Remember the story of the two guys camping out on the African Serengeti? They notice in the night the glow of a lion's eyes just at the edge of the firelight. One of them starts pulling on his shoes. The other says, "What are you doing, man?? You can't outrun a lion." He replies, "I don't have to outrun him; I just have to outrun you."
There's a point to that story and it relates to the first. Welcome to the standard measure. Ever hear of Godwin's Law? It's an Internet adage. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches." What does that mean? Well, if we want to point out evil, all we need to do is mention the Nazis or Hitler. Why? Because we all know that they were evil. And we're all pretty sure we're better than they are, so we're better off. And so it goes. How about that drunk that lives down the street? "Well, maybe I drink a little too much from time to time, but at least I'm not as bad as he is." We comfort ourselves by comparing ourselves to ourselves. "That wife-beating husband is far worse than I am, so just because I'm not very kind to my wife is no reason to think I'm a bad fellow." And it seems as if we can always find someone worse than we are. So we're okay.
Jesus told this parable.
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. "The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' "I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted" (Luke 18:10-14).We all know that the Pharisee was a jerk ... but we rarely notice that we're just like him. We compare ourselves to people we deem worse than we are and classify ourselves as nice people. But here's what Jesus said our standard was to be:
"You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48).Ouch! Now that's a standard we're not meeting, isn't it?
You see, that naïve junior higher bragging about how moral his sister was failed to ask, "Is it good that she wears a bikini, or should she be wearing more?" Because the Bible calls for modesty (1 Tim 2:9). But my childhood standard was simply "a little better than the culture." And so we end up like the two guys on the Serengeti running for our lives and thinking we're okay because we're ahead of the other guy. You know lions hunt in packs, right? And that's why there is so much sexual immorality among professing believers and why biblical morals seem so far-fetched to us these days. We're not looking at those; we're looking at the other guy, and we're not as bad as that ... while the other guy sinks lower and lower and so do we.
Perhaps we need to reevaluate our standards. "A little better than the culture" when the world is defined as hostile to God (Rom 8:7; James 4:4) and under the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2) is a lousy standard. We have a higher one to meet. We may think we're hitting the target, but we're aiming at the wrong one. And you know that the biblical word for "sin" means literally "to miss the mark", don't you?
21 comments:
There was the story of two evil brothers who were known locally for being really bad. Then one died. The other searched around town to find a preacher that would say that the dead brother was a good man. He found one preacher who promised he would say it for a fee. The towns people couldn't believe it and so showed up for the funeral to see if this preacher would stain his reputation. At the funeral the preacher began by pointing out all the awful and horrible things he had done, one by one, and then he ended by saying "but, compared to his brother, he was a good man."
I'm sure you've heard this. I think it's pretty funny.
Yes, I have. Yes, it is.
I wonder why we never compare ourselves to others in that way. We are quick to point to "I'm better than that" but never seem to look at "I'm not as good as that" let alone the correct standard -- "your Father in heaven".
Actually, the pharisee in that parable of Jesus is a *good* guy, a model of "godly" behavior and adherence to "the law". We read in "he was a jerk" based a lot upon the fact that the pharisees were on the receiving end (funny too, how Jesus never admonishes or is harsh with dirty sinners, but only heaps condemnation on those who think they are "apart" from those dirty sinners) of Jesus harsh pronouncements, but in this here story, the pharisee is a upstanding family man, fasts, tithes, etc.
But, according to Jesus, your good deeds don't save you. No amount of human goodness can do the trick. It's not the pharisee's arrogance or "jerk"-ness that's the mistake here, it's what he's saying -- as salvation has nothing to do with "goodness".
Yes, the Pharisee is the "good" fellow (in fact, he thanks God that he isn't bad, which seems to almost give the credit where it is due) but we think of him as a "jerk" because he rests on his version of "godly" and fails to recognize his own shortcomings ... kind of like both the Pharisees in so many biblical accounts and ourselves when we compare ourselves with ourselves.
Wait, Naum, maybe I missed what you were saying.
My point was that the standard for "good" is God, not our fellow beings. My point was that we tend to draw our standard for "good" from those around us ... typically from those we deem "less good" than us and, therefore, confirm our confidence that we are "good".
Now, it could be that you were suggesting that the Pharisee in the parable was indeed genuinely good -- that there are those who are righteous by their own efforts and there are those who are good on their own efforts and he was one. Or it could be that you misunderstood what I was suggesting about our faulty standard of "good" and that I was suggesting that we are saved by being good (not at all my point). Or it could be that you were suggesting that "good" is irrelevant. "Just be saved by grace and don't worry about 'good' at all."
Or it could be, as I originally thought when I read (and responded to) your comment, that you were just tweaking what I said a little by pointing out that the Pharisee character had some modicum of "good" and wasn't being a jerk for pointing it out. That is, I didn't understand you to be disagreeing with the point I was making. Did I misunderstand?
My point was that the standard for "good" is God, not our fellow beings
True.
My point was just, by the religious standard of the age, the pharisee in Jesus parable was *good* -- he followed the law, was upstanding, gave to the poor, fasted, observed all the necessary prayer & worship.
But as in just about all of Jesus parables, the *good* are condemned and the *wicked* are the redeemed.
Or it could be that you were suggesting that "good" is irrelevant. "Just be saved by grace and don't worry about 'good' at all.
