culture

  • Chivalry versus Love, part 2

    I received a large number of thoughtful responses from my earlier post "Chivalry versus Love" (http://tim223.xanga.com/724969192/chivalry-versus-love/).   I thought I'd post some excerpts here.  I've posted them without identifying information for internet privacy, but if you'd like me to attribute your comment with your name, I'll gladly comply.

    • I was reading your post about Chivalry. For the most part I agree with you. Focusing on imitating Christ and our relationship with God is by far the most important thing. And most of Chivalry is outdated and makes no sense in our society where men and women are supposed to be equal. There are some good lessons from it such as honoring your word but those can also be learned from the Bible. However, with in romantic relationships such as courting or marriage I think there is some place for it. Not so much the idea of Chivalry but some of the traditions. I agree that agape love is by far the most important even in these relationships, but not everything done has to be self sacrificial to be important. It is important that in these relationships both the man and the woman feel valued, loved, and cared for. However, as you pointed out men and women are made different by God. For some women little gestures that let them know that their husband is thinking about them and paying attention to them is important. If the way a woman feels loved is by having doors held and her husband help her with her coat I don't think that there is a problem with that. Some women don't care they need other things from their husband to feel loved and cared for and then it doesn't matter. The same thing goes for men. If a man feels loved by his wife because she opens the door for him than that is good too, but I think this is less common. But there are other small things she may do for him that make him feel loved, cooking dinner, watching football with him, making sure the coffee is made, leaving love notes for him. Whatever works for those two people. My point is that the little things matter in relationships, certainly not more than the big things like honoring God, but they do still matter. Have you heard the idea of love languages? Different people need different things to feel loved and you do those little things for that person not because someone told you you have to but because you love them and you want them to know that and feel loved. In some cases the "gentlemanly" behavior may be an important part of a person's love language and I don't think that is a problem as long as the little acts are done out of love and caring.

     

    • Just a comment - what if doing the "chivalrous" thing is received as love by the other person. Sometimes love isn't as clearly defined as we think it could or should be.... I think a lot of women feel loved by having guys do certain things for them. Personally I am kind of weirded out by a guy who would have me sit in the car while he ran around and opened the door for me, but on the other hand, I always unlock my passenger's door first before I open mine. I think it's more about the other person's love language, so to speak, and how they receive love. Giving a girl flowers is a cultural thing, and neutral as far as I know in the Bible, but can make women feel special/loved.

     

    • "Tim, C S Lewis essay: "The Necessity of Chivalry" is a must read. It is one included in the "Present Concerns essays" ... We men need a balance between ferocious protecting and genteel manners. The extremes are barbarians and Joe spineless milk toast..."

     

    • I have quite a different perspective on this coming from the deep South. Southern Antebellum culture was intentionally modeled after books like Ivanhoe, even down to adopting jousting as a hobby. The ideal women were fair and plump because it meant they had a man capable enough, blessed enough, or who loved them enough to provide for them. While expectations have significantly subsided in this post-invasion era, many traditions are still very commonplace. I was taken back initially at [] that women would actually comment that I was "so polite" for making gestures without a second thought including opening doors for women, children, and elderly, removing my hat when indoors, saying Ma'am or miss. I was appalled when I saw a gent get stuck holding the door as very capable men would pass through as if they were entitled to the service. As far as  treating women with respect, it stems from the idea of headship. Men are called to be priest, prophet, and protector of the weaker vessels within their sphere of influence. The number one trait of a good leader is servant-hood. Lavishing upon women is to share in the abundance of blessing afforded us by God.  But like anything, if it is done out of obligation, it is not love. That is difficult to keep in perspective.

     

    • Finally, a conversation with other friends cited the following passage from 1 Corinthians 9: "19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.  20To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;  21to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.  22To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some."  -  and the application was argued that chivalry is one of those things - that some cultures and regions of the world place a high value on chivalry such that one needs to "speak chivalry as the cultural language" in order to avoid making any unnecessary stumbling blocks for the spread of the gospel in that place.

     

    My previous post argued that chivalry was generally "ok", though most of it was already covered by the Bible's commands about agape love, and parts of it were either completely silly, neutral, or anti-Biblical, and that one ought to seek intimacy with God rather than chivalry.

