March 23, 2011: Reverence
In George MacDonald's The Musician's Quest, 14-year-old Robert Falconer finds a violin in his attic and brings it to a local shoemaker who knows how to play. The poor man had pawned his own violin a year earlier and had not touched one in a while. But as Dooble Sanny began to play a tune on the attic fiddle, young Robert, enraptured, resolved to become a musician himself. MacDonald writes,
What added considerably to the excitement of his feelings was the expression of reverence and awe with which the shoemaker took the instrument from its case, and the tenderness with which he handled it...The moment he began to play, the face of the shoemaker grew ecstatic. He stopped at the very first note, let his arms fall, one with the bow and the other with the violin, at his sides and exclaimed solemnly, "The creature must be a Straddle Various at least! Listen to her! I have never had such a combination of wood and catgut between my fingers before."
As to its being a Stradivarius, the testimony of Dooble Sanny was not worth much. But the shoemaker's admiration roused in the boy's mind a reverence for the individual instrument which he never lost.
The reader cherishes the hope that Robert, inspired by reverence, would go on to become a conduit of that same feeling in the hearts of others. Good reverence begets more. Seeds of reverence find fertile soil in the hearts of good people who want to be awed.
I believe that all of us who make it our business (or accept our calling) to minister the goodness of God to the souls of men must never forget the desire he has placed within them to be overwhelmed by that which is grand and holy. People are tickled by spectacle and stimulated by entertainment, but they are unlikely to be moved unless they revere. They must be moved genuinely, not by contrived attempts to manipulate their emotions but by being allowed to see, through us, quiet glimpses of wonderful things.
A friend who is thinking about going to church regularly told me that last week someone invited him to a giant church in Chicago's western suburbs. He said that they didn't actually go into the sanctuary (or is it stadium?). The church had a cafeteria or restaurant of sorts, and they ate breakfast there as people milled around and shopped and watched a live feed of the worship service on a large screen. The service featured an as-seen-on-TV inspirational speaker and (in honor of St. Patrick's Day) a professional troupe of Irish dancers who kicked up a storm. Glancing at me, my friend said, "I don't imagine that's your kind of thing, is it?"
No, I can't say that it is. Leave aside the question of whether a bacon-and-eggs, Riverdance-and-God approach to worship reflects the kind of corruption that so infuriated Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem (John 2:13-16). Just ask this: how can anybody be drawn into the presence of God in an atmosphere so deliberately casual and carnival? St. Paul wanted first-time visitors to be convicted of sin and fall down and worship, saying "God is truly among you!" (1 Corinthians 14:24-25) - not, "I kind of liked how non-threatening it was, and I must say I really had fun."
But "fun" seems to be the driving force behind many churches today. Note how many times that word appears in the following blurb for a church that recently opened in Naperville:
At Resolution Church, we believe that faith should be fun and relate to everyday life! While adults enjoy our modern worship experience, the children are having fun a few steps away in their very own theater with some of the most creative programming today...So whatever your spiritual background, we invite you to join the fun and explore Christianity at your own pace.
Like Hamlet contemplating Yorick's skull, "my gorge rises" at such a revolting trivialization of Christian faith and fellowship. Concerning fun - which I like as much as the next man - it would be good for all evangelists to remember C. S. Lewis' wise comment in Mere Christianity: "Repentance is no fun at all."
Reverence and awe, not fun and games, provide the right atmosphere for a sinful soul's approach to God. In The Supremacy of God in Preaching, John Piper writes, "I have seen a strange silence begin to come over a congregation and watched the preacher, seemingly intentionally, dispel it quickly with some lighthearted quip or the use of a pun or a witticism" - as though the holy hush of reverential silence were a thing to be ashamed of rather than embraced.
But reverence rightly cultivated opens the soul to receive the benefits of all that is good - whether that be the goodness of violin music or the goodness of God.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
March 19, 2011: Who Is Washing Whose Feet?
Let us suppose that you are in the presence of Jesus and some foot-washing is going on. Understand first that in the ancient Middle East foot-washing was a menial job done by slaves or perhaps by the youngest member of a household. A five-year-old could do it. Independent grown men did not wash one another's feet. It was an act of deference that lesser people did for the benefit of greater people.
So again, you're with Jesus and there is a bucket and a towel handy. Who is washing whose feet? Is he washing yours, or are you washing his?
In John 13 Jesus washed his disciples' feet, and this unusual act of service - Jesus the king taking the role of a slave! - has tempted some proud souls to view Jesus as their foot-washer in chief. I have even heard sermons encouraging people to regard Jesus this way: "If Jesus were here, he'd want to wash your feet." But such rhetoric misses the point of what Jesus did that night.
Consider this: how many times did Jesus wash his disciples' feet? Once. Once only. After his resurrection four days later, he met with his disciples repeatedly and even ate with them, but it is not recorded that he ever washed their feet again. Of course, the notion of them expecting him to do so is preposterous and vile. Imagine Peter meeting Jesus later and exclaiming (while slipping out of sandals and plopping down prone on a mat), "Jesus! Good thing you're here. Boy did I step in some nasty stuff outside. Bucket's in the corner. You'll find a towel in the closet."
When Jesus washed his disciples' feet, he was not, not saying to them, "From now on I want you to view me as your humble servant. Any time you need a good foot-washing, I'm there for you." God forbid. On the contrary, Jesus made his point explicit by saying, "Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you" (John 13:13-15). The lesson was clear: Jesus served his disciples not because he was their servant, but because he wanted them to serve one another.
