A Blessed Thanksgiving

At Thanksgiving we pause to give thanks for the many blessings we have as well as feasting to enjoy those blessings. This makes it a good time to think about what it means to be ‘blessed’. We have recently been studying the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 on Sunday mornings, which begins with some unusual ‘blessings’: we are said to be blessed if we are poor in spirit, or meek, or merciful, or if we mourn, or are pure in heart.   These are not the kinds of blessings we are usually giving thanks for.  We say we are blessed when we are prosperous, have a good job, have good health, and have well behaved children.  Certainly those are things we desire but they are focused on our own comfort more than our character or ministry to others.

Some translations of the Bible replace the word ‘blessed’ with ‘happy’.   I think this misses the point completely. The passage is not about being happy. It is about having the right kind of character and about spiritual well-being. While the Greek word used in the text can be translated ‘happy’, Jesus was Jewish and the idea of ‘blessed’ is not a Greek idea: it is a Jewish concept. ‘Baruch’ is the Hebrew term that goes with the idea, and it is the start of many Jewish prayers and appears hundreds of times in the Old Testament. Jesus is talking about an old Jewish idea, baruch, and that is the idea we must understand in order to understand the Sermon on the Mount.  Matthew is simply seeking to translate that Jewish concept into Greek.

The Jewish people were the ‘elect’ and that was a great blessing. They were blessed. Yet, that very blessing made them accountable in a special way and also led to suffering. Similarly, when Mary took Jesus to the temple for His dedication, she was blessed by Simeon (see Luke 2). That blessing involves Simeon praising God for having lived to see the Messiah but also the blessing he gives includes telling Mary that ‘a sword shall pierce your own soul also’.  The blessing included suffering. This is a different idea from ‘happy’.  Using ‘happy’ in the Beatitudes instead of ‘blessed’ strikes me as a case of what C.S. Lewis called ‘verbicide’: killing the meaning in the word.

The Biblical idea of blessing has to do with being put in a special position, a position of special favor but also special responsibility. The eldest son typically received a special blessing from the father before the father died to pass on the inheritance, but with that blessing came responsibility to care for the extended family. At this Thanksgiving, it is easy for us in America to focus on our material well-being due to the economic difficulties,  though our spiritual health is suspect.  As a nation, we have special responsibilities to use our blessings for good and not just for our comfort.  Let us be thankful for the opportunity to do good with the abundance God has given.

Jobs versus jobs

The celebration of Steve Jobs continues, and today's USA Today had yet another opinion piece on his greatness. As with many prior articles that have appeared in various publications since his death, this one once again quotes from the Stanford graduation speech he gave a few years ago, which is excerpted here:

• "The only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it," he told students at Stanford in a commencement speech in 2005."
• "Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. … Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

Today's article attributed this insight to his Buddhism and the manner in which Buddhism views death. Since he seems to have embraced Buddhism, it no doubt impacted his view of the world and of life. I do have some issues with this point of view, however.

First,  Jobs' take on this is very modern, if not post-modern. He assumes that to do meaningful work requires loving that work. Unfortunately, for most of history the vast majority of people have had very little choice in their work. Constraints of education, poverty, tyrants, war, and culture have pushed most people into their work, most often just to provide the basic necessities of food and shelter. Jobs' philosophy reflects our very spoiled and privileged time and location in history, and when taken to its logical conclusion it would say that most work is not meaningful and that most people lived meaningless lives. That is quite opposite to what Christianity implies, which is that all work (assuming it is ethical and honest) can be done as an offering to God with inherent value and meaning, and all lives have inherent meaning.  If circumstances consign us to menial labor, that job can still be offered to God and provide satisfaction in doing it well. (see Eccles.2:24-25). Having choice is a great privilege and luxury, but it is not what determines meaning.

Second, Jobs' philosophy is quite counter to Christ's teaching that 'to find your life you must lose it'. Jobs' emphasis seems to be on looking inside yourself to focus on what pleases you, to find what provides 'self-fulfillment'. Christ, on the other hand, taught that we must look to God and please Him, and then whatever we do will be meaningful. The one is very self-centered, the other very God-centered.

