LXIV: Caricatures and Mischaracterizations

It's the political season again (if there is ever a time without it), and we see, in full force, caricatures and mischaracterizations. I have no desire to get into the merits or lack thereof in the current political candidates, but I do believe that we need to think just for a moment about how we perceive others.

It is quite easy to go along with the crowd and just accept labels, half-truths, and caricatures of reality. It makes everything nice and neat and compartmentalized. "Liberals like to tax and spend." "Conservatives don't care about poor people." "Liberals are godless." "Religious conservatives just want to turn America into a theocracy."

This is not just about politics. "Liberals do not care about Biblical authority." "Traditionalists are sticks in the mud." How many other such statements could we make?

We live in a society that has been goaded into polarization and extremism, and it comes as no surprise to see plenty of people operating on false beliefs and assumptions regarding others.

Does anyone really think that Democrats want terrorists to win?
Does anyone really think that George W. Bush is the antichrist?

Why is it that so often we must resort to caricature, or false polarities, and not try to work on the substantive issues of the day?

Extremism is by no means restricted to politics; there's plenty of it in religious circles. Rarely is there an attempt to understand and intelligently discuss-- we just want to see what the person says, put them into the box into which we think they should go in our mental compartmentalizations, and provide our stock answers to their disagreement.

How is this productive? How is this an intelligent defense of the faith? What does the Bible say about such things?

The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly (Proverbs 15:14).

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion (Proverbs 18:2).

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words (Proverbs 23:9).

What we see all too often in the political realm is sheer folly, according to wise Solomon. Political pundits are the definition of fools.

Too often, in religious discussions, we play the same foolish role. We think we understand when we do not really understand (and I have done the same on many occasions). We are quicker with answers than with questions; we think we have it figured out when we need to first understand.

Now, I am not saying that we must automatically agree; there is room for disagreement when there is understanding. What I am saying is that we're not going to get anywhere if we just relate to others on the basis of caricatures and mischaracterizations and just spew out pat answers.

We may feel threatened by "godless liberals," "denominationalists," "theocrats," "environmentalists," or whatever other subgroup you can think of, but in the end they're human beings, many of whom need to learn of God or understand Him better, and who just might be, on the whole, rather honest and hard-working Americans like many others. Demonizing those whom we oppose only helps out Satan and his demons, and does not accomplish the purposes of God.

ELDV

LXIII: Jesus on the Cross and Holiness

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, "Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying,
'This is the law of the sin-offering: in the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy; and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it is boiled shall be broken; and if it be boiled in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire'" (Leviticus 6:24-30).

These regulations are being provided specifically to the priesthood and regard the offering for sin. What I found quite interesting from this presentation is the emphasis on holiness: the sin offering is described as "most holy" in verse 25, it is to be eaten in a holy place (v. 26), and anything touching it is made holy (v. 27). If it gets on your clothing, you must wash it in a holy place (v. 28). If the blood gets in a clay vessel, it must be broken; if in a metal vessel, it must be thoroughly cleaned (v. 29).

There is much that we can gain here. First and foremost we see an illustration of holiness in the most concrete way. Holiness is intertwined with sanctification-- being set apart, special to God. There is nothing intrinsically "holy" about said bull, or the location, or its blood. If the bull were used for another purpose, it would not matter where its blood went. If the tabernacle were somewhere else, that plot of dirt would be no different from the plot of dirt next to it. We see that God is teaching Israel about holiness, and we can also learn from this tutor (cf. Galatians 3:24). That which is set apart for God is to be considered special. Elaborate arrangements are made for the handling of the object. Great care is expected to be used. Everything is supposed to be deliberate and according to the specifications of God.

That's what holiness really is. It requires deliberation and calculation. We must strive to act deliberately, differently, and according to God's specifications (1 John 2:1-6, Galatians 5:17-24, 1 Peter 1:13-16). There is nothing intrinsically holy about any of us-- the holiness comes from God's designation, and we are consigned to manifest that designation.

I wonder if this passage also has something to say about Christology. We recognize that the sacrifices, especially the sacrifice for sin, was the earthly copy of the heavenly reality undertaken by Jesus (cf. Hebrews 9:1-15, 10:1-12). There is a theme in the Scriptures that speaks about how Christ was "made sin" for us on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21), and since sin is what separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), it is reasoned that our sin separated Jesus from God while He was on the cross, and hence His quotation of Psalm 22:1 in Matthew 27:46.

This all presupposes, however, that Christ taking on our sins would separate Him from God. Yet look here in Leviticus-- the sin offering is reckoned as being holy. By being the representative sacrifice, the animal is set apart, or made holy, to God.

What if, as opposed to separating Jesus from God, Jesus being the sin offering for all mankind in fact makes Him set apart, or holy, to God? Are we not to be holy, as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16)? Is not sacrificial death represented as an act of love (1 John 3:16), and held up as an example for all of us? Is it possible that Jesus' death is in itself an act of holiness, setting Himself apart for God so that He could set us apart for God (to make us holy/consecrate us/sanctify us) in His blood (cf. Hebrews 10:14)?

Leviticus helps us to understand much about God and the problem of sin and sets before us the physical shadow of the heavenly substance regarding much of our service to God. Let us receive the encouragement and hope that comes from that which was written to Israel (Romans 15:4)!

ELDV

LXII: Division

While preaching recently, I noticed something about 1 Corinthians 12 that I hadn't noticed before:

But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another (1 Corinthians 12:24b-25).

When we speak of "divisions" in the church, we normally gravitate toward divisions on account of false doctrines, or the imposing of a liberty (or the lack thereof), or some other substantive issue, no matter how ridiculous that issue might be.

Yet this does not seem to fit the context here at all. No-- when Paul speaks about division in this passage, division has less to do with doctrine or things as much as a lack of openness, love, and mutual honesty/accountability.

It's a difficult idea to swallow: when we are unloving or discouraging toward the brethren, we create divisions within the body. When we withhold ourselves from the brethren-- do not confess our sins to one another (James 5:16), do not allow others to bear our burdens (Galatians 6:2), and in various ways compose ourselves in ways aloof from our brethren-- we are the authors of division within the body.

The type of division concerning which Paul speaks can only be addressed by members having "mutual care" for one another.

The Body of Christ is not one only by its very nature: it's something to which we must diligently apply ourselves. We can only be one in the body of Christ when we work toward that end, being open with one another, accountable to one another, seeking to both be a source of encouragement and to gain encouragement within the body.

Therefore, when we consider the potential for division within the body of Christ, let us not neglect the divisions caused by a lack of love, a lack of interconnectedness, and a lack of true association/joint participation. These forms of division are just as insipid, if not more so, than the threat of false doctrines et al. After all, remember Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)!

ELDV