If you would like to picture yourself in a foot-washing episode with Jesus, the text you want to go to is Luke 7:36-48. There a penitent sinner washed Jesus' feet. While Jesus dined with a Pharisee, a woman "who had lived a sinful life" wet his feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, and poured perfume on them. She grieved her sin and served Jesus with all she had. The Pharisee, on the other hand, didn't even bother providing Jesus with the normal services that should have been done for an honored guest.
The Bible likes to pair up penitent people grieving their sin with impenitent self-righteous snots and declare that only the former are forgiven. For more examples of this theme see the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) and the story of the two men crucified next to Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). Penitent people hate their sin and throw themselves unconditionally at Jesus' feet. The proud, on the other hand - if they relate to Jesus at all - seem to view him as their service-provider. That service need not be foot-washing: it could be a free meal (John 6:26); a miraculous show (Luke 23:8); a manifestation of prophetic insight (Luke 7:39; 22:64); a financial windfall (Luke 12:13); or even a fiery judgment on those who irritate them (Luke 9:54).
View yourself as a servant of Jesus Christ. You're here to honor him, render service to him, do his will rather than wait for him to do yours. Demand nothing of him, but humbly plead his grace. To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, ask not what Jesus can do for you. Ask what you can do for Jesus.
Let us suppose that you are in the presence of Jesus and some foot-washing is going on. Understand first that in the ancient Middle East foot-washing was a menial job done by slaves or perhaps by the youngest member of a household. A five-year-old could do it. Independent grown men did not wash one another's feet. It was an act of deference that lesser people did for the benefit of greater people.
So again, you're with Jesus and there is a bucket and a towel handy. Who is washing whose feet? Is he washing yours, or are you washing his?
In John 13 Jesus washed his disciples' feet, and this unusual act of service - Jesus the king taking the role of a slave! - has tempted some proud souls to view Jesus as their foot-washer in chief. I have even heard sermons encouraging people to regard Jesus this way: "If Jesus were here, he'd want to wash your feet." But such rhetoric misses the point of what Jesus did that night.
Consider this: how many times did Jesus wash his disciples' feet? Once. Once only. After his resurrection four days later, he met with his disciples repeatedly and even ate with them, but it is not recorded that he ever washed their feet again. Of course, the notion of them expecting him to do so is preposterous and vile. Imagine Peter meeting Jesus later and exclaiming (while slipping out of sandals and plopping down prone on a mat), "Jesus! Good thing you're here. Boy did I step in some nasty stuff outside. Bucket's in the corner. You'll find a towel in the closet."
When Jesus washed his disciples' feet, he was not, not saying to them, "From now on I want you to view me as your humble servant. Any time you need a good foot-washing, I'm there for you." God forbid. On the contrary, Jesus made his point explicit by saying, "Do you understand what I have done for you? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you" (John 13:13-15). The lesson was clear: Jesus served his disciples not because he was their servant, but because he wanted them to serve one another.
If you would like to picture yourself in a foot-washing episode with Jesus, the text you want to go to is Luke 7:36-48. There a penitent sinner washed Jesus' feet. While Jesus dined with a Pharisee, a woman "who had lived a sinful life" wet his feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, and poured perfume on them. She grieved her sin and served Jesus with all she had. The Pharisee, on the other hand, didn't even bother providing Jesus with the normal services that should have been done for an honored guest.
The Bible likes to pair up penitent people grieving their sin with impenitent self-righteous snots and declare that only the former are forgiven. For more examples of this theme see the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) and the story of the two men crucified next to Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). Penitent people hate their sin and throw themselves unconditionally at Jesus' feet. The proud, on the other hand - if they relate to Jesus at all - seem to view him as their service-provider. That service need not be foot-washing: it could be a free meal (John 6:26); a miraculous show (Luke 23:8); a manifestation of prophetic insight (Luke 7:39; 22:64); a financial windfall (Luke 12:13); or even a fiery judgment on those who irritate them (Luke 9:54).
View yourself as a servant of Jesus Christ. You're here to honor him, render service to him, do his will rather than wait for him to do yours. Demand nothing of him, but humbly plead his grace. To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, ask not what Jesus can do for you. Ask what you can do for Jesus.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
March 5, 2011: George MacDonald And The Unveiling Of Character
In The Landlady's Master, George MacDonald writes,
[W]hat we call degeneracy is often the unveiling of what was there all the time, and the evil we become, we are. If I have in me the tyrant or the miser, there he is, and such am I - as surely as if the tyrant or the miser were even now visible to the wondering dislike of my neighbors.
Something I have noticed again and again in MacDonald's novels is the way in which the deep character flaws of his villains are gradually revealed through the circumstances that come upon them. Their depravity does not always rest visibly on the surface. MacDonald is right: what appears to be a man's "fall" into corruption is often simply the manifestation of wickedness that was already there, fully formed, waiting for the right events to expose it to light. Goodness is equally latent. Circumstances do not create character so much as they reveal it.
You can think of it this way. Imagine two men who both wake up in the morning, have coffee and breakfast, shower and brush their teeth, go to work, come home, eat, run errands, go to bed. Which man is evil and which one is good? Which one - in biblical terms - is a fruitful stalk of wheat, and which one is a tare fit for burning? On a given day you may not see much to distinguish them. That is because no testing circumstances have pried open their souls to let you see what's inside.
