Laying On of Hands

Reading through Numbers 8 I gained a little insight into the practice of laying hands on an individual when commissioning him to a ministry. In that passage the Levites are being set apart to God for service in His temple.
Already in chapter 3 the Levites had been chosen in exchange for the firstborn of the Israelites. The cost (to the Lord) of Israel's freedom from bondage had been the death of all the firstborn in Egypt, and since those Egyptians were created by God and therefore just as valuable and precious to God as his chosen people, Israel was required, in effect, to repay the Lord by devoting to him all their own firstborn. Firstborn animals could be redeemed with cash, but firstborn sons could be redeemed only by means of a substitute. So, rather than inflict profound family and cultural disruption upon the people, and to facilitate a more efficient priestly ministry, the Lord chose one tribe from among the Jews, the tribe of Levi, in substitution for the firstborn of the rest of the nation.
Returning now to chapter 8, we find the Levites being set apart for the temple/tabernacle ministry and in the process the people, not the priests, are told to lay their hands upon them. They were, in effect, commissioning the Levites to function in that ministry as their substitutes. Likewise had the people done to their sin offerings and likewise had they done to the scapegoat. These all functioned as substitutes for the people.
Likewise do we do today when we ordain a man to local church ministry or when we send an individual out to proclaim the gospel among the lost. We recognize that it is not possible for all Christians to to head to the distant lands, nor are we all chosen by God for particular ministries. So we appoint substitutes to serve on our behalf. This is why it is so important to appoint good substitutes and why Paul warns, in 1 Timothy 5:22, not to be hasty in the laying on of hands. Whomever you appoint is your representative, and if they are sinful, lazy, or self-seeking you share in that sin.
This has given me a new approach as a pastor/elder. From now on, when it comes to commissioning an individual to ministry I am going to have the congregation lay their hands on him. I believe this will better convey the meaning of the appointment and I hope that it will cause all involved to consider more seriously the standards and expectations they apply to those they ordain.

The folly of blessing others

''When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly...'' These are the words of the apostle Paul describing an apostle's response to mistreatment (1Cor 4:12). The mistreatment to which he refers is not only what he received from the godless people of the world but also what he was receiving from some who called themselves ''brothers.'' Why did he respond in this way? The Corinthians, to whom Paul was writing, sought personal glory and the glory they sought evaluated Paul's responses as weakness and folly unbecoming of a true leader. But this was a temporary glory, good only for the duration of a man's life. Paul, however, sought eternal glory. So, he exalted in such weakness and folly, and in suffering for Christ, and in the opportunity to imitate Christ in them because these are the qualities God will honor. These were the qualities displayed in Jesus.
This has been one of the more convicting passages I have studied lately. I, like a Corinthian, accept the standard of this age and resist being thought a fool. Yet, as I realized, there has never been a marital conflict where it does not apply; there's never been a work environment where a Christian can't put this into practice; there's never been a mistreatment toward which the believer can't embrace this foolish way of living. And there's no promise that doing so will improve the situation. This is simply our calling, just as suffering for Christ is our calling, and as Paul recognized our reward comes later. Sometimes it helps in the here and now, but mostly those who live like this will be called fools. Glory in it! Jesus did.

