Choosing to Live in the Land of the Blessing

This world is damned; and instinctively we all know it. We admit it all the time: "Damned truck!" "Damned job!" "Damned situation!" We are all damned, and we cannot seem to wait to get in on the judging: "Damn him!" "That damned SOB!" I am a trucker most of the time, and I hear it every day. Either the truck is damned, the loader is damned, the sugar beets are damned, our employer is damned, the weather is damned; I do not think that there is a situation or an entity on the face of the earth that has been justly condemned by my fellows. Even Mother Nature is damned. Oh, and of course, God is damned; or is it the other way around? Is it that God ultimately is the one that we want to do all of this damning.

Several years ago, I got a bit fed up with all of the damning. After all, damning is depressing. If everything is damned, how can one be productive? How can one experience any joy? How can one find any deep meaning and purpose? So, in the midst of a whole host of damning, I called out on my two-way radio soimething like this, "You know, God blesses things also. And I would much rather live in a blessed world than in a damned world any day of the week."

Dead silence. It killed the conversation for over an hour. I think that people were thinking. Either that or they were stunned. Most of them likely didn't know what to think. They had probably never realized what they were actually saying; after all, damn is just an interjection. It is used for emphasis, to say something like, "This is not just sort of bad, but it is really bad!" Or, that person is really worthless -- what we do not realize that we are saying is that they are so worthless, we wish God would terminate them right here and now, and that He would send them to hell.

I would like to be a person of blessing rather than damning. I was just thinking about the Beatitudes, "Blessed are you . . ." In the law, there are the curses, and there are the blessings. I would like to live in the blessings. I am tired of this damned world, where things break down, where you cannot get ahead, where corruptiion eventually ruins everything, and where the Second Law of Thermodynamics always comes into play. So, I have decided to live in the land of the blessing, by honoring God, by living in a manner pleasing to Him, by trusting Christ to save me from all of the damnable destructiveness of the world in which I am living.

Does it change the world? Not that much, I suppose. But it sure does change my orientation to the world. It helps me to understand that God has ordered this world for a purpose, to teach me to trust Him, and to call upon Him for the solution to my every need. You have this opportunity too; you can live in a damned world, or in a blessed one; that is, as long as you are willing to submit your life entirely to Christ. After all, He is the source of blessing; He is the Blessing itself.

So, have a blessed day, and stop living in this damned world that is going to hell in a handbasket.

Extolling the Worship of Women?

I am now reading through Jaroslav Pelikan's third volume in his series The Christian Tradition: A History of Doctrinal Development. This volume is entitled The Growth of Medieval Theology. One of the doctrinal development that Pelikan explores in this volume is that of Mariology, or the cult of Mary, which sprang up within the Medieval church.

This blog is not intended to critique Mariology, per se, though I have to admit up front that I do not believe that Mary should be either venerated or worshiped. Our veneration and worship should be kept for God alone; anything other than that, in my mind, constitutes idolatry. What I am more interested in here in the development of the doctrine and practice, which as Pelikan notes, should be considered an outgrowth of liturgical theology.

Pelikan notes that some have criticized the rise of the Marian cult as being a revival of the ancient fertility religions which were present in Mesopotamia. In Medieval literature, Mary is referred to as the Fertile Virgin, the one who redeemed fertility from the curse, the one who opened heaven's doors by the opening of her womb to the Messiah, and the one who released femininity from the curse by bearing the Messiah without disrupting her virginity, and without suffering any physical pain.

Mary Magdalene was incorporated into the cult of Mary as well. Mary Magdalene symbolizes "the bride of God who was drawn from the paganism of the heathen to the source of [true] grace." The Virgin Mary was likened to the Second Eve. "Just as through Saint Mary the Virgin . . . the gates of Paradise has been opened, so also through Saint Mary Magdalene the shame of the female sex has been undone, and the splendor of our resurrection . . . has been granted to us by her." "David's beloved kinsmaid (the Virgin Mary) cast out the curse of Eve and elevated the status of women. Eve had been the instrument through which folly had been mediated to her descendants, but through Mary wisdom had one more been mediated to the human race" (all quotes page 167).

It was this latter provision which, in the mind of some medieval theologians, placed Mary in the role of Mediatrix, as it was taught that her special intercession mediated the way between Christ and mankind. Humanity's return to God was given by Christ to her. "Mary," it was stated, "Had been chosen by God for the special task of pleading the cause of men before her Son" (page 168). And on and on it goes -- this Medieval attraction to Mary, who, as the Queen of heaven, became the idolization of the masses.

I wrote in the column of Pelikan's book that "I almost wonder if this is the fulfillment of the romantic male who has suppressed his human romanticism due to asceticism and celibacy." The worship of the feminine doesn't surprise me, for men have always been captivated by women. I have told my wife several times that I do not understand the feminist movement: "Women have always ruled the world," I told her. "They rule the world through the men that they have in their clutches."

Another thought came to me as well. We are now in the clutches of the worship of an infertility cult. The goddess in this worship is not fertile, nor dare she be fertile, for fertility is verboten. I made another comment in my margin referencing this: "So often the men who 'rule the world' worship at the feet of a woman.'" Barack Obama is no different with his femininistic manifesto to ensure 'women's reproductive rights,' which has become a code-word for birth control and abortion. In the Medieval days, men worshiped Mary for her productivity. In our modern day, men worship women for their infertility. In the Medieval days, Mary was extolled for her chastity. In our modern day, women are revered for their 'in-chastity,' for their availability, for their sexuality, for their degradation. In the Medieval days, Mary was venerated, for "blessed is the fruit of your womb." Under our modern day worship of women, cursed is the fruit of the womb, so cursed, in fact, that we kill it!

Barack Obama is closing the gate of heaven by shutting the wombs of our women.  No longer are women exalted; they are now degraded and given over to exploitation and to subjugation. Women are so often now simply considered a piece of meat in an overly indulgent and sex-crazy culture. If it is true that men will always be worshiping women, then give us a 'religion' that will worship the fullness of the woman in all of the mystery of her femininity, mother and womanhood. For if I have to worship the woman, I strongly prefer the fertility cult of worshiping Mary to the infertility of Obama. Thus I say, tongue in cheek, "Hail Mary, mother of Grace;" and let's do away with "Hail Obama" and his cult of infertility, hostility and murder.

PS. Lest anyone misunderstand, I am not advocating the idolatry of Mariology. The Scripture commands us to worship the true God and to worship Him alone. This is one of the many reason why I am a Baptist and not either an Eastern or a Western Catholic.
 

Has our Nation Changed gods?

The prophet Jeremiah details an appalling catastrophe which brought down damnation upon unbelieving Israel. It was the changing of the Gods. Perhaps it was like the changing of the guard. At one point in time Yahweh was the God of Israel. At another point in time, there was a change. Yahweh was God of Israel no longer. He had been replaced by a whole host of senseless and totally useless idols of stone, and of wood, and of Israel's rabid imagination.

God says through Jeremiah, "I remember your youthful devotion, the love of your betrothals, your following after me through the wilderness, through a land not sown," through a land which was wild, untamed, and uninhabited. "I brought you into that land." I drove out its inhabitants before you. I gave you "its fruit and its good things." I provided for each and every one of your needs. "But you came and defiled my land; and my inheritance you made an abomination. . . . The rulers also transgressed against me . . . and have walked after things that did not profit." They have laid the land waste.

Through the pen of Jeremiah, God asks the appalling question, "Has a nation changed gods, for that which is no god at all? Be appalled, O heavens; Shudder, and become terrified at this. For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fount of living water, to hew out for themselves cisterns which are broken, and which cannot contain any water."