But now start throwing circumstances at them. Give both men a bitchy wife, for example. One man suffers quietly, endures, remains faithful, tries what he can to inspire his wife to goodness, and encourages other men who are similarly burdened. The other man starts drinking, grows bitter, cheats on her, and deliberately provokes her to more outrageous behavior so that the marriage will dissolve.
Or give both men lots of money. One man lives modestly, gives generously, creates job opportunities for others, blesses his neighbor. The other buys a luxury car and a mansion and gets plastic surgery and dumps his aging wife for a trophy.
Or make them sick. Many a man's pleasant disposition depends crucially on nature's gift of energy and strength. Assault the source of his pride with debilitation so that now, in his own eyes, he amounts to little more than the object of charitable goodwill - and what becomes of his cheerful good grace?
Goodness and evil are both found deep in the heart. I do not believe in sudden falls from grace so much as I do in sudden unveilings. Nor do I believe that great acts of courage or discipline or charity can spring spontaneously from unprepared souls. As Jesus said in Luke 6:45: "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."
In The Landlady's Master, George MacDonald writes,
[W]hat we call degeneracy is often the unveiling of what was there all the time, and the evil we become, we are. If I have in me the tyrant or the miser, there he is, and such am I - as surely as if the tyrant or the miser were even now visible to the wondering dislike of my neighbors.
Something I have noticed again and again in MacDonald's novels is the way in which the deep character flaws of his villains are gradually revealed through the circumstances that come upon them. Their depravity does not always rest visibly on the surface. MacDonald is right: what appears to be a man's "fall" into corruption is often simply the manifestation of wickedness that was already there, fully formed, waiting for the right events to expose it to light. Goodness is equally latent. Circumstances do not create character so much as they reveal it.
You can think of it this way. Imagine two men who both wake up in the morning, have coffee and breakfast, shower and brush their teeth, go to work, come home, eat, run errands, go to bed. Which man is evil and which one is good? Which one - in biblical terms - is a fruitful stalk of wheat, and which one is a tare fit for burning? On a given day you may not see much to distinguish them. That is because no testing circumstances have pried open their souls to let you see what's inside.
But now start throwing circumstances at them. Give both men a bitchy wife, for example. One man suffers quietly, endures, remains faithful, tries what he can to inspire his wife to goodness, and encourages other men who are similarly burdened. The other man starts drinking, grows bitter, cheats on her, and deliberately provokes her to more outrageous behavior so that the marriage will dissolve.
Or give both men lots of money. One man lives modestly, gives generously, creates job opportunities for others, blesses his neighbor. The other buys a luxury car and a mansion and gets plastic surgery and dumps his aging wife for a trophy.
Or make them sick. Many a man's pleasant disposition depends crucially on nature's gift of energy and strength. Assault the source of his pride with debilitation so that now, in his own eyes, he amounts to little more than the object of charitable goodwill - and what becomes of his cheerful good grace?
Goodness and evil are both found deep in the heart. I do not believe in sudden falls from grace so much as I do in sudden unveilings. Nor do I believe that great acts of courage or discipline or charity can spring spontaneously from unprepared souls. As Jesus said in Luke 6:45: "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
February 19, 2011: On The Meaning And Application Of Matthew 5:28
Matthew 5:27-28: You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who even tries to seduce a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
It is very unlikely that you have ever seen Matthew 5:28 translated the way I have it above. In all Bible versions I know, and in every sermon I have ever heard on the subject, the Greek wording of Matthew 5:28 is interpreted to mean "Anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Imagine my amazement when I discovered, in reading a commentary by top Greek scholar D. A. Carson, that the traditional understanding of this verse is wrong. How wrong? Believe it or not, best grammatical evidence suggests that the subject of the verb "to lust" (or "to desire") is not the man but the woman! That is, the sense of the verse is, "Anyone who looks at a woman in order to get her to lust has committed adultery with her in his heart". Or, more succinctly in English, "Anyone who tries to seduce a woman...". Jesus is condemning not merely the act of adultery but even the look (not to mention the schemes!) by which a man would seek to entice a woman who is not, and can never be, his wife.
Carson writes, "The evidence for this interpretation is strong," but now that I have investigated the Greek myself I would go further and say it is decisive. The following discussion is a little technical; if you would like to skip it, go to the practical application that starts several paragraphs below with the words, "Where does that leave us?"
First, the verb. epithumēo means "[I] desire." Sometimes that is a bad thing ("lust," "covet"); sometimes it is a good thing, as in 1 Timothy 3:1: "If any man aspires to be an elder, he desires a good thing." Context determines whether it is good or bad. So I will translate it with the neutral word "desire."
The verb "desire" in New Testament Koine Greek usually does not take a noun as a direct object. Sometimes there is no object at all:
Romans 7:7; 13:9: You shall not desire [i.e., You shall not covet]
James 4:2: You desire but do not have [i.e., You lust but do not possess]
And sometimes the object is a whole verb phrase - the desire to do something:
Luke 22:15: "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer."
1 Peter 1:12: Even angels desire to look into these things.
In the Matthew 5:28 passage, the traditional interpretation understands the verb to have an explicit direct object: "He desires her." In the interpretation that Carson prefers, "She desires," the verb functions in its more typical role - that is, without an overt nominal direct object.
