Valentine's Day is quickly approaching. I'm doing a Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another conference again this Valentine's Day, so I'm thinking about love and marriage more intensely right now. I thought I'd share excerpts from the book for your consideration. In these posts, I'll lay out my definition/ description of love. I know these posts are longer than usual, but don't let that scare you.
Let me begin my description by pointing out that love is a neutral term. Love is not virtuous by mere definition. It can either be virtuous or sinful, beautiful or baneful. When I say "virtuous" love, I mean God-pleasing love as opposed to a love that displeases God. Jesus loved his disciples (see John 15:9) and that love pleased God. Therefore it was virtuous. Religious hypocrites love to show off in front of others (see Mat. 6:5) and that love does not please God. Therefore it is not virtuous. The ability to love flows from God, as man is made in his image. However, man has always had the capacity to bestow that love on whatever object he chooses. The only discriminator between virtuous and non-virtuous love is whether the motive, object, extent and fruit of love pleases God or displeases God. As I use the word love, I mean it in this general, neutral sense.
I describe love with the phrase "progression of phases" because I think love develops along a chain from one phase to the next. It's sequential. I think love (both virtuous and sinful) follows a certain reproducible pattern every time. From the beginning of the progression to the end, as long as the sequence is followed, any point along the chain could be called love. That doesn't mean that the love is sufficient. It may just be a good start. For instance, the first phase on the progression is affection. Love that remains an affection would fall far short of God's pleasure. But it could still be called love (as we'll see). I will try to show how this progression of phases helps explain the rich variety of love displayed in Scripture. As we look at the broad spectrum of love (both virtuous and sinful) in the Bible, the progression of phases seems to describe it every time. Love as sequential progression seems to be Scriptural (it doesn't contradict any text), experientially valid (you'll find yourself saying, "That is how it happens."), reasonable (it makes sense), and helpful (for life and counseling). So here is the progression: All love begins with an affection... from there it may or may not develop into a desire... if a desire is strong enough, it may or may not proceed to an inclination of focus... and from there, it might or might not overflow in an action toward or on behalf of the beloved object. Over the next several posts, I'll unfold each step in this progression.
All Love Begins With an Affection
All love begins with an affection. At first this may sound extreme. All love begins with an affection? Yes. Maybe we've always thought of love as a verb. Love is something we do. As we survey the Bible, we see that love is often a verb. I can buy that. I agree that love involves acting. Love feels. Feeling is a verb. Consider the sentence, "He rejoiced." The subject is "he" and the verb is "rejoiced." Rejoicing is something you do, though the action can be entirely inside you. The apostle Paul says love "rejoices with the truth" and "hopes all things" in 1 Corinthians 13:6-7. Rejoice and hope are verbs, yet they happen inside of us. They're in the realm of affection. To "rejoice with the truth" is to feel good inside about truth. Love has an affection for the truth. To have an affection for an object is active.
Let's look at another biblical example of this. The Old Testament prophet, Micah, had this to say: "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Mic. 6:8). If our minds are accustomed to thinking of true love only as giving or acting, then this verse makes little sense to us. In this verse we have love sandwiched in the middle of two noble actions. "Do justice" and "walk humbly" are both actions that please God. Many people would call both those things love. But right in the middle of those two actions is the phrase "love kindness [or mercy]." Love an idea or a concept. If love is merely an action, how do we fulfill this command? How do we give ourselves to an idea? How do we serve an idea? You may think, "By doing something kind or merciful for others." I would agree that we should be kind, but that's not what Micah said. If we do something kind and merciful, we're loving the object of the kindness, not the kindness itself. Micah says we're supposed to love kindness. I think Micah is saying, "Have an affection for kindness. See its beauty or value. Be on its side. Feel good when you show kindness. But even beyond that, feel good when you see it happening all around you." Should kindness overflow into tangible action? Of course. And we'll rejoice when it does. But we also just love the idea of kindness.
By seeing love in this way, we allow for the rich variety of "love" the Bible depicts. Consider 1 John 2:15: "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." First, consider that the love in this text is the same love directed toward either the world or the Father. In other words, whatever love is, it's the same thing flowing out either toward the world or toward God.
The next thing to consider is the question, "What is love in this text?" It is not likely that love in this context deals with the realm of action alone. The love here may result in giving ourselves over to the world or to God. But I have a hard time believing that God is pleased with a person who lusts after women, yet never actually approaches them (in fact Jesus says it's sin in Mat. 5:28). In other words, if love is merely action -- giving or serving -- then until we act on our covetousness, we're doing fine. No, in reality, we're damned for the feeling, not just the acting.
If there's an alternative given between love for the world and love for God, then why would we give ourselves to the world instead of to God? Or why would we love God instead of the world? The answer seems obvious. Because we want to. Why would we want to? Because we have an affection for one or the other. 1 John 2:15-16 is in the realm of motivation. Consider the next verse. "For all that is in the world -- the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions -- is not from the Father but is from the world" (1 John 2:16). We see in verse 16 that loving the world is described as desires. If love in John's mind was nothing more than action or giving, then why would he bring up desires at all? It must at least be because love is connected in some way to the desires. The question I ask then is, "What causes a person to desire the world over God?" Affection is my answer.
Love for the world and love for God are incompatible because there's no qualitative difference between love for the world and love for the Father. Wherever our affection flows, action follows. The reason so many Christians love the world is because they think love for God and love for the world are two different concepts. Therefore, the most carnal of Christians can claim to "love God with all my heart" because love for God is heavenly while love for the world is a different concept altogether. Clearly Paul didn't think this was so. "For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica" (2 Tim. 4:10, emphasis mine). Paul was clearly seeing a deficiency in Demas because he loved (agapáō) the world rather than God. John obviously thought love for the world and love for God are mutually exclusive -- because it's the same love directed to different objects (the world vs. God).
Affection Flows From a Sense of Beauty or Value
Why does someone love the world, or God, or his wife, or little dog Fido, or steak, or his favorite sports team? The answer seems clear -- there's an affection for those things. The question that then begs to be asked is why does someone love his own wife and not someone else's, or why might he start loving someone else's wife? Because he has a sense of beauty or value in his wife, or in someone else's wife. So affection flows from a sense of beauty or value. The greater the sense of value, the stronger the affection. I love steak. I love steak smothered with sour cream, mushrooms, onions and steak sauce. As I've eaten this blessed concoction, I've often asked myself why I love steak. Why do I desire it? Why do I prioritize finances to eat it? Why do I love steak and not asparagus? Why do I love telling the world how much I love steak? Now, I'm going to use steak as a running illustration (please don't mistake this as an inordinate love for steak). I love steak because I've tasted it. I've smelled it on the grill. I've seen the grill marks and perfect proportion as it sets on the plate. I've heard it sizzling and felt its tenderness as I cut into it. I love steak because I have an affection for steak. I have an affection for steak because I sense the beauty or value of steak. I see, smell, taste, touch and hear steak. All five senses are enlivened in a good steak-eating experience. I don't love asparagus because I have no affection for asparagus. I have no affection for asparagus because I do not sense the beauty or value of asparagus. I think it tastes like dirt. It looks like a weed. It smells like grass. It feels nasty to cut into and even worse to chew. And all I've heard about its nutritional value doesn't override my other senses! Do you see how my affections are based on values derived from sense?
Why do the majority of people in the world not love God? God commands it, yet they disobey him. Why? It's simple. Non-Christians do not have an affection for God. Now why would a non-Christian have no affection for God? God is infinitely beautiful and altogether lovely and deeply worthy of affection. Nonetheless, God's perfections don't register in the mind of a non-Christian. Non-Christians have no sense of the beauty or value of God. Seeing, they don't see and hearing, they don't hear. Explaining God's perfections to a non-Christian is like trying to explain the color blue to a boy born blind. How can he relate? We have a sense (sight) that he doesn't have and that makes all the difference in the world in appreciating beauty and assessing value. So a brilliant blue sky on a summer day will not likely hold much sway over the blind boy's heart. Paul is clear about this in the realm of spiritual insight: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor. 4:3-4).
The gospel is veiled to those who are perishing (non-Christians). Their minds are blinded. They can't see the light of the gospel of Christ's glory. They have no sense of God's value! The capacity to bring in knowledge about the beauty or value of God is shut off to them. Though they may have five senses, they have no God-valuing faculty. Paul shows the exact same truth in Romans 1:18-32. Paul says everyone knows of God in verse 21. However, rather than worshiping God, verse 23 says they exchanged God's glory for things in the creation. Why would they do that? Verse 28 says they didn't see fit to acknowledge God. Why? Because they didn't value him. "Exchange" is a value word. It's what we do at Christmas with the gift we have no affection for -- we trade it in for something we sense is better. Maybe we don't like seeing an orange sweater so we exchange it for one we do like seeing -- the blue one. "See fit" is also a value phrase. We see fit to do something based on the value derived from the act. Non-Christians do not see fit to honor God because they can't identify with him. So they settle for what they can identify with, what they can appreciate -- the things of the natural world.
Faith -- the "Sixth Sense"
Non-Christians have no faculty with which to sense God's beauty, so they never love him. Christians on the other hand do have a sense of God's beauty. It is a gift of God flowing from the new birth. Faith is the sense of God's value that the world doesn't have. When we're born into this natural world, we're likely to have five senses. We likely develop the ability to see, smell, hear, taste and touch. When we're born again, we have another sense added to our natural five -- faith. In the same way as a natural man develops his five senses, a Christian develops his faith.
I think we find this in Hebrews 11:1 (and the whole rest of the chapter): "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." We also see it in John 3:3: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." We see it in Romans 1:17 where Paul lays faith over against the exchange of God's glory in 1:18-32. We find it in 2 Corinthians 4:6 where God "has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." I could give so many more examples, but I trust we're getting the point. Christians have six senses, while the natural man has five. Faith enables us to find beauty and value in God that exceeds the value of things of this world.
