Captive

In his book, The Three Edwards, Thomas Costain tells the story of three kings of England from 1272 to 1377 all of whom were conveniently (and confusingly) named Edward. Anyway, according to a well-used illustration from Costain’s book, in the mid to late 1300s, there was a Duke Raynald III. He was extremely overweight. (How fat was he?) Well, he was so fat that people didn’t call him by his name anymore (that might not have been so awful since his name was Raynald), the called him by the nickname, Crassus, which means fat in Latin. So essentially everybody just called him fatso. Ouch!

His younger brother was one of the Edwards (the third one, I think), and somewhere along the way, Raynald and Edward had a huge disagreement and Edward led a revolt against Raynald. In most stories like this, the overthrown person was killed or, at the very least, locked away in some dungeon or tower never to be seen again. Edward had a better idea – he had a room built around Raynald, inside Raynald’s own castle. Edward told Raynald that he could take over his castle and his property just as soon as he could leave his new room.

There were no locks on the doors or windows…so what held Raynald in his room? Why didn’t he just walk out and take his castle back? Well, when Edward had the room built, he made sure that all the doors and windows were smaller than normal. They were big enough for someone who was thin to go in and out, but Raynald was too fat to get through the door. The only way he could leave the room was to lose weight.

So, why didn’t he do it? Well, I’m pretty sure every morning he woke up and said to himself, “Ok, today I’m going to only eat a little bit.” And maybe he could have done it, except that, every day, his brother, Edward made sure that all kinds of delicious and tempting food was sent into Raynald’s room. And Raynald got fatter and fatter all the time.

Some folks told Edward that he was being cruel to Raynald but Edward said, "My brother is not a prisoner. He may leave when he so wills."

Raynald only got out of that room after Edward died in battle in 1371. By then it was too late for Raynald. His health was gone and he died later the same year.[1]

Raynald may not have been a prisoner, but he was held captive…not so much by his brother, but by his appetite.

If you think about it, we’re all a lot like Raynald and Satan is like Edward. Whatever our individual weaknesses are, he makes sure to keep those temptations coming so that we won’t be able to escape.

Unlike Raynald, though, we have Someone on our side who is willing to help us escape.

“The Word does not say that we are to count it all joy when we fall under temptation, but when we fall into temptation. It is not necessary to fall under temptation, for temptation comes upon us for the trying of our faith. And the trying of our faith worketh patience, not fretfulness and murmuring. If we put our trust in Jesus, He will keep us at all times, and will be our strength and shield. We are to learn valuable lessons from our trials. Paul says, “We glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope ...” (Romans 5:3-5).
“Many seem to think that it is impossible not to fall under temptation, that they have no power to overcome, and they sin against God with their lips, talking discouragement and doubt instead of faith and courage. Christ was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. He said, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30). What does this mean? It means that the prince of evil could find no vantage ground in Christ for his temptation. And so it may be with us....” (E.G. White, That I May Know Him, p. 279)

If, as Mrs. White says, “It is not necessary to fall under temptation …,” why do we continue to give in? Why is it so difficult to withstand temptation?

My theory is that we fall because our first thought when we’re tempted isn’t, “Help me Jesus,” but “Oh, that’s interesting.”

When Eve walked past the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden, her first mistake was that she didn’t keep walking. She stopped to look at the tree. She may have already been thinking about how delicious the fruit looked and had the off-hand thought, “This fruit looks so good, I wonder why we can’t eat it,” even before the serpent spoke to her.

Was that thought, by itself, a sin? Could she have still walked on by at that point and everything be ok? Yes, I think so. But as she was thinking those thoughts, she stood by the tree admiring the fruit for just a little bit too long and then, with just a few words, the serpent had her.