    In light of all the comments, it seems that most people agree that chivalry is more of a cultural thing than a moral thing, but they caveat that there are times when speaking the cultural language of chivalry might be the morally right thing to do.  For example, if you're married to a woman whose "love language" is chivalry, or if you're trying to share Christ with people whose culture is strongly chivalrous.  1 Cor 9:22 is a pretty powerful verse... it seems to imply that anything cultural pattern that's not actually "Biblically-wrong"/"immoral" is fair game to "wear" for kingdom purposes.

  • Chivalry versus Love

    Chivalry versus Love

    What are your thoughts on chivalry?  Is it a good thing?  A bad thing?  What is it, precisely?

    My 'pet peeve' against 'chivalry' continues to grow with each passing month... and so this post continues a discussion of chivalry started in a previous post (http://tim223.xanga.com/721860037/godliness-versus-the-art-of-manliness/).  (However, when I say I dislike chivalry, you'll have to read more to see what I mean). A micro outline of what follows: first, some attempts at defining chivalry.  Second, an initial comparison with the Bible.  Third, a deadly danger of chivalry.  Fourth, some frustrating common-sense contradictions and rants about chivalry.  Finally, an exhortation.  I have had so many thoughts about this subject that I am sure I'll not be able to write it all - please then, if you agree or disagree or want to clarify or caveat, post your comment and let's continue the discussion!

    First then, what is chivalry? 

    The first two definitions from Dictionary.com say:

    Chivalry: 1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms. 2. the rules and customs of medieval knighthood.

    Reference.com expands a bit more... "a fusion of Christian and military concepts of morality and still form the basis of gentlemanly conduct"... The chief chivalric virtues were piety, honor, valor, courtesy, chastity, and loyalty. The knight's loyalty was due to the spiritual master, God; to the temporal master, the suzerain; and to the mistress of the heart, his sworn love. Love, in the chivalrous sense, was largely platonic; as a rule, only a virgin or another man's wife could be the chosen object of chivalrous love."
    "In practice, chivalric conduct was never free from corruption, increasingly evident in the later Middle Ages. Courtly love often deteriorated into promiscuity and adultery and pious militance into barbarous warfare. Moreover, the chivalric duties were not owed to those outside the bounds of feudal obligation. The outward trappings of chivalry and knighthood declined in the 15th cent., by which time wars were fought for victory and individual valor was irrelevant."

    I think that characterization of chivalry as a "fusion" of Christian and military/cultural precepts is deadly accurate.   My desire is to separate out this "fusion" into what I am beginning to understand are its two constitutive parts: God's law, and cultural traditions.

    First, a bit more definition of chivalry.  The above definitions implicated "courtly love".  Ask.com gives the following definition of "courtly love" -
    "Courtly love was a medieval European conception of nobly and chivalrously expressing love and admiration. Generally, courtly love was secret and between members of the nobility. It was also generally not practiced between husband and wife.
        [ right away the above statement should be a red flag that 'courtly love' is antibiblical... ]
    Courtly love began in the ducal and princely courts of Aquitaine, Provence, Champagne and ducal Burgundy, at the end of the eleventh century. In essence, courtly love was an experience between erotic desire and spiritual attainment that now seems contradictory, "a love at once illicit and morally elevating, passionate and disciplined, humiliating and exalting, human and transcendent".
    The term "courtly love" was first popularized by Gaston Paris in 1883, and has since come under a wide variety of definitions and uses, even being dismissed as nineteenth-century romantic fiction. Its interpretation, origins and influences continue to be a matter of critical debate.
    Richard Trachsler claims that "the concept of courtly literature is linked to the idea of the existence of courtly texts, texts produced and read by men and women sharing some kind of elaborate culture they all have in common." (Busby) He argues that many of the texts that scholars claim to be courtly also include "uncourtly" texts, and argues that there is no clear way to determine "where courtliness ends and uncourtliness starts"."

    Well, that sounds pretty yucky.  But maybe chivalry is higher and better than "courtly love"...?  Or at least, some parts of chivalry...?