One of the neat things about faith is its impact on the other five senses. It takes saving faith to make the other five senses operable in the spiritual realm. In other words, as a non-Christian we can look at the creation and enjoy its benefits all the time without ever bringing glory to God. But through faith we are able to use our other five senses to bring glory to God. We can listen to music that brings joy and gratitude in our hearts for what God has done. We can taste food that points to the wedding feast to come. We can see a sunset and use it as fuel to inspire the most heart-felt worship of the one who painted it. We can hug a brother or sister in Christ whose world is falling apart. We can smell flowers in spring and contemplate on what pleasures heaven has in store.
Christians sense God's value. What's more, they always will. This is great news. This explains why it's possible to love God forever and with increasing intensity. God is infinite. It's impossible to sense our way to the bottom of God's value. God is worthy of infinite love because God is infinitely valuable. We'll never stop finding beautiful things to sense about him once he gives us the faculties to see or "taste" (see Psalm 34:8). Yet, there remains a great deficiency in love to God by Christians. What can explain this? If love begins with an affection flowing from a sense of value, and God is infinitely valuable, then why don't we love God perfectly? This too has to do with our senses. Though we have a new sense of God's glory, our sense of the world's pleasures has not disappeared. At best our sense of the world's pleasures may be kept in check, but it rarely diminishes. Christians still find things in the world valuable. We just find God valuable now, too. However, we pray that God will continue to show himself more beautiful and more glorious so that our affections for worldly things will be outweighed by God's value.
One reason we value the world is that sin is intermingled with our sense of value -- perverting and distorting it. Another reason is that senses can deceive. Take hot dogs for instance. Hot dogs may not be the most beautiful food, but they do fill us up. What if I spent 45 minutes glutting on hot dogs? Then my neighbor comes over with a steak fresh off the grill. I know steak is good, but I've already eaten. I take a bite anyway to indulge my friend. What if I vomit at the second bite? What did I vomit on? Steak. But should I have? No. Those stupid hot dogs interfered with what should have been truly valuable. This is what John is saying in 1 John 2:15-17. Love for the world and love for God are mutually exclusive because both are competing affections, filling up our hearts.
Affection is Love
I describe love as a progression of phases because love begins with an affection and may or may not move on to the next phase. Love is truly love at the level of affection, even if it dies there. Though the example doesn't perfectly illustrate the point, consider a human being. A person lives along a continuum. An embryo is a person. So is an infant, a toddler, an adolescent and and adult. If a baby dies or has some sort of developmental disease, we still consider him to be human, even though he never progresses to maturity. Love begins with an affection, though at that point, it would be least mature and developed. There are times in everyday life when love doesn't move beyond affection. Let me give you a far out example. I love steak. If every cow on the face of the earth dies of disease so that no steak is produced from this day forward until Christ returns -- I will go to my grave loving steak. I don't have to go through the action of eating it to prove I love it. I go through the action of eating it because I love it! I can say, "I love steak," fifty years from now without ever eating another one. Someone may ask why I love it. I'll respond, "Because fifty years ago I saw, smelled, tasted, touched and heard it, and I found it valuable."
It's possible that love never progresses to the next phase beyond affection (though it would be incomplete). On the other hand, it may regress back to the level of affection from a more advanced phase and still be love. For example, suppose someone is married fifty years. Then his wife dies. He loved his wife. She's gone. He can't do dishes for her anymore. He can't prioritize his life around her. It does no good to desire her. However, if you asked him, "Do you love your wife?" What's he likely to say? "Yes, very much." How? He can't give to her. He can't serve her. But he still has an affection for her flowing from a memory of her beauty and value. If you asked him why he still loves her, he'd likely rattle off a few sentences of praise for who she was.
When Affection Dies, Love Dies
This description of love as a progression of phases enables us to get to the root of why love grows cold in marriage. This is incredibly practical. When affection dies, love dies. Affection is the fountain from which all love flows. It's impossible to perform the other phases along the progression and call it love if it didn't flow from an affection. Love can still be love without an action or even desire (we'll see this later) because an affection may still remain. But love cannot exist without affection. How does this apply to marriage? Suppose a couple comes to me and says, "All the love in our marriage is gone." I could tell them, "God commands you to love. You must love. I know you don't feel like it, but that's alright. If you perform these actions, the feelings of love will come back -- your feelings follow action." I could then show them from Scripture how love is giving and love is an action, send them home with a list of fifty ways to show love (because love is an action, a gift) and demand they ask God's help to do it. And I wouldn't be surprised when that doesn't fix the problem over the long haul.
As an alternative, I could look at the progression of phases and ponder what the Bible says about motivation. It's obvious in this marriage that loving actions are non-existent. I hardly need to ask why. There's no desire to perform loving actions. I could go back to the area of affections and start to probe. In my experience, there are always areas in troubled marriages where spouses simply stop finding beauty or value in one another. Love grows cold because spouses lose value. This is why actions and giving alone are not enough to fuel feelings. If a couple doesn't find any value in the marriage, they'll do dishes and have "date nights" until blue in the face and grow more bitter the whole time. I've seen this happen more than once.
If what I'm saying is true, then why does mere action seem to cause change sometimes? I do agree that demanding change can cause change at times. But that change could make the person twice the child of hell than they were before the change (see Mat. 23:15)! Changing action is not necessarily creating virtuous love. In those cases where godly change occurs, I think the dynamic follows the progression of phases. In other words, the action sparks a renewed interest in finding value, which renews a worn down affection. When that happens on its own, we say, "See, I told you if you just do the work, love happens." That's not in reality what happened at all. Instead, while the couple was focusing on their marriage, affection was restored because value was rekindled. But for those times "action counsel" doesn't work and the couple never improves relations, it's because one or both spouses are not finding value in each other or in the marriage. When value dwindles, affection dies. When affection dies, love dies.
If we're having problems getting along with our spouse, we have to go back and figure out why we've stopped finding value in him or her. Perhaps we got married out of physical attraction. When that wears off, we want someone else. Maybe we married out of necessity. When we don't feel the need anymore, we don't value our spouse anymore. Or it could be that we married to have a companion. But when our companion always wants something from us and wants to control us, then we lose the value of having that person as a companion. Maybe we're comparing our spouse to someone else's or to some dream mate from a movie or soap opera or book or pornography. When our real spouse doesn't measure up, we stop valuing him or her. Then again, we might have valued security at first. But after awhile, we realize how secure we are without our spouse, so value diminishes. There are hundreds of reasons to value someone and hundreds of reasons to stop. If we only value our spouse because he or she makes much of us, what happens when our spouse cannot make as much of us as we're used to? We may feel shafted and our value for our spouse diminishes. If we only value our spouse because he or she makes much of us, then what happens when, in bitterness, he or she starts getting jealous and acting like a brat? We get angry and our value for our spouse shrinks.
If you're in this situation right now, not valuing your spouse, keep reading these posts. Pray that God will show you what he wants you to value. It could be that the reasons you valued your spouse were all wrong. Or it could be that your spouse has changed and truly become less valuable in your eyes. It doesn't matter. If the love in your marriage feels cold, it's because the value between you and your mate is down to yard sale prices. It may not help for you to immediately try to "drum up" things to value about your spouse. It may work, or it may be incredibly discouraging. First, you're sense of value may be all out of whack. Second, it may be because your spouse really isn't that valuable at the current time. I've written this book to try and show what is truly valuable about marriage and our spouses. So keep reading on and let the Bible speak to your sense of value before you put your marriage on the chopping block or start doing all sorts of assessments.
A Biblical Example of Non-virtuous Love
Consider with me a biblical example of the interplay of value and love. In 2 Samuel 13 we read about King David's family. David had a son, Amnon. He also had a daughter, Tamar.
"Now Absalom, David's son, had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar. And after a time Amnon, David's son, loved her. And Amnon was so tormented that he made himself ill because of his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible to Amnon to do anything to her" (2 Sam. 13:1-2).
We find in the text that "after a time" Amnon loved Tamar. The question I ask of this text is, "Why did Amnon love her?" There are clues. First, she was beautiful. Second, she was a virgin. Amnon loved Tamar because he had an affection for her. He had an affection for her because he valued her. He valued her because he could see she was beautiful and he obviously would have heard if she had been given to a man -- he knew she was a virgin. We have my description of love taking shape here. Did this love last? No. Why? Because the affection faded. Why? Because Amnon stopped finding value in Tamar. Amnon's love for Tamar overflowed in rape. We read on in 2 Samuel 13 that Amnon ceased to value Tamar after he raped her. Maybe it wasn't all Amnon had imagined it would be. Maybe he'd gotten what he wanted and didn't see the use in repeating. The text isn't clear as to why Amnon changed, but he did. "Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her" (2 Sam. 13:15). I am not saying Amnon's love for Tamar was noble or virtuous. It clearly wasn't (remember, the only criteria for virtuous love is that it pleases God). His affection for her could have flowed out in a desire for her purity. But it didn't. That's the power of sin to corrupt a God-given gift like love. Amnon's affection for Tamar (love) took him down all the wrong paths, at serious cost to her and himself.
