Praise and Worship: Words of Praise

27 December, 201413 March, 2016Marissa

The question of how we should praise and worship our God seems to be following me. It comes up at Messianic services where we sing, dance, blow shofars, clap hands and tambourines, and lift our hands in praise. It comes up in my local United Church of God group, where we sing a few hymns then sit quietly in our seats. It comes up in Facebook groups, comments on this blog, and private messages from friends and readers.

On the one hand, we have people who worry that physical manifestations of worship take away from our focus on God, and distract fellow believers. They say the Sabbath is not a time to entertain yourself, but a time to honor God. They’ve seen brethren who started exploring ideas from other church groups leave the faith, so to be safe they stick with tradition and shun anything new.

On the other hand, we have people who think the best way to honor God is to involve the physical as well as the spiritual. The outward forms of worship are not to entertain us — they are the natural manifestation of our inward worship. They say if we see a president for something in the Bible as a good thing, throw out our church tradition and replace it with what we find in scripture.

I try to see both sides of an argument when considering most questions, and to be sensitive to other view points. I understand the reluctance to leave comfort zones, and the fear of change turning out bad instead of good. Still, I’m sure you can tell that I’m leaning toward the later argument, the one in favor of more enthusiasm in our service to God. But why? What does the Bible have to say about the subject of praise and worship, and how important is it to God that we do things one way or another? This will be the first in a series of blog posts on the subject.

Offering Acknowledgement

Often, a word in the Hebrew language will have several different meanings and you have to infer what is specifically being said from the context. Another language, like Greek or English, would use several different words to describe the same idea. This is not, however, the case with the subject of “praise.”

I count 7 different Hebrew words that are translated into English as “praise” in the King James Version. Some are only translated “praise” on occasion and have other related meanings, while others are exclusively used to describe a form of praise. There’s also a separate word for “worship.” What this tells me is that the idea and activity of praise was extremely important to the Hebrew people who worshiped God, and to God Himself. Since He is unchanging, praise is also vital for believers today.

The first time the word “praise” appears, it is spoken by a woman (not saying that’s significant; just interesting). After giving birth to another son, Jacob’s wife Leah says, “‘Now I will praise the Lord;’ therefore she called his name Judah” (Gen. 29:35). The word for “praise” here, and the root word of Judah’s name, is yadah (H3034). It means to acknowledge, recognize and declare a fact. It can mean confession, or to acknowledge the role of God in one’s own life and thereby five Him praise. Zodhiates notes it can also mean speak out, sing, or give thanks.

I will praise You, O Lord, with my whole heart; I will tell of all Your marvelous works. I will be glad and rejoice in You; I will sing praise to Your name, O Most High. (Ps. 9:1-2)

Here, yadah in verse one is paired with another word for praise in verse two. Zamar (H2167) is the word for musical praise, and playing instruments or singing in a praise celebration. It’s often translated “sing praise,” or with reference to stringed instruments.

Oh, give thanks to the Lord! Call upon His name; make known His deeds among the peoples! Sing to Him, sing psalms to Him; talk of all His wondrous works! (1 Chr. 16:8-9)

Singing is an integral part of several words for praise. Another, todah (H8426), “describes an offering of thanks or a sacrifice of thanksgiving,” which could be delivered in the form of a song (Baker and Carpenter). This was the purpose of the two “large thanksgiving choirs” appointed by Nehemiah (Neh. 12:27, 31, 38), the appears in other verses as well. Praising God involves thanking Him and acknowledging His goodness, often publicly with songs or spoken words.

But I will sacrifice to You with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay what I have vowed. Salvation is of the Lord. (Jon. 2:9)

Offerings like this are part of the service God expects of His people. We’ve spent all our time in the Old Testament so far, but this is certainly part of New Testament Christianity as well. Let’s take a quick look at a verse from the book of Hebrew before going back to the Old Testament:

Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. (Heb. 13:15)

Hallelujahs

The Hebrew word halel (H1984) is the word most often translated “praise” (closely followed by yadah). Baker and Carpenter’s dictionary says it comes from a root that means “to shine” or “to shout.” Both show up in the meaning of halal, which refers to praising God and is at the root of the word “hallelujah.” In the Old Testament, one of the things it is associated with is Levitical ministry as set-up by the righteous kings of Israel.

And he [David] appointed some of the Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, to commemorate, to thank, and to praise the Lord God of Israel (1 Chr. 16:4)

When Zodhiates defines this word, he says that “the idea of radiance” is key to understanding what halal means. We praise God to make His glory shine forth. It is from this word that we get “the connotation of the ebullience of rejoicing and praising God.” It involves cheerfulness, exuberance, and is full of energy. Praise is a powerful thing in the mouths of God’s people. It is an expected service, and can lead to amazing victories, as we see in the story of King Jehoshaphat.

And when he had consulted with the people, he appointed those who should sing to the Lord, and who should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army and were saying: “Praise the Lord, for His mercy endures forever.” Now when they began to sing and to praise, the Lord set ambushes against the people of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, who had come against Judah; and they were defeated. (2 Chr. 20:21-22)

These verses used halal, yadah, and another word, tehillah (H8416), which is derived from halal. It is used “of the adoration and thanksgiving which humanity renders to God” (Baker and Carpenter). It refers specifically to a hymn or song of praise, and is the Hebrew name for the book of Psalms (Zodhiates).

One of the main points I notice in all these definitions of words for “praise” is that it is impossible to keep silent. If you’re praising God, in the sense the words convey, you are talking about Him, singing to Him, and making known your adoration for Him all the time.

I will bless the Lord at all times; His praise shall continually be in my mouth. My soul shall make its boast in the Lord; the humble shall hear of it and be glad. Oh, magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt His name together. (Ps. 43:1-3)

The word for “bless” here is the last on our list of Hebrew words translated “praise” (in Judges 5:2). Usually, barak (H1288) is translated “bless,” and it means “to bless, kneel, salute, or greet.” It is used both of people blessing, praising, and acknowledging God, and of God giving blessings to us.

I realized just a short way into this study that it was going to require multiple blog posts to cover. Consider this word-study a foundation/introduction for a whole series on the subject of praise and worship. I’m looking forward to delving deeper into this subject with you in the next few weeks, and welcome any feedback you have. Suggestions for what to include in this study as it continues? Agree or disagree with anything I’ve said? Comment below!

Myers-Briggs Types and Grief

21 December, 201421 December, 2014Marissa

I started writing this post nearly a year ago, after losing a dear friend, but I couldn’t finish it then. While I was grieving and watching the people around me grieve, I started wondering if the ways individuals respond to grief might be influenced by personality type. Once I started thinking about it, I was surprised that it wasn’t something I’d already read about in my personality studies.

People experience grief in such different ways that it would make sense for someone to try and find commonalities between how each personality type deals with grief. Maybe then we could come up with a self-help method for the grieving process more individualized than the inadequate and outdated 5 stages of grief model.

A few Google searchers later, I’d found plenty of forum topics where people who shared personality types were getting together to compare notes on how they deal with grief. I also found the following on the official Myers-Briggs website:

There have been many books written about personality type and grief, and it is perhaps one of the most profound uses of type. Understanding one’s personality type helps a person recognize why certain expressions of grief are better suited to his or her personal journey through this difficult process.

Unfortunately, they are neglected to give any more information about the “many books.” I’ve only been able to find Recovery from Loss: A Personalized Guide to the Grieving Process by Lewis Tagliaferre and Gary L. Harbaugh and Understanding Grief Types: Working with the Individual Nature of Bereavement by Lisa Prosser-Dodds (which had not yet been released).

Survey of Available Information

Recovery from Loss is specifically written for people who are grieving the loss of a spouse. It proposes a 20-step model for dealing with grief, and does address the role of personality type. However, the authors’ ideas are drawn from general knowledge of how different types respond to stressful situations rather than on actual research. They suggest this would be a profitable study, but do not undertake such a study themselves.

