Henry's Heart and the value of a good wife.

If you have ever heard a old southern preacher speak you may have heard him quote a even older minister by the name of Matthew Henry. As a preacher’s kid I’ve heard my share of Henry quotes. Yet most do not know the person behind the quotes. Matthew Henry was Presbyterian preacher from the days before Ipods and streaming video, when the printing press was still a new thing and writing was a laborious task. Henry was known to work like a mad man —both in the pulpit and in his study. Throughout his life he maintained this intensive preaching and pastoral ministry.

His legacy is communicated through his commentary on the whole Bible, a task that took him his whole life to complete. Henry completed Genesis through Acts and after his death; His ministerial colleagues completed Romans to Revelation based on his notes and sermons. It is known for its poetic beauty, striking insights and puritanical sensibility. While he is most know for His commentary, it is his little book on spiritual communion called “How to spend a day with God,” that touched my mind and opened me to a God–soaked vision of reality, where God plays in ten thousand places. [1]

It is perhaps significant to note that Henry was not removed from suffering and tragedy. His first wife Katherine died in child-birth in 1689 after only two years of marriage. Although he later remarried he and his second wife, Mary, lost three children in infancy in the following seven years. It was during his time with Mary that he wrote many works, ministered all over England and began his famous commentary.

After the death of his first wife, Matthew Henry was overcome with grief. He would later say, "I know nothing that could support me under such a loss as this, but the good hope that she is gone to heaven." He was a broken man but now a father for though his wife was gone their daughter survived. Matthew named her Katharine in honor of her mother. The two, father and daughter, began their journey from the hills of sorrow.

Matthew met his second wife Mary two years after his first wife died. The hurt and loss of his first wife had begun to heal but he was still a broken man. Mary came as a healing balm, soothing the unsteadiness of Matthew and renewing his vision for the future. By all accounts, Mary was a good and Godly wife. She was one who complimented Matthew in many ways, able to endure hardship with grace and find worship in freeing Matthew to minister. She created space for Matthew so he could devote time to what he felt God was asking of him. In His commentary on the creation of Eve he highlights her dignity and status. You can almost see Mary in the background of his words. Amidst contemporary confusion over human identity and marital relations, Henry’s counsel deserves careful consideration.

Yet man being made last of the creatures, as the best and most excellent of all, Eve's being made after Adam, and out of him, puts an honour upon that sex, as the glory of the man, (1 Co. 11:7). If man is the head, she is the crown, a crown to her husband, the crown of the visible creation. The man was dust refined, but the woman was dust double-refined, one remove further from the earth.

That Adam slept while his wife was in making, that no room might be left to imagine that he had herein directed the Spirit of the Lord, or been his counsellor, (Isa 40:13). He had been made sensible of his want of a meet help; but, God having undertaken to provide him one, he does not afflict himself with any care about it, but lies down and sleeps sweetly, as one that had cast all his care on God, with a cheerful resignation of himself and all his affairs to his Maker's will and wisdom. Jehovah-jireh, let the Lord provide when and whom he pleases. If we graciously rest in God, God will graciously work for us and work all for good . . .

That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved [2.]

Matthew Henry reminds us all to look at all things from this higher set of values. Henry reminds married men, your personal Eve is not a footstool or doormat so be about leading by serving. Nor did you know what you really needed but God knew and gave you what you needed. God’s will and wisdom is found in the wife you have not the wife you think she should be. Respond to the wife you have like Christ and so fill your days with love (Eph 5:22-32). Henry reminds women they are the crown of creation and should thus shine with godly virtue and wisdom. Like all crowns in scripture they are to be laded at Christ feet in humility. So receive your husband as you would receive Christ and in so honor him.

Proverbs 18:22 reads, “He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD.” Elsewhere in Proverbs it is written, “a prudent wife is from the LORD.” (Pr 19:14b). Matthew Henry understood this not just as a biblical truth but as reality. He understood the value of a good wife because he knew loss and love. Mary was to him a gift of grace. In a day of cheep things - value is lost. Our enjoyment has become connected with the pleasure of this world that most no longer appreciate those institutions of higher value like marriage and a virtuous wife. May we all see marriage and our respective spouse through Henry's heart.

Notes
(1.) God plays in ten thousand places are the title of a book by Eugene Peterson that explains a God centered vision of the world.
(2.) Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 10.

The Line in the Sand and the Shadow of the Cross.

a homily style sermon on social justice and christian civility

Reading: John 8:2-11,
At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

John 8:31-36
31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Prayer
Look upon us, O Lord,
and let all the darkness of our souls
vanish before the beams of thy brightness.
Fill us with holy love,
and open to us the treasures of thy wisdom.
All our desire is known unto thee,
therefore perfect what thou hast begun,
and what thy Spirit has awakened us to ask in prayer.
We seek thy face,
turn thy face unto us and show us thy glory.
Then shall our longing be satisfied,
and our peace shall be perfect.
(St. Augustine, 354 - 430)

Reflection: Line in the Sand

Sometime common quit conversation moves hearts farther into new territories of possibility than the tyrannical dictates of reasoned arguments.

Jesus did not draw a line in the sand. He diddled about the idea of grace. The Pharisees found a way to track him (so they thought) he found away to walk outside of there game.

We are made to communicate not dominate. Domination flows from our darker-side, the fallen under-belly of our hearts. The part of us most disingenuous, the unkept shadows of the soul that operate in plain sight. Today, I have been reading Martin Luther Kings, letters from a Birmingham jail and his sermons on love, in preparation for Sunday. Taking a break, I turned to Chris Rice for a little wisdom and found a flood of truth. Take a moment to hear the song (click here).

We live an a day when people rarely talk before making judgments, rarely make a point without yelling. Gone are the days when we seek to win our enemies. we have given up such a hard task for the much easier work of just wining the argument.

There is a sound today, it mumbles through the crowd. It come up in every kind of conversation. It can be heard on Tv, in living rooms, and sadly from many churches. I hear it in the way we draw improper lines; Lines between people, Lines of 'us and them'. It is the way we speak of people. the lines made of words full of camouflaged contempt. Lines in our minds, on our tongues, between them and us.

Last time I checked it was all bad guys and Jesus.

Drawing a line that Jesus did not draw is just a way of looking for someone to hate. Do we not hear the words of King anymore? Can we understand the wisdom when he writes: Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

The only line in the sand Jesus drew was between
Between God's greatness and our insignificance
Between Human sin and God's judgment
Between Human folly and divine justice
Between those who can cast the first stone and those who need to be stoned.

And between humanity and God was a line unCROSSable..

In the incarnation Jesus steped across the line and in the cross he overcame the line in such a way that it is written, "Mercy triumphs over judgment!"(James 2:13).

But Jesus did not stop their... In the resurrection he redrew the line of humanity. Race, class, ecconmic standing no more an issue, no more a seperation! As it is writen:

His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (Eph 5:13-14)

We are given the privilege to greet all men NOT with a quick 'sizing up' and label, Nor with an subversive questions of loyalty but as the early Scottish saints did. Greet all men in this way:

Deep peace of the running wave to you,
Deep peace of the flowing air to you,
Deep peace of the quiet earth to you,
Deep peace of the shining stars to you,
Deep peace of the Son of Peace to you, forever.

AS Disciples we are to walk outsides the lines of conformity and normality so common in this present world. lines of right and left, lines of black and white, lines of the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Disciples are called to the painstaking task of walking in the shadow of the cross.

The cost of discipleship is life without lines!

Jesus calls us to be ministers of a reconciliation that transcends worlds and unity us to them. Living in a love that bonds enemies, and infuses glory into death for those who wish to witness to that love.

Jesus calls his disciples to display the marks of the cross. The place where "Mercy and truth have met each other: justice and peace have kissed" (Psalms 85:10).What about in real life? what does this look like in the real world issues of social justice. Let us use abortion as our case study.

