Zach’s Theological Musings

  In the previous post I began to explain and defend the idea that humility is “man’s accurate assessment of himself in light of reality”. For a human being, humility is nothing other than reality, and pride is nothing other than imagination and falsehood. To further support that claim, let’s look at how “false humility” is both false and an expression of pride.

  Paul commands,

For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. (Rom 12:3)

We are commanded not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought. Recall that “humility” is related to “lowliness” so thinking too “highly” of ourselves is the opposite of humility. But we are not commanded to think of ourselves as completely, utterly, useless, worthless nothings. Rather, God has allotted to each a measure of faith. There is something significant about us, something that we did not work for, earn, merit, or put in ourselves, but something that God has put in us. Therefore, we are to think so as to have sound judgment, in other words, think of ourselves in accordance with reality. Not puffed up by giving any good credit to ourselves whatsoever, but also not failing to give God the due credit He deserves for the good He has put in us who are His.

  In addition to the spiritual gifts which are in view in the above passage, we also know that every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights (James 1:17). Man was originally made in God’s image. Despite how much we have scarred, destroyed, and overturned that image, it still remains that every creative thing mankind does is an imitation of our Creator at work. We have creative and gifted artists, engineers, scientists, story-tellers, and administrators among men because God is the ultimate Artist, Engineer, Scientist, Story-Teller, and Administrator. When an author, for example, writes a story designed to promote philosophical lies he is guilty in himself of blaspheming God, but at the same time, against his own will, he is also bringing glory to God. For in the very act of using words to “create” new worlds he is like a little child imitating what his father does.

  If someone denies being gifted at something which everyone else knows he is good it, in many or most cases this is probably an expression of pride rather than humility. For example, say we all know that Bob is a gifted musician. If Bob says, “I’m a poor musician”, it could possibly be an expression of humility if, for example:

• Bob spent last night sleeping out in the woods and as he listened to the symphony of frogs, crickets, birds, and wind blowing through the reeds, he was humbled by the reminder that God is orchestrating a billion concerts with trillions of instruments all over the universe simultaneously.

However, when Bob says, “I’m a poor musician”, it could also very well be an expression of pride.

• Perhaps Bob is expressing disappointment over the fact that, as a musician, he is not famous enough to go on stage and have adoring crowds stroke his ego every day.
• Perhaps Bob knows that the more he speaks lowly of himself the more his friends will try to encourage him by praising him, and if he acknowledges his gift then they will not feel as much need to encourage him and thus the praise will stop. 
• If Bob judges his own musical abilities to be poor then very likely his mind will be filled with even harsher condescending thoughts towards a performer who is less gifted than he is.
• Perhaps Bob is crediting himself for the limited musical ability that he does have, and then comparing himself to others who are better, rather than acknowledging that whatever limited ability any of us have comes from God alone.

[Yes, sadly I am an expert in proud thinking.]

  As Christians, we insult God if we say we are not good at anything and that we have nothing to offer. God said that He has given each of us gifts and made each of us to be a part of the church in such a manner that the whole body will hurt if our contribution is lacking (e.g. I Cor 12). Humility doesn’t deny the reality of our gifts, on the contrary, humility always affirms reality by acknowledging that the good in us comes from God and not ourselves. Moreover, humility acknowledges the reality that the reason God gives us gifts is not to puff us up, but to serve others because in reality others’ interests truly are above our own.

  For example, if in fact God has given me a gift in expressing challenging insights from the Bible through writing, then the reason is because God cares so much about you that He has compelled me to communicate these things to you, dear reader. Since your interests are more significant than mine, God has made me to be your servant. Likewise, God has given you gifts because of His love and His desire to provide those gifts, not merely to you, but even more so to the people around you, because their interests are more significant than yours.

  So “false humility” really is false humility. That is to say, “false humility” is pride. “False humility” fails to bring me down to the level of being your servant with the gifts, abilities, and resources that I have. Let no such pride cause any of us to say or to think or say that we have nothing significant to contribute to the church, the advance of the kingdom of God, and the display of the glory of Christ to the world around us. Rather, in true humility, with sound judgment, let each one affirm the reality of the gift(s) he has received, and in humility let him use it to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms (I Peter 4:10)!

