Neighbor

Lately I've been thinking about the term 'neighbor', as in the Second Greatest Commandment (Mat 22:39): "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". In English, the word at a glance is obviously derived from 'neigh', which to my ear sounds very much like an old English term for 'near'. 'Neigh' is still occasionally used in that sense - a quick Google search for "neigh you" turns up a number of hits on James Darren's "Sophisticated Lady", though even by KJV times, 'nigh' appears to be preferred. A quick look at the dictionary pretty well confirms this (though there it is the Old English term neah). The Greek word here translated neighbor has pretty much the same type of derivation, coming from a word simply meaning 'near' (the Hebrew word translated 'neighbor' in Lev 19:18 doesn't seem to have near as simple a derivation, at least as far as I can tell from the Strong's dictionary - it comes from a word meaning to tend a flock. Anyone who understands how we get the concept 'neighbor' from that is welcome to jump in). 'Neighbor', then, appears to simply mean someone who is physically near you.

With that in mind, I'd like to turn to the classic parable defining the term 'neighbor' in Luke 10:30-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan.

One of the things that now strikes me about the parable is the way the priest and the Levite pass by on the other side. It's as though they realize that just being near the injured man incurs an obligation to him, and deliberately do what they can to try and not be near him, however contrived.

My second observation is that I'm beginning to wonder if we tend to get distracted by the degree of help the Samaritan gives to the injured man. He's certainly a high example of how to treat a neighbor, but the parable isn't given as an answer to the question "How should I treat my neighbor?" It's given as an answer to the question "Who is my neighbor?" By concentrating on the Samaritan's high example, I think we easily miss the simple, plain meaning of the word 'neighbor'. The Samaritan didn't become the injured man's neighbor by treating his wounds, he became the injured man's neighbor simply by coming near to him on the road of Life. His subsequent treatment of the man shows he knew how to love his (newfound) neighbor as himself in that situation. I think Jesus' followup of 'Go and do likewise." isn't just an instruction to follow the Samaritan's example in treating the downtrodden, it's an instruction to recognize that people become your neighbor merely by coming close to you as you tread the path of life.

Or to put it back into the context of the original commandment, the primary test of whether or not you are obeying the Second Greatest commandment isn't whether you are involved in helping the downtrodden 'out there' (as good as that may be). The priest and the Levite might be said to be 'loving their neighbors' in this kind of sense, as they do provide religious services which help their 'fellow man', but Jesus obviously considers them to have fallen short. The primary test of your (or my) obedience to the Second Greatest commandment is how you treat the people you encounter in the ordinary, everyday course of life - the people you live with, the people you work with, the people you meet on the street, in the stores, in restaurants, in church, and all the other places you go in life.

Humble Talents

This week's study is going to be a bit different from the usual. Typically, I'm heavily exegetical - trying to listen to exactly what scripture is saying and drawing out what is implied by the exact words. Today, I'm heading in an atypically experiential direction - starting from my own experience, and moving to scripture from there. I'm not entirely sure how to keep it from sounding self-centered and boastful, but here goes.

Way back at the beginning of college, during a period of transition, looking at the discipline required for college, and the state of my mind at the time, I uttered the prayer, "Oh, Lord, You're going to have to teach me to think". Now, understand, it's not like I was intellectually lacking. Though not per se the studious and academic type, I was somewhat noted for my intelligence. I managed to pull things like snagging 2nd place (and first place the next year) in the school in the National Math Test while pulling C's in Algebra. When called upon for answers for homework that I hadn't done in Algebra, I'll look at the question, do the quadratic equation in my head, and give the (typically correct) answer. I drove my math teachers crazy.

In looking back over the years since I uttered that prayer, it's like God said to himself: "I don't get that request from intellectual types very often. Usually the intellectual types are far too convinced that they need no help or additional learning in thinking. I'm going to answer that prayer."

Now it's not like God dropped a text entitled "The Divine Method of Thinking" on me, which I could learn and then propound to others: "This is the way you're supposed to think!" He took the particular talents He had given me and moulded them even further. He plopped me for several years into a group of people who, while not unintelligent, weren't intellectually inclined, so I could learn that the Intellectual's heart for truth won't ever be entirely satisfied unless he's willing to listen to those he considers unintellectual. He took disparate elements like my reading of C. S. Lewis, my computer programming training, even my interest in SF/Fantasy books, and shaped my thinking with them. The result isn't that I'm better than anyone else, but that I'm more fitted to the work to which God has called me.

In looking back over this, I can't help but wonder if I've accidently (well, not really. Nothing in God's Kingdom is just accidental) stumbled across something easily passed by - the value of humbling your self before God in letting Him teach you the use of the talents He's given you. We grow up as Christians hearing the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30, Lu 19:12-27), and though it covers more than what in English we call talents, we rightly learn from the parable the need to use our talents for the Kingdom of God. What we may erroneously assume, though, is that just because we have been given talents, we automatically know how to use them best. Some amount of expertise comes with being given talents, but it doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I once heard a college professor comment: "I don't need God to tell me how to teach." It wasn't until a bit later that I realized that the answer to that is "You mean God Himself couldn't make any improvements in your teaching technique?" I don't think it's a matter of not using your talents until God has taught you, it's a matter of countering the innate pride that easily comes to us about our abilities and acknowledging that He always knows more than we do. "Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you" (Jas 4:10) applies here. It is, essentially, the surrender of lordship over our own talents, and letting Him be Lord over them.

What's the Excellent Wife's husband like?

I enjoy it when you find scriptural teaching in unexpected places - those little bits of scripture that are easily missed because they touch on something different than the surrounding context. Such is the subject of today's study.

Proverbs 31 is widely known as the description of the Excellent Wife (or Virtuous Wife, or Wife of Noble Character, depending on translation). Yet almost hidden within it is a comment on her husband's character that we guys do well to pay attention to.

In Proverbs 31:28-29 we read

Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying
"Many daughters have done nobly

Let's stop right there, as those last 5 words say an awful lot about his general attitude towards women.

"Many daughters" - the evaluation that follows covers a large segment of the female population. The Hebrew for 'Many' generally carries a connotation of abundance. In this context it's even likely he's talking about a majority of women.

"have done" - note that it's their acts that he's evaluating. The Hebrew connotes doing or making things in a systematic or habitual way, so this is not just the exceptional actions he has in mind.

"nobly" - this is not a minor term of praise. The Hebrew connotes enough of some resource to constitute a force.

So what do we have here? We have a man who regards women in general not as mere attractive backdrop, but as people doing worthwhile things, and doing them very well.

Is it any accident that this is the man who is the excellent wife's husband? Is it possible that his high regard for women is one of the things that enables her to accomplish all that she does?

I ask because I'm not sure how often I see this in modern times, even in the church. Too often, we men take the Biblical concept of male headship as though it was a sop to the male ego, making us the important ones, and women mere attractive backdrop. Too often on modern men's lips, the expression of praise in this verse comes out more like "Y'know, women as a whole don't amount to much, but You, You're OK". Before we ask our wives to try to live up to the example of the Proverbs 31 wife, we ought to make sure we're living up to the example of the Proverbs 31 wife's husband.

Paying attention to the Therefores

One of the things I've learned when reading scripture is to pay attention the therefores (or as Bible Teacher Bob Mumford puts it "Whenever you see a therefore, check to see what it's there for"), particularly when they occur in Jesus' teaching. Especially interesting are what I call the 'practical therefores'. These take the form "This is true, therefore your practical response to it should be this". In some translations the 'therefore' is expressed more as 'because of this' or 'for this reason' or similar. In the New Testament, at least, there are several Greek expressions that can be translated as 'therefore', and some translations will try to distinguish them by using different wording. But the idea is still there: Because this is true, you should do this as a result.

When you see this, you're got an opportunity to

1. See what God's logic is in this situation, and


2. Contrast it with typical human logic in this situation

For example, let's look at Mat 9:37,38(NASV):

Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore, beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest."

The situation Jesus is talking about is familiar to a lot of people: there's a lot of work to be done, and not enough people working on it. I'm sure anyone who has had even a minor leadership position in the church has found themselves in this position. Our usual reaction ranges from pestering friends and acquaintances to get involved, to organizing recruiting campaigns, to blistering preaching that tries to induce guilt into those who aren't yet involved. Somewhat like Martha, we may find ourselves trying to pull into our work people who aren't called into the same work we are doing.

Jesus' logical response to this situation will seem simplistic to some: Pray. But I'm convinced from what follows that He is being quite practical.

