Saturday, March 25, 2017

PoC Chpt III - On Marriage - Part 1

From Principles of Conduct by John Murray.  Chapter 3: The Marriage Ordinance. Part 1.

What causes the most pain, disappointment, frustration, sorrow, anger, anxiety and aggravation in the lives of individuals today? I suppose someone might say "illness" and that is certainly a problem of no small nature. Others might suggest finances, and no doubt money problems impact huge numbers. But it would be hard to argue against the idea that "relationships" and in particular "marriage" problems constitute a significant portion of the pain and problems people experience in life.

Think of the circle of people around you. If you were asked to think of some who have either "marriage" or "relationship" issues that are really causing serious problems in their life, do you have any trouble coming up with some names? These problems are all around us. If nothing else, think about how many movies and songs are produced that have relationship issues at the core of them.

My point is simply this: there is enough evidence that our culture is frustrated with our modern approach to marriage and relationships. Something is broken. It's at least worth a look at what the Bible says about marriage to evaluate if maybe...just maybe...we are doing something wrong. I'm not suggesting that following certain "rules" will ensure a perfect marriage. But on the whole, it is at least possible that God's plan for marriage has been twisted and obscured, and that this is behind many of the troubles we experience.

John Murray spends about 40 pages in his book, Principles of Conduct, covering many of the Biblical principles related to God's plan for marriage. We might think it strange that a book on "ethics" starts with marriage. What does marriage have to do with ethics? But this approach reminds us that, from a Biblical perspective, marriage was God's idea. Therefore, to approach it in any way that is contrary to His design, is an unethical way to live. When we take an institution of God's and re-design it for our own purposes, then we are in violation of His pattern for life, which is the very definition of unethical.

PART 1


In Murray's review of Scripture about marriage, he starts with a few episodes found very early in the history of the world as recorded in the Bible. Scholars call it the "patriarchal" period. And he shows that we find hints that certain ethical standards for marriage were understood by people from the very beginning.

For example...

Digamy or Polygamy (Genesis 4:19). The Scriptures record that a man named Lamech "took 2 wives." This fact is recorded along side the fact of his boastful murder of another man. Murray concludes, I think rightly, that "the desecration of marriage is complementary to the vice of violence and oppression [p. 46]."

Mixed Marriage (i.e. believers marrying unbelievers) from Genesis 6:1-3. Murray offers insight on a passage which has confused many. It is the text which speaks of "the sons of God saw the daughters of men" and they married them. Some have thought this referred to some sort of strange marriage between angels and mankind. But Murray argues it is simply an expression to indicate marriages between the Godly and the ungodly. He concludes "When the interests of godliness do not govern the people of God in the choice of marital partners, irreparable confusion is the result and the interests, not only of spirituality, but also of morality, are destroyed [p. 46]."

Murray shows that the natural, healthy and God-given desire for sex is to be managed within certain boundaries established by God.

Other episodes from this period in Biblical history also highlight certain well-understood principles of marriage.

Joseph and Marriage Integrity (Genesis 39:9) - Joseph refused to sleep with his master's wife, even though she urged him. He understood that this would be a sin in God's eyes, saying "how can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?"

The rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) - The sons of Jacob took vengeance (not that this act was condoned) on those who raped their sister. The point is that it was clear, even then, that such a violent act forced upon another, was inconsistent with sexual purity.

The king of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) - The foreign king understood that taking another man's wife was improper. It is an ironical passage. Here Abraham was to blame, for saying that Sarah was his "sister" and not his "wife." But this goes to show that the sanctity of the marriage relationship was not something merely understood by God's people. In fact, in this case, the ungodly actually understood that principle better than Abraham himself.

Parent's concern for the marriages of their children - Murray points to the lengths that Abraham went to help secure a godly wife for Jacob, and he mentions how Rebecca was burdened by the "mixed" marriage of her son Esau to Hittite women. These passages just further illustrate that these parents understood the difference between a "good" marriage and one that was in violation of God's design.

