We are imperfect beings. Yet we are always striving for perfection. Truly, this is the paradox of human behavior.
We all have ideas of what we see as the "good things" about humanity, and there is perhaps no greater example of this than love.
Anyone can testify to the goodness of love. There isn't a person out there who, once having experienced or properly observed true love in one way or another, would point to that experience and say "that was a bad thing."
And yet in spite of the fact that we are so easily able to define the goodness of love, we cringe at the thought that there is an epitome of that goodness. Simple, it's hard for us to imagine, truly perfect love.
Yet is this not the logical outworking of something that must be "truly" good? Ought there not be a source of that goodness? A basic, bottom line definer for that goodness? Without it, love, along with any other "good" thing in our world, becomes an empty, hollow concept. It has no ultimate meaning, no ultimate definition or purpose. It is completely emptied of substance.
But even in the acknowledgment of this, we are still so often challenged by the idea of perfect love. It can be easy for us to ultimately concede to a perfect source of love, but when we begin to think on a God who is perfect love and who cannot love imperfectly, we cannot help but cringe.
Why?
Because to truly concede to that is to admit your imperfection. To fully acquiesce to that idea is to admit failure, true inadequacy, and the profundity of your human limitation. It is to confess His Lordship.
And man is that hard to do. To say that He is qualitatively better than you. To know that He is qualitatively completely better than you. You are bad. He is Good. You are imperfect. He is Perfect. You are man, and He is God.
The admittal of this divide between us and God is hard. But boy is it necessary. If we continue to adhere to our the futility of our human "goodness" true love will never be exhitibed. If it hasn't been clear, I am writing this to Christians as well. Any of us can easily cling to our human goodness, our human sufficiency, even after we've allowed God in: because it truly is so easy to just be human, and not be Godly. In order to do that we must continously admit His goodness, an our "badness." We must acknowledge His perfection, and our imperfection. And we must do these things because when it comes to those "good" things that we can only truly do through Him, things such as love are paramount to the success of the Church. Without it, our world will fail to see the true glimpse of the Father. They will fail to See Him in us, and so fail to know Him, because we failed to know that,
He is good, and we are not.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Unfinished Works
The fully autonomous self is the false self. The true self, is defined through Christ.
We have been so trained to see the world through our own autonomy (individualism). In fact, I have to admit that I myself was quite immersed in this perspective. This was such that while reading a book that questioned the autonomous self, I realized that on a logical plane I had never thought of the word "self" outside of autonomy. I thought, what else is "me" apart from solely me? In order to define "me," am I not violating the terms if I begin to define myself in terms of someone or even something else apart from me? I basically saw anything external to me as quintessentially not me, and thereby, unqualified to define me.
This was my view on defining me: the truly, completely, autonomous "self," right down to the letter.
Kudos to you, Western world. You've had quite the influence.
But is this the definition of "self" that Scripture gives? Absolutely not.
Colossians 2:2-3 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.
Romans 11:36 36For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.
These verses essentially clue us in to one of the premier, overarching biblical themes: true humanity is found through God, not through ourselves. Our existence is fundamentally defined through God (He created us) and therefore variably dysfunctional without Him. On a sheerly logical plane, one can see how this makes sense. Simply, if we are inherently contingent beings at the very core of our existence, then it is only in the outright acknowledgment of that contingency that true self-identity can be obtained. Without it, we delude ourselves into the idea of an absolutely autonomous existence, and not one of absolutely dependency. This is how things appear on a rational plane.
But there is also a more formative, Christian assuming actuation of this idea as well. That is, being people with the divine "imprint" upon our existence, think about that in relation to how we typically see imprints in the world. Things like a watch that "finds" it's watchmaker, a house that finds its architect, or a pot that finds its potter. Upon the meeting of these things with the person that created them, the true "mark" of the imprint that you see upon that item can now most fully be understood. You may be able to look at the careful hands, the classy style, or a whole slew of other things. He or she may be able to make it work better, fix problems others wouldn't see, or tap into abilities, capabilities or uses of these objects that only the original craftsperson could envision.