The fundamental difference, to me, seems to be why we work: do we work to please and fulfill ourselves, or do we work to glorify God? To work in order to glorify God is certainly not to 'waste your life', as Jobs said, but it is very much like 'living someone else's life', though the 'someone else' is really the 'Someone Else'.

The Death of the Pied Piper

Steve Jobs has died. The outpouring of grief at his passing reminds me of when Princess Diana died. At this point I really should not be surprised at the cult of celebrity in our world. The current trial of Michael Jackson's personal physician has put another celebrity life into the news every day, and whenever a famous celebrity dies, such as when Liz Taylor died a few months ago, it seems to me that the media attention far exceeds the newsworthiness of the event. Despite this ongoing attention to celebrities, I still find myself at times surprised at the seemingly religious adoration that a few of them receive when they die. Princess Diana was one of those, and so is Jobs.

I found little in Jobs to admire. Clearly he was successful in business. He was also ruthless, angry, compulsively driven, and notorious for cheating his partner Wozniak in the early days. The success of the products from Apple since 2000 is unquestionable, but before his second stint at Apple the story was mostly about what might have been had he not been so stubborn, which allowed Windows(r) to dominate the 90's. He did seem to learn from his early mistakes the second time around, which resulted in much greater business success. His success as a human being seems much more in question to me.
Christianity Today recently observed in an article titled 'The Gospel of Steve Jobs' that he did preach a certain gospel. (here is a link to that article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/januaryweb-only/gospelstevejobs.html ) His gospel is best summed up in his Stanford graduation address of a few years ago, which is quoted in the article and has been quoted endlessly in the news media the past few days. That gospel is to live your own life, don't be 'trapped by dogma',  be your own god. It is a purely secular gospel, as Christianity Today points out, and is all about self-fulfillment. In a culture that preaches that we should be our own god, even the secular long for someone to put on a pedestal for adoration.

Don't get me wrong: I take no joy at his passing. I like my iPhone, too. I just marvel at how much our culture longs for someone to idolize, and how very vividly that shows up at the death of a celebrity who has some sort of 'gospel' that he promotes. Even when his personal character is such that you would never want your children to grow up to be like him.

One Flesh

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. "So says Genesis in 1:26-28 about the creation of mankind. It is an interesting text in that it says God created man (singular) by creating both male and female, obviously not singular. Yet this is consistent with the later passage in Gen. 2:24 that they would be 'one flesh'. In other words, it takes both male and female to make one 'man'.  This, we are told in the 1:26-28 passage is at least part of what is meant by being made 'in the image of God'.

We had special services at our church yesterday on the topic of marriage. Last week was also related to this in addressing the idea of homosexual marriage. In the sermon last week it was pointed out that marriage does not exist primarily to make us happy. While happiness is generally a good thing, it is not the highest good. Marriage exists primarily to make us more like Christ. It also is an institution in which we live out the image of God, by which we demonstrate something about what it means to be created in God's image.  It often yields happiness, but not always. Happiness is not it's primary object. As Christians, we see God as Trinity and therefore in an intimate and loving relationship among the Trinity, who are One. Marriage gives us a limited image of that union in marriage and the family, and gives us reason to look forward to that fuller union with Christ in heaven, as Paul describes the union of Christ and the Church. In marriage we learn to imitate Christ in putting at least one other (our spouse) ahead of ourselves, and usually more than just one other when children are born into the marriage. So to be more like Christ, and to live out the image of God in this world seem to me to be the primary goals for marriage. Both of those involve the idea of completeness.

Our culture, including in the church, generally doesn't view it that way, though. Most folks seem to think that the purpose of marriage is to make them happy. For some, it is to obtain financial security. For some, to obtain companionship. But it seems to me that all of these are self-centered, are subsets of 'happy', and none capture the essence of the Genesis passage about how it requires 2 to make 1. I think the gist of that is that the purpose of marriage is to make us complete. Male and female are both incomplete, and require each other to make one 'man' or 'one flesh'. Completeness is also our ultimate goal in Christ (see Col. 2:10), and Christian marriage moves us in that direction. Paul also points out that singleness that pursues a life more devoted to Christ can also move us in that direction of Christ-likeness, though marriage is the norm for most people.

