I know ... the title line there is generally used as a joke. America loves the "free spirit", those who do whatever they please, the rebel without a clue. Oh, no, wait, that probably wasn't fair ... you know ... that I said it out loud. True, but not acceptable. The fact is, however, that lines so very often are our friends. We want to know how far we can go and where we must stop. We want to know what is and is not acceptable. We want a 12-step program to fix our problems. We want to know the top 10 answers to everything. Despite our love of the rebel in all of us, we like our lines.
Today is tax day, so I thought I'd use taxes as an illustration. Over at Blog and Mablog (clever name, that), Doug Wilson has done a series on taxation as thievery. Interesting series. (It starts with Ten Principles on Redistributive Taxation as Theft followed by More on Government Thievery and finally coming to Meum and Tuum.) He goes to great lengths to explain that on one hand taxation is not, by definition, theft and, on the other hand, taxation can be theft. He does this over a whole series of entries because, well, exactly where taxation crosses the line to theft is hard to draw.
As it turns out, I don't think that this is the only difficult line to draw. We all know, for instance, that Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery,' but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:27-28). How is that for a line? Too tough? Yeah, I know. Someone responded, "It's the second look that counts." In other words, now we start to muddle around with "look" and "lust" and what really constitutes "adultery" in this case?
My aim here is not to explain that line. My intent is to point out the difficulty of lines. You see, Jesus drew a very clear "line in the sand" and we're not clear on it. What constitutes "to lust after"? Where is the line between "looks at" and "lusts"? How do I know when you have done it (you know ... so I can point it out)? So careful were the Jews on this topic that they considered it wrong to look at another man's wife's little finger or to even admire his own wife's beauty. The Talmud references a "foolish saint" who refuses to save a drowning woman because he shouldn't look on her. Lines, you see, were their friends. But they drew the lines in all the wrong places. Jesus was drawing the line in your head or, more accurately, in your heart.
More often than not the sins in which we engage are not sins because of the action but because of the heart. As Wilson points out, for instance, "Murder is not taking a life. Murder is taking a life contrary to the revealed will of God." Intent is the problem. Thus, in Num 35:11, manslaughter was defined as killing someone "without intent". Solomon tells how God hates the sacrifices of the wicked. "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent" (Pro 21:27). When Simon the magician asked to pay Peter to receive the ability to bestow the Holy Spirit, Peter berated him. The real problem, according to Peter, was "the intent of your heart" (Acts 8:22). The problem with mankind is that "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). In fact, the Word of God is said to be so sharp that it can divide between soul and spirit, between "thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12).
Suddenly lines become quite difficult. If the problem is the intent of the heart, the externals become harder to figure. We can know, for instance, that murder is a sin, but when is it murder or manslaughter? If sexual activity outside of the will of God is sexual immorality, is it possible to have sexual activity within a marriage that is immoral because of the intentions of the heart? I think the answer would obviously be "Yes". Jesus said we should pray in private because showing off in prayer was wrong, that we should give in private because showing off in giving was wrong, that we should fast in private because showing off in fasting was wrong. You see, it is possible to pray, give, and fast wrong.
Lines are indeed our friends. It's just that sometimes they get a lot harder to draw than we realize. I would think that in many cases they're clearer to us in our own heads, but far too often we find ourselves deceived by the world and confused about those lines and someplace along the way we realize we long since crossed lines we shouldn't have crossed. Our world may adore the free-spirited rebel. God isn't quite so amused with that approach. So we're left with examining ourselves to see if we're in the faith, with testing everything, with judging ourselves not for our actions so much as our intentions. It's a hard line to draw ... but not impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment