Obedience: All Alone, Part 2

Part 2: All Alone

With the Garden experience behind them, the descendents of Adam and Eve spread out to the far corners of the ancient world to find a place for themselves.  The humans were now on their own searching to recapture the sanity, the justice and the peace of that Garden sanctuary.

It would be convenient to state absolutely what early humanity understood obedience to be, but harder to prove. What we do know is that from the earliest written records there was a searching to reestablish the order of the Garden, the peace, and the stability through standardized  written legal codes .  These set the limits for “right” and “wrong” and listed the consequences of doing what was unacceptable in the society they represented.

In about 2050 B.C.E. one of the earliest such “ law books “ was written. Today, only fragments of The Codex of Ur-Nammu exists but it reveals clearly an early attempt to follow some higher course than humanity’s own basic, and often base, instincts.  These laws consisted of social justice that addressed issues of taxation, standardized measurements, legal recourse, and the rights of the widows and orphans. (The World of The Bible. Eerdmans, 1986, p.223).

Like its predecessors, The Code of Hammurabi attempted to set up a standard of ethical conduct for the people of Babylonia and the regions which adopted the code for their own use.  The Code was written about 1700 B.C.E. and was inscribed on a stone slab (stele) of black diorite eight feet tall discovered in Susa in 1902 (The Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Southwestern Company. Nashville. 1972, p.332).

Some of these laws have a familiar ring to them : 196, “If an awilum has put out the eye of a mar-awiliam (lit.’son of an awilum’), they shall put out his eye.”  (Babylon, Joan Otes. Thames and Hudson, 1979, pg. 75). Others are quite harsh: 195, “If a son has struck his father, they shall cut off his hand.” Consider laws 229-30 stating a builder whose work was shoddy, causing the death of the owner, the builder was put to death.” (Babylon, Joan Otes. Thames and Hudson, 1979, pg. 75).

Both laws, and the later Law of Moses, are examples of what scholars call the “casuistic” style.  Each law or code shows how a wrong action “causes” an opposite reaction as society deals with the lawbreaker.  Each attempted to correct the imbalances in society by saying what was right and what was wrong. Humanity was learning that limitations on conduct  were needed so that the rights of another were not trampled.

No matter how far away humanity might roam from the garden, the instinctive urge and innate need for obedience to a standard of conduct dogged their steps. In all cases, the ingredients do not match, but the basic formula was there: the recognition that humanity need to be obedient to something in order to achieve a small portion of the harmony known in the Garden setting.

Why was there one set of laws in 2050 B.C.E., another in 1700 B.C.E., and yet another around 1280 B.C.E. (The Hittite Code)?   If humanity realized the need to a obey a higher standard of life, why was there a constant move to rewrite and reiterate the laws?  Without a doubt, even the earliest human found it impossible to respond effectively to the sense of “moral oughtness” existing within.

In his book, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction: Discipleship in an Instant Society, Eugene H. Peterson tells of being in a hospital room with a man who swung between rational thought and harsh hallucinations of death, which caused him to scream out “I’m going to die!”   He would then beg his pastor, Peterson, to pray for him.  Later, in moments of lucidness, the man would recant any such prayer.  “The parabolic force of the incident is this”, Peterson noted. “When the man was scared, he wanted me to pray for him, but in between…he didn’t want anything to do with a pastor.” (Peterson. A Long Obedience in the Same Direction: Discipleship in an Instant Society. Inter-Varsity, 1980, g. 17-158).

Early humanity was in this condition. There was a need to obey that sense of moral oughtness when the individual was violated, when his property was stolen, or her burdens were intolerable.  Sometimes, a person might rise to altruistic heights and cry out for the rights of others. Yet, those urges were at war with a stronger urge to see to his or her own needs met, even if it meant at the expense of another person.  When the stark injustice was pointed out, they would decry the situation. When injustice visit her home, she could pull her hair and cry, “It isn’t fair!”  In between those times, the commitment was not always as clear or strong as might be wished.  Man  found he wanted to obey, but found he could not unless he was made to through accepted legal codes.

The old joke about when it rains we see the need to fix the roof, but when it stops – where’s the need, could apply to early humanity ability to and desire to keep the moral laws.  Repeatedly the rules , the codes, had to be set down, recognized and set into action because of the fallibility of humanity.

In Romans 1:19-21, Paul hints at this innate search for answers to what is “right”:

“because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse; Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

People were given a witness of God and a chance to respond to those “higher” urges of morality which were evidences of God.  In addition, there was no doubt, especially in these early years that a remnant of those Garden days lingered on in stories around the campfires and in the towns.  The “witness” of right and wrong was there, weak at times, but definitely there.