For such a study, I found a The Relationship Between Grief and Personality — A Quantitative Study by Lisa Prosser-Dodds, who presented this study of 239 individuals’ responses to grief as part of her PhD (I’m assuming it was also the starting point for her soon-coming book). Her study asks, ” Is there a difference in grief response between groups with differing MBTI personality types?” According to her, previous explorations of the MBTI’s role in grief are very few. She mentions four:

a 1990 study of 51 bereaved mothers that said, “Extroverts reported higher levels of coping resources and focused on Social, Cognitive, Emotional and Spiritual resources.” The sample group mainly consisted of Extroverts and Feelers.
a 1999 study of 14 people who had lost a spouse. This study “found differences in styles of grieving between varying personality types” but not “a significant use of inferior function,” which we would expect to show up in times of stress.
the 1990 book Recovery From Loss, which I’ve alredy mentioned. Prosser-Dodds thinks their 20-step recovery model is presented “at a level of intellectual requirement that most grievers might become unable to digest,” and notes their observations are “not grounded in empirical data.”
the 1994 book Voices of Loss, compiling first-hand accounts of grief and loss (not necessarily due to death) from various personality types. It is also “not based upon empirical data.”

What We Can Learn

If you’re interested in reading part of Prosser-Dodd’s study, her summary of results begins on page 68 of this PDF document. The aspect of her findings that I found most surprising was that “When the dominant function aspect of the personality was compared, none of the results showed significant differences. All six subscales and the total scale scores failed to support the hypothesis.” Given Naomi Quenk’s writings on the role of inferior functions in times of stress, this is quite shocking. I would have assumed eruptions of the shadow played a key role in grief, but our dominant function might actually have more to do with how we grieve than our inferior functions.

Instead, “the results that showed the most significant differences were with the predictor variable functional pairs (NT, ST, NF and SF).” This probably wouldn’t have surprised Isabel Myers, since that is the method she used to divide personality types into four groups: “ST- Practical and Matter of Fact Types,” “SF – Sympathetic and Friendly Types,” “NF – Enthusiastic and Insightful Types,” and “NT – Logical and Ingenious Types.”

NF Types

Prosser-Dodd found that NF types had “higher levels of despair, disorganization and detachment” in their grief response, as wells as “slightly less personal growth.” NF type tend to feel things deeply in general, so it is hardly surprising that our grief response involves high levels of emotion. They are, however, better able than thinking types to find meaning in the tragedy of loss and regain balance in relation to the world.

NT Types

Intuitive Thinkers scored lowest on all aspects measured by the Integration of Stressful Life Events Scale. This measures the ability to make meaning out of a loss and to find one’s footing in the world while recovering. Prosser-Dodd said that considering NT types as “as the logical and strategic types, it would follow they might struggle with a comprehension of the loss in general and perhaps find it difficult to regain their footing in world following a loss.”

SF and ST Types

On the scales of despair, disorganization, and detachment the ST and SF types scored in between the NF and NT types, with SF types just a bit higher than ST types. Interestingly, ST types were the most likely to use a loss for personal growth. SFs scored higher than STs in being able to find their footing in the world and make meaning out of a loss (they’re better at this than NF types, as well).

God’s Friends

20 December, 201420 December, 2014Marissa

Disney explains Greek words for love, by Blair a.k.a. GraphiteDoll

When we talk about love in the bible, the word we’re usually discussing is agape. It’s one of several Greek words for love, and is typically described as “godly” or “unconditional” love. There’s also storge (family love), eros (romantic love), and phileo (friendly love).

Agape is an amazing kind of love. It’s the one spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13 and the word used in the phrase “God is love. ” Most times when the word “love” appears in the New Testament, it is translated from a form of agape.

But the other kinds of love are amazing as well, and I think we can overlook the importance of phileo in our fixation with agape (storge and eros are not found in scripture).

Friend of God

Philos (G5384) is the root word for a whole family of words having to do with love. It’s basic meaning is “friend” — someone who is dear, a beloved companion. The derivative phileo is the form more often translated “love.” It means “to have affection for someone.” Zodhiates notes that it is rarely used of man’s love toward God, but is used of the disciples’ love for Jesus. Both agape and phileo are used of God’s love toward man. Simply put, phileo involves adopting someone’s interests as yours.

the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. (John 16:27)

By using the word phileo in this passage instead of agape, Christ is telling us that God feels affection for us. He is fond of those who love His Son, and He has shared interests with us.

A chapter earlier, Jesus tells His disciples, “You are My friends if you do whatever I command you” (John 15:14). That word is philos. The disciples would have known about the connection between these two words, and I suspect what Christ was telling them was that they could be friends with the Father as well as with Him, just as Abraham was.