But I also want to take this comparison in a different direction. That is, I think the strongest point of this allusion is that we, being the handiwork of the ultimate Craftsmen, are the quintessentially unfinished works. We are God's masterpieces, but we are also constantly being formed. Because with us, God will not settle for anything less than perfection. He sent His law, and then ultimately His Son, as an attestation to that. However, the "down" side to that is that for us, perfection will not be met in this life; all is literally "perfected" in the glorification of our bodies in the end. So it is until that point that we must be in contact with our Creator. We must allow Him to keep our clocks ticking, to break and mold our clay when needed, or to maintain our house on the solid rock through life's years of wear and tear. Without Him we are forgotten works, old broken clocks or dying houses, Rembrandts, Mona Lisa's, and 9th symponies left unfinished, unremembered, lost in the vaccuous realm of half-ideas, fleeting thoughts, and forgotten inspirations. We must let Him finish the work. And the bottom line is that this will not happen if we do not know that we are the work, and not the worker. Just as a painting sitting in a room, or a symphony on a music sheet, or a mansion's plans on a drawing board, or, or, or... None of these things become anything until the worker does the job. And that's just it; we aren't the worker, and until we realize that we will never reach the fullness of our "selves." Who we "are" will always fall short, because we simply will not become anything: because coming to "be" for a work of art, demands the complete concession to the beautiful activity of the artist.
We must allow him to define us, and stop trying to define ourselves.
The fully autonomous self is the false self. The true self, is defined through Christ.
These verses essentially clue us in to one of the premier, overarching biblical themes: true humanity is found through God, not through ourselves. Our existence is fundamentally defined through God (He created us) and therefore variably dysfunctional without Him. On a sheerly logical plane, one can see how this makes sense. Simply, if we are inherently contingent beings at the very core of our existence, then it is only in the outright acknowledgment of that contingency that true self-identity can be obtained. Without it, we delude ourselves into the idea of an absolutely autonomous existence, and not one of absolutely dependency. This is how things appear on a rational plane.
But there is also a more formative, Christian assuming actuation of this idea as well. That is, being people with the divine "imprint" upon our existence, think about that in relation to how we typically see imprints in the world. Things like a watch that "finds" it's watchmaker, a house that finds its architect, or a pot that finds its potter. Upon the meeting of these things with the person that created them, the true "mark" of the imprint that you see upon that item can now most fully be understood. You may be able to look at the careful hands, the classy style, or a whole slew of other things. He or she may be able to make it work better, fix problems others wouldn't see, or tap into abilities, capabilities or uses of these objects that only the original craftsperson could envision.
But I also want to take this comparison in a different direction. That is, I think the strongest point of this allusion is that we, being the handiwork of the ultimate Craftsmen, are the quintessentially unfinished works. We are God's masterpieces, but we are also constantly being formed. Because with us, God will not settle for anything less than perfection. He sent His law, and then ultimately His Son, as an attestation to that. However, the "down" side to that is that for us, perfection will not be met in this life; all is literally "perfected" in the glorification of our bodies in the end. So it is until that point that we must be in contact with our Creator. We must allow Him to keep our clocks ticking, to break and mold our clay when needed, or to maintain our house on the solid rock through life's years of wear and tear. Without Him we are forgotten works, old broken clocks or dying houses, Rembrandts, Mona Lisa's, and 9th symponies left unfinished, unremembered, lost in the vaccuous realm of half-ideas, fleeting thoughts, and forgotten inspirations. We must let Him finish the work. And the bottom line is that this will not happen if we do not know that we are the work, and not the worker. Just as a painting sitting in a room, or a symphony on a music sheet, or a mansion's plans on a drawing board, or, or, or... None of these things become anything until the worker does the job. And that's just it; we aren't the worker, and until we realize that we will never reach the fullness of our "selves." Who we "are" will always fall short, because we simply will not become anything: because coming to "be" for a work of art, demands the complete concession to the beautiful activity of the artist.
