In the Lord, for the Lord, from the Lord

(Leviticus 19:13-16; Ephesians 5:21-33, Colossians 3:18-4:1)

Last week, we spent some time considering what the life of Christ looks like in us, and how it begins with and grows out of his gifts to us—his word, his love, and his peace—which, as we allow them to fill us, change us, and change our motivations, so that we come less and less to desire those things which God does not love, and more and more to want to please him with our lives. We noted the fact that this is supposed to produce a change in our behavior, and you may remember that the things Paul emphasizes, the virtues we’re supposed to put on, all have to do with how we treat other people and how we relate to them. They’re all about living lives of love for the people around us.

Which we have no problem with, in theory; but Paul won’t let us leave it in theory—he applies it immediately to specific circumstances, to particular relationships. It isn’t just good enough to love “people” in general and show them compassion and grace—we need to live this way in the most intimate part of life, and so that’s where Paul goes in our passage this morning. He begins, logically, with the marriage relationship, and here I have to raise a quibble with the NIV. You see, the NIV introduces a comma in verse 18 where it doesn’t actually belong, right after the word “husbands.” This might seem like a really picky thing, but it isn’t. Listen to the emphasis. “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” What that says is, it’s fitting in the Lord for you to submit to your husbands, so do that. It’s an absolute statement. Take the comma out, and you get this: “Wives, submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord.” Now, “as is fitting in the Lord” doesn’t reinforce the first part of the statement, it modifies it.

In that culture, wives were subject to their husbands, at least legally—that’s the reality—and that wasn’t going to change in any great hurry. Paul, then, isn’t saying this in a vacuum, or trying to begin some new practice; rather, he’s addressing an existing reality in the light of the things he’s just been saying about how God calls us to live together. As a practical matter, in a world in which wives weren’t much more than property, what does it mean to live in a Christlike manner in marriage?

For the key to understanding this, turn to Ephesians 5, which was written about the same time. This is one of those passages where translation is a real problem. You see, first, that “submit” there in verse 21 isn’t a separate verb—it’s dependent on the command in verse 18 to “be filled up by the Spirit.” Paul says, be filled with the Spirit instead of wine, and then starts listing what goes along with that: “speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and praising God, giving thanks to God the Father for everything, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

And second, the sentence doesn’t stop there. There’s no verb in verse 22—it just continues, “submitting to one another in reverence for Christ, wives to husbands as to the Lord.” Now, the grammar lesson might seem to be a bit much, but it’s really very important. You see, what the world has in mind when it thinks of “submit” or “be subject” is one person bossing another around—I tell you what to do and you do it, and that’s that. It’s a one-way street. What Paul means is something very different: all of us as brothers and sisters in Christ are supposed to submit to one another as part of being filled up by the Spirit; we’re called to mutual submission in Christ.

Now, if we are, all of us, to submit to each other, rather than just some people submitting to other people, then clearly submission doesn’t mean just doing what you’re told—that would be hard to sort out. So what does it mean? Well, flip over a bit to Philippians 2, where Paul writes, “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.” As the ultimate example of this attitude, Paul points to Christ, who had more right than anyone to insist on his own way and his own prerogatives, but chose instead to give them all up and accept crucifixion. It seems to me that the command to submit to each other doesn’t mean that we have to do whatever anyone tells us to do, but rather that we don’t have the right to dominate others; we can’t insist that we are more important than they are. Instead, we should be willing to let others be more important, we should be ready to let others have their way, and we should be as concerned for the good of those around us as for our own good.

It’s in that context that Paul turns to address wives and husbands. Many argue that this is a special case, that mutual submission is only the rule outside of marriage, and that inside marriage submission is a one-way street. The reason I’ve usually seen offered for this is that Paul doesn’t go on in either of these passages to tell husbands to submit to their wives, and that therefore this must be a special duty for wives, not husbands. On first read, that makes sense; but if that’s the correct reading of these passages, then what do we make of the fact that Paul tells husbands to love their wives, but never tells wives to love their husbands? Clearly, he doesn’t mean that wives don’t need to love their husbands. This suggests—especially in light of the command in Ephesians to mutual submission—that he doesn’t intend submission to be just one-way, either; after all, one element of loving another person is being willing to put them and their will and their good ahead of ourselves and our own. Rather, it seems likely that Paul emphasizes submission to wives and love to husbands for some other reason.