  The literal concept behind the root of the Greek words for humility, from what I can tell, is basically “lowliness” - “not rising far from the ground” (Thayer & Smith). Now, sometimes the word “humility” is taken to mean something like “considering yourself as more more lowly than you really are”. But what a proud concept of humility that is! As if considering ourselves to be lowly required some form of deception or pretending!

  Philippians 2:3-4 says,

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Many years ago my proud heart was struck with the new idea (!) that this passage was not calling me to “act as if” others were better than myself, but to live according to the reality of the fact that my (genuine) interests really are no more significant than anyone else’s (genuine) interests. My interests usually feel more significant to me than the interests of others, but that feeling is not in line with reality.

  Ten years later, I keep going back to this passage and preaching to myself that others’ interests really are at least as great as my own. There is nothing about me which is more important than anyone else. And every time my heart responds with, “Huh? Really?” So I keep reminding myself, and hopefully the truth will sink in more and more.

  The reality of the universe is that God is at the center and billions of people, of whom I am only one, are gathered around Him to bow the knee (Phil 2:10). It is not God and Zach at the center, with everyone else gathered around. Certainly that fact is obvious to you (unless your name is also Zach), but it is a challenge for me to accept it. It is not even God, followed by God’s inner circle of Zach and a few others, and then all those other people in the outer circles. No! Can you believe it, it is only God in the center!?

  In fact, there is a further reality check that keeps me in my place. It appears that perhaps there is an inner circle, and I’m not part of it! I mean, Jesus told His apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt 19:28), and then there are the twenty-four elders who sit on their twenty-four thrones (Rev 4). Now I don’t know who these twenty-four elders are, but out of all of God’s people throughout all of history, am I going to be one of the twenty-four elders? Nope. Now, I suppose that the meaning of these passages is debatable. Perhaps everybody gets a throne. Or perhaps the “twenty-four elders” are symbolic of something else. I don’t know. But I tell you what: if God does want to exalt some of His saints above others for all of eternity then I say He has every right to do that!And if I am at the boundary of the outermost circle, as long as I get to partake of the beautiful radiance of His glory that He promised to all of us who trust in Christ (I will hold Him to that promise), then that is great. What more can you ask for — a throne? A crown? Come on.

Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;
Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,
Who wert and art and evermore shalt be.

  Looking through the uses of “humble” and “humility” it seems to me that, with one exception, the Bible is never talking about man making himself to be lower than he really is. When we are called to humble ourselves, it is not a call to play make believe, but rather a call to get in touch with reality. The one exception is Phil 2:8, “And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!” Jesus made Himself lowly in a way which was not inherent to His nature.  For the rest of us human beings, as utterly dependent creatures, lowliness is inherent to our nature. Therefore I would propose the following as perhaps not complete definitions, but at least as food-for-thought definitions:

Humility — Man’s accurate assessment of himself in light of reality

Pride — Man’s false assessment of himself

Glorious — God’s assessment of Himself (which obviously is accurate)

  In the previous post I pointed to the fact that any uneducated subsistence farmer, hunter/gatherer, or primitive jungle dweller with (hypothetically) no religious or philosophical upbringing whatsoever has (literally) all the evidence in the world to show him that an eternal power with divine nature (i.e. intelligent supreme being) created this universe. There will be no excuse for atheism whatsoever on Judgment Day. (Indeed most primitive jungle dwellers probably have a more accurate spiritual worldview than most of the educated citizens of the “modern” world.)

  In a similar (though not identical) manner, the fact that “the thing that is kicking around inside of a woman’s bulging belly is a baby human being” is something that people have understood in all societies throughout all of history since the very beginning (e.g. Gen 25:23).

  Yes, the Bible does affirm the humanity of life in the womb, but it does so on a deeper level than we often give it credit for. Consider for example:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. (Ps 139:13)

As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (Luke 1:44)

These passages don’t set out to teach that the thing in the womb is a baby, rather they assume that anyone who is old enough to understand the word “womb” while hearing/reading this passage is also old enough to know that the thing inside of a human womb is a baby human being. (In fact, even that assumption is stronger than necessary. An older sibling often grasps the fact that the thing in mommy’s tummy is his baby brother/sister long before the word “womb” even makes it into his vocabulary.) Psalm 139:13 builds off of the fact that you already know that the “me” of today comes directly from the “me” in my mother’s womb, and uses this existing knowledge to declare the fact that God has been with “me” since before I was born. Likewise, in Lk 1:44 Elizabeth doesn’t need to say, “The thing in my womb leaped for joy and that thing was a baby!” That would be silly! There is no need to say the things that are obvious.