We must allow him to define us, and stop trying to define ourselves.
The fully autonomous self is the false self. The true self, is defined through Christ.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
What is "I"?
I am such a constantly self-reflective person. I am always thinking about that….I often feel that I don’t know who I am completely. I need to have a better idea of who I am, but I also don’t want to consider it to the point that I’m not thinking on anyone but myself. This has often, and lately, been my struggle. In truth, I have often shied away from introspection because it makes me feel haughty, but then again in avoiding it I continue to do it because I have loose ends left untied….
I don’t know, it can be easy to get hung up on ourselves almost indefinitely. It truly can. But on another side, I think it can be good to work through those things, because when we define ourselves fully before Him and others, we are then enabled to minister to others better. I guess I’m kind of dancing around one idea; without an identity, how can I help someone? Think about that statement “How can "I "help someone.” By saying “I,” “I” am implicitly making a reference point. I am saying “I”, the person defined as “me” is helping someone. Well, if “I” is an empty and hollow thing, an empty, baseless entity, then what does “I” have to offer to someone else? What even, does “I” have to offer to God? I think we need to be defined. God doesn’t define us in vacuous terms, and neither should we do so for ourselves. We need to be “us,” to be “me” and “I,” and *know* what that means. Yes, within the overall message of the biblical text there is a definition of “me” to be found. There’s one for me, you, for everyone. There’s one out there for every person. And yet, without tapping into that, without tapping in both to God, ourselves, and others to find what that “I” is, then there isn’t any “I” that we have to offer to a world so desperately in need of truer self identification. We say that the world is “lost.” Well what do we want them to find? "Them"selves in Christ. Well how can “they” be defined if “we” aren’t defined? How can “we” (the Church) be defined if “I’m” not defined? I don’t think we can.
So, I think I am fair to understand “me” better. I have come to that point now…even in writing this. Ha. So God, help me to be okay with knowing “me” so that “I” can better understand how to help others find “them”selves.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Beauty in Scripture
"You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen..... 'But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute. ... At the head of every street you built your lofty shrines and degraded your beauty, offering your body with increasing promiscuity to anyone who passed by."
This is all from Ezekiel 16. I think it gives us a "beautiful," ha, picture of how God understands beauty. He made Israel beautiful, and it meant so much more than outward appearance. It was about heart, about devotion and faithfulness. It was about relationship, relationship with Him. And then they threw it away. They tossed it away completely, and honestly to use God's language here "whored themselves out" to anyone, not even seeking 'payment.' The allegorical language in this chapter is very strong. It tells the story of a beautiful woman, who "degrades her beauty" by selling herself to everyone and anyone, at the same time essentially defecating all over the beautiful covenant relationship that God had entered into with her. This is how God saw, and sees beauty; again, about relationship, about the heart, about the inside, not the out. One more time…
Ezekiel 16:14-25 (greatly abridged): "You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen..... 'But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute. ... At the head of every street you built your lofty shrines and degraded your beauty, offering your body with increasing promiscuity to anyone who passed by."
The fall of God's beautiful maiden. The fall of beauty. Because of age? No. Because of disfigurement? No.
So what was it that degraded Israel’s beauty? What was it that so deeply tainted them in the eyes of God, their lover?
It was unfaithfulness, ungratefulness, and dirty, sordid behavior. It was, at it’s root,
Broken relationship.
This is all from Ezekiel 16. I think it gives us a "beautiful," ha, picture of how God understands beauty. He made Israel beautiful, and it meant so much more than outward appearance. It was about heart, about devotion and faithfulness. It was about relationship, relationship with Him. And then they threw it away. They tossed it away completely, and honestly to use God's language here "whored themselves out" to anyone, not even seeking 'payment.' The allegorical language in this chapter is very strong. It tells the story of a beautiful woman, who "degrades her beauty" by selling herself to everyone and anyone, at the same time essentially defecating all over the beautiful covenant relationship that God had entered into with her. This is how God saw, and sees beauty; again, about relationship, about the heart, about the inside, not the out. One more time…
Ezekiel 16:14-25 (greatly abridged): "You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen..... 'But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute. ... At the head of every street you built your lofty shrines and degraded your beauty, offering your body with increasing promiscuity to anyone who passed by."
