Relationships | Tactical Christianity

Seriously?

by R. Herbert | Aug 14, 2016 | Growth, Relationships

“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts and civilizations — these are mortal. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously” (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, p. 46).

C. S. Lewis penned these words over three-quarters of a century ago, but their significance is perhaps even clearer today as a result of modern psychology. In the book What Makes Us Tick? The Ten Desires That Drive Us (2013), psychologist and social commentator Hugh Mackay stresses that the primary need of human beings – once the basic biological needs of food, sleep, etc., are taken care of – is “to be taken seriously.” Mackay’s research indicates that knowing we are of worth is more important to human beings than any other psychological need or desire.

Why do we have this need to be taken seriously? We might well be able to survive without it; but as Christians we might well suspect that this, like any need, is there for a reason. Could it be that we all have a deep innate need to be taken seriously in order to help us to take other people seriously? Could it be that is one of the lessons this life gives us opportunity to learn?

The word of God certainly shows that God takes people seriously. When Scripture tells us he is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), it means that he takes everyone seriously. When God repeatedly told ancient Israel to be kind to strangers among them (Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19, etc.), he was commanding them to see them as people like themselves – to take them seriously.

And when we look at the life and ministry of Jesus, it is clear that he took people seriously. He took sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors seriously, although most everyone else in that society did not. He took women seriously in an age when most did not. He took Samaritans and Phoenicians – those of entirely different religious backgrounds – seriously, just as he took doubters within his own faith seriously. Uniquely in that age, he even took those who perhaps had no understanding of faith at all – little children – seriously.

In some ways, Jesus’ determination to take everyone seriously was one of the most radical aspects of his ministry and his message, and it is an approach that we who try to follow him must never forget. But do we take those who live contrary to the Way in which we believe seriously? It is a question we can ask of any group, of any individual. Do we take fellow Christians in other denominations seriously? Do we really take those of other political, social, religious, economic, or regional backgrounds to ours as seriously as we should?

Ultimately, we must all ask “Do we take every human being seriously?” It is one of the most fundamental messages within the Scriptures that God takes every individual seriously, and that we should also.

When Bad People Do Good Things

by R. Herbert | Apr 10, 2016 | Relationships

Sometimes it seems that it’s easier for many Christians to understand good people doing bad things than it is for them to accept the idea of bad people doing good things. It’s not that we don’t want to give others the opportunity to turn their behavior around, of course, but experience and common sense often cause us to be suspicious of seemingly “good” deeds by those who are not normally known for them!

The Book of Jeremiah contains a fascinating example of just such a “bad person” and his good behavior, however. Jeremiah 52, the last chapter of the book, tells us how:

“… in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month, Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, graciously freed Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of prison. And he spoke kindly to him and gave him a seat above the seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin put off his prison garments. And every day of his life he dined regularly at the king’s table, and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, according to his daily needs, until the day of his death, as long as he lived” (Jeremiah 52:31-34).

To understand the significance of this story we must realize that the Babylonian king the Hebrew biblical text calls “Evil-merodach” was Amil-Marduk (Man of [the god] Marduk), the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. Amil-Marduk is mentioned in several ancient king lists, and some 30 Babylonian cuneiform tablets are dated to his reign between 562-560 B.C. His reign was also recorded by the Hellenistic Babylonian historian Berossus who used ancient Babylonian records and texts that have not survived to us to write his Babyloniaca or History of Babylonia. Berossus tells us that Amil-Marduk was a bad man who ruled in an “illegal and impure manner,” and that he was eventually deposed and killed by his successor, Nergal-sharezer who was praised for his good deeds.

We do not know how much the description of Amil-Marduk that has survived to us is colored by political and other factors of the time, but the historical evidence we do have shows that he was not seen as a “good” person. Yet his kindness to the Judean king Jehoiachin is made clear by the Bible and reminds us of David’s kindness to Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan and grandson of King Saul (2 Samuel 9:1-13), whom David brought out of obscurity and restored his possessions, telling him “you shall eat at my table always” (2 Samuel 9:7, 13).

This act of great kindness that was recorded of David (of whom we might expect it) is nearly identical to that done toward Jehoiachin by Amil-Marduk (of whom we certainly might not expect it). Once again, we do not know all the circumstances – it is possible that Amil-Marduk was being influenced by God – yet the fact remains that he clearly performed a good deed in this case.