    Here are a few more links:
    http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm - a distillation of chivalry principles: Prowess, Justice, Loyalty, Defense, Courage, Faith, Humility, Largesse, Nobility, Franchise.

    http://mysuperchargedlife.com/blog/men-revive-chivalry-virtue-honor-love/ - with some practical examples of so-called modern chivalry

    http://medievalisms.blogspot.com/2007/02/death-of-chivalry.html - I like this phrase: "...courtesy is rooted in practicality."

     http://community.artofmanliness.com/group/chivalry/forum/topics/current-forms-of-chivalry
    Quote:
    "Have any of you cats ever heard of Southern Manners? I live in Virginia, below the Mason-Dixon, and In recent years have begun making every attempt to practice Southern manners. All allusions to slavery aside, as that is a thing of the past, and distasteful, I'm quite proud to be a Southern Man.
    I open the door for women, I stop if I see them stranded on the side of the road (flat tire, etc..), if I see a mother with multiple children and armload/shopping cart full of groceries, I can't help but ask if she needs a hand. Standing up when a woman leaves the house, or the table (I'm working on making this one habit, it's a new one to me), as well as common table manners.... All these things are part of being a true Southern Gentleman, in my personal opinion."

    Next, this five-part series from The Rebelution, a blog of Christians Alex and Brett Harris (brothers of Josh 'I Kissed Dating Goodbye' Harris), including an interesting quote from Al Mohler.   My basic question after reading their posts is:  "From whom comes this call to be 'chivalrous' and 'gentlemanly' and to 'do hard things' in general?  Does it come from God??? or from man???"
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/08/modern-day-gentleman/
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/08/when-lancelot-comes-riding-part-1/
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/09/the-big-misunderstanding/
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/09/receiving-counterfeit-chivalry/
    http://www.therebelution.com/blog/2006/09/when-chivalry-is-inconvenient/

    Finally, http://marshall.freeshell.org/chivalry.html - This link is a great collection of actual examples of ancient chivalry and chivalry principles (and some courtly love principles).  It includes such things as "defend the weak and innocent" and "avoid lying" and "be polite and attentive."   This article is only perhaps one or two pages long and is worth reading if you are at all interested in chivalry and this discussion.

    Those things sound great!  "Defend the weak and innocent" sounds like Isaiah 58 and SO MANY other places in the Bible -

        6"Is this not the fast which I choose,
             To loosen the bonds of wickedness,
             To undo the bands of the yoke,
             And to let the oppressed go free
             And break every yoke?
        7"Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry
             And bring the homeless poor into the house;
             When you see the naked, to cover him;
             And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
        8"Then your light will break out like the dawn,
             And your recovery will speedily spring forth;
             And your righteousness will go before you;
             The glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.
        9"Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
             You will cry, and He will say, 'Here I am '
             If you remove the yoke from your midst,
             The pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness,
        10And if you give yourself to the hungry
             And satisfy the desire of the afflicted,
             Then your light will rise in darkness
             And your gloom will become like midday.


    Actually however, the Bible's teaching about love completely obviates, precedes, supercedes, and in every way blows chivalry out of the water:
     
    Matthew 22
     35One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,
     36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
     37And He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
     38"This is the great and foremost commandment.

     39"The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
     40"On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

     
    and

    "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."  (Luke 6:31)

     

    Here then is my basic thought about chivalry - Chivalry adds nothing of value to the Bible's teaching about love, but it adds a lot of dangerous cultural baggage. 

    Cultural baggage by itself can be bad, because it makes people try to safeguard tradition at the expense of God's law (Mark 7:8), but there is a deeper danger - chivalry makes people feel good about their own politeness and big public acts of altruism, leading them to deceive their own souls about their own actual inner wickedness and desperate need for God's salvation.

    The good can be the enemy of the best.  Chivalry can mask people's need for the gospel.  Recall this short and hard-hitting story from Jesus (Luke 18) -

    And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
    "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.'
    But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'
    I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.""

    Is there anything wrong with fasting twice a week or tithing?  What does Jesus' story imply?  Didn't Jesus himself fast and pay money to the temple?

    Is there anything wrong with chivalry?  If it gives you confidence in your own 'nobility' and 'courtesy' and 'integrity', it is leading you straight into hell.

    Where is your righteousness?   Where is my righteousness?  If we are trusting in ourselves, we are lost!  Only if we are trusting in Jesus and His death/life/goodness on our behalf are we safe and right with God.

    At this point some one will say, "Tim, I agree with you on the importance of admitting one's absolute wickedness before God and one's absolute dependence on Jesus for salvation.  But after one is saved, when we are urged to 'walk in a manner worthy of your calling' (Ephesians 4), surely chivalry is at least a reasonably correct set of guidelines?"