The Necessity of Divided Powers

Unchallenged power among sinful human beings allows for the worst expressions of tyranny and rebellion. As the old adage says, ''Absolute power corrupts absolutely.'' Sitting on the Mount of Olives, in Matthew 24, Jesus spoke of events leading up to the last days of human civilization. He said, ''You will hear wars and reports of wars; watch out, don't be alarmed. For it is necessary (ought, is proper) to be, but it is not yet the end'' (my translation). Though not the point of the passage, our Lord sees conflict between competing states as a necessary check, presumably upon tyranny, oppression, and rebellion against God.
The Lord's insistence upon divided powers stretches all the way back to the plains of Shinar, when the people assembled to become a single governed entity. Genesis 11 tells the story: ''Now the whole world had one language and a common speech...They said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.'''
The Lord's reaction to this was not favorable. The attempt to reach God by their own efforts, combined with their refusal to spread throughout the earth as God had prescribed, was setting the stage for a humanly-unopposable, rebellious rule that would bode ill for people. As the Lord expressed it, ''If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their langguage so that they will not understand each other.'' In response, God established multiple, competing people groups, the corrolary of which--warfare between them--Jesus calls necessary for the preservation of human civilization. How predictable, then, that in the last days men will fall under the authority of a single, totalitarian rule.
The threat of overthrow from outside forces compels a ruler to maintain the allegiance of his people by assuring them that his continued rule is in their best interest. When that breaks down, so does a nation; when the nation breaks down, she becomes vulnerable. The founding fathers of our great nation recognized the value that such a threat poses, as explained in the Declaration of Independence. The tyranny of the ruler, not maintaining the best interests of the governed, made him vulnerable to (and deserving of) opposition, and so the United States were formed. In this same spirit they established the Second Ammendment, ensuring not only the security of the citizens from outside forces but also preserving an internal threat should the leaders insist upon governing for their own benefit. It was this worldview that also ordered our government around the separation of powers, a 'non-violent' check upon the 'tyranny' of its constituent parts.
War is not an ultimate and unqualified evil, much to the contrary of many modern liberal sensibilities. In fact, when Jesus returns it will be to make war against his enemies. I, for one, would never call one of his actions evil. Much evil may happen in war, and certainly evil on the part of at least one party makes it necessary. But without this consequence of divided powers, we'd all be far less free, and our suffering would be far greater.

Only a fool can die to himself

The cost of following Christ is often beyond the limits that my pride will accept. Let's face it...even if the world doesn't like me, I want them to respect me. I want them to think of me as articulate and intelligent even if they don't like what I have to say. The apostle Paul refutes that possibility when it comes to sincere Christian living. He says, in 1 Corinthians 1:18, ''The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,'' which means that when we proclaim that message and live accordingly, we will not be thought wise and learned; we'll be thought of as morons.
It's not that the gospel message is truly foolish. Rather, there is a conflict between genuine, godly wisdom and that which those who are perishing are willing to acknowledge. ''For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight;'' but to live a genuine Christian life means to embrace a message that the world calls idiotic--and by default makes the one who does an idiot.
This is a disconcerting thought for those who want to be highly regarded. Yet, it is consistent with everything else the Lord has taught us. He told us that we should not be surprised if the world hates us, because it hated him first (John 15:18). He also told us that if anyone wants to follow him, ''he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow'' Jesus (Matthew 16:24). That means dying to oneself. It means sacrificing the status one holds dear and accepting a label that is not so becoming--fool--if so doing is the result of faithful believing, living, and conveying of the message of the cross. More often than not, it will be, because that message is foolishness to those who are perishing.
This is a high cost, but the cost of refusing is even greater. ''Whoever wants to save his life,'' Jesus warned after calling us to take up our crosses, ''will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.'' Are you willing to take up a mantle that means laying down the rags of worldly regard? Are you willing to lose your life to find it? My pride often recoils at the costs of following Jesus. But, as Paul urges in 1 Corinthians 3, ''If anyone of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a fool so that he may become wise.''

May Christ Be Your Tailor

This quote is taken from Vally of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions:

O God of Grace,
Thou hast imputed my sin to my substitute,
and hast imputed his righteousness to my soul,
clothing me with a bridegrooms robe,
decking me with jewels of holiness.
but in my Christian walk I am still in rags...
I am always standing clothed in filthy garments,
and by grace am always receiving change of raiment,
for thou dost always justify the ungodly.
I am always going into the far country,
and always returning home as a prodigal,
always saying, "Father, forgive me,"
and thou art always bringing forth the best robe.
Every morning let me wear it,
every evening return in it,
go out to the days work in it,
be married in it,
be wound in death in it,
stand before the great white throne in it,
enter heaven in it shining as the sun.