In the C.S. Lewis book, Perelandra,  (2^nd book of the Space Trilogy), Lewis explores the power of evil and temptation. The book takes place on newly peopled Venus. The innocent woman is pursued by someone who is trying to get her to commit a sin. The hero, named Ransom, tries to come between the woman and the evil presence and keep her from sinning. The pursuit goes on for days and Lewis is able to discuss the complexities of the conflict between good and evil. My only problem with the book (even though it’s one of my favorites on many other levels) is that the innocent woman comes off as clueless … and I don’t believe that Eve was that unaware. I believe that she knew she shouldn’t be around the tree…but she just wanted to look at it. And once she let that thought become an action, the next thought, “That fruit looks really yummy” becomes a question of God’s authority, “I wonder why we can’t eat it.” So that when the serpent showed up and asked her the same question, she had already fallen. Taking and eating the fruit was just the outward sign.

The battle is fought in our minds. That’s why Paul says, 

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,” 2 Corinthians 10: 3-5

With the help of the Holy Spirit we must take every thought captive and turn it over to God so that the temptations we experience all day every day don’t get caught in our minds and become something more.

Let’s not become captives of temptations like Raynald. God is just waiting to send each of us the help we need every single moment.

“No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” 1Corinthians 10:13

[1] Thomas Costain, The Three Edwards, Buccaneer Books

The Meek Shall Inherit ...

not published


... well, right now, the meek shall inherit the jokes.  So many jokes about the meek inheriting the earth and not knowing what to do with it once they get it, or after everybody else is through with it, etc.

I guess a lot of folks find those jokes funny because they really don't get what Jesus means when He talks about meekness.  The people who make the jokes equate meekness with mousiness and weakness.  But is that what Jesus meant?  Does He want us to be door-mats and let people walk all over us?

 

Here are some people who are described in the Bible as meek.  See if they fit the world's definition of meek.  Moses is described as the meekest man on earth.  Jesus is described as meek, as are David, Steven, Paul .  Not one of those guys looks like a pushover to me, what about you? 

Although the folks who painted pictures in the middle ages tended to paint Jesus looking pretty sappy, the Bible tells us that He was not a weakling.  He worked hard as a carpenter for at least fifteen years.  We also  know that neither David or Moses were wimps either.  They both were in charge of lots and lots of people that they had to keep in line.  Weaklings don't handle those types of jobs very well.  A leader on the level of Moses and David has to possess a considerable amount of internal steel.

So how could those guys be considered meek? By anyone's definition!  But check this out: 

“Meekness is defined as 'enduring injury with patience and without resentment.'” 

Ah hah!  That makes a big difference doesn't it!  Meekness isn't standing in the background hoping to be anonymous.  A meek person can do one of the hardest things in the world:  face mental and/or physical pain, torture, unfairness and humiliation patiently and without getting mad. 

In the fifth century, St. Benedict wrote down a guide to becoming humble.  In it he describes the twelve degrees of humility.  The fourth degree of humility is this: '...if hard and distasteful things are commanded, nay, even though injuries are inflicted, he accept them with patience and even temper, and not grow weary or give up…'  But beyond that degree, things take a bit of a turn. 

In the sixth degree, Benedict says this:  '...when a monk is content with the meanest and worst of everything, and in all that is enjoined him holdeth himself as a bad and worthless workman, saying with the Prophet: 'I am brought to nothing and I knew it not; I am become as a beast before Thee, and I am always with Thee.''

Hmmm. Well, I can still see that as part of humility or meekness...but something seems to be missing.  Can you spot what's missing?  Read on...