It’s a small story that might prompt us to ask if there are individuals in our lives of whom we don’t expect good deeds or behavior – people we distrust if they do something out of character as we know them. Sometimes we must remember that just as God says he will forget the bad things people have done if they turn and do good (Ezekiel 18:27), we should always be aware of the possibility of good coming from those of whom we might least expect it.

Seeing the Image of God

by R. Herbert | Jan 24, 2016 | God, Relationships

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them …” (Genesis 1:27).

In a world conditioned by perfectionist ideas of physical beauty, we can perhaps see the idea of perfection in the gods portrayed in classical Greek statues and other works of human imagination, but it is not as easy to see the image of God in actual flawed and broken human beings.

Yet, as Christians we know that every human is made in the image of God – not just the more physically perfect ones (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6). In fact, the Scriptures suggest God himself was purposely shaped in imperfect form as a human: “… He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:21), and that description certainly fits the Jesus of the Gospels who was not easily recognized and who slipped through crowds unnoticed (Luke 4:30, John 10:39). Religious art and movie casting notwithstanding, the second century writer Celsus may even preserve a tradition that Jesus was short and not attractive.

In any event, Christ’s evident compassion for the physically flawed and broken of this world, as well as the spiritually broken (Mark 1:40-45, etc.), perfectly illustrates the attitude of seeing every person as an image of God despite outer appearances. But in addition to the compassion and true acceptance we must have for those the world considers physically unattractive or undesirable for whatever reason, there is perhaps a second and less obvious way in which we can apply the principle that we are all made in the appearance of God.

The Book of Genesis tells us the story of how the patriarch Jacob cheated his brother out of his inheritance and how, after a length of time, the two brothers met again. The biblical account states: “Jacob looked up and there was Esau, coming with his four hundred men” (Genesis 33:1). Think about this situation. Jacob knew what he deserved from his brother and here was Esau, with a large fighting force, coming directly toward him. Jacob probably didn’t expect Esau to be at all friendly at this point, let alone brotherly.

We might well ask ourselves how we would have met Esau in that situation – with justification for our own actions, with mistrust of Esau, with fear? Humanly, it is easy to demonize not only our enemies, but also those we mistrust and are afraid of. We see their worst points and use those things to justify our own actions and thoughts. But notice what Jacob told Esau as soon as he realized he could speak safely with his brother: “To see your face is like seeing the face of God” (Genesis 33:10).

These amazing words show us clearly that Jacob was able to look past his own fear and mistrust and to see his brother as he should – as someone made in the image of God – just as Esau, as it turned out, was willing to see him. In that instance, such an attitude, such a viewpoint, avoided revenge and possible mayhem involving hundreds of people.

In our own lives this attitude can help us just as much in our own one-on-one relationships. If we, too, can learn to see even those we mistrust or fear as potentially bearing the image of God, no matter how their behavior may work against that identification, we are growing toward that image of God ourselves.

The Gifts the Wise Men Gave

by R. Herbert | Dec 20, 2015 | Giving, Relationships, Updates

Although many give gifts to each other at this time of year, supposedly in honor of the gifts the Magi or “wise men” gave to Jesus, perhaps we can find a timely reminder in that story of the focus of those individuals who gave gifts to Christ.

We really don’t know how many wise men brought gifts to the young Jesus (it’s only tradition that there were three of them), where they came from (other than “the East”), or even when they came (the New Testament shows it could have been up to two years after the actual birth of Jesus when they arrived at the house in which he was living). The one thing we do know for sure is what the gifts were that they gave to the young Jesus: “On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh” (Matthew 2:11).

The three types of gift (the origin of the tradition that there were three wise men) were all illustrious ones, and perhaps the most expensive, by weight, that could be given in that ancient culture. It’s easy to understand that gold was considered a gift fit for kings. Frankincense was an expensive fragrance used in the making of incense offered in the Temple (Leviticus 2:1-2) and was thus a fitting gift to be given to a priest (Hebrews 4:14-16). Myrrh was another expensive fragrance which was often used in embalming the dead – as it was for Jesus (John 19:39-40). In that sense it was a fitting gift to one destined to die for humankind. Whether these symbolic aspects were realized by the wise men or not, the three gifts were all certainly appropriate for the king and priest who was born to die.