I attended a send-off ceremony for my son who is a member of our National Guard. He is being deployed. He is being sent away on government business. It was a gala event, a grand and spectacular event which attracted the dignitaries from the city, the state, and the country. The speakers which spoke, spoke of the great cause of human freedom and justice. They spoke of the quest for peace, which was spoken of as an enduring human endeavor. They invoked the name of God. God bless America! God bless our soldiers! We will pray for you while you are away, and may God bring you back safely to us.

Earlier that morning, I had attended a worship service devoted and dedicated to that God -- I think I can still refer to this God using a capital "G." Maybe 25 people -- the room was large. Perhaps I underestimated; let's say that there were more like 30-50. Has the nation changed gods? Have we abandoned our fount of living water to hew out for ourselves cisterns that cannot contain any water?

I have read in our history books accounts of the civil war where the war stopped on Sunday so that men of both Union and Confederate stripe would have time to worship on Sunday. I read accounts of how Union and Confederate soldiers would even worship together in the same services, and then commence their fighting again on Monday. I have been at the Lincoln Memorial at the Capital, and I have read the consternation of Lincoln, that both side in the battle called upon the same Lord and God and invoked His care and His keeping over the soldiers of their Army.

And I have to ask, "What has happened to this God now?" Where is His honor? Where is His devotion? Where is His praise?

I can hear it now, and I share the grief, how a nation that swore allegiance to that God could divorce herself, and kill and maim her brothers on a battlefield when both sides claimed allegiance to the One who was supposed to be the "Lord" of the battle. There were battles which were fought in the name of that God, likely battles which that God never called for, and to which He never rendered any assistance or aid. Perhaps that is why this God is disdained now; perhaps that is why at this send-off His true worship garnered little supporters at all.

I don't have many answers. I only know that I left the auditorium wondering if we really cared about the God whose blessing and care we invoked. Has a nation changed gods? Be appalled, O heavens; Shudder, O earth, and return to the desolation from when you have started. It is an appalling catastrophe, a crying, and a dying shame.

Listening to the Obedience of Jesus

There are two themes which are highlighted in the two stories of Jesus to which I have referred in my previous posts. These are themes which I believe are often overlooked in the pulpit. The first is the idea that Jesus went through stages, and that he perfected each one by his consistent and persistent obedience and submission. The second is that to which I now speak in this blog, and that is his sublimation of even his divine mission in order to be submissive to human authority. Or perhaps we should think of it like this: Jesus sublimated one form of obedience to his Father in order to be fully obedient to the ultimate desire of his Father, that of fully fulfilling the law, in order to fulfill our obedience for us.

Let me explain what I mean. In the childhood account of Jesus, Jesus asks Mary and Joseph, "Did you not understand that I must be about my Father's business?" A quite literal rendering of the Greek puts it this way, "Do you not understood that it is absolutely essential (dei) that I am doing the things of my Father?" But the text indicates that Mary and Joseph apparently did not agree with Jesus that now was the time for him to be doing what he was doing, for he leaves the temple, and he goes home with them; and the text says explicitly that he went home with them and that he was subject to them. And Luke seems to emphasize this when he states immediately after this that Jesus " increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and with people" (Luke 2:52 in the NET Bible).

The next thing we read in Luke concerns the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus. There is an implication here -- and I do not think it is unintentional -- and that is that Jesus' submission continued on into his adulthood. The text does not come right out and say it, but it certainly implies it, especially when read without the chapter breaks which were not a part of the original text.

The second passage to which I referred in my previous post, about the wedding at Cana, has this sentiment in it again. If I might paraphrase the saying of Jesus, "Woman, what are you saying to me? Do you not know that my time has not yet come?" I don't want to humanize the divine too greatly; however, it is almost like Jesus is saying, "Mom, you are pushing me out into the world before I am ready." And we know it is not quite that way, for Jesus has a full and divine sense about his heavenly mission. But it is the learning obedience thing once again, Jesus is learning as a human what he is already fully aware of in his divinity, that there would come a time and a place for the public demonstration of his ministry. And we could read into this exchange between Jesus and Mary and come to the conclusion that in some way Mary, as Jesus' parent, is an agent from God to Jesus, helping him to sort out what is the proper time of the Father in order for Jesus to begin his ministry in the public manner which would ultimately lead to his death.

In both of these cases, Jesus has an internal sense of calling and timing that is overruled by human authority, specifically parental authority -- and I think this understanding is crucial. For what is Jesus' primary commandment when it comes specifically to parents? To honor his father and his mother, which is what was written in the commandments of Moses. The command to honor means to give place to, to give weight to, to place oneself under another, or, in modern parlance, it would mean to give into another, or to prefer another as being greater than you are yourself.

Jesus' honoring of his mother is demonstrated even on the day of his death. One of the seven words from the cross are the words of Jesus looking after his mother. John bears this out. Jesus sees his mother, Mary, and the disciple which he loved, which we believe to be a reference to John, and he says to her, "Woman, behold your son." And to John he says, "Behold, here is your mother." Apparently by this time Joseph is deceased, and Jesus, as the oldest child, is fulfilling his familial responsibility to look out after his mother. And so, as he is dying, he turns responsibility for her care and keeping over to John, a disciple whom he trusted and loved.

In this way, Jesus fulfills the commandment to honor his father and mother. As I have stated previously, by this he passes through and sanctifies this stage of life for us by perfectly fulfilling the commandment. This is one area that we as humans rarely are able to get right. I, at the age of 47, had to recently call up my parents and apologize to them for years of inappropriate treatment. I had never publicly dishonored them; but I had not always held them in a place of honor in my heart. I called them to try to make things right; and I am trying now to restore the years that the locusts have eaten. It is a struggle sometimes, but by the grace of God, I trust that I will continue to honor them up to the time they are dead.

I made this comment one time to a pastor friend of mine, who came right back with a shot that hit me "square 'tween the eyes." She said, "What do you mean up to the time they are dead, what about after they are dead; you still have to honor them then." She explained that her parents had been dead now for years, but that she still evaluates her behavior and trusts that what she is doing now is still bringing honor to her parents. Amazing, I thought. I would have never have considered that the commandment did not end with the life of the parents. But then again, this is the familial bond; we are always the children of our parents, and we will never be able to fully rise above them even after they are dead and gone.

Listening to the Young Adulthood of Jesus

This post has been rewritten, keeping the substance, but deleting some of the extraneous matter.

My previous post addressed Jesus learning obedience in his childhood. This post examines his young adulthood. In our culture, we could just as easily say his adulthood, for the event I will be addressing happens when Jesus is nearing 30.

This incident once again involves his obedience to his mother. I think this incident in the life of Jesus seriously challenges the current societal delusion that something magical takes place on the day one turns 18, that all of a sudden, BOOM, you become an adult, and then nobody can tell you what to do any longer. This ideation can hardly be supported Biblically, though there is no question that one's responsibilities become broader when one reaches adulthood. However, the Western ideal of total autonomy is a delusion, as is the idea that one is ever totally free from any obligation to parents.

The incident in Jesus' life is the wedding feast at Cana as recorded in John 2. The story is familiar: the host of the wedding has miscalculated in the amount of wine which was needed for the party. He has run out of wine, and the family is likely on the edge of a social disgrace and humiliation. Mary finds out about the dilemma, and she calls Jesus in for the rescue.

The interchange between Jesus and his mother is fascinating. "Son, they have no wine." Jesus, "Woman, what to me and to you?" -- a literal rendering of the Greek. Mary, to the servants, "That which he says to you, do it." What is going on here? How do we understand this dialogue and Jesus' enigmatic, cryptic response to his mother?

