Reading Test

Today's blog entry celebrates two events: Finals week, and several of my friends' upcoming marriages.

The topic? This essay on marriage by John Yoder, a Mennonite theologian. His name rings vaguely familiar, so he may be quite well known.

What can I say? It is long, and a bit challenging to read. (Actually, the first three-fourths were the best; the last 'Parallel Reasoning' part didn't resonate.)

It's a hard article to do justice to, but here's a few points of interest. First, he defines three different views on marriage:
Ontological: A marriage is permanent as long as its 'essence' is maintained, but if the essence is broken, then the marriage is invalid. For example, a marriage is valid as long as both spouses do not commit adultery.
Realist-objective: Marriage is fundamentally determined by powers beyond human control...and the call to live up to the ideal is present regardless of the current state of the marriage.

(As a sidenote to this definition, but a theme throughout the article is the notion that sexual union is a sufficient condition for a marriage relationship. For readers going 'madness!', read the article, it isn't as crazy as I just made it sound. He also argues that while sexual union is sufficient, not all 'marriages' are viable...very fascinating.)

Realist-legal: Essentially argues that the essence of the first marriage always holds, and therefore any additional marriages (or remarriage without a spouse dying) are sinful.

I like what the author does in arguing for the second perspective, trying to stay well away from legalism ("What must my spouse do before I can divorce her?") and calling Christians to a higher vision of marriage. I also like the way the ideas of grace and mercy are woven in regarding remarriage. I don't know if I entirely agree, but it's thought provoking.

Here's another excerpt regarding community that got me thinking.

Most discussion of this issue [marriage] neglects the support which church and community owe to single people. The modern idea that a single person is somehow unfulfilled, unbalanced, unwanted needs to be attacked as an idea and undermined in practice. There should be patterns of community relations in which single persons (whether divorced or never married) would be "at home" as part of a wider "family," and would be recognized for their special contribution. If such resources were available to single persons, there would be fewer "bad marriages," and the divorced would be helped to live without overwhelming pressures toward remarriage.

Attacking the unfulfilled single idea in idea is fairly easy. Undermining it in practice, however, strikes me as exceedingly difficult. I'm tempted to do a brief poll of my peers and see whether they would describe themselves as 'recognized for their special contribution in a wider church family in which they consider at home.'

I need to think more about what it actually takes to undermine the unwanted/unbalanced/unfulfilled single concept is practice. Cheaper gas, perhaps. Fortunately, electrons are plentiful (and thus, cheap) so I can blog on the thought again.

The Type of Motivation

Related to gender differences in sin, I came across this Slate article today. Interesting, with a healthy dose of salt...I'm a bit skeptical of statistics in the hands of people.

So related to my last post, I've been thinking about different types of change we under go...and my motivation for different types. For example, I wear different clothes at my current job than my previous one. It is a change, but a fairly meaningless one. I didn't loose sleep over the matter, consider not taking the job, or even really consider the cost. For all intents and purposes, my work dress style (or lack thereof?) is a cosmetic change.

Now some cosmetic changes are harder. I have friends who have finally seen the light and are forsaking their loyalty to the University of Michigan and becoming die-hard Michigan State Spartan fans. Well, at least fair-weather Spartan fans. At some level, this change is purely cosmetic - new clothes, new cheers, new bumper stickers. But it's a harder change...they have attachments that go with being Wolverines and it's hard to abandon those. If I was writing a self-help book, I would come up with a witty and clever name like connection changes to describe this category.

And then there are character changes. (See, I'd make an author because I can make all three of my points start with the same letter, which supposed to help memory or something...or else just makes editors happy so that books get published.) Character changes have to do with forsaking parts of our own identity. I don't want to be less witty in order to be empathetic; funny is part of who I am. I don't want to take risks and looking irresponsible; organized and together is part of who I am. I don't want to complain less; being open is part of who I am. Even when I think the character change is completely a good way, it's uncertain and nebulous...and that's not part of who I want to be.

Usually I find the cosmetic, connectional, and character changes all blending together. But usually when I'm really struggling with change, it's because I'm stuck on the character portion of change. I'll spare the "can character change occur without Christ" theology post for another time, but often when I'm stuck, I'm drawn back to the question of motivation: How motivated am I really? What I am willing to pay? How much pain am I willing to endure for this change?