Although those physical gifts are not ones that we can give directly, the New Testament does show that just as the gold, frankincense and myrrh had symbolic associations, if we choose, we too can offer things in our own lives that are associated with the same gifts.

Faith: 1 Peter 1:7 tells us: “These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.” Rather than gold, we can give the better gift of faith.

Relationship with God: The Book of Revelation refers to the prayers of the saints as fragrant incense before God: “Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne” (Revelation 8:3-4). The incense offered to God on the heavenly altar is directly associated with the prayers that we can offer.

Relationship with others: 2 Corinthians 2:14-16 says, “But thanks be to God, who… uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life.” Just as the pleasing fragrance of myrrh could be used in contexts of life and death, our walk before others can be a pleasing fragrance of life to those who can appreciate it.

So we can give, if we so choose, the symbolic equivalents of the gifts the wise men gave to Christ. If we let it, the story of their gift-giving can inspire us to develop, through God’s grace, our underlying faith, our relationship with God himself, and our relationship with others. Even those of us who might feel we have little to give can give even better gifts – that may please the Son of God even more – than the gifts the wise men gave.

*Reproduced from a December 2014 post on our sister site, LivingWithFaith.org

Healthy Incompatibility

by R. Herbert | Jun 7, 2015 | Family, Relationships, Strategic Notes, Updates

Recent statistics suggest that as many as 40% to 50% of marriages in some developed countries end in divorce. The divorce statistics for second and third marriages are even higher (practice evidently does not improve performance), and these sad statistics underline the even more unfortunate truth that many of these divorces were undoubtedly preventable.

While some marriage splits are, of course, the result of adultery, drugs, alcohol, spousal abuse and other problems, the great majority of divorces claim “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for dissolution of the marriage bond. This is where the aspect of preventability enters into the picture. “Irreconcilable differences” is really just an expensive way of saying “incompatibility,” and at the heart of many divorces – and of problem marriages which somehow stay together – it is incompatibility that is so often cited as the underlying problem.

Now in most all cases where incompatibility is cited as an issue, it was not present at the beginning of the relationship (we doubt many couples who always considered themselves incompatible get married) – it is something the marriage partners feel “happened” as time progressed. But the truth is, incompatibility between a man and a woman usually never just “happens” – it is present, under the surface, all the time. It is simply that marriages begin to falter when couples begin to focus on their incompatibility. A century ago, in his book What’s Wrong with the World, G.K. Chesterton put it this way:

“I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.”

These may be among the wisest words ever written on marriage problems. They are based on the undeniable fact that most marriages occur because “opposites attract.” But when marriage begins we are focusing on the “attract.” As marriages progress, if we are not careful, the focus switches to looking at, and dwelling on, the “opposites.” Our point of view shifts and we begin to see our relationship differently – and as we do, the problems develop.

Simple as it may sound, the quality of every marriage, and every day within every marriage, depends on how we look at our partner. We must remember it is not that beneath the attraction there are differences we must somehow try to suppress, but that the differences between us are so often the root and cause of the attraction itself – and we mean not just the sexual aspect, but the full range of psychological, spiritual and physical attraction.

A happy marriage is, then, always one of managed incompatibility. We can certainly do what we can to make it easier for our mates to deal with our differences where they are problematic (Romans 14:19 – “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.”), but each mate must concentrate on how he or she sees the other – we must continue to look at the attractive things about him or her. There is perhaps no more helpful scripture on this fact than the words of the apostle Paul:

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things” (Philippians 4:8).

We render this wonderful advice useless by consigning it to nice thoughts about pleasant ethereal things. But this approach is a potent marriage problem solver. If we apply these words in the sphere of our relationship with our mate – in constantly looking for, affirming, complimenting the good things we appreciate about each other on every level – the matter of incompatibility usually becomes increasingly a non-issue.

Incompatibility is not the destroyer of marriage; it is the healthy tension that forms the basis of meaningful marriage relationships. The more we begin to see each other in a positive way and keep our focus there, the more we see attraction and the less we see opposites. In fact, we become more and more able to celebrate our incompatibility – and good things happen when we do. In the words of Genesis: “He created them male and female and blessed them….” (Genesis 5:2). We see God blessed the marriage relationships not generically as unisex, unithought, uniform pairs of mankind, but blessed us as male and female – blessed us in our differences.

