City on a Hill

One of the constant struggles for a Christian seeking to follow God is to find the balance between showing righteousness (as understood by God) and resisting sinfulness (as understood by God). In church you will sometimes hear someone say "There are only two things you can do in this world which you can't do in heaven: sin and teach people about Jesus." The implied question is "what should our life be about?"

Some people believe that when someone becomes a Christian they some how can or some how ought to be able to resist sin in all situations and live with perfect integrity. This is not what the Bible teaches and not what has ever happened. Rather Christians are still tempted and sometimes allow themselves to be carried away, which is heartbreaking for God, the individual and all other Christians. In that sense it is one of a Christian's calling to resist sin in themselves and flee from things that influence them towards sin while chasing after things that influence them towards righteousness. This need has caused many Christians to flee from their world and society in order to live a more righteous life.

The problem with this is first that the isolated Christian or community is still infected by sin and though they may sin less (maybe) they still sin. So it is not as if withdrawing from the world really solves the problem.

But more important complete withdrawal is against God's will. The escape from sin was accomplished by Jesus Christ's death and resurrection and hiding from this wicked world does not accomplish it (otherwise we wouldn't have needed God to save us). But more than that God has specifically called Christians to be in the world, like a contrast to the normal worldly world.

Jesus described the believer's role like salt, which brings out flavor in food and also in His day was also for medicine. He also said His followers should be like light (a city on a hill) which people could clearly see or like a lamp on a table which exist specifically to be different than the darkness around it. This points to the Christian's need to be in the world of regular people and showing what God is like.

But in that same part Jesus reminds us that we are not supposed to be like the world, if a salt loses its saltiness no one would keep it, a lamp under a basket is useless. Christians are not just supposed to be in the world with Christian bumper stickers but in the world while also different from the world.

The problem and conflict for a believers is that just as the light of Christ found in us can influence people in the world towards Christ... so too can people in the world influence the believer towards the world. "Bad company corrupts good character." (1 Cor 15:33) So there is a kind of balancing act where a Christian needs to soberly and wisely understand when we are showing others what God is like through their good conduct, self-control and grace towards others ... and there are times where we are falling into the same kind of thing that everyone does.

I haven't got it all figured out but I think the answer goes something like this: recovering alcoholics should not hang out bars.

Philipians 1

"And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God." Philipians 1:9-11

So I am not like Paul. I don't travel from town to town helping start new churches. Sure I tithe and teach Sunday school twice a month but the general life structures (work, school and so forth) is pretty much the same as it could have been if I had never become a Christian. One might say that Christianity might have once been useful to get my life on track but now that my life is "on track" Christianity seems to be window dressing to an otherwise normal life. This kind of thinking is horrifying when compared to what the Bible seems to expect (imitating Paul who imitates Jesus).

But at the same time I can say with confidence that despite my many weaknesses and failing that my life is defined by following the call of Christ. There is growing knowledge and discernment. This is usually concerning my own weaknesses and failings but also about God's grace through Jesus Christ, which alone is sufficient to justify my life despite my weaknesses and failings. There is growing approval of what is excellent and fruit (actions) of righteousness.

Paul had the circumstances available to travel from town to town. His old life was traveling from town to town (though to destroy not create Christian churches). The circumstances of my life are very much different in structure.

In theory I could leave this life structure behind, become a missionary and imitate Paul in that respect... but to do so would be to abandon my family. Now certainly there are Biblical precedents to support this decision but in my heart of hearts I do not think this is what God calls me to (there are also Biblical precedents to support this decisions).

In truth if I were left to my own inclinations, like say in the after-life, I would be much more inclined to live a some what isolated life, reading and writing in the quiet of my room till about lunch, then spending the day listening to my friends and family play music and hike with a small group through shady forests or perhaps at a misty beach. Dinner with the larger community followed by a bonfire where we all sing "Holy, holy, holy." Then off to bed.

I believe that this sort of life is waiting for me and I will start some of it here and now... but for the most part I do not chase after this in the way normal people chase after the things they want. Though Jemuel and Nitzsche disagree I firmly believe that this life, this world is not our home and not all we have to work with. So before I get what I really want I chase after what God has put in front of me.

God put apostleship, church founding, letter writing and prison in front of Paul and he ran towards it though it was, as he said, like him being poured out of a vessel. But in front of me God has put three imperfect, needy women in my family who have been abandoned by every man in their life and live on the razor edge between destitution and despair... and so like Paul I am being poured out like a vessel on what God has put in front of me.

Now if Paul and I are incorrect about this another world and another life after this one then I would have been much wiser to chase after my own inclinations here and now. But though I struggle I am putting my chips on what the Bible says as opposed to Nitzsche or who ever.

