Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: hypocrisy

  • 1 Peter 2:1-2 – Pure Milk

    1 Peter 2:1-2 – Pure Milk

    1 So putting aside all evil and every kind of deceit and hypocrisy and jealousy and all slander, 2 like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, so that you might grow into salvation.

    1 Peter 2:1-2 (my translation)

    This verse is sometimes contrasted with Hebrews 5:13 where the recipients of the letter are chided for not being mature, for needing milk rather than solid food. The two verses are talking about rather different things, however, and thus one should take each metaphor on its own terms, even though “milk” is involved in both.

    After seeing each separately, however, I think there are some lessons to be learned from bringing the two points together. So I’m going to look at that.

    First, the term translated “spiritual” is not usually translated that way, though in this particular verse a wide variety of translations render it as such. I wanted to find a different word, but after looking at it for a while, I couldn’t find a good alternative, and thus bowed to the majority. Perhaps translation committees have made similar searches.

    The word translated here as “spiritual” is also used in Romans 12:1, where it is rendered in a variety of other ways, generally centered around the idea of “acceptable” or “appropriate.” I would like to combine the ideas of “thoughtful,” “logically appropriate,” and “spiritual” into one word in order to translate it well for this context, but I don’t know any word that does that.

    The point of the verse, however, is clear if you look carefully at the context. The meaning of words is determined by the context. This should be a warning against the process of looking in a Greek lexicon or in Strong’s or another concordance keyed to Greek words, and then trying to force one of the definitions into the verse you’re reading.

    In this case, this “spiritual” milk is longed for and taken as nourishment when we put aside all the evil and deceit.

    This reminds me of a military aphorism: In war, most things are simple, but never easy.

    In our spiritual life, the answer can be rather simple, but it never easy.

    Let’s read that into this verse. If we could put away evil, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander, we’d be able to get to that appropriate, acceptable, logical, and spiritual milk. And not only all those things, but pure!

    Now go ahead. Get rid of all of those things from your life.

    Unless you keep deceit–self-deceit–you’ll realize that may be simple, but definitely not easy. Or even possible.

    Yes, if we could just stop deceiving ourselves, we’d be able to get to that pure, nourishing milk. It’s a simple, and hard, as that.

    But Peter isn’t leaving us there. How are we going to get there? Peter, pretty good at messing things up himself, isn’t leaving you there. “If you have tasted that Christ is good” (v3), and if you’ve done that, Christ is going to the the cornerstone.

    There it is. The one and only way to get to this is through Christ. And this is why we have to go back to the basic and simple. One of my authors wrote that there was one way, and only one way to tell if a doctrine is a Christian doctrine, and that was whether it was centered in Christ.

    And that’s where we are right now. People often, with some validity, relate this to the study of scripture. When I identify errors in biblical interpretation, particularly my own, they usually come down to my desire for the text to say something other than what it does. Scripture is not that easy to understand, and the more we look at the big picture, the more difficult it gets. How do all these things fit together?

    It’s so easy to take my agenda, my desires, and put the pieces of the puzzle together in such a way that it pleases me. The deceit involves is most often self-deceit. Self-deceit will corrupt everything you try to understand.

    And that’s where we have to go back to the foundation, in Peter’s words, the cornerstone. Living cornerstone. The question is whether the interpretation you’re creating fits with that living cornerstone.

    Now a short note: I’m speaking hear ultimately about application. A historical understanding of a passage as it would have been heard by those who heard it first is important, and is generally achieved by good historical methodology. But how that applies to my life and the life of the church today requires greater discernment, and this passage provides the basis for this.

    Now let’s relate this to Hebrews 5:13, and the need for solid food. I think it’s a good idea to put the two things together. Getting the pure milk of the word, which results from keeping our eyes on The Living Cornerstone, is a critical foundation. It is also a foundation you can’t cover up as you go on to higher things. If you forget the basics, you’re not going anywhere good.

    At the same time, we are challenged to grow, to get to the solid food, to build up. One of my concerns with Christian education is that we tend to cycle and recycle the same material over and over again. We don’t behave as though we expect anyone to grow and to go on to more advanced material. We’re stuck on the basics.

    Often, we’re stuck on the basics because we aren’t getting the basics. Putting our eyes on Christ is basic, and if we aren’t getting that, more advanced things will tend to get scattered across the landscape. We get into vain arguments when we forget the basics.

    So rather than being contradictory to Hebrews 5:13, the concepts of 1 Peter 2:1-2 are foundational to it. They provide the only path there is to more solid food that doesn’t involve falling back into self-deceit.

    As you read, or meditate, or talk with your Lord today, keep this question in mind: Am I building on the Cornerstone? Is this a fit living stone to put into my structure?

    Let Christ be the center of every thought and act.

  • Larry Craig, Family Values, and Hypocrisy

    I generally try to avoid scandal stories about celebrities, though I’m much more often tempted to read, listen, and comment when they involve political figures. Listening to the arrest interview tape of Senator Larry Craig was an interesting experience. I was immediately struck by how naive I am at age 50. None of the conversation made any sense to me. I’ll have to take other people’s word for it that this was clearly soliciting. In the end, I can’t imagine he actually plead guilty even though he was innocent. Surely a politician of his experience realized the story wouldn’t stay hidden forever.

