The Jesus House

I have a feeling I’ve shared this before …

But I’m too lazy to go through my old posts to see … so here it goes again since its been on my mind a lot lately.

Our society has done one of the most damaging things in the history of the world.  We’ve created adolescence.

For most cultures throughout history, you were a child, then an adult.  Of course there was a growing into an adult, but to separate out a different stage called “adolescence” has been a foreign concept.  What is the problem with adolescence? you might ask.

It is giving rights, power, and privilege to a group without responsibility.

It is amazing to see how much “adolescents” have had an impact.  A large degree of entertainment has been geared towards that group, a group that has a large amount of spending power but little comes from money that they’ve actually earned.  This overwhelming entertainment culture then affects body image and ideas of everything from family to what is success and the important context of history.

And this stage holds quite the attraction.  Why not?  Who wouldn’t love to have rights and privileges without responsibility?  Because of the appeal, the age range of people acting like this has grown.  You have a generation that sees college and their twenties as an extension of that stage … and you have six-year-olds with cel phones and ipods tuning their parents out at dinner with ear buds.

The result is that our culture is losing a real sense of childhood innocence as well as a notion of being an adult and being a responsible contributing member of society – and that those are the only two real choices available.  It has caused, coupled with the material abundance in our country, a very skewed perspective of reality completely foreign to the rest of the world.

And there is no real movement to stop the growth of this thing.  In fact, we have elected officials telling unemployed people not to try and get a job but to just play music and rock out.  It is being further encouraged.

And per the usual, the problems of the society we live in affects (or infects) the Church.

We have a growing number of people who seriously believe they can have the rights and privileges of a Christian without the responsibility of living like one.

And just like adolescence in our culture is celebrated and lauded far more than it is seriously questioned, the same has happened in the Church.  We have come up with more and more doctrines and theology that justify this state rather than clearly pointing to the scriptures that challenge it or the fruit of such a life that proves its danger.

Spiritual adolescence is worse than pure spiritual immaturity.  There is a very real state of being “little children” in the Lord and it is a precious time in the life of any believer.  In many ways it is a necessary time.

But spiritual adolescence is self-centered and short-sighted and yet catered to by much of what we call Christianity today (which isn’t really, but that’s another post) and the supposed “spiritual leadership” that should be way more mature than they are.  When we allow people to become “a man” and yet don’t require them to put away childish things, we shouldn’t be so surprised that we have the problems and corruption that we do within politics and the church.

I’ll leave it there for now.  May be more later.

Peace.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says a couple things that, on the surface, seem contradictory.  It happens sometimes.

First, in talking about His disciples being the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world”, Jesus says: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works …”

Then, a chapter later in the same sermon, He says, “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.”

While some like to point out how the Bible contradicts itself, it really doesn’t and there are some interesting observations to be made here.

The first observation is the motivation of the heart.  When you do your good works, or “charitable deeds”, are you doing them to be seen or out of a true heart that seeks to do what is right and be compassionate?  The former cares that it is properly recognized (which sets up while the latter is satisfied within the obedience itself.

Well, I’ve heard that teaching before, and most would stop there; but there’s more to it that I find interesting.

Both teachings assume you are doing good works and charitable deeds.  It is an assumption by Jesus that those that follow Him will have good works and charitable deeds.

Funny to me that the modern assumption is quite the opposite.

The other interesting observation I’ll make is that Jesus is concerned with who is getting the glory from your good deeds.  Obviously the motivation of your heart has much to do with it, but the focus of both teachings is who gets the glory.  In the first teaching on salt and light, Jesus wants your light to shine so that God may be glorified through the good works that you do.

A chapter later, Jesus says, “when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men.  Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.”

Jesus often placed reward in heaven as motivation for why we would do our good works.  But here, if we get the recognition our heart seeks in pride, that is the only reward we will ever get.

But Jesus goes on, “But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.”

This is how your good deeds glorify God.  Your focus is only on the good and the compassion, satisfied that God alone knows what you have done, and that is enough.  God Himself reveals openly, revealing by His Spirit what He wants seen and through that process will by nature draw men to Himself.