The various translations differ here. Some follow the KJV to the effect of "Woman, what do I have to do with you?" Others turn this around, following another textual witness, and make this "Woman, what do you have to do with me?" Jesus follows this up with the statement, "My hour is not yet come," implying that he is rebuking his mother for having overstepped her bounds of authority in some manner, perhaps in attempting to command control over those aspects of Jesus' divinity. Others make this more general, "Woman, what has this to do with us?" In other words, ""Woman, this is none of our business," or "Woman, this is no concern of ours, it is the responsibility of others, let them care for it on their own."

A young person from our modern generation may understand Jesus to be rebuking his mother here, saying to her something on the order of, "Woman, what do you have to do with me? I am an adult now, and I need to be able to make my own decisions. You do not have any authority over me any longer, so you really shouldn't be ordering me around!" In fact, I can hear the argument for this interpretation now, and that is that Jesus is simply setting his boundaries; he is engaging in emotionally healthy behavior, and he is gently letting his mother know that she is violating his personal space, and that she is infringing upon his autonomy as a person.

I so not think that this argument can be supported from the text, for it does not fit very well with Jesus' actions. You see, Jesus did what his mother instructed him to do. Mary says to the servants, "Whatever he says to you, do it." Jesus calls for the water pots, and turns the water into the wine. Mission accomplished. Jesus has obeyed his mother's implicit instructions, he has fulfilled them right to the T.

In so doing, Jesus has honored his mother. Whether or not there is an overstepping of personal boundaries is perhaps a valid point of discussion. However, despite any overstepping that there may have been, Jesus has honored his mother. He has not put her to open shame. He has maintained her dignity, demonstrating  his obedience to the command in the law of Moses to honor his father and mother.

I am not certain if Jesus' statement to Mary is intended to be a mild chastisement or not. If it is, I suspect it has far more to do with Mary asking Jesus to demonstrate the power of his divinity than that he is trying to set boundaries concerning any violation of his supposed person. When it comes to allowing people to violate his person, Jesus sets the example; he endured all forms of suffering, yet he never tried to protect himself, neither when it was crucial, did he ever offer any defense. Our Roman Catholic friends refuse to see a rebuke here, and maintain that Jesus was simply addressing according the custom of the day. And that does seem to be the case in Jesus' use of the term "Woman," for that is the way that he also addressed other women in the Gospels.
 
There is more to be said here, but it will require at least one additional post. Stay tuned, and I will get right on it, before I forget what it is that I desire to say.

Listening to the Childhood of Jesus.

In my doctoral studies, I have been reading through Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. I am now in the middle of Volume 3, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300). In the pages that I have been reading, Pelikan is assessing the theology of St. Bernard of Clairveaux, specifically his understanding of the passage in Hebrews where it says that Jesus "learned obedience through the things which he suffered." Bernard's understanding of this is that while it was impossible for the Logos of God to learn anything new, he can learn by experience things which he already knew from eternity, but which he had never before experienced personally experience, or which he had never experienced as a man.

Bernard's understanding is very near to my own, though I perhaps have not been able to articulate it as clearly. According to Pelikan, Barnard writes that what Jesus knew as God, he now experiences as man. As God, he is the healer of human infirmity; as man, he now experiences infirmity himself. Quoting Bernard, Pelikan writes, "I would not say that he is made wiser by his experiences, but he does seem to be nearer to the children of Adam." This sentence struck me; and it combined with some other of my tangential thoughts. And I found myself wondering, "What did Jesus learn about life as a kid, as he was learning obedience at the hands of his parents?"

The New Testament tells us precious little about the childhood of Jesus. Gnostic accounts are filled with fabulous stories, but I discount them, as I do not consider them Scripture. From the writers of Scripture we have far more information about his birth and his infancy that what we do about his childhood. Then we have the big leap to his ministry; it is almost as if his childhood did not exist!

Yet, we have the incident when he was 12, when he was taken to the temple by his parents. After the festivities were over, his parents start for home, "supposing him to be in the company," apparently of other people from Nazareth. But when the company stops for the night, they cannot find him; and so back to Jerusalem they go. They find Jesus in the temple, and they get after him a bit. I can hear it now, "Jesus, what on earth are you doing?" "What's up, Mom and Dad, did you not know that I would be about my [true] Father's business?"

My children struggled when their personal convictions violated mine. "Dad," they would argue, "You taught us to live by our convictions, and to do what we believe the Lord would have us to do. Why don't you let us? Why do we have to live by your [outdated] convictions? You need to give us the freedom so that we can live by our own!"

Perhaps Jesus could empathize with my children, for it appears as if Mary and Joseph did not agree with Jesus that this was the proper time for him to be able his [true] Father's business. I agree, the text does not specifically state this; however, it certainly implies it, for it says that he "went with them, and [they] came to Nazareth, and [he] was subject unto them" (Luke 2:51 KJV), I am guessing without complaint. And interestingly, the next thing that Luke tells us about is the beginning of Jesus' ministry, started at about the time he was 30. Once again by implication it appears as if it was quite some time before his parents freed him up in order to begin pursuing his ministry.

You may say, "That is really an example of learning obedience through suffering." Well, I disagree, for I suspect that to a child it is. St. Bernard of Clairveaux arguef that Jesus passed through every stage of life sinless, obedient, learning obedience through suffering. In passing through sinless, Jesus sanctified every stage of life, and he left us a pattern, so that as Peter states, we are to follow his steps. And so, even in his childhood, he sets an example that even children can follow.

Listening and Wisdom

I am finding that the theme of hearing and listening is very prevalent in the Scriptures, far more so that what I would have first imagined. I have started a sermon series in Proverbs, and there it is again. In the introduction to the book, Solomon writes that the whole key to wisdom, to understanding the words of the wise is to listen. The wise man will hear, and he will increase in learning; and the man of understanding will also listen (meaning implied) and he will attain unto wise counsel. Listening is a key to growth in sound judgment, in the skill of living, which is what the word wisdom means in Proverbs; wisdom ultimately comes from God, God possessed it in Himself at the time that He created the world.

Therefore, what does Solomon advise his children to do? He tells them to hear, to listen. "My son, listen to the instruction of your father, and to not forsake the law of your mother, for they are an ornament of grace unto your head, and they are the chains (of luxurious jewelry) about your neck." Solomon was the king of Israel, the son of the mighty David. He was crowned king. He wore the royal chains. But he tells his son that the real crown, the real symbols of royalty, were the teachings of royalty, were the instructions of royalty, were the input of father and mother, as they taught the son (perhaps the king to be!) to be wise, to be prudent, to be discerning, to have discretion, so that he would keep his feet from evil, so that he would be able to exercise sound judgment, and so that he would be able to properly govern the kingdom.

At the very head of his instruction to his son, Solomon states that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Fools do not listen. Fools will not hear. Fools will not allow instruction and wisdom to guide them. They are full of their own thoughts, they are full of their own ideas; they are so open-minded that their brains leak out. They are easily deceived; they are susceptible to smooth words, or to the words of the con artist, or those who are greedy for gain and who will take advantage of the innocent in order to gain a profit.

This is the antithesis in Proverbs 1. Wisdom cries aloud in the streets. She cries from above, "How long, O you open-minded simpletons, how long will you love your open-minded simplicity?" The sinners cry out as well, the deceivers, the vultures, "Come with us, let us lie in wait for dishonest gain. Throw in your lot with us; we will all have one purse. We will suck out the life of the innocent." To whom will you listen? To whom will you give ear? Wisdom's assessment is that "I cried, but you would not listen; I stretched out my hand, but nobody paid attention to me."