CONCLUSION

Murray's review of the marriage ordinance is far from over. But he lays down some basics here which are important. At the very least I think his teaching is a necessary restraint upon our concept that "all we need is love." The Biblical account suggests that "ethical" behavior requires that we engage our minds, and not just our hearts, when it comes to thinking about relationships and marriage.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

PoC Chpt II - Work is God's Idea


For many people the very concept of "work" conjures up distasteful thoughts. Ugghhh...Monday! Our culture seems to have taught us to live for the weekends, and just muddle through the other 5 days. In addition to that, work, and our attitude towards work, has been subjected to numerous stereotypes. Those who have done financially "well" are assumed to be workaholics who have their priorities misaligned and who only care about profit not people. On the other hand, those living at or near the poverty level are assumed to have a poor work ethic, and if only they worked harder they would be in a different position in life.


Think of how much political debate and social discussion revolves around the issue of work! What should be the minimum wage? How many hours per week should we have to work? We have labor unions and a Department of Labor and calls for labor reform. Work-issues surround us every day.

Is there, however, a Biblical view of work? Is there such a thing as a Biblical work-ethic? Does our very concept of what work is need a sort of modern reformation?

In John Murray's Principles of Conduct (PoC) he introduces the subject of "labor" as a Creation Ordinance.  Work, along with the institutions of Marriage and the Sabbath, were part of God's initial design and plan for mankind. God created humans to be working, laboring beings.

THE INSTITUTION OF LABOR


Murray argues that the institution of labor is inseparable from the Sabbath institution. You can't have a day of "rest" apart from a concept of "labor." If we were meant to rest one day, then we were obviously meant to work the other 6 days. Additionally, Murray reminds us that God gave Adam and Eve a very specific type of labor to be involved in when we are told in Genesis 2:15 that "the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it."

THE DIGNITY OF MANUAL LABOR


Murray draws an immediate conclusion from the above text which he suggests we have sadly lost sight of today. His conclusion is that there is a fundamental dignity to what we might call "manual labor."  He calls the work of gardening (we might extrapolate and say 'farming') "highly worthy of man's dignity as created after the divine image [p. 35]."  He speaks of the "nobility of manual labor [p. 36]."

Murray suggests that we as a society have suffered by disparaging the dignity of such tasks. He suggests our automatic insistence on and pursuit of "professional" employment may reflect "an unwholesome ambition which is the fruit of impiety [p. 36]." He reminds us that "culture" can be developed in conjunction with tasks which are not professional in nature such as those of the farmer, the tradesman and the laborer. And the fact that we do not assign sufficient nobility and dignity to such types of work, in Murray's view, simply displays how far we have fallen.

THE VARIETY OF WORK


Murray reminds us that mankind's call to work would eventually have involved a variety of tasks since he was commanded to "replenish the earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:28)." This, he says, "must imply the expenditure of thought and skill and energy in bringing the earth and its resources under such control..." [p. 37]

Murray also points out the way in which the earth itself "is fashioned and equipped to meet and gratify the diverse nature and endowments of man" and that man in pursuing such things would "magnify God's glory" through the "discovery and exhibition of the manifold wisdom and power of God [p. 37-38]." Murray imagines man investigating and discovering the wonders of this planet while ascribing all the glory to our Creator.  He quotes Psalm 104:24 as reflective of this where the Psalmist says "O Lord, how manifold are they works...the earth is full of Thy wisdom!" This puts "work" on a much higher level than we are accustomed to doing. There was no sense of drudgery in God's original design.

WORK AS COMMAND AND DELIGHT


Finally, Murray points out that this work that man was called to do was a command. We are, however, too apt to think of anything "commanded" as being burdensome. We equate "duty" with "displeasure." But Murray suggests that "duty" was intended to go hand-in-hand with "delight." Man, prior to sin entering the world, would have found no disconnect between our calling to work and our enjoyment of it. In the absence of sin, there would be "the perfect complementation of duty and pleasure [p. 39]."


