Christmas from Jesus' POV

Over the years I've read many Christmas articles, and heard many Christmas sermons. (Check out the excellent Christmas series by Glenn, our preaching pastor.) I don't recall ever hearing or reading anything about what it was like for Jesus to come at Christmas. What was Jesus' point of view on his coming into the world and being born?

In my study of the New Testament, and Hebrews in particular, there are six areas that stand out to me.


Obedience
Heb 10:5-10 is the passage that stood out to me and put me in mind of this topic. I see here that obedience to his Father is what was primary in the thoughts of the Second Person of the Trinity as he took on human flesh and was born in Bethlehem. Throughout his life Jesus stated that he had not come to do his will, but his Father's will. This was most evident in his prayers the night before his crucifixion, when he asked that the cross and its suffering be allowed to pass by him - but, not Jesus' will, but his Father's. And he was obedient to death, even death on a cross. (Matt 26:39; Phil 2:8) I am reminded of the words of the hymn, "Word of the Father, Now in flesh appearing." As God's word (John 1:1), he faithfully states and lives out his Father's thoughts, not his own. My favorite movie and book series, The Lord of the Rings, contains several Christ-figures. Frodo is one of these. At first he is reluctant to take on the ring and the task of its destruction. At last he does, but he would rather not. He is a reluctant savior. At one point, Galadriel tells him, “This task was appointed to you. And if you do not find a way, no one will.” So too for Jesus. If he had not obeyed his Father, then there would have been no way of salvation. But praise God, Jesus was not a relectant savior, but an eager one.

Fulfillment

"O come, O come, Emmanuel,
and ransom captive Israel,
that mourns in lonely exile here
until the Son of God appear"

These words capture well the longing that Israel felt at the time that Jesus was born. Herod and Rome were oppressive; people longed for release and freedom. Of course, the central issue that separates Judaism from Christianity is that God's fulfillment was not what the Jews expected and so they rejected Jesus. Yet, God had promised redemption, and Jesus was the fulfillment of that redemptive plan that God had begun centuries before. The sacrifices of the OT were not God’s goal – they were given to prepare the way for God’s people to understand the need for Jesus. Jesus came to set aside the first order of things, so that the second order would come (Look back at Heb 8:8-13).

Incarnation
God’s plan all along had been the Incarnation. The words of the Christmas hymns say it well:

"God of God, Light of Light;
Lo, he abhors not the Virgin’s Womb”

and

“Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
Hail th’incarnate Deity,
Pleased as man with men to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel”

Jesus taking on humanity was not an afterthought with God, it was his only plan all along. Nor did Jesus do so reluctantly, it pleased Jesus that he should be joined with us forever in our humanity. Here’s a link that illustrates well this idea.

I also wrote about a year ago about how Jesus' being born of a woman lifts up women in their reproductive role, so I won’t repeat it again here.

Identification
Continuing the previous idea, we see that Jesus identified with us in our humanity. Heb 2:11, 14-18 tells us that those who are being redeemed are one family, and that Jesus took on flesh because we are human. He did this so that he could destroy death and so that he could destroy Satan. He had to be human so that he could be our high priest and be able to be our mediator between us and God.

Humiliation
Phil 2:5-7 is the main passage for this idea. We think of the shame and humiliation brought to Mary, Joseph, their families, and to Jesus himself as he was viewed as illegitimate. (see A Not-So-Silent-Night) We think of the upset of Mary and Joseph's plans for their lives as God's plans took over. And then we should dwell on what it meant for the Lord of Glory to leave heaven and become one of us.

Man’s maker was made man,
that He, Ruler of the stars, might nurse at His mother’s breast;
that the Bread might hunger,
the Fountain thirst,
the Light sleep,
the Way be tired on its journey;
that the Truth might be accused of false witness,
the Teacher be beaten with whips,
the Foundation be suspended on wood;
that Strength might grow weak;
that the Healer might be wounded;
that Life might die.