Second, the case marking. If the Greek word for she/her is the direct object of "desire" in Matthew 5:28, then it's in the wrong case! In every other instance in the New Testament where the verb "desire" takes a noun as its direct object, the noun is in the genitive case:
Acts 20:33: I have not coveted (desired) anyone’s silver [genitive] or gold [genitive] or clothing [genitive].
1 Corinthians 10:6: Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on (desiring) evil things [genitive] as they did.
1 Timothy 3:1: Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an elder, he desires a noble task [genitive].
The Greek word for "her" in Matthew 5:28, however, is not in the genitive case. It is in the accusative case.
Third, the verb "desire" in Matthew 5:28 is infinitive: "to desire." Guess what Greek does to a noun when it wants to make it the subject of an infinitive verb? It puts it in the accusative case! English does the same. We say, "I expect him to run for mayor," not, "I expect he to run for mayor." We say, "In order for him to achieve his goal...", not "In order for he to achieve his goal...".
So, the grammatical case of the Greek word "her" is not what you would expect if the woman were the object of "to desire," but it is what you would expect if the woman were the subject of "to desire."
Fourth, we have a parallel grammatical construction in Luke 18:1 that everyone agrees on. In English it reads, "Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." Very literally in Greek, the key parallel phrase reads
about the to pray them
which matches perfectly with Matthew 5:28's
about the to lust her
In Luke 18:1, it goes without saying that the third person plural pronoun is the subject of "pray": they are the ones who are doing the praying. Likewise, in Matthew 5:28, the third person singular feminine pronoun is the subject of "desire": she is the one who is doing the desiring. If the grammatical construction of Luke 18:1 were interpreted according to the traditional understanding of Matthew 5:28, we would have to assume that the disciples were the ones being prayed to! Carson is correct: Matthew 5:28 means, "Whoever looks at woman in order to inspire her to lust has committed adultery with her in his heart."
Where does that leave us?
In Matthew 5:28, what Jesus is doing is ripping open a man's heart to expose his adulterous intentions. It is not enough to say, as a Pharisee might, "I have never committed adultery or fornicated." There is a deeper question to be asked: "Have you ever tried?" For many men, the only reason they are not adulterers is because the women that they longed to seduce were turned off by them! But their failure to get women to be immoral with them does not count as a point in their favor when reckoning sexual purity. God sees them as adulterers.
Here Jesus condemns even the subtlest measure - the look, the meaningful gaze - whose intent is to arouse an unavailable woman's affection and to win sexual favors from her. Whether the man succeeds in his attempted conquest is beside the point. What matters is his purpose. The "player," as we might call him, sends out signals, subtle or bold, in hopes of inspiring in some woman a desire for himself which might result in sexual gratification without marriage. A good passage to cross-reference with Matthew 5:28 is 2 Timothy 3:5-6, where Paul instructs Timothy to avoid seemingly godly men (they have "a form of godliness") who are actually vile hypocrites. One expression of their wickedness: "They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women." That is, they would exploit a woman's vulnerability rather than protect her virtue.
I mentioned last week that one of the features of George MacDonald's novels that so appeals to me is the gracious and gentle way that the good men in his books treat the women of their acquaintance. Sometimes they marry and sometimes they don't. But whether single, courting, or married, they behave as perfect gentlemen with regard to the opposite sex. They neither exploit them nor shun them. They are sensitive to feminine weakness without being patronizing. When they find that, quite by accident - just by being themselves - they have aroused the passion of some woman whom they will not marry, they treat her with beautiful kindness from a respectful and appropriate distance.
Christian men must do likewise. We must guard not only our own hearts but those of our sisters. The only woman for whom you are permitted to stir up a desire for yourself is the woman whom you are willing to marry. Or to whom you are already married.
Matthew 5:27-28: You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who even tries to seduce a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
It is very unlikely that you have ever seen Matthew 5:28 translated the way I have it above. In all Bible versions I know, and in every sermon I have ever heard on the subject, the Greek wording of Matthew 5:28 is interpreted to mean "Anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Imagine my amazement when I discovered, in reading a commentary by top Greek scholar D. A. Carson, that the traditional understanding of this verse is wrong. How wrong? Believe it or not, best grammatical evidence suggests that the subject of the verb "to lust" (or "to desire") is not the man but the woman! That is, the sense of the verse is, "Anyone who looks at a woman in order to get her to lust has committed adultery with her in his heart". Or, more succinctly in English, "Anyone who tries to seduce a woman...". Jesus is condemning not merely the act of adultery but even the look (not to mention the schemes!) by which a man would seek to entice a woman who is not, and can never be, his wife.
Carson writes, "The evidence for this interpretation is strong," but now that I have investigated the Greek myself I would go further and say it is decisive. The following discussion is a little technical; if you would like to skip it, go to the practical application that starts several paragraphs below with the words, "Where does that leave us?"
First, the verb. epithumēo means "[I] desire." Sometimes that is a bad thing ("lust," "covet"); sometimes it is a good thing, as in 1 Timothy 3:1: "If any man aspires to be an elder, he desires a good thing." Context determines whether it is good or bad. So I will translate it with the neutral word "desire."
The verb "desire" in New Testament Koine Greek usually does not take a noun as a direct object. Sometimes there is no object at all:
Romans 7:7; 13:9: You shall not desire [i.e., You shall not covet]
James 4:2: You desire but do not have [i.e., You lust but do not possess]
And sometimes the object is a whole verb phrase - the desire to do something:
Luke 22:15: "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer."