APPLICATION


As with the subject of marriage, Murray is going to devote a whole chapter to the concept of work. It is central to man's ethic. But here in this chapter he just shows that work was part of God's original creation-plan.

I do wonder what our places of employment would look like if we all, each and every one of us, began to look at work as a divine calling, sanctified by God's blessing and endorsed by His very command. We have this twisted view that God Himself only smiles on us on Sundays while we are in church. But what if we imagined God watching us work with the same delight He watches us worship?

What if every job was approached with this sort of heavenly dignity and delight? What if we saw our jobs as part of our fulfillment of the "subduing" the earth mandate? What if I thought of my employer as God Himself? Would the quality of my work and attitude about work improve?





Saturday, March 4, 2017

Principles of Conduct - Creation Ordinances - The Sabbath

Everyone loves a special day. Maybe your favorite special day is Christmas. Or maybe your birthday. Or maybe your anniversary. Or maybe ANY day off from work! So many of our culture's industries and businesses exist solely because of special days; feasts, gifts, cards and gatherings all seem to be typically rooted in the observance of special days. 

In his book on Christian ethics entitled Principles of Conduct, professor John Murray (1898-1975) starts with mankind in Eden, prior to any sin entering the world, and focuses on several "Creation Ordinances" which he explains were a part of God's plan for man from the start. In other words, behaving "ethically" demands that we at least consider what the original plan for man looked like.

GOD CREATED A SPECIAL DAY FOR MAN


And, according to Murray, this plan involved a "special" day every week. He builds his case for this from Genesis 2:2 and 2:3, and he explains that each verse has a slightly different perspective.

Genesis 2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

Genesis 2:3 "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."

Murray explains that Genesis 2:2 is NOT specifically about man's weekly cycle. Rather, he says this is about God ENDING His work of creation and ALL of which follows is His rest. In other words, God created for six days...then, and ever since then, has rested from that work. He's not "creating" today. That work was done. 

Genesis 2:3 however is relevant to man's weekly cycle. This is based, he teaches, on Exodus 20:11 in which the 4th commandment ("honor the Sabbath day") makes reference to this specific verse in Genesis.  Why should man have this 1 special day in 7? Exodus 20:11 answers: "For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."

In other words, God's creation-pattern was meant to be a type of pattern for man also. God's template for our weekly cycle included a special day, a different day, every week.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THIS SPECIAL DAY


Murray then draws some important principles to consider from the fact that the Lord created man with a weekly rest-day in mind.

1. Mankind, even before we sinned and ruined everything, needed this cycle of 1 different day every week. In other words, the "Sabbath" wasn't added to help restrain sin or correct our defects. Adam, had he never sinned, would still have observed this weekly cycle and it would have, according to Murray, "continued to condition and regulate his life and activity (p. 32)." Murray further points to the fact that Genesis 1:14 refers to God's creation of light and darkness to regulate "seasons..and days and years." In other words, all of creation was made to provide cycles for man, which included this weekly cycle of a special day.

2. This "special" day, or day of rest, was not a "do nothing" day. It wasn't so for God. The word "rested" might imply, in our minds, "inactivity." But Murray shows the text of Scripture is more about a shift from one kind of activity to another. The Lord's "resting" was just a "rest" from "creation" but not a stopping of His activity altogether.  In like manner the weekly "rest" day for man has another type of activity in mind. Specifically, it would highlight the "God-centered character of the ethic which would have governed Adam's behavior" (p. 33)."

Really? How?  How does this weekly cycle of a special day of rest facilitate this "God-centered" life?

First, it would be a regular reminder to man that his days have a Divine pattern. God's creation pattern of 6 days followed by 1 day of rest would follow man through all his days.  Murray seems to be saying that even now, as we think about what day it is, we should reflect that our days are patterned on God's work of creation and rest. Every day it is like we are (and these are my words not his) putting on a garment which was woven for us when the universe was made.