I am often reminded, by my own doing, of the very real rags of sin with which I clothe myself. It is the outfit everyone sees. At times I'm able to patch it up enough that no one notices my outfit but me. But my outfit embarrasses me and, if I let it, categorizes me.
However, this is not the outfit God sees. While He is neither blind, nor foolish, nor ignorant, He has chosen to give a new look to all who trust in Christ as their substitute. He gives us the shirt off Christ's back, so to speak. We get Jesus' clothes. We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. This is the outfit God sees. Christ is our tailor and, in him, we look good.
Consider these words from Hebrews 2:11, "Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers." That is what Jesus has done, and continues to do in us. He makes us holy, not by giving us a new list of activities to follow, but by cleansing us of the guilt and stain of sin and then clothing us in his righteousness. So, while we may be embarrassed by the clothing with which we dress ourselves, he is not ashamed to call us brothers because, as members of the same family, we share the same status. We wear the same clothes.
The apostle John understood the significance of this. In Revelation 7:9-14 he saw Jesus' brothers the way God sees them. He writes, "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count...standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes...' Then one of the elders asked me, 'These in white robes-- who are they, and where did they come from?' I answered, 'Sir, you know.' And he said, 'These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore...he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.'" Jesus made them holy. His blood, not our blood (or sweat, or labor, or niceness) cleansed us from sin. So God is not ashamed to call us His children.
Next time you're ashamed of the rags of sin with which you clothe yourself, confess the truth of it but don't stop there. Let Jesus be your tailor; learn to see the clothes with which he has clothed you.

Chesterton on democracy

Certain other blogging concerns have occupied my thoughts over the past year (see: danielsfamilyupdate.blogspot.com), so I have given no thought to this site. Now, however, with the advent of my own Twitter account, and corresponding frustrations with its limitations, I've determined to renew my interest here so as to link longer quotes and comments. I'll start with a bang--G.K. Chesterton.

Though I don't believe that democracy is essential for a thriving Christianity, I do believe that a thriving Christianity will, in this world, compel a vibrant democracy. In a chapter from his book, Orthodoxy, entitled, The Ethics of Elfland, Chesterton reveals some of his own thoughts on democracy that I feel bear some reflection.

The principle of democracy as I mean it can be stated in two propositions. The first is this: that the things common to all men are more important than the things peculiar to any men. Ordinary things are more valuable than extraordinary; nay, they are more extraordinary...And the second principle is merely this: that the political instinct or desire is one of these things which they hold in common...In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves--the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state. This is democracy; and in this I have always believed.

Of course, this is a snipet of a rather lengthier comment (pp. 46-47 for those who are interested) but it draws to our attention several things. First, democracy places union and unity above diversity and multiculturalism. Lately, our country has pursued a course in contradiction to this, and I believe has been undermining our system in the process. Second, the opinion and the ballot of the common man is of greater value and merit than any amount of expert control. This is among several reasons why Christianity produces citizens who are, at their core, proponents of limited government--of, by, and for the people.

The Nobility of Being a Man

In 1990, Robert Bly fueled the fledgling Mythopoetic Men's Movement with the release of his groundbreaking and controversial book, Iron John: A Book About Men. The movement, also known as the "Iron John" movement, is a response to the perceived feminization of Western culture, wherein masculine traits have come to be regarded as negative and destructive, and males (both boys and men) are encouraged instead to embrace and express their more sensitive, less aggressive "feminine side." Many contend that this has created a disaffection among males because they lack a sense of purpose in the world and are unable to relate as they are being told. The solution to this disaffection, according to Bly, is to be found in affirming men in their masculinity and in helping them to live as their masculine nature compels them. The Iron John movement is not, however, just an angry male uprising. It is an attempt to positively and constructively help men, through mentoring, activity, and rites of passage to understand and embrace their masculine potential.