The discoveries of biblical archaeology seem to illustrate clearly that certain things were accepted among nearly all early people of the Ancient Middle East.  A close reading of the Pentateuch reveals the people had followed many standards of conduct and law later formalized into the Code of Moses.  Even today people become tangled in “customary laws” or common ethics that allow a person to be “good” without being righteous.  They allow modern mankind to attain a degree of ‘civilization’ and harmony, but, as always, these are supports of glass that shatter under the weight of daily use because a crucial element is missing. 

Secular history presents us with documented records of both the human failure to live up to the moral expectations as well as the tendency of depraved humanity to distort understanding of the nature of right, wrong, and obedience.

The Code of Ur-Nummu and the Code of Hammurabi were both collections of social laws listing the expectations and accepted legal , religious, social and civic actions of the Mesopotamian cultures.  The tenor of each is constantly harsh and negative, dealing primarily with death and mutilation.  Humans understood a need for obedience but of what that obedience was to consist of was largely unknown.

In seeing obedience defined as laws limiting activities, enforcing life styles and plainly stating specific ethics,  the laws underscore the inability of humans to live up to their own expectations of what was right.  They could envision , but could not reach the goal.

Humanity was ever aware of a desire to do right, but was always unable to achieve that vision in reality.  Some piece of the puzzle was missing and until that piece was found, obedience had become, and would remain, a tantalizing elusive goal.

What If??

Since the State of Oklahoma instituted a lottery, I have heard the reports of this or that person winning a large jackpot.  Of course, we all take note when it is a story from somewhere of a person who wins millions from a random numerical drawing.  If you are like me, it is easy to play a relatively harmless mental game called “What if?”

This game involves imagining what one might do if somehow we were the lucky winner of a huge lottery.  This is not a great danger in my case, for as my daughter-in-law points out to me, you have to actually buy a lottery ticket to win.  However, this trivial fact does not diminish the fun of the game.  

One of my favorite scenarios is that I would establish a foundation that would fund grants to families who earnestly desire to adopt babies from India.  I admit complete bias here as my oldest granddaughter if from Calcutta and is an amazing treasure.  Simply ask me and I will show you several pictures.  In any case, there are many children there and too few adoptive families.  Part of the reason is that it is expensive to adopt.  Typically, it will cost twenty to thirty thousand dollars to bring a child to your home.  I envision in my game a foundation that would aid qualified families with financial assistance to fund the necessary bureaucratic costs that would help them to adopt.  

In my imaginary world, I would do all of these great things, but since I have never purchased a lottery ticket, it is only a fancy.  Yet, wait does it not suggest an alternative?  I do not have millions, but what might I do with what I have.  Are there ways for me to make a great difference with much smaller resources?  

 We know the answer.  As the old hymn states it, “Little is much when God is in it.”  The disciples who brought a simple lunch of bread and fish to Jesus discovered that it could be multiplied into something amazing.  All over our country, people discover the power of the small gift.  We give what we can; not millions, but together they accumulate into a powerful tool to accomplish something great. 

 I hope the next time we have the opportunity to give, we will not stop short simply because we perceive that we do not have a jackpot to draw from, but will place our small gift with the many others to accomplish much good.

Crossroads

      And he said to him, ‘Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death!’ ³⁴ Jesus^[f] said, ‘I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me.’  Luke 22:33

A number of years ago, a popular movie appeared based upon the Faustian theme of an   The gist of the encounter was a bargain emerged which gave amazing musical ability in exchange for the predictable alternative.  I have been thinking about that crossroad this week as an analogy of the place where we live with our spiritual lives.  I do not mean to suggest that we strike a deal with the devil, but rather that our crossroad has to do with the heartfelt desire of our heart over against the anxiety we feel as human beings.  We can often feel we are that

individual who met the devil one day at a remote crossroads.

I perceive that as humans we frequently find ourselves at a crossroad where on the one hand, we truly desire to be good servants of Christ.  We love the Lord and want to do his will.  We want to live our lives in significant ways that express the best of our discipleship.  Often, we enthusiastically want to put our hand to the spiritual plow and accomplish something for Christ.  On the other hand, we simultaneously discover that the awareness of potential cost causes anxiety to arise.  We hesitate and too often settle back to a condition of quiescence. The moment passes and an opportunity fleets by.   

We often find ourselves living between audacity and anxiety.  We are simultaneously audacious for Christ and timid when step up time comes.  This is very human.  We experience it in many aspects of life.  How many times have an opportunity to do something arisen and we vacillated until the opportunity passed?  How often have we stepped into an opportunity and then subsequently felt the emotion that has so often been called “buyer’s remorse”? 