- Augustine of Hippo (Sermons 191.1) (from Kingdom People)

Jesus shows us what God is like, and we should understand that God is humble. The second person of the trinity did not grasp at his position, but instead took a very low place, both in the grand scheme of things, and on Earth as well. God humiliated himself. And above all, the cross loomed ahead. He knew that he came to be the sacrifice. See Heb 10:10

Validation
The book of Hebrews refers to Jesus being perfected. What does this mean? Was Jesus less than perfect? Was he imperfect in a moral state? No, the term can also refer to becoming mature or complete, and that is the sense that the word was used. Jesus was God, but he had to prove himself worthy of being the sacrifice and worthy of being our high priest. As a prince has to mature and grow and prove himself worthy of assuming the kingship, so too Jesus proved himself worthy. How did he do this? He did it by not grasping what was his - the position and prerogatives of deity. He did it by assuming the position of a servant - a lowly human, a Jew (not an educated Greek or a superior Roman), and a peasant at that. He proved himself worthy by being tempted and not giving in. He proved himself worthy by showing himself to be a servant of his own disciples. He proved himself by being obedient to death, even death on a cross. He learned obedience through his suffering. And he has shown himself to be what he always was - God's son.
Because of his obedience, God has given him what he has earned. He has earned the right to be the high priest for his people, and the right to be lord of the universe. The prince has earned his position and earned the respect of everyone.
Praise be to God.

More thoughts on educational motivation

After the one comment on my last blog post where I suggested paying students for learning, I realized that I need to clarify my thoughts.

The problem in education isn't necessarily that students don't want to learn. Often times they do, but they they lack the motivation (for many reasons) to do the work that school asks them to do. Yes, we can (and should) carry out the suggestions that were mentioned in the comments on my last post, but there are times that those suggestions aren't enough. I remember studying for Organic Chemistry, and Calculus 2, and Master's written exams, and Doctoral written and oral exams. I enjoyed the learning part, but the work itself was absolute drudgery. If students receive the message that learning and school work (both) are always relevant to life, and fun - then how will they handle the difficult courses in high school and college that aren't relevant to life, and aren't fun? How and when will they learn to work, to show up on time, and do the assignment as assigned by the teacher (boss), if not in school?

As I see it, schools are in the business of doing two things that pertain to this discussion. (There are a lot of other tasks they are asked to do as well, but those aren't in view here.) The first is teaching knowledge and skills in many different areas. The second is practicing and developing work habits and ethics. We tend to forget that these are two separate issues. Students can learn and never do any work. Students can do the work, and yet not learn. I've seen both. (Nevertheless, there is a correlation between working in school and learning, so I'm not advocating tossing the system.)

Consider this: most of my best students don't work in my classes for the sake of learning - they are motivated by grades. What's the matter with motivating students who aren't motivated by grades with money? Either way, it's an extrinsic motivation.

More comments?

Motivating Students

The American public school system, we are told, is not in good shape. We are not educating students so that they are prepared for their adult lives in a very uncertain world. So what should be done? In my opinion, most of the efforts so far have been spent in areas that do not address the fundamental problem.

There are a lot of places where we can work. Teachers can teach better, schools can do more to encourage learning, and administrations can put resources in the classroom where they will do the most good. These are perhaps the most obvious. Some other suggestions that should be enacted:

• Legislatures should stop mandating reports and activities that drain teachers of time and energy.
  
• National guidelines such as No Child Left Behind should have realistic goals and guidelines. For example, I am qualified to teach certain subjects at a university or college, but not in a public school.

The most fundamental problem is not the teachers, or the schools, but the students. We need to find a way to motivate them, in addition to improving the other parts of the educational system. I think that the most useful reform would be to pay students for learning. I suggest that high school and eighth grade students be paid for a GPA that is a B or above. Students with a C average would not be paid at all, and students below a C average would have to leave school for a grading period (quarter, trimester, semester) and do menial work at very low pay for that grading period.

