New Thoughts (5/16/03-5/18/03)
There is something in what Calvin says of the early church that I find a bit unbelievable. He states that bigamy was tolerated amongst the membership of the church (although not in their leaders) because it would be 'too cruel' to force them to set aside one or more wives to come into line with Christian doctrine. Could this really be the case? If so, then the early church had already fallen considerably from the state of purity required of it. When Nehemiah came back into Jerusalem and found that many had become married to Canaanites in clear opposition to God's Law, he rebuked the people severely, and the people reacted not by tolerating what had happened, but by rectifying the situation. They set aside their sinful mates. They purified themselves before a holy God.
Were matters of polygamous marriage an issue in that day and age? Perhaps. In middle eastern cultures, certainly, there were those who could afford a harem. But was it widespread? I don't know. I should think the cost of maintaining such a brood would prevent most men from it. However, there was certainly a looseness of sexual morals that prevailed amongst Greek and Roman culture at that time. Where a harem might not be affordable, a mistress was. Where this, too, was out of reach, there was always the temple prostitutes. In Jewish circles, it seems divorces of convenience were more the problem. A wife could be set aside for the least of offenses, and no questions asked.
Both of these conditions reveal a weakness of character in the man who would pursue such a course. In the case of polygamy, or in the keeping of a mistress, the habit shows an excessive nature. One who is not satisfied with his one wife has probably not entered into the intimacy of relationship which marriage is intended to provide. He has settled on flesh alone. To such a one, the wife is no more than an object for satisfying his pleasures, and if not satisfied, he feels free to pursue pleasure elsewhere. This is the nature of one led by the flesh. This is the nature of one who cares only for himself. These conditions declare in bold print that their possessor is unfit to care for matters of spirituality. They declare that he is unfit to shepherd others, for his concern will not be for them but for himself.
Divorce also shows a failure in the man to pursue the intimacy for which marriage was intended. This may reveal some of the same weaknesses as we see in the Gentile man - a fleshly focus, a concern for self-satisfaction above all. But the sin of the Jew was increased in this matter. Here are the very people of God, the holders of His revealed Law, and that Law clearly forbids divorce. God's word, the details of His covenant with man, reveal clearly that the marriage of man and woman is also a matter of covenant. That covenant was signed to and sealed by His own witness. When a man, then, pursues a course of divorce, he shows his own disregard for the solemnity of a covenant agreement. He also shows a total disregard for the God who witnessed to the making of that covenant.
Clearly, these things show us a man unfit to guide the Church. He cannot control his own flesh, yet he would teach others control? Unlikely. He is concerned only for his own satisfaction, yet he would be placed in authority over the well-being of others? This would be clearest folly! As Matthew Henry points out, throughout Scripture we see sexual sins placed at or near the top of the list of issues that God cannot tolerate. All other sins are more or less external, but we are told these sins pollute the inside as well. If marriage is the union of two people in one flesh, sexual sins are also a union of like nature, and we dare not deceive ourselves into thinking that sin and holiness can be united at all, let alone in such close union.
These things, as Mr. Henry says, must be kept the farthest from holy office. Indeed, they must! But how shall they be kept so distant if they are to be allowed in the church over which the office presides? The Roman Catholics have tried for centuries to insist on a celibate priesthood to preside over a body where celibacy is not required. The failures have been constant, and the devastation caused by those failures is horrible. Not only has the temptation presented to these poor servants been too strong to resist, but the unholy injunction against the remedy of God's choosing has left them no course but to pursue what is, as we have just said, to be kept at greatest distance from the holy servant.
It would be no different were polygamy to be tolerated in the body, but not in the leadership. To be presented with these relationships, visible and present in the church, at every occasion would place the elder under a burden that it seems must surely overwhelm him in time. If it is the duty of the elder to be blameless, and free of such sexual sins, surely it is the duty of those he oversees to do their utmost to allow their leader to be such a man. Woe to the one who causes a brother to fall! Woe to the one who would insist on his own freedom and sinfulness at the expense of a child of God! Let the sheep recognize their own responsibility to the shepherd, even as the shepherd knows his responsibility for the sheep.
We can learn a lot about a person's leadership capabilities by observing their children. Indeed, what we will see reflected in the child is not only his parents' leadership, but their true manners, and their most earnestly held beliefs. If the children are rude and unruly, the fault cannot be laid wholly at the feet of society. Much like the relationship between evangelist and apostle, society can only water the seed which home life has planted.
It's like this: when we're out in public, we parental types have learned to how to behave 'respectably.' We have, over the years, become very conscious of the impression we may make on those around us, and - especially in less familiar surroundings - we strive to leave a good impression. This we do regardless of what we may really be like. The dating system reinforces this habit in us. We must make a good impression, if we're going to attract a life partner. They can discover the reality about us later, once things are more stable. The workplace reinforces this habit in us. On the interview, we must be on constant guard to give the right answers, to look write, speak right, exude a confidence we may not really be feeling. Once we're on the payroll, and established in our position, then we can let down our guard a little bit, but not too much.