Job 33-35

So Job's critics have been silenced and Job gave a three chapter speech summarizing his innocence. This speech was a summary of most of Job's earlier speeches in that it glorified himself and criticized God's actions in even allowing Job to suffer.

After this a fourth different critic answers Job AND his critics:Elihu. Elihu is different from Job's former critics in that he answers Job's actual words and focuses on God's greatness rather than Job's sinfulness.

I doubt that Elihu would be very compelling to modern humanist understanding. His message is similar to Paul's "Does the clay have the right to judge the potter?" This goes against modern sensibility which rarely says but fully rests upon the idea that human understanding is capable of the deepest insights and no level of knowledge is beyond human wisdom.

Elihu responds concerning God

If he set his heart to it
and gather to himself his spirit and his breath,
all flesh would perish together,
and man would return to the dust

this will be continued in Job when the Lord shows up to answer Job "Were you there when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

It is not pleasant for man to think about the brevity of his life or the limitation of his understanding. I remember an old Star Trek, Next Generation where Cpt. Picard in his debate with Q asserts that Q's problem with humanity is its potential to be like a God. Certainly that is Nietzsche's perspective, though he wouldn't use that particular word.

To which I boldly reply: "Nuh uhh."

Job 28

Job starts with something in between Hamlet's "What a piece of work is man..." and Sophocles' "Manifold are the uncanny, yet nothing looms or stirs more uncanny than the human being...." Job describes the mighty works of man and sees them with a wonder and novelty as if he were an outside history and seeing it for the first time. If you think about it there is something unbelievable about man digging deep, deep into mountains to find jewels and training the soil to grow bread.

But Job is not praising man but setting up a contrast. In the first eleven verses it is about the infinite faculty of mankind to seek and find what he desires, but then at verse twelve he sets up what man cannot find:

But where shall wisdom be found?
and where is the place of understanding?
Man does not know its worth,
and it is not found in the land of the living. (28:11-12)

Job then goes on in verses 13 through 19 to say how impossible it is to buy wisdom and then in verse 20 asking logically (though rhetorically) "From where, then, does wisdom come? And where is the place is understanding?"

Now the answer might be considered Bible stereotype; it comes from God, of course; but in the context the answer is very significant because for the first time in a long time Job is recognizing God and praising Him. It is at the end of the chapter that Job states the origin of wisdom: "Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding."

Job 25-26

For some reason I am not sure I had notes on Job 25-26 already written in my Bible. The reading comprehension of these two chapters is pretty simple: 25 are six verses which simply say that God is so mighty no one could understand Him. Here is a memorable line:

"Behold, even the moon s not bright,
And the stars are not pure in his eyes;
How much less man, who is a maggot,
And the son of man who is a worm." (25:5-6)

Of course, this is the voice of Bildad not Job or God. But Job's answer (full of faith) is interesting because it denies nothing of what Bildad says... while refuting it completely. But his early line "With whose help have you utterer words,, and whose breath has come out from you?" is telling in context with the preface to Job's troubles. Seeing how the Enemy's goal is to get Job to speak against God, Bildad, Eliphaz and Zophar's speeches seem to be serving the Enemy's goal.

Job's answer is to say how mighty God is and expands on His power. He describes God's power opening the grave, splitting the heavens, stilling the sea and piercing the fleeing serpent and then (and this is the key line for my understanding):

Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways,
and how small a whisper do we hear of him!
But the thunder of his power who can understand? (26:14)

This leads to what I wrote whenever-ago:

Job has faith. His speech seems to support what Bildad said but Job has a different conclusion. Even that man can never be pure in God's eyes is an arrogant statement. Truly, Job agrees that the Lord is beyond our comprehension but that presupposes it is also possible for God to be so mighty as to also love man, to be able to see him as pure and make it true. Bildad assumes too much knowledge of God and puts limits on His power.

I still agree with myself from back whenever-when.

Job 23-24 and Nietzsche

This is a very exciting place for me because I believe that God has revealed the meaning of a book of the Bible to me. Let me unwrap that statement.

I do not mean that there is some magical, secret meaning of Job which has been revealed to some special servant of God (me). That is silliness; Job is an open book, literally. Every book in the Bible is open, written plainly... yes even Revelation and Daniel. Sure there is some research that helps in the understanding (genre, context, maturity and so forth) but on the whole the Bible is translated well enough into the English language and anyone who can read can understand it.

What I mean is that I believe that I have reached enough understanding of Job to actually teach it to other people. I already knew the main theme: God allowing suffering and needing an answer to this. But I knew all of that from the introduction written by editors, not by my own reading of the book. I knew from reading the last (very readable) chapters of Job that he would be reconciled with God and what not but now I can see the movement within the long winded speeches of Job, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar how Job came to understand his own faith and the unrighteousness of the counsel of E, B and Z.

Certainly my new understanding is sophomoric just as it is in Revelation, Galatians, John and the other books I think I know well enough to teach but here I am... a sophomore for God!