Mercy and truth in real life.
A disciple is called is to introduce mercy into the issue of abortion. Mercies that will cry with the hurting and give dignity back to the mother grieving there lose. We smile and introduce mercy into the painful truth of those left behind after an abortion. Hurting and pointing such woman to forgiveness and freeing them to live again.

when justice and peace make love!
we show peace in love with justice in seeking to change the culture from one of death and selfishness to life and love. We witness to the cross as peace in love with justice by seeking to give options, show there is another way, and opening mothers to see abortion is not the only option. Peace in love with justice adopts babies, opens there doors to unwed mother, cares for them to term and gets there hands dirty in the hard work of showing that peace passionately burns for Justice!

We are to show justice in love with peace in seeking to live without lines. In seeking to only keep the lines God has drawn and not draw any lines only God can draw. To many people get their hands dirty in all the wrong ways. They play in the dirt making mountains out of moll hills and drawing line where there are no lines. Sometime it is about wisdom, making no distinction other than love.

I have no human enemies only friends who are deceived, confused, and mislead. Is that not a description of being lost? A lost person by definition is one who needs directions. They don't know how to get where they want to go. They need directions. When it comes to social issues most all people seek the same goal: A peaceable and free society of good people. It is just finding a way to that destination has left most sitting on a stump or standing on a soup box pointing fingers.

I repeat: the cost of discipleship is life without lines!

Justice for all, civility for the rest
To the rest of humanity I want to speak to you too. To misinform and hoodwink, perplexed and bamboozled, delude and defraud, who think they know where they are? I am human as you a too experience this world as you do. I will not yell but I will buy you a coffee and let you tell me what is wrong with the world till the coffee cools. I will not yell I will only tell you the way that found me. I will tell you about how I love old books and new art. I will share my passion and my life if you share yours. I have good news to share, if you want to listen.

To My brothers and sisters fighting for life yearn to see traditional marriage safely and permanently elevated for the sake of children and society. Jesus condemned the self-righteous as jerks. We need not use the tactics of the deluded and defrauded, The devil seduction always bits twice. Once at you - once from you. We are always tempted to respond in the same manner as the world. But remember, there blindness goes deeper than social issue. So what are we to do? We need not be passive but We need not yell! We can fight this quietly, respectfully, and firmly – without condescension:

“Draw your lines and choose your side
Many things are worth the fight
But louder doesn't make you right
You don't have to yell
You don't have to yell”

It is my belief that such level-headed reasoning from passionate hearts will some day prove victorious. The belief that faith makes a difference need not divide humanity nor does living without lines force us to water down faith. In an age 'beyond babble' when many voice confuse the discourse let us take the time to learn another language, grow in empathy, and deeply know our own way so we can give informed directions, winsomely and persuasively.

In the words of Martin Luther King Jr: I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.

We will fight on! We need not yell! Thanks to Chris Rice for lending his beautiful talent to such a beautiful message of peaceable warring over meaningful things.

Let us join the echos of the past and turn our ears to a prayer of st Ambrose.

O Lord, who hast mercy upon all, take away from me my sins,
and mercifully kindle in me the fire of thy Holy Spirit.
Take away from me the heart of stone,
and give me a heart of flesh,
a heart to love and adore thee,
a heart to delight in thee,
to follow and to enjoy thee,
for Christ's sake.
(Ambrose of Milan, c 339-97)

Sexual Perseverance and the Fun of Sex!

Respecting the holy beauty of the marriage bed
A vision of God’s holiness is important to sex and the marriage bed. First, because the holiness of God opens us to rightly honor sex and the marriage bed in this we see the beauty and “oughtness” of chastity. Second God’s holiness keeps us honoring them thru the stages along life’s way. We will look at both in turn.

First, Sex can be honored for the pleasure it brings, or for its fruit (children) but those that are conscious of God’s holiness will honor it because it comes from Him. His authorship and the context in which he places sex are honored because it is from him. As the writer of Hebrews teaches us, “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (Heb 13:4). Note God’s holiness to judge is in view. Such a reminder should place a holy fear in our soul’s to respect such a good and beautify gift as sex. God set apart sex for marriage and not to be engaged in outside of marriage. That means we are to respect sex because we are conscious of God! C. S. Lewis once wrote, “either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” Ample evidence shows sex outside of marriage to be less fullfilling, higher risk of the relasionship falling apart men who enter marriage having premarrital sex are 65 percent change to be unfaithful later in life.

Second, Just as God’s holiness spans all of heaven so our honor of his pattern is to span our whole life. Sexual fidelity is for the life of marriage, thus persistence and perseverance are necessary aspects of sexual ethic of marriage. Even after the wedding bells ,we are to be sexually faithful in our marital journey together. There are still Christian marriages where one or both enter as virgins. They enter marriage with knowledge of the pattern but little understanding of its holiness. The French literary master, Victor Hugo is an example of just such a down fall.

He was seventeen and his beautiful Parisian neighbor Addle Foucher fifteen when he told her he loved her; he signed his first letter to his beloved, "Your husband." Theirs was the love of two exiles from heaven, he enthused in adolescent transports; he preserved his virginity for marriage, and he guarded Adele's chastity with a watchdog's vigilance, steering her away from unseemly friendship with a painter and discouraging her from learning to draw: "Does it befit a woman to descend into the class of artists--a class which encompasses actresses and dancers?" Holding out until their marriage in 1822 evidently had its carnal upside: Hugo claimed he made love to his bride nine times on their wedding night.

Hugo followed the holy pattern but without a holy fear and respect for sex adversely affecting his perseverance. By the end of his life he let his appetites get the best of him. Though a man of great compassion and religious sensibility, the proper channels of pleasure did not seem enough, the marriage bed did not evoke thanks as it once did, He divorced his wife and began a slow fade into indulgence.

Pushing seventy years old, he totted up forty different sexual partners in the course of five months; the sex log he had kept faithfully throughout his life--and which lists encounters with hundreds of women--certifies the liaisons. The fiercely virginal youth and devoted young husband had devolved into a satyr, and Parisian womanhood was honored to provide its literary hero with the services he required.

Hugo’s sexual history is a slow fade from chastity to debauchery. His slow fade was because sex for him was a personal pleasure to the exclusion of God’s pleasure. God’s pleasure over the matter eluded him, even when he followed the pattern. In short, He never honored sex as holy, for he never connected its creation with the Creator’s good pleasure. So he never loved the marriage bed as from God. He lacked a sense of honor for the marriage bed; this translated often time to boredom with His marriage bed. The beauty of holiness makes God’s gifts shine with value, no matter how familiar we are with them. When sex and the marriage bed are understood as inseparable and the holy God is understood as the giver of just such a pattern, then the sexual life of a marriage finds its value in the holiness of God. Holy sex is by God’s pattern. A married couple can rest under the holy smile of a holy God in their conjugal endeavors.

No "little" Fun!
To lighten things a little Lets talk about the fun side of sex. Yes I said fun side! The fact that sex is fun is part of how God made it! Sex following God's pattern is fun. So fun sex following God's pattern is holy sex! So to the extent God’s holiness guards marriage, the beauty of his holiness informs us of the joy in sex. God does not make anything without making it beautiful and sex is just such a thing. So the next time you hold your spouse – enjoy in the beauty of his holiness in the wonder of his idea! NOW!? You may say Dawson what do you know! You’re not married!!! I would say, your right! So to that end, here is a video from people who know about conjugal love “the BRITS!” this little clip comes to us from the BBC for your enjoyment and all around education 'kinda'.



Note for further study, I would recommend, "True Sexual Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards for a Culture in Crisis" by Daniel R. Heimbach. I know Heimbach and sat under him at SEBTS. His text has been used at Harvard divinity to show the conservative position on sexual morality. It is one of the best conservative explanations of Christian sexual morality.

Modernity, Depravity, and Inhumanity of Man

What is Modern man? Modern man is foremost man.[i] He is the best and the worst of what man can be to date. Though we enter into this world naked and no better, smarter, faster, or genetically superior to Cain or Able. We enter into an environment that is the summation of human history to date. We have greater opportunity for we have greater resources at our disposal. As our possibility grows, so grows our purpose, potential, and responsibility.