    I want to make a few comments on the reaction. Democrats are pretty happy, of course, to see another Republican get caught with his pants down, so to speak. Republicans have a harder time defending this one, though there is clearly a willingness in congress to let things pass if they can get by with it. With the information age, such behavior becomes less and less possible, and politicians will realize that if they want to be surviving politicians.

    For many conservatives, it seems that the media reaction is the main part of the story. The media focuses in on the hypocrisy issue, and this bothers them. Surely the basic moral issue is more important. Well, from a Christian moral perspective we have several issues.

    First is that this is a married man who is engaged in infidelity. I think that fact must concern us whatever we believe about homosexuality and its compatibility with Christian faith. Yes, there are many pressures that are put on a gay man by the moral disapprobation of homosexuality, but at the same time there is the sacred vow of marriage. I would suggest that any time we choose to loudly proclaim a set of values that we are not and/or cannot live up to, we are simply asking for the pressures to build. Senator Craig set about gaining power in a subset of society that disapproved of who he was. I know he denies being gay, but at the least it seems he had some tendencies, tendencies that would not be approved by his colleagues. He put everyone around him at high risk by his behavior.

    Secondly, this isn’t directly about homosexuality. Being gay is not about seeking illicit sex in restrooms. This act is dangerous quite apart from any moral view of homosexuality. We should not view this act as any different from that of Senator David Vitter in going to a prostitute. Now there are other points about the two stories that are different, but the type of sex outside of his marriage that was sought by Senator Craig is not the main moral issue.

    Third, we all find it very easy to condemn others for sexual sins. We think sexual sins are so much dirtier than other sins. I am not here trying to define “sexual sin.” Use your own definition if you have one. But other sins such as gossip, theft, accepting bribes and so forth are just as immoral in the sight of God, and yet while we condemn the people who do them, we don’t have the “yuck” reaction that we do to sexual sin. I don’t believe God divides sins into “yucky” and “not-yucky.”

    Fourth, hypocrisy is significant. In my opinion, what Senator Craig did was wrong, irrespective of any issue of hypocrisy. (I must note that it’s hard to separate hypocrisy from this one, since we have a married man carrying out the action. One assumes he was at least hypocritical to his wife.) But I do believe that hypocrisy is another offense and adds to the list, so to speak. Thus the media are not off track in pointing to hypocrisy. If a person who has said nothing about being gay, or who is positive about gay rights comes out of the closet, there is no issue of hypocrisy. Some may still object that they believe homosexuality is wrong in itself, but no issue of hypocrisy arises. When someone has proclaimed that the “gay lifestyle” is wrong, that it is a threat to family values, and that various elements associated with it should be outlawed, and then we find out he has been engaging in those very acts all along, it’s a different matter.

    It is a matter of integrity. The voters should expect that their elected leaders are who they say they are. Then they can choose wisely. Those leaders should expect that the most serious breach of trust is for them not to be who they say they are. In politics, I think hypocrisy is one of the most serious sin–very funny, I know, considering how pervasive it is. But then I believe gossip is probably the most serious sin in the church–very funny also, considering how pervasive it is.

    So would I think Senator Craig’s behavior was OK if he just wasn’t a hypocrite? Well, this is where it’s hard to separate his act from the context. To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, he would have to announce something to the effect that he believed that seeking random sexual encounters in restrooms was OK. He’d still be stuck with the legal issue–it’s against the law, but at least he wouldn’t be a hypocrite. I would think he was unwise (would “incredibly stupid” be going too far?) as well. According to my moral beliefs, he would be morally wrong. There wouldn’t be any possibility that he would be Senator from Idaho under those circumstances.

    Let me use a simpler issue–premarital sex. Now my personal moral code, which I believe is in accord with Biblical and Christian teaching, says “no.” But I know people of generally good character, who don’t approve of random sexual partners, who nonetheless believe that a period of time living together is simply a good way to test the waters. (I’m not arguing that they are right, nor would I make the same suggestion, but these are in general very reliable people.) Now supposing I read a story about a candidate for office that says that he lived with his girlfriend for a couple of years before marrying her. How do I react? Well, if he had concealed the fact, and said such behavior was wrong, and he wanted it to be illegal (unlikely these days, eh?) then I would regard him as a hypocrite, and I would be unlikely to vote for him. The reason is that his words do not match his deeds. On the other hand, if his stated believe was that this was OK, I would still give him consideration, because his deed do match his words.

    Supposing he opposed such behavior but had confessed to his prior behavior? That would again be quite acceptable to me. As a Christian I do believe in redemption and restoration.

    Which brings up one last point–restoration of fallen leaders. I’m thinking of this mostly from a Christian perspective. I believe that a leader who has fallen into sin needs to take a substantial amount of time out of leadership, followed by serving and being faithful in small things, before being restored to leadership. (I’m not going to argue the definition of “sin” here. Use your own again!) I would neither close the door, nor would I make it a revolving door. Some of what I’ve been hearing about Ted Haggard leads me to think that some folks have a revolving door. Forgiveness is good, redemption is possible, but when we’re choosing a small number of leaders we need to make as certain as is humanly possible that we have chosen good examples.

    Having done so, we need to realize that leaders will fall. The tendency to sin is a strong Christian theme as well. That means we need to hold them accountable, and they need to seek accountability to make this kind of problem less likely to occur. The most important method of preventing sin, however, is being transparent. Any time you are pretending to be someone you are not, there will be a great possibility that the pretense will slip, and the real you will show through. If you are being the real you, that danger is removed.

    (Note: I made a number of related remarks on my wife’s devotional list here.