These are merely mundane examples of the very emotion that may prevent us from stepping forward into what God has prepared for us.  My prayer is that the next time you find yourself at the crossroad of spiritual discipleship; you will not allow the tension between audacity and anxiety to defeat you.

Obedience: Our Quandary

Scriptural Obedience, Dr. Marvin J. Hudson, c2013

 

Part 1- Humanity’s Quandary

Two Extremes

Obedience…what a troublesome word. We all have recognized its demands upon our lives at some point. Some of us will recall those dynamic services when minister spoke of obedience and we trembled at our own inadequacy. Others of us may recall being taught that the path of Christ was simplicity and obedience was merely letting go of you in order to trust more in Him.

Perhaps these two understandings of obedience represent polar points, both of which may leave the door open for extremism.  The first tends to lead us toward various forms of legalism as we wrestle with what we perceive to be the demands of a holy God.  We find ourselves confronted by the same quandary that people from Moses to Luther have faced.

On the other hand, God’s Word demands of us a standard if we are to enter into His presence.  Indeed, His very nature requires us to come before Him with “clean hands and a pure heart” (Psalm 24:4).  We are faced with a literal “do or die” situation.  Yet, as soon as the Law of God confronts us, we face a terrible reality: we simply do not have the means at our disposal to obey this perfect Law.

Repeatedly we grasp the regulations of the Law only to fall short of their demands.

The frustration we experience at this point often leads to two different reactions: We either struggle even harder to keep this Law of God , and thus become a modern Pharisee, or we may, as Luther stated, fall through despair into even greater sin (Theology of Luther. Althaus).

For most of us, this frustration leads to the former alternative. We monitor our every action to insure that we either become or remain “holy”.   We refrain from any activity which we feel will retard our spiritual progress.

At this point a great danger appears.  As time goes by, many of our decisions as to what will, or will not, retard our progress, becomes dogmas that bind us with a near unbreakable stranglehold.

Nor does the danger stop there, for we tend to believe in these dogmas so strongly that we insist that they apply to others as well.  The result is frustration and surprise.  We are frustrated, because deep down, we are never quite convinced that we are achieving the goal through this form of obedience. In spite of all that we do, we are never quite as holy as we desire.

Secondly, we are surprised because others do not accept our dogmas joyfully; especially younger generations. This should not surprise us, as there is little joy in legalism.

The second of our two approaches mentioned in the first sections of this discussion, at first glance, appear to offer great promise. After all, we have seen that legalism did not work as we may have wished.  Further, we have seen that legalism did not work as we may have wished.  Further, we know that the New Testament teaches that Christ came to set us free from the Old Law of death which was ,in reality, the same system of frustration that many Christians have tried to follow.

This second approach receives eagerly the idea that Christ was and is our substitutionary avenue to righteousness and thus the theme of obedience tends to be deemphasized.  The great danger here is that in this direction we find all manner of incorrect positions ranging from apathy to antinomianism (the denial of any divine Law). Such thinking often leads to apathy disguised as “tolerance” or “broadmindedness.”  No matter what we do or do not do, we have a comfortable “out” in that our theology tells us that we must not expect to be perfect and we may simply continue to pile our actions at the feet of Jesus only to return to the same life-style.

These two extremes  - legalism and license- are two ends of a spectrum and illustrate the difficulty the Church has faced for centuries.  Every Christian will struggle to find the middle road that will ultimately lead to real joy and stability in the Christian life.

The goal of this discussion is to see if that middle road where law and grace are in harmony  meet is mapped as we try to search out the Biblical concepts of obedience.  At the end of the journey, hopefully, will be an understanding of obedience from both Old Testament and New Testament perspectives.  Along the way, an examination of the complementary nature between the obedience  and some to avoid.

God’s Demands, Humanity’s Prerogative

It is significant that the matter of obedience is dealt with from the very first chapters of the creation account. Adam’s relationship to God included the fundamental principle of obedience.  This obedience was enjoined to Adam in the context of Liberty. As early as Genesis 2:16-17 we find the instruction, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of goo and evil, thou shalt not eat of it.”  Here is the tremendous reality: Adam holds within his the potential to obey or disobey. What incredible consequences rest upon simple obedience. How far reaching was the result of Adam’s decision.  The outcome of this historic drama is a key element of basic Bible literacy. Humanity has reaped the results of the fall of Adam ever since.