Modern man is sinful. This means we must deal with a little word called sin, three little letters one big problem. The best definition I have found for sin that’s relevant to modern man is as follows. Sin is the diminishing of ones true humanity or the true humanity of another. Let us look a little deeper into this little word. Sin is learned, chosen, and ultimately rebellion to ones true humanity. It “subjugates the whole person.[ii]” The Principle of sin is in the world.[iii] It is a power of evil released into the world at the fall. This is our education in inauthentic existence and why reason is corrupt. In this respect sin is learned and must be unlearned. Marx, Nietzsche, even Freud all end in this conclusion about the utter corrupt of reason. Marx claimed this is evidenced in the ability of power to corrupt reason. Nietzsche leaned on reason’s capacity for self-deception and Freud stated reason’s illusion of control over instincts.[iv]

Sin is a choice. We are given in the insurmountable task of creating ourselves without a frame of reference to begin at. As one’s soul grows their capacity for consciousness equally grows. Yet we are responsible weather conscious of them or not. This is because we have the potential for conscious free choices. Our damnation originates and is implied within the apathy of not seeking conscious free choice. Original sin is evident in the freedom found in the self-awareness of the soul and learned by interaction with the world. Carl Jung wrote on this in the book undiscovered Self.

The evil that comes to light in man and that undoubtedly dwells within him is of gigantic proportions, so that for the church to talk of original sin and to trace it back to Adam’s relatively innocent slip-up with Eve is almost euphemism. The case if far graver and is grossly underestimated
Since it is universally believed that man is merely what his consciousness knows of itself, he regards himself as harmless and so adds stupidity to iniquity. He does not deny that terrible things have happened and still go on happening, but it is always “the others” who do them. And when such deeds belong to the resent or remote past, they quickly and conveniently sink into the sea of forgetfulness, and that state of chronic woolly-mindedness returns which we describe as “normality.” In shocking contrast to this is the fact that nothing has finally disappeared and nothing has been made good. The evil, the guilt, the profound unease of consciences, the obscure misgiving are there before our eyes, if only we would see.
Man has done these things: I am man, who has his share of human nature : therefore I am guilty with the rest and bear unaltered and indelibly within me the capacity and the inclination to do them again at any time. Even if, juristically speaking, we were not accessories to the crime, we are always, thanks to our human nature, potential criminals. In reality we merely lacked a suitable opportunity to be drawn into the infernal shadow. Whether the crime lies many generations back or happens today, it remains the symptom of a disposition that is always and everywhere to possess some “imagination in evil,” for only the fool can permanently neglect the condition of his own nature. [v]

For if we are truly free then we the possibility dwells in us to do the unthinkable. This shadow of possibility is the ethereal flesh in man. We can dip from the deep well of history’s dark past or create new horrors; our only limit is freedom itself. Our potential for evil is limitless thus the greatest freedom is shown in submission to limit ones potential to gain authentic direction, relation, and life.

The fact is, sin is the diminishing of one’s soul. At the root of that diminishing is ego controlled self. Twisted and bent, It is the nothing that gnaws at us. It blinds us from seeing the immense potential for both depravity and greatness, which lays dormant in us all. Self-Actualization is the process by which a man looks from spirit and acknowledges his totality. That is to say one’s full potential for greatness and depravity then he sees the freedom inherent within that potential. The consciousness of choice becomes apparent. The battle is not won for the right path must still be chosen. Those who know they have a choice still have to choose rightly. Once self-aware, right steps can be taken to combat the destructiveness and blinding pride in self. From this presupposition of consciousness, grace can be seen for what it is, and how it works. Yet, Sadly many end up like the Lover’s in the second circle of Dante’s inferno: Playing the victim while unaware that freedom is found in giving yourself away to proper ends not the controlling inner light of lust. They spin dizzily, claiming to freely follow their heart yet what seems to be is not what is. For if the vail be lifted, could we peek into hell, would the whole harvest - from seed to fruit - of their sin be revealed, the inconvenient truth of who they became would be clearly seen. They are in death what they became in life - slaves to their own passions, tortued by there own relentless lust.

Lastly, sin is the lacking of right relation to God. This is the origin of man’s individual original sin. In the garden Adam dwelled in truth for he was in relation to the Truth. In disobedience to God innocence was lost. Thus the opposite is true, when one is obedient one is innocence. Under grace obedience is faith in Jesus. through faith in Jesus completing our humanity we gain the grace to know we are called child by God himself and by way of Jesus’ life we learn the authentic relationship man can have to God. Without that grace and completeness we are an incomplete and diminished humanity. We are without. Our graceless existence is three dimensional: Fallen modern man’s spirit is in rebellion, his soul is responsible for ones own sin, and his body learns to be a better sinner by living in a fallen world.

End Notes

[i] The Word of God and the modern man, Emil Brunner, translated by David Cairns (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press 1964) p.11
[ii] Paul’s theology in the new testament p. 771
[iii] Paul’s theology in the new testament p. 771
[iv] Reinhold Niebuhr, the nature and destiny of man, (new york charles scribner’s sons 1951), 36
[v] Carl Jung, Undiscovered Self, (Atlantic monthly press 1958) .. 95-96p

Dante on Lust

The whirlwind in the second circle is one of the most memorable places the pilgrim encounters on his journey through the Inferno in Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy. The whirlwind holds within its sway the wayward souls lead astray but lust. Danta describes the circle: “All light is mute, with a bellowing like the Ocean turbulent in a storm of waring winds, The hurricane of hell in perpetual motion.” [1] As Dante and Virgil look on, two souls come near and converse with the traveler. He asks then why they were here. Love was given as the answer. He then asks how they came to such an end. Dante learns that they had committed adultery after being overcome by intense passion incited by a novel.


Ary Scheffer’s recreation of this part of the inferno reveals Dante and His guide shrouded in darkness as they watch the two twisting in a whirlwind of lust. Their bodies are heavily intertwined within a large sheet – it seems difficult to tell where one ends and another begins much like the complex and confusing feels insisted by lust. The painting at once expresses intense passion and intense agony, revealing the difficulty with which we can discern sinful behavior.

This is Dante’s point also; he used the imagery to show the reader life inside out. The Inferno itself was written to teach the reader the dehumanizing affect of sin. How sin deforms the soul, and what you become in life you will be in death. So each circle shows the distructive truth of sin and the affect it has on the character.

The picture of the "Hurrican of hell" is an allegory for the vice of lust. Its shows lust in its true bibical nature. We see that lust is deceptive for the two adulterers speak of lust as if it where love. Dante wrote that the people rested “so lightly on the wind” yet they where in the whirlwinds grip. This shows us that lust is a subtle trap. Lust is controlling and once its in control it it is hard to get free. if you follow lust to its end -the whirlwind never lets go. Lust twists the soul in how it blinds and controls. A soul is dehumanized but believes that “following your hearts” will lead to finding freedom. The freedom promised becomes an eternity in chains, chains that exist on the inside. Lust is a light controlling wind that will carry you away as it convinces you of the purity in an impure moment. We can also see that lust is progressive.A light wind in life gives way to a hurricane in hell. Thus, Lust true nature is seen as a powerful whirlwind. That controls from the first tempest to it's entire flow. The truth of this picture is seen in what the bible says of Lust. Here is a list of what lust is like biblically.

Focuses on self Gal - 5:13 NKJV
Leads to frustration - James 4:2 NIV
Continually wants more - Eph 4:18-19 NIV
Enslaves self - Rom 6:16,19 NKJV
Desires to gratify the sinful nature with things contrary to the spirit - Gal 5:19-21
Excludes Christ -Rom 1:28-29 NIV
Sins to gratify desires - Eph 2:3 NIV
Entices with evil desires - James 1:14 NIV
Wars against the soul - 1Peter 2:11 NIV
Avoids commitment and leads to tragedy - Pro 6:25-26 TLD [2]

Fighting the wind
Further, the use of wind also shows an antithesis with the biblical metaphor of the Holy Spirit as wind. Lust is the opposite spirit to the spirit of real faithful abiding love. So lust is understood to rise from the incontinence, lack of restraint, a vice that is just as intellectual as it is biological. Dante writes that there sins raise from “reason mastered by desire,”[3] So this shows us the virtue that we are to seek. Dante’s schooled in the Augustine moral system, which saw reason as a mind capable of perceiving truth and not just being logical. A reason that guided and anchors our desires.[4] The virtue of level headedness helped along by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit points us to our proper end, the love of God and covenant-keeping faithful abiding love.