The fall of God's beautiful maiden. The fall of beauty. Because of age? No. Because of disfigurement? No.
So what was it that degraded Israel’s beauty? What was it that so deeply tainted them in the eyes of God, their lover?
It was unfaithfulness, ungratefulness, and dirty, sordid behavior. It was, at it’s root,
Broken relationship.
Loving your Beautiful Wife, take 2
It's all about that Love that defines everything. It is fundamentally relational, and so it overshadows all objectified distortions of relational connection between people. And this is most certainly the case in romantic love, in the beautiful bond between a man and a woman, that God has ordained. He calls the groom to have a love for his wife like Christ exhibited for the church. In that there is no objectified errancy; there is only relational union. That is what I am called to. That is what we are all called to, if we feel that we are ready for marriage.
Looking beyond the things that fade away, and looking to the things that last. A person, for whom they are, at the heart of their relational self. And there are a couple neat things about that "relational identity:"
One, since the apex of our relational identity is found in relationship with Christ, the most beautiful woman is going to be one whose relationship with Him is vibrant and constant. A beautiful, healthy relational connection with the Author of relationship will shine more beautifully than all other components of beauty. This is what makes a woman glow. This is what makes her a person to spend forever with; because at the core of herself is a connection with the One who shows her, at its foundation, what "forever" feels like.
And two, her relational self will also strongly exhibit herself in her relationship with others. This is the secondmost truly beautiful thing about a woman of God. She shines as one who attempts to take her primary relationship with Christ, and project that on to all those around her. She glows for Christ, and that light shines through in her treatment of others. Simply, a woman who loves God and loves people is the most gorgeous of all.
You'll notice a simple pattern in these two characteristics; they are directly derived from Christ's two greatest commandments. I think this gives further credence to what is being said her about "beauty" because the more a woman's behavior reflects the true heart and character of God (by living in accordance with His two greatest commandments) then the more beautiful she will become.
And having said that, one particular reason I think it is paramount that we put these characteristics before physical appearance is the simple issue of aging, and potentially tragic deformative events. I am not one to be too gloomy, but on one side of things one mus consider the simple idea of their spouse aging, ultimately becoming "less physically attractive" than they are in their 20s-30s, and on the other, the more difficult idea of somethign tramautic happening to your spouse that naturally makes them less physically appealing than before.
To deal with the "simpler" idea first, again the issue is focusing on that person's relational rather than physical self. That's what ought to define them in your eyes, and that is what serves as the true basis for your love for him or her. Without that, then in due time when the natural "sands of time" pass over the face and frame of your mate, the connection between you and that person will rapidly dissolve. And if marriage is to be taken seriously, to be taken as something that is called to endure forever for the Christian, then in view of this it is absolutely crucial that the true definition of "beauty" and "love" be understood when going in. That is, that it must be about that person's inner beauty, it must be about their relational self, connected with God and with others. It must be about those things because those things, can last forever. And in spite of wrinkles, hunched shoulders, and shaky knees (haha :-) ) when the connection between two people is based upon Christ-rooted relationship, none of those transiet, temporal indicators will matter.
And yes, this ultimately transitions into the far more difficult realm, of the physically disfigured spouse. I am not one to say that such an experience is easy. However, I am one to say that if God takes marriage as seriously as He says He does, He can fully empower His people to see through His eyes of relational, rather than physical, union with their spouse. With those such eyes He can help us in our weakness, and fully enable us to think as relational rather than physical people. Again though, it may even be a misnomer at this point to say "help in our weakness" because if our connection with our spouse has been based within relational, Christ based connection from the start, if that has been the true definition and basis for our love, then our love should have little trouble changing despite adverse, physical circumstances. This is the power, I believe, that true love for one another can have. This is the power that true beauty defined through true love can have. That is,iIt's not about physical adversity, but about spiritual, relational union: where no matter what happens in the physical realm, that person always remains deeply loved and immensely beautiful on this side of eternity. That no matter what happens: this is what true, God based love can accomplish.