If we as Christians proclaim the purpose of  marriage to be the pursuit of happiness, financial security, companionship,  or sexual fulfillment, and all of these are common, then our marriages are not different from non-Christians or from gays. But gay marriage cannot offer the completeness for which male and female were created as one male/female complementary union; nor can it share the image of God that requires the male/female combination that includes procreation as an image of God's creation. I think by focusing on happiness we have, within the Church, undermined marriage.

I read last week that the average age of marriage has increased still more since the current recession began, up to about 29 now. The same article said something like 40% of those 25-35 have not married. I must admit some concern about marriage in our culture, especially in the Church. Marriage seems to be less compelling for men and women yet more compelling to homosexuals. I wonder if part of that is because we have lost the vision of its purpose being completeness and  have replaced it with the idea that marriage is just one way among many to pursue happiness.

The Cathedral of Liberty

We just returned from Washington, D.C., and I am always struck by the national symbols in our capital city. Having been there several times before, on this visit we went to visit things we had not visited in prior trips, including the World War 2 memorial, the Native American museum, and the National Portrait Gallery. The WW2 memorial visit caused me to reflect not only on the service of so many of our countrymen in that vast conflict  but especially of my dad who served in Europe from Normandy to Berlin, earning 5 battle stars and a Purple Heart along the way. The Native American museum has some interesting exhibits on the 3rd floor but overall was disappointing in its exhibits. I had hoped for more about key leaders of the various tribes and what they did to contribute to who the tribes are today. The National Portrait Gallery was spectacular and will be worth another visit. All of the U.S. Presidents have portraits on display along with many other notable Americans from throughout our history.

The layout of the National Mall again reminded me of a cathedral, which I am sure was intended. Consider this photo from Wikipedia showing the 1901 McMillan plan for the Mall:

If it were not labeled 'The Mall', you might think it was the floor plan of a cathedral. Notice that the reflecting pool between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial was intended to be in the shape of a cross, though it was not finally built that way. The entire design is also in the shape of a cross, just like a cathedral.  As in other cathedrals, as a nation we go there to honor and mourn our dead, to reflect on things that are true, to give thanks for the liberty we have. As I have pondered the words of Lincoln's second inaugural address, carved into the wall of the Lincoln Memorial, I have been moved to tears as he reflected on God's judgement of our nation for the evil of slavery. On this trip I had to wonder what additional judgements may come from our current pursuit of the slavery that results from the idolatry of self-actualization and the autonomous self which has resulted in widespread abortion, pornography, homosexuality, and greed.

The Mall always make me think of a cathedral. We don't hear much about its resemblance to a cathedral nowadays, but I think it was intended that way, as a sort of cathedral of liberty. It reminds me of our blessings, the sacrifice it took to obtain those blessings, and the needed repentance to maintain them in an honorable way.

Polygamy and the Current State of Marriage

The current issue of First Things magazine points out how polygamy seems to be less objectionable to some folks nowadays, what with the TV shows about polygamy and all. It is obvious that once society becomes accepting of dysfunction like homosexuality, polygamy is the next obvious step. The same issue has an editorial piece about how the current underclass is characterized not only by economic poverty but also by impoverished values. That editorial bemoans the editor's frustation with his liberal friends who seem to only be able to see the economic poverty but cannot see the moral and cultural deficits in the underclass that keep them in their poverty even when they are given the opportunity to get out.