And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. (James 2:23)

James tells us that Abraham was called God’s friend after “he offered Isaac his son on the altar.” That situation was an example of works and faith going together in a way that perfected Abraham’s faith (James 2:21-22). At that point, Abraham had faithfully demonstrated for years that his interests were in line with God’s plan.

Abraham is not the only person in the Bible who God treated as a friend. We’re told “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Ex. 33:11). God called David “a man after My own heart, who will do all My will” (Acts 13:22). As their interests lined up with God’s and they moved in the direction God was leading, they became His friends. Christ’s friendship with His disciples followed much the same pattern, and that is the kind of relationship we are now offered with God the Father and with Jesus Christ.

Necessity of Brotherly Kindness

In most places where we are instructed by God to love other people, the word is agape or agapao. But there are a few places where a form of phileo is used instead.

Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another (Rom. 12:10)

Believers are to have this kind of love for one another. If the church is unified in Christ, then the members will share the same goals and interests, because they are also His goals and interests. The brethren will be friendly to one another, and love each other like friends who are closer than family.

But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Pet. 1:5-8)

Both “brotherly kindness” and agape are necessary for us to become the opposite of barren and unfruitful. We must set our hearts on right things, and focus on being friends of God rather than of the world, for whoever “wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

The necessity for a friendly kind of love between brethren is made plain not only by verses discussing phileo between believers, but also by verses like Philippians 2:1-4 and Ephesians 4:1-7 that talk about how we should be like-minded and care for one another. Other instructions for us to have phileo hearken back to our discussion about being friends with God. Turns out, having this kind of affection for our Creator is not optional.

If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come! (1 Cor. 16:22)

The King James reads, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” The word anathema (G331) means something accursed, or given up to destruction. It does not “denote punishment intended as disciple but being given over or devoted to divine condemnation” (Zodhiates). Maran-atha (G3134) is an Aramaic word which literally means “our Lord has come.” Taken together, it tells us that someone who does not love, phileo, Jesus Christ will be judged at the Lord’s coming, and probably not in the way they were hoping (Matt. 7:21-23). It could probably be translated, “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be set aside for condemnation when the Lord returns.”

Add Agape

As vital as phileo is in our relationship with the God-family, it is not enough by itself. We must have phileo, but we must also add agape, as we saw in 2 Peter 1:5-8.

Probably one of the most discussed passages where both phileo and agape are used is in John 21. Here, we find a conversation between Jesus and Peter, after Peter had seen the resurrected Lord and then went back to fishing. In the following quote, I’ve replaced the English word “love” with the Greek word it’s translated from, so you can see which one is used when.

So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you agapao Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I phileo You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”

He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you agapao Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I phileo You.” He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you phileo Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you phileo Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I phileo You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. (John 21:15-17)

Usually, when I hear people talk about this verse, it’s in the context of agapao being a much higher form of love than phileo. They say Peter just wasn’t quite able to measure up to that kind of love — that he kept falling short of what Christ was asking. From Peter’s perspective, though, I don’t think that was the case. He responded to Christ’s question about agapao by saying, “Yes.” Perhaps what he meant when he added phileo was, “Of course I have agape love for you. You know that — I love you like a brother. We’re friends.”

And yet, Peter had denied Jesus three times just a few days ago (John 18:15-18, 25-27). I think Peter initially thought phileo was a better kind of love because of how much it involves emotions, but phileo needs agape added to it. Agape is the kind of love that keeps loving when feelings are gone or when they are crowded out by fear. Peter did learn this lesson, for it’s in his epistle that we are told to add agapao to our brotherly kindness.

We need to learn similar lessons today. Our love for God and our fellow believers does need an element of emotion and feeling — we need to be friends with them. Our love also needs to be stable and unconditional — we need to act with love even when we don’t feel in love. Both are needed to maintain a friendship with God.

Heartbreak and Vulnerability

15 December, 20149 September, 2018Marissa

This week, I was reading someone’s comments on a young lady’s question about her increasingly physical relationship with her boyfriend when I ran into a phrase that always makes me twitch. The commenter suggested breaking up with the boyfriend immediately, then said, “Do not get attached to any boy until you are ready to have a serious relationship.”

Now, that might be good advice in this specific case (since the girl was 16 and had only been dating the guy for 3 months). But in Christian circles, the idea of not getting attached to anyone until you’re ready to get married has been painted with a wide brush across a whole range of situations. It’s often treated as a sure solution to avoiding heartbreak and keeping yourself “pure” for God.

Concerning Conduct

I first heard this advice in courtship circles, where young people are advised to avoid developing feelings for someone of the opposite sex and just be friends until they reach a point where they want to get married. Then, in theory, you can start courting one of these friends and explore the possibility of marriage with them. If you develop feelings for someone before you’re in a position where you could get married to them, then you’re doing something wrong.

Struggle then against yourself as you would struggle against an enemy. Refuse to listen to a wish, to dwell even upon a possibility, that opens to your present idea of happiness. All that in the future may be realized probably hangs upon this conflict. … I only require from you what depends upon yourself, a steady and courageous warfare against the two dangerous undermines of your peace and of your fame, imprudence and impatience.

If not for the slightly out-dated language, you might think I quoted this from a courtship book written within in the past ten years or so. Actually, this quote is from the novel Camilla, first published in 1796 by Frances Burney. It’s part of the letter a pastor writes to his daughter, and is based on 18th century conduct books. Camilla’s father urges her not to let the man she is attracted to learn of her affection, because as a woman it is her duty to “retire to be chosen” by a man rather than seek out a man she loves. It doesn’t turn out quite like he planned, though, since Edgar is waiting for a sign that Camilla has feelings for him before he confesses his attraction to her. They spend much of the 913 pages of this novel miserable because neither one thinks they can properly and decently give the other a hint about how they feel.

On Heartbreak

There are oodles and oodles of songs and stories about heartbreak. Two people fall in love (or at least become quite attached to each other), have a relationship, then the relationship ends and one or both people end up with “broken hearts.” One thing this model presupposes is that you have to be in a relationship in order to get your heart broken. I don’t think that is the case. You can experience the feeling of heartbreak without actually having been in a relationship with someone.

This is one of the things the courtship movement got right — if you let yourself get attached to someone, there’s always the chance that they can hurt you, even if it’s simply by not returning your feelings. Courtship phrased this as “giving away pieces of your heart,” and said the reason it’s a bad idea is because then you don’t have as much heart left to give the person you actually do marry (which is really a ridiculous idea when you think about it; it’s not like we’re born with a set amount of love that we have to dole out sparingly, but problems with the courtship movement is a topic for another day).

I’ve never been in a romantic relationship, but even so I feel like my heart’s been broken a few times. It’s largely my own fault, too — I let myself get pretty close (emotionally) to a few guys I liked, and nothing came of the relationships. But would I have been better if I’d tried to keep myself from feeling anything at all, as Camilla’s father suggests? I really don’t think so.

On Vulnerability

Being open to the possibility of heartache is a prerequisite for entering any kind of relationship. The people who know us best and who we are closest to are those who are most capable of loving us, but they are also the people who could most easily hurt us. If we want to gather people around us to love and be loved by us, we have to take risks. We have to have the strength to be vulnerable.

To love someone fiercely, to believe in something with your whole heart, to celebrate a fleeting moment in time, to fully engage in a life that doesn’t come with guarantees – these are risks that involve vulnerability and often pain. But, I’m learning that recognizing and leaning into the discomfort of vulnerability teaches us how to live with joy, gratitude and grace.” ― Brené Brown, from “The Gifts of Imperfection”

Now, we should exercise a certain amount of caution when letting people get close to us. Some people simply cannot be trusted with your heart, but you usually don’t know who these people are until you start to get to know them. The key is to be vulnerable in stages. Don’t pour out all your thoughts, emotions, and self into someone you just met. You do, however, need to start connecting to people authentically if you want to develop relationships. Locking everyone out might keep them from breaking your heart, but you’ll end up lonely if you try that and loneliness can feel an awful lot like heartbreak.

Brene Brown has a great TED talk about this subject. She says that the people who have “a strong sense of love and belonging” see vulnerability as fundamental. They share a willingness “to say ‘I love you’ first, the willingness to do something where there are no guarantees … to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out.” It’s not easy, and it’s not guaranteed to keep you safe, but I think it is better to risk getting close to people than fighting your human desire for connection “as you would struggle against an enemy.”

Are We On Fire for God?

13 December, 201412 December, 2014Marissa

Last Shabbat, the Rabbi in my local Messianic congregation gave a message on zeal. One of the last things he said in the message was, “Christ is not coming back for a bride who has no fire.” We want to much to be the kind of people Christ will be looking for at His return, so if this is the case we do well to take heed, and learn what it means to be on fire, or have fire, for the Lord.

What is Zeal?

The Hebrew words translated “zeal” and “zealous” are qana (H7065), qanna (H7067), and qin’a (H7068). They can all be translated “jealous” as well. Both qana and qin’a can be used in a good or a bad sense, but qanna is exclusively used as a title or attribute of God. Exodus 34:14 even says the Lord’s “name is Jealous.”

In the positive connotations, these words express a strong emotion one person has for another person, or on behalf of someone else. It is “an intense furor, passion, and emotion that is greater than a person’s wrath or anger” (Baker and Carpenter’s WordStudy Dictionary of the Old Testament). Zeal is one of the strongest emotions there is.

When God tells us He is a “jealous God,” He is saying that He does not tolerate any competition for our adoration (Ex. 20:5; Deut. 4:24; Josh 24:19). In all three of these verses, the context is talking about the evils of being unfaithful to the Lord by worshiping idols and turning away to other religions. God has invested His strongest emotions and passions in us, and He expects us to be “on fire” for Him in return.

They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God; they have moved Me to anger by their foolish idols. But I will provoke them to jealousy by those who are not a nation; I will move them to anger by a foolish nation. (Deut. 32:21)

God won’t accept a stagnant, lackluster reaction to Him from His people. A half-hearted worship is thoroughly distasteful to Him.

I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. … As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. (Rev. 3:15-16, 19)

The Greek words for “zeal” and “zealous” are zelos (G2205), zeloo (G2206), and zelotes (G2207). Like the Hebrew, these can have a positive or negative meaning. We actually discussed the negative side of zeloo last week, in connection with 1 Corinthians 13:4.

I think perhaps the best example of how this trait can be good or bad is the apostle Paul. Before his conversion, he persecuted Christ’s church out of zeal for the Jewish faith (Phil. 3:6). But after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, he turned that zeal to preaching the true gospel.

In the Greek, zelos is derived form the word zeo (G2204), which means to be hot, either in the sense of fervency or actual warmth, so all the zeal-words carry this idea of heat. Focusing on the positive sides of the definitions, Zodhiates says, “zelos signifies the honorable emulation with the consequent imitation of that which presents itself to the mind’s eye as excellent.” When zeal sees good, it strives to become good. The next word, zeloo, means to be filled with zeal, jealousy, or love. Zelotes refers to a person who is “zealous for or eagerly desirous of something.”

Zealous Love

We just mentioned the relationship between zeal and love in defining the word zeloo. It seems fitting, then, to focus on that next. If God did not love His people so much, He would not be so jealous of our affection. Our God is described as “a consuming fire, a jealous God” (Deut. 4:24). How could we expect His love to lack zeal? He does not passively love us from some cold, aloof position. His love is active, and emotional.

So the angel who spoke with me said to me, “Proclaim, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: “I am zealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with great zeal. …” ‘Therefore thus says the Lord: “I am returning to Jerusalem with mercy; My house shall be built in it,” says the Lord of hosts, “And a surveyor’s line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem.”’ (Zech. 1:14, 16)

Notice that in connection with His zeal for His people, the Lord says, “My house shall be built.” This is not the only place where the Lord demonstrates a zeal for His house.

Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables. And He said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.” (John 2:13-17)

The people Christ threw out of the temple were making a mockery of worship. They had turned God’s house into a place of business. From what I’ve heard, they had probably set up a system where people had to purchase a sacrificial animal from them before going into the temple, rather than bringing a sacrifice of their own. The sellers were putting themselves in a position where the people had to deal with them before they could approach God, and Jesus did not approve. It was unacceptable in the physical temple, and such things are unacceptable in God’s church today.