What is crucial for us to see is that this obedience was a matter of trust and free will. This fact is often overshadowed in our concern with the simple fact of the Fall itself.  While obedience was a component of the relationship of humanity to God, and an essential one, the real heartbeat of humanity’s relationship to God was the principle that we identify by such terms as trust, love, faith and so forth. This dynamic principle was the basis of the kind of relationship God has always desired with His creation.  This relational principle appears repeatedly as one traces the concept of obedience through scripture. It was also dramatically changed by the Fall and the result was catastrophic for humanity.

Fallen Humanity: The Crippled Creation

It would be easy to become destracted in exploring the how and why of Adam’s fall in the garden, but it is the result s of that Fall where our focus should turn.  All that follows through the Old and New Testament rests on the actions subsequent to that decision to not obey.

In brief, humanity received disfellowship from God. Humanity no longer enjoyed the benefits of the Garden life described in Genesis.   Indeed, when God came to walk in the Garden, Adam and his wife found they were unable to stand in His presence (Genesis 3:8). The perfect trust was destroyed and the human relationship with nature was negatively affected, where once all had been available as easy bounty, now all was to be obtained by hard toil (3:17-19).

Most importantly, humanity changed. From an estate of innocence, humans discovered they were driven by base desires that warred with their better selves.  Over time it became clear that the first human’s initial inclinations were often their worst inclinations.

Paul expresses this condition of the fallen human in Romans 7:19: “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which would not, that I do.”

Theologians have referred to this as a “depraved” nature, meaning that as humans we are firmly caught in a trap from which we cannot escape.  It is the trap of God’s demand for perfection and our inability to achieve it.

We may summarize humanity’s situation. We are the Fallen Man and Fallen Woman.  We have all sinned against God and deserve the penalty of our rebellion, which is death. There are no resources at our disposal to pay this ‘debt of sin’ and reconcile ourselves back to God. Further, we are consistently powerless to change our course of conduct. We are guilty and we are continually becoming guiltier.  We stand in the rain of a fallen world, hands raised, and scream through the ages, “O wretched man that I am! WHO will deliver me?”

Who indeed….

To be continued

[Author's note. I am revisiting some work - consider this 12 part series, a work in progress and subject to change!]

NO PAIN, NO GAIN

A familiar animated father figure known to television watchers is somewhat famous for his advice to his son who has failed at a particular task.  It runs, “Don’t worry boy, it it’s hard, it can’t be worth doing.”  I fear that during my lifetime this has been the credo for many within our culture.

 

 During my formal educational years, it was well known at the time, that my generation of students tended to avoid anything that was deemed hard.  Science, math, and languages all lost popularity.  Do you recall the alarmed reports from various authorities that pointed out that as Americans, we were slipping behind other parts of the world in technical subjects, as students opted for less rigorous coursework?  During my baccalaureate years, it was possible to obtain a degree without any college math at all.  I also remember postings from the Foreign Service that announced the increasing difficulty recruiting competent linguists for duty stations.  “If it’s hard, it can’t be worth doing.”  

Encouragingly, I believe this trend is reversing to a degree.  (No pun intended) However, there is still a basic human lazy gene to defeat.  Over the past few months, I have been introduced to a series of excellent historical novels that have stretched my mind and more than once prompted me to stretch my arm for the dictionary.  Repeatedly, period accurate terms cause me to say, “What in the world?”  The link here is that when I read the consumer reviews of the series, I was struck by the number of persons who did not like the books because the words were too technical (hard) or archaic. “If it’s hard, it can’t be worth doing.” 

 I wonder how much in life we miss because this mantra sells us short.  It is harder to make homemade biscuits and gravy than to go to a fast food place and have theirs.  Nevertheless, do we not all note the tremendous difference?  

 Further, what are the achievements within your life of which you are proudest? I hazard the guess that they are the ones you reached for with the most diligent effort.  Contemporary fitness buffs are familiar with the phrase “No pain, no gain.”  Are you making some gains in your life today?  “If it’s hard, it may be well worth doing.” 

A Future-Seeking Church

Dr. M.J. Hudson

A church of Jesus Christ is a future-seeking church. It is a church that knows and appreciates it historic roots but recognizes what is in the past... is past. As the saying goes, the past really is only a prologue of the future.Any one person, at any one time, is to serve, as the active participant in a vast, generational torch passing process. As they pass the flame of faith the light should be burning bright and steady. Some churches – like the virgins discussed by Jesus – may have fallen asleep on the job. Their lamps are burning so low and so weak as to appear unlit.The modern American Church, however, has often fallen into several behaviors that are counter-productive to the true mission of the Church.