The assessment of Proverbs is that foolishness is bound up in the heart of the children of humanity. How often we prove ourselves to be fools by our inability and unwillingness to listen. We trot off in foolish paths, listening only to our own mind, and we end up destroying ourselves; or, worse yet, we destroy the innocent  with our stupidity. We set at naught the counsels of wisdom, and we do not turn at her reproof. And she laughs at us and mocks when our destruction comes as a whirlwind.

O Lord God, teach us Your fear. Teach us to be wise, help us to hear; unstop our ears and help us to listen. Cure us of our idolatry, and teach us the walk in Your ways. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Freedom and the Fruit of the Spirit

I gained a new insight from my study of Galatians 5:13-26 this past week while studying for my third sermon on this passage. The source of the insight was an older commentary I found online. I cannot remember the name of the commentary or its author, otherwise I would cite it here, as what follows is not original with me.

I had always thought this passage compared two different ways of living; one, living under the law, which I had put together with the lusts of the flesh; and two, living in the Spirit, or living according to the Spirit of God, by whom one is able to produce the fruit of the Spirit in one's life.

Through the help of this commentary, however, I have come to see that there are three different kinds of lifestyle being referred to in this passage. The first is living under law, or having an external set of rules and standard by which one orders one's life. The second is living in freedom, but a freedom which is consumed by the flesh. This is truly a freedom; for it lives in disregard for all law. It may be in conformity to some of it -- whatever makes the self feel like a good person -- but otherwise it disregards law and does whatever it pleases. But this is not the freedom for which Christ has set us free. Christ has set us free for a third kind of lifestyle, the lifestyle of love, the lifestyle of service, service to one another in love.

This is a lifestyle which is not lived for the self but for others. This is a lifestyle that fulfills the entirety of the law. Paul states that the entirety of the law is fulfilled in the one command to love one another even as we love ourselves. This is a lifestyle that is not marked by the characteristics of the second kind of freedom, by the striving, by the discontent, by the feuding and fighting that is characteristic of a person who is only serving themselves and trying to get ahead at the expense of everyone else. It is also absent the manipulation and the conniving and the backbiting and the lying of those who are only pursuing their own agenda, or who will stop at nothing, or run over anything and anyone in order to get their own way.

It is the second kind of freedom that is insisted upon by the rebel. It is a freedom, but it is not the freedom of Christ. Even if you add the name of Christ to it, this freedom is still a malicious freedom; it is not kind, it is not gentle, it is not loving, it does not bear under any adversity well. This sets this rebellious freedom apart from the truly Christian freedom that comes from the life of the Spirit. This kind of freedom is kind, it is peaceable, it is loving, it is patient, it does endure under pressure and distress.

This latter freedom comes only at a price, according to Paul. It is the price of crucifixion of the self and its selfish desires. Those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with is passions and its desires. The second kind of freedom, the rebellious kind, must be left behind, totally and utterly forsaken, if the freedom of the Spirit is ever to manifest itself. Failure to do so leaves the soul in its turmoil, and it brings turmoil and struggle and striving to every situation that encounters. Only in the freedom of the Spirit is there peace.

Those of us who name the name of Christ often live in the rebellious kind of freedom thinking that since we are not under the law we are free to live as we please. But this is far from the truth. We have been released from the law, but we live in fulfillment of it, living in love, having crucified ourselves and our passions and desires in order to live for the glory of Christ. So much of the rebellious lifestyle is contrary to law; it is outlawed behavior, behavior which is illegal, or certainly that which is immoral. The freedom of the Spirit, however, is commendable behavior; we would not even dream of passing a law against it. Who would think of outlawing love as dangerous, or passing a law against gentleness, or making kindness and peace illegal? Thus it is in compliance with law; nay, it supersedes law, for it fulfills the requirements of the law by going above and beyond.

This is the true freedom of the Christian; and it is the link between freedom and the fruit of the Spirit. This is the freedom for which Christ has set us free. This is a freedom which keeps the desires in check; it is a restrained freedom, a freedom from destructive behavior. May God give us grace to live in this kind of freedom until the end of our days here on this earth.

Hearing, Listening and Idolatry

I have just begun reading another book entitled You Become What You Worship, by G. K. Beale. Beale's thesis is that you become what you worship, or in other words that you become like the idols to which you devote your worship -- assuming, of course, that you are not worshiping the true God. Beale argues that if you are worshiping an idol, you will become like them: you will be hardhearted; you will have eyes, but not be able to see; you will have ears, but will not be able to hear; you will be hardheaded and foolish as well.

In his opening remarks, Beale speaks of the call of God to Isaiah as recorded in Isaiah 6. Isaiah is told to make the ears of the people dull, and their eyes dim, and their hearts hard; lest they hear with their ears and see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and return to the Lord and be healed. Beale assesses that the reason for the pronouncement of judgment of God upon the people was their many years of idolatry, their refusal to worship the Lord God alone, their perpetual turning to the gods of the other nations, and their worship of wealth, influence and power.

I may be adding a bit to Beale in this assessment, as I have only complete a chapter or so  of his work. But I can see the direction in which he is going. Beale argues, I think, that the idol comes first, then the progressing conformation into its image. I have to wonder if it might be the other way around. Could it be that the idol is the projection of our own hearts? Could it be that the reason why our hearts are hard, our ears dull, our eyes closed, our head empty is because our idol is actually ourselves? After all, what meaning and what conception do we pour into our idol? Is it not the conception of the Ultimate that exists already in our own minds?

The average person does not hear very well. We do not listen. We hear, but we do not understand. We do not even try to understand; rather we judge. We have our rebuttal on our tongue long before the other person is finished. And we wait, anxiously, for our turn to come, so that we can spout off with the "wise-crack" of sardonic depreciation. We generally cannot see any farther than the end of our nose. We are great at looking down the nose, but we don't open our eyes and look up very often. Our brain is so often closed -- especially those who are would argue that they are open-minded; these are some of the most close-minded of all. Generally this means that they have closed their eyes to the truth, and they have their eyelids screwed shut.

Christians are no better than others. It is the result of our limited view, our short-sighted vision, our relative deafness to that which we cannot understand. Beale assesses it quite well as idolatry, the worship of ourselves, the worship of what we have formed and shaped with our own hands.

The Scripture scoffs at our humanity. We cut down the tree, we chop it up into pieces. With one piece we make a fire to stay warm. With another we build our houses. With the third piece we form out a god, overlay it with gold, place in its hand precious jewels; and then we bow down to it in worship, and say, "I thank you, O my father, that you made me as outstanding and wise as I am!"

This perhaps characterizes the rebellious better than anything else in the book. Hardhearted, just like the tree trunk itself. Or worse yet, rotten to the core, totally empty and entire devoid of life inside. Foolish, and yet ever so wise; seeing the "truth," and yet not perceiving reality. Listening to all the wrong voices, and filling their empty-headed minds with the vain philosophies of other warped humans.

The saddest thing is that so often this is a description of even myself. Wise in my own vain conceits. At least by the grace of God I can see it. At least by the grace of God I sense the deafness deep in my soul. Speak to me, Voice of God. Open my ears let me hear. Show  me, Lord God, the beautiful things in Your word. Soften my heart, Lord God; break up the hard, fallow ground. And help me to feel, and teach me to love. And, please, make my heart just a bit less rebellious.

Responsibilities of Authority

Before I move on from the subject of authority and rebellion, submission and obedience, it is necessary to cover another aspect of authority, and that is its responsibilities. With authority comes responsibility. With responsibility comes accountability as well.

Thisoldman, in a comment to one of my posts, argued (I think) that authority must keep within the boundaries of the will of God or that authority is null and void; "it returns to the God who has given it." While in a sense this may be actually correct, I do not think it works well in a fallen society where authority is most always at least a little corrupted.