Winds of wisdom
Further was can see some truths that illuminate our understanding of lust and its trappings. For one, in the fact that it was a novel that incited the adulterers to act shows the power of media to incite lust. We also see the lack of thinking reasonably in putting themselves in situations to incite lust. The two should not have been reading alone together. The fact that the two where bound to each other shows the product of such sexual infidelity – a shared shame of oneness.
So in the end, what are we to do? The answer is simple be level-headed, cultivate a desire to follow the Spirit, and enjoy life in true freedom; the freedom of the children of God.

End Notes

[1] Dante Alighieri, THE INFERNO. Canto V, trans Robert Pinsky (Noonday, New York, 1997) 37.

[2] Dennis Rigstad “Is it love or lust?” Psychology for living, February 1988. As Quoted in Daniel Akin “god on sex: the creator’s ideas about Love, Intimacy and marriage. (Broadman and Holman, Nashville, 2003) 130-131

[4] Dante Alighieri, THE INFERNO. Canto V, trans Robert Pinsky (Noonday, New York, 1997) 39

[5] Dante Alighieri, THE INFERNO. Canto V, trans Robert Pinsky (Noonday, New York, 1997) 313-314

Virgin Capital

Natalie Dylan, 22, is an average gal from San Diego, California, she is attractive, smart, with good hair and a practical head on her shoulders. She has a Bachelors in Science in Women's Studies from California State University in Sacramento and wants to get a Masters Degree in Family and Marriage Therapy. Natalie is a giver, you know one of those people that wants to make a difference in this world, but like all aspiring counselors she needs money to pay for college. So she is selling, or actually auctioning off, her virginity to the highest bidder? (Yes, I am not joking, see here). Her offer of a one-night stand with her has persuaded 10,000 men to bid.

Miss Dylan is a woman of many ‘ists” as in capitalist, pragmatist and realist. She is not a hooker like Elliot Spitzer's call girl, Ashley Alexandra Dupre. She is a capitalist but I don’t think Reagan would be proud or that this falls under His theory of trickle down economics. She states, “We live in a capitalist society. Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?" Forget the record number of foreclosures and the escalating rate of unemployment. Here's the best example yet of the current economic climate: Virgin real-estate for sale! Talk about supply side economics!

Natalie Dylan is also a realist, “I don't think auctioning my virginity will solve all my problems, but it will create some financial stability," Last September, when her auction became public knowledge, she had received bids up to $243,000 but since, it has made it to 3.7 million. So we are not just talking financial stability. We are talking about Her virginity making her a millionaire.

She could be called a moral pragmatist. Nappy Dylan claims no moral qualms about this choice. "I don't have a moral dilemma with it.” Further, Natalie claims a certain will to power in her talk of choice. “My study is completely authentic in that I truly am auctioning my virginity but I am not being sold into this. I'm not being taken advantage of in any way.” The 22-year-old Sacramento State graduate continues, “I'm ready for the controversy... I'm ready to do this.” To accentuate the obvious “glaucoma” of her moral vision, she added her own moral commentary: “It's shocking that men will pay so much for someone's virginity, which isn't even prized so highly anymore.” Sadly, like most of her generation, she knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The idea came in part from her sister Avia, 23, who paid for her own degree after three weeks of being a prostitute. (And we wonder why giving to the Salvation Army is down??) Some may think that she is not the real deal yet Miss Dylan claims she is as authentic as Donald trump’s toupee. She is even willing to place her clam under medical scrutiny and undergo medical tests for any doubters.

With great irony and profound lack of any moral impulse, she says what must be considered the understatement of the year.

“I think me and the person I do it with will both profit greatly from the deal.”

What is a single Christian guy think of such a girl?

I think first, Valuable, we are to think valuable. In spite of her poor choice and public celebrity over it, she is made in the image of our God and for that she has inherent worth that cannot change, no matter what she does with her sexuality. And, I want to think she wants such a value. Think about how she got to be 22 and still a virgin. Someone in our day does not spend 22 years in “Cal-i-fornication” no less, and not have to fight to keep such a beautiful aspect of her womanhood. So we see below the bills and greed, below the flippant way she talks of her virginity, is a woman that wants to be valued.

Second, compassion, seeing her as an product of modern thinking, we should hurt for her. What is to her empowered womanhood is to me a confused and twisted value system. She claims value in the devaluing of herself as long as she owns the choice. The virgin real-estate of Miss Dylan is the capital she will build the rest of her life on. And one day, she will look back and see that gold rusts and degrees can't make you righteous nor personal choice make you valuable. One day, she will grow to hate the fact that she placed a "for sale" sign on her womanhood, claiming purity to be a commodity. For that day I hurt for her.

Third, jealous, we should be jealous for her, as God is jealous for her. If I had the money I would outbid all the sexual capitalists out there. I would just give her the money and tell her keep her virginity. Where are the Hosea’s of this world that would do such a thing. Where are the Christian men that have the means to be a parable of the gospel?
I know where…

They are at the strip club helping other young ladies pay for community college.

And

In their office bidding for the virgin capital of Natalie Dylan.

Woody Allen and the modern moral life.

In Crimes and Misdemeanors, Woody Allen knocks a homerun, for those that want to think when they eat popcorn. It is one of my favorite movies of all time and never fails to make me sad and illuminated all at the same time. In this movie, he shows the moral lives of two men, Cliff Stern and Juduh Rosenthal. Highlighting the place of conscience in modern life and humanity.

In the main plot of the movie, the part I will let you watch without much commentary. Judah Rosenthal is griped with guild over the blood on his hands and has to deal with present guilt and a past full of atheist aunts and orthodox fathers. Allen uses flash backs to show Rosenthal’s inner turmoil. His inner dialectic is made visible (which ironically and unknown to alien is a apart of conscience itself.) in Rosenthal’s dilemma. Deep questions about love and meaning are asked contrasted by nihilistic ideas like, Is there a soul? Does god exist? In these moments the movie gets as dark and serious as Bulgarian chocolate yet never looses its charm.

In the story of Cliff Stern, Allen gives us the more common account of conscience. Allen knows that today’s world system is not arbitrary. The structure of culture today rewards those that play the game. It is understood from experience and theory that life the does not reward certain people and gladly rewards those that play by the culture’s rules, and pander to society’s desires. People are forced into a dilemma of guidance. The choices are between a life guided by a modern pragmatism or principle, authenticity or celebrity, convention or commitment (vows).

This is seen in the contrast between Stern and Lester and the love triangle between Stern, Reed and Lester. The contrast between Stern and Lester runs deep. Both are producers both seek to make great movies. Stern is a reflective person with a sense of moral grounding and Lester an egocentric man of little reflection and even less conscience. In Lester and Stern’s interaction the issue of truth is raised in the form of authenticity. The only form of truth honored as a virtue in postmodern society. As the story unfolds, Cliff is forced to compromise and take the job he hates because, let’s face it, money is important. Cliff tries to be “true to himself” and gets fired by his wife’s brother. In this way Stern is depicted as the tragic hero. This is further accented in the Love triangle between Lester, him and Reed, Mia Farrow’s character. Stern is in a bad marriage so when he meets Reed, He must choose the path of cultural convention or marital commitment; he chooses the former, rejecting the dictates of his conscience in going after Reed. Reed must chose also between a man that can further her career (Lester) or a man that cares for her (Stern). She chooses the checkbook, and stern is left holding the bag.

Over all, the story line deals with the domestication of the conscience by modern life. It is clear Allen thinks conscience is dead weight, which we need to get over. Such moral courage (acting on principle to the point of suffering) is much more of a hindrance than a help. We see the role of conscience and understand it to be useless in the real world. The uselessness of conscience is seen in Stern following his conscience and gets fired, and then denying his conscience and justifying it through convention yet his attempted romance is killed before it begins when reed rejects him. Allen’s point seems to be following your heart and things are not all roses and sunshine, life is not like the movies it is not a matter of the good will prosper, but more the cunning and ruthless make out in the end.

