Tuesday, 11 October 2011
WALKING AWAY FROM LOVE
None of the parables of Jesus is intended to convey the full theology of salvation. Rather each is designed to bring into sharp relief some particular aspect(s) of salvation; they should not be abused by “overstretching”.
This is the case with the parable of the Prodigal Son. What is brought into clear focus in this story is the fact that the father of the prodigal never loses his love for him, despite everything he has done to bring him distress. The father never ceases to think about his son, never gives up hope that he will return. He holds in his heart a deep well of forgiveness, deep enough to cover all the rejection and hurt that he has felt on account of his son’s behaviour. He is not unaware of the selfish motives of his son and his lust for money and pleasure, but none of that quenches his fatherly love. The young man is his son, made in his own image; his love remains strong. What a picture of the love of God.
What is equally clear on the other hand is that the son put himself out of the range of his father’s love. Indeed he had never really seen the love which was in his father, only the constraints and strictures on his freedom to do what he wanted. It never occurred to him that the constraints were the constraints of love and for his benefit. He wanted only the resources his father could give him, and he wanted “his own life”. His father allowed him to make the choice and leave the home. He walked away from his father’s love. That is the fundamental human tragedy where God is concerned.
It proved to be a devastating choice. Of course, like the apple in Eden, its first taste was sweet, but inevitably his selfish love of pleasure soured. His resources ran out, and he was alone. His own concept of freedom (freedom to do exactly what he wanted) had proved utterly illusionary. It had led him to penury and heartache. He was reaping the reward of his rejection of his father – it was his moment of painful judgement. Humanity can walk away from God. It has that option. There is, however, no option with the consequence of that. It is always deeply destructive and bitter. This is true whether we think of individuals or nations. This is an inherent and unchangeable feature of the nature of creation.
A final aspect brought into sharp relief in the parable is to be seen in the expressions, “He began to be in want” and “He came to himself”. The recognition of self inflicted penury brought about a change of heart which in turn brought about a change of direction, “I will go to my father.” Broken, he would walk back into the zone of his father’s love and would seek a restoration. He was not disappointed. He found that love overflowing with forgiveness, affirmation and provision. This “turning round and going back” is so crucial. It’s the great cry of all the prophets to Israel, “Come back to the Lord your God!” It presents a further moment of choice, one on which depends our present peace and our eternal joy. We are called to deliberately make that choice.
Bob
To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue.
To print this column: click on the date of this column in the archive list on the right of this page. This will give you this column on its own. Then print.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
THE LOVE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
“I delight in your commands because I love them” Ps 119:47
David was a “man after God’s own heart”. In Psalm 119 we see something of that heart. It’s a psalm well known as the longest of the psalms and as having for its main theme the commandments and precepts of God. It is much more, however, than a mere exhortation to obedience of those precepts. It is the overflowing expression of a heart which deeply loves those precepts, a heart that delights in the righteous ways of God, and a heart that is deeply grateful for those guiding statutes on the way to live.It's a heart in tune with God's heart.
Eight times in the psalm David uses the word “delight” in connection with the statutes and commands of God. He is delighted to read in God’s law the injunction to love his parents, keep himself from marital unfaithfulness, live at peace with others, tell the truth, keep himself from stealing, and be content with what he has. This is no “hard duty”, a pathway of life that is to be undertaken reluctantly and with gritted teeth. Neither is it an idealistic programme, an unrealistic and foolish aim in a cut throat world. It is, on the contrary, a delight. Elsewhere he says this way of life is the “joy of my heart”. He describes it as “wonderful”. He says categorically “you can keep all your money; it can never bring the delight that is given by this godly programme for real living”.
Isaiah speaks prophetically of Jesus (the greater David) in a precisely similar fashion, “He will delight in the fear of the Lord” Is. 11:3. The “fear of the Lord” is an expression linked directly in scripture to the commandments of God. This was the heart of the Son of God, therefore, a heart that delighted in God’s statutes, God’s prescribed ways for living an upright life.
Six times in Psalm 119 David uses an even stronger expression than “I delight in your law”, namely “I love your law”. In fact he says that the delight in the law comes out of his love for the law. He loves it “greatly”. To love something or someone is to pursue that object or person with dynamic eagerness. The “beloved” is the primary objective of life, and the love one feels is an overwhelming impetus in the direction of the “beloved”.