However, authority should be just. It should at least make an attempt to be righteous -- perhaps realizing all the time that it is possible for it to fall short. There should be no favoritism, no picking of favorites, no choosing of winners and losers. In reality, this is hard to do. We know that government authorities pick the winners and losers, at least to a certain degree. And all authority will, for authority sets parameters for living, or for working, or for citizenship, etc. To the degree one complies, one will win; to the degree one refuses to comply and rebels, one will face more and more authoritarian resistance.

But there are other responsibilities as well. A major one would be care and concern for the ones who are under authority. In the home we would call this love. In the community, or in the workplace, perhaps we would call this support. Care and concern could include things like concerns for safety, for making sure that the employee is properly trained and equipped for the job. My personal quibble with my employer highlights another, and that is that there should be clear boundaries of authority, one shouldn't be put into a place where in order to obey one authority he or she is force to be out of compliance with another.

In the home, security is a responsibility. One could also mention stability. A home should be a safe place, a place where there is sufficient supply of personal and physical needs. There should also be some sort of emotional stability: people should be who they are. Parental authority is to shape the children in the home; but any parent who has had more than one child to parent knows that each child must be dealt with as they are, for children are not cookie-cutters, and every child is different.

I have talked about training and teaching above, this is also important in the home. There should be proper guidance as to how to complete a task: what is the chore that needs to be done, and how is the one under authority to go about accomplishing the mission? The authority is also responsible to provide advice, support, necessary materials, and a helping hand as well if that helping hand is particularly needed.

Authority should also be grounded in honesty and integrity. It should seek the true well-being of the one who is under is care. It should not be manipulative or underhanded; it should make its purpose and its mission clear. Authority is also responsible for structure and order and the reduction of chaos. This is quite difficult if those under authority are characteristically and persistently resistant. It is perhaps this last responsibility that is most difficult to establish in the home, where the boundaries are consistently tested, and where there are tremendous pressures to negotiate, compromise, and where attempts are persistently made to obfuscate parental authority and boundaries.

Much of the way that an organization functions will be determined by those who are in authority, by those who have the positions of power. The success or the failure of the organization is often attributed to how well the operation is managed. Poor management often is linked to poor performance.

There is much more to say on this subject; I have only touched the tip of the iceberg. I will be anticipating your responses, should you be willing to give them.

Characteristics of Obedience

M. Lynch's comment of a few days ago got me to pondering obedience and what characterizes the obedient heart or the obedient person. My research into the Hebrew brought back to me something that I had pondered before, but had never followed through to a conclusion. That is, that in both Hebrew and Greek, the concept of obedience is connected with hearing and with listening, and by implication, then once having fully heard, putting what is heard into practice.

If I am correct about authority, and that authority is conveyed in the word of command, then obedience would be listening, and hearing the command, and complying with it. If the word is not a command, but simply instruction, or teaching, or training, then listening would be allowing that teaching, or training, or instruction to become manifest in one's life, or in one's work. For example, we have what is called Mastery Training where I work, and we watch training videos on everything from driving a truck around corners to braking the truck to workplace safety. It is assumed that we will put this training into practice in our workplace, and that the workplace will be better as a result of the additional instruction.

In my Bible reading this morning I was reading through Jeremiah 17. Verses 19 - 23 include God's call to Jeremiah to go and to stand in the public gate through which the king of Judah go in and out and to carry God's command to the people that no burden was to be carried in through those gates on the Sabbath day. Presumably, Jeremiah did as he was instruction, and thus he heard the command of God and did what he was told. But the people were not as willing to hear as Jeremiah; for in verse 23 we read the following: Yet they did not listen or incline their ears, but stiffened their necks in order not to hear or take correction.

We have heard of a stiff-necked or a stubborn person before. Did you know that the imagery here is that the neck is stiff because it will not bend down to listen and pay attention to instruction? Correct listening is to bend the neck, to incline the ear, to pay attention, sort of like we do when one is telling a secret, and whispering something into another person's ear. The children of Israel, however, refused to be instructed, refused to take correction; they refused to bend down the ear. And thus they were disobedient, and refused to do all that the Lord had commanded.

God continues through Jeremiah in verse 24, "But it will come about, if you listen attentively to Me . . . then there will come in through the gates of this city kings and princes sitting on the throne of David . . . . And then verse 27 But if you do not listen to Me . . . then I will kindle a fire in [these] gates and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem and will not be quenched."

Thus, listening in this passage is not completed until that which was heard was put into practice. This is Biblical obedience. The rebellious heart will not listen, will not be trained, and has stiffened its neck in an outright refusal to listen or to be trained. This is what is happening day after day in our society in this present day, and boy, are we reaping the whirlwind. We have a generation out of control because they have never listened, nor are they obeying, nor are they putting parental instruction into practice.

But I am also noticing from some of these posts that parents no longer believe that they can do any instruction in confidence. They are not allowed to be firm, to be insistent, to help that child listen better and more accurately, or to enforce any kind of obedience. There is almost the idea that to do so constitutes abuse, that it constitutes a violation of the child's personhood, that a parent's job is to allow the inner person of the child to come out without any intervention and without any corrective instruction or disciplinary action.

However, the Hebrew word that is translated correction -- they stiffened their necks so as to not take correction -- implies both punishment and teaching and training. It is used in the Scripture with the meaning of chastening, discipline, and rebuke, as well as for positive reinforcement, such as teaching and training. Thus, parents need to do both. Interestingly enough, employers do both, government officials do both; why should not parents do both of these also?

I submit to you readers that one of reasons for the chaos in society is that parents are far too timid and passive in their role in administering discipline and correction. Note God's attitude above: If you listen . . . then kings and princes will come in these gates sitting on the throne of David (a good thing!); but if you do not listen to Me . . . I will kindle a fire in these gates and it will devour the palaces of Jerusalem. God believes in punitive discipline and He used it in addition to teaching and instruction. Parents today should use it as well if they want to have any chance of causing their children to listen.

The Power of the Word of Authority

So, I have been puzzling over this passage for nearly 12 years.The story is found in two places, in Matthew 8:5-10 and Luke 7:1-10. It is the story of a centurion, a Roman military commander of 100 soldiers, who comes to Jesus concerned about his servant who is lying at home paralyzed and deeply tormented. Jesus says to the man, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, "Go!" and he goes, and to another, "Come!" and he comes, and to my slave, "Do this!" and he does it." And Jesus marvels at this, and he responds to the centurion -- and this is what I have not understood -- "Truly I say to you, I have never found such great faith, no, not even in Israel."

And so what is it about this story that demonstrates great faith? What is the connection between an understanding of authority and great faith? I have puzzled over it and wondered. I had noticed the sense of unworthiness, and for a while I thought that this was the key to the great faith, that one needs to realize that thy are unworthy of Jesus' compassion and sympathy, that they must come to the understanding that one must recognize their unworthiness before they can truly receive anything from Jesus. But that did not explain this authority issue. What was the connection between the command of the centurion, and his understanding of authority? And what did the centurion mean when he said that he was a man under authority? And, once again, what does authority have to do with faith?

Well, the other day, I think I figured it out. It is understanding the power and authority of the spoken word. Great faith is found in understanding the nature of authority, that it is carried in the word of the one in authority, which in this case was Jesus, and that which is under his authority is everything in the entire, created universe. I had heard this stated in euphemisms such as , "his word goes," "we will have to see whose word will carry the day," and "he is the one who has the final say in the matter." But it has never connected with me -- and now I say to myself, "No, duh!" -- that the power of authority is in the spoken word, in the command. That is all that matters, that is all that needs to be said.

