“Supernatural Commercialism”
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Matthew 7:13-14 NASB
Few – Kierkegaard proved that typical Christianity was a sham by noting that it claimed to have millions of followers. If the way is narrow and difficult to find, then how do we explain the prodigious success of this religion? Even its most important figure told us that few would discover it.
Heschel explored this criticism from another angle. “Truth is not a feeling, a mere thought. Truth confronts us as a behest, an insistent summons, austere, uncompromising. Are we able to respond to it in the recesses of our souls?”[1] “Truth is severe, harsh, demanding. We would rather hide our face in the sand than be confronted by it. ‘To live means to be indebted’—who wants to hear this? ‘I am commanded, therefore I am’—who knows how to cherish it?”[2]
This is the problem, isn’t it? It’s easy to believe when that system of thoughts coincides with aspirations of success, peace and goodwill. It’s easy to believe when we are surrounded by others who share the same open appreciation for comfort. But what if really believing means living a life of indebtedness? What if truth is severe, cutting right through relationship wish-fulfillment? What if truth is really command? Then how do we feel about the narrow way?
Given Kierkegaard’s insight, we probably must conclude that most believers in Christian circles are walking the broad road. There simply cannot be millions who are the “few.” But why do they uniformly think they are on the narrow path? The answer is difficult, not because it is difficult to articulate but because it is difficult to stomach. The answer is that they want to believe they are on the narrow path. They accept a paradigm that is self-justifying. The evidence of their “narrow” lives surrounds them, and when someone challenges their perception, it is a clear indication that the challenger is blind to the “truth.” In this regard, Christianity as a religion (not at the level of each individual) is “supernatural commercialism” (Heschel’s brilliant phrase). It is self-interest par excellence because it promotes as religion exactly those objectives that make us feel good.
“To satisfy one’s own needs is entirely legitimate. But Judaism expects man to satisfy one’s own interest for God’s sake and then to transcend self-interest for the sake of God. However, it is also a tradition in Judaism to disparage religious acts motivated by self-interest, for spiritual existence dominated by striving for a reward is easily degraded to opportunism.”[3]
Heschel’s solution is “ . . . to live in militant opposition to the ego.”[4] We might agree. But agreement isn’t living. It is the “living” part that takes us down the narrow road, and that is the part that causes so much abrasion. Perhaps we should look at it like this: to believe is to bleed.
Topical Index: believe, few, narrow road, Kierkegaard, Christianity, Matthew 7:13-14
[1] Abraham Heschel, A Passion for Truth, p. 159.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., p. 102.
[4] Ibid.
Opposition by the world has never hurt the truth; instead it is more like a back wind that feeds a fire. What has always hurt the truth the most is opposition from those who CLAIM to be walking in it. An almost truth is a whole lie and those who are walking in the almost truth have always had the most incentive to persecute those who really are walking in the truth. It is the kiss of Judas that hurts the most and the lukewarm love that causes YHVH to projectile vomit that most deadly of poisons; the almost believer.
Love has always had a sacrificial element to it that is unpalatable to the un-renewed flesh. To love a sinner (to be a “friend of sinners”) is to tie your fate with the perishing. That is not cost effective by anyone’s bookkeeping, and so the almost believer invents all kinds of ways to not have to quite actually do that. One of those ways is to attack the ones who are committed to sacrificial love as being deceivers and counterfeits. All that bleeding? Most of it, sadly, tends to occur in “the house of My friends”. Some things have never changed.
Re: “house of my friends”
Boy don’t i know it.
SKIP: But Judaism expects man to satisfy one’s own interest for God’s sake and then to transcend self-interest for the sake of God.
This is a nice narrow path fenced in by Hear on the left and Do on the right… As Moses recorded a wise and strong nation listens to and does as God instructs…
Could we maybe one day discuss this Jewish principle as often we mistake activity driven Christianship to result achieving Messiahship…
As you said on the Prophet Calling post in 2010, suffering for the redemption or peace of others.
LAURITA, All that bleeding? As long as it is for the purpose of redemption no single drop is every wasted…
Seeker, I don’t think I have ever seen redemption without it. Somebody, somewhere, is going to be bleeding, for redemption is what it is all about. The power of the truth is in that blood: His and ours. Its time to pick up our crosses and follow Him Who says that if it is good enough for Him it is good enough for us. Halleluah!
