Apologetics

The Path Less Chosen

Standard

In light of the ongoing discussion from Monday’s post (“Killed All the Day Long“), I would like to talk about the path less chosen.

The idea of facing violence with something other than violence sounds crazy. “An eye for an eye” is so ingrained in us that “turn the other cheek” verges on madness. We are told we must always be vigilant so that others do not take away from us those things we believe own, even though the Scriptures say that all is God’s, we are not our own,  and to the one who asks for our shirt must go our cloak also. When asked to go one mile, why go two? Deny ourselves and take up a cross? How could any of that cloak-giving, cheek-turning, self-denying, and second-mile-going possibly profit us?

The older I get in the Lord, the more I understand that we humans are too often people who live at the poles of thought and practice. We think in terms of black and white, especially in the West (oddly enough, given the advanced education we Westerners have received). Attempting to see colors beyond those two is left for misty-eyed dreamers and ivory-towered philosophers. So rarely are we able to lay down our own pride and prejudices to step into the lives and minds of others, especially those whom we see as foes.

The problem of living in such a state is that we miss the path less chosen. The narrow path, by definition, is the one not often found. And it remains obscure because we do not have the mind of Christ, the mind that sees all things as they really are. For some of us, even when we do know the right way, our own willfulness and pride keep us from taking that narrow path.

A few weeks ago, I posted “A Dozen Sayings of Jesus That Will Change the World—If Christians Would Ever Believe Them.” Many of those sayings go unheeded because they ask us to move out of our extremes into a third way, which is Christ’s way. They put us on a narrow path that few take because the majority fails to understand how that path will lead anywhere useful. Such is the nature of our weak minds and hearts that we miss God’s way so readily.

For the rest of the week, I would like to open the conversation by asking a question of readers:

In what situations has Christ led you on a narrow path that was incomprehensible to others, even fellow believers, yet that choice led to major blessings?

Killed All the Day Long

Standard

Jesus said to [Martha], “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
—John 11:25-26

As a younger man, my favorite book was The Journals of Jim Elliot, the personal writings of the famed missionary/martyr. Elliot was always a hero of mine. He and four others were speared to death by aboriginals in Ecuador, people they were trying to reach with the Gospel.

Only recently, They didn't fire their guns...though, did I read an interesting fact: Elliot and his companions carried guns, yet they chose not to fire them in self-defense. Instead, they took the spears and died.

The simple question: why?

Many believe that Elliot and his friends chose to die rather than kill others who, not knowing Christ, would be doomed to hell. They gave up their perceived right to life to keep others  from eternal death. They loved strangers more than they loved their own lives.

When I look around the American Church, I don’t find that mentality. If anything, we are Americans, first and foremost, and our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness trumps any idea of forgoing that right to save another from the lake of fire. Our enemies deserve to burn in hell; they’re our enemies, aren’t they?

Yet the Kingdom of God has different rights than the kingdoms of this earth. For instance, here’s one of the realities of the Kingdom of God:

As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
—Romans 8:36

Paul then notes that this reality makes us more than conquerers.

But we don’t think that way. Our view is that retaliation against our enemies and those who intend to harm us is our right as Americans. Yet Paul says it is for God’s sake that we lay down our lives.

An eye for an eye was most definitely the Old Testament way, as was the sword. But I struggle to find any evidence that the New Testament incorporates that same thinking:

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
—Matthew 26:52

When the inclination is to pick up the sword rather than the cross, then we live by the sword. And we in America most definitely live by the sword because we see it as our right to wield it.

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
—Matthew 5:11-12

Persecuted didn’t just mean opposed, unless Isaiah’s being sawn in two can be considered mere dissent on the part of those who  “persecuted” him.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
—Matthew 5:38-39

What part of “Do not resist the one who is evil” do we not understand?

“But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.”
—Matthew 5:44

Isn’t “Hate your enemies and counterattack those who persecute you” more the way we live? Don’t most of us think a chromed Dan Wesson .45 with a walnut grip a better response to one’s enemies than prayer? Don’t we all smirk when someone offers that we  should “kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out”? Well?

“A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.”
—Luke 6:40

And how were Christ’s disciples like their teacher? Nearly all died deaths at the hands of those who reviled them. What’s more, the Bible hints that they welcomed such a death. (“My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.”—Philippians 1:23 / “And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.”—Revelation 12:11)

“And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”
—Mark 13:11-13

Was Jesus ignorant of how those trials would end?  What retaliatory plans did He offer His followers in the wake of their sentencing?

Here’s a good example of one such trial:

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at [Stephen]. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
—Acts 7:54-60

I believe some would have preferred that Stephen, doing his best Chuck Norris, pull out a couple of AK-47s and dust every last person holding a rock. Yeah, man!

Instead, Stephen died praying for his enemies because he knew that vengeance belongs to the Lord alone.

Paul wrote this:

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
—Philippians 1:21

In that spirit, I offer this scenario (not for the fainthearted):

One day, your enemies come for you and your Christian family. Instead of reaching for your shotgun, you attempt to share the love of Christ with them. Their response? They force you to watch as they rape your daughter, then slit her throat. Then they put a couple slugs into your wife’s face and do the same to you. For a finale, they set your house to flame to ensure that your young son, who is hiding somewhere inside, doesn’t make it out alive.