What is shown to pay is Being an opportunist (Reed) or a egoistic pragmatist (Lester). Things will go well for you, for your playing the world’s game. Choose a way of the heart and conscience and there is a good chance life will not be rosy but in doing so you live a life that is “true to your self”. Displaying an authenticity that is still held with honor in a postmodern world. Sadly, this authenticity can change by the deeper desires of emotional connection (or is it the lust of a new thrill?) Either way, authenticity is a subjective standard so such “below the belt” urges can freely change moral vision.

In this way, a man who chooses a moral life is at best destined to be the tragic hero. His principle may lead him but only so far, for to remain authentic he had to change his principle to follow his desire. In the end, He loses the girl yet he was true to himself. In Allen’s view the best aspiration of man is the tragic hero.

If we look around we can find such tragic heroes. In the real world such people become rich in regret, deep in depression and hiccupping from a heart full of little betrayals. A great example of this is found in the philosopher, who Stern was doing a documentary on. A man that spent his life plumming the depths of meaning and could articulate such ideas with great beauty, yet ending it all by suicide even though he had it all figured out. So we see, knowing a truth and experiencing the meaningful bliss of a truth are two different things.

For the Christian, God is the sources of ultimate meaning, He is one's ultimate consern, He is the stenth in our moral courage. The soul centered on God is open to life as a sacramental reality, a grace to be enjoyed with gratitude.

For Allen, such meaningful bliss is non-existent but the moral joy of following your heart is real and can carve out a meaningful pleasureful existence from void.

Here are two guided videos for your exploration into this issue.

Do people have a moral center?

Do people have a conscience or are we just kidding ourselves and the universe.
Woody Allen spent most of the 1980s and '90s veering between comedy and drama, and he rarely combined the two with greater success than in Crimes and Misdemeanors. In the movie he weaves together two stories lines about the same serious issue, morality; More specifically the question of conscience. After Freud the consciences took a hit. Most today, following Freud’s lead, see the conscience as a social sensibility that is more or less something comparable to social engineering.

In crimes and misdemeanors woody Alien goes head to head with Fyodor Dostoevsky. Allen admittedly clams that Crimes and punishment was in part the antagonist for this piece. Allen and Dostoevsky works both beg the same question of audience, “Can man get away with murder and still live with himself? In both, the issues of the role of guilt and the existence of God and the soul are raised. In crime and punishment, Dostoevsky argues that we cannot escape the judgments of our conscience no more than we can the escape air. Such an argument may have been a strong one in Victorian Russia but in post-Freudian modern America this idea does not have a chance, (comrade!). Allen clams the opposite is true. With wit and pessimism, Allen weaves a drama that regrettably shows the modern truth, “you’ll get over it.” You may need to resolve some meta-ethical issues first like Oh say, the “existence of God!” But you will get over it. Allen holds that Freud was right the Russian was wrong.

In crimes and misdemeanors, Alien’s tells the story of modern man’s battle with conscience where two parallel accounts of the conscience are presented. One common and recognizable, the other is more foreboding and rich. In the story, Cliff Stern (Woody Allen) is a documentary filmmaker working on a pet project, a documentary about philosopher Louis Levy. As we all know, films about philosophers don't pay the rent! So Cliff's wife Wendy (Joanna Gleason) arranges for him to make a documentary about her brother Lester (Alan Alda), a famous TV comedian whose vapidity is exceeded only by his arrogance. While reluctantly making the film he meets Halley Reed (Mia Farrow) and find himself infatuated with Reed.

The other story line is about Dr. Judah Rosenthal, (Martin Landau) a prominent ophthalmologist with a successful practice, a loving family, and a reputation for generous charity work. But Rosenthal also has a secret: his mistress, Dolores (Anjelica Huston). What began as a casual fling has become uncomfortably intimate, and as he tries to break off the relationship, Dolores threatens to expose his infidelity to his wife and some “unorthodox” financial arrangements to his colleagues. His brother Jack has Dolores murdered at the request of Rosenthal and Rosenthal is left with a guilty conscience over the murderous affair (imagine that!). Allen seamlessly weaves the stories into one film with the comedy and drama only he is known for.

I will leave you to dialog with Judah yourself. And encourage you to watch a good movie and do some unpacking but I warn you when you stair into the abyss you find something starring back. Siskel and Ebert discussion is rich with ethical questions and shows the problematic and provocative nature of this movie. Watch them here.


This movie is a classic of from Woody Allen. Some of classic clips from the movie are at the bottom of the page.


This first clip is a powerful look at the inner diologue of Rosenthal





Concluding doxology

The housing market mess!

How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market? In a free market system this should not happen or at least not happen that much, yet my dad did some digging and hwta he found made me go hmmm? Excuss the adjectives dad is a 60's republican yet the facts are true.

1. President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act - Pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities.

2. 1993 on - Clinton extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules. He turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large various voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies.

3. 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, as a way to open the door for minorities to enter the middle class by way of housing and not ecconomic stability.

a. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress which would have almost surely rejected it, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995

b. Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

4. Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis

A) They were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way. Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government- sponsored enterprises boomed.

B) By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market.

5. Cronyism – The reason Fannie and Freddie were not investigated.

• Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats
• 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans
• From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their coffers filled by Fannie and Freddie.
• GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities
• Millions more on think tanks and radical community groups
• From 1995 to 2005, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners
• Many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast

6. Bill Clinton and the democratic socialist in Congress now wants the taxpayers to bail out their “failed” socialist program. In the process the government is forced to take over a segment of our economic system. The Socialist will have it both ways with a bailout!!!!

Additional Notes
Raines, went from the Carter Administration to Fannie Mae, and then to the Clinton Adminstration, and then back to Fannie Mae to be their CEO, networking all the way, raking in lots of cash, and passing out cash to keep that money machine untouched by Congress.

A statistic ------------ 25% of these bad loans were made to illegal aliens.

Now, McCain wants to hire Andrew Cuomo as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission in his administration!

Why "why" is an the central ethical question

It may even be held that [the intellect] is the true self of each, inasmuch as it is the dominant and better part; and therefore it would be a strange thing if a man should choose to live not his own life but the life of some other than himself. Moreover . . . that which is best and most pleasant for each creature is that which is proper to the nature of each; accordingly the life of the intellect is the best and the pleasantest life for man, inasmuch as the intellect more than anything else is man.

Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1178a2-7, trans. H. Rackham.


A World without a Why

It is, perhaps, a truism to state that in twentieth century philosophy it is by no means certain that there is any discernible purpose to human life. From Nietzsche’s mere “will to power”1 which find purpose in conquest, to Lyotard’s “incredulity toward metanarratives,”2 which drops all ultimate to particulars and strips reality to a bare canvas, and with many points in between there has been a reluctance to find over arching meaning.3 Western culture supported by philosophical positivism, a technological society and the dogmatic adherence to a scientific body of knowledge, has provided humanity with ample answers to the “how” with little guidance for the “who,” the “what,” or the “why.” We have massive amount of a “reductionistic” information yet knowing “how” a natural process works gives little if any, light to the questions of “what” or “why” the natural process is rather than is not. Modern philosophy and science avoided the questions of being in of a meaningful universe and cleaning their hands of metaphysical issues by reducing them to personal preference, presuppositions and improvable beliefs.

Being “Fit” and the "why" in the world

The philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has made it fashionable for some to utilize again the age-old Aristotelian perspective about human life as having a telos, a purpose.4 If we agree, as Aristotle taught, that life is lived toward a telos - that human life is at its best in the light of that telos - then we might suggest, again with Aristotle, that the aim of human life is eudaimonia; a word that means “well-being, wholeness, blessedness, happiness.” The word is rich, yet problematic. Before diving to deeply into it a few clarifying points must be made. The necessity of a world of order and syncopation is implied when you talk of eudemonia as a concept. Eudaimonia is a concept that focuses on the moral agent or in Hieddgier terms a being-in-the-world. Eudemonia is “fittedness” in the cosmos. Thus, human telos implies an objective world in the necessity of a fit-able place for man in the world of moment and often-unintelligible order. Man does not create meaning but finds a certain “fit” in the world. So Eudemonia is a subjective understanding of the content of a moral self in an objective world of order and choices.

