The Gospel of Human Rights

On December 27, there was an opinion piece on the BBC online news by John Gray, whose main point was that "Human rights are important, but they will never be a solution to ending conflict." He observes that, historically, the idea of universal human rights comes out of monotheism.

John Locke, the 17th Century English thinker who founded the modern theory of rights, believed rights were grounded in our duties to God. For him, human freedom was divinely ordained.

Gray goes on to point out that many people today who are indifferent or even hostile to the idea of religion have adopted the idea of universal human rights with a similarly religious belief, not only in their existence, but also in their innate ability to set everything right, if only they were universally accepted (similar to how evangelicals feel about their own beliefs). In the Christian world, this would be termed an "other gospel", a solution to the world's ills other than following Christ. It may be true that God ordains freedom for humans, but the logical conclusion that there is a set of rights than can attain this freedom is tenuous at best. Gray points out that this is not guaranteed to protect universal values or resolve conflicts.

The ideal of a world ruled by rights distracts us from an unalterable reality - we'll always be mired in dangerous and only partly soluble conflicts. Human rights can't get round the fact that human values are at odds with one another. The freedom from conflict that many people seek in rights is just an illusion.

 He goes on to suggest that tolerance often works better than a rights orientation to help people resolve their differences and get along, citing the Ottoman Empire, and England.

Now, in my monotheistic and in particular, Christian, point of view, what we have here is an elegant secular argument for grace over the law.

Human rights and universal values (ie things that are inherently good for everyone) are not even universally agreed to in theory, and so in practice there are constant conflicts. It is the knowledge of good and evil, our innate tendency to see things in terms of right and wrong, that is actually the original cause of these conflicts, and while we have instituted governments to try to resolve them, it is with obviously limited success. As Mr. Gray says,

This isn't only because every society is bound to be less than perfect. It's because we lack any coherent idea of what a perfect society would actually be like.

But Jesus offers a solution: love. Love God with all your heart,  mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets; surrendering your "rights" to him will result in his personally assisting you to be loving as He is loving. Thus begins a life-long transformation.

The law, even the Law of Moses, is weak through the flesh. A system of human rights is still just a system, and humans have a way of convincing themselves that they can't follow the system on various occasions. But Christianity offers not a system, but a loving person to follow. Only with grace and love, flowing from the Spirit of God, can we overcome the inevitable conflicts of life. Check out Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 8 for a more complete discussion of this.

One other thing about evangelism, and the incessant work to convert people to any religious belief: even if we were successful in doing so, it would not resolve all human conflict, whether the entire world converted to the Human Rights gospel or the Christian gospel or the Corporate Greed gospel, there would still be conflicts going forward. Even Christianity, which I believe is the true way, states that in the world you will have conflict; but be of good cheer: Jesus has overcome the world. And someday this work of art, the World, will be brought to an end, and God will make right every miserable error that He has lovingly tolerated for so long. Only then will there be an end to human conflict.

Being the "Head" of Your Wife

I recently ended up embroiled in an angry discussion of what Paul meant when he said, "the man is the head of the woman". I mostly had to endure an angry tirade about what that must mean. After all, where is the head? It's on top, above the rest of the body. And what does it do? All the speaking, the seeing, the hearing, the thinking. So of course, in a Christian marriage, the man does all that and the little woman keeps quiet and submissive. What else can it mean?

Well, finally we get to the right question. If you accept the authority of the Scriptures, which I do, then you can't get away with simply deciding what various phrases mean. You need to see what the Scriptures themselves say about each other. God has been very free over the years with his poetic metaphors, and the world is quick enough to hijack them for its own justification. Unlike politicians, God doesn't seem very worried about being misquoted. He seems to be more concerned with filling his words with as much life as possible.

So, and I wish I'd said this at the time, let's look at that verse. That phrase is actually one of three parts and the full sentence goes like this:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

 Now let me engage in a little literary logic. Since the expression is repeated three times in the one sentence, doesn't it make sense to assume that it means the same thing in each case? They all inform each other. So, if you want to know what it means for the man to be the head of the woman (and make no mistake here: we are talking about a husband and a wife, not any man relating to any woman), take a look at what it might mean for Christ to be the head of "every man", and take a look at what it might mean for God to be the head of Christ.

