Again, just to speak of Him is enough.
I wandered, many months ago, across a scathing argument between brethren--one of whom is a second-person acquaintance (i.e., known by many I know personally)--the central point of which dealt with the particular regard for Christ characterized by praises of a body of worshippers. There was contention that love for the Lord was expressed effusively to such extreme as to be inexcusably excessive. Implication thereabouts such a stance is that love for God need be somehow restrained, clinical, sterile, stoic, or otherwise without actual, ardent emotion.
Is it so for love between parents and children, in well-functioning, godly households?
Is the relationship there clinical--without emotion, but rather a matter of rote reverence?
In some households, I've definitely seen that the case--love isn't expressed overtly, but taken as understood per strictly regimented order. Love is assumed, rather than being consciously acknowledged and expressed. Some cultures operate in this fashion, as a whole. Some strata of society are the same: Emotion is unconsciously considered superfluous, even to a point of being considered weakness if expressed sincerely...or, otherwise, considered an eccentricity.
Alternately, there are groups in which emotion is expressed without restraint, without regard for rationality or reception. Groups that operate in this fashion, unrestrainedly, can be suspicious of emotion perceived as shallow--considered insincerity, if insufficiently expressive. Such may expect to witness varying expression of the full range of emotions--from rage to ardor, and all in between--or otherwise, suspect pretense per what's considered "unwarranted," or even "unhealthy," restraint. This isn't as common an overt stance, especially nowadays--though there are pockets which persist in various realms of society and culture. And reverberations still persist in various psychological and spiritual practices, overtly: There are fringe groups and cultures where unrestrained emotion is still considered an ideal norm, is the thing. This, although some who live as such are blatantly considered dysfunctional, per the abuses which oft result from tendency to unrestrainedly indulge expressions of anger, especially.
But those are two extremes. And anyone situated especially firmly in either of them is going to be particularly likely to consider those who aren't similarly expressive or unexpressive as disordered, just per the stance of considering themselves in proper order.
So, as always, we have to judge the fruit. Not the tree. Not the roots. But just the flavor of the fruit.
Increasingly, I've come to suspect that we've effectively grafted in quite a bit of unhelpful and even destructive patterns of doctrine and ideology--contaminating the fruit, on all fronts, but to varying degrees and in varying ways. Just per noting that--as one apologist has put it--the fruit of the Holy Spirit is singular, yet with a complex flavor. Then, so be the fruit of the flesh...and of demonic origin. Though, perhaps there's not need to distinguish between the latter two, as the lattermost perhaps only works to exacerbate that which the flesh would otherwise tend of its own volition to do, as ever inherently opposed to God.
We can do bad all by ourselves at this juncture, in other words: We don't need nor require any sort of demonic influence, to err--all we have to do is fail to submit to God, thus instead catering to the flesh...and the flesh--even if only the carnal mind--works enmity against God. Without needing further influence than its own inherent contamination, per the workings of manifest sin, even only thoughts and speech quickly turn against God when not consciously kept in subjection to Him.
For those who follow Christ, though...for those who have been delivered to serve Him...we are attacked, with intent to get us to stumble. This, just to mock Him by tormenting us, even. Out of spite.
It needn't be any more personal than that, except that those who are known to be Christ's are seen as a way to vex Him.
I only know this, in terms of seeing it go on with family--can only imagine, then, how much more painful it might be to see it go in a child of my own, rather than in beloved siblings, parents, friends...
...but to witness someone you love being tormented? No. Just...no.
Which says there's all the more reason that He has for allowing these things, unto our good and His glory. For Him to allow His children to be tormented at all is no minor thing. Even as perhaps it's largely to get us to more fully draw near to Him, where there's safety and purpose, peace even in trial. Unto the perfecting of our faith.
As nearer to Him, there's cleansing, there's sanctuary like none other. Because no darkness can approach Him. It just can't, by nature. Anything that remains in His presence...can only remain so near as His nature permits, unless He grants some momentary favor, otherwise.. ...which, even still, yields a very poignant influence upon such a one brought near.
Look to Isaiah, on that count. It was recently brought to my attention that Isaiah was a preacher of righteousness prior to the vision of God recorded as Isaiah chapter 6. He was calling the nation to repent, even prior to that vision. And yet, the very one calling all others to repent...when he was brought into God's very presence...himself repented as one who was utterly unclean, in the presence of true holiness.
And John, who walked with Christ, who saw Him at the mount of transfiguration, who witnessed Him crucified, and who blessedly spoke with Him, resurrected...who was led, thereafter, even by Jesus very own Holy Spirit...no less fell on his face, repenting in terror, when he found himself in the presence of the ascended Christ.
Holiness is not of us. We can't work it up. We can't manifest it. We can't approach it through right doctrine or sound theology. God, alone, can make us holy. He, alone, can make us like Him.
Even as He called His own people, the nation of Israel, to be holy as He is holy--a people entirely set apart from all the nations of the world, not only by their worship of Him, the one true God, but also by the carrying of the laws entrusted to them. And they did not, have not, and do not obey as He commanded.
But neither do we, except that He directly intervene.
As He did, through Christ Jesus. He walked among us, holy and humble. Servant of all, Son of God, son of man. And we crucified Him for that. Even as He went willingly--He gave Himself to that purpose. He chose it, knowing it was the only way to reconcile us to Himself. Our kinsman redeemer. He purchased us with His own blood. Drinking the cup of wrath due us for our rebellion against God. He took our sins upon Himself, to the last, bearing the punishment due them. Offense against an infinitely good Creator equates to an infinitely grievous event, and the punishment thus due, for justice to be maintained...must be sufficient to satisfy the offense, in order for justice to be served.