1 Peter 1:12: Even angels desire to look into these things.
In the Matthew 5:28 passage, the traditional interpretation understands the verb to have an explicit direct object: "He desires her." In the interpretation that Carson prefers, "She desires," the verb functions in its more typical role - that is, without an overt nominal direct object.
Second, the case marking. If the Greek word for she/her is the direct object of "desire" in Matthew 5:28, then it's in the wrong case! In every other instance in the New Testament where the verb "desire" takes a noun as its direct object, the noun is in the genitive case:
Acts 20:33: I have not coveted (desired) anyone’s silver [genitive] or gold [genitive] or clothing [genitive].
1 Corinthians 10:6: Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on (desiring) evil things [genitive] as they did.
1 Timothy 3:1: Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone aspires to be an elder, he desires a noble task [genitive].
The Greek word for "her" in Matthew 5:28, however, is not in the genitive case. It is in the accusative case.
Third, the verb "desire" in Matthew 5:28 is infinitive: "to desire." Guess what Greek does to a noun when it wants to make it the subject of an infinitive verb? It puts it in the accusative case! English does the same. We say, "I expect him to run for mayor," not, "I expect he to run for mayor." We say, "In order for him to achieve his goal...", not "In order for he to achieve his goal...".
So, the grammatical case of the Greek word "her" is not what you would expect if the woman were the object of "to desire," but it is what you would expect if the woman were the subject of "to desire."
Fourth, we have a parallel grammatical construction in Luke 18:1 that everyone agrees on. In English it reads, "Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up." Very literally in Greek, the key parallel phrase reads
about the to pray them
which matches perfectly with Matthew 5:28's
about the to lust her
In Luke 18:1, it goes without saying that the third person plural pronoun is the subject of "pray": they are the ones who are doing the praying. Likewise, in Matthew 5:28, the third person singular feminine pronoun is the subject of "desire": she is the one who is doing the desiring. If the grammatical construction of Luke 18:1 were interpreted according to the traditional understanding of Matthew 5:28, we would have to assume that the disciples were the ones being prayed to! Carson is correct: Matthew 5:28 means, "Whoever looks at woman in order to inspire her to lust has committed adultery with her in his heart."
Where does that leave us?
In Matthew 5:28, what Jesus is doing is ripping open a man's heart to expose his adulterous intentions. It is not enough to say, as a Pharisee might, "I have never committed adultery or fornicated." There is a deeper question to be asked: "Have you ever tried?" For many men, the only reason they are not adulterers is because the women that they longed to seduce were turned off by them! But their failure to get women to be immoral with them does not count as a point in their favor when reckoning sexual purity. God sees them as adulterers.
Here Jesus condemns even the subtlest measure - the look, the meaningful gaze - whose intent is to arouse an unavailable woman's affection and to win sexual favors from her. Whether the man succeeds in his attempted conquest is beside the point. What matters is his purpose. The "player," as we might call him, sends out signals, subtle or bold, in hopes of inspiring in some woman a desire for himself which might result in sexual gratification without marriage. A good passage to cross-reference with Matthew 5:28 is 2 Timothy 3:5-6, where Paul instructs Timothy to avoid seemingly godly men (they have "a form of godliness") who are actually vile hypocrites. One expression of their wickedness: "They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women." That is, they would exploit a woman's vulnerability rather than protect her virtue.
I mentioned last week that one of the features of George MacDonald's novels that so appeals to me is the gracious and gentle way that the good men in his books treat the women of their acquaintance. Sometimes they marry and sometimes they don't. But whether single, courting, or married, they behave as perfect gentlemen with regard to the opposite sex. They neither exploit them nor shun them. They are sensitive to feminine weakness without being patronizing. When they find that, quite by accident - just by being themselves - they have aroused the passion of some woman whom they will not marry, they treat her with beautiful kindness from a respectful and appropriate distance.
Christian men must do likewise. We must guard not only our own hearts but those of our sisters. The only woman for whom you are permitted to stir up a desire for yourself is the woman whom you are willing to marry. Or to whom you are already married.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
February 12, 2011: His Sister's Keeper: George MacDonald And The Honorable Treatment Of Women
The good men in George MacDonald's novels always treat women with dignity. MacDonald taught that no good man ever violates a woman's honor, or even attempts to compromise it. If a woman of his acquaintance is weak, the man of moral conscience - far from exploiting her vulnerability - will protect her and help her to do right. He will even shield her from the darkest features of his own corruption, his own temptations to seize her as prey.
In The Highlander's Last Song, a worldly businessman, at dinner with other men, maintains, "it is necessary for developing manhood that young men should drink a little and gamble a little and sow a few wild oats...A fellow that will neither look at a woman nor drink his glass is not cut out for a man's work in the world!"
A Christian at the table responds,
"Pray, Mr. Palmer, let us understand each other: do you believe God made woman to be the slave of man? Can you believe he ever made a woman that she might be dishonored - that a man might caress and despise her?"
Palmer replies,
"I know nothing about God's intention; all I say is we must obey the laws of our nature."
The Christian answers,
"Is conscience, then, not a law of our nature? Is it not even on the level of our instincts? Must not the lower laws be subject to the higher? It is a law - forever broken, yet eternal - that a man is his brother's keeper: still more must he be his sister's keeper."