Notice that he did not say Jesus is the head of every man, nor did he say the Messiah, or the Son of God, but he said "Christ". Jesus is all of these things, but what does it mean particularly for him to be the Christ? It means the annointed one, the lamb of God, who took away the sins of the world. As the Christ, he came to us be a servant and a sacrifice because he loves us. And as he himself said, "If any of you would be great, let him humble himself and become a servant." So ya wanna be the head? Ya wanna exercise godly authority? Then, as Paul says elsewhere, love your wife as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for her.

And God is the head of Christ. I take "God" here to mean the Father, the Holy One of Israel. How does he relate to Christ? He has greatly exalted him, placing him above everything else. This is a hint about the intimate relationship within the Godhead, and a man who hopes to fulfil his role as the head in a godly way will want to look at that. For a husband and wife, as I have written elsewhere, are a metaphor for the loving intimacy of Elohim, the Mighty Ones, creator of heaven and earth.

So I hope that I have clarified two things here. One is that I do not accept the age-old idea that men have any license to dominate their wives. What they have is an opportunity for love and sacrifice that they won't find anywhere else. And two, something I remember Kenneth Hagin saying forty years ago: make sure you get all the Scriptures in before you decide what they mean.

What do you say to the parents of an eight-year-old, killed in a despicable terrorist bombing?

Someone I know told me about the Boston Marathon bombing, the deaths and leg amputations, and then said, "can you say thank you Jesus?"
To which I answered, "I can always say that."
And she returned, "so appropriate in times of dead children."

Well, since I'm not an insensitive lout, I do not actually have knee-jerk reactions like that in times of trouble. It started me thinking about what I would have said, had it been up to me to speak to the parents about their boy's murder. And let me say first, that since I have no relationship with those grieving people, I would not be barging in to say, "Be sure to thank God for this - have a nice day!" Honestly! When people are blaming God for bad things that happen, they tar us believers with the same brush of their prejudice, and figure we just don't care, as God obviously doesn't, since He allowed this to happen.

Okay, so here goes:

I am deeply saddened by your son's murder, at his death at such an early age, for absolutely no possible good reason. I have not been so personally touched by such violence in my own life, and so I can only attain a small fraction of your shock and grief; but I can tell you this: God and the father of my lord, Jesus Christ, knows your grief and shares it more deeply than you can imagine. He is the author of life, and death is abhorrent to him. He is the essence of good, and evil is likewise abhorrent to him.

I often wish He would be a little more discriminating and prevent stuff like this from happening, you know, really bad stuff. But then where do you draw the line? Shall I counsel God in matters of good and evil? If God did not tolerate evil in this world, we would all be dead; but I can assure you, folks, that your son's murder will be made right in the end. God has taken a huge personal risk in making the world the way it is, and allowing it to be marred by sin, a beautiful work of art vandalized; yet the vandalism itself provides an opportunity not otherwise available to manifest the greatness of his love and grace, his judgement and mercy. He has taken this awful sin into account, with all the other sins of the world, and has paid for it with his own blood. He is going to manifest his greatness one day by making this all come out right, to his glory; I don't know how. I hope it comforts you to know that this is not the end of the story of your son.

Spiritual Growth in a Nutshell

My best friend just asked for the link to my church's website, saying that he was "trying to introduce a little spirituality" into his life. I take this as a great compliment to me and my church, and I hope he finds some answers there.

What I want to say to him, and to all (why I'm writing it here on the blog :-)  ) who may be seeking spiritual growth, is that in my opinion, the key lies in loving God. And, and this is true of Him more than any other person, to know Him is to love Him.

Now, I love this guy like a brother - in fact, I must admit that I love him more than my biological brother, but you know, modern western culture... Anyway, the Bible says "there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother", and while that may be a reference to Christ, it is also reflected in many relationships among us imperfect humans, and this is a case in point. I wish I loved all my brothers in Christ as much as I love this man.