When I have mentioned this idea to students, they are very enthusiastic. High school students who do their work put in ten and twelve hour days (school and homework) during the week plus more on the weekends. Many of them also have jobs or are involved in sports. And they do it without any compensation for their time and effort. I don't blame them for being tired and unmotivated, especially when many assignments are tedious and meaningless.

One of the most common objections to this proposal is that students should learn for the love of learning. We should, however, note that there are many students who simply aren't motivated by learning itself. Maybe their family or cultural values don't or haven't stressed learning. Maybe they've never "gotten their act together." Perhaps they have difficulties in their personal lives or in learning that have kept them from learning for the sake of learning. Perhaps they are so used to TV, videos, games, cell phones, and other technologies that they find school boring. I know that the ideal is for students to learn for the love of learning. But for many of them, learning is not a love, it's a job. And jobs should be paid. I love my job, but I don't think that I would do it if I weren't paid.

Perhaps we should try this suggestion and see if it or a modification of it would work before we decide that it won't work. What I would hope to see is that students would be more motivated to work and that teachers would find that they can challenge students and that students would respond. Students who weren't motivated would be removed (for a time) and not impede the others. I would hope that the level of education would rise as teachers and students challenge each other.

What do you think? Would paying students a modest amount ($200-300 a year) for having a "B" average or higher motivate students? Is it a good idea to motivate students this way? What do you think about penalizing those who don't learn or do their work?

Are all dreams worth following?

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn recently praised Mao as one of her favorite political philosophers. In the context of quoting from Mao, she stated

In 1947, when Mao Tse-Tung was being challenged within his own party... to take China over, Chiang Kai-Shek [and his soldiers] held the cities, held the armies, held the air force... the people can say can say how you can do this? Mao said, 'You fight your war, I'll fight mine'... you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things... you fight your own war. (http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/anita-dunn-white-house-communications.html)

and went on to urge her hearers to follow their dreams in their own way. Aside from her glorifying one of history's most evil murderers and excusing the use of any means to accomplish one's goals, we should ask the question, "are all dreams worth following?"

And the answer should be, "no." Mao's dreams for China, Hitler's for Germany, the Jews, and the world, Stalin's for the USSR were evil and should have been stopped. Evil dreams should not be followed.

But most of us will not be faced with evil that bold. Instead, we face smaller choices. Should I follow a dream if it interferes with promises I've made, and responsibilities that I've acquired in my life? If I abandon my promises and responsibilities in favor of dreams, what kind of person am I?

That's one nice thing about being young. There are fewer responsibilities, fewer promises made, and more freedoms. Dreams can be followed with a clearer conscience.

So, young people, find worthy dreams to follow. Older people, don't abandon your promises and responsibilities for dreams. If you can combine them, then good. Otherwise, keep your promises and fulfill your responsibilities.

Psalm 15:1, 4

Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill?
He who keeps his oath even when it hurts.

Limited Government

Part of the philosophy underlying the debate about health care relates to the size of government. Is a larger government better, or is a smaller government better?

Those who founded the country at the time of the Revolution and gave us our Constitution believed that human beings were fallen and likely to misuse power. They devised a government that was limited in scope. Further, every branch of government had checks on the amount of power that the other branches had. Also, the states and the people of the country retain power and rights that the federal government cannot breach (or at least shouldn't).

So, if health care is taken over by the government, isn't that too much power in the hands of the federal government? What about privacy? What if only a government health care option is offered? Again, although not as damaging as if the government took over health care, I would argue that it is still too much power in the hands of the federal government. First, with the power of the government, it is all too likely that the government health care would eventually drive out the private sector. Second, my concerns about privacy and government power remain. Do we want the people in charge of taxes and the courts also in charge of health care?

The reader might object that the insurance companies have a tremendous amount of power. What about the power of the current health care insurance providers? I agree that they have a tremendous amount of power. But there are several important differences.

1. One can leave a private insurance carrier, although it is not easy and is in fact impractical for most people. (I think that this is the first change that should be made in the current system. Insurance should be decoupled from employment.)
2. Insurance companies can't put you in jail or confiscate your bank accounts or homes. The government can and does.
   