Yeshua said it was good that he leave or that he depart the physical realm we call life that he might send “The Spirit of Truth” that would lead us (each individually ) into “all truth”. My experiance of walking into “all truth” concurs with Heschel’s. Yet I sincerely believe Art Katz is correct in his statement (quoted at least five times on this sight alone) “The truth is in us and we in it only to the degree we actually walk in it” This at least gives us all some common ground to share, Christian, Jew, Messianic Jews, Hebraic Roots people, Sincere seeker; whatever. If truth is a Spirit, that one enters or is allowed to engage with through faith, command or revelation the objective seems to me to be to remain in it or enter deeper fellowship with it. Does this perspective ring true?
“EGO” AND THE NARROW WAY
Skip, this is excellent, cutting the leavened loaf of bread with a sharp sword.
First, though, it’s interesting to me that Heschel uses the term, “ego”, a term popularized by the Jewish man and secular psychoanalyst, Freud, to address Biblical issues regarding the nature of man. But anyways, shall we look at it?
ego (n.) [Online Etymology Dictionary]
1714, as a term in metaphysics, “the self; that which feels, acts, or thinks,” from Latin ego “I” (cognate with Old English ic; see I). Psychoanalytic (Freudian) sense is from 1894; sense of “conceit” is 1891.
ego [Dictionary.com]
[ee-goh, eg-oh]
1. the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought.
2. Psychoanalysis. the part of the psychic apparatus that experiences and reacts to the outside world and thus mediates between the primitive drives of the id and the demands of the social and physical environment.
3. egotism; conceit; self-importance:
Her ego becomes more unbearable each day.
It seems that keeping with Biblical terms works best, though we know we then still need to work to rightly understand even those terms. To me, it somewhat muddies the waters. So, I wonder if terms like pride and selfish ambition bring a bit more clarity to the issue here.
Nevertheless, ego is not, in and of itself, the problem. Egotism (at least the conceit part, though somewhat not the self-importance part), maybe the problem, but not really ego. Were we not created with an ego? Are we not a small “I” of the great “I AM”? Does the narrow way of denying ourselves, taking up our crosses, and sacrificial, loving obedience mean denying our sense of self, our thoughts, feelings, and will, and not distinguishing ourselves from the selves of others and from objects of its thought? Are we to not experience and react to the outside world and thus mediate between the primitive drives on the id and the demands of the social and physical environment? Certainly not.
“What if truth is really command?” And “to believe is to bleed”? Well, there’s no doubt about it! It is! If Yeshua is the Author and Finisher of our faith, that is certainly how faith must ultimately proceed and “finish”, to be fulfilled, made complete, perfected. Bleeding as a result of obeying His commands. “Loving not our own lives even unto death.” Believe how He believed. Walk how He walked. Die how He died. The greatest love is one who lays his life down for a friend, and Yeshua even called Judas Iscariot, “friend”, and he wept for those who stoned the prophets and eventually crucified Him. This is the kind of faith and love we are to have, a martyr’s faith and love.
However, what if believing is first, and always first, receiving? Can’t give what you don’t got! “Freely you have received, freely give.” That takes, if I can put it this way, not a “supernatural commercialism” but maybe a “supernatural selfishness”. John Piper, Christian theologian, former pastor, and author termed it “Christian Hedonism”, and although I’m sure he didn’t get it all right, there is yet some biblical truth to the concept, and though we must be discerning as with rabbinic teaching, as well, maybe we should take care not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. Piper said, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. Or: The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever (though that’s not even a correct quote of his own catechisms – it’s “AND enjoy Him forever”).”
Again and again I say, it’s not one or the other but both. We must, in a sense, be both selfish and unselfish, at the same time.
That’s why we must not too quickly read over or forget the statement, “To satisfy one’s own needs is entirely legitimate. But Judaism expects man to satisfy one’s own interest for God’s sake and then to transcend self-interest for the sake of God.” Ultimately though, we will never be satisfied to only drink from “the fountain of Living Water”. We must be streams of living water ourselves. They don’t call it the “Dead Sea” for nothing. It receives but it don’t give.
Let us enter into and be part of, as it was, is, and, I think, will be, “the Gihon Spring, or Fountain of the Virgin, in the Kidron Valley, from one of the four rivers of Eden, which was the main source of water for the Pool of Siloam in the City of David, the original site of Jerusalem” and, most likely, the temple of Solomon and where the temple of the New Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven will be, I think. The Pool of Siloam was many acres large, having capacity for thousands of people to come and mikvah before going into the temple. It was “one of the world’s major intermittent springs—and a reliable water source that made human settlement possible in ancient Jerusalem—the spring was not only used for drinking water, but also initially for irrigation of gardens in the adjacent Kidron Valley which provided a food source for the ancient settlement.” [Wikipedia]
And so, I suggest a modification of Heschel’s solution – “ . . . to live in militant opposition to the ego(tism).”
