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.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
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:
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
- Understanding the Pastoral Vocation
- Surviving the Pastoral Vocation
- Finishing Strong
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
Monday, January 7, 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.
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.
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.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)