This inner “delight” and “love” of righteousness, felt at the depths of one’s being, is the real root of godly living. This and this alone, has the power to overcome all the other selfish tendencies that swarm around the human heart. This is what fills the human being with joy and satisfaction. This, to change the metaphor, is the “water of life”. It is, however, something that God alone can give. Isaiah, speaking of the delight that Jesus felt, made it clear it was there because “The Spirit of the Lord rested on Him”. Delight in and love for righteousness is an impartation of the heart of God by the working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. That can only happen through full commitment to Jesus, who alone sends the Spirit.
It is this alone that is the hope for a godless, self-destructing world. It’s the hope we are called to share.
I haven’t given chapter and verse in writing of Ps. 119; may the Lord bless you if you decide to hunt down the quotes yourself.
Bob
To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue.
To print this column: click on the date of this column in the archive list on the right of this page. This will give you this column on its own. Then print.
David was a “man after God’s own heart”. In Psalm 119 we see something of that heart. It’s a psalm well known as the longest of the psalms and as having for its main theme the commandments and precepts of God. It is much more, however, than a mere exhortation to obedience of those precepts. It is the overflowing expression of a heart which deeply loves those precepts, a heart that delights in the righteous ways of God, and a heart that is deeply grateful for those guiding statutes on the way to live.It's a heart in tune with God's heart.
Eight times in the psalm David uses the word “delight” in connection with the statutes and commands of God. He is delighted to read in God’s law the injunction to love his parents, keep himself from marital unfaithfulness, live at peace with others, tell the truth, keep himself from stealing, and be content with what he has. This is no “hard duty”, a pathway of life that is to be undertaken reluctantly and with gritted teeth. Neither is it an idealistic programme, an unrealistic and foolish aim in a cut throat world. It is, on the contrary, a delight. Elsewhere he says this way of life is the “joy of my heart”. He describes it as “wonderful”. He says categorically “you can keep all your money; it can never bring the delight that is given by this godly programme for real living”.
Isaiah speaks prophetically of Jesus (the greater David) in a precisely similar fashion, “He will delight in the fear of the Lord” Is. 11:3. The “fear of the Lord” is an expression linked directly in scripture to the commandments of God. This was the heart of the Son of God, therefore, a heart that delighted in God’s statutes, God’s prescribed ways for living an upright life.
Six times in Psalm 119 David uses an even stronger expression than “I delight in your law”, namely “I love your law”. In fact he says that the delight in the law comes out of his love for the law. He loves it “greatly”. To love something or someone is to pursue that object or person with dynamic eagerness. The “beloved” is the primary objective of life, and the love one feels is an overwhelming impetus in the direction of the “beloved”.
This inner “delight” and “love” of righteousness, felt at the depths of one’s being, is the real root of godly living. This and this alone, has the power to overcome all the other selfish tendencies that swarm around the human heart. This is what fills the human being with joy and satisfaction. This, to change the metaphor, is the “water of life”. It is, however, something that God alone can give. Isaiah, speaking of the delight that Jesus felt, made it clear it was there because “The Spirit of the Lord rested on Him”. Delight in and love for righteousness is an impartation of the heart of God by the working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. That can only happen through full commitment to Jesus, who alone sends the Spirit.
It is this alone that is the hope for a godless, self-destructing world. It’s the hope we are called to share.
I haven’t given chapter and verse in writing of Ps. 119; may the Lord bless you if you decide to hunt down the quotes yourself.
Bob
To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue.
To print this column: click on the date of this column in the archive list on the right of this page. This will give you this column on its own. Then print.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
MOVING A BIG BOUNDARY STONE
Lynne Featherstone is the Government Equalities Minister. She has recently got David Cameron onto her side to “push everyone from allies to adversaries to recognise what we know to be true”, namely that same sex partners have a right to be married. She has set out a timetable to bring it about by 2015.
Marriage is probably one of the biggest boundary stones we have for delineating the way we live. Now, after at least fifteen centuries (possibly from time immemorial!) this big stone is to be wrenched out of its position. The Romans and, before them, the Greeks, certainly knew about same sex relations, but I do not recall reading anywhere that they ever brought that sort of relationship into the category of marriage (which was well known, and established and honoured). I suspect that would have been anathema to them. They were too streetwise about the damage it might do to society. It’s astonishing that “what we know to be true” according to Ms. Featherstone has actually remained unknown for so long! Interestingly enough, according to the National Statistics Office, two thirds of people in the nation are reluctant to seeing such legislation enacted. They do not think it appropriate and are evidently not as convinced as the Minister might imagine!