We carry this business of play acting with us wherever we go, and this surely includes the church for most, if not all of us. Here is a place where we know there are standards. We know what the standards are, and we know how very far we are from those standards. Yet, we mustn't let on! We must do our best to look our best. God is good, so we mustn't show any signs of sorrow or anger or frustration around all these holy people that surround us. They've got their act together, so we'd better do likewise. We'd better speak the lingo so we'll not stick out like a sore thumb. It's unfamiliar territory. Be on guard.
Now, notice something. We think all these other folks have their act together, and there's a good reason for that. It's because they do have their act together. Just like we do. But God's more concerned with the reality. We can all put on a good act for the hour or two we're at church. We can hold it all together for a time, but what happens when we get home? What happens when we're finally back in the safe zone, and we let our guard down? This is what our children learn of us. They're the ones, perhaps the only ones, who see us in our ugly reality. They're the ones who see us dress the parts and play the parts as we go into these various situations. Is the mom and dad they find at church the same couple that meets them at home? If they call us at work, do they connect with some stranger who shares the same name?
We can learn a lot about a person's real nature by observing their children. We can, if we will open our eyes, learn a lot about our own real nature by observing our own children. What we see in them is not the poisonous influence of society, it's the influence of our own poisons. If we are constantly stressed and angry and frustrated and impatient, our children are bound to be likewise. If we are selfish and grasping, how can we expect our kids to be otherwise? We all want our kids to be well mannered. After all, we know that they are an exposed weakness in the armor of our acting. In them, we are quite aware that those we mingle amidst can see through our clever disguise. So we labor hard to get our kids to play their parts as well as we play our own.
But our kids don't have the stamina, nor do they have the interest. They want to be who they are, and who they are will show - like it or not - who we are. We can train and punish and reward and threaten all we like in hopes of forcing some well mannered behavior to appear, but what will appear in the end is a little reflection of ourselves. If we want well mannered children, there's only one way to do it. We must be well mannered ourselves. We must be well mannered not only when company's over, not only when we're out in public, and not only towards other adults. We must be well mannered at all times, even towards our own family, even towards our own kids.
Scripture teaches us much by this reflective characteristic of kids. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were clearly sons of the devil, because what they did reflected the doings of their father. It is to be the same with those who would be called the sons of God. Our doings ought to reflect what we know our Father does. This was the character of Jesus. He did only what He saw His Father do, and He did these things before the eyes of His disciples that they, too, would know what the Father does, and learn from it. The situation hasn't changed for us. Actions speak louder than words, and no action is truly done in secret. God sees. More than we like to think, our families - especially our kids - see. And, realizing our greatest fear, through our kids, the ones we thought we had fooled see.
What do they see in us, especially through this more honest lens? Do they see a heart of true servanthood? Or do they see a rebellious heart? There's an interesting thing in that matter of rebellion. Rebellion may not take action. It may not be visible in the deed, but only in the attitude in which the deed is done. Isn't that interesting? Of course, as parents, we're familiar with this. Again, we are given opportunity to learn about it from our kids. As often as not, we can force compliance of action from them. It may be a bit of a battle, but we can generally get them to clean their rooms, help with dishes, or whatever else we may require of them. But how is the attitude during that compliance? If there was a fight in getting them to do it, you can bet the battle hasn't stopped on the inside! They didn't suddenly become glad to do what you asked, they are simply forced to acknowledge their impotence when it comes to forcing their own will.
How, then, does God see us? Do we put up a stiff resistance when He gives us a task to do, only submitting when we realize that resistance is futile? Are we truly submitted to His will, or are we simply biding our time, looking for the chance to have it our way instead? It's a question we must seek to answer honestly for ourselves, because the answer is critical. It's a hard question, one likely to lead to some unpleasant answers, yet it is precisely the question that God's Word is designed to help us with. Only as we recognize our real condition, the self behind all the masks and disguises, can we begin to heal and correct what we've sought for so long to hide.
Jesus came to heal the sick. Yes, there is clearly a physical aspect to this. Many were healed of physical disease. But many more suffered a sickness more insidious, a deeper sickness of the soul. It's this sickness that Jesus really wants to work on. The physical healing gets our attention. It gives us a taste of what He can do. But the physical healing is a pointer to our spiritual need. We are soul sick. We hide it away out of sight, and hope maybe it will go away, but we are soul sick, and that disease is worst than the most horrible of cancers. Jesus came to heal this disease of the soul, but unless we are aware of it, unless we come out of our denial, we won't approach Him for the healing He seeks to do.
My God, I find myself reluctant to ask what my daughter shows about me. I am more reluctant still to consider what I reflect about my own lineage. Yet, I know there is a purpose in Your bringing these things to my attention. I know what I see in my child. I see one who refuses to come into submission. The look on her face when she is forced to obey anyway tells it all. There is not an ounce of submissiveness to be found in her, only forced acquiescence and a waiting for the moment when her parents' guard is down. Is this the way I am with You, my God? Is this devotion I claim for Your ways no more than play acting? Certainly, there are times when it can feel that way to me, times when I have to force myself into compliance. And doubtless there are times when I am anxiously looking for my chance to step away for a moment, a point where Your guard is down, and I can slip in something of my own agenda.
Forgive me, Father, for these occasions. Forgive me, also, for the harsh eye I ever seem to have towards my child. Lord! What is it? Why am I so critical? Is it that I see to much of myself in her? Or is it a general intolerance I have for those who would question my decisions? Ouch. That's it, isn't it? Oh my God, what insecurity I have in me. Even as I put on that confident front, what insecurity, my Father! How is this trusting in You? How is this knowing the Spirit in me? God, these things need changing. This is not leadership quality, this is dictatorial quality. This is not the spirit You have called for in those who would be used by You. Lord, You've given me a portion of the servant's heart, yet there is too much of pride in it. There is entirely too much grumbling in my submission, too much of wanting to be free of the bonds I have chosen.
I know, it's a work in progress. I know that You have already made of me something I could never have aspired to be. The places You have brought me, here in study, at work, in raising this family; all of these are places I would never have dreamed of reaching, and never could have reached without You. Truly, Your love is amazing! Move swiftly, my God, to complete Your work on this poor soul, that I might reflect Your amazing love in my own ways.
Lord, I have commented on the fact that the healing we seek is rarely the healing we need. I, too, can become focused on physical maladies to the neglect of the more important matters of the heart. Today, it would appear I have the symptoms of a cold. With the runny nose and raw throat that declare the cold's presence, it's easy for me to lose sight of more important things. It would be very easy to simply curl up in bed, send everybody away, and wait for this thing to pass. But today I think I need to pray not so much for a speedy end to this cold, but for a cure to the underlying problems. Lord, heal that in me which only You can heal. Heal the spiritual sickness that still plagues me. Heal the sinful habits that still so easily capture my attention. Heal the soul, my God, and the body will surely follow after.
Solid church government is necessary as the means of countering and checking idle talk. It is the foundation for sound teaching, which is the greatest weapon against the foolish teaching that can so easily infiltrate the church at large. The commentators of Jaimeson, Fausset, and Brown look to Crete as an example showing this need. I think we need not look nearly so far afield. We need look no further than our own churches to see the need. I would also point out that strong church government is not, of and to itself, sufficient to safeguard the Truth. Many a church with strong government has been governed far from orthodoxy and sound faith.
There's a second factor required. It must be a strong government teaching sound doctrine. There are many things to say about this statement. The government must be strong. It must be fully convinced of the truth of the doctrine it teaches. It must be fully convinced of the import of that doctrine - it must see these as matters of utmost concern to the soul. The government must also be fully able to teach these doctrines fully and clearly. Declaring the doctrine will not suffice to keep the people straight. It must be explained completely. Most, if not all, issues of false doctrine are a matter of having a partial understanding of the doctrine at hand. The excesses of the faith movement, the abuses of salvation sometimes associated with the idea of permanent election; these are but the results of partial learning leading to partial teaching. Doctrine must be taught in whole, leaving no aspect uncovered.
It bears repeating that we cannot consider the pieces of sound doctrine in a vacuum. As we consider one matter of doctrine, we must keep all the rest of doctrine in sight. Indeed, it would seem inevitable that these other issues of doctrine will come into the discussion, for the truth of God is a tightly woven tapestry, and isolating one thread from among the whole would be near impossible. A sound church government must recognize this, and must seek out every possible means to ensure that those governed have a clear and complete view of the doctrines of Truth.
Finally, I would note that true doctrine is sound. When considered with godly intellect, when looked at critically and logically, it will not fall apart. True doctrine will not require that we read Scripture selectively. True doctrine may well resolve to mystery, but it will be found to be consistent. When held together with other aspects of doctrine, it will all hold together. The occasional mystery involved in that truth should neither alarm us, nor even surprise us. It is about God that doctrine speaks, and His ways will ever be different from our own, above our ability to comprehend. How shall the finite comprehend the infinite? It is an impossibility! Yet even these mysteries will have a consistency which reason will not find offensive. Like the other sciences which man pursues, the science of theology, of understanding God's self-revelation to man, will hold together with a logic which we, as logical creatures, cannot help but recognize and appreciate. We may, at this stage in human development, require training in the ways of logic, for the art of true logical argument has largely been lost to the easier ways of advertising and sound bytes. However, where logic still prevails, true doctrine, and the ways of God which doctrine describes, will still be seen to be perfectly logical.