Peace.

Reading through the scripture, we consistently see, even through to the New Testament, King David called righteous and a man after God’s own heart.  So righteous, in fact, that God promised that the Messiah of the world would come through David’s line.

Now, maybe you don’t know some things that David did.

David was something of a hot-head.  Sweet Abigail kept him from overreacting with her fool husband and he married her once Nabal actually kicked the bucket. The Bible is also clear that he wasn’t the best parent in the world and ended up having lots of issues with his children (one raping another and all that while he did nothing to punish).  He also had plenty of wives, which Moses warns about in Deuteronomy that a good king shouldn’t do.  Later in life, David commits a weird sin in beginning a census and thousands of Israelites die in a plague or something because of HIS sin.

But of course we all know about Bathsheba.  David did a horrible thing.  First, he was basking in luxury in the season when “kings went out to war.”  His army was out fighting and protecting the kingdom while he was kinda hanging out.  Second, he lusted and committed adultery.  Third, he killed the lady’s husband (one of his famed “mighty men”) to try and get away with it when she got pregnant.

That’s a lot.  I mean, I don’t know that I’d call any of that “the heart of God” or righteous at all.

I’m sure we’ve all heard the teaching that, well, he repented, but I’d like to look at that a little more and see how a righteous man repents.

Because righteous men will need to repent from time to time.  I know I talk about righteousness a lot, and I know people hear that word and immediately think of words like judgmental or legalistic or impossible and they’ve got some pat scriptures to throw at those ideas.

But if David could do those things and still be called righteous, even essentially be a standard for righteousness, what does that mean?

Let’s take a step back and look at King Saul for a moment.  King Saul was chosen by God and anointed by Samuel just like David was.  King Saul did some bad stuff, too, disobeying God.

But Saul was never called righteous.  In fact, his punishment was the kingdom taken from him and given to another.  God told Samuel to basically give up on the guy.  Pretty harsh.

When Saul was busted in his sin … he made excuses.

“You weren’t here and then the people were clamoring and …” on and on.

He begged forgiveness but made excuses while doing so.  That’s not repentance.

David, on the other hand, when busted, completely repented and was willing to endure whatever punishment or consequence God deemed appropriate.  Even when it seemed the kingdom was being taken from him, David accepted it as the prophesied consequence for his previous sin years before.

And David never made excuses.  Never once.

Read the whole story of David again to see this trend in his life.  It is amazing.  He continually messes up and never makes an excuse and understands he completely deserves whatever punishment or consequence God decides to give.  Anything.

And he’s called righteous and a man after God’s own heart even through the revelation of the New Covenant.

Of course David did a lot of things right, too.  His repentance wasn’t only a recognition of his sin and the justice he deserved.  When given a chance by God, David would do the right thing, too, take care of his responsibilities and moved forward in doing what was right.

When God killed his son as a consequence for his sin, David didn’t divorce Bathsheba and get mad at God for taking an innocent life.  He realized the blood was on his hands and God was just and right … then he comforted and loved his wife and ran the kingdom.

David was humble and Saul was prideful.  It may not sound that way, but making excuses and seeing a commitment to doing good as impossible is pride.  Saul was full of pride and unstable.  David humbled himself completely and was willing to endure anything that God had for him.

This is righteous repentance.  And if Jesus is the Son of David, then the standards for righteous repentance haven’t changed.

I know.  Your theology might be spinning with that one.  But it’s true.  Lots of things have changed in the New Covenant.  Clearly reading the gospel preached in the New Testament, that has not.

Has the heart of God changed?  He is immutable.  He does not change.  Is not the New Covenant closer to the heart of God, from the Son begotten of Himself and the Spirit emanating from Himself?

What is interesting to me, and part of the point of this post, is that the “repentance” preached in the gospel of many today is closer to the actions and pride of King Saul, forgiveness with excuses and without a commitment to doing right (then somehow claiming righteousness), than the humility of David which God actually calls righteousness.

So let’s learn from David, who garnered great reward for his righteousness, and let us humble ourselves and repent in righteousness.

Peace.