Eudaimonia as aim for personal growth

The cultural use of happiness as personal satisfaction and fulfillment may pervert our understanding of eudaimonia. Though often translated “happiness,” the word is far more full than mere “feelings of being happy”. Eudaimonia is comparable to the Hebrew idea of shalom, or perhaps the English word “flourishing.”5 The modern misunderstanding of eudaimonia is the result of a sallow hedonism that is common to western culture. There are, of course, philosophically sophisticated versions of hedonism which cannot be dismissed lightly and do have great insights into the nature of humanity as a wanting creature. Yet If we steer eudaimonia away from the shallow hedonism prevalent today and toward the richer meaning, then it is arguable that the idea of a human telos, would be a helpful for both psychologists, pastoral theologians and ethicist interested in regaining a intellectual world endued with significance, human life grained more than just functional worth and personal action guided by a value directed purpose.

Human telos is understood along a paradigm: the temporal and eternal. The first is understood as the value paradigm where man’s action is judged in light of its proximity to the eternal. Thus it can be said that in light of a human telos - human action gains meaning and ethical value-direction.

When, pastors, or psychologist advise other they should have eudaimonia is view. Working to move people toward this state of eudaimonia. In this way, Eudaimonia is a worldview that is formed thought guided character development. I have termed Eudaimonia as a “mental well-being” more for alliterative purposes than because of a focus only on the mind. Aristotle’s eudaimonia is well-being in the most rounded sense: body and soul; feeling, thinking, sensing; the entirety of human personality, in whatever way we might perceive its complexity.

Harmony, Syncopation and the Glory of God

This is not a new idea but proposed in the Christian tradition as a life lived for the glory of God, an idea set out by the apostle Paul, explicated by st. Augustine and systematically described by St. Aquinas. For the Christian, eudemonia is found in God as the ultimate good. This faith tradition holds that eudemonia, as an end in itself is at best Moral selfishness, and at worst shallow hedonism. God is for the Christian, the foundation of all flourishing, the source of life and shalom. Further, God is the realization of human bliss, fundamental source of human enjoyment and the end to which all things where created. With this in mind, MacIntyre, defines eudaimonia as “the state of being well and doing well in being well, of a man’s [sic] being well favored himself and in relation to the divine.”6 Thus for the Christian eudemonia is the character traits and essential nature of a mature Christian that lives in harmony with and movement towards the telos of all creation, the glory of God. For those in the Christian tradition it allows eudaimonia to be understood as a holistic worldview that is rooted in the character of the individual. An individual enters and engages in a world that finds its temporal and eternal movements towards the glory of God. Thus in seeking God in all of life we seek a harmony of “fittedness” with the movement of the natural law and syncopation of our hearts with the glory of God.

Footnotes

1 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power (Vintage, 1968).

2 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian
Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1979, 1984, p xxiv. See also his Postmodern Fables, translated by George Van Den Abbeele, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota press, 1993, 1997.

3 This was classically stated by Paul Tillich in The Courage To Be ((New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1952), 35, 41, 47, 57, 61-63, terming the twentieth century as “the age of anxiety.”

4 See for example, Nancey Murphy, Brad J. Kallenburg, and Mark Thiessen Nation (eds.) Virtues and Practices in the Christian Tradition: Christian Ethics After MacIntyre (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1997).

5 There is a good introductory discussion both eudaimonia and telos in Christian philosophy in Stanley Grenz The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997)70- 72,75-76, 172-173.

6 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London: Duckworth, 1981, 1985), 148.

The KING'S glory and the glory King saw.

Last night, I took a trip to 1968. No I was not tripping on acid. I used modern technology to hear the last speech that Martin Luther King did before he died. It is one of my favorites. The whole speech can be found here. As I heard him talk I was reminded of the deep need for what he called dangerous unselfishness. King puts it this way.

Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness. One day a man came to Jesus, and he wanted to raise some questions about some vital matters of life. At points he wanted to trick Jesus, and show him that he knew a little more than Jesus knew and throw him off base....

Now that question could have easily ended up in a philosophical and theological debate. But Jesus immediately pulled that question from mid-air, and placed it on a dangerous curve between Jerusalem and Jericho. And he talked about a certain man, who fell among thieves. You remember that a Levite and a priest passed by on the other side. They didn't stop to help him. And finally a man of another race came by. He got down from his beast, decided not to be compassionate by proxy. But he got down with him, administered first aid, and helped the man in need. Jesus ended up saying, this was the good man, this was the great man, because he had the capacity to project the "I" into the "thou," and to be concerned about his brother.

Now you know, we use our imagination a great deal to try to determine why the priest and the Levite didn't stop. At times we say they were busy going to a church meeting, an ecclesiastical gathering, and they had to get on down to Jerusalem so they wouldn't be late for their meeting. At other times we would speculate that there was a religious law that "One who was engaged in religious ceremonials was not to touch a human body twenty-four hours before the ceremony." And every now and then we begin to wonder whether maybe they were not going down to Jerusalem -- or down to Jericho, rather to organize a "Jericho Road Improvement Association." That's a possibility. Maybe they felt that it was better to deal with the problem from the causal root, rather than to get bogged down with an individual effect.

But I'm going to tell you what my imagination tells me. It's possible that those men were afraid. You see, the Jericho road is a dangerous road. I remember when Mrs. King and I were first in Jerusalem. We rented a car and drove from Jerusalem down to Jericho. And as soon as we got on that road, I said to my wife, "I can see why Jesus used this as the setting for his parable." It's a winding, meandering road. It's really conducive for ambushing. You start out in Jerusalem, which is about 1200 miles -- or rather 1200 feet above sea level. And by the time you get down to Jericho, fifteen or twenty minutes later, you're about 2200 feet below sea level. That's a dangerous road. In the days of Jesus it came to be known as the "Bloody Pass." And you know, it's possible that the priest and the Levite looked over that man on the ground and wondered if the robbers were still around. Or it's possible that they felt that the man on the ground was merely faking. And he was acting like he had been robbed and hurt, in order to seize them over there, lure them there for quick and easy seizure. And so the first question that the priest asked -- the first question that the Levite asked was, "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But then the Good Samaritan came by. And he reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"

Reflections on the virtue of Neighbor love.

Three Amen’s of the soul rise to my mind from his words. King is right when it comes to our greatest problem and how our social problems stem from it. He is also right on the questions that make our problems personal. There is a third Amen but it comes from the example of King’s life.

No little problem
King was right when he points out the deepest problem in man. Our hearts a selfishly bent in on themselves. The selfishness that beckons us to care much for ourselves is at the root of modern indifference to current problems. This self-love that moves us all, from time to time to, “pass on by” is no little problem. It is no little problem for the one bleeding in the ditch and no little problem for the Lover of our soul. For the one in need experiences both the pain of practical needs unmet, and the cold lonely air of indifference, And for the One High and lifted up, the One who came in a manger, our selfishness led him to experience the pain of three nails and 3 hours. Our twisted nature has never been a little problem.

The Questions that bids us stay!
King is also right when he showed how the soul is set to account for it self in dialoged with Jesus' words. He was right because Jesus was right and Jesus' point is clear. The questions we ask ourselves in moments of danger show the content of our character. From Jesus’ teaching, King gives his own call to response in his reprise:

"That's the question before you tonight.
Not, "If I stop to help ….. what will happen to my job.
Not, "If I stop to help …… what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?"
The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?"
The question is, "If I do not stop to help ….., what will happen to them?" That's the question."

King clams that the question is important for his hears and I would add still important for us today. Such "neighbor love" has been trivialized for an impotent version of love void of power. Neighbor love that bids us stay is not a love common in today’s world. As the parable shows such love has an element of sacrifice. A giving in spit of the danger. A loving the other with no regard for your own protection. It is a care for the good of one's neighbor grounded in the glory of God. Only such a vision of God and others can so consume us to the point we are self-forgetful. But who loves like that? I have to say not many, last century was called the age of the self and rightly so. The post modern age will not be much different. I fear activists will lack the "Neighbor love" of King. We need to let King's questions question us and we need to be honest with the depths of our selfishness.