  But then what do you do when you run across something like the American pro-choice movement which denies the obvious? First of all, let me note that this “fetus is not a baby” idea does seem to be a particularly American gimmick for defending abortion. Angie and my experience is that many Asians are quite comfortable to say, “Oh yes, of course we know that is a baby, and of course we know that abortion kills the baby.” And then they go off and kill the baby; no big deal, right? Addressing that sort of evil is another matter still.

  But as for the Americans, come on. Does anyone really believe this line of reasoning:

1. Killing babies is a horrendously evil thing to do, but
2. There is not 100% scientific or philosophical consensus regarding what point “life” begins in the womb, therefore
3. Abortion is fine because maybe the fetus isn’t actually considered a baby anyway?

I would be extremely surprised if you could find someone who really holds to that line of reasoning. I mean, come on. What would such a person who was supporting abortions say when it turns out that, oh dear, we were in fact killing babies after all? “Oops”?

  The American pro-choice movement needs to come clean, drop the sham argument, and at least be honest about its real motives. I mean, come on. Can’t we be completely honest and say that the real force behind the pro-choice movement in America goes more along these lines:

1. Recreation, especially free sex, is the greatest thing we know in the world, and the only thing we have found that is worth living for.
2. The perfect dream life would be to get laid as frequently, easily, and with as insignificant of consequences as all those people on TV do.
3. I have the unalienable right to the “pursuit of happiness”.
4. Babies add responsibility and get in the way of my pursuit of happiness, especially free sex.
5. Therefore killing babies is often a better choice than missing out on more orgasms (and more opportunities for other forms of recreation).

  The pro-life movement in America, though I love the good intentions, is perhaps falling into a trap by getting caught up in arguments about what that thing inside of mommy’s belly should be called, anyway. It’s a baby, everybody knows that. Haven’t you ever made up a ridiculous sham argument to avoid responsibility for something you knew deep down was wrong? I’ve done it a bunch, and of course you have too. We need to recognize that’s all there is to the “fetus is not a baby” line. The primitive jungle man of Papua New Guinea would laugh hysterically to hear that the rich, university-educated American says he isn’t sure what that thing inside of a pregnant woman is. And I would laugh too if such “silliness” wasn’t being used to justify infanticide.

  Let me then close this post with the same constructive suggestion as what I gave in the previous post. You can often skip over people’s sham arguments that even they, deep down, know to be false. Feel free to go ahead and get right down to the deeper issues that the sham argument is simply covering up.

  I think we sometimes do a disservice to the truth by defending it. Statements which are obvious do not need to be defended. Therefore when we defend a statement we are implicitly acknowledging that it is not obvious. Certainly a great many statements DO need to be defended. But some don’t. In particular, it can sometimes be counter-productive to try to “defend” facts like:

1. God is real (i.e. a divine being with eternal power created this world), and
2. The thing growing inside of a human mommy is a baby human-being.

  Now someone will say, “The truth of those statements is not clear to everyone.” But the person who says that is wrong. I’ll get back to the second point above in a subsequent post. Regarding the first point, God says this,

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Rom 1:20-21)

An “atheist” or “agnostic” standing before God on Judgment Day cannot defend themselves with, “But God, I just didn’t know. I mean, the ontological argument seemed to have all these philosophical gaps and, and…”. Now, I can’t claim to know what God would say to such things, but He very well could say, “You knew about Me. I made it obvious. Now why did you choose to reject Me?”

  A couple of years ago I realized that by endlessly trying to “defend” the existence of God to an atheist friend, I was not adequately preparing him for that Day. My friend may be able to light-heartedly banter around excuses for ignoring his Creator today, but on that Day there will be no more excuses. “I grew up in a society that doesn’t believe in God. God never revealed Himself to me. How can there be a good God when there is so much evil in the world?” None of these things will allow anyone to slip past the penetrating examination of the Judge of man’s soul. Rather, on that Day every mouth will be silenced, and the whole world held accountable to God for our sin (Rom 3:19-20). So I warned my friend, “God is not going to accept any of your excuses for ignoring Him.”

  Someone has pointed out that the language of the Bible calls Christians to be “witnesses” not “attorneys”. Picture the courtroom analogy; our job is not to defend the truth, but to state what we know. That’s what I Peter 3:16 is talking about, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” I don’t think that I Peter 3:16 is a mandate to be well versed in apologetics. The reason for the hope that is within me is because I have come to know that Jesus Christ the Lord died for my sins, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring me to God. And that is the hope that I need to be prepared to communicate.