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. (1 Cor. 3:16-17)

Sounds a lot like what we just read in the gospel of John, doesn’t it? We are “members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19), and Jesus has the same zeal for us today that He had for His Father’s house back then. He won’t tolerate impure worship practices, or those who try to get between Him and His church. He wants a bride whose heart is fully His, and who is eager for Him to come back and claim her.

What Will He Find In Us?

For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Cor. 11:2-3)

It is possible to let our love for and commitment to Christ wane, and we must be on guard against such a thing. Paul was filled with zeal about the church not loosing their commitment to Christ. In a very real way, he was zealous for His Father’s house. We should also be zealous about guarding our hearts and keeping them fixed on Christ, and on helping our brethren toward a passionate relationship with God as well.

Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. (Rev. 2:4)

This is part of the letter to the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2. Christ commends this church for their works, labor, patience, and their diligence to root-out evil. But even with all those good things, He says that if they do not “repent and do the first works” He will “remove your lampstand from its place” (Rev. 2:1-7). Just like in 1 Corinthians 13 where gifts, knowledge, and other spectacular things are described as nothing without love, so is the faith and works of this church empty without their first passion for following God.

When we talk about this Greek word for love, agape (G26), we often bring out that agape doesn’t necessarily involve the emotions we typically think of as love. Thus the command “love your enemies” is more about active goodwill toward them than having “warm fuzzy feelings” about those who hate you. But this is the word used to say “God is love,” and we’ve seen that God’s love toward His people does contain strong emotions. Agape can, and in relation to God should, involve strong feelings. To truly love God, we need to learn to reciprocate the kind of love He has toward us.

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” This is the first commandment. (Mark 12:30)

Jesus gave the perfect example of what it looks like to love God this way. On His last Passover, Jesus said His obedience to the Father’s commandments demonstrated to the world that He loves the Father (John 14:31). He tells us, “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love” (John 15:9-10).

I think this willing obedience and sacrifice prompted by love is what Jesus was referring to when He told the Ephesian church to “do the first works.” Recapture the zeal you felt when you first started serving God. The relationship Christ modeled with the Father was close, personal, and sustained by frequent communication. He was perfectly obedient to His Father’s will, and was willing to give up His life because He loved God and He loved His friends (John 15:13-15). Now, He looks for us to have that kind of love for Him, for our Father, and for our brethren.

And it shall be, in that day,” says the Lord, “That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer call Me ‘My Master’ …. I will betroth you to Me forever; yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and justice, in lovingkindness and mercy; I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness, and you shall know the Lord.” (Hos. 2:16, 19-20)

How can we respond to this Being with anything other than a zealous love? Our Savior “gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Tit. 2:14). He wants His bride to be zealous about the things He cares about, to be faithful to Him because we owe Him our lives, and to love Him as He loves us.

Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)

It is so sad after all Christ has done for us, given to us, and offered us in the future that He has to ask this question: “When I come back, is anyone who loves Me going to be waiting?”

When we see Jesus in the future, will He find faith in us? If we could talk to Him now about the state of our faith today, would He tells us “you are not far from the kingdom of God,” as He did to the man who recognized loving God and his neighbor was the key to religion (Mark 12:32-34)? or would He say, as He did to the church in Sardis, “be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God” (Rev. 3:2)?

Some Thoughts on Feminism and Modesty

8 December, 20143 February, 2021Marissa

Amazon.com: A Return to Modesty — Amazon.com: *A Return to Modesty*

I mentioned a couple weeks ago that I recently read a book called A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue by Wendy Shalit. One of the first things she tackles in this book is the “polarized debate about sex,” particularly between the conservatives and the feminists.

She challenges conservatives to “take the claims of feminists seriously,” because you can dismiss however many studies and stories you like as “exaggeration” but the fact remains that “a lot of young women are very unhappy …. I want conservatives to really listen to these women, to stop saying boys will be boys, and to take what these women are saying seriously.”

To the feminists, Shalit writes, “I want to invite them to consider whether the cause of all this unhappiness might be something other than the patriarchy.” We’ve gotten rid of that just about as much as possible, and things have gotten worse rather than better. Perhaps men aren’t the enemy.