So, there's no such thing as small sins or slight matters, ever. Because the weighing isn't in terms of the act but in terms of the actual offense against the one who has been wronged.
Put another way...
Neither of these scenarios is good, but, just to consider this on human terms for a moment...
...does it seem a more tragic offense for someone to murder:
...a stranger, in defense and with remorse?
...or a family member, yet without premeditation or remorse?
If the act and the result to another party is the same, then where does the difference rest?
I think the argument would more easily be made from any angle that it's entirely more tragic, more devastating, more heart-breaking, and more offensive to even the law of the land for someone to murder a family member in cold blood than a stranger out of defense.
And regardless what argument someone might make, in terms of evolutionary psychology or sociology or howsoever else one might try to weasel out of acknowledging the truth that morality exists as an absolute...the fact remains that the one is more innately offensive to sensibilities and conscience and society than the other is. (Except as regards abortion, though that's a whole other matter that is rife with pain and difficulties for so, so many--not something to be lightly discussed, although it is tangent the scenario.)
Point being, though, there's a greater offense for the one than the other, although the act itself isn't effectively different--part of that difference arises directly out of consideration of the one who was wronged, even as it's also very much tied up the emotional and mental state of the one committing the act.
As goes sin against God, this is the case, too.
We each have had and have innate knowledge of who He is and of his holiness and goodness, but we each choose to act against Him. We each have done so. And each time we do, we must make a choice to do so--along the lines of an unstated reasoning like, "I don't feel entirely right about this, but I want to do it anyway...how can I change my view of it, in order not to feel bad about doing this?" Which, basically, means that when we sin, we choose to act against the moral compass given us by God. And no matter how bleak or destructive the society we're born into--no matter how devastating the circumstances, no matter how horrific or controlling the influences...we, each one of us, have to make those particular choices for ourselves.
And we, each one of us, are accountable for our individual decisions to act, although those who influence us to evil will definitely also be held accountable for so doing....yet, still, we each are responsible for choosing to act against God's good and just will.
Every time that series of rationale goes through the process, within--every time there's an unconscious or conscious series of reasonings for or against acting in opposition to the moral law of creation...when sin is chosen, when it's internally rationalized...it defiles the conscience, per that act of erring against it. The conscience then effectively gets gummed up...further and further out of whack with reality. Until an entirely new reality has been instituted, an entirely self-derived set of moral standards established which have no bearing in truth, whatsoever.
And the outworkings of sin are manifestly visible in all of creation, in terms of what destruction is wrought. Death entered creation per sin. Disease did likewise...and proliferates and diversifies according to the physical manifestations of the spiritual devastation of sin. Without respecting persons or beings, though. Children suffering. Nations suffering. So many, suffering.
And yet we refuse to turn from sin, still.
He told Moses what would happen to people and to the land if sin abounded. Just a matter of natural order, in terms of the effective workings of moral law: If you break a law, there are consequences. And it goes the same on all levels, on all fronts...where laws of the land or moral laws.
Moral laws are only those which accord with God's actual nature. So, perfect goodness, perfection righteousness, perfect love, perfect truth, perfect justice, perfect patience. And mercy...which He exercised most plainly, most clearly evidenced...in and through Christ.
He is those ways and He created us to be likewise. So, when we choose not to do so, we err against Him, even while simultaneously erring against one another. But He is the lifegiver. He created us able to procreate, but life is from Him. He originated it in us, and at the origin of creation He instituted the order to follow, knowing all things perfectly, always.
But we err against Him, when we sin. He who gave us life, who holds all of creation together. He is the universe in which we live. All of creation exists in Him. It's not entirely metaphorical, is the thing. He holds all things together.
And it's by His good will that the sun rises, the flowers bloom, and the rain ever falls. All these despite that our sin is marring and devastating creation, thus utterly mocking Him and His goodness and mercy and love, lavished.
Infinitely good. So how bad is sin? That He would become flesh, manifesting Himself on our terms since we refused to listen to Him on His. Despite that He has every right to destroy us. Instead, He took on flesh.
And rent the very fabric of reality, to reconcile us to Himself. God...life, Himself...became sin. He endured the suffering due for an infinite offense. Only an infinite being could satisfy an infinite debt. And He entered death. Life entered death. For three days. Before overcoming, resurrecting. He endured...all pain, all suffering, all torment, bore our diseases, all our trials, the weight of all our sin, even unto death. That we could be reconciled to Him, in love.
That was not a lifeless matter. It was not something lightly entered. It wasn't a course stoically endeavored without emotion, nor one which was given to irreverent outbursts of emotion.
He embodied all which is perfectly right, perfectly good. And He wept, and He rejoiced. He loved deeply, moved with such compassion as even to raise the dead so to ease the suffering of others and to glorify the Heavenly Father. He spoke pointedly to those who were resistant to truth, yet who nonetheless continued to question Him. He even brusquely confronted the falsity of the pretenses being maintained. And He cleared the temple of greed and covetousness, with sharp rebuke and decisive, authoritative actions which sent such ones scampering in terror of Him.
He was not a man without emotions. But neither was He ruled by them. Even as His love for us was so much that He endured all suffering, all torment, all pain beyond our imagining...for one so pure...as to reconcile us to Himself.
Jesus is worthy of devotion. He is worthy of all love. Not in a way the world can understand, no--the love the world gives is often tainted with self-indulgent thoughts and desires. But the love He gave and the love He warrants is pure, holy, and self-denying. It transcends all reckoning. And it is worth singing about.
No comments:
Post a Comment