It was striking to me, in reading both the article about moral poverty and the comments about polygamy in a separate article, how both polygamy and the absence of marriage that exists in the American underclass result in many of the same ills. One key point about polygamy really should be obvious upon slight reflection: when a significant number of men have multiple wives, another significant number cannot have wives. One huge problem with polygamy is that it creates an underclass of men who are not able to marry and they of course tend to be those who are less desirable in the first place. Something has to be done with them. They have to be driven out of the community, or killed off in wars, or made eunuchs (like in Biblical times) or something. When they are not dealt with, they tend to take up high risk behaviors to get access to women, like aggression or murder or drunkenness or seeking out prostitutes. As a result, polygamous societies have a permanent underclass of unmarriageable men, with high rates of violence and crime. Meanwhile the women in polygamous marriages get less respect, more abuse, have more children, and end up raising children mostly alone since the father is spread among multiple 'families'. And, yes, homosexuality is a problem, too.

It is striking to me how similar these results are to what we currently see in American low income society where marriage and the family is in crisis, where 70% of the children are born out of wedlock. There we also see a permanent underclass of men who are pretty much unmarriageable due to their high risk behavior, criminality, and lack of education,where women are often abused, where the children are brought up predominantly by women. Homosexuality is also on the rise.

Similarly, in China and India where the one child policy led to selective abortion of unborn girls, there is much concern over the rising generation of men who will not be able to marry due to lack of women as a result of abortion. While the circumstance causing the shortage is different than in polygamy and in America, the expectation and concern is similar for the resulting high risk behavior as men seek to gain access to women: there is great concern that China and India will become violent as this generation of men without wives comes of age.

So in our current world, we have 3 examples of quite different ways to create dysfunction in the basic family structure, but all have similar negative consequences in terms of creating men who are unmarriageable and who will almost certainly engage in destructive behavior.

It is remarkable how fundamental the basic one man/one woman family is to society at large, and how it's demise, no matter how that demise is created, wreaks that same kinds of havoc.

The Royal Wedding

Just before the sudden killing of Bin Laden all the news was about the marriage of the British heir to the throne and his commoner bride. They certainly gave the appearance of a fairy-tale couple, he the prince charming and she the beautiful princess.  While everyone knew that they had been living together for about 8 years already, the world just overlooked that as if it simply didn't matter. All the focus was on the fairy tale of the lovely couple who would live happily ever after.

To some degree I can understand why such fanfare was expected for a public personage like the heir to the British throne, as it would not look good to become king with a common law marriage. The laws around common law marriage have been changing as co-habitation has become more common, but when I was growing up in Ohio, the law was that after 7 years of co-habitation you were considered married for purposes of estate, health care, children and property rights. As far as I am concerned, the royal couple was already married, whether they admitted it or not. While it would be unseemly to talk about 'William and his common-law wife, Kate' when talking about the royal family, that was in fact the reality. What I do not understand is why the church would pretend otherwise in conducting a church wedding for them.

Back in the early 80's one of the shift supervisors at the paper mill where I worked was living with a woman and he was contemplating getting officially married. This was to be his fourth marriage, but he said he 'of course' wanted a church wedding. I asked him why. He did not attend church regularly and was not sure he believed in God. So then why, I asked, would he want a church wedding since he clearly was not part of the church? Well, it just seemed like the right way to have a wedding to him. It was the way you did it.

I recently read The Shadow of Almighty by Elizabeth Elliot, which is about the life of Jim Elliot, her martyred husband. Back in 1953 he complained that 'Twentiety century Christian weddings are the vainest, most meaningless forms. There is no vestige of reality.' He and Elizabeth were married in a civil ceremony in Quito, with 2 other missionary couples present as witnesses. Very simple. He simply couldn't abide the vain events that weddings had become. It has gotten worse since then.

The wedding ceremony is loaded with symbolism, most of it made a mockery in the recent royal wedding. The white dress represents the purity and virginity of the bride which was clearly not the case; the giving away by the father of bride shows that she is leaving his house to dwell now with the groom, obviously no longer appropriate; the vows are made before God to obey God, but His commands about fornication had long since been flagrantly discarded. The entire event made a mockery of what a Christian wedding should be, just like it would have been for my co-worker in Ohio back in the 1980's, but that is pretty much the norm today. 

It was a lovely event. They make a lovely couple. And it was all meaningless. I hope their marriage proves to be more meaningful than their wedding.