Second, and more specifically, Murray shows that this "special" day of rest was intended to be a special day for worship. He makes a strong statement worth pondering:  "Even in innocence [i.e. before sin] man would have required time for specific worship. We are too ready to entertain the notion that religion in a state of sinless or confirmed integrity would have required no institutions as the medium of expression.  Our conception of the piety of paradise becomes one of abstract, etherealized mysticism. This conception is not the conception which the data will bear out (p. 34)."

I love that phrase "the piety of paradise." Murray is of course referring to man's behavior in Eden, prior to the Fall. And while we cannot "live in the past" there is something to be said for striving to live according to the model originally set for us at the start. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS


Murray winds up this section by pointing out a common mistake about the observance of a "Sabbath" day, or day of rest. Many assume it had its beginning with Moses as it is referred to in the 4th commandment (Exodus 20). As such, it is often dismissed as irrelevant to modern man, a part of the "ceremonial" character of the Israelite nation which has now been done away in Christ.

But linking this institution to Creation and it's institution in Eden throws the whole idea in a new light. Though it might have been quickly forgotten, as was God's pattern for marriage [see previous post], it nevertheless was always intended as a "binding obligation (p. 35)."


APPLICATION


Several years ago an emergency room physician wrote a book entitled "24/6" in which he argued that we would be healthier, both physically and mentally, if we took a 6-day approach to work, committing to intentionally rest for a full day every week. 

In an interview with CNN Dr. Sleeth elaborated:

"For almost 2,000 years, Western culture stopped -- primarily on Sunday -- for about 24 hours. Even when I was a child, you couldn't buy gasoline, you couldn't buy milk. The drugstores weren't open. The only thing that was open was a hospital. Even in dairy farming country, we would milk cows, but we wouldn't bring in hay.  And so society just had a day where they put it in park. (That) was Sunday... until the last 30 years or so.  We go 24/7 now, and I think it's having health consequences. I think more and more, there's a consensus that it leads to depression and anxiety."

It is interesting to hear a physician say this. I have often thought this was the case as well. I'm guessing the Lord knew what He was up to when He designed this pattern for man.  Maybe we should listen?









Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Principles of Conduct - Creation Ordinances: Procreation & Marriage

If you had to write a basic job description for humanity, what would you write?

I have been working in management for nearly all of my career. When a business wants to hire someone, one of the first things that management is called upon to do is to write a job description. What will be the responsibilities of this new hire? What will the scope of their job involve? What duties will they be expected to perform?


Mankind, if you will, also had an original "job description." These are the things we were made for. And while these original requirements are not comprehensive of the entire Christian ethic, they are at least an appropriate place to start any study of this kind.

John Murray's second chapter in Principles of Conduct is entitled "Creation Ordinances." Specifically, he is looking closely at Genesis chapters 1 & 2, and asking "what is our purpose?" His assumption, and I would agree, is that ethics begins where mankind begins.  And while there are a number of specific commands to mankind in Genesis 1 & 2, he basically narrows down the "Creation Ordinances" into 3: 
  • Procreation & Marriage
  • The Sabbath
  • Labor
In this chapter Murray just touches on those mandates that have their origin in Creation itself. He doesn't extensively discuss their ethical character and demands, as that will be addressed in subsequent chapters.  Here he just shows how the roots of some of these very important principles of conduct are grounded in Creation itself.

In this post I'll quickly review what he says about procreation and marriage.

PROCREATION AND MARRIAGE


The first of these "Creation Ordinances" he addresses is procreation and marriage. The texts in which these mandates are found are:

Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply..." [i.e. Have kids!]
Genesis 2:23-24 "23. And Adam said 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of man.  24. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh." [i.e. Get Married!]

When is the last time you heard a sermon entitled "Get Married & Have Kids!" I suspect you haven't. And while there are additional factors to consider respecting these commands (i.e. they are NOT necessarily for everyone) - there is nevertheless something fundamental here related to God's purpose for mankind. 

Murray points out that the language of 2:24 ("therefore a man shall leave...") leaves open the question whether Adam said these words, or were they added by the inspired author (Moses). If not spoken by Adam, the question then is whether or not Adam understood the implication of his words to the marriage institution. 

