The Crowded Middle

4 Comments

Comment by Ron Kellington on March 17, 2009 at 9:39am

Hey Dave.. I think I know where you're going with this but I'm not sure what a "good man" is seeing as how the Lord has pointed out that there is no "good" in men. Our hearts are desperately wicked. I find that no matter how good my thoughts are, they may not be "best".. Perhaps that is why He says to take all our thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ... we can be deceived by 'good' and miss God's best.
Personally, I think if we're pursuing a Person ( both indidually and corporately) and if we really know our identity in Christ ( again both individually as a member of His body.. and corporately as His Body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all ) then so much of this world will just fall away. ( Obviously that pursuit includes the denial and death to the flesh and the world by taking up our crosses and recognizing that our lives are hidden with Christ in God..)
I keep forgetting what 1Cor.10:32 points out. There are 3 different races.. 3 different 'humanities' on this earth right now: Jews, Gentiles and the ekklesia. We're a new creation, a part of the One New Man created IN Christ Jesus, sharing the same Divine Life as members of His Body that is in the Head... It's His Life.

Yes.. let's leave our defense with God. After all, when the Father looks at us ( the church, His body ) He sees an unindictable, spotless, blameless, pure and holy Person. The Love He pours out on His Son is poured out on us and shed abroad in our hearts because we are part of Him.

Let's choose to live by His Life and lay our lives down. I'm trying not to be led away from Christ or the simplicity that is in Him.

I love that verse from Romans that you referenced: If you live, live to God; if you die, die to God

God bless you, Dave.

Comment by Dave Gregg on March 19, 2009 at 7:55am

Thanks Ron for the comment! I appreciate your bringing up the definition issue within the rather broad subject of morality--i.e. that God's "good" is very different from our own. I assure you I didn't forget it. ;)

I wasn't trying to make that differentiation here, though that is a very important issue, because I thought it to be implicit (and to keep the essay as brief as possible). In light of the conscience that we all bear (though with increasingly less motivating influence the more twisted an individual becomes), everyone has a sense of what "good" is--our vision is blurrier than God's, but we generally "get the picture." I am here contrasting the "evil" kind of man in the worst sense (whom I think all sane humanity would recognize given a decent showing, even if some may side with him) and the "good" kind of man in the best sense (whom all sane humanity would also recognize, even if some people might pervert or ignore it's interpretation). Implicit in that contrast is that the "good" kind of man of which I am speaking in the first paragraph--the "ideal" you might say--is the man who is made good by God (in the sense of justification) and is continuing to develop in good by God's definition (in the sense of sanctification). There can be no other kind of "best" man.

In the second paragraph, I discuss "the crowded middle," in which I purposely focus on simple morality. Obviously, I'm not saying there isn't a difference between "good" and "bad." Instead, without clarifying what definition I'm using for "good," I intended the reader to interpret for themselves, because this paragraph applies to all definitions of "good." This is because it only addresses the general categories of people's actions, without attempting to be specific. So, generally, I expected the common meaning of "good" and "evil" to come to people's minds.

If the common criminal (or the more-or-less average person who commonly crosses the morally-questionable) really cares about the way people perceive him, then he will to some degree "listen" to his conscience, if for no other reason than the preservation of his reputation, because he knows his conscience is similar to theirs--it tells him "This is too wrong, even for you" and that is precisely what others would think. So, he is kept from evil even worse still and we are kept from its presence.

If the "decent" guy really cares about people's judgments of him, he won't want to do anything that jeopardizes his social standing. So, he wouldn't be likely to do any of the radical acts of goodness that goodness might compel him to do (because, let's face it: extreme goodness is usually radical even to people we consider "good folks"). His mother and father would think it's crazy. His co-workers would laugh at him and "talk." Many would question his motives or sanity. He wants to be like everyone else, thereby winning their approval. Who didn't learned this in high school? It doesn't stop when you graduate. Some of these people are Christians and some are not, but it doesn't seem to matter much to those who are, and it won't matter until they are willing to, as you said, "lay their lives down" and begin to develop in the way of Christ which is infinitely better morally.

So, both groups of people maintain a fairly close resemblance to one another (so much so that, compared to men of great evil, they are all considered rather normal). They stick pretty tight to the middle line--the "bleh." This is the pull of peer pressure in all society. In regard to Evil, society's pull is beneficial: we don't live in the presence of wickedness nearly as gross and prevalent as we would otherwise and the people who would do those unspeakable acts of wickedness don't, which, of course, is better for them as well. In regard to Good, society's pull is degenerative: hardly a soul pushes the frontlines of virtue, nearly everyone is content merely eating, drinking, and being merry, and scarcely can we find even a Christian who reminds us of Jesus. Furthermore, history has shown that morality within societies inevitably decays, which means that the baseline--the "normal" around which both the (subjectively) "slightly" bad and "slightly" good orbit--slinks gradually closer to the Evil side of the spectrum, until the society's eventual collapse. This should all the more urge us to know God, to live loved and love in kind, to embody His goodness, His grace, and His liberty in increasingly radical, abnormal ways.

I'm certain you wouldn't disagree with any of this, Ron. I've written this to clarify and compliment the post, for the benefit of anyone who may have similar misgivings, or questions, or doubts. Thank you for giving me that opportunity! As for me, I want people to have to sit and think about what they're reading. I want them to interact with it intellectually and emotionally and come to conclusions. If I make people think, I'm a very happy writer, even if they end up disagreeing. Unfortunately, this sometimes means that many people become confused. It's hard to find a balance between "thinking too much" for the reader and "not thinking enough" for them. The one makes skimmers out of people, who don't really think about what they're reading. The other unnecessarily hinders their comprehension. I always appreciate a swift reply prompting me to clarify! Thank you!

Comment by Dena Brehm on March 28, 2009 at 8:23pm

Brilliant, Dave. I like how your mind works ... how you move beyond status quo, and engage the heart and mind of the reader (no, I am not a skimmer...!). ;)

I've become a good woman (likened to the One who is in me, and I in Him), one who is learning to not care about the judgments of others towards me. I learned this, of course, the very hardest of ways...!

I once thought this would be my undoing ... I now find that I very much needed to be undone. I too, have learned the futility of engaging with those who insisst upon enthroning their judgments.

I look forward to reading more of what you have to share - thanks!

Shalom, Dena

Comment by Dave Gregg on March 28, 2009 at 8:37pm

Thanks Dena! I'm glad you're not a skimmer. :)

Tell me about yourself! Where are you on the journey? (Private Message is welcome.)

Add a Comment