This book was published in 1999. That was almost 16 years ago, and we are still dealing with the exact same issues. On the one side, we see conservative Rush Limbaugh respond to a street harassment video by describing it as not a big deal because the men were just being polite. On the other side, there are still rants about patriarchy on Jezebel.com (language/content warning).

But just a little over two months ago Emma Watson, British actress and UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, gave a speech about feminism where her vision for gender equality sounded remarkably similar to ideas Wendy Shalit arrives at while defending the power of modesty. Are we starting to find common ground, and is there hope for a peaceful resolution to “the war between the sexes”?

A Trip to the 18th Century

It might seem odd to take a 3-century detour when talking about issues in modern culture. But when I started reading Francis Burney’s novels Cecelia (1782) and Camilla (1796) as part of an independent study my junior year of college, I was struck by how the gender issues facing those heroines were so remarkably like what women in my church regularly complain about. Where are the “real men?” we ask, looking around and seeing adult men who act like overgrown boys and have little interest in committing to marriage. We typically blame feminism, for telling boys that it was wrong to be “masculine” and to stop oppressing girls by taking care of them.

A contemporary of Burney, Mary Wollstonecraft wrote a book called A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), which is often considered one of the first feminist writings. When you actually read her book, however, it becomes clear that she is arguing for arguing for a reexamination, not a dismissal, of the traditional roles between men and women. She believes men and women are equal in God’s eyes, but that argument doesn’t mean they don’t both have distinct roles to fill.

Both these writers were responding to a moment called “sentimentality,” which encouraged men to indulge their emotions and abandon their traditional roles of protectors and providers. The result was something like what we see today — when men are no longer encouraged to protect or respect women, more and more women are victimized. That’s where we made our mistake, both in the 18th and the 20th/21st centuries. We thought men would treat women better if we told them to stop being manly, when in fact the opposite is true.

HeForShe

When Emma Watson introduced her talk about gender equality and the #HeForShe campaign, she first addressed issues people have with the word “feminism.”

the more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop. For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.

One of the key points of Watson’s speech is that both men and women must be working together if we are ever to achieve a gender equality that benefits and protects both men and women.

How can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation? Men, I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue, too. Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society, despite my need of his presence as a child, as much as my mother’s. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. …

If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled. Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong.

When we turn issues of gender into a “battle of the sexes” instead of a friendly discussion or a cause to work on together, both men and women lose the battle. You can’t build peaceful relations on a foundation of strife.

Courteous Men

Wendy Shalit discusses essentially the same issue, though she comes from the perspective of restoring part of the traditional gender roles (I suspect Burney and Wollstonecraft would both approve). Rather than pushing for an increasingly “nonsexist” approach to raising boys (in this example), she argues for “a good dose of sexist upbringing: how to relate as a man to a woman.”

Today we want to pretend there are no differences between the sexes …. We try to cure them of what is distinctive instead of cherishing these differences and directing them towards each other in a meaningful way. We can never succeed in curing men and women of being men and women, however, and so these differences emerge anyway — only when they do, the emerge in their crudest, most untutored form (p.153).

Frontispiece to ‘The English Gentleman and English Gentlewoman’ by Richard Braithwaite, 1641

She also goes back to a previous century to illustrate her arguments, all the way to 1630 and 1631 — the years Richard Brathwait’s The English Gentleman and The English Gentlewoman were published. Shalit’s reading of these texts is that there was a “link between male obligation and female modesty” where men attained “perfection” by treating women with respect (p.99-102). In this century, men were not compelled to respect women by an outside authority — they were taught that this was the only way for real men to behave.

The argument from external authority labels a man as evil if he date-rapes or sexually harasses a woman. From the standpoint of modesty, he is behaving abominably, but more crucially, he is really missing the whole point. He hasn’t understood what it means to be a man (p.104).

The feminists who see patriarchy as oppressive balk at this idea, but Shalit assures them, “I doubt that if men are taught to relate courteously to women, women would be suddenly thrown out of all the professions, as some contend. Maybe, on the contrary, it would be much easier for the sexes to work together.” Isn’t this, at its core, what Emma Watson’s brand of feminism is asking for? men and women who can work together toward common goals with mutual respect. Isn’t that something we all want?