The reason, I think, is the cultural situation he’s dealing with, which enshrined the legal superiority of husbands over wives. Husbands had, at least in theory, absolute power over their wives—and, for that matter, their children; and we all know what absolute power does: it corrupts. It corrupts those who wield it; it also corrupts those who are under it. Paul’s driving concern, then, is to address both halves of this relationship and tell both husbands and wives how to deal with the situation as Christians. The key principle here is that this should be all about Christ, and doing what pleases him (which includes not submitting to things which clearly do not please him); along with this, we see the truth that greater authority doesn’t mean a greater opportunity to get your own way, but rather a greater opportunity to love and serve. “Husbands,” Paul says in Ephesians, “love your wives as Christ loved the church.” How did Christ love the church? He laid down his life for the church. That, and nothing less, is the standard.

From the marriage relationship, Paul turns to the relationship between parents and children, and you’ll notice that here he moves from the word “submit” to the word “obey,” clearly indicating the shift to a truly one-way responsibility and a fixed hierarchy. Mutual submission doesn’t mean we all have to do whatever anyone tells us to do, but yes, when parents give orders, children are responsible to obey them. I want to point out here, though, that all through this passage, as he addresses different groups of people, Paul directs his comments to them—for instance, his comments about wives are addressed to wives, and his comments about husbands are addressed to husbands. This might seem obvious, but we often tend to read them the other way around—as if Paul had written, for instance, “Husbands, your wives are supposed to submit to you as to the Lord”; we focus on what others are supposed to do for us, rather than on what Paul commands us to do. Verse 20 isn’t addressed to parents, to use as a stick with which to beat our chil­dren, but to the children themselves; yes, we need to teach our children to be obedient, but you know, the reason really isn’t “Because I say so.” It’s not because I say so, it’s because God says so, and because I in my place am trying to do the best I can to teach them to do what is wise and good and pleasing to God.

Which means that the real burden here (as earlier) is in the second command, not the first; and given that the legal power and authority was vested in fathers, the command is to them: “Don’t provoke your children, lest they be disheartened.” If the command to children is “Obey your parents in everything,” then the command to parents—and particularly fathers, whose legal authority over their children was literally unlimited and unrestrained—is, first of all, “Don’t presume on this.” Some would look at the command to children and take it as license to give any order they pleased, but Paul will have none of that; instead, he says, you must take it as a responsibility, to be sure that the orders you give are fair and appropriate, for what is best for your children, and in line with the law of Christ, which is the law of love. Your concern must be, not that you get what you want, but that you give them what they need, so that they will not lose heart—or faith.

Finally, we have directions given to slaves and masters—most of them to slaves, presumably because there were many more slaves than masters in the Colossian church. If you were here when we started this series by looking at Philemon, you may remember that slavery in the ancient world was a very different thing from slavery in the American experience, because though slaves were property, everyone acknowledged that they were still fully human, and needed to be treated as such. You may also remember the way in which Paul undermines the class distinction of slavery in that letter by teaching Philemon, and through him the rest of the church, that he needs to view Onesimus no longer as his inferior but as his brother and equal in Christ.

Here we see Paul making the same point to those in the church who are slaves: what really matters is not that they belong to another human being, but that they belong to Christ, and it’s really him they’re serving. Their call just happens to be to serve Christ by obeying their masters, remembering that anyone who does wrong will receive the punishment they deserve—whether a slave or a slaveowner; neither would be able to use their status as justification or excuse, because there is no partiality with God. Just to drive this home to slaveowners, Paul reminds them as he reminded Philemon that this is what really matters for them, too: they belong to Christ and are called to serve him, and thus in truth, they and their slaves share a common master who will judge them both together on that common ground.