Looking beyond the things that fade away, and looking to the things that last. A person, for whom they are, at the heart of their relational self. And there are a couple neat things about that "relational identity:"
One, since the apex of our relational identity is found in relationship with Christ, the most beautiful woman is going to be one whose relationship with Him is vibrant and constant. A beautiful, healthy relational connection with the Author of relationship will shine more beautifully than all other components of beauty. This is what makes a woman glow. This is what makes her a person to spend forever with; because at the core of herself is a connection with the One who shows her, at its foundation, what "forever" feels like.
And two, her relational self will also strongly exhibit herself in her relationship with others. This is the secondmost truly beautiful thing about a woman of God. She shines as one who attempts to take her primary relationship with Christ, and project that on to all those around her. She glows for Christ, and that light shines through in her treatment of others. Simply, a woman who loves God and loves people is the most gorgeous of all.
You'll notice a simple pattern in these two characteristics; they are directly derived from Christ's two greatest commandments. I think this gives further credence to what is being said her about "beauty" because the more a woman's behavior reflects the true heart and character of God (by living in accordance with His two greatest commandments) then the more beautiful she will become.
And having said that, one particular reason I think it is paramount that we put these characteristics before physical appearance is the simple issue of aging, and potentially tragic deformative events. I am not one to be too gloomy, but on one side of things one mus consider the simple idea of their spouse aging, ultimately becoming "less physically attractive" than they are in their 20s-30s, and on the other, the more difficult idea of somethign tramautic happening to your spouse that naturally makes them less physically appealing than before.
To deal with the "simpler" idea first, again the issue is focusing on that person's relational rather than physical self. That's what ought to define them in your eyes, and that is what serves as the true basis for your love for him or her. Without that, then in due time when the natural "sands of time" pass over the face and frame of your mate, the connection between you and that person will rapidly dissolve. And if marriage is to be taken seriously, to be taken as something that is called to endure forever for the Christian, then in view of this it is absolutely crucial that the true definition of "beauty" and "love" be understood when going in. That is, that it must be about that person's inner beauty, it must be about their relational self, connected with God and with others. It must be about those things because those things, can last forever. And in spite of wrinkles, hunched shoulders, and shaky knees (haha :-) ) when the connection between two people is based upon Christ-rooted relationship, none of those transiet, temporal indicators will matter.
And yes, this ultimately transitions into the far more difficult realm, of the physically disfigured spouse. I am not one to say that such an experience is easy. However, I am one to say that if God takes marriage as seriously as He says He does, He can fully empower His people to see through His eyes of relational, rather than physical, union with their spouse. With those such eyes He can help us in our weakness, and fully enable us to think as relational rather than physical people. Again though, it may even be a misnomer at this point to say "help in our weakness" because if our connection with our spouse has been based within relational, Christ based connection from the start, if that has been the true definition and basis for our love, then our love should have little trouble changing despite adverse, physical circumstances. This is the power, I believe, that true love for one another can have. This is the power that true beauty defined through true love can have. That is,iIt's not about physical adversity, but about spiritual, relational union: where no matter what happens in the physical realm, that person always remains deeply loved and immensely beautiful on this side of eternity. That no matter what happens: this is what true, God based love can accomplish.
Loving your Beautiful Wife
I believe in Love. It defines everything. Takes everything, and puts it in the right perspective. And I believe in Beauty. That through love, true beauty is given. It defines all things, makes them true in the way they ought to be. God, I believe in deliverance from superficiality. I think true love and a true understanding of beauty can give that.