Value is Determined by Pleasure Granted or Expected
Love begins as an affection flowing from a sense of beauty or value. The question I now want to ask is, "What determines what we value or to what extent we value it?" The value of an object is determined by the pleasure granted or expected from that object. To the extent that an object can further the pleasure of the one doing the loving, that object is valued. An object's value may emanate from inherent beauty or it may be derived as a means to another end. An example will illustrate this. God is inherently beautiful, or objectively beautiful in himself. So it should not be a foreign notion that every reasonable creature should have an affection (love) for God -- because he's valuable in himself. On the other hand, we have sinful man. He is unlovely in himself. He isn't inherently beautiful. Any beauty man has is derived from God. Therefore, what beauty or value does God see in man that he should have an affection (love) for us? God has an affection for man flowing from a sense of value in himself. It's not that man is inherently valuable and worthy of love. Instead, God is valuable and worthy of love. So God loves the world as a means to the end of getting glory from the world. If this sounds unreasonable, consider Paul's statement in Ephesians 5:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27).
Paul says that Christ loved the church. Everyone agrees with that. What did that love require? Christ gave himself up for her. Why did Christ die? Christ died to sanctify and cleanse the church. Why did Christ want to sanctify the church? Christ sanctified the church so that he might present the church to himself in splendor to worship him for all eternity. This was the joy set before him (see Heb. 12:2). Christ died for himself. And he died for the church. This blows away many people's conception of love. Christ had an entirely different reason for loving the church than that they were lovely. Christ had an affection for man flowing from a sense of value in himself. So man served Christ's greater end of glorifying himself. Christ valued the church for the pleasure he would gain from her. What's more, the church eternally benefits from Christ's seeking his pleasure in dying for the church. No sane person faults Christ for this! We should not feel the least bit slighted that Christ is working everything for our benefit, in spite of our unworthiness, to bring glory to himself. We should greatly rejoice that he is. We may be tempted to think that Christ didn't love the church. He just loved himself. That's not what Paul said. Jesus Christ pursued his own pleasure in the pleasure of the church. Paul called this pursuit "love."
In the above illustration of Amnon and Tamar, Amnon valued Tamar because of the pleasure he was expecting to receive from her. His affection flowed in the sinful way it did because his sense of value was perverse. He valued Tamar as a possession, something to be had for the sexual pleasure he expected to receive from her. The difference between Christ and Amnon is that Christ's love ultimately benefits the beloved by helping the beloved cherish God (which pleases God and makes the love virtuous). Jesus pursued pleasure in the ultimate pleasure of the beloved. Amnon's love consumed and did violence to the beloved and cared nothing about helping the beloved cherish God (which makes it displeasing to God and therefore sinful). Amnon pursued pleasure at the expense of the beloved. Christ's love was a fountain; Amnon's a sponge. What is your love for your spouse?
I would like to think that Amnon really just loved sex and saw his sister as an object to satisfy that love. But the biblical writer didn't say that. He wrote in 13:1 "And after a time Amnon, David's son, loved her." He didn't say Amnon loved sex. He didn't call Amnon's love "lust." He said Amnon loved Tamar. We must let the writer say what he wrote. It's alright to try to figure out why he wrote what he wrote. But it's not alright to make him say something he didn't. (Again, this proves that love is a general term, describing either a virtuous action or a sinful action depending on its relationship to God.) I think the pursuit of pleasure explains why Amnon ceased to love Tamar after he had violated her. It's interesting that Amnon wasn't just disinterested with Tamar afterwards. He was actively opposed to her. He hated her. Perhaps it was because Amnon's expectation of pleasure was seriously overinflated in his imagination. We'll see in the next section that Amnon was obsessed with Tamar. He thought of her constantly. He was fantasizing about how it would be. Then when he got his way with her, it was not the payoff he'd been expecting. So Amnon may have hated her because his expectation of pleasure had been dashed to pieces or because he expected no further pleasure could be had from her. In fact, after the deed was done, the thought of potential consequences may have come crashing down on his head. Those thoughts would not have been very pleasurable!
Another example of this relationship between value and pleasure is from the life of Moses in Hebrews 11. We looked at him in the last chapter. Moses had to choose between the fleeting treasures and pleasures of sinful Egypt, or the reproach of Christ. Moses made his choice by considering the reward he'd receive from both. He chose Christ over sin because he valued Christ over sin because his expectation of pleasure from Christ was greater than the pleasure he expected from sin. The reason I think he thought the reproach of Christ would bring greater pleasure than sin was because sin's pleasures are fleeting. They will eventually end and become anti-pleasure. So by faith Moses chose everlasting pleasure over temporary pleasure because everlasting pleasure is of necessity more valuable than temporary pleasure.
This is also John's argument in 1 John 2:15-17. John says not to love the world or the things in the world because the world will end along with its desires. In other words, the pleasure that the things of the world can give is fleeting and temporary. There will come a day when the world's pleasures will come to an end and become anti-pleasure. Seeking pleasure in the things of the world isn't nearly hedonistic enough because the promises of worldly pleasures are not powerful enough. John says the one who does the will of God abides forever. We saw in the last chapter what the will of God is -- to be happy in him through the gospel forever.
We must discipline our minds to constantly weigh competing pleasures. When the temporary pleasures of the world call out to us, we cannot allow ourselves to coast right into them. We must consider their promises, assess their payoff in the end and choose according to what is truly valuable. To a mind awakened to the value of God through faith, God's way will win out if considered long enough, because the eternal pleasures of God's way are better than the fleeting pleasures of the world's way.
It's important to point out at this point that we value based on pleasure granted or expected. Not every choice we make ends up in pleasure. Our decision may solidly backfire on us. If I go to a skydiving school and learn to jump out of an airplane, there is a real chance that the parachute won't open or a line may snap or I could crash into a tree and break my leg. I'm not setting out to kill myself. I'm setting out to get pleasure. However, my choice could result in anti-pleasure. But I'm expecting pleasure, not pain. If I go to a night club in a quest for a one-night-stand, I am expecting pleasure. I am not going in expecting to get a sexually transmitted disease. I may end up with one that could cause serious agony and death. I'm not setting out on a quest for agony. I'm setting out on a quest for pleasure. However, the quest may end in agony. But I'm expecting pleasure, not pain. This dynamic explains why we do the things we do, even when they seem really stupid to those around us. This explains why so many couples won't quit fighting or being selfish, even though it makes them miserable. Both spouses are expecting to get their way. They're not setting out to be upset. They're setting out to be happy. They're just going about it all wrong, and it backfires on them. We don't generally set out to ruin our lives with our choices. We set out to better our lives through heaping on more pleasure and it backfires on us. This shouldn't lead us to stop pursuing pleasure since we can't. It should provoke us to start seeking it in the only place it can be found in durable and ultimate form -- God.
Loving the Unseen Christ
We can see the relationship between love, joy and faith in 1 Peter 1:8-9. In this chapter, Peter is reflecting on the trials and joys of the Christian life when he considers the love that his readers have for Christ. Peter points out that, "though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls" (1 Pet. 1:8-9). Notice here that it seems somewhat strange to love someone we've never seen. That's why Peter points it out with the word "though." Consider this illustration. If I run around the block, no one may notice. But what if I have a broken leg and run around the block? Would that seem peculiar? Probably. Someone may even say, "Though he has a broken leg, he's running around the block." The word "though" in that sentence points out something out of the ordinary that may keep an act from being done. It's not normal to run on broken legs. In other words, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to see a guy running around the block. But it is out of the ordinary to see a guy running around the block with a broken leg. Peter is saying something similar about his readers' love. It isn't extraordinary to love someone. It is more extraordinary to love someone you've never seen. That's why Peter seems pleased that his readers love Jesus without having to see him.
Peter seems to be saying here that love is in some measure usually based on physical sense -- in this case, sense of sight. You see Jesus and you love him. If you want to love Jesus, you have to see him. The capacity to love seems related to the ability to assess something lovely. That assessment comes through senses. If you don't have that capacity to assess, you can't decide to love. Now what would enable Peter's readers to love Jesus without seeing him? What would give them the ability to assess something lovely about Jesus that would make it extraordinary? I think it's clear from the text that the answer is faith. Peter calls his readers' joyful, believing love for Jesus "faith" in verse 9. Peter's readers assessed the value of Jesus through the eyes of faith. Faith was the sense by which they could assess Jesus' value.
The love with which these early Christians loved Jesus was fueled by inexpressible joy. Through faith, they could rejoice in the promises of salvation given by Jesus and that sustained them through the most extreme trials. They valued Jesus because Jesus brought them such intense joy that it couldn't be fully expressed. It couldn't have been the sight of Jesus that brought them such great joy, like the sight of a super-model. They'd never seen him. It was what Jesus had done for them through the gospel that provoked such radical joy. And they sensed that, not through sight, but through faith. So we can see the relationship between love, joy and faith in this text. Love flows from a sense of beauty or value. Beauty or value is based on the joy granted or expected from an object. Faith is the "sixth sense" that enables virtuous love to flow without the aid of the physical senses.
I know what I'm saying may be new to you and require intense thought. Don't give up, keep thinking with me. Let me recap my thoughts about love to this point. 1) Love is best described as a progression of phases. 2) Love begins as an affection flowing from a sense of beauty or value. 3) When affection for an object dies, love dies. 4) An object's value is determined by the pleasure granted or expected. Let's move along to the next phase tomorrow.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Outlawing Emotional Abuse?
This is an interesting story. Is this necessary? It is even doable? What do you think?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Handling Conflict Head-on but Humbly
Conflict.
Powerful word. Some people are scared of it and will go to any extreme to avoid it. Others love it and will sacrifice anything for the thrill of being in it. It brings out the best and worst in all of us, providing the opportunity to empty ourselves of our rights for the good of another or assert ourselves at another's expense. It comes in many different forms, from world war enveloping scores of nations to the solitary war within our own heart over whether to buy that pack of chewing gum in the checkout line. As frightening as the word is, one thing is certain in this fallen world: conflict is inevitable. It started when the word of the serpent conflicted with the Word of God and the Word of God conflicted with Eve's desire to be God and Adam conflicted with Eve over whose fault it was and Eve conflicted with the serpent for setting her up and God conflicted with all of them by cursing the world and all of their descendants. And we've all been in conflict ever since.
