Comparisons

The commentaries I read on the passage I posted (Mal 1:2-3) about God loving Jacob and hating Esau often go along these lines: "It isn't an actual hatred, but a comparative hatred." They will often point to Jesus's words "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). That, again, is a comparative hatred. That is, next to the vast love of Jacob, God's perspective on Esau looked like hate and compared to the vast love of God, what we have toward father and mother etc. would look like hate. Maybe. I'm not going to settle that here.

It brings up a point, however. We do live in a world of comparisons. Modern Christians are aware of the threat of relativism and we want to fight it off, but the fact remains that many things in life are indeed a matter of relativism. If we fail to keep that in mind, we will fail to grasp some important things in life.

Take, for instance, the recent Heritage Foundation study that painted an odd picture of American poor. Apparently nearly 99% have televisions and 90% have microwaves and 80% have at least one VCR and cable or satellite TV. Nearly 79% have DVD players, 76% have cell phones, 68% have computers, and 60% have Internet service. None of this is to begrudge them their amenities. The point is that the "poor" in America aren't as poor as you'd like to think. Sure, they fall below the "poverty line", but that's in terms of income. Since the international poverty line is someplace around $1 a day, I'd think that an extremely small number of Americans would be classified as "poor". You see, it's relative. Compared to the rich in America, there is a vast gap. But that is a faulty comparison, given the apparently less-than-impoverished lifestyle of most of America's poor.

Take, for instance, the nature of "good" and "bad". A "good dog" is not the same thing as either a "good meal" or a "good man". No one questions that. Our use of "good" is not an absolute; it's a comparison. Consider the atheist whose standard of "good" is necessarily their own standard since no "Lawgiver", no "Moral Absolute" exists. The best such a person can say is "I'm good by my own standard" and no one can refute it by any absolute standard because there is no such thing. The "good" atheist who helps the poor is no better or worse than the "good" atheist who favors killing humans to save the planet as long as either one is meeting their own standard. A genuine Christian, on the other hand, is in the opposite predicament. Given the absolute standard of God's Law and the example of Christ, no Christian could ever say, "I'm good" because none of us get even close to "good" in relation to that standard.

Along those same lines, we all know that the "Gospel" means "good news", but in what sense is it "good"? It's only "good" in comparison. Comparison to what? The bad news -- "All have sinned." The bad news -- "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." That's bad news. And in that genuinely bad news we can then see the good news -- "By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." The good news becomes genuine in contrast to the bad -- "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ." If we didn't know we were dead and damned, telling us He made us alive and saved us would be pointless. Now, it's good.

We are often opposed to relativism, and rightly so. On the other hand, we live in a relative world. The poor Americans aren't as poor as we've been led to believe. The good atheists have little ground on which to stand. And the good news of the Gospel is vastly good in view of the bad news of our condition without Christ. I'm sure, if you think about it, you can find even more of these relativistic-but-true things to consider.