Plagiarism: Materialism

This was written in about 1000 AD (italics mine):-

"It is natural for a man to desire what he reckons better than that which he has already, and be satisfied with nothing which lacks that special quality which he misses . . . . If he is clad in a rich garment, he will covet a costlier one; and no matter how rich he may be he will envy a man richer than himself. Do we not see people every day, endowed with vast estates, who keep on joining field to field, dreaming of wider boundaries for their lands? Those who dwell in palaces are ever adding house to house, continually building up and tearing down, remodeling and changing . . . . And nowhere is there any final satisfaction, because nothing there can be defined as absolutely the best or highest. But it is natural that nothing should content a man’s desires but the very best, as he reckons it. Is it not, then, mad folly always to be craving for things which can never quiet our longings, much less satisfy them? No matter how many such things one has, he is always lusting after what he has not; never at peace, he sighs for new possessions. Discontented, he spends himself in fruitless toil, and finds only weariness in the evanescent and unreal pleasures of the world. In his greediness, he counts all that he has clutched as nothing in comparison with what is beyond his grasp, and loses all pleasure in his actual possessions by longing after what he has not, yet covets. . . .

"It is so that these impious ones wander in a circle, longing after something to gratify their yearnings, yet madly rejecting that which alone can bring them to their desired end, not by exhaustion but by attainment. They wear themselves out in vain travail, without reaching their blessed consummation, because they delight in creatures, not in the Creator. They want to traverse creation, trying all things one by one, rather than think of coming to Him who is Lord of all. And if their utmost longing were realized, so that they should have all the world for their own, yet without possessing Him who is the Author of all being, then the same law of their desires would make them contemn what they had and restlessly seek Him whom they still lacked, that is, God Himself. Rest is in Him alone. Man knows no peace in the world; but he has no disturbance when he is with God. And so the soul says with confidence, ‘Whom have I in heaven but Thee; and there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee. God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. It is good for me to hold me fast by God, to put my trust in the Lord God’ (Ps. 73.25ff)."

- Bernard de Clairvaux, On Loving God, from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bernard/loving_god.ix.html, accessed 14/7/08.

Perfect Children

I was listening to John Piper articulating a biblical theology of singleness the other day. He was, in part, challenging his listeners to consider if they had bought into the world’s view of marriage and singleness. He asked if, like the world, we place more value on marriage and less value on singleness than we ought.

I wonder if this comes from idealising children. Do we think that cuteness and innocence are synonymous with goodness? Do we think that there is nothing so fundamentally good as raising little children? I’m not for a moment wanting to deny the worth of this or the beauty, charm and sincere kindness of children. But I do want to say that these things will pass. They will not always be children. Before all else, they are people.

Those of us who are single have not drawn the short straw. There is nothing second-rate about only ever befriending, caring for and guiding other adults (and ‘adopting’ a few of their kids along the way). They too are people – little people grown big. It’s an enormous privilege and joy and pain to have involvement and influence in any person’s life.

As Piper makes plain, God’s people are no longer mostly the children of Jewish parents, but can now include all men, women and children from all races and nations. Let’s rejoice in the people that have been given us to care for.

Activity and Passivity

The biblical view of men and women’s roles, as I understand it, is that men are to lead and women to help and follow. Helping and following are fairly passive. To do them well requires a patient ‘sitting back’, waiting to see how things pan out or what we are asked to do. They require women to adapt and mould themselves to whatever situation presents.

But this is too simplistic. Done well, there is a strange activity, alertness and intelligence to the passivity of helping and following. Like ninjas (perhaps) women need to have a ‘readiness’, so that once we see what to do we can take action. There is also a creativity and generativity in changing ourselves and in working out how best to help or how best to achieve what has been asked of us. It’s not a robotic completion of requirements, but an innovative contribution – yet one that has the humility to be ‘overruled’.

The man’s leadership also has an active/passive mix. It is active in that he does lead, and yet, his goal is, in a sense, passive. He aims to serve the woman and sacrifices himself to help her be all she can be.

As I always say, it’s like dancing.