As a pastor, I must confess that there have been times when I've rushed too quickly into conflict. I've done this for all sorts of reasons - out of fear something bad would happen if I waited or out of a desire to be vindicated or in order to "strike while the iron's hot." This has damaged relationships that could have been spared. I must also confess other times when I've put off a conflict that should have happened sooner. I've done this out of fear something bad would happen if I confronted or out of a desire to trample lightly on the feelings of others or just out of plain laziness. This also has damaged relationships that could have been spared. I have a natural desire to avoid conflict, yet at times compensate for that by forcing myself into it half-prepared just so I can say I'm not scared of a little conflict.
In spite of the unwise and even sinful ways I've dealt with conflict, there are also times when I think I've handled conflict in very God-honoring ways. The results are sometimes the same as when I've handled it sinfully. The relationship is damaged, but at least I can rest in knowing that it's in God's hands to fix it or not. The relationship isn't damaged by my sinful handling of the conflict, but by reasons out of my control. It is my prayer that all of us can do less rushing into conflict and less avoiding it when it is necessary. I hope God in his grace will show us a still more excellent way.
In The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another, I deal with conflict in Chapter 8 Forgiveness: Guardian of Marital Bliss. I give extensive counsel for husbands and wives in the midst of conflict. I relied heavily on a book by Ken Sande entitled The Peacemaker. I think Sande's book is the best book on God-centered conflict resolution that there is outside of Scripture. The reason it is so good is because it is so dependent upon Scripture.
The Bible tells us what our goals should be in conflict and how to resolve them in a God-glorifying, Christ-honoring way. I'll lay out a little of the process here.
1) Conflict is unavoidable in a fallen world because it's part of the curse. God will not allow this world to be non-conflicted in its rebellion against him. So the question isn't whether we can get through this life without conflict. We can't as long as we are in relationships with other people. The question is much more simple - who will get the glory from the conflicts we have? In a conflict, either I get the glory, you get the glory, Satan gets the glory or God gets the glory. Those are the options. If either you or I get the glory, then Satan gets the glory automatically. I would propose that if Christians aren't very careful, Satan will get the glory more than God from our conflicts. So the most important thing to do in any conflict is make the conscious decision that God will get the glory from the conflict. Don't go through the situation on auto-pilot.
2) Conflict isn't anything to be afraid of. Jesus tells his disciples not to fear man. Fear God. Most sinful handling of conflict is out of fear. I pointed that out in my confession above. Whether I rushed into conflict or avoided it like the plague, it was often out of fear. If God is going to get the glory in conflict, then his followers can't be afraid of it because that will lead to sinful handling of it. So make it a priority to face conflict head-on, but humbly. Head-on BUT humbly.
3) Ken Sande defines conflict as "a difference in opinion or purpose that frustrates someone's goals or desires." This is an excellent definition because it fits with world war or when you gently disagree with your wife over Mexican or Chinese food for lunch. By that definition, how many times a day are you in conflict with another? Often. When those conflicts come up, you may wrong someone else - snap at her or cut off relationship with him or punish in some way - in which case you should humbly confess your sin to the other person. Don't be afraid that confessing makes you look weak or stupid or mean. Everyone knows you're a loser because Christ had to come and die for you. We're all in the same boat. However, when you've searched your heart in light of Scripture, and perhaps had others confirm that you're in the right (without gossip and slander!), then be ready to forgive the sins of the other person, even when the other person doesn't seem to care.
4) Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can truly resolve conflict because any other form of resolution skirts around the main issue; namely, that we're in conflict with other people because we're in conflict with God and are cursed because of it. The gospel is how Jesus resolved the conflict between God and man and how he expects his followers to resolve conflicts with one another. The gospel condemns us so that we don't have to justify ourselves before others, and the gospel justifies us so that we don't have to face the condemnation of others. We are free to confront, free to confess and free to forgive because that's exactly what God did to us in the Gospel.
5) Jesus resolved the conflict between God and man by taking the destructive effects of the conflict upon himself and bearing it fully on the cross. Jesus ended the conflict by forgiving the wrong. When forgiveness happens, the wrong doesn't just go away. It is absorbed by the forgiver. In other words, forgiveness comes with a cost. It cost Jesus the cross and all the humiliation he suffered before it. This is the example that Jesus tells his disciples to follow. However, most Christians try their hardest to be credited with forgiving without actually having to bear any cost for it. They say they forgive, but secretly store away the wrong in their memory somewhere like Gollum stroking his precious ring. So the relationship remains strained forever. True forgiveness simply doesn't work that way. When Jesus forgave you, he accepted you forever, never to let your sins resurface in his mind. You went from scarlet to white as snow forever. When we have our way with those who wrong us, their sins go from scarlet to a kind of dingy gray or off-white that always reminds us of their past wrongs. Just let them be white! Don't force them to be forever gray in your eyes.
6) Forgiveness has nothing to do with the size of the offense. If you can only forgive little things, then you don't yet appreciate how great your sin is before God who forgave you. Go back to Bible 101. Christ went through hell to forgive you because your sin against him is infinitely atrocious. No one has wronged you like you've wronged God. You aren't nearly as worthy of honor as God. So the next time you're tempted to think, "How dare he do that to me? What's the matter with him?" come down off your high horse and forgive like Christ.
Conflict has been on my mind a lot in the past year. I've been forced to think long and hard about how I've personally handled conflict with others and the damage that has been done. And I've seen others in the midst of conflict suffer the slings and arrows, not of outrageous misfortune, but of one another's hard heartedness. But through the gospel of Jesus Christ, we can face conflict head-on but humbly with a power that can only come from God. If God can turn his conflict with rebellious man into an eternal bride and the conflict with Saul into the apostle Paul and the conflict between Jews and Gentiles into the church, surely he can handle anything we throw his way. Don't you believe it?
Powerful word. Some people are scared of it and will go to any extreme to avoid it. Others love it and will sacrifice anything for the thrill of being in it. It brings out the best and worst in all of us, providing the opportunity to empty ourselves of our rights for the good of another or assert ourselves at another's expense. It comes in many different forms, from world war enveloping scores of nations to the solitary war within our own heart over whether to buy that pack of chewing gum in the checkout line. As frightening as the word is, one thing is certain in this fallen world: conflict is inevitable. It started when the word of the serpent conflicted with the Word of God and the Word of God conflicted with Eve's desire to be God and Adam conflicted with Eve over whose fault it was and Eve conflicted with the serpent for setting her up and God conflicted with all of them by cursing the world and all of their descendants. And we've all been in conflict ever since.
As a pastor, I must confess that there have been times when I've rushed too quickly into conflict. I've done this for all sorts of reasons - out of fear something bad would happen if I waited or out of a desire to be vindicated or in order to "strike while the iron's hot." This has damaged relationships that could have been spared. I must also confess other times when I've put off a conflict that should have happened sooner. I've done this out of fear something bad would happen if I confronted or out of a desire to trample lightly on the feelings of others or just out of plain laziness. This also has damaged relationships that could have been spared. I have a natural desire to avoid conflict, yet at times compensate for that by forcing myself into it half-prepared just so I can say I'm not scared of a little conflict.
In spite of the unwise and even sinful ways I've dealt with conflict, there are also times when I think I've handled conflict in very God-honoring ways. The results are sometimes the same as when I've handled it sinfully. The relationship is damaged, but at least I can rest in knowing that it's in God's hands to fix it or not. The relationship isn't damaged by my sinful handling of the conflict, but by reasons out of my control. It is my prayer that all of us can do less rushing into conflict and less avoiding it when it is necessary. I hope God in his grace will show us a still more excellent way.
In The Pursuit of Pleasure in the Pleasure of Another, I deal with conflict in Chapter 8 Forgiveness: Guardian of Marital Bliss. I give extensive counsel for husbands and wives in the midst of conflict. I relied heavily on a book by Ken Sande entitled The Peacemaker. I think Sande's book is the best book on God-centered conflict resolution that there is outside of Scripture. The reason it is so good is because it is so dependent upon Scripture.
The Bible tells us what our goals should be in conflict and how to resolve them in a God-glorifying, Christ-honoring way. I'll lay out a little of the process here.
1) Conflict is unavoidable in a fallen world because it's part of the curse. God will not allow this world to be non-conflicted in its rebellion against him. So the question isn't whether we can get through this life without conflict. We can't as long as we are in relationships with other people. The question is much more simple - who will get the glory from the conflicts we have? In a conflict, either I get the glory, you get the glory, Satan gets the glory or God gets the glory. Those are the options. If either you or I get the glory, then Satan gets the glory automatically. I would propose that if Christians aren't very careful, Satan will get the glory more than God from our conflicts. So the most important thing to do in any conflict is make the conscious decision that God will get the glory from the conflict. Don't go through the situation on auto-pilot.
2) Conflict isn't anything to be afraid of. Jesus tells his disciples not to fear man. Fear God. Most sinful handling of conflict is out of fear. I pointed that out in my confession above. Whether I rushed into conflict or avoided it like the plague, it was often out of fear. If God is going to get the glory in conflict, then his followers can't be afraid of it because that will lead to sinful handling of it. So make it a priority to face conflict head-on, but humbly. Head-on BUT humbly.
3) Ken Sande defines conflict as "a difference in opinion or purpose that frustrates someone's goals or desires." This is an excellent definition because it fits with world war or when you gently disagree with your wife over Mexican or Chinese food for lunch. By that definition, how many times a day are you in conflict with another? Often. When those conflicts come up, you may wrong someone else - snap at her or cut off relationship with him or punish in some way - in which case you should humbly confess your sin to the other person. Don't be afraid that confessing makes you look weak or stupid or mean. Everyone knows you're a loser because Christ had to come and die for you. We're all in the same boat. However, when you've searched your heart in light of Scripture, and perhaps had others confirm that you're in the right (without gossip and slander!), then be ready to forgive the sins of the other person, even when the other person doesn't seem to care.
4) Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can truly resolve conflict because any other form of resolution skirts around the main issue; namely, that we're in conflict with other people because we're in conflict with God and are cursed because of it. The gospel is how Jesus resolved the conflict between God and man and how he expects his followers to resolve conflicts with one another. The gospel condemns us so that we don't have to justify ourselves before others, and the gospel justifies us so that we don't have to face the condemnation of others. We are free to confront, free to confess and free to forgive because that's exactly what God did to us in the Gospel.
5) Jesus resolved the conflict between God and man by taking the destructive effects of the conflict upon himself and bearing it fully on the cross. Jesus ended the conflict by forgiving the wrong. When forgiveness happens, the wrong doesn't just go away. It is absorbed by the forgiver. In other words, forgiveness comes with a cost. It cost Jesus the cross and all the humiliation he suffered before it. This is the example that Jesus tells his disciples to follow. However, most Christians try their hardest to be credited with forgiving without actually having to bear any cost for it. They say they forgive, but secretly store away the wrong in their memory somewhere like Gollum stroking his precious ring. So the relationship remains strained forever. True forgiveness simply doesn't work that way. When Jesus forgave you, he accepted you forever, never to let your sins resurface in his mind. You went from scarlet to white as snow forever. When we have our way with those who wrong us, their sins go from scarlet to a kind of dingy gray or off-white that always reminds us of their past wrongs. Just let them be white! Don't force them to be forever gray in your eyes.
6) Forgiveness has nothing to do with the size of the offense. If you can only forgive little things, then you don't yet appreciate how great your sin is before God who forgave you. Go back to Bible 101. Christ went through hell to forgive you because your sin against him is infinitely atrocious. No one has wronged you like you've wronged God. You aren't nearly as worthy of honor as God. So the next time you're tempted to think, "How dare he do that to me? What's the matter with him?" come down off your high horse and forgive like Christ.
Conflict has been on my mind a lot in the past year. I've been forced to think long and hard about how I've personally handled conflict with others and the damage that has been done. And I've seen others in the midst of conflict suffer the slings and arrows, not of outrageous misfortune, but of one another's hard heartedness. But through the gospel of Jesus Christ, we can face conflict head-on but humbly with a power that can only come from God. If God can turn his conflict with rebellious man into an eternal bride and the conflict with Saul into the apostle Paul and the conflict between Jews and Gentiles into the church, surely he can handle anything we throw his way. Don't you believe it?
Monday, January 4, 2010
People are Starving for the Greatness of God
"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths" (Genesis 3:6).
"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Romans 1:21-25).
It might be impossible to overstate the devastating effects of the Fall of man into sin. Mankind has suffered thousands of years of misery, conflict and death as a result of that first sin. As I've pondered this over the last week, an interesting thought occurred to me. Man spends his entire life since the Fall: 1) trying to recover from the Fall, or 2) trying to escape the realities of the Fall for a little while. Try to think of something that you do that doesn't fit into one of those categories. You either work to improve your life or work to escape it (either mentally or physically). That's pretty much all you do.
One of the worst effects of the Fall is the futility of the mind and darkness of the heart. Notice what happened when Adam and Eve exchanged the truth about God for a lie. God "gave them up" to that futile darkness. We still suffer the same consequences today as we still follow the same foolish path of our first parents today. We are cursed by our own minds and led astray by our own hearts. This is true for Christians as well as non-Christians. I want to narrow our thoughts about this to one area: Christian living.
Go to the "Christian" bookstore. What do you see when you get beyond the pictures and candles and trinkets and cards? Hopefully you see some books. But what kind of books do you see there? If the store owner wants to stay in business, you see books the store owner thinks his customers will buy. So the supply of books is set by the demand of the consumer. This is important to think about because it tells us something about ourselves. Usually there will be a little shelf off in the corner somewhere labeled "Doctrine" or "Theology" or something like that. You won't find many books on that shelf. But the main section of the store will be broken down into "Fiction" "Christian living" "Ministry" "Marriage and Family" "Money" "Teen" "Counseling" "Charismatic" and things like that. This is where the store makes its living on books. The how-to section.
How do I manage my money? Go to the money section. How do I get along with my wife or how do I handle my unruly teen or how do I become a better housewife? Go to the family section. How do I have a good quiet time? Go to the Christian living section. How do I grow my church from 10 to 1,000? Go to the ministry section. How do I escape the reality of my pathetic life for awhile? Go to the fiction section. How do I fulfill my lust for romance novels without feeling guilty? Go to the Christian romance section where you can read about the new hunk pastor that comes to town on a white horse. How do I get the Holy Spirit to give me the desires of my heart? Go to the charismatic section. Do you get the idea? These are the books the stores carry because these are the books Christians think they need to get through life or mentally escape it for awhile.
Now, compare the above paragraph with this quote: "People are starving for the greatness of God. But most of them would not give this diagnosis of their troubled lives. The majesty of God is an unknown cure. There are far more popular prescriptions on the market, but the benefit of any other remedy is brief and shallow... The greatness and glory of God are relevant. It does not matter if surveys turn up a list of perceived needs that does not include the supreme greatness of the sovereign God of grace. That is the deepest need. Our people are starving for God... Man-centered humans are amazed that God should withhold life and joy from his creatures. But the God-centered Bible is amazed that God should withhold judgment from sinners. One of the implications this has for preaching is that preachers who take their cue from the Bible and not from the world will always be wrestling with spiritual realities that many of their hearers do not even know exist or think essential." This quote is from John Piper's book The Supremacy of God in Preaching. This is one of the greatest books on preaching even though it is small.
I brought up the bookstore to point out that our buying habits display a fundamental flaw in our quest for fulfillment. How-to books cannot restore the wonder and majesty of God. They have their place. They can give some nitty-gritty advice on how to live after one has a big God swelling up in their hearts. But I question if one with such a God growing in their hearts would even need the how-to book. When we start with a big God, everything else seems to fall into place. When we start with a little God, then we try to fill in the gaps with how-to manuals that eventually foster self-righteousness.
As a Christian, seek to have your vision of God's glory and majesty and beauty expanded in your heart. Find books that will do this, starting with the Bible. If your pastor preaches sermons that seem heavy on God and light on application, don't chastise him for it. Thank him for it. If your pastor preaches little puff pieces with more jokes and self-actualization techniques then God, lovingly and privately challenge him to bring God to the center. Put down the Christian living book you're reading and pick up a book out of that oft-neglected "Doctrine" section and let your heart race with the big God you find there. Only a big God bringing a big gospel can enlighten our Fall-darkened hearts and correct our Fall-induced futile minds.
"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" (Romans 1:21-25).
It might be impossible to overstate the devastating effects of the Fall of man into sin. Mankind has suffered thousands of years of misery, conflict and death as a result of that first sin. As I've pondered this over the last week, an interesting thought occurred to me. Man spends his entire life since the Fall: 1) trying to recover from the Fall, or 2) trying to escape the realities of the Fall for a little while. Try to think of something that you do that doesn't fit into one of those categories. You either work to improve your life or work to escape it (either mentally or physically). That's pretty much all you do.
One of the worst effects of the Fall is the futility of the mind and darkness of the heart. Notice what happened when Adam and Eve exchanged the truth about God for a lie. God "gave them up" to that futile darkness. We still suffer the same consequences today as we still follow the same foolish path of our first parents today. We are cursed by our own minds and led astray by our own hearts. This is true for Christians as well as non-Christians. I want to narrow our thoughts about this to one area: Christian living.
Go to the "Christian" bookstore. What do you see when you get beyond the pictures and candles and trinkets and cards? Hopefully you see some books. But what kind of books do you see there? If the store owner wants to stay in business, you see books the store owner thinks his customers will buy. So the supply of books is set by the demand of the consumer. This is important to think about because it tells us something about ourselves. Usually there will be a little shelf off in the corner somewhere labeled "Doctrine" or "Theology" or something like that. You won't find many books on that shelf. But the main section of the store will be broken down into "Fiction" "Christian living" "Ministry" "Marriage and Family" "Money" "Teen" "Counseling" "Charismatic" and things like that. This is where the store makes its living on books. The how-to section.
How do I manage my money? Go to the money section. How do I get along with my wife or how do I handle my unruly teen or how do I become a better housewife? Go to the family section. How do I have a good quiet time? Go to the Christian living section. How do I grow my church from 10 to 1,000? Go to the ministry section. How do I escape the reality of my pathetic life for awhile? Go to the fiction section. How do I fulfill my lust for romance novels without feeling guilty? Go to the Christian romance section where you can read about the new hunk pastor that comes to town on a white horse. How do I get the Holy Spirit to give me the desires of my heart? Go to the charismatic section. Do you get the idea? These are the books the stores carry because these are the books Christians think they need to get through life or mentally escape it for awhile.
Now, compare the above paragraph with this quote: "People are starving for the greatness of God. But most of them would not give this diagnosis of their troubled lives. The majesty of God is an unknown cure. There are far more popular prescriptions on the market, but the benefit of any other remedy is brief and shallow... The greatness and glory of God are relevant. It does not matter if surveys turn up a list of perceived needs that does not include the supreme greatness of the sovereign God of grace. That is the deepest need. Our people are starving for God... Man-centered humans are amazed that God should withhold life and joy from his creatures. But the God-centered Bible is amazed that God should withhold judgment from sinners. One of the implications this has for preaching is that preachers who take their cue from the Bible and not from the world will always be wrestling with spiritual realities that many of their hearers do not even know exist or think essential." This quote is from John Piper's book The Supremacy of God in Preaching. This is one of the greatest books on preaching even though it is small.