It’s in 3:17 that we see most clearly the governing principle in our passage this morning, in the command to “do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him”; in verses 18 and following, we have the specific application of that principle to whatever forms of service or obedience we might find ourselves required to give. Wives were expected to be subject to their husbands—so do so as is fitting in the Lord, as part of the mutual submission which all of us as Christians are to render to each other; husbands, you remember that part, too, and love your wives with the love of Christ. Children must obey their parents—yes, but do so as your service in the Lord, not simply because human authority requires it; and though this isn’t put in so many words, parents, you remember that you give orders to serve them and the Lord, not yourselves. Slaves (and in our day, employees), obey your earthly masters, yes—but do it for the Lord, knowing that’s really who you’re serving anyway; and masters, remember that you, too, have a Master in heaven—in fact, the same Master—and treat all those who work for you accordingly.

In other words, what Paul’s talking about here isn’t prerogatives and hierarchies and what we have the right to expect from others; he’s calling us to serve others in the name of Jesus, as an expression of the love of Christ, in humility which seeks to put the good of others first. It’s not a hard thing to understand—it’s very simple, really. It’s just hard to do, because that’s not our normal reflex, it’s not what comes naturally to us. But that’s what it means to follow the Son of Man, who came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. And so Paul says, yes, we’re all called to serve others, no matter our position; and however we’re called to serve, whomever we’re required to obey, we need to do it, and to do it in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. Whatever your work may be, do it as service to the Lord, knowing that your just reward is in his hands.

Camille Paglia on Sarah Palin

Even though I don’t agree with Camille Paglia on very much (if anything) politically, I admire her greatly for her honesty, the clarity of her perception, and the true independence of her mind, and also for her great gifts as a writer. Her latest column in Salon shows her at the top of her form, particularly in this telling observation about Barack Obama:

As I’ve watched Obama gracefully step up to podiums or move through crowds, I’ve been reminded not of basketball, with its feints and pivots, but of surfing, that art form of his native Hawaii. . . Obama’s ability to stay on his feet and outrun the most menacing waves that threaten to engulf him seems to embody the breezy, sunny spirit of the American surfer.

It also shows her refusal to close her eyes for the sake of ideology, as she expresses concern over

the mainstream media’s avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama—even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai.

She mentions specifically the evasiveness of the Obama campaign, and the unanswered questions about his association with Bill Ayers and (especially, to her) Bernardine Dohrn, writing,

We don’t need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don’t like feeling gamed or played.

Those two sentences, comparing the behavior of Sen. Obama and his campaign to that of the hated President Bush and his administration, have to have cost her. Paglia spends a fair chunk of her column on Ayers and Dohrn, whom she clearly finds disturbing; and from there she turns to Gov. Palin, writing,

Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don’t know their asses from their elbows.Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology—contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is—and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English—big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns—that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee—what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry’s nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama’s pick and who was on everyone’s short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin’s. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan—nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is.

It’s a powerful smackdown to groupthink and cant from someone who’s as free of both as any columnist around (on either side of the political aisle); the fact that it’s also a powerful defense of someone who both needs and deserves it just makes it better.

All about Sarah?