The motive for this new development is largely in order that the legal benefits that are available in a marriage might be conferred on the partners in a same sex relationship. So, to gain this purely legal end, everything else that is wrapped up in the concept of marriage is to be ignored. This “everything else” is in fact very much more important than the legalities. At the very centre of marriage is the crucial concept that it is a union of one man and one woman, and that it is the union in which children are naturally born and nurtured with a balanced input from a man and a woman. It is a place where a child knows both its father and its mother. It is the place where the natural biological (and psychological) differences of man and woman find their proper fulfilment in a bond of love and family. Life long commitment is an essential part of this union. It is a creation ordinance of God, not a convenience of man. To play fast and loose with such an ordinance is to invite much trouble. It is a fundamental foundation of society and life. No, marriage is not just about legalities.
It is a very sad thing that Lynne Featherstone cannot see how deep the issue is. Sadder, still, that David Cameron, probably on a political wicket where he must find some points of contact with the Lib Dems, has to choose to support this issue. It was good to hear that a Church of England spokesman said, “Our view remains that a marriage is a lifelong relationship entered into by a man and a woman”. Unfortunately, at the same time, rather than cleave to its view, we learn that the Church has committed itself to a wider look at its approach to same sex relationships, and is ambivalent on whether it will allow its clergy to “marry” same sex partners in church. These caveats really mean that eventually we could see a capitulation by the Church rather than a fight for the real truth. The real danger is, of course, not from outside the Church but from opinion within. The outlook is not good.
The boundary stone of marriage has taken some severe knocks over recent decades simply by virtue of the fact that it has been neglected by a society which is both fearful of a possible negative outcome to marriage and also reluctant to take a committed responsibility. Instead it has opted to co-habit. That at least left the idea of marriage intact for those who wish to embrace it. This latest move, on the other hand, makes a mockery of marriage, and empties it of all its essential meaning. It simply makes the boundary stone irrelevant.
A few good well written letters to the Equalities Minister would not be out of place!
Bob
To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue.
To print this column: click on the date of this column in the archive list on the right of this page. This will give you this column on its own. Then print.
Marriage is probably one of the biggest boundary stones we have for delineating the way we live. Now, after at least fifteen centuries (possibly from time immemorial!) this big stone is to be wrenched out of its position. The Romans and, before them, the Greeks, certainly knew about same sex relations, but I do not recall reading anywhere that they ever brought that sort of relationship into the category of marriage (which was well known, and established and honoured). I suspect that would have been anathema to them. They were too streetwise about the damage it might do to society. It’s astonishing that “what we know to be true” according to Ms. Featherstone has actually remained unknown for so long! Interestingly enough, according to the National Statistics Office, two thirds of people in the nation are reluctant to seeing such legislation enacted. They do not think it appropriate and are evidently not as convinced as the Minister might imagine!
The motive for this new development is largely in order that the legal benefits that are available in a marriage might be conferred on the partners in a same sex relationship. So, to gain this purely legal end, everything else that is wrapped up in the concept of marriage is to be ignored. This “everything else” is in fact very much more important than the legalities. At the very centre of marriage is the crucial concept that it is a union of one man and one woman, and that it is the union in which children are naturally born and nurtured with a balanced input from a man and a woman. It is a place where a child knows both its father and its mother. It is the place where the natural biological (and psychological) differences of man and woman find their proper fulfilment in a bond of love and family. Life long commitment is an essential part of this union. It is a creation ordinance of God, not a convenience of man. To play fast and loose with such an ordinance is to invite much trouble. It is a fundamental foundation of society and life. No, marriage is not just about legalities.
It is a very sad thing that Lynne Featherstone cannot see how deep the issue is. Sadder, still, that David Cameron, probably on a political wicket where he must find some points of contact with the Lib Dems, has to choose to support this issue. It was good to hear that a Church of England spokesman said, “Our view remains that a marriage is a lifelong relationship entered into by a man and a woman”. Unfortunately, at the same time, rather than cleave to its view, we learn that the Church has committed itself to a wider look at its approach to same sex relationships, and is ambivalent on whether it will allow its clergy to “marry” same sex partners in church. These caveats really mean that eventually we could see a capitulation by the Church rather than a fight for the real truth. The real danger is, of course, not from outside the Church but from opinion within. The outlook is not good.
The boundary stone of marriage has taken some severe knocks over recent decades simply by virtue of the fact that it has been neglected by a society which is both fearful of a possible negative outcome to marriage and also reluctant to take a committed responsibility. Instead it has opted to co-habit. That at least left the idea of marriage intact for those who wish to embrace it. This latest move, on the other hand, makes a mockery of marriage, and empties it of all its essential meaning. It simply makes the boundary stone irrelevant.
A few good well written letters to the Equalities Minister would not be out of place!
Bob
To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue.
To print this column: click on the date of this column in the archive list on the right of this page. This will give you this column on its own. Then print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
