Christ. Until then, we will strive to be at peace with you in an earthly sense, and as “ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us, we implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Praying that our sovereign and Triune God will draw you and make you our brothers in Christ,

Jeff Jones

Avoiding Culinary Homiletical Snobbery in the Church

I recently read a rather disturbing statement in a recent Ligonier Tabletalk article about a woman whose family left a church, complaining of a lack of fellowship opportunities – a statement that bewildered the elders because they could see the family was not taking advantage of many fellowship opportunities that existed. She later admitted to the elders that she was seeking a church with an active Facebook community. What’s the problem here? She was seeking fellowship on her terms. Fellowship that didn’t match exactly what they were looking for, even though it was genuine and biblical, simply wasn’t good enough. And so they moved on. This silly little “imperfection” in the church was reason to break fellowship.

My main concern here is not the threshold for leaving a church. I will be the first to say that sheep need to be cared for, and that there are many legitimate reasons to leave a church. My concern is the consumer-type mindset that all too often underlies this statement. So many people sitting in the pews are there primarily for their own benefit – and not that of the Kingdom.

Here’s a more subtle example. One of the more common reasons people will give for leaving a church is “I wasn’t being fed.” I’ve heard it firsthand many times; I’ve even said it myself at times in my past. And it’s certainly a legitimate concern. Jesus told Peter before his ascension, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). New Testament writers repeatedly refer to teaching with the analogy of food (1 Corinthians 3:2, 1 Peter 2:2, Hebrews 5:12-14). The most fundamental task of an elder is to preach the Word, and thus to feed the flock.

Yet as I hear and read this statement in more and more places, I’m beginning to have some misgivings. I fear that too many Christians use these words as a way to justify their own ecclesiastical consumerism – in other words, all too many Christians are looking for a church that meets their own perceived “needs” and gives them what they think they want. I fear that this is beginning to define our very view of the church, that it is infecting our ecclesiology.

I fear that particularly in our (Reformed) circles, where robust, meaty teaching is held in high esteem (and rightly so!) we may be prone to looking at the church primarily as a place where the flock are fed. This is a subtle error, but a very real one, and one that threatens the unity and integrity of churches. Looking at the church as first and foremost a feeding place is the same as looking at the family as primarily the supper table, or at a military base as being most importantly the mess hall. How much sense does that make?

If Caden, Cayleigh, and Liana grow up thinking of the family as, first and foremost, a great place to eat, Erin and I will feel like failures. If the most important thing a soldier does on base is eat, we’d have an awfully “large” army! This should not be so. The church is like the family and like a military base in that it feeds those it cares for not as an end in itself, but as a means to a greater end.

If feeding the flock is not the highest purpose of the church, what is? An easy answer is “the glory of God”; a more precise answer is “worship.” But how do we worship? I submit to you that the highest functional purpose of the church is to magnify the glory of God by training and equipping Christians to worship God in all they do.

The analogies of a family and a military base are carefully chosen. The family exists for what purpose? Not to feed the kids; anyone can do that. The family exists for the purpose of raising up “godly offspring” (Malachi 2:15). A military base exists for what purpose? Not feeding the troops; the majority of them have homes off-base and shop at the grocery store nowadays. The military base exists for the purpose of supporting and equipping and training the troops for war.

Similarly, the church, and especially those placed in leadership in the church, are given by God for the purpose of equipping and training the saints. The “feeding” with Scripture is actually a means to an end. Scripture is given to the church not for its members’ personal and individual benefit but for “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” The desired end state is not simply theologically mature Christians, not even Christians of godly character in themselves, but a people purified for God’s possession who are zealous for good works (Titus 2:14).

This is why a church that does not “feed” its flock is useless – because without a steady and balanced diet of Scripture, the sheep will remain immature and useless. But this is also why a Christian who finally finds a church with a healthy “meal plan,” and who plants himself firmly at the buffet line and is content to sit and eat, is just as useless. It’s so tempting to be passive in the church, to simply take in the teaching we are given but not stand up from the table at the end of the day and help clear the dishes.

There are several specific dangers rising from this consumeristic attitude:

a) A consumeristic focus on “feeding” as an end in itself will turn Christians into homiletical culinary snobs. There are master “chefs” in the Christian world, the MacArthurs and the Pipers and the Azurdias, who can prepare a beautifully arranged and presented gourmet meal for the flock from the ingredients in the Word. The sheer reality, however, is that God uses rather ordinary jars of clay to bring his treasures (“meat and potatoes,” maybe?) to most of his people. Christians who look at their spiritual “eating” as an end in itself will often come to disdain their own elders’ biblical cuisine as being less worthy than that of the “chefs” they like to sample at conferences or over the Internet. This misses not only the fact that the meal should be just as nutritious from their own elders (being prepared, after all, from the same ingredients!) as from the master “chefs”; it also misses the fact that the meal is being given to strengthen them for battle.

b) A consumeristic focus on “feeding” as an end in itself results in missed opportunities for service. I can’t help but think that if the lady and her family mentioned in the Tabletalk article, who were looking to their church to “feed” their perceived need for Facebook fellowship, might have wound up staying in the church and contributing meaningfully to its ministry had they stopped viewing the church as a place to be taken advantage of for their own benefit and started looking at it as a place to prepare them to benefit the Kingdom. This family missed opportunities for genuine, edifying fellowship because they were so fixed on their own desires’ fulfillment. I daresay that even if they found what they were looking for, they and their church would have been no better off.

c) A consumeristic focus on “feeding” as an end in itself can often result in an arrogant and hypocritical search for the “perfect” church. I’ve known Christians who change churches every few months because they find something wrong – either a minor point in the teaching that they disagree with, or a person who rubbed them the wrong way, or the cancellation of a favorite program. Such people are doomed to wander forever, because the thing they seek doesn’t exist.

Our desire as elders is to be faithful to God and bring a healthy diet of the meat and pure milk of God’s word to you. However, we don’t do so as an end in itself. We want to see the congregation grow in maturity and begin to share their food – and themselves – with others. The Bible calls every member of the church to be a priest. Every Christian is called to make disciples, to encourage, to admonish, to bear burdens, to do good works. And not just through the “programs” of the church; there are no lack of ministry opportunities just within the church, even (maybe even primarily) outside of formal ministry structures.

So let's avoid the temptation of passivity. Don’t fall into the trap of theological consumerism. Consider your gifts; pray for discernment; seek out opportunities to minister to others.

Mormon blood atonement in light of Jesus’ finished work

Recently, a firestorm of controversy erupted in the United States when an inmate on death row in Utah was granted his request to die by firing squad. Ronnie Lee Gardner, a convicted killer, was given the option of either death by lethal injection or by firing squad, and he told the judge, “I would like the firing squad please.” Why did he choose that? Because he’s already “been shot a bunch of times” and would prefer the devil he knows.

The Huffington Post describes this story with repeated references to an alleged “Old West-style justice” on Utah’s books, and references the practice as a holdover from Utah’s territorial history. The article cites a Catholic opponent as objecting, "The firing squad is archaic, it's violent, and it simply expands on the violence that we already experience from guns as a society."

Utah is the only state still practicing death by firing squad. Reading the HuffPo article, you would be tempted to think that Utah has firing squads because it’s just a backwater district of hillbillies who haven’t yet moved into the modern era. It’s because they’re backward and stuck in their frontier, Old West past.

But the article completely missed the real reason. Utah is the only state practicing firing squads, yes. But what else is Utah known for? I was quite surprised that the reporters missed it. Utah is the home of the Mormons. The seat of the Latter-Day Saints. If someone was seeking to understand why this one out of the fifty states still practices death by firing squad, wouldn’t it be prudent to see if maybe the religious background of the place might shed some light on it?

And in fact, Mormon theology plays a big part in this practice. An influential text on Mormon theology is “Mormon Doctrine,” written by a man named Bruce McConkie who was an apostle in the LDS hierarchy. McConkie writes on this subject: “But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment” (p. 92). He later writes what apologist James White once called a “rather chilling statement”: “This doctrine can only be practiced in its fullness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands” (p. 93).

The key idea here in connection with capital punishment is that the blood must be shed – it needs to be spilled out on the ground. Brigham Young, the successor to Joseph Smith, once preached these words: “There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense might atone for their sins…” In Utah, the state government is heavily influenced by Mormonism and so its choice of its method of execution is that one method which does, in fact, spill a person’s blood in the process of execution.

In other words, from a Mormon perspective, death by firing squad would be an act of mercy because it affords the convict the opportunity to atone for his sins by spilling his blood. Young said elsewhere, “I could refer to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins…. This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood upon the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it…. That is the way to love mankind.”

This doctrine is terrifying in its implications. Certain fundamentalist LDS splinter groups have been alleged to practice this doctrine even up to this day, killing people outside of the bounds of civil justice because their victims were seen to have commited unpardonable sins. More than that, however, the doctrine of blood atonement represents a direct rejection of the sufficiency of the power of the Cross.

The Bible makes plain that Jesus’ blood is sufficient to cover all sin. Not just some. 1 John 1:7 tells us: “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” All of it! Paul told the Colossians, “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” (2:13-14) All our trespasses are forgiven – why? Because the record of them was nailed to the cross – Jesus was counted as sin, and punished for all of our sin!

Mormons may object by pointing to Jesus’ teaching about unpardonable sin in Matthew 12. But Jesus was dealing with men who were so hardened in their unbelief that they attributed the works that signified Jesus’ identity as the Son of God to the work of the devil. The issue is not so much the sin itself as the stubbornness and hardness of heart that produces blasphemy and calls God’s work that of Satan. Such hardness will not be removed, Jesus is teaching. He’s not teaching that blasphemy is unforgiveable – all sin is in a sense blasphemous. It’s not about whether this sin can be covered by Christ’s blood. Rather, he’s teaching about judicial hardening by God, like what Paul describes with Pharaoh in Romans 9. He’s warning that God is under no obligation to regenerate anyone and that a person who is this far gone is clearly under judgment and can expect no more mercy. This text is about hardening and refusal to regenerate, not about atonement.

Utah’s firing squads remind us that there are many who would rather substitute the works of men for the work of Christ. Mormonism teaches that the blood of men is more effectual and more powerful than that of Christ, because it can deal with the most serious of sins. But why, then, was Christ’s death necessary to begin with? Could not our own blood purchase our salvation?

The Bible, though, teaches us that Jesus did it all. It gives us truly good news – that there is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus! It reminds us that Jesus, the true and final High Priest, entered the Most Holy Place above with the perfect and sufficient sacrifice of his own blood, and that this sacrifice was offered once for all (Hebrews 10:10, 14) and needs no repetition or addition – it’s complete! It proclaims that “it is finished!”

What good news this is! We don’t need to shed our own blood. Jesus did it for us, and that is enough. Praise God.