Bly's work is an analysis of the tale, Iron John, by the Brother's Grimm. He finds in it an analogy (or perhaps a commentary) on a boy's development into manhood. In this tale a violent wild man by the name of Iron John is captured and caged at the King's palace and subsequently bribes a young prince into releasing him. In order to do this, the prince steals--from under the queen's pillow--the key that unlocks the cage. Having done so, the lad fears punishment, so he runs off with Iron John into the forest.

In the forest, Iron John assigns the prince the task of protecting a well that turns all that enters it into gold. Ultimately, the young prince fails at his task, so the wild man sends him from the forest to labor in hardship and poverty. Yet, because the prince's failure was driven neither by greed nor malice, Iron John promises that in the event of great need, all the prince has to do is come to the edge of the forest and call out "Iron John!" three times and the wild man would supply him with all the resources the young man could need. This the prince does on two occasions--once when the city to which he traveled is being attacked (and the prince leads an army to victory), and once when he seeks to win the heart of a princess (and succeeds). At his wedding, the hard-laboring prince is reunited with his royal parents and with Iron John, who enters as a majestic king and reveals his own royal identity, long hidden by an enchantment which had made him a savage.

In Iron John, Bly argues for the need for male mentors, contending that the lack of them in modern society has led to mentally and emotionally underdeveloped men. Iron John is an appropriate mentor because he possesses both the innate wildness of every man and the potential nobility and virulence these supply when harnessed and focused. Bly also insists upon the need for meaningful "rites of passage," analogized through the releasing of Iron John, the prince's assignment of a task, his expulsion from the forest, his entry into battle, and his winning of the princess. It is suggested that the prince's theft of the key is his breaking away from a mother-figure to be mentored by a man (a necessary step toward masculine independence) and that the young man's labors in hardship are his acceptance of the responsibility that is required for true masculine maturity. In all, Bly advocates a stronger, wilder, and more dangerous vision of masculinity, and reaps the derision of many feminist and pro-feminist critics.

I am in many ways sympathetic to the concerns of the Mythopoetic Men's Movement, and yet I am bothered by some of its unintended consequences, and it is to both of these that I want to direct a few comments.

First, I believe that Bly is correct about men's natural attributes--their "masculine tendencies"--and a strong Scriptural case can be made for this. From the beginning we read that God created mankind "male and female." They were obviously different from one another and on more than just a physical level. The man was oriented toward his task, the assignment given to him when he was created, and the woman was oriented toward the man, having been brought to him and for him at her creation. When God said the man needed "a helper suitable for him," it implies that the helper--a female--would have strengths where the man was lacking. When they fell into sin, the curse affected the orientations of each. For her, the curse affected her at the level of child-bearing and relationship with the man. For him, the curse affected his mission. The author takes great care to clarify that both beings were created in the image of God, that together they fulfilled the meaning of that term, and that each was distinct in qualities and focus from the other--one was male and one was female.

Based upon this created distinction, the apostle Paul insists upon an essential equality and functional diversity of man and woman. Men are to lead in the home and women are to submit to their husbands, having been created "for the man." Men are to exercise authority in the church; women must not exercise a similar authority over men. Peter calls women "the weaker partner." I would argue this refers to her position, which in all of Scripture obligates the stronger (male) to demonstrate special consideration and honor to the weaker (female). She must grow in inner beauty, he must grow in outer courage and spiritual leadership. Failure to honor their distinctions will undermine the callings and spiritual progress of both sexes.

Apart from the Scripture, observation of tendencies within genders is unmistakable and well-documented. Little girls talk, little boys make truck sounds. Little girls play house with their dolls, little boys use them to fight bad guys and win wars. Women prefer love stories, men prefer action movies. Women want to express feelings, men want to fix problems. Many more generalities can be made and, without question, will fail to apply to all members of a gender, but the tendencies are regular enough to garner broad support among psychologists and humorists alike.