Murray then takes on the role of a theologian and professor and makes the following 2 points:

THEOLOGICAL POINTS


Point #1: Adam, in Murray's opinion, understood the marriage institution in the Garden of Eden

Murray argues that Adam would have known that his statement in vs. 23 ("bone of my bone...") implied the marriage institution of vs 24, since 24 is a conclusion built on the statement made in verse 23. Also, add to that the fact that Jesus refers to Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:8 when he says "from the beginning it was not so." The logic is that if the implication of verse 24 was not known to Adam, how could Jesus say, referring to this verse, that "from the beginning it was not so?"

Point #2: Marriage, as instituted in Creation, was intended as a monogamous ordinance

Murray sees the language of the text of "two becoming one flesh" as allowing for only a monogamous option for marriage. But he adds to that several New Testament passages which clearly indicate the monogamous expectation of marriage (Matt 19:3-9, Mark 10:3-9, Eph 5:31), and that the authors of these statements (Jesus and Paul) both point to Genesis 2:24 as the origin of the marriage institution.

CONCLUSION


I should point out again that Murray is NOT saying that the Bible tells EVERY person to get married and have kids. Christian ethics involves looking at the WHOLE Bible, and in the chapter on marriage there will be some important references made to individuals who should NOT get married.

Nevertheless, mankind had a job description in Creation which included the marriage of a man to a woman, and procreation within this context. This is not Murray's final word on marriage, as he will devote his next entire chapter to "The Marriage Ordinance," but here he just shows that the roots of marriage began at the very beginning of history and was part of God's design.

APPLICATION


It is not hard to see how the culture of fallen mankind has opposed this concept of marriage from the beginning. Polygamy is just one example. Society has sought many substitutes for it, delayed it, denied its necessity, corrupted its purpose and mocked its importance. Marriage, however, is God's idea, not ours. As such, love to God and love to others will seek to maintain God's ideal and purpose for this institution. The forthcoming chapter on marriage will focus on some of the specific ethical expectations are with respect to marriage.



Sunday, February 26, 2017

Principles of Conduct - Introductory Questions: All We Need is Love?

The Beatles said "all you need is love." Could they be right?

I mean, given the high praise assigned to love in the Scriptures, such a suggestion isn't so far fetched. Before we get ourselves all concerned about various ethical issues, rules of conduct, principles, laws and behavior, maybe we could save ourselves a lot of time by just saying what Paul says in Colossians, "Most of all, let love guide your life [Col. 3:14]."

Could Murray's whole 265 page book be tossed aside and substituted with 5 little words: Love is all you need?



John Murray was a good teacher.  And the greatest teachers, in my opinion, have always been the ones who anticipate the objections raised in the minds of their students, and address them. Jesus often did this.  The apostle Paul did this. Great preaching, I believe, will always do this to some extent. Politicians, on the other hand, almost never do this. One of the most disappointing experiences I have had as a reader is when I read a book and the author seems unwilling to address the most obvious objections to his/her position.  Sorry.  I'm on a soap box.  Returning to earth now.

So, as I said, Murray deals with the idea that a renewed heart is really all we need. It is as if he imagines a student raising his hand and saying that a true believer has "an intuitive sense of what is right and good [p. 19]." Case closed.  Class dismissed. Everyone gets an "A" just by writing "LOVE" across the pages of every ethical exam planned for the semester. 

Now, that  might sound a little silly.  But, he argues that we may not easily dismiss this suggestion, for it has, as he puts it, "an important stratum of truth [p. 20]." And he then goes on to show the force and strength of this line of thinking, quoting from various Scriptures about how the law is "written on the heart" and how "love is the fulfilling of the law." He approaches this subject as one who has thought it through deeply, and suggests that we are here approaching the very "cardinal issues of the biblical ethic [p. 22]"

In other words - Murray begins by taking time to put an opposing perspective in the best possible light, giving it the strongest possible arguments, and making it appear very plausible and logical.

Then he begins to gently, carefully and thoughtfully dismantle it.

At this point he demands his readers put on their thinking caps. He seems to almost apologize for what he calls a "rather extended discussion [p. 22]." He is going to take us through 6 steps and each one follows necessarily and logically on the other. The following is my abbreviated version of each step.

1. First, he affirms that love is, in fact, the fulfilling of the law. He shows that this means that apart from love, no fulfilling of the law is of any value. There must be love in the heart that drives the obedience. Without it, law-keeping is hypocrisy at best. He affirms that "from start to finish it is love that fulfills the law [p. 23]."  Love, he says, is both "feeling" and "action." It constrains and compels. A "love" that does not find its fulfillment in law-keeping is not the sort of love spoken of in Scripture.

2. Love, he point out however, is itself a command. "We are commanded to love God and our neighbor [p.23]." Murray points out that we must beware the view of love that sees it as automatic or merely emotional. He says "We must resist the perverse conception of the nature of love that we cannot be commanded to love, that love must be spontaneous and cannot be evoked by demand [p. 23]." Here Murray argues that if we suggest Christianity now has "no commandments" and only "love" that we miss the very fact that love, itself, is a command.  

3. Next, Murray shows that a careful look at Scripture teaches us that "law" and "love" are not interchangeable words. The Bible doesn't say that "love" IS the law. Love, rather, fulfills the law. Love moves the person to keep the law. He says "we may not speak of the law of love if we mean that love is itself the law." Love is not the law.  Love keeps the law, fulfills the law, embraces the law. 

4. Then, Murray looks at Scripture and shows that love has never been a sort of "autonomous" principle that worked apart from any law or commandments. He makes a strong point when he says "Even man in his innocence was not permitted to carve for himself the path of life; it was charted for him from the outset [p. 24]." If ever there was a time in human history where we could imagine that the only law was "love" it would have been in Eden.  But we actually see that God gave Adam and Eve precepts and commands in Eden.

5. In fact, Murray shows, the idea of love working in an autonomous fashion would create all sorts of problems. What actions would this love take? What would love do? Would everyone's concept of love be considered equally valid? Throughout the history of God's dealing with His people, love was never expected to be a law to itself. Rather, Murray says that this love "has always existed and been operative in the context of revelation from God respecting His will [p.25]."

6. Finally, Murray argues that the meaning of the "law written upon the heart" is that a principle of love for God's law, and a desire to keep it from the heart, occurs within the redeemed. It is not that the demands of the law are suddenly inscribed on the heart, but the heart is changed to want to do the will of God. 

Thus Murray brings this part of his introduction to a close. He suggests it is inconceivable that mankind in his original sinless state would need specific commands for behavior (which we know Adam and Eve were given), but that now we only need a general inclination to "love." 

In typical John Murray fashion he makes his view of the matter crystal clear.  He says that the "notion...that love is its own law...is a fantasy which has no warrant from Scripture and runs counter to the witness of the biblical teaching [p. 26]."

With all due respect to John Lennon, I guess it isn't quite true that all we need is love.  


APPLICATION

What Murray is arguing for in this part of the book is something I believe we all recognize, but don't equally apply in the spiritual realm as we do in the natural realm. 

For example, if a husband says he "loves" his wife, but never tells her so, never does the things that please her, in fact is most often mean, selfish and cruel, then we all recognize there is something defective with his love.  If an employee says that they "love" their job, but actually are very careless in how they work, sloppy, moody, show up late, and are rude to customers...we again perceive a somewhat inadequate type of love going on. A physician may say she loves her patients, but if she does nothing to study medicine and stay current on treating disease, her love is at best a lazy shortcut for the type of love that could heal the sick.

Do I love God?  Then I'll do what He wants, as expressed by Him in His Word. I'll seek to understand the Bible and the patterns of behavior He approves of. We will, as Paul said to the Corinthians, "...make it our aim to please Him (2 Cor. 5:9)." 

What type of behavior pleases God? That is the subject of Christian ethics.  That is the content of this book, Principles of Conduct. Murray is going to begin to unpack this in the chapters ahead.