The “Present-Tense Congregation” model. They live for themselves focusing only on the present. The pews are too hard, the music too loud, the pastor does not visit enough, and the list goes one. This focus on self rather than on mission and outreach creates a tension in the church. The tension may be between those who know the mission of the church is not self-focused but ministry focused and those who want a nice comfortable chaplaincy church. It is the epitome of the modern consumer mentality that wants what they want and when they want it. Church, for these so-called Christian people, should be there when they have a need. As a result, volunteerism disappears, spiritual vitality decays, love is replaced by ego, and the church enters an ice age devoid of life or growth.

The “Past Perfect” model. Even though a past pastor might have been totally incompetent or the church people were so spiteful the church split – the past is so much better than the present. If only we could return to those halcyon days, life would be good. Don’t misunderstand me; history and an awareness of the past are crucial to successful church development to avoid making the same mistakes all over again! Often this model sees things in vague and hazzy terms lacking clarity or connection of cause and effect.

It is through an awareness of the rich heritage of the saints of the past that we can appreciate our faith today. The church, like some like prehistoric creature in a slab of amber, does not remain static. The church is alive. It is organic. It changes and adapts to meet the needs and problems of every generation with the unchanging love of God.

The “Transient Verb” model. The people who attempt to manipulate a congregation by threatening to leave. They take offense, get their feelings hurt, are unappreciated and move off to the next church down the road with an “I’ll show them” attitude. It is not all-bad though. Some churches would have no membership growth at all if it were not for these folks. The truth is that most of these “here today – gone tomorrow” people are pure trouble mongers. Look around your community at the many tiny churches struggling to stay afloat and you often see the result of these people who bring division and leave discord.

The “Future-Seeking Congregation” is a church that has restored their relationship with Jesus Christ. They recognize their mandate is “Go – into all the world!” Church is then a refreshing station in their own individual ministry modeling the love of God in their slice of the world. Church is the place of encouragement and celebration. Church is the place to learn, to be equipped, and then back out into the daily grind as witnesses of the love and joy found in a relationship with God.

The “future-seeking congregation” is a church that does not rest on what they used to do but dreams about what they are getting ready to do in the future.The “future seeking congregation” focuses on serving others and making a difference in the world. The willingness to take risks, engage in vision, take action, and remain spiritually vital is the foundation of the “Future-Seeking Congregation.”

A Friend is Another Self

Our title comes from Aristotle. It speaks of the close affinity that binds two individuals together

in a warm and affectionate relationship. This could of course be the relationship that one encounters in marriage, but by no means is it limited to that estate.

Aristotle is thinking of the kind of friendship where an individual is so closely related to a friend, that no falsity or dissimulation is thought necessary to preserve the relationship. Far from it, one may be open as though sharing with oneself. Patrick O’Brian places this distinction into the mouths of his literary characters as they occasionally refer to one another as their “particular friend”. This is a somewhat anachronistic figure of speech that describes not just a friendly acquaintance, but a true friend.

Now, let us assume that we have such a person in our life. How does one care for that relationship? Permit an illustration to get at this question. I have noticed that on Facebook, the category of “friends” is the general pot where persons we know are parked unless they are put into some other category such as family or the so-called V.I.P. list. Probably most of us have a good number of people in the friends category. In my own case, this is a repository for individuals who never seem to interact with me at all and I fear that I am equally guilty. 

So, are they really friends? Further, would Aristotle define them as friends? I think not to both questions. These friends may only be acquaintances. In addition, in some cases, these friends may want to keep up with what is going on in your life without investing any energy in a personal relationship. Facebook allows them to hear the news with no time or energy expended in the relationship. This is friendship based upon a few keystrokes. 

On the other hand, real friendship is work. It may be a labor of love, but it does require activity on our part. To care for a friendship requires that we extend ourselves on behalf of the friend. I believe that this is personal and intentional in nature. We have coffee. We go to lunch. We converse beyond the realm of passivity. I grant that we may legitimately offer examples of friendships that flourished over years and distance without the privilege of close personal interaction, but I posit that they are the exception. I have known some who affirm that they have friends that they had not spoken to or interacted with for years and when reconnected, they picked up as though they had never been apart. I must accept their affirmation, but my experience says that this is an exaggeration. People change and evolve and even as your high school sweetheart no longer is in the blush of youth, your friendship has not retained its same reality.

Therefore, returning to the question of how one cares for a friendship, I would say take care of your friends. Spend time with them. Talk to them. Go to lunch with them. You get the idea. Be a presence in their lives to the degree that is appropriate and allows the relationship to be nurtured. Even if this requires some long distance communication, for heaven’s sake, do not ignore them and then expect them to be “particular friends”. Take care of your friends.