Recently, my wife and I were having a conversation with some friends about marriage, particularly the passage in the book of Ephesians referring to the respective roles of husbands and wives (5:22-33). We were commenting on the metaphor that the apostle Paul employs: the human body. He says that wives are to submit to their own husbands, "as to the Lord", because the husband is her head just as Christ is the head of the church. He also says that husbands are to give themselves up for their wives "as Christ does" for the church and that this giving up of himself is how he loves her.
Now, let me ask you a question: When was the last time you shoved your hand into a fire for fun? Or, when did you last sit at the kitchen table wishing your hand would finally "get its act together" and pick up the fork to start feeding you? These are the kind of absurdities that came to mind during this conversation. When Paul says that wives are like bodies and husbands are like heads, he's pointing out, among other things, the absurd nature of sin: whoever heard of a foot that rebelled against what the head wanted? Or, of a leg "unwilling" to follow the direction of the brain? Husbands who love their wives as they were meant to don't ask their wives to do things that are destructive, harmful, and belittling to either themselves or their husbands. In fact, they are willing to hazard such dangers themselves before exposing their wives to such destructive potential. It's the difference between a man reaching into a fire to save, and a man reaching into a fire because he likes to watch flesh burn. Only an idiot and a fool does the latter, while only a loving hero risks losing his hand for the sake of another. And it is not hard to follow such a man gladly.
BHT
13 February 2012
03 October 2011
Driscoll and Wilson on Spiritual Gifts and Intepreting Strange Happenings
Driscoll and Wilson on Spiritual Gifts and Intepreting Strange Happenings
Two classy men having an ejoyable and honest discussion. As always, this is the kind of stuff I love to hear, and even be around whenever possible.
BHT
Two classy men having an ejoyable and honest discussion. As always, this is the kind of stuff I love to hear, and even be around whenever possible.
BHT
20 September 2011
Spinning Into Control
I was minding my own business today when a thought invaded, arrested, and held hostage my mind. It was let loose by a memory I have had for years of something a pastor said regarding those "old time Arminians". If memory serves, he went on to say (as if commending even such Arminians as John Wesley) that "they cared about God" in contrast to so many Evangelicals (of an Arminian stripe) who apparently seem not to. And then my thought came: what if, somehow, I were to find the sermon or message in which that comment was made and (if I had such a platform and audience online) I were then to post it, with comment, and decry such "sectarian", "divisive", "dogmatic", and even "unloving" words? I'm sure I could start quite a firestorm, especially if the comments were made by a high-profile figure and were a long time ago (so as to sound even more unguarded)!
But this seems increasingly to me to come precariously close to assuming a role that is not rightfully ours. In Matt. 12:36, 37 we read that Jesus said, "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Now, it's not clear exactly who will be doing this judging, but I think it's safe to say that Jesus does not intend to leave open the option of letting one of us fill that apparent vacancy. More importantly, though, is the trend I see in political punditry and celebrity blogging (whether of evangelicals, pop-singers, actors, or politicians of a sort) when it comes to what Sarah Palin has so eloquently labelled as "gotcha" questions or moments. It seems that one's opponents spare no expense these days not only in digging up dirt from one's past but in finding it in this mornings news interview before the words even hit the ears of most Americans (who don't make a living off watching internet websites). This seems to be one of the many ways in which we've usurped God's rightful role as judge of our words.
We ought to be mindful of what we say, but let's be honest: how much of what is called "fact-checking" or "due-diligence" is nothing more than an uncharitable effort to sabotage one's opponent simply because his or her comments can successfully be spun to one's own advantage? If Jesus is right, then the opponent who disagrees with me and is trying to "bring me down" is not the one my anxious thoughts ought to focus one: I ought to be a bit more concerned with what the God of all creation heard me say; and, no, He doesn't spin. He doesn't need to.
BHT
But this seems increasingly to me to come precariously close to assuming a role that is not rightfully ours. In Matt. 12:36, 37 we read that Jesus said, "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Now, it's not clear exactly who will be doing this judging, but I think it's safe to say that Jesus does not intend to leave open the option of letting one of us fill that apparent vacancy. More importantly, though, is the trend I see in political punditry and celebrity blogging (whether of evangelicals, pop-singers, actors, or politicians of a sort) when it comes to what Sarah Palin has so eloquently labelled as "gotcha" questions or moments. It seems that one's opponents spare no expense these days not only in digging up dirt from one's past but in finding it in this mornings news interview before the words even hit the ears of most Americans (who don't make a living off watching internet websites). This seems to be one of the many ways in which we've usurped God's rightful role as judge of our words.