    The aspects of chivalry that align with the Bible's command to love one's neighbor as oneself, yes.  But are there not some aspects of "Southern Gentlemanliness" and chivalry that are purely cultural and have no love-your-neighbor value?

    How about these questions toward figuring out what parts of the chivalry guidelines are useful and what parts are not:
      - Can this practice be applied by either men or women?  (since both men and women are required to love their neighbors as themselves)
      - Does this practice demonstrate love toward the other person?  ('agape' self-sacrificial love, not 'eros' "cant-stop-thinking-about-you"/romantic/'courtly'/Hollywood love)

    How about some examples of classically "chivalrous" deeds (please remind me of any other classics that come to mind!)...

    1. Holding open a building door for someone

    This would seem to fit into 'looking out for the other person's best interest (Philippians 2)/agape love', as in seeking to minimize their expenditure of calories and sending a signal of friendship in being aware of their presence and small 'need'.  Also, it's something that a man could do for a woman or a woman for a man.  If the person being helped was physically weak or handicapped, it would definitely fit this category.

    2. Men (specifically) holding open building doors for women (specifically)

    This would seem to be a cultural artifact.  Are women physically in "need of help" in getting the door open?  Not in most cases.  It seems to be a case of:  'Chivalrous gentlemen always hold the door open for women.'  'Why?'  'Because that's the way it's always been.' 

    3. Same as above for helping someone carry heavy items, assisting at a roadside breakdown, helping a beleaguered person in an unjust fight, etc.  It would seem that these could be applied equally to men or women and could be expressions of agape love.

    4. Standing up when a woman enters the room

    How does this demonstrate agape love?  Is this not a mere cultural tradition?  If I'm wrong on these things, please let me know.

    5. A man coming around to the passenger side car door to open the door for his wife

    Again, how does this demonstrate love?  Is the woman physically unable to open the door for herself?  If the woman came around to the drivers' side door to open the door for her husband, would that likewise demonstrate love? 

    6. In certain African countries, it is the culture for men to laze in the shade while the women carry heavy loads of water pots, wood piles, etc and tend the gardens.  In many places it would be culturally inappropriate for a man to "do woman's work" in helping his wife physically.  But would "love your neighbor as yourself" call the man to a different role? 

    7. A man throws his coat down over a puddle so that a woman can walk over it

    Hmmm...  why not have both people walk around the puddle?   :)     Seriously though, wouldn't it be equally loving for the woman to do it for the man, or the man to do it for the woman?

    8. A man helping his wife put her coat on, and/or a woman helping her husband putting his coat on...

    Seems applicable to both men and women.  What about a random man 'helping' random women put their coats on or random women 'helping' random men put their coats on?  Eh... probably shady and thus unadvisable, depending on the situation.

    9. A man offers his chair for a woman, then stands or takes a floor seat

    This would seem to be potentially applicable for both men and women, as a gesture of welcome.  I.e. a man could do this for another man, or a woman could do this for a man, etc.  "Culture" and "chivalry" prescribe this only in the case of a man for a woman (perhaps from a background of trying-to-impress-the-girl?), but love would seem to prescribe this equally to and from all...?   On the other hand, if the newcomer to the room was a pregnant woman or an elderly man or a handicapped man or someone else who could really use a seat, agape-love would seem to absolutely impel such behavior.  I.e not "I'm giving up my seat because that's the type of high-quality man that I am", but instead "I'm giving up my seat because I delight to show agape-love to other people because that's the type of love that God has shown to me, wretch that I am."

     

    Finally then, an exhortation.  

    It is a well known general principle that men tend to seek to be respected, honored, and admired while women tend to seek to be cherished, accepted, and loved.  This seems to be part of the way that God has 'wired' us... and God's commands for husbands and wives perfectly fit men's and women's wiring: "Husbands... love [agape] your wives"; "Wives... submit yourselves to your husbands" (Ephesians 4-6 and many other places in the Bible).

    However, if you try to get your satisfaction from other people (whether spouse, family, or friends), you will end up empty and broken.  Your and my ultimate satisfaction, for those of us who are followers of Jesus Christ, will only come after this life....