These two chapters are a big step in revealing Job's progress. He rightly describes God and has a surprising (divinely inspired) knowledge of his own destiny with God. It is Davidic in its faith that God will acquit him and that he will be answered (rather than rejected) by God. But this acquittal is still fearful because he sees God as mightier than him. God is not a benign, slightly senile grandfather who would never ever say anything bad about his delightful chubby grandchildren... but He is a righteous judge who for reasons unrevealed and inexplicable does not reject Job.

The second chapter in the speech might appear as a digression where Job questions God's judgment in allowing the wicked to proceed in relative peace and harmony but this does not show a lack of faith in god but a true knowledge of His character. Much later in Revelation (9:6) the saints who sit before the alter after being slain for the Word of God ask the same thing "How long, oh Lord? How long?" This questioning is not an accusation of injustice but a hunger for the justice believed to be coming. Job asking and wanting and caring for the kind of justice which is the character of God means that Job understands what God is really like.

...

I have started the task of wrestling the philosopher Nietzsche (now referred to as N) . Philosophy club has started "The Genealogy of Morals." N is describing the trend of his past writing up to this point and in some ways will be summarizing it. It starts with his task to describe the history of how Western society has come with its current ideas of good and bad.

He describes that long ago (maybe he would say originally) the idea of good and bad were associated with the ability to return good for good and bad for bad. A good person was someone who could pay people back for what they did. So Achilles was a good man because if you hurt him he had the capacity to hurt you back. If you blessed him, he had the means to pay you back. But a bad person (despicable, disgusting, common) was someone that even if you did good to could not or would not repay you. And if you harmed that bad person he could or would not repay you. That was what the ancient people (according to N) thought of as good and bad. And by this understanding goodness was much more associated with strength (of various kinds) than intention.

I'd like to write further but have a dentist appointment.

Job 22

Eliphaz restates (though with more force and specific detail) his original criticism of Job: he must have deserved what he got.

The specific criticism is no light weight stuff considering the nature of God's character:

"Is not your evil abundant?
For you have exacted pledges of your brothers for nothing
and stripped the naked of their clothing.
You have given no water to the weary to drink,
and you have withheld bread from the hungry.
The man with power possessed the land,
and the favored man lives in it.
You have sent widows away empty,
and the arms of the fatherless were crushed."

This is the kind of stuff God takes very seriously. Of course most times the prophets warned against God's judgment for these sort of behaviors they were warning people but rarely (if ever) telling weeping people in the street "I told you so."

There are two problems with Eliphaz's criticism:

1. We the audience know that they are inaccurate. Now if the book of Job were a history of a king or noble we might consider chapters 1-2 as fluff written under the guidance of mighty hands but Job is written less as a history and more as a parable or drama. It may well have been historical but that has nothing to do with how it was written. So as an audience we can not think of Eliphaz's criticism as accurate or even sincere because god has described Job as a just and righteous man and Eliphaz has enough knowledge of Job's life to know it. Eliphaz knew what sort of life Job lived and would know that he was not such a wicked oppressor. This makes Eliphaz seem a vicious, vicious mocker.
2. But suppose that we take Eliphaz's statements as more humanitarian finger pointing rather than malicious lies one would wonder what sort of life Eliphaz lives. If he correct that any person who lives a comfortable or rich life is counted wicked while there are still poor people then who is counted innocent at all? Who could escape Job's fate? Certainly not Eliphaz, he was a peer of Job. If he was not as rich as Job he most certainly was in his neighborhood. Eliphaz ought not have been judging Job but quaking in fear.

My application of Job is starting to materialize:
Do not be like Eliphaz, Bildad or Zophar
I live a sweet, sweet, sweet life. It is filled with all kinds of comforts and confidences that mostly began around the time of my conversion. Most of the stuff I am praised for was not true before I was a Christian. There is this tendency to think how lucky (if not smart) I was to be a Christian and to make the solution to other people's woes: be more like me. "Are you poor and struggling? Be more like me!" "Are you depressed and suffer from low self esteem? Be more like me!" "You want God's blessing? Be more like me!"

Though I hope this sort of thinking is rare but it is a danger. The truth is that even though I have received a crap load of blessing from God and have found great joy in following God but God does not love me more than those who suffer, I have not earned my blessing and God is worthy of praise without these many blessings I have received.

And there is an important remembrance: the greatest joy of my conversion was at day one. It was knowing that God loved me. I like having some financial security, good looks and respect but I would give all of that up in favor of knowing God's love. Or put another way I can imagine living poor and ugly and disliked... but I would never go back to my life without Jesus Christ, not for all of the gifts this life could offer.

This is not a great statement about my character but a simple observation: the poverty in God's family is richer than the wealth in the world.

So don't be so judgmental, Mikey.