I immediately got to thinking that this is how God -- and Jesus -- exercised their authority. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. He spoke and it was done. Jesus calmed the storm by His word, He healed the sick by His word, He raised the dead by His word, He cast out demons by His word. That is all that was needed. He spoke and it was done. And that is what demonstrated great faith in the centurion, he understood this, and he knew where he fell in the authority struggle. He was a man under authority, carrying it, and administering it by the power of his word; but his authority was limited, and so he went to the One who had the authority over his situation and problem.

We have raised six children, and how I wish now that I had understood this 20 some years ago. There is no need to reason with children. There is no reason to negotiate. There is no reason to listen to backtalk, to rationalization, to justification of disobedience, to this, that or the other. All that is needed is the power of the word of authority. Usually, after all the struggle, after all the argument, after all the backtalk, after all the defiance, we finally realized this in some fashion, for we would finally end the discussion by saying something like, "I have spoken; now do it." And lo and behold, most often it was done. Not necessarily happily so; but then again, the demons did not go willingly, neither, can we presume, did the sickness and disease. But it had to go, for it was under authority, under the command, and Jesus was (and is) the Sovereign and Supreme Commander of the universe. All things are under His authority, as He is the source of all authority; it all starts with Him -- or with the Father, actually, as even Jesus was a Man under authority. Jesus understand this perfectly, when He states that He did not come to do His own will but the will of the Father.

My wife and I were talking as we went to bed last night about what our home would be like if we could start over, knowing what we know now. We agreed that if we had understood this early on, and put it into practice early on, that there would have been significantly less conflict. There would have been less rebellion. There would have been little, if any, defiance, at least in those early years. But we did not understand; or rather, I did not understand (my wife did much better at this than I did). I simply, when I was parenting, did not think this was fair. Cutting the children off in this way, without listening to them, and to their struggles, seemed to be out of line, to be disrespectful to the child. We had come under the teaching that you have to explain things to children, to help them to understand your adult perspective -- but I see now that they cannot do that, they do not, and cannot understand adult perspective. But they recognize the command, and they recognize they are under authority, and they will obey, and they did, when it finally came down to the "I have spoken."

I recognize now that the reason why I felt that this kind of parenting was wrong was that inwardly I was (and am) a rebel. I have millions of reasons within myself to justify and to explain why it is that I just don't have to obey. But it is interesting, rebellion also manifests itself in words, in defiance, in refusal to listen, in refusal to hear and obey. I had to call my parents the other week and apologize to them for 47 years of rebellion. Never had I really listened, never had I ever submitted, never had I truly learned to obey. And now that this outright rebellion is gone, I do not feel like I have to compromise anymore; I can stand my ground, as I have legitimate and God-given authority in my own home.

And it is amazing. Since it set forth this principle, I can sense a new-found peace. There is peace in understanding authority, and the boundaries, and how things are to be, and in being submissive to that, and not resistant. This is what I found in my workplace as well, to which I have spoken above; when I stopped rebelling, my soul was at peace. I am going to try to live the rest of my life this way; and I trust that I will be able to do so, by God's grace, apart from the rebellion.

A Long Obedience in the Same Direction

This week finds me at a Pastor's Retreat in Russell, Manitoba, Canada. The title of the week has been A Long Obedience in the Right Direction, and the theme has been not only surviving but making the most of the ministry journey. One statistic given is that 90% of pastors burn out, or fall out of ministry, or leave the ministry for greater pay, greater freedom, or some other desire that lies outside of their reach as they fulfill their ministry pursuits. Our seminars have focused on three different topics:

1. Understanding the Pastoral Vocation
2. Surviving the Pastoral Vocation
3. Finishing Strong

It has been well noted that Satan is out to kill and to steal and destroy. He takes great joy is taking down pastors, in destroying ministries, in disrupting churches, and in destroying the minister's family. At times, ministers can play right into his hands. At times, they are set up. At times they become vulnerable and open to attack in a variety of different ways. At every point of the way, ministry is fraught with difficulties, and it is exceedingly painful.

I was struck by a poem which was shared called "The Race." It comes from a book by Steve Farrar, which is entitled "Finishing Strong."  The stanzas reads like this:

Defeat! He lay there silently, a tear dropped from his eye.
"There's no sense running anymore -- 3 strikes, I'm out -- why try?"
The will to rise had disappeared, all hope had fled away,
So far behind, so error prone, closer all the way.
"I've lost, so what's the use," he thought, "I'll live with my disgrace."
And then he thought about his dad who soon he'd have to face.
"Get up," an echo sounded low, "Get up and take your place.
You were not meant for failure here, so get up and win the race."
With borrowed will, "Get up," it said, "You haven't lost at all.
For winning is not more than this -- to rise each time you fall."
So up he rose to win once more, and with a new commit,
He resolved that win or lose, at least he wouldn't quit.
So far behind the others now, the most he'd ever been,
Still he gave it all he had and ran as though to win.
Three times he'd fallen stumbling, three times he rose again.
To far behind to hope to win, he still ran to the end.

They cheered the winning runner as he crossed, first place.
Head high and proud and happy; no falling, no disgrace.
But when the fallen youngster crossed the line, last place,
The crowd gave him a greater cheer for finishing the race.
And even though he came in last, with head bowed down, unproud;
You would have thought he won the race by listening to the crowd.
And this to dad he sadly said, "I didn't do so well."
To me, you won," his father said, "You rose each time you fell."

And now when things seem dark and hard and difficult to face,
The memory of that little boy helps me keep in my race.
For all of life is like that race, with ups and downs and all,
And all you have to do to win is rise each time you fall.
"Quit! Give up! You're beaten!" They still shout in my face;
But another voice within me cries, "Get up and win the race."

This poem was paralleled by the story of John Stephen Akhwari, the Tanzanian Olympic runner of 1968 who suffered a serious fall in the marathon race at the 19 mile mark. Battered and bleeding, with a wounded knee, and a limb out of joint, he awkwardly finished the race. When asked why he endured, he stated to the press, "My country did not send me 5,000 miles to start the race; they sent me 5,000 miles to finish the race."

I know the voices all too well that scream for me to quit.
"Unworthy! Reject! Failure!" It often makes me sick.
So many times my mouth is full of gritty, dirty sand.
To just get up and dust me off? I am not sure that I can stand.
Yet in my head, yes, even now, I hear another voice;
"It's you that I have chosen; yes, you, I've made My choice.
I've gifted and equipped you; I think of you by name,
And it is by My power that I placed you in this game."
And so, back on my feet again, I stumble toward the goal,
That many saints and martyrs marked out long ago.

The last stanza I have written; it shall be my refrain
Until I hear from Heaven, until He calls my name.
I've come too far to turn back now; my steps, they keep the pace.
It doesn't matter any more; I'm almost beyond disgrace.
For its by grace that I must run; I already don't deserve,
To pass this blessed torch along; it's not a merit I have earned.
I run 'cause Jesus gave it all, yes all that He could give, 
To not only keep me in the race, but so that I might live!

And so to "Long Obedience," I say, "I'll make my stand 
Until I cross the finish line, across the golden strand."
That is where I'll take my rest; I'll lay my burden down;
And that is where, at Jesus' feet, one day I'll cast my crown.
That's when this race of stumbling will finally be run.
That's when the Voice of Heaven will say to me, "Well done!"

**Last three stanzas written by Keith A. Needham January 2013

Thoughts on Desire and Consumption

I have been reading a book over the past couple of weeks which has been intriguing. It is called Christ: The Eternal Tao by Hieromonk Damascene. Damascene is an Eastern Orthodox monk who has made his home in both California and Alaska. The book is an apologetic to Taoism, which, if I am not mistaken, is closely related to Buddhism. This book sets forth the Gospel to the Taoist mind, specifically to those who have been captivated by the ancient wisdom of a man called Lao Tzu.