I brought up the bookstore to point out that our buying habits display a fundamental flaw in our quest for fulfillment. How-to books cannot restore the wonder and majesty of God. They have their place. They can give some nitty-gritty advice on how to live after one has a big God swelling up in their hearts. But I question if one with such a God growing in their hearts would even need the how-to book. When we start with a big God, everything else seems to fall into place. When we start with a little God, then we try to fill in the gaps with how-to manuals that eventually foster self-righteousness.
As a Christian, seek to have your vision of God's glory and majesty and beauty expanded in your heart. Find books that will do this, starting with the Bible. If your pastor preaches sermons that seem heavy on God and light on application, don't chastise him for it. Thank him for it. If your pastor preaches little puff pieces with more jokes and self-actualization techniques then God, lovingly and privately challenge him to bring God to the center. Put down the Christian living book you're reading and pick up a book out of that oft-neglected "Doctrine" section and let your heart race with the big God you find there. Only a big God bringing a big gospel can enlighten our Fall-darkened hearts and correct our Fall-induced futile minds.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Day Alone
Anyone who knows me knows my fascination with everything written by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was a German pastor in the mid 1900's who died at the hands of the nazi's at the close of WWII. While I disagree with some important points of his theology, the one thing I find myself in nearly complete agreement with is his excellent book, Life Together. This book flowed from his practical experience as the leader of a tight-knit seminary. In this book, we find so much treasure on how to get along as Christians in community. Things like: what makes Christian community distinct from other kinds of groups, healthy love that serves versus 'selfish' love that consumes, the tragedy of trying to make others live up to your wishful image of love and community, the danger of allowing your mouth to utter even one word of gossip or slander, the activities a Christian community should do together, the struggle for self-justification at others' expense, the battle for 'weak' Christians to claim power over the 'strong' ones, how 'strong' Christians can dominate the 'weak' ones, the freedom of one Christian from another while living in community, the necessity of public confession and the blessing of the Lord's Supper taken in unity.
Each of these topics is enough for book-length study on its own, and I've piddled around with several of them in past posts. But the one topic that has recently struck me anew is one I haven't mentioned yet: the day alone. Bonhoeffer's chapter entitled, "The Day Alone" is a testament to his depth of thought and insight into human nature. He really thought a lot about these things. I've read numerous books on 'the church' or 'small groups' or 'Christian community' or 'fellowship' and you might have, too. But how many books on being a community have deep appreciation for being alone?
Bonhoeffer wrote, "Many persons seek community because they are afraid of loneliness. Because they can no longer endure being alone, such people are driven to seek the company of others. Christians, too, who cannot cope on their own, and who in their own lives have had some bad experiences, hope to experience help with this in the company of other people. More often than not, they are disappointed. They then blame the community for what is really their own fault. The Christian community is not a spiritual sanatorium. Those who take refuge in community while fleeing from themselves are misusing it to indulge in empty talk and distraction, no matter how spiritual this idle talk and distraction may appear. In reality they are not seeking community at all, but only a thrill that will allow them to forget their isolation for a short time. It is precisely such misuse of community that creates deadly isolation of human beings. Such attempts to find healing result in the undermining of speech and all genuine experience and, finally, resignation and spiritual death. Whoever cannot be alone should beware of community (italics in the original)."
Every sentence is filled with weight, and you find yourself saying, Wow, after each one. The last sentence is heaviest. My paraphrase: If you can't be alone, you'll suck being around others. That's not my attempt to sound cool. I mean that if you can't be alone for any length of time, content with just you and God, then you will suck from others what you can't get from yourself or God. This is idolatry, making another person or group give you some sense of security or peace or pleasure or significance. It's selfish.
And when you realize the person you're with (like a spouse) or the group you're with (like a church) isn't giving you what you think is your right, then you'll get scared and try your hardest to get them to perform like you think they should. You'll bribe: "Honey, why don't we go out tonight?" (for a spouse). Or "Why don't all of you in my small group come over for dinner?" (for a church). And then you'll measure everything that's said and done to see if it gives you some feeling of comfort. Sometimes that can last for awhile. But when such bribes don't eventually provide the payoff you're looking for, you'll manipulate: "Honey, we used to be so close, and now I feel so far away from you." (for a spouse). Or "I wonder why our church doesn't seem as loving as we used to." (for a church). So you're always expecting someone else to make you feel loved and accepted.
Now, most people love bribes or can't long stand manipulation without caving in, so this kind of unhealthy, idolatrous community can go on for some time unchecked. It's like a cancer in a marriage or a church. But eventually, something has to give, because your spouse, and your Christian community cannot be your God and the problem is you. When the bribes and manipulations don't seem to get you the community you're sure you deserve, you try to punish: "Oh, I didn't even realize we haven't spoken in days, is there something you want to talk about?" (for a spouse). Or "Let's skip church a few weeks and see if anyone even misses us." (for a church). Punishments are painful. Nobody likes them, least of all those who don't know why they're being punished. Most people who can't stand being alone punish people who don't even get it. So it's not going to work. You're just going to make yourself miserable while everyone around you wonders why.
When bribes, manipulations and punishments fail to fulfill the demand for a certain kind of community, it's time for separation: "I want a divorce because we're like two strangers living under the same roof." (for a spouse). Or "We need to find a church that actually loves and accepts us, where we can be ministered to." (for a church). So when you can't stand being alone, you go on a quest for the next spouse or church, hoping you'll finally find your 'soul mate' (for a spouse) or 'a real church home' (for a church).
If you'd just stop in your tracks, stop looking for another human being or group of human beings to bring you what they cannot, then you will have time to look in the right direction. The heart and soul of the day alone is the Word of God. Just you, sitting silently and humbly before God and his Word. What happens when you sit silent and humble before the Word of God? You are confronted. Not your spouse. Not your neighbor. Not your church. YOU. Pride goes to the Word of God to find fault with others, how they're not living up to your expectations. God says the Bible is a sword, but not for you to use against your brothers and sisters in Christ. It's a sword for each Christian to use to kill his own wicked selfishness so that when individual Christians come together, their flesh is too mutilated to kill each other with thoughts and words.
So if you're going to Scripture to accuse your spouse or your brethren, STOP IT! Go to Scripture begging God to help you be satisfied with him alone, so you have no need or desire to judge your brother or sister. Sinners go to the Word of God to talk, using Scripture like lawyers trying to bring suit against others. Saints go to the Word of God to silently listen to God bring them the cut of confrontation and the grace to cover the wound.
Sit before the Word of God and soak it in. Let it pierce and let it heal. Thank God for his beautiful gospel. You know the one, the gospel that tells of a Warrior King who knew how to spend his day alone, who eventually died alone on a cross. You know that gospel don't you? It's the news about the Savior who continues to accept you even though you've proven yourself entirely unacceptable to him. It's the news about a Husband who stays with his bride even when she proves to be a whore. Remember? It's that story about a Savior who laid down his life so that his followers could go to Heaven while using and consuming one another with misguided notions of marriage and fellowship.
The next time you wonder why you aren't feeling loved, the next time you go looking for a cause to your loneliness, the next time you're tempted to blame your spouse or your church for your lack of satisfaction, stop in your tracks and ponder whether you might not be ready to assess the quality of community because you've not yet figured out how to spend the day alone.
Each of these topics is enough for book-length study on its own, and I've piddled around with several of them in past posts. But the one topic that has recently struck me anew is one I haven't mentioned yet: the day alone. Bonhoeffer's chapter entitled, "The Day Alone" is a testament to his depth of thought and insight into human nature. He really thought a lot about these things. I've read numerous books on 'the church' or 'small groups' or 'Christian community' or 'fellowship' and you might have, too. But how many books on being a community have deep appreciation for being alone?
Bonhoeffer wrote, "Many persons seek community because they are afraid of loneliness. Because they can no longer endure being alone, such people are driven to seek the company of others. Christians, too, who cannot cope on their own, and who in their own lives have had some bad experiences, hope to experience help with this in the company of other people. More often than not, they are disappointed. They then blame the community for what is really their own fault. The Christian community is not a spiritual sanatorium. Those who take refuge in community while fleeing from themselves are misusing it to indulge in empty talk and distraction, no matter how spiritual this idle talk and distraction may appear. In reality they are not seeking community at all, but only a thrill that will allow them to forget their isolation for a short time. It is precisely such misuse of community that creates deadly isolation of human beings. Such attempts to find healing result in the undermining of speech and all genuine experience and, finally, resignation and spiritual death. Whoever cannot be alone should beware of community (italics in the original)."
Every sentence is filled with weight, and you find yourself saying, Wow, after each one. The last sentence is heaviest. My paraphrase: If you can't be alone, you'll suck being around others. That's not my attempt to sound cool. I mean that if you can't be alone for any length of time, content with just you and God, then you will suck from others what you can't get from yourself or God. This is idolatry, making another person or group give you some sense of security or peace or pleasure or significance. It's selfish.
And when you realize the person you're with (like a spouse) or the group you're with (like a church) isn't giving you what you think is your right, then you'll get scared and try your hardest to get them to perform like you think they should. You'll bribe: "Honey, why don't we go out tonight?" (for a spouse). Or "Why don't all of you in my small group come over for dinner?" (for a church). And then you'll measure everything that's said and done to see if it gives you some feeling of comfort. Sometimes that can last for awhile. But when such bribes don't eventually provide the payoff you're looking for, you'll manipulate: "Honey, we used to be so close, and now I feel so far away from you." (for a spouse). Or "I wonder why our church doesn't seem as loving as we used to." (for a church). So you're always expecting someone else to make you feel loved and accepted.