I also believe that with you true love is given for that one person. There is a sanctioning of marriage in your eyes, where that one person becomes the pinnacle recipient of true love. Of love, eternal and everlasting. And I think that in that, true beauty, and true love, are defined.
I say this because there are women of all shapes and sizes. Women of a variety of different facial structures and appearances, and yet our world tells us a certain figure is requisite for genuine, or maybe optimal, attraction. A women without adequate curves is not truly attractive, at least, not as possibly attractive as a women who has them. Now I must say, the question of pragmatics here is one to wrestle with. That is, one cannot deny the basic level of attraction within these certain physical characteristics. However, if one is willing to concede to that entirely, I think they slide into something irreconcilable with the Christian worldview. If all women are beautiful, all created in God's image, then how can I reduce one's "beauty" to their physical stature? I know this treads on awkward ground though. Do we not say that some women, or men for that matter, are attractive while others are not? Is there not merit to that? I can't say I'm unrealistic enough to say there isn't. However, I think we can quickly conform to the world's definition of these standards and not to God's. Everyone is created in God's image, a reflection of His true, and perfect beauty. And in that, one will search for beauty that is within, not without. This, in truth, is also the Scriptural definition. This is how Peter defines true beauty in one of his epistles. It is about inner beauty, about the heart, about the things about us that reflect God, who isn't physical. He is beyond the physical, and fundamentally relational. So it is within that, within the realm of seeing things as fundamentally relational when it comes to beauty, that I believe the Christian is callled to go. We are called to see men and women in that light; in the light of true beauty, as reflections of God: not reflections of their physical makeup.
Anyway, I think one is called to understand this in considering marriage. I say this because regardless of how physically "beautiful" your wife may or may not be, the bottom line is that there are simply too many things to define as physically attractive to argue that there is one woman out there more attractive than others in sheerly physical terms. If you adhere to that, it won't take you long before you begin eyeing someone else. Before you begin comparing your spouse to others, to see if she measures up. Because see, even if she is amazingly beautiful, if you think in the physically comparative way, you are still thinking in a comparative way. Meaning that, you are always wanting/willing to compare her to others. And who knows if that time will come when she doesn't measure up? But the thing is, even if that time never comes, it still reflects an incredibly inadequate understanding of beauty and appreciation for your wife. Why? Because she isn't to be compared to anyone, she is to stand alone. And in comparing her, you are implicitly questioning the superiority of her beauty in your life.
I mean, here's the thing I'm getting at; again, even if she is incredibly beautiful, when you think in sheerly physical terms there is no absolute. I should have said that in the beginning; in physical terms there is no absolute. Men can find one woman attractive and another not for the same or completely different reasons. But even if you want to argue, again, that there are basic phyiscal characteristics to which all men are attracted, the bottom line is that there is no, singular, perfect woman. Even if you took all the women with the "right characteristics" and put them in a room, you're going to be hard pressed to find a unanimous decision on who is the most attractive. Why? Because the fact is that there is not one, singular, physically perfect woman to all. There are facial issues. Facial structures, hair colors, a billion things that get involved that can vary from guy to guy. And if you spend your life trying to find that one woman, that's the problem: you won't find her. Physicality is too relative. There are too many things to distinguish one woman from another. However, again the one main thing that causes this physical view of women to be problematic is it misses the true view of women and their beauty: that it is fundamentally internal and relational.
Again, without any kind of relational value to women, what is there to distinguish one attractive woman from another? Because physicality varies from man to man, even among the "curvacious" women, the only thing left to distinguish one woman from another is relational connection. It's sad because we let people immerse themselves in the understanding of physical attraction and dont' teach them how crucial relational connection is to be married to someone. We have to get at what really matters for a women over and beyond her physical stature. That's really what lasts. That's really what's most important, beyond all things, the thing that you have to understand for your wife.