I believe there is much to be wary of in a culture that has become increasingly preferential to feminine tendencies. When a man finds inability or lack of desire to express himself in the culturally prescribed manner, we should expect a level of disaffection. This disaffection poses at least two dangers to our society. One is that men will fail to rise to their masculine potential. Being wired to performance and action they will find their efforts frowned upon and devalued, and there will be little encouragement to excel. There will also a lack of contexts in which his masculine potential is fostered in a way with which he identifies. This means that men will fail to perform as intended by God, according to their created nature. It also will compel women to fill the vacancy, hindering their best performance as intended by God. Each gender bears the image of God, but only expresses that image successfully when it does so according to created intent.
Another societal harm is that the man's masculinity will, of nature and necessity, be expressed, but having had no guidance and direction for constructive outlets, he will express his "wild side" in destructive ways--like Iron John before his imprisonment. Thus, I believe it is imperative for us to understand, embrace, harness, and mentor men in their masculinity to help them achieve their potential. Looking at youth, and especially urban youth, culture it is not difficult to identify a faulty, savage masculinity pervading its ethos. Men are over-sexualized, seeking women only for self-gratification and in some cases as a bread-winner. Music and prisons attest to a violence that is both gratuitous and aimless. The noble side of Iron John is not to be found and, likely as Bly suggests, the consequence of an absence of noble male mentors.

There is a nobility to being a man that we must recover, recognizing his distinction from the women with whom he interacts and the tendencies and orientation that are his by God's design, but recognizing also the potential savage within man when his masculinity is not fostered and guided.

With that said, there are dangers in the wholesale imbibing of the Mythopoetic Men's Movement that has taken place in some of the Christian world. The current interest in men's ministry did not originate with the churches. It started among secularists like Bly and his colleagues. The admittedly narrow historical overview given above serves as a warning against an unfiltered application of its convictions to a Christian pursuit of masculinity. In particular, the focus of the modern men's movement is toward a fictionalized warrior/superhero image of masculinity. Thus it pushes men into an unrealistic model of manhood rather than helping men to come to grips with the greatness and value of the tasks they've already been given--and which occupy most of their lives.

In his book, Waking the Dead, John Eldridge achieves a moment of personal enlightenment when he confesses to God his desire to be "God's Aragorn." Yes, Aragorn is a cool character in a fictional novel, but even if he was real, he was called to a particular mission at a point of necessity and most of Eldridge's readers are going to work from 9 to 5 (I have my suspicions that most of his readers are actually at home watching Oprah). This image of the warrior male, while bearing some illustrative value regarding courage, integrity, and a commitment to causes greater than the individual, is not where most men are. Nor is it where most men have been called to be. To set up this ideal before the hearts and minds of men, while perhaps motivational, is destined to disappoint them. Why? Because few have the opportunity to fulfill such a mission. If that existential experience is to define manhood, most will fail to attain it. However, if the image we set before men comes from Scripture rather than mythology, the potential for success becomes real and attainable.

Many men fail to see the reality and the significance of the mission that lies before them. Colossians 3 offers an instructive comment in this respect. "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving." What could be more noble than that! You, man, are serving the Lord Christ at work. The slaves Paul refers to have not been denied their opportunity to become real men. Rather, they have been given a context in which to express their masculinity through the faithful exercise of their calling.

Going to work is an act of nobility. Nurturing one's children or grandchildren in the faith is an act of nobility (Eph. 6:4). Enabling one's wife in her spiritual progress is an act of nobility (Eph 5:25-27). Providing for your family is an act of nobility (1Tim 5:8). Mowing the lawn, building a deck, balancing a check book, wrestling with your boys or reading with your girls, going fishing or hunting, etc., these are acts of nobility that are part of most men's worlds. They are each a part of the mission we've been given in Scripture: to create, to work, to provide, to sustain the garden and multiply fruitfully. Our problem is not that we don't aim toward greater images. It's that we've lost connection with the divine design and calling of our lives. I don't need to be Aragorn. I need to be Tim--and be him well.

A Christian men's movement needs to recapture the grand vision of life, family, and work that exists for them. It needs to promote the value of those things to which men have been called, and encourage men within their calling to be true men of God. Like Iron John's young prince, our manhood is developed in the wonder and responsibility of our toilsome labors.