  The Bible begins with, “In the beginning God created…,” not, “In the beginning there was a God and He created…”. Note the difference; God does not cater to the self-delusion of the “atheist/agnostic” by even counting it as necessary to state the fact of His existence. As God has spoken, we also in the spirit of assured faith can speak confidently and authoritatively about what we know to be true. “Since God is Lord of heaven and earth,… therefore you should repent” is an appropriate way to speak, even to unbelieving pagans (Acts 17:24-30).

  Pluralists speak from the perspective of their pluralistic worldview. If we don’t share their worldview then we won’t talk like them. We give in to a pluralistic society if we allow them to train us to speak like them, saying, “Well, my belief is that there is a God…”.

  I can think of only two times in the Bible that God addresses atheism head-on:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps 14:1)

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps 53:1)

We are acting like fools if we even speak in terms like, “If God exists,” or, “If God does not exist”.  Now, there is a time to answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes (Prov 26:5). But there is also a time to not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him yourself (Prov 26:4). Oftentimes, an adequate response to atheism is simply, “Stop being foolish. You are going to have to answer to God one day.”

  Last time I gave some reasons to be thankful that God makes promises which put Him in a self-made box. But reading through a concordance search on the “I will not” statements of God reveals another aspect as well. It would not accurately reflect the Biblical record if we only looked at one side. God’s promises give reason to rejoice to those who delight in Him but also reason to tremble on behalf of those who do not fear the Lord.

  This is nowhere more clear than in Amos. We know that repetition is one of the main Hebrew mechanisms for emphasis (e.g. “verily, verily”, “truly, truly”). So God could not have made it any more clear than in the refrain of Amos that His wrath against ungodliness is for certain:

For three sins of Damascus, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. (Amos 1:3)

For three sins of Gaza, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. (Amos 1:6)

For three sins of Tyre, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. (Amos 1:9)

For three sins of Edom, even for four, I will not turn back my wrath. (Amos 1:9)

For three sins of Ammon, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. (Amos 1:13)

For three sins of Moab, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. (Amos 2:1)

This is what the LORD says: “For three sins of Judah, even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath]. Because they have rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept his decrees, because they have been led astray by false gods,the gods their ancestors followed, I will send fire upon Judah that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem.”
This is what the LORD says:
“For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back [my wrath]. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name. They lie down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge. In the house of their god they drink wine taken as fines.” (Amos 2:4-8)

Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. (Amos 5:22-23)

  I have often heard parents make threats against their children in order to get them to behave, then seen the children continue to misbehave and the parents not follow through. The parents just keep making threats and getting increasingly frustrated. (I don’t think that is a good way to train children, by the way. Give them warnings that you intend to enforce.) Likewise, perhaps many of us have at various times entertained the thought in our mind that in the end God will turn back from all of His stern warnings and just accept everybody. But no, He will not. God’s wrath against those who continue to hate Him, disbelieve on Him, and reject His ways is for sure. Look at the threats God has made in the past; He does follow through. Now is the time to repent.

  God is holy, just, and righteous. When He comes in judgement, no hidden deed done in darkness will remain unaccounted for (Eccl 12:14). Thus it would appear that every human being should be headed for condemnation in light of statements like this:

[The LORD said to Moses,] “Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.” (Ex 23:7)

We are all guilty of the capital crime of treason against God’s kingdom and its King. And yet, somehow, God offers a ray of hope, even in a place like the book of Amos: 

“Surely the eyes of the Sovereign LORD are on the sinful kingdom. I will destroy it from the face of the earth- yet I will not totally destroy the house of Jacob,” declares the LORD. “For I will give the command, and I will shake the house of Israel among all the nations as grain is shaken in a sieve, and not a pebble will reach the ground. All the sinners among my people will die by the sword, all those who say, `Disaster will not overtake or meet us.’ In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be.” (Amos 9:8-11)

  How can it be that any man will be acquited in God’s courtroom when all of us are sinners? It is because the one and only innocent and honest person who ever lived was put to death so that our guilt might be put on Him. The tent of this Son of David could not remain fallen (John 2:19-22), and He was restored to gather together the people from all nations who bear His name (Acts 15:15-18).