Then, lastly, is my great wonder and curiosity. How is it that if light is greater than darkness, YHWH and His narrow way, which is where there is abundant, everlasting life is so good, and YHWH is incomparably greater than the adversary, the father of lies, that it is few who find Him, the Way, the Truth, and the Life? To me it must not be all of and/or the end of the story. I think there must be something of His work of redemption and restoration that goes beyond what we imagine or think.
“Now to Him who is able to do far beyond all that we ask or imagine, by means of His power that works in us,
to Him be the glory in the community of believers and in Messiah Yeshua throughout all generations forever and ever! Amen.” [Eph 3:20-21]
“After these things I looked, and behold, A VAST MULTITUDE THAT NO ONE COULD COUNT—from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues—was standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands and crying out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’ And all the angels were standing around the throne, along with the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, ‘Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might belong to our God forever and ever. Amen!’” [Rev 7:9-12]
JERRY Good question on light…
The bible reveals that God desires to dwell where darkness prevails. Is this not an indication that although God is light and Yeshua’ way is light. They have no control over those that choose darkness as a lifestyle… This can be much more actions than the simple actions believers are called into; Live humble, Love God, Love self, Love neighbour. Care for others if you have more blessings at that time in life… All the others are but means to achieve these, ways of living that reveal our caring part of life.
As for darkness… we have many many things that can be added here and all start with me, I, desire, lust, greatness etc. our self-centeredness if I can say.
Peace through Christ.
I know you have a lot to share, but please try to keep it to a paragraph or two. Otherwise most readers here will not be blessed by your wisdom, and you won’t learn how succinct thoughts can be if we work at it.
Good point. Will do. Thanks.
Hi Skip. Top of the last day of April to you. I always enjoy being challenged by the truth through your Today’s Word. Like Seeker, I quote from the next to last paragraph. “But Judaism expects man to SATISFY one’s own interest for God’s sake and then to transcend self-interest for the sake of God.” (emphasis added)
It makes more sense to me that rather than “satisfy” you had used the word “sacrifice.” But maybe my understanding of the foundations and basics of Judaism needs enlightening. Any comments?
This message is so succinct thank you for this post Skip. Narrow, few, uncompromising, L-rd help me a sinner.
It is true, Skip.
Religion, however you define it, has nothing to do with the narrow way.
Only a divinely inspired relationship proven by devoted obedience qualifies
to enter through the narrow gate. Follow the blood that leads to life.
The entrance is reserved only for walkers.
Talkers will all be surprised that on that fateful final day they’ll all be together
with much to talk about. “What did we miss?”
The Way. You missed the one and only Way.
Only a few find it.
Probably the most narrow (compressed) road I know of is the the tightrope. If you’ve ever watched a high-wire artist, he is not bleeding. (I’ve only seen male tightrope walkers.) He is moving gracefully, thoughtfully, without fear. He loves what he’s doing. He’s in a virtual dance with the joy of his life. What if we were to change our perspective and look at our walk in this way?
Thomas, you know you can still bleed while doing all the above? You can sing and hurt, too. That walk is not solitary, however (which may be the only way to avoid those wounds). Don’t know, I failed solitary walk class, although I was sure I was first in line for it!
Further, I have not found a way to walk with others without hurting their hurts too, but, like I said, I also have not found a way to walk WITHOUT others. It can be their blood, but it is still going to be your heart, too. I have decided that love on this planet is just going to be a mess no matter what, guaranteed.
Love the tightrope analogy, though. That’s a good one.
Thank you Thomas.
I am reminded that we who walk “IN” and with the “The Spirit of Truth” are lead into all truth and that is indeed life, peace, joy hope, we stand in the presence of the Almighty. That is indeed a safe and secure place. Yet to get there is a tight rope, and I expect after watching “Man on a Wire” (the 1970’s version I think) we can comfortably presume that there was no small amount of bleeding to get that nimble and gracefully on that narrow a road. I am also reminded of the verse that spoke of Messiah Yeshua who “learned obedience (to listen attentively to the father and hence not trip up) thorough the things he suffered(=bleeding)”.
Skip, two things:
1) Thank you for your continued example of literary integrity. Your posts are littered w/footnotes and parenthetical acknowledgements of where you have gleaned your information as you are passing it on, even down to (Heschel’s brilliant phrase) of “supernatural commercialism”, two words you could have just thrown out there and moved on from, none (not to many any way) would have been the wiser.