The fire that consumes.
This selfishness we are all disposed to is a mighty force and never easily overcome. It is a fire that can only be extinguished by an even mightier flame. BUT what is the Nature of such a flame? Only a consuming fire can do such a work. That is why the scriptures say, God is a consuming fire. – For only God can do such a work, Only God can make such a man stay when danger bids him “GO!” This is what the scriptures tell us, “God is a consuming fire” God is the fire and God is the flame. It is only a God’s size flame that can put out the fires of selfishness. We would do well to remember, the fire of God’s jealous love abiding in the heart of his children can move us past self protection and into dangerous unselfishness even on the road to Jericho.

Such a fire, which is god himself, burns for the glory of God. In the heart of man only a passion for the glory of God can move him to stop and moves him to stand. Only Love can make a man do crazy things. And Only Ultimate love can move a man to stay when his head says "Go!" Whatever you call it “moral courage” as the ethicist do. Or “dangerous unselfishness” as the activists do. Or even “A passion for God’s glory!” as the theologians do. What matters is that you do something with it. You stop when you feel like going. You die when you selfishness nature wants to live. It is stopping when you want to Go on by and staying when your fears say run that makes this inner flame more than mere sentiment - action makes it passion!

Seeing by the fire
Seeing by the glory of god is mostly lost today. It is good to remind, this fire is nothing like most fires today. Today people burn but it is all heat and no light. People are passionate today but they burn with a strange fire that demands God to do there biding. They seem to be people of passion but little illumination. People that talk of God's glory but seek there own. People that are marked more by loving the things of God than God himself - such people "pass on by" and dine with the Levite and the Pharisee.

A true passion for God's glory will shift more than your theological propositions. It will change your perception. God's true fire gives light as well as heat. Such a flame gives light to the eyes of the heart and illuminates every human face. In such a light man resembles the one who made him. In this light humanity is seen with divine dignity. By this flame, we see reflected in every human face the image of GOD. So we can understand that this fire's light reveals that humanity is my neighbor, worthy of my care buy virtue of the image they bear. The glory of God reaches to us through our neighbors by the image they all bear. Every pain we see, ever need we can meet but don't is God's glory appearing diminished by our indifference. To love your neighbor is to glorify God in this broken world.


A life as a “holey” “wholly” “holy” burning man
Paul was good at this. He was full of holes and issues but he worked on them. He was wholly given to the will of God. Lastly he was holy devoted to God. This is what it means to burn, to live "well done". He lived as a dead man consumed by the fire of God. It takes Dangerous unselfishness to live as a dead man. We to can be like Paul, one that is breathing but already “crucified with Christ” – a Follower that “no longer lives” but lives on for “Christ lives in” us. We can live as dead men that exhibit life in real time and hope for the days ahead. I love the end of King's speech – on the video - you can see his eye glisten with tears and his emotion is true and rich when he speaks of the death threats on his life. He was a marked man and he knew it. But he had dangerous unselfishness! There where people in need and he was not about to "go on by" but in his weak and incomplete humanity he was completed by love, compelled to stop in Memphis and help. His ending act as a clarinet call for all that seek to be God glorifying activist, ethicists, theologians, insert the occupation of your choice. We all need to echo the heart of king when he stated.

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop.
And I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!
And so I'm happy, tonight.
I'm not worried about anything.
I'm not fearing any man!
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!

The next morning King was killed by a gunman as he exited his motel room.

What King saw.
King was not an example of chastised faultless virtue, yet he revealed to the world a deep and abiding truth. King could be filled with a dangerous unselfishness because His eyes had seen the glory and that passion consumed any competing fire and warmed any chilling fears that would cry "Go on by" when the moment cried "stay." What did king see that gave him the grace and strength? King saw the KING! May we all look up and be graced with such a hope. May we say with king “mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord” and may that drive our hearts to unselfish giving of ourselves. Even if giving to the flame is a bullet to the head or not hating the debauchery and indifference of post-modern culture. We can see the glory of the KING. In the face of it all, we can have the capacity to care, for in it all, we see His glory in the mass of humanity before us. We can love reckless and live dangerous unselfishness for God's glory is rising, His glory is shining, His Glory is enthroned to be the supreme passion for all things!

Turn your eyes to the KING and your ears to King, can you hear the echoes?

“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!!”

A Theocentric ethic of Marriage

TITLE: A Theocentric Ethic of Marriage:

The Attributes of God as the foundation of (for) an ethic of marriage

SUMMARY:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:1 (NASB)

The beginning of understanding is found in understanding the beginning. This is why, Genesis begins as it does. Sailhamer writes of this opening statement, “the account opens with a clear, concise statement about the Creator and the creation. Its simplicity belies the depth of its content. These seven words (in Hebrew) are the foundation of all that is to follow in the bible.[1] James Sire illustrates this point:

One day a little boy came to his father. “Today the teacher showed us a big round globe. She said was a model of the world. She said the world was just surrounded by space. How can that be? Dad, what holds up the world? Why doesn’t it just fall down?”

His father, knowing that this was just a child’s question, gave him a child’s answer: “it’s a camel holds up the world, son.”

The Boy went away satisfied, for he trusted his father… the next day [the son] decided something was missing in his father’s answer. He asked, “Dad I was just wondering if a camel holds up the world, what holds up the camel?”… “It’s a kangaroo that holds up the camel.” Again the boy when away, but this time only for a couple of hours. Back again with His Father, he asked, “dad if a camel holds up the world and a kangaroo holds up the camel, what holds up the kangaroo?” “It’s an elephant holds up the kangaroo”

Come on Dad!” His son retorted. What holds up the elephant?” His father, in a fit of genius deriving from necessity, replied. “It’s…. It’s …. it’s Elephant all the way down.[2]

Sire informs us of two points from the story. One, “If it takes something to hold up the world, then there has to be a first holder, something that doesn’t require being held up – a prime foundation.” [3] It is God all the way down. He is the prime foundation that holds up reality. The Scripture teaches that God is the foundation of everything. All that is rests on God. Two, the father has to realize that there is no logical way to stop the regress. Out of necessity there had to be a point of commitment. Simple faith in the most likely answer: the biggest animal he could thing of an elephant. He is the starting point of all logical thought about reality. God is the foundation of everything and human thought and action necessarily must begin at a genesis of faith in just such a foundation.

The story point to a bigger reality and Sire’s points remind us of the truth of Genesis 1:1. It is no wonder the Apostles’ Creed begins with: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth!” Calvin taking his queue from the Apostles creed begins The Institutes with “The Knowledge of God the Creator”. Schaeffer writes, “Christianity as a system does not begin with Christ as Savior, but with the infinite-personal God who created the world in the beginning and who made man significant in the flow of history.”[4] Beginnings are important. Schaeffer points out that Christ is not the beginning he is the panicle, but God is the beginning.

The point of departure in many ways determines where and how you end up. First things guide last things. One’s aim determines where the bullet will fly. In Genesis 1:1, it is written, “In the beginning God,” the first four words of the Genesis are rich with meaning. Three points will to flush out the richness of this meaning and how it applies to marriage. First, God is before all, in himself, complete in perfection, radiant in holy other love. God is truly the foundation of everything. In him is the beginning of all things. Follow any chain of material causality and you end in a mystery. Hemmed into a corner the leap to logical casualty must be made and there you end in the first cause, the God of the beginning.[5] Because God is we are. His existence is necessary for our existence to have meaning. Therefore His is, necessarily, the foundation of all things. Say another way, God is the center of all things. God is the foundation of all, value, meaning, ethics, beauty, truth, goodness, and knowledge. God does not just give meaning to the world but he is the meaning for the world. If our existence derives from his existence then it follows that our value derives from his value. A work of art is only as valuable as the fame of its artist and the skill by which the art was made. God is the creator, and as such he gives value to all things.