We ought to be mindful of what we say, but let's be honest: how much of what is called "fact-checking" or "due-diligence" is nothing more than an uncharitable effort to sabotage one's opponent simply because his or her comments can successfully be spun to one's own advantage? If Jesus is right, then the opponent who disagrees with me and is trying to "bring me down" is not the one my anxious thoughts ought to focus one: I ought to be a bit more concerned with what the God of all creation heard me say; and, no, He doesn't spin. He doesn't need to.
BHT
02 July 2011
There Are Two Ways To Get You To Do What I Want
When it comes downt to it, there are two ways to get people to do things: by word or by deed. Or, to put it another way, I can ask you to do something or I can make you do something. This lesson is particularly a good one to learn as a child (I have no particular age in mind here, but the sooner the better, for both parent and child). The first time this truth arose in our home was when one of my sons had been ignoring the verbal pleas of my other son to "please stop" whatever it was that he was doing. After an exasperating few minutes, the offended son approached me to settle the dispute. When I confronted the offending son, our conversation quickly turned to what this kind of foolish negligence on his part will lead. Today, his brother; tomorrow, his friend; the next day, someone not so friendly who won't ask you twice. And there's the rub.
To be sure, this is only one side of the equation: other people ought neither to ask nor compell us to do things that are either wrong or against our conscience. However, that's for another post (well, series of posts really). Scripture says, "As far as it depend on you, be at peace with all men." Part of what this means is, "Don't ignore people when they speak to you," particularly if it's neither illegal nor immoral. Of course, it goes without saying (or does it?) that we are always free to turn down a request, to acquiesce, to decline, etc. But the point is, "Don't ignore people."
Now, merely acknowledging people doesn't guarantee peace; the other person might not like the way you choose to acknowledge them. But what will ensure hostility is prolonged negligence: nothing infuriates people more than being ignored when it's clear to everyone, especially them, that they are being ignored.
And this brings us to my point to my son. My efforts to train him to acknowledge his brother at the age of 8 (whether 'yea' or 'nay') is to prevent him from being beaten to a pulp someday by someone he's chosen to ignore, whether by fear, indifference, malice, or ignorance. This is not necessarily the same as cowering through life in fear of offending people. It is, on the other hand, at the heart of giving respect to other human beings made in the image of God. Whether we use speech and language rightly (as in, "Please pass the salt") or wrongly (as in, "Give me the salt, you blockhead!"), we are speaking; we are exercising part of our divine image-bearing essence. To communicate is to be like God. Whether we do it rightly or not is a function of our soul's relation to God: if we are born again, our speech may be holy speech; if we are not, it is fallen speech. Either way, though, we are imaging forth what God does: communicate himself to others.
In the end, I want my son to be trained in the habits of respect and dignity: answer people when they speak to you. Decline their offers or requests if you like and if it's right, but do not ignore them.
To be sure, this is only one side of the equation: other people ought neither to ask nor compell us to do things that are either wrong or against our conscience. However, that's for another post (well, series of posts really). Scripture says, "As far as it depend on you, be at peace with all men." Part of what this means is, "Don't ignore people when they speak to you," particularly if it's neither illegal nor immoral. Of course, it goes without saying (or does it?) that we are always free to turn down a request, to acquiesce, to decline, etc. But the point is, "Don't ignore people."
Now, merely acknowledging people doesn't guarantee peace; the other person might not like the way you choose to acknowledge them. But what will ensure hostility is prolonged negligence: nothing infuriates people more than being ignored when it's clear to everyone, especially them, that they are being ignored.
And this brings us to my point to my son. My efforts to train him to acknowledge his brother at the age of 8 (whether 'yea' or 'nay') is to prevent him from being beaten to a pulp someday by someone he's chosen to ignore, whether by fear, indifference, malice, or ignorance. This is not necessarily the same as cowering through life in fear of offending people. It is, on the other hand, at the heart of giving respect to other human beings made in the image of God. Whether we use speech and language rightly (as in, "Please pass the salt") or wrongly (as in, "Give me the salt, you blockhead!"), we are speaking; we are exercising part of our divine image-bearing essence. To communicate is to be like God. Whether we do it rightly or not is a function of our soul's relation to God: if we are born again, our speech may be holy speech; if we are not, it is fallen speech. Either way, though, we are imaging forth what God does: communicate himself to others.
In the end, I want my son to be trained in the habits of respect and dignity: answer people when they speak to you. Decline their offers or requests if you like and if it's right, but do not ignore them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)