Then, there is a woman whom I love as I love my own body, whom I try to love as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her, whom I try to nourish and cherish as the Lord does the church, every day, every moment. Loving her has been a fountain of life for me, a fascinating mystery.

But, as Jesus pointed out, the greatest commandment (and perhaps the most ignored) is to love I AM, the God of Israel, with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength. That too, I endeavour to do every day. Though I fall short, pursuing that kind of love is the central focus, the guiding relational force, in my life.

One day, years ago, as I was walking along a city sidewalk, I saw across the street an amazingly beautiful woman walking the other way. Before I knew what I was doing, I had stopped, turned and started following after her. I caught myself as I was crossing the street, but that moment of complete abandon is a metaphor for what I try to experience with Jesus. When I see him going somewhere, I want to stop everything, forget everything, and just follow him. That is entering in as a child; it is finding the Pearl of Great Price in a field. His overwhelming love for us, while we were yet sinners, grieving and insulting him every day, inspires this loving abandon on our part, once we get to know Him. Go for it!

Non-separation of Church and State in Germany

Last night on Market Place, NPR's radio show about business, they did a story about the "church tax" in Germany, and how many people are "leaving" their churches to avoid a 4% federal income tax that is earmarked for various German churches for support of their buildings and staff. Furthermore, with German efficiency, if you declare you are not affiliated and get yourself out of the tax, the (now government supported) pastors cannot do a funeral for you, or other "services" that church "workers" perform. This really riles up my American sensibilities on many issues.

They reported that the government passed this tax on the theory that churches were doing socially helpful things and thus merited support. This opens a host of political issues, such as just which churches are providing government-approved services. And of course, if they want the money, they need to get themselves approved. Then their members are taxed and the proceeds handed over to the appropriate church - only now, the staff is being controlled by the government; the government sets the rules for whom the church staff can render services, if they want the money. Which, of course, they do: they feel it is rightfully theirs, even though it is extorted by the force of law. Did anyone remember how God loves a cheerful giver?

This is a really great example of why we have the separation of church and state in the US. The government starts out saying they should be supported, but by giving that idea the force of law, they totally pervert it. God could send ten thousand angels to force us to pay money to the churches (or solve a host of other social problems), but He doesn't seem to want to do it. Gee, ya think maybe He has a different priority?

Jacob's Folly

Rebecca Miller, daughter of playwright Arthur Miller, has written a novel called "Jacob's Folly", the story of a Jew who died in Paris in 1783 and finds himself reincarnated as a fly in Long Island in 2013. The fly proceeds to be mischievous in an Orthodox Jewish household, as who wouldn't once you know you were a Jew and have been reincarnated as a fly? This fanciful novel violates a few tenets of Judeo-Christian theology with its reincarnation premise, among others, but it really has a lot of fun doing it.

Just imagine how freeing it would be to wake up and realize that you used to be a Jewish guy in Paris, but that now you have been reincarnated as a fly. The character is angry when he realizes this, but really, think about it: now you know that there's no spiritual afterlife, and if this is as bad as it gets, like, what's the big deal? Just do whatever you want, for tomorrow you die (again).

This liberating idea is just what the Enemy would like us all to believe. At least it seems liberating at first. If God is just some random recycling machine for the soul, he isn't really much of a god. The comical rules by which Orthodox Jews (or any other religious group) live don't count for anything. Instead of replacing these rules with the loving personal grace offered by Jesus, there is only whimsy. I can't make a convincing argument for that going bad when large numbers of people follow this path; whimsy seems pretty harmless, if eventually boring. It could go bad, of course, but it doesn't really have to.

All I can offer as an objection is that it isn't true. God actually IS the creator of this world; He knows everything that has happened in it, and has already personally paid the price for everything that has gone wrong with it. He may appear to have lost the bet on Adam and Eve, but the final result will be something vastly greater than seemed possible at the outset. The final state of this work of performance art we call the universe will reveal the fullness of God's loving intimacy and creativity in those of us who choose to join with Him.