I am completely ignorant of the writings of Lao Tzu; and I have been only marginally familiar with either Eastern Catholicism or Taoism. I have been informed that the Buddhist -- and perhaps also the Taoist? -- strives for Nirvana, which I had always heard described as the "state of perfect nothingness." According to Damascene, nothingness is not to be conceived in the Western sense, as cessation of existence; rather, it is more subtle than that, and could be referred to more accurately as selflessness, or as self-emptying, or what I would call complete and total self-denial. H. Damascene calls it a return to a "pristine simplicity," to a truly childlike heart and mind, to the state of the spirit prior to the fall, to the place where the spirit's sole focus is God and the indwelling reality of His Logos, or the reality of His uncreated Word.

I have not yet finished the book; but I am being challenged by it a bit. The way of return to the simplified state is the cessation of all false desire. It is the cessation of all striving to be God, or to play God, or to set oneself up as God, or to somehow manipulate and / or connive, or to arrange circumstances in order to realize the agenda of God. The way back is repentance, it is the acceptance of suffering, it is learning through suffering to give up our own self-worship and our pursuit of our own desires. This would include our pursuit for self-gratification, for pleasure, for materialistic attainment, or for any other means or mechanisms by which the self rules over the spirit, which, in the Eastern mind is the means of ascent toward God.

This is the way of the mystic. In my way of thinking, it is the way of mind over matter. Damascene might actually argue that it is the way of the cessation of the mind; the whole world of perpetual thinking, with its many distracted and conflicted thoughts is part of our bondage, it is part of the rebellion which rules us, and which keeps us from the Way, or the Tao, or in the mind of Damascene, it keeps us from the Way of the Christ, who is the Tao born into this world as a human.

I do not even pretend to understand the Eastern mind. Yet, I fully understand the world of thought, with all it distractions, and its contradictions. And Damascene is right; it is this world of thought which forms the basis for the world of struggle, for the world of rebellion, of manipulation and conniving, of self-ascendancy, of self-assertion, of avarice, and of greed. Damascene's writing prompts this question: how well do we Westerns actually rule over ourselves? Or are we actually ruled over by our desires, by our lusts, and by our grandiose self-assertions? I would suggest that we are; in fact, the more that I think about it, this might be a part of the essence of what the Bible means which it that we are held in bondage by our lusts, or when it says that we are slaves to sin.

One of my final Seminary papers was written on the subject of desire. I proposed that the root of original sin was desire. I found an affinity here, in the writing of H. Damascene. Desire propels me out to where I should not go, past the barriers, past the boundaries, into the sea of myself, where I am master and where I alone am the king. And while I do not see the solution to this dilemma in the cessation of desire, but rather in the cultivation of godly desires; I am convicted by the writing of Damascene as I do think that the Eastern mind understands something that the Western mind tends to overlook.

This factors into this discussion of authority and rebellion. How much of the goal of our desires pushes us out beyond the boundaries of where authority would have us to go? I mentioned above that the rebel is never satisfied, that he will not stop at the overthrow of the restriction, but will try at a later date to overthrown the new restriction as well. That is because in the soul there is a thirst which can never be filled, until of course, one drinks from the fountain of an everlasting supply, that fountain which we know to be the Lord Jesus Christ.

A doctor friend of mine put it this way. We are consumers by nature; and we will perpetually consume until we run out of options and are forced to turn in on the self. He stated that in much of his practice, self-consumption would be the correct diagnosis. It is interesting that so many of the diagnoses that doctors prefer now were once lumped together under the head of "consumption." If consumption is the unending desire and quest for "somethingness," then, perhaps nothingness is an adequate goal for return.

Suffice it to say that there is a restless creature inside all of us which is perpetually attempting to bring us into its grasp and its clutches. Freedom from the monster only lies in the Lord Jesus Christ who was attacked by this monster Himself, but wrestled it right to the ground. In His death, He triumphed over it, nailing it to the cross, and rising again for our liberty and justification. In Taoism, it is the Tao that is present which will set one free. H. Damascene argues that the Tao of the Taoist is actually the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Dynamic Energy personalized, the Dynamic Energy of God which sets people free. I shall read to the end of the book and see where it goes. Perhaps the Eastern mindset through the eyes of the Eastern Church will one day make more sense to me.

The Nature of Submission

My wife made a statement a few years ago which it has taken quite some time for me to understand. She said, "Submission is not submission unless you think that the authority to which you are submitting is wrong." I think my first response was, "Well, if the authority is wrong, then how can you submit?" And this is what we think, that somehow authority is to be called into our judgment, and that we have the responsibility to determine when, where, and how we are actually going to submit to authority.

This gets a bit complicated, so let me try to explain. I am currently in a situation where I am under two separate authority figures. One is the law of the country -- in this case, specifically the state. The other is my employer, who has one particular policy which I believe to be illegal and irresponsible. If I comply with the company policy, I am out of step with the authorities. If I comply with the authorities, I will lose my job, and hence my income, and hence my family stability. What do I do? How do I comply and show proper submission to proper authority?

I have to admit that for much of the time of my employment I have lived in a state of resentment. I have argued in my own mind, "This is unfair. It is not right that they should put me in such a position." I have protested out loud; I have made snide and sarcastic comments, oblique statements, veiled complaints, and struggled to maintain a positive attitude in my surroundings -- with very little success, I might add.

This past year, however, I decided upon a new tack. I decided to submit to the immediate authority over me, which is my employer, and I would leave the company for whom I work to be accountable to the law. And I decided that I will just drive; I will not worry about any other consideration. This is what I was hired to do anyway: I was not hired to think, neither was I was not hired to bring the company into compliance with the law, nor was I hired to make any management decisions or authorizations. I was simply hired to drive where they want me to drive and to haul what they instruct me to haul. That is the totality of my responsibility, and that is the limit to my authority.

Surprise, surprise, my attitude was gone! The anger was gone. The frustration was significantly diminished. I actually began to enjoy my job and my surroundings. I began to enjoy working with my co-drivers and fellow employees. It was as if the whole world had changed. This is when I realized something: either my employer will rule over me, or I will try to rule over my employer. Either I will try to rule, to be in charge, to dictate something to somebody, or I will submit and listen and obey and do what I am told at the time that I am told to do so. There does not seem to be any middle ground; it is either usurped authority or submission.

Back to my original statement, which is actually my wife's, which was Elizabeth Elliot's before her. Submission is only truly submission when the authority figure is wrong. When you judge that authority, sit over it in criticism, or try to hold that authority subject to your proclivities, so that in reality you are making the decisions rather than they; that is the position of rebellion, of resistance to the authority. But when you lower yourself and humbly submit to the authority, even if it is wrong, that is when you find peace and fulness of joy. What do you think? I am looking forward to hearing your responses.

The Manifestation of Rebellion

I remember a comment that my brother made to me several years ago, "Usurped authority can never rest." We had become involved with a rebel who had thought himself to hold supreme authority over the church. He did not rest, and neither could we, for he stirred up the waters, perpetuating a ride on a very rough sea. At the end we were decimated, distressed, destroyed, discombobulated. I was forced out of the church; it was one of the most painful experiences in my life.

This painful story illustrates how rebellion seems to manifest itself. It shows itself in turmoil, in a cauldron of trouble. It never rests. Peter describes rebels as "springs without water and mists driven about by the storm." Jude describes them as "clouds without water, and as wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam, and as wandering stars for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever." Both Peter and Jude state that they are driven on by instinct like unreasonable animals which are only fit to be captured and killed. There is, then, an inner propulsion which rules the rebel, which drives him on, which pushes him past the boundaries, past those things which usually serve the constrain the self-will of the greater majority.