A few months later, one of those enemies, having heard the life-filled testimonies and seen the holy martyr deaths of enough Christians,  gives his life to Jesus.

I believe that one of the reasons that such a response on our parts seems so inconceivable is because we don’t really live as if a mansion in glory awaits us. The question of Jesus to Martha that opens this post receives an answer of yes in our heads, but no in our hearts. We love this life too much because it’s the only thing that seems real to us. We can’t see the value in giving that up willingly. Only fools, weaklings, and cowards would do such a thing. Better that we go down with a pistol in hand than be thought impotent against our enemies’ attacks.

Yet Jim Elliot’s holstered gun speaks long after its owner took his last breath.

As an American, all this is foreign to me. It’s not the way I have ever thought or even think now.  I encounter an Elliot or a Dirk Willems and such people exist outside my own worldview box. No, I would prefer to think that Corrie and Betsy Ten Boom pulled out a couple Walther P38s and sent a dozen Nazis to hell before they and their family and their boarders were hauled off to the concentration camps. That the Apostle Paul yanked out a secreted knife and gutted his executioner before the Romans managed to strap him down and remove his head.

But when the room is quiet and it’s just the Lord and me, I realize I think that way because my mind is not as Christlike as I would believe.

So I ask, when they finally come for you and me, will we go down fighting like men who don’t believe in the world to come? Or will we kneel in prayer and die like Christians?

Still Looking for a Few Good Men

Standard

When I was growing up, it seemed like men were different.

I can’t put my finger on it exactly—and maybe it’s a rose-colored glasses thing tinted by youth and inexperience—but men seemed more serious back in the 1960s than the men of today. Back then, if a man who lived nearby said he’d meet you at 6 p.m. Friday in a neighborhood park to toss a baseball, he would

—actually show up

—actually show up on time

—show you something you didn’t know, like how to throw a curveball or a sinker

—possibly bring you a ball to keep

—tell you, in passing,  why alcohol and cigarettes were bad for your health

—watch his language like a hawk

—not even consider any “funny business”

And your parents wouldn’t think twice that you were out alone in a park with a man who was not a relative.

I don’t know if men changed or our ability to trust changed, but it’s not that way anymore.

When I was growing up, there was a sense among all the men that they had a responsibility to boys, even those who were not their own sons. Call it that “tribal” feeling—that men, all men, were charged with ensuring the next generation grew up straight and true, into better men than the generation that spawned them.

God help us—what happened to that ideal?

Back when I was at Wheaton, I wrote a paper on a thesis of my own devising concerning the implications of the loss of rites of passage within the Church. I grew up Lutheran, and to be a full voting member of the church, we had to go through catechism and then be grilled on the Faith by the pastor. Real men from properly trained boysThese were not lobbed question, either, but stuff like What is the nature of Man? and How does Man relate to His Creator? (Today, you’d be hard pressed to find a kid in your youth group who could thoughtfully answer those questions.)

That rite meant something. When you successfully navigated it, the world changed. Adults expected more of you. You could sit on church boards and make decisi0ns along with the rest of the adults. And the men in the church treated you like one of their own.

Today, we have too many churches who have abandoned rites of passage. And it shows, especially when you consider that some polls have 80-85 percent of Christian teens renouncing their faith by the time they graduate from college. Too many of those “enlightened” graduates go on to be brain-dead party boys who screw everything that moves and live in perpetual childhood. Back when America was largely agrarian, children meant something: the survival of the family. But today, children have no genuine purpose except to be children. So why should we be surprised when today’s child-men never outgrow that perception, never developing into the kind of men some of us older guys still remember. Now, asking callow youth to grow up seems like trying to blow out the sun, given that for 21+ years no one bothered to model for them what a real man, a real Christian man, looks like.

I’d like to think that I was one of those old school guys, like the kind I used to know. But I’m not really. I realize that the ideal started fraying with my generation, that we were the first boys that had an uncertain manhood awaiting us. Feminism was on the march, the drug culture was firing up, and so was the culture of privilege and entitlement. Somewhere along the way, manhood did a nosedive and has not recovered.

Not convinced? Need an example?

I don’t think a better example exists than with the current financial meltdown. If you were to go back to the founding of the investment houses, like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch, those companies were run by real men. If some smart-aleck tried to run subprime-mortgage-backed derivatives  past Mr. Goldman, Mr. Sachs, the Lehman brothers, or Misters Merrill and Lynch, he’d have one of those founders burying a foot about 18 inches deep in his backside. Why? Because those founders were men, and their names meant something. Getting involved in such tawdry schemes violated their ethics and their sense of who they were as men. Today? Most of what passes for men today would trade their reputations for a quick killing in the market, no matter who got slaughtered in the aftermath. And that’s exactly what we saw exposed last year.

This isn’t an appeal to go kill a bear with a pointy stick, as has been epitomized by much of the Christian men’s movement, but to start getting serious and singleminded again about how we turn boys into men, real men, not the poseurs masquerading as  men today. We need to see genuine rites of passage return to our churches, a passage not into Spartan-like manhood but into proper handling of  the Scriptures, women, children, the work world, and on and on.

My fear? That my generation is so compromised that we won’t be able to reconstruct what it is that we have lost so we can pass on something of worth to the boys following us.

And trust me, that’s something that should make men everywhere genuinely afraid.