The Price of Motivation

Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

I visited the bookstore yesterday - a very dangerous exercise for me, as I am reminded of how many books there are, and how many of them I want to read (all of them), and my reading speed just isn't up to the task. I need to be more content with dabbling, but it's hard for me to be content with reading just a few books. (I did end up reading Brian McLaren's The Secret Message of Jesus, so I can now authoritative talk about my perceptions rather than passing along assorted rumors. (For anyone who cares, McLaren is a "big name" figure in the "Emerging Church" movement.)

Frequently when I visit bookstores, I'm stunned by the self-help section. It's huge. Apparently we need lots of help. But I also find myself wondering about what motivates me to change. Generally my current lifestyle is, more or less, comfortable. If there were easy, safe, clear options for improving it, I'd make them in a flash. But most change is hard, uncertain, tentative. At a minimum, it's the devil we know (now) verses the devil we don't - who might be a lot bigger, scarier, and more frightening. So what motivates me to change?

Pain: Duh. At some point, I simply decide that change can't be any worse than the current situation, and, being a somewhat rational creature, I gravitate toward the option that might lead to pain reduction.

I wonder how much of my change can be categorized in those terms. The pain of a guilty conscience verses the pain of paying my taxes. The pain of grieving God verses the pain of being scorned by one's friends. (Hrm, I begin to sound like my evolutionary biologist friends.)

The more whimsical mathematical part of me now wants to define joy = (alpha/pain) where alpha is constant, and then all change can be expressed as a function of pain.

I don't entirely like the simplification, but it makes for great character questions...

How much relational conflict is honesty worth to me?
How much contempt from others is pursuing God worth?
Is it worth sacrificially caring for people who scorn and reject me?
How much loneliness is holiness worth?
Is the level of pain the basis for leaving a church or getting a divorce?

Digging the Hole Deeper (Part III)

If I were constructing my list of sins that Christians struggle with the most, here's where I would start. (What follows is very broad strokes; it would take theological volumes to do complete justice to these questions.)

Idolatry: We replace God with something else (power, fame, security, money), someone else, or our own "happier" idea of God.

Disbelief: We don't believe what God tells us...in fact, we openly scorn it.

Distrust: We don't trust in God's character, especially his goodness. (Yes, closely linked to disbelief; disbelief emphasizes God's honesty; distrust, God's intentions.)

Pride: We think too highly of ourselves.

Rebellious: We don't let God be God...we want to run the show. While definitely interwoven with the previous four issues, I don't think rebellion is either completely derived from the others or the root of the others, except in the most general sense.

Often, I think many other struggles are a combination of the above sins interacting with a natural (good) desire. For example, I want to avoid pain (natural, good desire), but I don't believe God that stopping the pain right now is not his will; I don't trust him to get me through the circumstance, I think that I'm too valuable to suffer this way, so I turn to alcohol or video games or a significant other to try and soothe the ache.

I don't particularly think that men and women vary significantly at this root level of sin. I lean toward the thinking that men and women differ strongly in many manifestations of these core issues. I'm not nearly convinced that the typical differences are independent of culture - and my thoughts are pretty limited to the American culture. I think some of my ideas can be traced Biblically and thus universally, but I see this area as an easy one to exceed the authority of scripture on. Also, while I think the struggles are different, I think the common roots keep struggles from being entirely incomprehensible.

Identity: Generally, I see women more tempted to get their value from relationships, where as men are more likely to get their value from accomplishment.

Church: Someone (Tina?) commented on this quote:

On the other hand, women have always been the backbone of the church and I agree with Ken Shneck, they often are the more passionate followers of Christ.

There's definitely an interesting trend toward women being more involved with church. Percentage-wise, I believe most churches have significantly more women than men involved (reference for those who think evidence matters). I've heard a number of interesting thoughts on this phenomenon. Answers range from 'women are more spiritual' to 'God shows greater grace to the oppressed' (discussion of the long-term historical trend) to 'church is too feminine'. Another thought I've heard is that men are harder to get to attend, but are more committed once involved; women easily buy into the community/attending portion of church, but less easily buy into the sacrificial following of Christ bit.

I'm not sure of the actual answer, but I suspect the trend does reflect gender differences in sin.

Here's a few other ideas I've played around with, but with no deep conclusions
Violence: Are men more prone to physical violence/aggression? Why are roughly thirteen times as many men in jail as women?

