When I went to college as a freshman, I did not know in advance even one other person who would be a classmate. I did know a few others from my church and from the Christian summer camp that I had worked at in high school who were upperclassmen in the school. But that did not help me on day one of orientation as a freshman.

Also complicating matters and leaving me unusually alone was the fact that the fellow who was to be my roommate was killed in an automobile crash about a week before our time of arrival, so I was the only freshman who did not have at least the partner relationship of a roommate to share and experience the orientation period together.

Being and feeling much alone over the first couple of days, I determined I needed to take action and connect myself to a couple of other guys. Looking around at those who were on my floor in the dorm, there were two guys who had been put randomly in the same room who seemed like they were my kind of people. One of them was very talkative and cheerful and the other was a muscular hunk of humanity and the heartthrob of every girl from the first day; both were into sports and planning on playing on the basketball and baseball teams (as was I). We became great friends and remain so to this day. Both were in my wedding party — the talkative guy was my best man.

However, there was another fellow who sort of came along as a “bonus.”  He was from the same high school and church as the studmuffin friend. And he too was VERY talkative and incurably cheerful all the time. Beyond that, he was a music major like me. And then the big thing was this: the overly sentimental dude found out that we had the same birthdate … yep, the same year too! He determined that we just had to be great friends and he attached himself to me.

You couldn’t exactly dislike this guy, he was always so nice. But I didn’t think we shared nearly so much in common as he thought we did. He was not an athletic guy particularly, and he had a decidedly old-fashioned way of dressing and carrying himself. He was age 18 going on 65. Every time I turned around, it seemed I bumped into his big toothy smile. When I later finagled to get a single dorm room, he somehow worked it out to get the room immediately next to mine so that we could be together. He was like a human Labrador retriever. And I didn’t deserve his loyalty.

Over time, I simply got used to his presence and friendship and received it as a gift, even if it was kinda weird sometimes and not the best wingman for the game of feminine pursuit. Eventually, he too was a part of my wedding lineup of friends. How could I leave him out? And you’ll probably not be surprised to hear that he is a pastor of a church yet today and is one of the finest followers of Christ I have ever known.

I was not worthy of his kindness. I was operating under the more standard mode of interpersonal connection and interaction: I will be kind to those who deserve it, and if someone else is a jerk and does not deserve my kindness, I’ll tell him he is a jerk and an idiot in terms that are one click higher than the way he did it to me.

This other fellow was working with me on a different mode of interpersonal interaction: He was modeling the way Christ served others by extending grace and kindness, even when it was not deserved or earned or reciprocated.

Peter wrote to the chosen strangers who were the recipients of his letter to encourage them about how to behave in an oft-hostile culture where they were out of step with the world around them. He spoke of the oneness of mind and attitude that they should have first of all with each other in the family of faith. And beyond that, as they lived in kindness and grace with each other, to also extend that to the world around them, even when it was undeserved (or deserving of just the opposite).

This would give them the approval of God, a generally disarmed response from others, and a clear conscience and spotless record if falsely accused and slandered.

This would also mean that they would be following the model of Jesus Christ. He was the righteous, innocent one who took the sins of the guilty upon himself to bring us to God. As it says in Romans 5:8, Christ did this for us WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS!

So extending consistent kindness and service to others, deserving or not, is not beyond a reasonable pattern of life for those who have received the grace that we have received from Christ.

8 Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech. 11 They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” [from Psalm 34:12-16]

13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” [from Isaiah 8:12] 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

Finally, Peter turns his attention to the subject of marriage:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3:1-6)

Like yesterday’s passage on slavery, here’s another example of where we need to wrap out heads around some cultural issues.  But as much as we might initially recoil from this kind of language as an outdated throwback to a Leave-it-to-Beaver-style America, Peter’s instructions here were actually quite counter-cultural.   In the ancient world, the man’s religion dominated the household.  But Peter is saying: Look, ladies—you have an opportunity to witness to your unbelieving husbands.  And that was huge in that society.  So let’s not miss just how culturally progressive this passage is.

Second, we might be challenged by the admonition against adornment.  I can imagine that contemporary feminism might cringe at the thought of a man like Peter telling women what they should or should not wear.  Why can’t women just be themselves?  But this, too, misses the point unless we consider the cultural setting.  An ancient historian lamented that when women “see that they have nothing else but only to be the bedfellows of men, they begin to beautify themselves, and put all their hopes in that.” [1]  In other words, women in the ancient world were valued for their looks—how “sexy” they were—and nothing more.  Thank goodness we don’t live in a world like that anymore, right?  If you missed my sarcasm, consider the way that even recent celebrities and trends have pushed against the superficial and artificial world we find in magazine ads and supermodels.  Actress Kate Winslet, for instance, recently made waves by insisting her photos for Elle magazine be published with “no retouching.” [2] This kind of thing can be ennobling to women.  Peter is saying something quite similar: that in a world that measures women by superficial standards, women can demonstrate their value through their character.

ASYMMETRY AND SUBMISSION

Christianity has traditionally emphasized two things about gender: that both men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) and that men and women reflect this image in different ways.  We therefore can say that in men and women, we find equality but also a sense of asymmetry. And because of this asymmetry, women and men interact differently within the context of marriage.