    Hebrews 11-13, 13:14 "For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come."

    Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."

    Lamentations 3:24- "'The Lord is my portion,' says my soul, 'therefore I have hope in Him.'"

    Women, find your satisfaction in the God who offers you true love (pathetic though you are)! If you're married, don't complain that your husband is unchivalrous to you.  If you're unmarried, don't seek the perfect 'Southern Gentleman' and expect that he will make you happy.  Instead, revel and be filled and satisfied with God's perfect, eternal, unchanging love, in Christ Jesus, for you!  (and don't settle for anything less than a man who LOVES [agape] God and others, and seek to instill this in yourself too ("I, Isaac, take thee, Rebekah")).
    "Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written,
             "For your sake we are being put to death all day long;
             We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
    But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." 
    (Romans 8:35-39, see also 8:28-34)

    Men, find your satisfaction in the God who offers you true glory and honor (despicable though you are)!  If you're married and your wife disrespects you and denies your requests and bosses you around, remember that God's esteem and approval is far more important to seek than hers... don't put your energy toward becoming a chivalrous gentleman; put your energy toward knowing God and making Him known.  If you're unmarried, don't expect to someday find the perfect woman who will completely satisfy you, nor attempt to add more 'chivalry' to your life in order to attract such a woman.  Remember Jesus' question "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" (John 5:44) and Psalm 73:25-26 "Whom have I in heaven but You? [God]     And besides You, I desire nothing on earth.    My flesh and my heart may fail,     But God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever."  Practice loving [agape] others (Genesis 24:19) as Jesus Christ has loved you...
    Remember the inestimably glorious call of God:
       Thus says the LORD,
             "Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.
       Where then is a house you could build for Me?
             And where is a place that I may rest?
       "For My hand made all these things,
             Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD.
       "But to this one I will look,
             To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

     

  • Cultural values

    What cultural values shape your priorities and actions?

    I have heard it said that western (european and north american) societies are based on an "Innocence versus Guilt" mentality, wheras eastern (middle-east, far east, and northern africa) societies are based on an "Honor versus Shame" mentality, and that tribalist (southern africa, rural tribes in all other parts of the world) societies are based on a "Strength vs Weakness" mentality.

    In many anthropological and missiological circles, this is taken as established fact and rarely questioned.  And there are good reasons to see these basic differences as real.   For example, see this anecdote (http://www.iculturelink.com/pitfalls-for-westerners-in-a-shame-based-culture/) and many other such published anecdotes.

    Westerners, so the theory goes, are very concerned with doing what is "right" and avoiding what is "wrong".  Those in Oriental cultures however, says the theory, are more concerned with doing what will bring honor... not only to the person themselves, but to the person's family.  These cultures are more focused on the group / the collective in general, as opposed to more of an individualistic focus in Western cultures.   For this reason the concept of "saving face" is more important in Eastern cultures.

    I think there's a fair amount of truth to the generalization.  However, I have a few thoughts.

    1. Often these categories are brought out by people who are trying not merely to describe, but to prescribe.
    That is, when someone like David Marantz writes his book "Afrian Friends and Money Matters", although they generally try to stay neutral ("this is how an African thinks about friendship"), they sometimes slip into persuasion mode ("these are the problems with how Americans conceive of friendship").
    Likewise with these categories.  The persuasion can be mild and innocent, as in trying to help someone understand a non-western culture so as to not offend people when he/she travels there, or it can be subtle/deadly, as when someone suggests that the understanding of the Gospel that emphasizes Christ's substitutionary propitiatory atonement for individuals' sins is misguided and is superseded/overshadowed by the Bible's teaching about ethics and personal morality or the global kingdom-of-God teachings.
    In other words, if one is simply pointing out differences between societies, fine.  But if one goes beyond this and indicates that we shouldn't be so focused on guilt/innocence because that's a culturally myopic "Western" perspective on the gospel, I say in response that the Bible itself is our only absolute standard...   And what if, in fact, the Bible has had a historically larger effect on "western" society than on "eastern" society (e.g. when Paul the apostle was directed into Europe by the Holy Spirit rather than into Asia, in Acts 16)?  Our goal is not the average of all cultures, but conformity to the Bible!
    Learning about other cultures' subconscious/ingrained values can be helpful in understanding our own cultural glasses, but there is an equal danger of uncritically adopting other cultures' values.  The Bible alone is the perfect truth....