Modesty: Part of the previous thought, Paul's letter to Timothy contrasts his desire for men to live with holy hands, without anger and disputing while women are to dress modestly (and do good).

Gossip: I toyed around with this one, but wasn't terribly convinced in the end that gossip is a core gender issue...the overarching issue (speech?) seems gender-neutral.

As for the sins drawn up by the class...a few closing thoughts:
Anger: Not sure I see this one as very gender specific (I've known plenty of angry women). I might buy that men tend to express to anger in certain ways - see my violence mutters - that are more blatant.

Pride: It made my top 5 list for both genders. 'enough said.

Self-esteem: See here.

Resentment/bitterness: I have a hard time buying this one as women specific. Perhaps partly because I think resentment and bitterness go hand and hand with anger and pride...and men have plenty of both.

Lack of Trust: Ah yes, the many men I know who trust God to lead them through seeking counsel from others, from serving their bosses wholeheartedly, from listening to their pastors, from obeying their government, and from being obedient to God's word.</sarcasm> Distrust did make my top 5 list.

A Brief Trip Into Trouble (Part II)

A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need but it's on sale.

A man has six items in his bathroom: a toothbrush, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel from the Holiday Inn.
The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify most of these items.

A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend.
A successful woman is one who can find such a man.

A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change and she does.

Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.

Any married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing.

Ah, gender differences. So the context of these thoughts is this article from a couple posts ago. The post talked about students identifying pornography, lust, anger, and pride the four sins that men more strongly struggled with, while self-esteem, resentment, bitterness, and lack of trust were the four woman tended to identify. The article goes on talk about the perceived severity of these sins, and that Christians tend to view men's sins as "more severe" than women's.

So a few thoughts. First, one idea that leaps out to me is women's reactions to men's struggles with lust, especially pornography. A quote from Every Man's Battle neatly capture the essence:

Brenda, Fred's wife, also participated in the interviews. She summarized the typical female response: "I don't want to sound mean, but because women don't generally experience this problem, it seems to us that some men are uncontrolled perverts who don't think about anything but sex. It even affects my trust in men, knowing that pastors and deacons could have this problem. I don't like it that men lustfully take advantage of women in their thoughts...It's at least some comfort to know that many men have this problem. Since most men are affected, we really can't call you guys perverts."

I'm not clear that the typical female reaction of disgust/perversion to men's struggles with lust has an equivalent counter-part with men. I don't know if I've ever heard a man respond the same way to a woman's struggles with self-esteem, resentment, bitterness, or distrust. (Also, I am not implying that women's responses are inappropriate.)

Secondly, I'm reminded of something I once read about suicide (paraphrased):

We easily assume that suicide is related to a lack of self-love. But in fact, suicide is strongly driven by self-love: The current circumstance seems too painful, and therefore the most self-loving course of action is to terminate self.

I have a similar thought about low self-esteem. If we truly thought little of ourselves, we would not greatly struggle with thinking little of ourselves. But a part of us instinctively grasps that we are valuable, that we are in God's image...and we are drawn like a moth toward flame by that which communicates even a sliver of that value to us.

I definitely have a hard time buying that low self-esteem is a "major" sin (although I don't quite agree with Keith that it is an infirmity). I accept that low self-esteem is a consequence of various major sins (disbelief, idolatry come to mind).

The last thought that comes to mind is a Larry Crabb comment about two halves of our evil selves: The animal self and the diabolical self. We often fight (and win) against the animal self (e.g. lust) only to get completely blindsided by the diabolical self (e.g. pride).

I'll try and post some thoughts on gender sins next time.

A Brief Discourse on Sin (Part I)

Well, by popular demand, a few thoughts. First, I think there are clearly severities of sin, not just against people, but against God. For example, I have friends who have repeatedly been sexually abused as children. I'm sure the abusers have also said occasional unkind words to store clerks.

Suppose an abuser were together both his sexual abuse victim and the store clerk in the same room and say "I wanted you both here to ask your forgiveness; I've horribly wronged both of you, and I want to seek reconciliation. So-n-so, I want to ask your forgiveness for snapping at you in the store, and so-n-so, I want to ask your forgiveness for abusing you..."

Something deep within us ought to cry out at how wrong this picture is; that the sexual abuse and passing remarks are not equivalent. They are not the same in their magnitude against people - one is a much greater offense against the image of God, and therefore against God. I would accept as a pastor a man who said something snide to a cashier last week; I would not accept a man as a pastor who sexually abused a child last week.