Now, most people love bribes or can't long stand manipulation without caving in, so this kind of unhealthy, idolatrous community can go on for some time unchecked. It's like a cancer in a marriage or a church. But eventually, something has to give, because your spouse, and your Christian community cannot be your God and the problem is you. When the bribes and manipulations don't seem to get you the community you're sure you deserve, you try to punish: "Oh, I didn't even realize we haven't spoken in days, is there something you want to talk about?" (for a spouse). Or "Let's skip church a few weeks and see if anyone even misses us." (for a church). Punishments are painful. Nobody likes them, least of all those who don't know why they're being punished. Most people who can't stand being alone punish people who don't even get it. So it's not going to work. You're just going to make yourself miserable while everyone around you wonders why.
When bribes, manipulations and punishments fail to fulfill the demand for a certain kind of community, it's time for separation: "I want a divorce because we're like two strangers living under the same roof." (for a spouse). Or "We need to find a church that actually loves and accepts us, where we can be ministered to." (for a church). So when you can't stand being alone, you go on a quest for the next spouse or church, hoping you'll finally find your 'soul mate' (for a spouse) or 'a real church home' (for a church).
If you'd just stop in your tracks, stop looking for another human being or group of human beings to bring you what they cannot, then you will have time to look in the right direction. The heart and soul of the day alone is the Word of God. Just you, sitting silently and humbly before God and his Word. What happens when you sit silent and humble before the Word of God? You are confronted. Not your spouse. Not your neighbor. Not your church. YOU. Pride goes to the Word of God to find fault with others, how they're not living up to your expectations. God says the Bible is a sword, but not for you to use against your brothers and sisters in Christ. It's a sword for each Christian to use to kill his own wicked selfishness so that when individual Christians come together, their flesh is too mutilated to kill each other with thoughts and words.
So if you're going to Scripture to accuse your spouse or your brethren, STOP IT! Go to Scripture begging God to help you be satisfied with him alone, so you have no need or desire to judge your brother or sister. Sinners go to the Word of God to talk, using Scripture like lawyers trying to bring suit against others. Saints go to the Word of God to silently listen to God bring them the cut of confrontation and the grace to cover the wound.
Sit before the Word of God and soak it in. Let it pierce and let it heal. Thank God for his beautiful gospel. You know the one, the gospel that tells of a Warrior King who knew how to spend his day alone, who eventually died alone on a cross. You know that gospel don't you? It's the news about the Savior who continues to accept you even though you've proven yourself entirely unacceptable to him. It's the news about a Husband who stays with his bride even when she proves to be a whore. Remember? It's that story about a Savior who laid down his life so that his followers could go to Heaven while using and consuming one another with misguided notions of marriage and fellowship.
The next time you wonder why you aren't feeling loved, the next time you go looking for a cause to your loneliness, the next time you're tempted to blame your spouse or your church for your lack of satisfaction, stop in your tracks and ponder whether you might not be ready to assess the quality of community because you've not yet figured out how to spend the day alone.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
What is a Woman's High Calling?
I've been reading some interesting stuff on the net lately about spouse roles. Only recently have I been struck by a disturbing theme that seems to be quite common. The theme has been there all along, I suppose. But only recently have I seen it as off-based. I'm not going to give a list of links and specific quotes because I don't want to seem like I'm picking on anyone, and it's quite a common assertion. I don't think it needs to be personal. Instead, I'll give a few general phrases that I see repeated in some form in many essays and articles, and interact with them. Again, these are not actual quotes of anyone, but only my rephrasing of what I've read and heard through the years. I'm sure they're familiar enough for most Christians to grasp my point.
1. "Motherhood is the woman's high calling."
2. "As a woman, my time, talent and ability couldn't be any better spent than keeping a home and taking care of children."
3. "It's God's design that, as women, we are all to be keepers of the home."
4. "We should be raising our daughters to be wives and mothers."
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. On the surface, these phrases seem to be counter-cultural and consistent with a biblical worldview. They're also pretty widely accepted in most conservative Christian circles. So what could I possibly pick apart in such assertions?
The primary problem I have is that, though they seem so conservative and hearken back to a golden age of Americana, they just don't jive so well with a gospel-centered worldview. Now that's strange to say, because I've actually seen these assertions defended as the most gospel-centered view of womanhood. But the folks making that claim don't usually go to the most gospel-centered texts to prove it. Instead, they go to texts dealing with the creation of Adam and Eve or Proverbs 31 or Titus 2 or 1 Timothy 2:15.
So what texts would I bring up to refute the above phrases? I'm only going to go in depth with one text. The most obvious one for me is 1 Corinthians 7.
1. Paul says that as a concession, he wishes that all people would be like Paul - single (7:7) But if people are going to burn with passion, then they should marry. Are women included in this text? Of course. Then how could a woman's high calling be motherhood if it's not even a woman's responsibility to get married?
2. Paul speaks so strongly about remaining single that he has to remind his readers that if they do actually marry they aren't sinning (7:28). Paul is so cautious about marriage because: "in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is" (7:26). Some think the distress is some local problem like persecution. That's possible, but it's just as likely that he's referring to the imminent return of Christ. Paul's gospel-centered, heavenly-minded focus is so intense that his readers are going to take him as anti-marriage. That's why he has to further explain his position. "The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.... For the present form of this world is passing away" (7:29, 31). "Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that" (7:28). In other words, the gospel is turning the world upside down, and there's not time to lose in our missional mandate. So it might not be the best thing for Christians to get bogged down with relationship burdens. No matter how noble we think marriage is, it's still just a form of this world that is passing away. That has to mean that no matter how high a calling we think motherhood is, it also is just a form of this world that is passing away. How can a woman be faulted for not being a mother when she's rarely encouraged in the New Testament to even get married?
3. Paul doesn't stop there. So people who get married are going to have "worldly troubles." Like what? What kind of "worldly troubles"? "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband" (7:32-34). Paul clearly sees an advantage for the gospel in being unmarried. I wonder exactly what Paul had in mind when writing of divided interests in pleasing a spouse. Might he have been thinking about being tied down to a household chore list? A married person is simply not as free to follow the cause of the gospel wherever it leads as a single person. Now, I've seen it said that women should get married and have all sorts of kids so that they can then preach the gospel to them and the church will grow. There's simply no biblical command that comes close to justifying such a suggestion.
4. I can hear some of the complaints now. "Darby, are you saying you agree with the feminazis out there messing up the culture?" No, I'm not. "Are you saying that Paul thought women and men had the same roles?" No, I'm not. "Do you realize how chaotic and disorderly your version of this text would make things?" No, I don't. And neither does Paul. In fact, Paul is writing all this anti-marriage stuff, "not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35). This is so contrary to our conservative Christian - Focus on the Family - take back the culture sensibilities. We think we can practice good order by focusing on the family. And Paul says we can only have good order with undivided devotion to the Lord, whether we have a family or not.
5. One practical outcome of our modern "pro-family" rather than "pro-gospel" perspective is the difficulty in inspiring couples to be missionaries. Good Christians will say things like: "Well I'm not sure if God is calling me to go to Yemen, but I know he's calling me to be a good mother to my children. If I'd take them to Yemen, I'd put them in all sorts of dangers, so we're just going to stay right here in the suburbs and keep a clean house and a manicured lawn and healthy babies. That's my high calling after all."
I realize any post about such a big and important subject as this is going to be incomplete and open to disagreement. I've left a lot unsaid. But my goal is to stir up further thought on this rather than give an exhaustive explanation beyond refutation. So what do you think?
1. "Motherhood is the woman's high calling."
2. "As a woman, my time, talent and ability couldn't be any better spent than keeping a home and taking care of children."
3. "It's God's design that, as women, we are all to be keepers of the home."
4. "We should be raising our daughters to be wives and mothers."
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. On the surface, these phrases seem to be counter-cultural and consistent with a biblical worldview. They're also pretty widely accepted in most conservative Christian circles. So what could I possibly pick apart in such assertions?
The primary problem I have is that, though they seem so conservative and hearken back to a golden age of Americana, they just don't jive so well with a gospel-centered worldview. Now that's strange to say, because I've actually seen these assertions defended as the most gospel-centered view of womanhood. But the folks making that claim don't usually go to the most gospel-centered texts to prove it. Instead, they go to texts dealing with the creation of Adam and Eve or Proverbs 31 or Titus 2 or 1 Timothy 2:15.
So what texts would I bring up to refute the above phrases? I'm only going to go in depth with one text. The most obvious one for me is 1 Corinthians 7.
1. Paul says that as a concession, he wishes that all people would be like Paul - single (7:7) But if people are going to burn with passion, then they should marry. Are women included in this text? Of course. Then how could a woman's high calling be motherhood if it's not even a woman's responsibility to get married?
2. Paul speaks so strongly about remaining single that he has to remind his readers that if they do actually marry they aren't sinning (7:28). Paul is so cautious about marriage because: "in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is" (7:26). Some think the distress is some local problem like persecution. That's possible, but it's just as likely that he's referring to the imminent return of Christ. Paul's gospel-centered, heavenly-minded focus is so intense that his readers are going to take him as anti-marriage. That's why he has to further explain his position. "The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.... For the present form of this world is passing away" (7:29, 31). "Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that" (7:28). In other words, the gospel is turning the world upside down, and there's not time to lose in our missional mandate. So it might not be the best thing for Christians to get bogged down with relationship burdens. No matter how noble we think marriage is, it's still just a form of this world that is passing away. That has to mean that no matter how high a calling we think motherhood is, it also is just a form of this world that is passing away. How can a woman be faulted for not being a mother when she's rarely encouraged in the New Testament to even get married?
