Unintended Consequences

After seeing this news item about the 11 children who have been abandoned by their parents at the local hospital emergency room here in my home state, I am so not proud to be a Nebraskan. Seems that this is perfectly legal under the new "Safe Haven" law that went into effect here recently. And it was championed through the state legislature by none other than the state senator from my own district, the esteemed Arnie Stuthman. In fact, he made it a top priority bill. His intentions, of course, were good. For those unwanted infants that might otherwise get abused or dumped somewhere unsafe, let the parents drop them off at a hospital. With no legal consequences. Let the state take care of them. Of course several other states have similar laws on the books. It all sounds so compassionate and right, doesn't it?

But once again, the law of unintended consequences kicks in. Did anyone think that people would be dropping off their teenage kids to get rid of them, legally? Probably not. But in an effort to not be too restrictive, the language used in the law stated that it applied to "children", which has been interpreted now to mean anyone under the age of 19. So to date there have been 16 kids abandoned by their parents or guardians, aged 1 to 17. Completely legally. In fact the director of the state human services said this: "It was the parents not wanting to continue the journey with their kids." Drop 'em off and walk away. And apparently no legal recourse against the so-called parents. They're free to get on with their lives, to "continue their own journey."

One could argue that these kids are better off, that they obviously weren't wanted in the first place and so at least now they are "safe." Again, sound so compassionate, doesn't it. Except that the state admits that none of these kids were in any danger. So what has this law really accomplished? It has in effect given dysfunctional and struggling parents and guardians a way out, an easy way to be rid of problem kids and be off the hook. It in fact encourages child abandonment, and takes away any remaining restraint that a parent or guardian of a difficult or less than wanted child might have. And it assumes that the state social services and foster care system is a better, "safer" place for these kids than a dysfunctional family. Which might be true in some cases, but certainly not all.

And consider this angle. Say you're a youngster in a family whose parents are, well, less than perfect. Which could include a whole lot of kids. And you hear about this kind of thing, kids your own age getting dumped at hospitals by their parents, scot free. What is this going to do for your sense of security? Not much, I would think. I wouldn't doubt that there are some not-so-gifted parents that might even use this as a threat against their kids. Honestly, is this really, truly in the best interest of the children of Nebraska?

The reality is this: any law that makes it easy and legal to shirk God-ordained responsibilities to the family is a bad thing. It will have all kinds of unintended, but real and damaging, consequences. I can only hope that the spectacle of entire families of children being abandoned legally will cause our state senators to reflect on these facts and make corrections to this fiasco of a law. And the next time I have the opportunity, I will certainly once again cast my vote for anyone running against erstwhile Arnie.

Self Talk

No, I am not Dr. Phil. But in my Sunday School class the other day on the identity of the believer in Christ, I made the statement that a Christian should have no self-esteem. Which I think took some people in the class aback a bit, before I could complete my explanation. So I'm doing so more fully here. But what do you think? Is self-esteem Biblical? Is having high self-esteem to be a mark of the mature Christian? And if not, how should we then view ourselves? In short, how does a Biblical psychology inform our self-image?

Before we go too far, let's define some terms, that often get used somewhat interchangeably, but shouldn't be. Let's start with self-esteem. Which refers to esteeming myself, or holding myself in high regard. Thinking highly of myself, regarding myself as special, worthy of merit. Does this sound like a characteristic of a mature Christian, Biblically speaking? I think not. In fact we find Biblical commands to believers to do just the opposite. For example, Romans 12:3, where Paul says: "For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith." Or again in Philippians 2:3 where he commands: "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves." Self-esteem has no place in the heart and mind and life of the follower of Christ. We are to esteem Christ and hold Him in high regard, and esteem others as more important than ourselves. Our problem is not that we love ourselves too little - it's that we love ourselves too much!

But how then are we to understand who we are, our sense of identity? This is where the concept of self-image comes in. Self-image is simply how we see ourselves, who we believe ourselves to be. It's how we answer the "who am I" question. And everyone, Christian or not, has a self-image. Everyone has some way of identifying themselves, and living out that identity day by day. It may be based on all kinds of things, like relationships, career, possessions, position, you name it. But self-image is like a nose - we all have one. And for the Christian, then, the critical thing is to have a self-image or identity based on the truths of God's Word, rather than on the passing and changeable things and relationships of this world. The Christian is to have a proper, a Biblically-informed self-image, not a good self-image. We are to identify ourselves first and foremost with Christ, and understand who He has declared us to be. Such as a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17), free from condemnation (Romans 8:1), adopted as children and heirs (Romans 8:16-17), righteous before Him (2 Corinthians 5:21).

But there's still one term that's connected to these two that we haven't considered. And that is self-worth. Which is my own sense of value or purpose. See, this is what I think the self-esteem movement is really after. Trying to instill a sense of value in people, by artificially inflating their view of themselves in an attempt to ascribe some intrinsic value to the self. But in doing so they miss the point. Because in and of ourselves, we have no intrinsic value. Yes, we are created in the image of God and endowed with a certain amount of dignity because of that, and as bearers of the imago dei we are separated from and more valuable than the animals. But even this value is not intrinsic, not in and of ourselves. It flows from God, the Creator who imbued man with this value. But more than that, for the Christian, our sense of self-worth should be infinite. Again, not because of any value or worth we have in ourselves, but because we are of value to God the Father. In fact so valuable that He ordained from eternity past that we should be redeemed from our sin by no less a price than the death of His own Son. If someone is looking for a sense of value or worth, I can't think of any better source.

But you see that the self-worth of the believer in Christ is not based on any distinction or merit that we have before God, and certainly not based on any false sens of self-esteem that we might try to build up. It's based on the sovereign grace and eternal purposes and decrees of God in electing and saving and sanctifying us as a people for Himself. For His glory, not for ours.

You know, Dr. Phil is right about one thing when it comes to having a proper self-image and self-worth. It really is all about relationships. At least one relationship - a faith relationship with Jesus Christ. Like they say, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then...