His sister's keeper - the phrase comes up more than once in MacDonald's writings. We see it again in The Lady's Confession, where a doctor confesses to a minister that, as a young medical student, he seduced a woman and fathered a child with her out of wedlock. He did not know what became of the woman or their offspring (he could barely remember if it was a boy or girl!). Concerning that old "romantic fling," MacDonald writes,
"He did her no end of kindness - taught her much, gave her good advice, still gave her books, went to chapel sometimes with her on a Sunday evening, took her to concerts and the theater, and would have protected her from every enemy, real and imaginary. But all the while he was slowly depriving her of the last line of her self-defense against an enemy neither he nor she could see. For how is an ignorant man to protect even a woman he loves from the hidden god of his idolatry - his own grand, contemptible self?...With all his tender feelings and generous love of humanity, [he] had not yet learned the simple lesson of humanity - that a man who would be his brother's keeper, or his sister's, must protect every woman first of all from himself."
Neglecting to protect a vulnerable young lady from himself, the narcissist physician condemned the poor woman to a miserable life of single motherhood while he quietly moved on to success and relative ease. He felt a bit guilty, but soothed his conscience by blaming her for most of it.
Some years ago when I was a pastor a woman with a heavy heart came to speak to me. Naive and bewildered, she had fallen hard for a powerful older man who had seemed to be a model of mature Christian virtue. Cherishing hopes that he would some day be hers, she ventured intimacy with him. But he used her a few times and then dumped her. Despite his actions, she continued to wrestle with a longing for him, and wondered whether somehow she might still have a future with him.
Gently as I could I told her what MacDonald said about how a good man protects rather than seduces a woman - protects her even from himself! And any man who could not do that was not worth having. I also thought it best to tell her (though I'm sure it was painful) what my intuition affirmed to be true: that what this man had done to her he had almost certainly done to other women as well. That is because a man either treats women with respect or he does not. Seduction is an art practiced by repeat offenders, not by chronically innocent men of honor.
So far I have counted no less than three occasions in MacDonald's books where a woman confesses her love to a good man and all but proposes to him. (It makes me wonder if such a thing happened to MacDonald himself!) In each case the good man, who knows he cannot marry the woman, treats her with the kindest of grace and charity and good will. But he carefully refrains from embracing her, or taking her hand, or doing anything at all to encourage an attachment to him that he cannot honorably fulfill.
In other words, he obeys the commandment of Matthew 5:28 according to its true meaning. More on that next week, Lord willing.
The good men in George MacDonald's novels always treat women with dignity. MacDonald taught that no good man ever violates a woman's honor, or even attempts to compromise it. If a woman of his acquaintance is weak, the man of moral conscience - far from exploiting her vulnerability - will protect her and help her to do right. He will even shield her from the darkest features of his own corruption, his own temptations to seize her as prey.
In The Highlander's Last Song, a worldly businessman, at dinner with other men, maintains, "it is necessary for developing manhood that young men should drink a little and gamble a little and sow a few wild oats...A fellow that will neither look at a woman nor drink his glass is not cut out for a man's work in the world!"
A Christian at the table responds,
"Pray, Mr. Palmer, let us understand each other: do you believe God made woman to be the slave of man? Can you believe he ever made a woman that she might be dishonored - that a man might caress and despise her?"
Palmer replies,
"I know nothing about God's intention; all I say is we must obey the laws of our nature."
The Christian answers,
"Is conscience, then, not a law of our nature? Is it not even on the level of our instincts? Must not the lower laws be subject to the higher? It is a law - forever broken, yet eternal - that a man is his brother's keeper: still more must he be his sister's keeper."
His sister's keeper - the phrase comes up more than once in MacDonald's writings. We see it again in The Lady's Confession, where a doctor confesses to a minister that, as a young medical student, he seduced a woman and fathered a child with her out of wedlock. He did not know what became of the woman or their offspring (he could barely remember if it was a boy or girl!). Concerning that old "romantic fling," MacDonald writes,
"He did her no end of kindness - taught her much, gave her good advice, still gave her books, went to chapel sometimes with her on a Sunday evening, took her to concerts and the theater, and would have protected her from every enemy, real and imaginary. But all the while he was slowly depriving her of the last line of her self-defense against an enemy neither he nor she could see. For how is an ignorant man to protect even a woman he loves from the hidden god of his idolatry - his own grand, contemptible self?...With all his tender feelings and generous love of humanity, [he] had not yet learned the simple lesson of humanity - that a man who would be his brother's keeper, or his sister's, must protect every woman first of all from himself."
Neglecting to protect a vulnerable young lady from himself, the narcissist physician condemned the poor woman to a miserable life of single motherhood while he quietly moved on to success and relative ease. He felt a bit guilty, but soothed his conscience by blaming her for most of it.
Some years ago when I was a pastor a woman with a heavy heart came to speak to me. Naive and bewildered, she had fallen hard for a powerful older man who had seemed to be a model of mature Christian virtue. Cherishing hopes that he would some day be hers, she ventured intimacy with him. But he used her a few times and then dumped her. Despite his actions, she continued to wrestle with a longing for him, and wondered whether somehow she might still have a future with him.
Gently as I could I told her what MacDonald said about how a good man protects rather than seduces a woman - protects her even from himself! And any man who could not do that was not worth having. I also thought it best to tell her (though I'm sure it was painful) what my intuition affirmed to be true: that what this man had done to her he had almost certainly done to other women as well. That is because a man either treats women with respect or he does not. Seduction is an art practiced by repeat offenders, not by chronically innocent men of honor.
So far I have counted no less than three occasions in MacDonald's books where a woman confesses her love to a good man and all but proposes to him. (It makes me wonder if such a thing happened to MacDonald himself!) In each case the good man, who knows he cannot marry the woman, treats her with the kindest of grace and charity and good will. But he carefully refrains from embracing her, or taking her hand, or doing anything at all to encourage an attachment to him that he cannot honorably fulfill.
In other words, he obeys the commandment of Matthew 5:28 according to its true meaning. More on that next week, Lord willing.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
February 6, 2011: George MacDonald
Please read George MacDonald's novels.
MacDonald (1824-1905; contemporary of Twain and Dickens) was a Scottish preacher, poet, novelist, fantasy writer. I became aware of him through the writings of C. S. Lewis, who called MacDonald "my master," published an anthology of MacDonald quotations, and affirmed that he himself never wrote a book without quoting MacDonald. Lewis selected MacDonald as his tour guide through heaven in my favorite Lewis book, The Great Divorce.
Now that I have read five MacDonald novels, and plan to read them all, I understand why Lewis, of whom I am in awe, was so in awe of him. Never, ever, have I read a more compelling moral voice or more thrilling expositor of goodness. MacDonald's characters make a person ache for holiness. Lewis experienced that ache when reading MacDonald as a young man - though, as an atheist from the ages of 16-30, he refused for many years to admit it to himself.
You can order MacDonald novels through Amazon. His used paperbacks are very cheap, sometimes just 1 cent, with the 4 dollar shipping fee. Get the ones edited by Michael Phillips. I'm afraid - unless you're Scottish! - you won't be able to read MacDonald in the original. He wrote in Scottish brogue. If you can make sense of the following
It'll be upo' them to haud them doon, an' the haill hoose agin' the watter...I'm thinkin' we'll lowse them a'else; for the byre wa's 'till gang afore the hoose
then feel free to read MacDonald in the original. I can't. For my part, I thank God for scholar and translator Michael Phillips, who has rendered the great teacher intelligible.
Over the next few weeks, Lord willing, I would like to outline and comment upon some themes that come up regularly in Macdonald's works.
I would be delighted beyond measure if anyone reports back to me that he or she has read a MacDonald novel and stirred to rejoice over the holiness in it.
Please read George MacDonald's novels.
MacDonald (1824-1905; contemporary of Twain and Dickens) was a Scottish preacher, poet, novelist, fantasy writer. I became aware of him through the writings of C. S. Lewis, who called MacDonald "my master," published an anthology of MacDonald quotations, and affirmed that he himself never wrote a book without quoting MacDonald. Lewis selected MacDonald as his tour guide through heaven in my favorite Lewis book, The Great Divorce.
Now that I have read five MacDonald novels, and plan to read them all, I understand why Lewis, of whom I am in awe, was so in awe of him. Never, ever, have I read a more compelling moral voice or more thrilling expositor of goodness. MacDonald's characters make a person ache for holiness. Lewis experienced that ache when reading MacDonald as a young man - though, as an atheist from the ages of 16-30, he refused for many years to admit it to himself.
You can order MacDonald novels through Amazon. His used paperbacks are very cheap, sometimes just 1 cent, with the 4 dollar shipping fee. Get the ones edited by Michael Phillips. I'm afraid - unless you're Scottish! - you won't be able to read MacDonald in the original. He wrote in Scottish brogue. If you can make sense of the following
It'll be upo' them to haud them doon, an' the haill hoose agin' the watter...I'm thinkin' we'll lowse them a'else; for the byre wa's 'till gang afore the hoose
then feel free to read MacDonald in the original. I can't. For my part, I thank God for scholar and translator Michael Phillips, who has rendered the great teacher intelligible.
Over the next few weeks, Lord willing, I would like to outline and comment upon some themes that come up regularly in Macdonald's works.
I would be delighted beyond measure if anyone reports back to me that he or she has read a MacDonald novel and stirred to rejoice over the holiness in it.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
January 29, 2011: Make God Happy
In recent days I have had the joy of sharing in a small group and in a nursing home chapel service my favorite Bible verse. It's John 3:30: He must become greater; I must become less. I selected it as my life verse when I was in college more than 25 years ago. John the Baptist said it when asked (you have to read between the lines) if he was jealous of Jesus. Friends had come to him and said, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan - the one you testified about - well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." (John 3:26)
John was used to commanding the attention of thousands, but now his crowds (his crowds?) were all following Jesus. Did that bother him? Did he feel a bit pushed to the side, under-appreciated, out of the loop? His quiet answer reveals a heart of perfect humility:
A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.' The bride belongs to the groom. The friend who attends the groom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the groom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.
John's selflessness compels my admiration. He lived and worked only for the sake of Jesus Christ. The glory and honor and delight that Jesus experienced mattered more to John than anything, and he found his joy in the exaltation of his Lord. John considered himself a mere best man at a wedding between Jesus and all who would yield to him. Any attention John drew to himself would necessarily be siphoned off from Christ - abominable thought! Let all glory and honor be Christ's. Let him become greater and greater, and I less and less.