3. Paul doesn't stop there. So people who get married are going to have "worldly troubles." Like what? What kind of "worldly troubles"? "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband" (7:32-34). Paul clearly sees an advantage for the gospel in being unmarried. I wonder exactly what Paul had in mind when writing of divided interests in pleasing a spouse. Might he have been thinking about being tied down to a household chore list? A married person is simply not as free to follow the cause of the gospel wherever it leads as a single person. Now, I've seen it said that women should get married and have all sorts of kids so that they can then preach the gospel to them and the church will grow. There's simply no biblical command that comes close to justifying such a suggestion.
4. I can hear some of the complaints now. "Darby, are you saying you agree with the feminazis out there messing up the culture?" No, I'm not. "Are you saying that Paul thought women and men had the same roles?" No, I'm not. "Do you realize how chaotic and disorderly your version of this text would make things?" No, I don't. And neither does Paul. In fact, Paul is writing all this anti-marriage stuff, "not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord" (7:35). This is so contrary to our conservative Christian - Focus on the Family - take back the culture sensibilities. We think we can practice good order by focusing on the family. And Paul says we can only have good order with undivided devotion to the Lord, whether we have a family or not.
5. One practical outcome of our modern "pro-family" rather than "pro-gospel" perspective is the difficulty in inspiring couples to be missionaries. Good Christians will say things like: "Well I'm not sure if God is calling me to go to Yemen, but I know he's calling me to be a good mother to my children. If I'd take them to Yemen, I'd put them in all sorts of dangers, so we're just going to stay right here in the suburbs and keep a clean house and a manicured lawn and healthy babies. That's my high calling after all."
I realize any post about such a big and important subject as this is going to be incomplete and open to disagreement. I've left a lot unsaid. But my goal is to stir up further thought on this rather than give an exhaustive explanation beyond refutation. So what do you think?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Is Divorce a Bigger Sin Than Adultery?
Statement 1: Adultery is a tragic betrayal of trust and an evil violence done to a marriage covenant. There is never an excuse for it and that sin alone is enough to send a person to hell for all eternity without a Savior to cover for it.
Statement 2: Divorce is a tragic betrayal of trust and an evil violence done to a marriage covenant. There is never an excuse for it and that sin alone is enough to send a person to hell for all eternity without a Savior to cover for it.
I think it's safe to assume most Christians would whole-heartedly agree with Statement 1 as written. Statement 2, on the other hand, would be less supported as written. I think the part that would draw fire is calling divorce a sin and saying there is never an excuse for it. There are Christians who think there are all kinds of excuses for divorce. There are other Christians who think divorce is a sin except for the when a spouse commits adultery. Adultery is the only excuse for divorce. There are also Christians who think divorce is always a sin, and adultery isn't a get out of marriage free card.
While discussing the posts found here, here and here; the question was asked, "Is the one choosing the divorce committing a bigger sin than the one committing the adultery? Shouldn't they receive the same grace?"
I've thought long and hard about that question and hope this response is helpful because I know there are many who wonder the same thing as the person who asked it. So here goes. There is a subtle danger at the bottom of that question. The question assumes divorce is not the best choice, but the necessary choice in order to punish the adulterer and get revenge. "You slept around and hurt me very deeply. So I'm going to divorce you and hurt you back." "You slept around and broke my trust. So I'm going to divorce you and make you lay in the bed you've made." "You slept around and really I'm glad because I've been dying for an excuse to get out of this marriage and still look like the good guy." Of course no one says the last one, but I guarantee you based on things I've personally heard, people think this way. That's the point I took away from the original posts we're discussing.
When one spouse commits adultery, it often ends up showing just how little both spouses care for the covenant they've made for "better or worse till death do us part." Think of it this way. Tom commits adultery. He obviously has little respect for the covenant he made with his wife and little fear of God. When Tom's wife, Jerry, finds out about the affair, she wants a divorce. She also has little respect for the covenant she made with her husband and little fear of God. Otherwise she would do everything she possibly could to keep that covenant intact. Instead, she's just as quick to search for a way out as Tom. Tom grew weary with keeping his covenant and decided to commit adultery. He'll probably give some lame excuse about not getting any or not feeling loved or feeling too much pressure or maybe he'll just fess up to being evil. Jerry has also grown weary of keeping her covenant and has decided to get a divorce. She's giving some lame excuse about not having a faithful husband. When both are so quick to give up the union that GOD joined together, it seems that Tom just beat Jerry to the punch, but neither are all that concerned about God's union. They're both concerned about their own personal glory.
So is the one who gets a divorce committing a bigger sin than the one who commits adultery? Why don't we let God decide on judgment day? Should they receive the same grace? Absolutely. But here's the practical problem this question poses. If Tom or Jerry has an affair, he or she can repent of that and work toward restoration, all the while remaining married. If Tom or Jerry gets a divorce, repentance would mean going back to the marriage covenant they broke. Repentance would not mean, "Oh I guess I shouldn't have gotten divorced, but no use crying over spilled milk. I might as well find a new wife and live happily ever after... or at least until the next affair."
In my experience, spouses who get divorced because of an affair don't think they need to repent of ending the marriage. They think of themselves as victims of their evil adulterous spouse who already ended the marriage with the adultery. But why is adultery the marriage-ending sin? Would someone actually argue that adultery is more damaging to the marriage than perpetual nagging or perpetual harshness or perpetual denial of intimacy? Really? I have a feeling the reason adultery is the one get out of marriage free card is because of a couple of statements that Jesus made. The question is this: If it is determined that Jesus didn't mean for his statements to be a get out of marriage free card when a spouse commits adultery, would the entire face of Christian marriage and divorce drastically change? I fear it would not. I don't think Christians get divorced because they're trying to faithfully live out a text of Scripture (divorce is never commanded). Christians get divorced for the same reason everyone gets divorced. They have hard hearts. Is the same grace necessary? Oh yeah.
Statement 2: Divorce is a tragic betrayal of trust and an evil violence done to a marriage covenant. There is never an excuse for it and that sin alone is enough to send a person to hell for all eternity without a Savior to cover for it.
I think it's safe to assume most Christians would whole-heartedly agree with Statement 1 as written. Statement 2, on the other hand, would be less supported as written. I think the part that would draw fire is calling divorce a sin and saying there is never an excuse for it. There are Christians who think there are all kinds of excuses for divorce. There are other Christians who think divorce is a sin except for the when a spouse commits adultery. Adultery is the only excuse for divorce. There are also Christians who think divorce is always a sin, and adultery isn't a get out of marriage free card.
While discussing the posts found here, here and here; the question was asked, "Is the one choosing the divorce committing a bigger sin than the one committing the adultery? Shouldn't they receive the same grace?"
I've thought long and hard about that question and hope this response is helpful because I know there are many who wonder the same thing as the person who asked it. So here goes. There is a subtle danger at the bottom of that question. The question assumes divorce is not the best choice, but the necessary choice in order to punish the adulterer and get revenge. "You slept around and hurt me very deeply. So I'm going to divorce you and hurt you back." "You slept around and broke my trust. So I'm going to divorce you and make you lay in the bed you've made." "You slept around and really I'm glad because I've been dying for an excuse to get out of this marriage and still look like the good guy." Of course no one says the last one, but I guarantee you based on things I've personally heard, people think this way. That's the point I took away from the original posts we're discussing.
When one spouse commits adultery, it often ends up showing just how little both spouses care for the covenant they've made for "better or worse till death do us part." Think of it this way. Tom commits adultery. He obviously has little respect for the covenant he made with his wife and little fear of God. When Tom's wife, Jerry, finds out about the affair, she wants a divorce. She also has little respect for the covenant she made with her husband and little fear of God. Otherwise she would do everything she possibly could to keep that covenant intact. Instead, she's just as quick to search for a way out as Tom. Tom grew weary with keeping his covenant and decided to commit adultery. He'll probably give some lame excuse about not getting any or not feeling loved or feeling too much pressure or maybe he'll just fess up to being evil. Jerry has also grown weary of keeping her covenant and has decided to get a divorce. She's giving some lame excuse about not having a faithful husband. When both are so quick to give up the union that GOD joined together, it seems that Tom just beat Jerry to the punch, but neither are all that concerned about God's union. They're both concerned about their own personal glory.
So is the one who gets a divorce committing a bigger sin than the one who commits adultery? Why don't we let God decide on judgment day? Should they receive the same grace? Absolutely. But here's the practical problem this question poses. If Tom or Jerry has an affair, he or she can repent of that and work toward restoration, all the while remaining married. If Tom or Jerry gets a divorce, repentance would mean going back to the marriage covenant they broke. Repentance would not mean, "Oh I guess I shouldn't have gotten divorced, but no use crying over spilled milk. I might as well find a new wife and live happily ever after... or at least until the next affair."
In my experience, spouses who get divorced because of an affair don't think they need to repent of ending the marriage. They think of themselves as victims of their evil adulterous spouse who already ended the marriage with the adultery. But why is adultery the marriage-ending sin? Would someone actually argue that adultery is more damaging to the marriage than perpetual nagging or perpetual harshness or perpetual denial of intimacy? Really? I have a feeling the reason adultery is the one get out of marriage free card is because of a couple of statements that Jesus made. The question is this: If it is determined that Jesus didn't mean for his statements to be a get out of marriage free card when a spouse commits adultery, would the entire face of Christian marriage and divorce drastically change? I fear it would not. I don't think Christians get divorced because they're trying to faithfully live out a text of Scripture (divorce is never commanded). Christians get divorced for the same reason everyone gets divorced. They have hard hearts. Is the same grace necessary? Oh yeah.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Is the "Exception Clause" a Pastoral Pass on Adultery?
Here are some provocative thoughts about marriage, remarriage and divorce. Do you think these are good points?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)