“Defusing” Misunderstandings

by R. Herbert | Mar 11, 2015 | Relationships

The Book of Joshua records a powerful example of how misunderstandings can become deadly dangerous and then need to be “defused” with extreme care. The story, like all the recorded events of the Scriptures, is written for our guidance, and we can learn some important lessons from it.

Joshua tells us that as the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh asked permission to stay on the eastern side of the Jordan as their own area of inheritance. Joshua gave the two and a half tribes permission to do this on condition that they fought alongside the rest of the Israelite tribes till the Promised Land was occupied, and then they could return to claim the area granted to them (Joshua 22:1-9).

Returning home, the two and a half tribes built a large altar next to the Jordan, on their own side of the river (Joshua 22:10). It was at this point that the potentially fatal misunderstanding occurred. The other tribes were immediately incensed at what appeared to be the rapid apostasy of the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh into their own system of worship rather than honoring the main altar of God which was with the rest of the tribes. The Israelites were acutely aware that they had only recently been punished by God for disobedience (Joshua 7), so the Book of Joshua tells us that “the whole assembly of Israel gathered at Shiloh to go to war” against the eastern tribes (Joshua 22: 11).

This is the point at which tempers flared, and many were calling for the destruction of the apparently apostate tribes. But due to the wisdom of Israel’s leaders, an effort was made to defuse the situation. The priest Phinehas, along with ten tribal elders, bravely went to confront the eastern tribes and to tell them:

“The whole assembly of the Lord says: ‘How could you break faith with the God of Israel like this? How could you turn away from the Lord and build yourselves an altar in rebellion against him now? … And are you now turning away from the Lord? If you rebel against the Lord today, tomorrow he will be angry with the whole community of Israel. If the land you possess is defiled, come over to the Lord’s land, where the Lord’s tabernacle stands, and share the land with us. But do not rebel against the Lord or against us by building an altar for yourselves, other than the altar of the Lord our God’” (Joshua 22:16-19).

It was at this point that the eastern tribes explained how they had not built an altar in disobedience to the commands of God, but had built a structure to serve as a “memorial” to remind their descendants and those of the other tribes of the connection between them and the shared heritage of the tribes on both sides of the Jordan (Joshua 22:24-29, 34).

Fortunately, war was averted – but only narrowly. Had the ten tribes simply moved on the misunderstanding they had, there would have been great bloodshed and lasting animosity between them and their eastern cousins. But we should notice how this catastrophe was averted by the skillful defusing of the situation. The account tells us a number of important things.

First, we should notice how Phinehas and the tribal elders presented their case clearly, giving all the facts they knew, but then asking: “… are you now turning away from the Lord?” (Joshua 22:16). This asking rather than accusing was probably the primary reason the negotiations were successful in defusing the potential disaster. Notice that the discussion was framed from this perspective throughout. The Israelites said “If you rebel against the Lord…” (Joshua 22:18), not “You have rebelled against the Lord….” This is treading lightly on the already heightened emotions of those with whom the misunderstanding had occurred.

The other aspect of the story that we should clearly note is the way in which Phinehas and the elders did not back the eastern tribes “into a corner” in the process of defusing the situation. They did not pronounce judgments or rebukes or issue ultimatums before they had heard the other side of the story. But notice how they left a way open to still be in harmony with the eastern tribes, even if they were guilty of what they suspected: “If the land you possess is defiled, come over to the Lord’s land, where the Lord’s tabernacle stands, and share the land with us” (Joshua 22:19). This is handling things very carefully so that the situation does not blow up in terms of open accusation leading to angry denial and reaction.

The analogy of bomb disposal is a useful one in studying this account. Like Phinehas and the ancient elders of Israel, the brave individuals who take on great personal risk to defuse actual bombs in today’s world have only two basic rules: they tread lightly and they handle things very carefully with a soft touch. Those basic rules have saved many lives in the course of disarming live munitions and bombs; and they can save a great deal of heartache if we apply them to ”defusing” misunderstandings and other tense situations in our lives, too.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »