The Western ideal of Christianity at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century smells of good feelings, of that created to be pleasant, like the scent of vanilla after being close to something foul. While not difficult to be enamored with what is pleasing, that feeling is difficult to maintain.
The first hint of trouble in the camp is that our leader, the one by which our movement is named, had such an unpleasant life. Temptations, trials, agonies, death of friends, demands to please those near, to provide beyond what his Father was giving and ultimately, to have his Father turn his back to him at his greatest distress—none of this seems like an encouragement to commit to this course of peace and life.
One of the first conflicts in his young life was being about his Father’s business but producing confusion in his mother’s heart. Then there was the timing thing a few years later when this same mother asked him to meet a need for friends and he couldn’t until his Father so directed. If Jesus was to demonstrate a commitment producing good feelings, it is not apparent. If his commitment to his Father is the example for our commitment to his Father, how are we to see his model?
Two words we would rather ignore: Obedience and Submission. Neither is the key to joy and happiness in our modern mindset.
To tie the unpleasantness to these two words to Jesus, think upon Hebrews 5:7 which reads:
Does this conflict with our theology of Commitment? Wouldn’t it be enough for us to simply agree with God that Commitment was a good ideal, that Jesus spoke the right things and that was enough? Why should Commitment need to include participation? Doesn’t intellectual agreement with God and thinking that Jesus was exceptional fulfill the requirements for belief?
“Reverent submission” sounds archaic, so out of antiquity. The basic meaning of ‘reverence’ is that out of recognition of who the Father is, Jesus agreed with Him not only in thought but lived out that agreement through his prayers, cries, tears, petitions in submissive agreement with the Father and was thereby heard. It wasn’t a matter of haggling with the Father to get his own desires but that his struggles were in the alignment with God. While not in the Greek word “eulábeia” used here, the word used in the oft-quoted “submit” verses is “hypotassō” which in military context means arranging a troop relative to its commander. In modern tactics it is the concept of being positioned relative to each other so that each covers the other and while rank is present, the main interest is in the outcome of the entire unit.
Is commitment to God something we want to do because it feels good—that satisfaction we are on God’s side, He’s the big guy, we win in the end—or do we conceive that coming into rank with Him because He is God and that’s the only reasonable response to knowing Him? Are we willing to follow the example of Jesus, call ourselves Christian, and live life under authority? Are we willing to commit to commitment irrespective of the feelings? Is God important enough to deserve agreement with Him no matter how good it may or may not feel? Is our commitment intellectual assent or actionable practice lived out?
“But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward
“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have
Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned, in whatever situation I am, to be
But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able
“… Catch the foxes for us, the little foxes that spoil the vineyards, for our vineyards are in blossom.”
Glory to God “…and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light…”Editor’s Note: this is