Likewise, if a man had a habit of both viewing pornography and being rude to strangers, I would have no hesitation in recommending which sin to focus on (given no highly unusual circumstances).

I don't think this inequality is purely from a human perspective either. Various sins are more or less assaults against God and his image, and thus of various offense against God. Here's a few passages that come to mind:

That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. [Jesus, on faithless (non-Christian) servants]

If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. [Paul]

Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

So sin by ignorance is better than sin with knowledge; providing for immediate family is of utmost importance, and it is really bad to refuse to repent when Jesus shows up in your city and does miracles.

I don't mean to suggest that all sins do not have some common attributes: They are great offenses against God (and often people), they separate us from God, they create an humanly unpayable debt owed to God. I don't think an exact "sin severity" chart can be constructed; likewise, if we are aware of only committing "less severe" sins, that ought not be a source of pride. If we truly know ourselves and the fullness of sins we are committing (unlikely), we certainly know our capacity for committing greater sins and this awareness leads to a humble gratefulness toward God's goodness toward us.

As for the gender specific thoughts...well, that is at least not until part II.

And sometimes I forget important links...

These are the responses to the original author's article. There's a nice summary at the bottom of the page.

Sometimes I like to meddle...

There was cute cartoon lion image to go with this post, but sadly my image is not being uploaded. So no cute cuddly line.

Here's a couple cage rattling links written by a columnist that I very much appreciate. He's very good at asking prickly questions. The first deals with American Christian stewardship and the second asks a simple question about gender differences in sin.

Of Hammers and Chisels

It is with no small irony that I note this CNN article about Delay resigning from Congress. It's interesting to watch how the scandal has played itself out from assurances of innocence to fundraising to silence and now to resignation, officially due to "having enough" and to put less pressure on family. Meanwhile, Republican officials comment on what a great leader he was. I don't know about Delay specifically (although what I've seen certainly suggests his guilt), but I do get a little tired of the constant political charade. Has anyone ever thought about commenting "You know, he was really effective at accomplishing our agenda because he excelled at bribery and extortion...we'll miss his results, but we can't have his methods publicly associated with us" as a resignation commentary?

I also have been contemplating this blog about how acceptance and criticism should work together in the context of community. I like the concept. Implementation...well...challenging.

A rebuke impresses a man of discernment...

more than a hundred lashes a fool

No image this week. The Passion of the Christ is a fine movie for illustrating what a hundred lashes can do to someone for those who truly want a picture.

I've been thinking a lot this week about a quote I read from an author I really like (but can't recall which one). The essence of the quote was something like this:

In significant relational transgression (e.g. when one person wrongs another), there is often a necessary period of silence between the two, a period of distance, for the offender to realize the magnitude of the offense. Then, and only then, true reconciliation begin.

I have not captured the thought perfectly, and I don't entirely agree with it as I've put it. But there's more there than I'd like to admit.

Silence verses Condemnation

I find that silence and distance is related to the magnitude of the offense. A friend once lamented to me that often when he brought up pet peeves with certain people, they were overcome with guilt. He was like "Dude, I just want them to wash their hands after playing with the cat before they cook me dinner...not send them into a month long guilt depression." On the other hand, I've been around people who could horribly slander someone, then when confronted shrug it off and be shocked when the other person didn't immediately offer reconciliation.

Realization verses Vindictiveness

A while ago I hurt a friend (Frank). We talked about it, reconciled, and life was good. But Frank had a bad habit of bringing up the offense at the most inopportune moments to tease me. And of course I had no defense - I was in the wrong to begin with, and I could hardly start claiming to be in the right now - leaving Frank free to rub salt in the wound as often as he wish. To be fair, Frank didn't intend to be vindictive, he was merely a bit dense about the consequences of his words. We ended up having another conversation about thoughtful words.

I think there is a line of varying clarity between helping people realize significant wrongs they've committed against us and using those wrongs as assaults against them. Rarely do I think that open and genuine fellowship comes after significant offense without some realization by the offender about what he's done. (And yes, generally all parties involved have made significant contributions.) Some offenses need to simply be let go (your friend forgot to say thank you once in a hundred times...?), and even those that don't require a non-vindictive approach. Broadcasting the offense from the church pulpit (or the blog) doesn't count.