    2. Is it really true that the Western value system is "guilt-innocence" based?   I think it might more accurately be characterized as "pleasure-pain" based instead.  In other words, Westerners seem to put highest value on personal pleasure, and avoiding personal pain.  "Doing the right thing" is not quite as important, subconsciously, it seems to me.  Pleasure comes in different forms - money, shopping, technology, entertainment, movies, sex, and most importantly, health...

    3. The question is asked by others - how best may the Gospel be wrapped in a presentation that most appeals to the subconscious values of people in different cultures?  Paul talked about "becoming all things to all men so that I might by all means save some", referring to following Jewish cultural traditions when talking with the Jews, Greek cultural traditions when talking with the Greeks, etc.
    Missiologists today talk about presenting the Gospel to Oriental Muslims in terms of "Christ the Victor who triumphed over sin and death and the devil and was brought to a position of supreme power and glory by His Father (Philippians 2)".  In other words, emphasize the parts of the gospel that most resonate with the cultural values of the person you're witnessing to.  Missiologists talk of couching the Gospel to tribalists in terms of the absolute power of God who raised His Son from the dead, "since it was impossible for Him to be held captive to it", and His absolute superiority and supremacy over all the evil spirits.  In the New Testament, whenever Christ commanded a spirit to do something, it had to obey immediately.
    This understanding of cultural values has some usefulness, since the Bible does talk about these other "perspectives" on the Gospel...   But there are some pitfalls to be careful about.  Eventually the full counsel of God MUST be presented... and before the person 'converts' too! ...or else how will he/she be able to knowledgeably 'count the cost' of following Christ?  If the cost is not understood, there will be many initial converts, but most of them will fall away.
    For example, the Oriental Muslim must understand that the way of Christ is characterized by extreme dishonor... "You will be hated by all men on account of My name," said Christ.  They will bring dishonor and shame upon their families.  Christ's own exaltation came after His extreme descent into degradation and dishonor (Philippians 2 again!).  The tribalist must understand that the way of Christ will be accompanied with extreme weakness (2 Corinthians 4).... "My grace is sufficient for you... [My] strength is perfected in [your] weakness..." said God in 2 Corinthians 12:9.

    4. Perhaps the way to avoid the pitfalls is to focus on heaven!...
    Will Jesus' disciples receive honor?  Absolutely... but it will only surely come in Heaven.  Before that, it will come and go capriciously.  On that day, the honor will come from God Himself.  John 5:44 - "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?"
    Will Jesus' disciples receive power and be "set securely on high" forever (and get to judge the angels)?  Absolutely.  But there will be many valleys of weakness in this earthly life before we finally get there.
    Will Jesus' disciples receive "pleasures forevermore"?  Absolutely.  Not here.  There.

    5. Perhaps John Piper (known for his teaching of "Christian Hedonism") is a good example of wrapping the gospel in a message that is aimed directly at the pleasure-seeking hearts of Americans (including myself of course).   All his dozens of books are perfused with that thesis:  the eternal pleasures that come from God are eminently WORTH.... anything/everything/putting-Christ-first-and-obeying-Him.

    6. I wonder if the cultural values of the so-called "Generation X" or "Generation Next" (the young generation of current Americans and Europeans) might be slightly modified from pleasure-pain....  namely, excitement-boredom.   In other words, having a life that is "fun" and "exciting" and "happening" and "in the center of the action" and "not-out-of-the-loop" might be a cultural value that is pervasive across American youth (and conversely, the thing to avoid at all costs is having a "boring" life).  Similar in some ways to the Roman culture right before they fell.... circuses, gladiators, people thrown to the lions in the Coliseum, etc...
    Perhaps this is a slight shift in American cultural values...?  Or perhaps this is just the age factor, and the youth of all cultures would evince more of this than the elders?  But I wonder if the technology of America has exacerbated this trend.... e.g. Hollywood movies, television shows, video games, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

    7. And so the challenge to the next generation of American evangelists....  what does the Gospel of Christ have to offer to excitement-hungry teens?   Is there any excitement to look forward to in heaven, that can sustain a disciple of Christ through the boring backwaters of God-focused earthly life?

     

(I use 'tags' and 'categories' almost interchangeably... see below)

Recent Comments