I’m starting to wonder. There have been folks on the right who’ve been insisting since John McCain chose Sarah Palin that liberals are afraid of her and feel a particular need to destroy her; I’ve tended to think that was overstated. Certainly, I think a lot of folks on the left found her particularly galling—for daring to go “off the reservation” and be a successful woman in politics on non-leftist terms (with her strong pro-life position being the main part of that), and for Sen. McCain having had the nerve to pick a woman as his running mate when Barack Obama hadn’t—but I figured it was much more that she represented someone who could actually put the McCain campaign over the top, and therefore was a threat to be destroyed ASAP, by whatever means necessary.Now, though, I’m beginning to think that the voices insisting that liberals hate/fear her specifically may have more of a point than I thought. What has me considering this is a recent post on the media blog for Condé Nast Portfolio on whom the New York Times should hire to replace Bill Kristol if rumors prove true that they’re inclined not to keep him on their op-ed pages. The blogger in question, Jeff Bercovici, is clearly an unapologetic liberal, which is no surprise; what is a surprise is the theme that seems to underlie his suggested alternatives. Of the four names he puts forward, two are Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy—the folks who got caught dissing Gov. Palin on a mike they didn’t know was open. A third is Kathleen Parker, whom he makes a point of labeling as a Palin-hater. Why highlight that unless it’s part of the point, and to be adduced as evidence that she has “the independence of thought that Kristol so glaringly lacks”?Which in turn makes me think that that supposed “lack of independence” on Kristol’s part may be code for “he likes Sarah Palin”; which, if so, is ludicrous, since Kristol was booming Gov. Palin for the slot back when it required incredible independence of thought to even entertain the idea. Which makes me wonder if there isn’t a subtext for replacing Kristol: the Grey Lady is willing to have a conservative columnist or two around if it has to—but one who supports Sarah Palin is just too much. If they’re going to have a conservative columnist, it must at least be a properly elitist Palin-hating conservative.Do I take this as proven? Obviously not. But I’m wondering if there might be something to it . . . and if so, what its significance might be.

Clarification and further comment on double standards

After I put up my post last night on “the double standard of the Left,” frequent commenter and cyberfriend Doug Hagler called me out on a couple things. I posted a response to him in the comments there, but after thinking about it a bit, I decided to post an edited version of that comment on the main page as well.Part of his objection was to the blog to which I linked—or rather, to the commenters on that blog. As I noted, on high-traffic blogs, I don’t read the comments unless I know they’re tightly patrolled (as with, for example, U.S.S. Mariner, or Adam Brickley’s blog), because otherwise, they will uniformly be ugly. (And if you think this just applies to political blogs, spend some time in the sports blogosphere—your eyes will be opened. Republicans vs. Democrats has nothing on Red Sox. vs. Yankees.)More importantly, to point out a double standard on the Left is not to imply anything, positive or negative, about the Right; there’s simply no logical connection there. If there’s one thing I’ve found to hold true about groups of people, it’s that they’re all the same—the same tendencies, good and bad, will tend to emerge in roughly the same proportions unless something specific to the group acts to emphasize or suppress them. As such, do I imagine that being conservative means that one is immune to certain sins? No, certainly not. In this particular case, for instance, I know full well that the Right has its tendencies toward double standards, too. However, I will note that in areas in which the Right tends to get publicly sanctimonious, it usually follows through against its own, even if only because the media won’t let it do otherwise. Where is Mark Foley? Where is Larry Craig? Where is Ted Haggard? The list is not without exception (David Vitter comes to mind; the only explanation I have for his survival is that Louisiana is a different world politically), but neither is it short. When you have a preacher peddling leftist hate, like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., liberals defend him; by contrast, preachers peddling rightist hate will often find their sharpest critics among evangelicals. Fred Phelps, that malignancy on the body politic, is a classic example.The question with regard to the attack on Mount Hope Church is, are there liberals who will call a spade a spade here, the way evangelicals (and even some fundamentalists) routinely do every time Phelps opens his yap, and denounce this as an intolerant assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion? And with regard to the Obama campaign’s disabling of protections against credit-card fraud, will the liberals who sermonize about the corrupting influence of money in politics step up and call this what it is—namely, corrupt? The point is not that there’s supposedly some kind of vast left-wing conspiracy—we got enough of that kind of talk in the other direction from the Clintons. The point is, when the Left talks about tolerance, and political ethics, and the the need for campaign-finance reform, and all those things, are those just clubs to use to beat up Republicans? Or are folks on the Left willing to call out their own side on these issues?Certainly, Republicans aren’t perfect in this respect, but there are always GOP pundits and politicians willing to take up that role. The question is, are there leaders and media figures on the Left who will do the same? Or do they only care when it’s Republicans who are guilty?