So anyway, in being in Love with my signficant other I am called to understand her Beauty. By that I mean she should be the most beautiful woman on the planet to me, because beauty is defined by what's inside, not on the outside (regardless of how attractive I might find her on the outside :-) ) It's about that commitment to her, that love, that unison with her that is most important. In loving her like Christ loves the church, the love I am called to is trans-physical. Anything physical that would try and hinder us as a couple is not God's understanding. This is the problem for us; we need to learn to marry someone, seeing them as the most beautiful, and attractive person to us, on the planet. They are the number one. And they can be that number one, because their beauty, is far beyond physicality; it's deeply relational and internal.
I also believe that with you true love is given for that one person. There is a sanctioning of marriage in your eyes, where that one person becomes the pinnacle recipient of true love. Of love, eternal and everlasting. And I think that in that, true beauty, and true love, are defined.
I say this because there are women of all shapes and sizes. Women of a variety of different facial structures and appearances, and yet our world tells us a certain figure is requisite for genuine, or maybe optimal, attraction. A women without adequate curves is not truly attractive, at least, not as possibly attractive as a women who has them. Now I must say, the question of pragmatics here is one to wrestle with. That is, one cannot deny the basic level of attraction within these certain physical characteristics. However, if one is willing to concede to that entirely, I think they slide into something irreconcilable with the Christian worldview. If all women are beautiful, all created in God's image, then how can I reduce one's "beauty" to their physical stature? I know this treads on awkward ground though. Do we not say that some women, or men for that matter, are attractive while others are not? Is there not merit to that? I can't say I'm unrealistic enough to say there isn't. However, I think we can quickly conform to the world's definition of these standards and not to God's. Everyone is created in God's image, a reflection of His true, and perfect beauty. And in that, one will search for beauty that is within, not without. This, in truth, is also the Scriptural definition. This is how Peter defines true beauty in one of his epistles. It is about inner beauty, about the heart, about the things about us that reflect God, who isn't physical. He is beyond the physical, and fundamentally relational. So it is within that, within the realm of seeing things as fundamentally relational when it comes to beauty, that I believe the Christian is callled to go. We are called to see men and women in that light; in the light of true beauty, as reflections of God: not reflections of their physical makeup.
Anyway, I think one is called to understand this in considering marriage. I say this because regardless of how physically "beautiful" your wife may or may not be, the bottom line is that there are simply too many things to define as physically attractive to argue that there is one woman out there more attractive than others in sheerly physical terms. If you adhere to that, it won't take you long before you begin eyeing someone else. Before you begin comparing your spouse to others, to see if she measures up. Because see, even if she is amazingly beautiful, if you think in the physically comparative way, you are still thinking in a comparative way. Meaning that, you are always wanting/willing to compare her to others. And who knows if that time will come when she doesn't measure up? But the thing is, even if that time never comes, it still reflects an incredibly inadequate understanding of beauty and appreciation for your wife. Why? Because she isn't to be compared to anyone, she is to stand alone. And in comparing her, you are implicitly questioning the superiority of her beauty in your life.
I mean, here's the thing I'm getting at; again, even if she is incredibly beautiful, when you think in sheerly physical terms there is no absolute. I should have said that in the beginning; in physical terms there is no absolute. Men can find one woman attractive and another not for the same or completely different reasons. But even if you want to argue, again, that there are basic phyiscal characteristics to which all men are attracted, the bottom line is that there is no, singular, perfect woman. Even if you took all the women with the "right characteristics" and put them in a room, you're going to be hard pressed to find a unanimous decision on who is the most attractive. Why? Because the fact is that there is not one, singular, physically perfect woman to all. There are facial issues. Facial structures, hair colors, a billion things that get involved that can vary from guy to guy. And if you spend your life trying to find that one woman, that's the problem: you won't find her. Physicality is too relative. There are too many things to distinguish one woman from another. However, again the one main thing that causes this physical view of women to be problematic is it misses the true view of women and their beauty: that it is fundamentally internal and relational.