3. You have some recourse against insurance companies, very little against the government.

Other reforms that would be good to see:

1. More competition, not less. Let people choose their own insurance for what they need.
2. Encourage people to pay for smaller items out of their own pocket, and purchase their own insurance for large amounts.
   

Unintended Consequences

I'm concerned about the legislation that is currently being constructed in Washington D.C. I will confess that I'm not sure that all the concerns and claims about the legislation from those on the right are accurate. I've looked at some of them, and they don't seem to be as serious as claimed.

But we would do well to be concerned, no matter which side of the political spectrum we are on. Here are some reasons:
1. The speed with which the government is trying to get this through.
2. The size of the legislation.
3. The lack of time to accurately read and digest it. This is true for the general public, and for Congress as well.

What folly to try and redesign 1/6 of the economy so quickly!
How irresponsible for Congress to rush and not even read it!

4. Will those enrolled in private insurance be forced into the public insurance option as employers seek to cut costs?
5. Loss of privacy. Whatever happened to the pro-abortion rallying cry of "get the government off of my body"?
6. Rationing. If the government option wants to save costs, it is inevitable that rationing will occur. Who will suffer? Will it be those whose lives are really prolonged when there is no good reason, or will the elderly, and those approaching old age be denied care that might prolong their lives, perhaps for years?
7. Loss of research and improvement in new medical techniques. If payments are set, will there be adequate payment to doctors and researchers so that the field attracts the brightest and the best?
8. Can the government really handle something so private well? Think of how well it runs the Post Office, Indian Affairs, Veteran Affairs, and Medicare. Remember that Social Security is headed for the rocks as well. Don't forget the Tuskegee experiments. Or the IRS.

I entitled this blog "unintended consequences." The writers of the new health care may indeed have the best intentions. It's the consequences of their actions that we need to fear. The consequences that they don't foresee because they didn't want to, or they went too quickly. The consequences of a government bureaucracy. Remember, private companies can't put you in jail or take your money or invade your homes with guns. The government can, and has, and does.

The government should be the referee, not the player.

Bodies and everlasting youth

Last week I was flipping through channels and stumbled across Oprah. Dr. Oz was talking about advances in medicine that would allow us to live to 120 or more. My wife would tell you that I take a lot of supplements and fish oil in the hopes of living long and healthy. So I watched the program, until I realized that it was a rereun that I had seen before.

So what do you think about living to be 120 or more? My hero, Gandalf, lived a long time. I used to fantasize about living long and doing many things. But I'm not sure anymore. Here's why.

• sin All of us have weaknesses, foibles, sins. I used to think that I would get over them as I got older. Ha! Too lazy, too sinful, too weak. I don't want to fight the same weaknesses and sins for another 70 or more years.
• bodies My knees aren't what they used to be, nor are my eyes. And I'm in fairly good shape for my age. I know of people my age who are dead, or in far worse shape than I am. Do I really want to live in this body another 70 or more years?
• relationships Do I want to be in the same relationships, sinful and weak as I am, with other people sinful and weak as well, for another 70 or more years? Do I want to outlive my friends and relatives? (Although if we all live that long, then we wouldn't outlive each other by too much.)
• retirement Could I retire at 70 and then live another 50 years? How would I support myself?

No thanks. I'm really beginning to think that limiting us to 70 to 90 or 100 years is a favor that God has done us.

So what's to think about Dr. Oz? I'm not planning on giving up my supplements or fish oil. I hope to be healthy while I'm here, and enjoy a long life, within the span that most people live now. There's nothing wrong with that. But my hope is in the resurrection. Not this body for 120 or more years, but a new, changed body for eternity.

The hope to live to 120 or more is firmly rooted in the belief that this life is all that there is. I've discussed that in past blogs. The Christian hope is resurrection.

So - why are Christian radio and TV full of medical broadcasts about supplements on the weekends? hmm.