Why the 44th President is doomed

No, I didn’t say “Why Barack Obama is doomed”; I don’t think his policy appointments and decisions will help the economic situation any, but I’m not suggesting that John McCain would have had the winning economic strategy. Rather, the point is that there isn’t a winning economic strategy at this point—the forces in play are just too big. Read Michael Lewis’ excellent piece in Condé Nast Portfolio to understand why. It’s long, but well worth it; remember, this is the guy who first identified the roots of the problem 20 years ago in his book Liar’s Poker, returning to autopsy the patient who died of the cancer he originally diagnosed. Trust me, read the whole thing—read it to the end; it will blow your mind. Then read the accompanying article on why there won’t be a recovery for a while yet, despite what the optimists say, and reflect on the fact that presidents always get blamed when bad things happen, whether it’s their fault or not. (George W. Bush can point to the mishandling of Katrina by Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin, for which he took pretty much all the blame outside of Louisiana; granted, Michael Brown and FEMA also did a very poor job, but the hit President Bush’s popularity took had far more to do with matters under their control than with things for which he was actually responsible. The only upside for Republicans is that this did lead the people of Louisiana to elect Bobby Jindal the next time around.) The Oval Office is going to be a rough place to be in 2010, and would be no matter who was sitting in it, for reasons which in large part will have nothing to do with its occupant. (At least on the economic side; when it comes to foreign policy, that’s another matter.)HT: Baseball Crank

The bottom line on this campaign

is that I ended up thinking a lot less of both the final candidates when it finished than I did when they first started running.Oddly enough, the opposite is true of Hillary Clinton.(I still think she’s a political opportunist, etc.; but I have to admire the spirit and resiliency she showed, even if it was in the service of raw, vindictive ambition. The negative things that she displayed during this campaign didn’t surprise me any, but we also, I think, saw some really positive aspects to her that I at least hadn’t seen before.)

Too little, too late

After sitting sphinx-like as his senior staff impugned Sarah Palin’s intelligence and character, John McCain finally opened his mouth—and this is the best he was willing to do? I’m sorry, Senator, but that’s just plain pathetic. To wait so long to say anything, and then not to address any of the specific lies floating around out there or call out any of the liars from behind their curtain of anonymity—especially given his vigorous defense of Barack Obama against attacks he deemed inappropriate—to fail to defend her against false charges given how hard she worked for you and how badly she was pummeled by your opponents for supporting your cause . . . that’s purely dishonorable. There is no other word for it.

The evangelical temptation to the political heresy

The thing I appreciate most about Phil Johnson’s post on that subject over at Pyromaniacs is that he keeps the lines clear:

My main point is about how the church corporately should be spending her time and resources, not about what an individual who is vocationally (or avocationally) involved in politics should do.

That’s a critically important distinction; losing it renders the whole conversation unintelligible. There is no question that Christians should be politically aware and engaged; the question is what the mission of the church should be. I do believe, obviously, that Christian theology applies to politics, and so I don’t think political quietism is a wise or appropriate Christian stance; that said, as Johnson argues at some length, the preaching of the gospel and the teaching of Scripture must lie at the center of our ministry and must be the core of our testimony at every point. We should apply that to politics as to every other part of life, but our politics—like our behavior in every other part of life—should always flow out of our faith, rather than the other way around. If it’s the other way around, we have a problem. The job of the leaders of the church, in this respect, is to make sure that it isn’t and we don’t.

HT: Bob

The double standard of the Left, in full force

as seen in two very different ways. For one, the Obama campaign has officially gotten away with fraud, which isn’t surprising. What’s rather more surprising is that they’re still getting away with it. Check out Gateway Pundit for the thorough rundown of how the Obama organization has been enabling—and is continuing to enable—significant credit-card fraud in order to fill their coffers. They will, of course, not be audited or investigated—that sort of thing is only for Republicans.For another, my prayers go out to the folks at Mount Hope Church in Lansing, MI who were assaulted—there is no other word for it—by a radical gay group this past Sunday. I know that church, slightly; I’ve never attended there (though I’ve driven by it many times), but we’ve known people who attended there, and know it by reputation. It’s a good church, and didn’t deserve this attack. Don’t expect the MSM to decry the intolerance of their attackers, though—again, that sort of thing is only for Republicans.