'The seventh degree of humility is, when, not only with his tongue he declareth, but also in his inmost soul believeth, that he is the lowest and vilest of men, humbling himself and saying with the Prophet: "But I am a worm and no man, the reproach of men and the outcast of the people.'The eighth degree of humility is, when a monk doeth nothing but what is sanctioned by the common rule of the monastery and the example of his elders.'The ninth degree of humility is, when a monk withholdeth his tongue from speaking, and keeping silence doth not speak until he is asked; for the Scripture showeth that 'in a multitude of words there shall not want sin.''The tenth degree of humility is, when a monk is not easily moved and quick for laughter, for it is written: The fool exalteth his voice in laughter.'The eleventh degree of humility is, that, when a monk speaketh, he speak gently and without laughter, humbly and with gravity, with few and sensible words, and that he be not loud of voice, as it is written: 'The wise man is known by the fewness of his words.''The twelfth degree of humility is, when a monk is not only humble of heart, but always letteth it appear also in his whole exterior to all that see him; namely, at the Work of God, in the garden, on a journey, in the field, or wherever he may be, sitting, walking, or standing, let him always have his head bowed down, his eyes fixed on the ground, ever holding himself guilty of his sins, thinking that he is already standing before the dread judgment seat of God, and always saying to himself in his heart what the publican in the Gospel said, with his eyes fixed on the ground: 'Lord, I am a sinner and not worthy to lift up mine eyes to heaven;' and again with the Prophet: 'I am bowed down and humbled exceedingly.''  "The Christian Classics Ethereal Library," http://www.ccel.org/ccel/benedict/rule.ix.html

Were you able to see the flaw in Benedict reasoning?  He concentrates only on our unworthiness without moving into the hope of redemption.  Someone who used Benedict's model for humility would look like a wallflower, somone who is weak.

Let's look back at the Bible figures I mentioned earlier.  Did they walk around with their eyes downcast and their heads bowed?  Truthfully, I can't imagine any of them walking around like that, can you?

So, then I found an essay by Matt Friedeman.  And it really helped me to see the true power of meekness.  Friedeman describes meekness not as weakness or wimpiness; 'not lack[ing] of energy or strength; rather, power under control.'  In fact, he paraphrases the third beatitudes this way; 'Blessed are the meek...for their power is controlled by the Master.'

Friedeman describes meekness in terms of a meek horse and here's how a horse trainer describes what that looks like.

'Once broken, a good horse doesn't require much correction.  He has learned to accept the reins of his master, and a gentle tug is all that is needed to urge him one direction or the other. The process of “breaking” a horse does not 'remove the power and verve that used to make the animal wild; rather it places the energy under control.”  Horse trainers use the phrase 'channel their spirit' and have found that with 'appropriate channeled, the horse is generally able to jump higher, run faster, and even work harder than an uncontrolled animal.'

It gets better. 

'A special relationship develops between the horse and master.  After years of working together, they develop a rapport that becomes second nature to both of them.  Thus trained, a good horse can sense a bad rider and will resist false guidance.'

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have that relationship with God?  To be able to know Him so well, that we can sense false guidance and not be lead down a wrong path?

Friedeman also talks about the partnership between a well trained horse and his rider.

'The horse knows its job and is capable of working even when it doesn't feel the immediate presence of its rider.  They work as a unit, even when physically apart.'

According to Friedeman, 'the meek horse has an elevated sense of loyalty and commitment.'  He goes on to describe horses from the old west and the pony express. 

'The lives of the mail carriers depended upon the horses they rode.  A Pony Express horse needed to be swift and hardy, with a certain measure of grit that enabled it to keep going, no matter what.  Those horses would die in the running if that is what it took.  They were bent upon completing the course.  And despite the heat, the parching thirst, raging storms, Indian attacks, and injury, horses of that caliber never whined or whinnied in protest. Meek horses...have learned the secret of submitting to the control of their master.  They trust that rider enough to follow uncomplainingy wherever he leads them.

And finally, Friedeman reminds us that 'a horse does not become [meek] overnight.  It takes a long, hard period of training.'

What an excellent picture of a meek Christian!  

'Those who have placed the reins of their lives in the guiding hand of the Master may give up control.  But in its stead they will receive the guidance and protection of One whose vision is far higher than theirs.  Instead of spending their energy in frivolous pursuits, their lives will reach their full potential-and they will inherit the earth.'

Meekness is not weakness; it is power under control.  Think about Moses, David, Paul and Jesus.  They weren't wimps.  They were powerful people who allowed God to hold the reins and direct them into their full potential.  I want that kind of meekness, don't you?