2) Although you couldn’t tell it now, i used to be an active poster on another forum and would get into trouble for trying to let people know where i got my information from. That turned into quite the fiasco but not before i had literally poured my spiritual guts into words, always encouraging those that read to contact me for references when appropriate.
Recently i realized that my posts had been copied out and others were posting my words, either in whole or redressed to suit that author’s spin on them, and i was told it was their ‘right’ to do so because others had a ‘right’ to know what that which was relayed from my spirit. This person does, of course, receive the acknowledgements that come from their amazing spiritual insights. (twice removed, as it were).
The scary thing is that this person believes themselves be the epitome of faith and a righteous example of holiness. I, on the other hand, should forgive and not bring it up ever again because to do so would demonstrate my ‘contentious spirit’ and ‘inability to forgive and forget’.
Self-justifying at its finest. This person dressed me down for quite a few things, one of which being my lack of witness. Seriously.
Sorry, i just realized i didn’t wrap that up w/any kind of point.
I really don’t have one, it’s just that when i read this post and skimming a few others, being as how this conversation was a rather recent one, the care with which you acknowledged your sources caught my eye.
It’s one of the minute little points of integrity that i have observed that ‘believers’ do not ‘believe’ applies to them. thank you for being an example of righteousness down to the ‘jot and tittle’.
“The answer is that they want to believe they are on the narrow path. They accept a paradigm that is self-justifying.”
How do ‘we’ know that we are not part of ‘they’?
Bob, I keep finding that I am part of ‘they’ whenever and wherever the wind (conflict) ceases momentarily to blow in my world. Abraham himself in most likelihood MIGHT have also been part of ‘they’, too, at least it might have been a question somewhere UNTIL he raised that knife. Only then could he, and perhaps everyone else – even YHVH – know for sure that he was not.
It has crossed my mind that things that are still a potential possibility (because they have not been ruled out by, say, a Mount Moriah experience) could still be held on account. I am reasonably certain that in the judgment we will be held accountable for sins we could POTENTIALLY have committed given the opportunity. In other words, sins that we still had the capacity and mindset for, equally with acts of righteousness we had the opportunity to commit but did not. (I do know that I am guilty of a lot of shortcomings I have to repent of before I am in the right place. ) Up and until Abraham’s knife moment he could have potentially idolized Isaac; perhaps it was an unripe fruit that had to be nipped in the bud before it blossomed and bore.
The only thing I am really sure of, however, is that until we see people in the knife edge of the winds of strife coming straight at them, we don’t REALLY know – they probably don’t even know – what they are really made of. The moment might even be what MAKES them. Take Schindler; I bet he would have never even given as much as way in the street for a Jew before he was brought to his knife edge. I also am reasonably sure that people who consistently avoid wind moments are people who are most likely also avoiding perhaps the only chance they will get for changing their potential as well as their character.
It is the truth that creates the winds of strife (otherwise people would just all agree to be happy together in sin), and people who love the truth should never have to fear that strife. It is for sure that we will always be able to find the real truth lovers – those Daniels (and that lone man standing in front of that tank in Tiananmen Square) at the apex of chaos representing the choice that is always there.
I’m glad you didn’t say it comes down to proper doctrine. I learn constantly, so my truth of today is heresy to even me tomorrow.
With sin as a nature, rather than an act, I am sure his mercy extends even to the sins we would have committed given the chance.
True, but only if we avail ourselves of that mercy by repentance, which is my point.
I am beginning to think that doctrine is a form that belief takes in function, or, action. Given the open potential of love, doctrine, then, should be considered as a result of, rather than as a cause of, choice/action. In other words, we are not “known” (experienced) by our doctrine; rather, our doctrine is known by our choice/actions. Doctrine, then, given the unique expression that love takes in each individual, will look slightly different in application each time. In other words, there is no cookie cutter application possible for love. That does NOT mean that we can make of the Law anything we want to, though! It just means that no one is in a position to tell another HOW to apply that Law (legalism).
Those pesky Greeks got it completely backwards, I am convinced, when they tried to posit that form determined function, and we have been suffering ever since. I am trying to flesh out what that means to us today in so far as how we think (paradigm, as Skip has asked us to do). A friend suggested to me that you might be a person who might be able and willing to look further at the subject. If you have any time or curiosity or think you can put up with my rather slap-hazard way of thinking, I would appreciate any input from others, as I am quite limited with my own (that would be an open invitation to anybody, by the way!). If you ever do that kind of interchange or have the time or the interest my email is lauritahayes at g mail dot com.
P. S. thanks for livening it up around here!