In recent years, we’ve begun to see this asymmetry as something negative or even oppressive.  Surely, we’ve assumed, women would be better served in marriages where there was a completely equal distribution of roles and responsibilities.  A pair of researchers from the University of Virginia put this theory to the test.  Their results were published under the title: “What’s Love Got to Do with It?”  Their results were surprising:

“[Researchers] find no support for the theory that [completely sharing roles] promotes wife’s marital quality.  It is important for wife’s marital happiness that husband and wife have shared ideas about marriage, that they both commit to the institution of marriage, that they are integrated into an institution (like the church) that also has these same ideas about marriage, and that the marriage and the husbands are emotionally invested in marriage.”[3]

In other words, the message of Peter is not as radically conservative as we might fear.  There remains value in pursuing traditional gender roles, and the way these roles play out in marriage reflects the design of God.

THE ROLE OF HUSBANDS

Peter is saying, then, that Christian wives can be used by God to draw their unbelieving husbands to saving faith in Jesus.  Reflecting the character of Jesus is the highest value and highest purpose of marriage—a purpose also reflected in the love of husbands and their wives:

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

Men are charged to treat their wives honorably.  Why?  Because, Peter says, they are the “weaker vessel.”  What could this possibly mean?   Naturally we recognize that there are many areas in which men are (generally) stronger than women.  But we might also recognize a constellation of strengths that women possess that men do not.  So how could Peter dismiss women in such a categorical fashion?  In her commentary on 1 Peter, Karen H. Jobes points out that Peter may very well have been making a sociological evaluation.  In other words, Peter is pointing out that in his culture, women tend to have less value and less worth and less honor than men.  Peter stops short of trying to fully reverse this—though his commandments seek to affirm the value and dignity of women even though the rest of society seems to think them as mere sex objects.  What’s more, Peter affirms their equality by sharing that yes, women are “heirs with you of the grace of life.”

Peter concludes with a statement of purpose: that honoring one’s wife helps us avoid “hindered prayers.”  In his commentary on 1 Peter, Wayne Grudem suggests that we—that is, husbands in particular—should take this very literally:

“So concerned is God that Christian husbands live in an understanding and loving way with their wives that he ‘interrupts’ his relationship with them when they are not doing so. …no husband may expect an effective prayer life unless he lives with his wife ‘in an understanding way, bestowing honor’ on her.  To take the time to develop and maintain a good marriage is God’s will; it is serving God; it is a spiritual activity pleasing in his sight.”[4]

It’s tempting to think that privilege is about social power or about personal worth.  But the message of Christian marriage is that our greatest privilege comes from our love for one another reflecting the love of the Savior.

[1] Epictetus, Encheirodon 40.

[2] http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/10/kate-winslets-loral-contract-no-retouching.html

[3] W. Bradford Wilcox and Steven L. Nock, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?  Equality, Equity, Commitment, and Women’s Marital Quality,” Social Forces 84, no. 3 (March 2006): 1321-45.

[4] Wayne A. Grudem, 1 Peter, p. 154.

Having addressed the need to “be subject” in the world of politics, Peter now turns his focus to another sphere of public life:

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. (1 Peter 2:18-20)

Now, if we’re to apply a text like this, we have to wrap our heads around the ancient practice of slavery.  Why would writers like Peter (as well as Paul—Colossians 3:22) claim to love Jesus yet seem to wink at the practice of slavery?  It’s not an easy question to answer, but we must first recognize that slavery in the Roman world was very different from the slavery of America’s recent past.  For starters, we need to recognize just how many slaves there were.  Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary estimates that about a third of the first-century Roman population was slaves.^[1]  While many became slaves by being born into it or even through piracy, provisions existed in which people would sell themselves into slavery.  The second-century jurist Florentius spoke of selling oneself into slavery with confidence that you could later be freed.[2]  Other writers defined slavery through decidedly contractual terms—meaning slavery was something like the “indentured servitude” of our recent past.[3]  Yet another writer said that slavery provided him physical necessities (food, clothing, shelter, medical care) that he would not have had otherwise.[4]  Granted, abuses ran rampant; the increasing tension between city and country life in Rome meant that there was a lot of moral ambiguity surrounding the practice.  But—unlike the slavery of the pre-war south—slavery in the ancient world was not anchored in systemic injustice or racial hatred.

So if we recognize this cultural difference, we can apply this text to our jobs, our careers.  This is what Christian writers have historically called “vocation”—the manner by which we fulfill God’s calling by using our gifts, skills, and abilities for some public good.

OCCUPATIONAL IDOLATRY?

Peter, however, seems to recognize that—perhaps owing to injustices within the world of ancient slavery?—there was a need for harmony to exist between “master” and “slave.”  In the same way, there is a need for harmony between employers and employees—even when we feel as though we are receiving unjust treatment at work.

What might this look like?  Well, it might start with repenting from “occupational idolatry”—that is, finding our ultimate worth and value from our careers.