Again, without any kind of relational value to women, what is there to distinguish one attractive woman from another? Because physicality varies from man to man, even among the "curvacious" women, the only thing left to distinguish one woman from another is relational connection. It's sad because we let people immerse themselves in the understanding of physical attraction and dont' teach them how crucial relational connection is to be married to someone. We have to get at what really matters for a women over and beyond her physical stature. That's really what lasts. That's really what's most important, beyond all things, the thing that you have to understand for your wife.
So anyway, in being in Love with my signficant other I am called to understand her Beauty. By that I mean she should be the most beautiful woman on the planet to me, because beauty is defined by what's inside, not on the outside (regardless of how attractive I might find her on the outside :-) ) It's about that commitment to her, that love, that unison with her that is most important. In loving her like Christ loves the church, the love I am called to is trans-physical. Anything physical that would try and hinder us as a couple is not God's understanding. This is the problem for us; we need to learn to marry someone, seeing them as the most beautiful, and attractive person to us, on the planet. They are the number one. And they can be that number one, because their beauty, is far beyond physicality; it's deeply relational and internal.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
The Heart of God
Isaiah 10:1-4a
1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
or fall among the slain.
There are things that give us a better clue into the heart and mind of God. That's a profound thought, isn't it? To know the heart of God. That's a hard thing...an elusive thing, when you think about how dirty our hearts truly are. But in reading His word, I am given that picture. I am given an understanding of Him and how He thinks and acts.... And man...what a beautiful picture you get here in Isaiah 10.
But I'm gonna be honest, so often I find myself wondering: "Why am I reading the bible?"
And then this goes more specifically into "So what exactly do I believe about the bible?"
In reading these words...sometimes I have to stop, and think..."What...am I doing? What exactly...is going on here?"
But it's in moments like those that..what I'm thinking now, hits me: this is the heart of God. I am reading...Him.
I read His word because in it, I can find HIM. I can find...God. He's in there, because His Spirit, is imprinted upon the pages, inspired within those words for us to receive that same message, of His heart, today. So when I read, I don't want to fall into the trap I do so often, of essentially just skimming the pages, or even reading but reading without any true, connection to the text. I want to stop and think "What...is going on here?" And then know what it is:
God is showing me,
His heart.
And with that in mind, I really think this passage in Isaiah can sink in so much better. Can really...take root and show me:
God is about the oppressed.
The suffering.
And injustice. He cries out against the injustice of this world, even saying that the only place the enactors of injustice will go,
Is among the slain.
God is a just God. This is His heart. And I would have missed that,
Had I not stopped, and thought,
"Why am I reading this?"
1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
3 What will you do on the day of reckoning,
when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches?
or fall among the slain.
There are things that give us a better clue into the heart and mind of God. That's a profound thought, isn't it? To know the heart of God. That's a hard thing...an elusive thing, when you think about how dirty our hearts truly are. But in reading His word, I am given that picture. I am given an understanding of Him and how He thinks and acts.... And man...what a beautiful picture you get here in Isaiah 10.
But I'm gonna be honest, so often I find myself wondering: "Why am I reading the bible?"
And then this goes more specifically into "So what exactly do I believe about the bible?"
In reading these words...sometimes I have to stop, and think..."What...am I doing? What exactly...is going on here?"
But it's in moments like those that..what I'm thinking now, hits me: this is the heart of God. I am reading...Him.
I read His word because in it, I can find HIM. I can find...God. He's in there, because His Spirit, is imprinted upon the pages, inspired within those words for us to receive that same message, of His heart, today. So when I read, I don't want to fall into the trap I do so often, of essentially just skimming the pages, or even reading but reading without any true, connection to the text. I want to stop and think "What...is going on here?" And then know what it is:
God is showing me,
His heart.
And with that in mind, I really think this passage in Isaiah can sink in so much better. Can really...take root and show me:
God is about the oppressed.
The suffering.
And injustice. He cries out against the injustice of this world, even saying that the only place the enactors of injustice will go,
Is among the slain.
God is a just God. This is His heart. And I would have missed that,
Had I not stopped, and thought,
"Why am I reading this?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