I have found that these people often have difficulty sitting still. They get antsy; they are perpetual balls of energy; they are restless. They are often discontent, often out of sorts with their surroundings; usually they are testy, sometimes they are outright defiant. They complain often and whine and moan about everything. They are cynics; they are sarcastic and caustic and snide. The children of Israel in the wilderness were rebels. The first evidence was complaining, interestingly enough, against the authority figure -- against Moses, though in actuality, their true complaints were against God.

Rebels have difficulty settling down and being responsible. They often have  difficulty holding down a job; they may do poorly in school. Certainly not everyone who struggles with life, with school and job is rebellious; however, rebellion is a diagnosis that is often overlooked, as rebellion is not recognized within our Western culture.

One other thing that I have found is that rebels often attract to themselves other rebels as well. Even when not directly affected, the rebel has to rise up to defend the rebellion of somebody else. Whenever authority lifts up its head -- either by rule of law, or by the application of force -- the rebel is sure to get angry. The anger will push against the authority, and it will often turn into a rage. This happens especially when the authority does not back down or compromise or negotiate or seek for some other kind of consensus.

Rebellion wants to live outside of any and every restraint. It masks itself as liberty when in fact it seeks license, or the ability to set its own bounds. It declines responsibility and rejects accountability and / or moderation. It foments division as well; unity and order constrain it too much, forcing it into a box from which it demands to break out. Though, at times, the rebel can perhaps be constrained for some time; but then, all of a sudden, it will breakout, in an angry or out-of-control incident, often leaving people mystified and amazed as the result, as it will look apparently out of character until after a more full investigation of the character of the rebel is conducted.

Our present society is being formed and fashioned by rebels. People looking for change, for "liberty," for license, for changes in laws, moral codes, social standings, and whatever other order exists within a society. Rebellion lies at the heart of the present quest to reconstruct society according to our own liking. And it is never satisfied; no structure is ever respected. Even laws once favored and passed will eventually be attacked again as restrictive. It is like a drunk on a binge; the rebel is consumed by his lusts, and when there is nothing left to consume, he will simply turn on himself, and begin to consume his own innards.

I believe that the root of rebellion must be identified and excised if the rebel is to be at peace. I am finding this in my own life: the more rebellion and conflict and striving and struggle that I get rid of the more peace I find in my soul. I have perpetually been moving, searching for contentment; I have driven on under the impression that I just might find contentment one day. Yet, no matter how much I search, I can't find it; and no matter how hard I strive, I find that I never attain.

There remains a rest for the people of God, or so says the writer of Hebrews. Could that rest be what would naturally come if we finally gave up our rebellion? I have begun to believe that it is, at least in a partial form, recognizing, however, that the complete fulfillment of the rest lies not in this life but in the next. We enter into that rest by faith, according to Hebrews; hence, faith must be the antithesis to our rebellion.

The Nature of Authority and Rebellion

I have been doing a great deal of thinking about the nature of authority over the past several years. At the present time I am doing some intense learning, some challenging and painful learning. Part of this is coming as a father, as a person in authority. The other part of learning is as an employee, as a person under authority. Each has been particularly painful, though in different ways. As an employee, I have learned that being under authority means that you have little to no input or say. As a father, I am learning that I can have too much say, that I can overstep the nature of this thing called authority.

Failure to submit to authority is that which has been called rebellion. I was asked last night, "What is rebellion?" Good question. My reply was something like, "When one refuses to obey, or seeks to dodge, or is outright defiant to authority." But all that assumes that one can define authority. What is authority, where does it come from, and how does it transfer to individuals, and how does one know if one is over or under?

So here is my current thesis when it comes to the nature of authority. Authority has an ultimate source; and I think that the source of authority is God. God gives this authority to various individuals holding various positions in society. The Scripture says that we are to obey our civil authorities for the Lord's sake, or ultimately, because that is what is required to be in obedience to God. In the family, the children are to obey their parents, once again for the Lord's sake, or once again, in order to be in obedience to God.

My children, however, struggle with the conundrum, "So what happens when I believe that God is telling me something other than you?" "Who do I obey?" "And what do I do with the passage that says that I am to obey God rather than obeying human authority?"

The specific issue was Youth Group. The conviction the child had was that I had taught them that they should be in church every time the church doors were open. But then as a punishment -- because this particular child actually enjoys going -- I told the child that there would be no Youth Group this Wednesday. Well now then, came the question, "Who do I obey, God or you?" My conviction is what you have taught me, to be in church when the church doors are open. And yet you have forbidden that; now I am in a conundrum.

My explanation to my child is that their only command in the matter is that children are to obey their parents in the Lord. This is the only command to them specifically, as children, in relationship to their parents. There was no command being given by the parent which was specifically against the expressed law of God. If there was a command to steal, to sell one's body on the street, or to murder another child's parents, or something like that, where there was clear violation of the law of God, then one would have to obey God. But short of that, the command was to obey the parent. Therefore, despite the conviction of the child, the parent's command must be obeyed. And that was because God has channeled His authority in this case to the parent, and not to the child; thus the parent was in authority, whereas the child was under.

My wife has told me that she has struggled with this as well. What does Biblical authority look like when dealing with husbands and wives? Well, this is a hot one, and I am sure that this answer will generate some differing opinions. But here is my wife's dilemma: what do I do when I know that your leading is disastrous and your decision are just flat out wrong?

Now if you knew me, you would know that I make no mistakes. My wife, however, who knows me better than anyone, simply has not found that out. But what does she do? My answer would be that the command to her in this position is that she is to submit to her husband, even if her husband is wrong(which, in truth, he often is) -- AS LONG AS that command is not in specific violation of her higher law, which in this case would be the law of God. (Yikes! I can hear it. You dictator you; how can you be so obscurantist?!?)

I have to admit that my opinion here is formed by my military experience. As a soldier, and a Private, I was under authority. My job was simply to obey orders. "Jump!" "How high, Sergeant?" It didn't matter if I liked it, if I thought it was smart, if I thought it was wise, if I thought it would be successful; no, I was to obey. If there was a problem with the command, that was not my concern, unless it was in direct violation of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

If the command was uncalled for, my Sergeant, or my Commander took the rap. If it came from above, at the Battalion Level, then the Battalion Commander took the rap. I was not responsible for the outcome, only for the obedience rendered. If the whole thing went wrong, well, so be it. It wasn't my responsibility, for I was not the one in authority.

I wonder if this is how authority and obedience should be understood and exercised and rendered. Two Biblical stories lead me to this opine. First, the story of the Centurian who came to Jesus and ask for a healing for his servant, and told Jesus that he did not even have to come to his house. He said that he was under authority, that he says to this one and he comes, and to this one and he goes. And Jesus said, "Sir, you are not far from the kingdom of heaven."

The other story comes from the life of Jesus Himself. Jesus has stayed behind with the teachers and scribes in the temple. His parents have gone down the road, couldn't find him in their company, and are not back in the temple to confront their insensitive Son -- if I can tie the word insensitive to Jesus.  Jesus says, "Did you not know that I would be about the Father's business?" Jesus felt the need to be obeying His Father and fulfilling His mission. But that does not appear to sit well with Mary and Joe; for He goes with them, returns home to Nazareth, and is subject to them until He is apparently freed up by them some 18 years later.

Jesus was given His mission by Almighty God. He was Almighty God; and yet He learned obedience in all that He suffered. We will never fully understand; but I think His example helps us to see the limits of Biblical submission. As a child, He was under His parents authority; and thus His divine mission would have to put off until Mary and Joe say ok. Well, better stop. Let me know what you think.