First, note the emphasis on who is in charge. It's mentioned twice in one sentence ('Lord of the harvest', and 'His harvest'), which strikes me as a deliberate emphasis. In the face of temptations to regard the work as our own (or to feel like the burden is entirely on us), we're to remember that it belongs to God and He is in charge.

Second, the Greek word here translated 'send out' implies forcefull action. It is used, for example, for expelling an invading army from a city. In this context, I'd be tempted to translate it 'shove out'. I can't think of anything that would be more indicative of a practical knowledge of how these things work. If, in a 'lots of work, few workers' situation you've ever found yourself wanting to grab some people and shove them out into the field, know that the Lord knows exactly how you feel. Some people simply have to be forced to do the work. It's just that He reserves the right to do the shoving, and to choose who gets shoved, for Himself.

Aaaauuuggghhh!

<Sigh> After years of internal grousing that I seemed to have some worthwhile insights, but no real outlet for them, I finally figured out that blogging might actually provide one. You'd think a programmer would have figured that out sooner.

So, I set up a blog on here, and five and a half months later, we have......well, essentially nothing. One post about my score on the Theological Worldview Quiz and one unfinished post on miscommunication. This is not looking impressive.

I guess part of my problem is a combination of time and my writing style. I'm not the kind of writer who zips something off the top of the head in 5 minutes - I'm more the brooding over every word type who grinds things out slowly but (hopefully) precisely. Worse, I tend to be verbose. Hence, if I'm going to sit down and write a post, I want to feel that I've got a fair block of time to work with. Unfortunately, fair blocks of time have been in short supply for the past few months, what with a late project at work chewing up all spare time. Happily, that project is no longer chewing up time, and spare fair blocks of time are popping up again.

A bit of introduction is probably in order. As you can see from the profile, I'm a computer programmer (been at it for almost 30 years) whose college degree sports a Bible major. Basically, I started at Asbury College with a mindset that pretty much equated a Bible major with General Studies. Half-way through college, I discovered computers, and essentially felt that I'd found what I was made for. As Asbury didn't have a Computer Science major at the time, but did have a minor, I ended up finishing with a BA in Bible, with a Computer Science minor (and following it up with a good bit of self-teaching in CS). The result is a technical type with at least enough theological education to be dangerous.

I've got most of the influences you'd probably expect from a conservative/evangelical Christian with a technical bent. The writings of C. S. Lewis ranks high in the list, along with Francis Schaeffer and G. K. Chesterton. The programming background is also an influence. As a programmer, I'm used to dealing with systems for which I have only partial information, which gives me a different outlook on a Systematic Theology approach (which, from my viewpoint, sometimes has the weakness of assuming that we already have all of the necessary information to see a system in its fullness). But one of my major influences is that I tend to be heavily communications/listening oriented. Listening for what a person is trying to say, even if the way they express it would normally suggest something different to you, even if their background and assumptions are different than (or even contrary to) yours, is something that ranks pretty high in my set of values. As is probably typical for someone with that kind of emphasis, I've developed an ear for those little clues that indicate that miscommunication is likely to be occurring. And somewhere along the line, I've learned to apply those skills when approaching Scripture. You might say I tend to approach Scripture first as a listener, and secondarily as a studier. I've found that it makes a difference, and hope to be posting some of the insights that come from that difference here.

As a listener, I'll welcome feedback on what I post (for one thing, it'll give me another chance to listen). I typically need feedback to develop new insights. With my skillsets, I sometimes have people say I ought to be a teacher (e.g., teaching in Sunday School/Bible Study group or the like), but I've found that if I sit down and try to plan out a lesson, I don't do too well. Sit me down as a participant in a Bible Study group, though, let me listen to the rest of the group and I have no problems adding to the discussion. I seem to need the interaction to figure out where the knowledge or communication holes are in a group, at which point I can help fill in those holes. Part of the reason I'm doing this blog is to try to help get past that need, but the feedback will still be welcome.

Theological Worldview Quiz

I saw this on Reverend Mommy's blog and gave it a try. The results, while not entirely surprising, were unexpected. You don't exactly expect that someone who has spent most of his church life in an independent Charismatic church, and is now attending a Baptist church, to score %100 Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. I guess my years at Asbury College must have had more effect on me than I realized....

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists. Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 100% Reformed Evangelical 79% Fundamentalist 68% Neo orthodox 61% Charismatic/Pentecostal 50% Emergent/Postmodern 46% Classical Liberal 39% Roman Catholic 18% Modern Liberal 18% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com