The other day my heart sank as I heard a preacher explain from the pulpit, "I don't read my Bible every day because it makes God happy." God's happiness was an irrelevance to him. He explained how he engaged in spiritual discipline for his own sake, for his own spiritual development and need: "I read my Bible every day because I need more of Jesus."
I certainly recommend acknowledging a need for Jesus, and I agree that one of the best ways to draw near to the Incarnate Word is through the Written Word. But to value one's own enrichment - even spiritual enrichment - over the pleasure of God is to invert the biblical order of priorities that must motivate our goodness! As Calvin wrote, "zeal [for God's glory] ought to exceed all thought and care for our own good and advantage."
After dismissing God's happiness as a motive for Bible reading, the preacher then went on to dismiss God's wrath as a motive for prayer. "I don't pray every day because I'm afraid of God," he said. What motivated his prayer (rather than a fear of the Lord) was the benefit he received personally: prayer helped him to be a better husband and a more godly leader.
We stand on dangerous ground when the prospect of God's pleasure does not inspire us and the prospect of his wrath does not frighten us. We tread the road toward corruption when we stop asking, "How will this action affect God?" and ask only, "How will this affect me?"
I confess to a growing hunger for preaching that places God rather than ourselves at the center of every thought and act and word and motive. Goodness must be practiced because it pleases God, because it makes God happy, because it delights the heart of God, because it brings greater honor and glory and pleasure to God. And sin must be shunned because God hates it, because God judges it, because God is provoked to wrath and displeasure because of it. Value his pleasure and fear his wrath! When you eliminate from your consideration the pleasures and displeasures of God ("I don't do this in order to make God happy"; "I don't shun this because I'm afraid of God") you risk making your faith a self-centered monstrosity where God's honor is an afterthought.
In the humility of John the Baptist I find blessed refuge from the self-centered inward gaze to which I myself am relentlessly tempted. Let Christ become greater. So what if I become less? Let the motivation for my actions and thoughts be the happiness, pleasure, honor and glory of Christ. And let the prospect of angering or displeasing him - diminishing his glory, staining his honor - cause me to tremble with shame, and fill me with righteous fear.
In recent days I have had the joy of sharing in a small group and in a nursing home chapel service my favorite Bible verse. It's John 3:30: He must become greater; I must become less. I selected it as my life verse when I was in college more than 25 years ago. John the Baptist said it when asked (you have to read between the lines) if he was jealous of Jesus. Friends had come to him and said, "Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan - the one you testified about - well, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him." (John 3:26)
John was used to commanding the attention of thousands, but now his crowds (his crowds?) were all following Jesus. Did that bother him? Did he feel a bit pushed to the side, under-appreciated, out of the loop? His quiet answer reveals a heart of perfect humility:
A man can receive only what is given him from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, 'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.' The bride belongs to the groom. The friend who attends the groom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the groom's voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.
John's selflessness compels my admiration. He lived and worked only for the sake of Jesus Christ. The glory and honor and delight that Jesus experienced mattered more to John than anything, and he found his joy in the exaltation of his Lord. John considered himself a mere best man at a wedding between Jesus and all who would yield to him. Any attention John drew to himself would necessarily be siphoned off from Christ - abominable thought! Let all glory and honor be Christ's. Let him become greater and greater, and I less and less.
The other day my heart sank as I heard a preacher explain from the pulpit, "I don't read my Bible every day because it makes God happy." God's happiness was an irrelevance to him. He explained how he engaged in spiritual discipline for his own sake, for his own spiritual development and need: "I read my Bible every day because I need more of Jesus."
I certainly recommend acknowledging a need for Jesus, and I agree that one of the best ways to draw near to the Incarnate Word is through the Written Word. But to value one's own enrichment - even spiritual enrichment - over the pleasure of God is to invert the biblical order of priorities that must motivate our goodness! As Calvin wrote, "zeal [for God's glory] ought to exceed all thought and care for our own good and advantage."
After dismissing God's happiness as a motive for Bible reading, the preacher then went on to dismiss God's wrath as a motive for prayer. "I don't pray every day because I'm afraid of God," he said. What motivated his prayer (rather than a fear of the Lord) was the benefit he received personally: prayer helped him to be a better husband and a more godly leader.
We stand on dangerous ground when the prospect of God's pleasure does not inspire us and the prospect of his wrath does not frighten us. We tread the road toward corruption when we stop asking, "How will this action affect God?" and ask only, "How will this affect me?"
I confess to a growing hunger for preaching that places God rather than ourselves at the center of every thought and act and word and motive. Goodness must be practiced because it pleases God, because it makes God happy, because it delights the heart of God, because it brings greater honor and glory and pleasure to God. And sin must be shunned because God hates it, because God judges it, because God is provoked to wrath and displeasure because of it. Value his pleasure and fear his wrath! When you eliminate from your consideration the pleasures and displeasures of God ("I don't do this in order to make God happy"; "I don't shun this because I'm afraid of God") you risk making your faith a self-centered monstrosity where God's honor is an afterthought.
In the humility of John the Baptist I find blessed refuge from the self-centered inward gaze to which I myself am relentlessly tempted. Let Christ become greater. So what if I become less? Let the motivation for my actions and thoughts be the happiness, pleasure, honor and glory of Christ. And let the prospect of angering or displeasing him - diminishing his glory, staining his honor - cause me to tremble with shame, and fill me with righteous fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)