As The Creator God it is fitting that He would be the object of ultimate worth and value. As a triune being that exists as a community of self-giving love, it is fitting that He Loves himself as one worthy of ultimate love and glory. Thus, God created all things for the glory of God. Out of the overflow of love for himself, God created all things to love, honor and glorify him for he is the only object worthy of greatest love. Thus all things are made with a particular “telos” in mind, the glory of God.[6] God formed creation in a particular way to accomplish this end. All of life has a movement towards its God-given perfection and ultimate end in God. [7] In Romans 11 Paul writes descriptively of this God-centered way of creation. For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen. (Rom 11:36) All Creation, including humanity, was made to live by a God-centered rhythm of exit and return.[8] Paul writes as a human for humanity. So in this passage He shows humanity’s moral movement to be a three beat rhythm consisting of acknowledgment, dependence and response. Acknowledgment (Faith) We live from him, the Creator of what is and how it is to be. Thus all things are ultimately relate to him for all things begin with him and have identity from him. Dependence (Hope): We live though him as dependant creatures clinging to the foundation of our existence, drinking from Him as the fount of all life, beauty, truth, and goodness. Thus all things are ultimately relate to him for all things find life and meaning in him. Response (Love): We live to him in a God-ward journey of responding to God and bring him glory. Thus all things are ultimately relate to him for all things have a God-centered purpose in bringing him glory. So the purpose for all that exists is God. He is the center of life from the beginning. Yet only Humanity can fail to follow such a style of life. [9]

Two, God is the foundation of marriage. Two reasons for this build on the above vision of life as God-centered. First, as a particular mode of human existence, Marriage is found within the call of creation to Glory in God and live a God-ward life. Thus, God is the foundation of marriage in the same way he is the foundation for life. Two Jesus implied that God was the foundation of marriage. Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 teaches a similar vision. He believed the scope of marriage is universal. God instituted a common grace for union, an inseparable union of two becoming spiritually one. It is a creation grace available to all humanity. To this end, Elton Trueblood describes marriage as one of the common ventures of life.[10] Jesus taught not only the scope of marriage but also its origin. Jesus echoes genesis when he implies that God came up with the idea of marriage. It is as if he states, “In the beginning God created marriage.” Marriage begins with God. God as creator and innovator of all things, created the idea of marriage and his work of marital union as a grace for humanity. God invented marriage and as the inventor he takes His idea and His work infinitely serious. Jesus’ teaching on marriage as having a theocentric center clearly supports the idea of God being the foundation of marriage. The ethical nature of marriage is rooted and grounded in God.

Three, If God is the foundation of marriage then God’s attributes are the foundation of the ethic of marriage. It follows that if he is the foundation of marriage then who he is become important to our ethic of marriage. The most important question in life is not why God? Or How God? But Who is this God? Who is this God that grounds our existence? Who is this God that plans and commands? Who is this God we are made to worship? The question of who is more important that How or why or what. For without answering to ‘who’ all other questions remains vague and unclear? Without ‘Who’, we do not know the one who plans and commands so the commands become arbitrary and the style of marriage loosely fitting and flexible. Without a ‘who’, we worship only mystery, a god on no name and no intimacy. Intimacy has its genesis in the exchanging of names. We call him Lord and he calls us friend and to his friends he discloses the mysteries of his heart. Without a ‘who’, we truly have no gravity for our existence. The meaning and virtue of a thing is defined is it relates to the knowledge of God. God is standard by which life is measured. We do not know justice till we know justice as God is justice. Nor do we know love till we know God as Love. Said another way, Life has meaning because God gladly bears up the full weight of meaninglessness and overpowers it with resurrection might, overflowing it with the glory of who he is. God, by the seer gravity of who he is, infuses all things with worth, value, and meaning as they are related to him. God is great, overseeing all that is with the weight of his presence.. God is good, leveling all that is with the measure of who he is. God is glorious filling to all that is with meaning and purpose. God is Gracious, condescending into all that is, to be and bring all that is back to Him. We can understand from these four predications of God that God is the moral gravity of life.

Today much is made of the idea that marriage teaches us about God. That marriage teaches. So in the experience of marriage we are informed about God. The profound mystery is marriage teaches us about Christ and the church. Yet is the opposite true? Does God teach us about marriage? If marriage teaches us about God, does God teach us anything about marriage? who God is, does it speak to those in wedlock? Does His nature and attributes have anything to say to our ethic of marriage? The answer is yes for God is the foundation of marriage and he is the foundation of everything. For example: Our God is trinity. Our triune God is a marriage of unity in diversity. A “perichoresis” [11] in covenant community: A community that created worlds and worshipers by the very overflow of its own personal expressions of intimacy and love for himself. Marriage as a self in “perichoresis” covenant union with another self forming a worshiping community that molds the next generation of believers by an incarnational self-giving in love and service to all.

It is necessary to find the proper center for false centers abound. Many now see marriage as an institution that is a slave to serve the self. The idea of God simply affects all of life. It strong pull can bring all loose ends of life into properly ordered orbit. Yet this affect is only as strong as the soul pathos for truth, beauty and goodness. God is before marriage, he created marriage and God ought to be at the central of marriage. Four descriptions of God outline this point: God is Great, Good, Glorious and Gracious. God is great, Marriage is not greater. God is good, Marriage is not better. God is glorious Marriage is of lesser glory. God is Gracious. Marriage has no grace that is not given. Marriage needs to get saved and if marriage is to be the vision of the good-life. To be a vision of the good life it must find its proper center. Today, marriage needs such a ground and gravity. Today, Marriage needs God.

THESIS: In this paper it will be shown that the ethical Christian marriage is a God-centered marriage. Where God is ultimate and from that foundation unfold a description of how a passionate “knowing” of God’s attributes informs and inspires the Christian ethic of marriage.

---

[1] John H. Sailhamer, “the Pentateuch as Narrative,” (Grand rapids: Zondervan, 1992) p 82.

[2] James Sire, Naming the Elephant (IVP Press 2004) pg 16

[3] Ibid 16

[4] Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time: The Flow of Biblical History (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 97.

[5] In G. K. Chesterton’s work orthodoxy there is a great chapter (chapter 3) on this very subject which I do not have time to fully write on here.

[6] See Jonathans Edwards, The end for which God created the world in John Piper’s God’s passion for his glory.

[7] Kreefts explains us, “There are two relationships between Creator and creature. But modern Christians usually remember only one of them. First, God loves everything. Second, everything loves God. The second is as true as the first. Acorns grow into oak trees because they are in love with God. That is, they seek unconsciously their own perfection, which is a participation in some of God's perfection. An oak tree is more perfect, more godlike, than an acorn. An acorn is not satisfied to be an acorn, because it wants (unconsciously, of course) to be more like God. God is the magnet that draws all the iron filings that are creatures closer to himself. That is why everything moves. It is seeking its own perfection, which is a reflection of God's perfection. Everything moves out of love of God.” Peter Kreeft, The God who loves you (San Fran. Ignatius press 2004) p. 102-103

[8] Kreefts writes, “Now God is not only the first efficient cause of the universe, its ultimate origin. He is also the last final cause of the universe, its ultimate end. "I am the Alpha and the Omega" (Rv 1:8), the beginning and the end, Jesus tells us. Thus everything in the universe is and lives and moves and has its being not only from God but also toward God. Augustine's great line is true of everything in nature as well as man: "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and [therefore] our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee." Peter Kreeft, The God who loves you (San Fran. Ignatius press 2004) p. 104

[9] Kreefts reminds us, “Everything loves God in its way. Not only did God love everything into existence by creation, he also loves everything into perfection by being the universal beloved. Not only does God love everything, but everything loves God. Only man can move contrary to this principle of nature through freely choosing evil. Every thing loves God, but not every one loves God” Peter kreeft, The God who loves you (San Fran. Ignatius press 2004) p. 104

[10] Elton Trueblood, The Common Ventures of Life: Marriage, Birth, Work, Death. (New York, Harper & row 1949). This little book discuses the common experiences of birth work marriage and death in the contexts of a sacramental view of reality.

[11] “perichoresis” can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration of life together from a joy found in the other. Alister McGrath writes with regards to the Trinity but the analogical understanding is evident. The concept of perichoresis "allows the individuality of the persons to be maintained, while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. An image often used to express this idea is that of a 'community of being,' in which each person, while maintaining its distinctive identity, penetrates the others and is penetrated by them." Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Blackwell, 2001.) pg 325