No, not proclaiming the merits of Jesus follower to quietism at all. Just recognizing that it isn't your deeds or works that stamps your ticket, it's simply your acceptance of Jesus (God) forgiveness.
But my comment was, that as true with most of the parables, we mold them into morality lessons, when they're speaking a deeper truth. We make it transactional when the grace of God is not at all becoming of a quid pro quo transaction.
It sounds like to me Naum is saying "I'm glad I'm not like those evil Bible quoting Christians."
That was a possibility I hadn't originally considered.
Naum (who is now george), I thought that the point of the parables was to figure out the moral or religious lesson they were trying to convey (since the definition of "parable" is a short story intended to illustrate a moral or religious lesson).
In this case, however, the morality lesson I gleaned was not from the parable. The parable simply pointed to the comparison I was trying to illustrate. The moral lesson came from Jesus: "You are to be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." And, of course, the question was of "targets", not merit. What am I aiming for? The publican? The Pharisee? Or God's perfection? (Note that the answer to the last it not "And I hope to achieve it", but the clear realization that I am not one who ought to view myself as "good enough".)
Eh, Google swapped user accounts on me. But, yes it is *Naum*.
I thought that the point of the parables was to figure out the moral or religious lesson they were trying to convey (since the definition of "parable" is a short story intended to illustrate a moral or religious lesson).
Nah, that the *worldly* sense of *parable*, not Jesus MO -- it's upside down, and Jesus declares mystery of the Kingdom is a radical mystery — even when you tell people about it in so many words, it remains permanently intractable to make sense of it -- "seeing they might not see and hearing they might not understand" [Mark 4:12]
This parable is a prime example -- it was insulting to all religious and moral sensibility of the day. God, Jesus informs, is not the least bit interested in wonderful lists of religious and moral accomplishments — instead, Jesus informs (along with other parables in the synoptic gospels): the Kingdom of God will be given to babies sooner than to respectable religionists, a camel will go through needle's eye sooner than a solid citizen will get into the kingdom, and the "Son of Man" is about to fulfill "messiahship" by dying as a common criminal (addressed to disciples only, who really didn't "get it").
But here's a thought experiment -- let's say the publican goes home and completely changes not one iota about his daily regiment. He still cheats, connives, pimps, contorts, extorts, etc.. Then he's back, next week, and prays to God in the same exact fashion? On the basis of the parable, God will do exactly has he did last week. Do you like that? No, you don't -- you want him to clean up his act. But if If God didn’t count the Pharisee’s impressive list, why should he bother with this two-bit one?
What Jesus is saying in this parable is that no human goodness is good enough to pass a test like that, and that therefore God is not about to risk it. He will not take our cluttered life, as we hold it, into eternity. He will take only the clean emptiness of our death in the power of Jesus’ resurrection.
Since the point of the post was that believers should seek to imitate their Father rather than measure themselves against each other, perhaps you could explain to me what it is you're suggesting regarding that message. Agree/Disagree? Christians should/shouldn't bother with being obedient? "Don't be ridiculous! God doesn't care if you obey or not!"? What are you saying that relates to the point?
And as a point of interest, what Jesus told His disciples was "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God" (Mark 4:11). Those outside would miss the point; those inside should get it.
…believers should seek to imitate their Father rather than measure themselves against each other…
True.
But you've drained the context and scope from your cite and twisted it into transactional checklist dos and don'ts, when the passage [Matt 5:43-48] context is about loving enemies, blessing them that curse you, about "imitating" the father in lavishing unremitting, unreciprocated, undeserved love on "the other", to all, not just "in tribe", "in family", "in friends".
You've turned into morality code and legalism which is 180 degrees apart from what Jesus was proclaiming. Perhaps I'm reading your bit about *modesty* all wrong.
And the parable (the Pharisee & the Publican) is not a lesson in the virtue of humility. It is instruction on the futility of religion — in the idleness of the proposition that there is anything at all you can do to put yourself right with God. That as far as the pharisee’s ability to win a game of justification with God is concerned, he is no better off than the publican. Jesus came to raise the dead. Not to reform the reformable, not to improve the improvable…
Okay, Naum/george, I understand now. You believe that there is no point in a believer seeking to obey God. I understand your complaint now. Thanks for clarifying. I'm clear now.
I'm confused. If the parable isn't about humility, then Jesus got the meaning of His own parable wrong? He explains the parable at the end...and it appears to be about humility.
Sounds to me like Naum/george missed the real point and raised a straw man. And he reinterpreted the point of the parable to boot!
Wow, that's a million light years away what I wrote. ;(
Have a Happy Easter. :)
Okay, so a summary of my post would be that we tend to compare ourselves to the wrong standard, and that we ought to compare ourselves to the standard God has set. Naum disagreed. Apparently I haven't a clue why.
I think what he's might be tying to say is that morality is good thing as long as your morality differs from his morality.
Example:
1. To be certain that anything is moral or not is immoral.
2. You are certain that the Bible is clear regarding standards of morality.
3. You are immoral.
Well, I detected a "You're not saved by works!" complaint in there (which I never did or would claim), but it sure seemed like "Don't even think about works!" unless, of course, they're the works he has in mind (like pacifism or taxing to feed the poor). But, like I said, I don't know.
Post a Comment