Peter writes:

21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Peter 2:18-25)

Our ultimate source of security and comfort comes not from the approval of our boss or co-workers; it comes from God.  This is why we are able to follow Christ’s example, because we are confident that we don’t need to repay injustice with evil but instead demonstrate humility.

SHOWING LOVE THROUGH VOCATION

One of the key dangers in talking about our jobs in a Christian setting is that we tend to think that there are “secular” jobs and there are Christian ministries—as though these are worlds apart.  Part of Peter’s point—at least when applied to us—is that our character can be a powerful testimony to those around us.  Therefore all jobs can become a ministry, so long as we see our careers as a stage on which we enact the love and character of Jesus.  Nancy Pearcy makes this point in her book Total Truth.  She writes:

“Ordinary Christians working in business, industry, politics, factory work, and so on, are ‘the Church’s front-line troops in her engagement with the world,’ wrote Lesslie Newbigin. Imagine how our churches would be transformed if we truly regarded laypeople as frontline troops in the spiritual battle.”[5]

What about you?  Do you “use” your coworkers by seeking approval and admiration from them?  Or do you love and honor them by performing your job with integrity?  Do you show honor to your employers?  Or do you cut them down when they’re not around?  The gospel promises us that we have God’s approval and we need no one else’s—that true justice comes in Christ’s kingdom and not our own.  Our careers, therefore, become opportunities to demonstrate eternal values rather than sources of a weekly paycheck.

[1] Daniel Wallace, “Some initial reflections on slavery in the New Testament,” appearing online at https://bible.org/article/some-initial-reflections-slavery-new-testament

[2] Florentius, Iustiniani Digesti 40.12.7

[3] Dio Chrysostom

[4] Epictetus, Dissertations, 4.1.37.

[5] Nancy Pearcy, Total Truth

Peter instructs his readers to “be subject” to human authority, beginning with the world of politics:

13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17)

Now, bear in mind that even though Peter wrote his letter before the official persecutions that would come later, there had been at least some localized persecutions that had been sanctioned by the Roman government.  So the instruction to “be subject” to both “the emperor” or his various “governors” must have been a bit abrasive.  Then again, the command to honor our political leaders is still abrasive to us.

How do Christians relate to the world of politics?  On the one hand, God spoke through Jeremiah and commanded his people to “seek the good of the city” of Babylon (Jeremiah 29:7).  On the other hand, Jesus told Pilate that God’s “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).  With Peter’s repeated emphasis on resurrection and future hope, what reason might we find for honoring political leaders?

A TALE OF TWO CITIES

Some of you may be familiar with a man named Augustine, who in the early days of the Church famously penned a massive work called The City of God.  In this book, Augustine declared that there are two cities: the City of Man and the City of God.  You might say that Christians possess a sense of dual citizenship: inhabitants of the City of Man, though inheritors of the future City of God, that shall one day descend to earth as a bride adorned for her husband (Revelation 21:2).

But as even Jesus points out, a man cannot serve two masters.  Which city receives our allegiance?  Which city’s values should be our own?

To understand this, let’s get some help from an ancient thinker named Aristotle.  Aristotle lived a few hundred years before Jesus, but it was in Medieval Europe that his ideas would eventually be applied to Christianity.  Aristotle’s ideas enable us to distinguish between an “immediate hope” and an “ultimate hope.”  That is, there are things we trust in for the present—though our trust lies ultimately elsewhere.

Think of it this way: the Bible tells us that God is the “sustainer” of life (Psalm 54:4).  This means that we trust that in every circumstance, he is in control of our destiny.

Amen?

So…why do you wear a seatbelt?  Why do you lock the doors of your home?  Why do you take medicine rather than ask God to remove the illness?

The answer is simple: placing ultimate hope in the authority of God doesn’t prevent me from placing immediate hope in the provisions of man.  In fact, when the people in the city of Thessalonica got confused about the nature of Christ’s return, Paul reminds them of the importance of working hard in the present (2 Thessalonians 3:10—“if you don’t work you don’t eat”).

Applied to the world of politics, we might say that the Christian places his ultimate hope in the resurrection and coming kingdom of God, and places his immediate hope on life in the here and now.

I know this is a bit challenging, but this way of thinking is enormously helpful.  Because the City of God is my ultimate hope, it prevents me from sourly gazing at my TV screen during the election cycle.  And because the City of Man is my immediate hope, it prevents me from dismissing the world of politics as “unspiritual.”

POLITICAL IDOLATRY

Of course, the fact that Peter has to tell his readers to “be subject” and to “honor the emperor” tells us that we seem to have a natural bending toward rejecting authority.  One of the great challenges today is not that we abandon any notion of political honor: it’s that we only selectively honor our leaders—and vilify those we dislike.

When the City of Man ceases to be an immediate hope and becomes an ultimate hope, political idolatry is born.  In his wonderful book Counterfeit Gods, Tim Keller points out that there are three basic warning signs of political idolatry:

• First, our lives become dominated by fear and by anxiety over losing or gaining power in the public sphere. We are constantly on edge about the next political decision and political leader, and the peace of God is far from our hearts.
• Second, when we encounter those who differ from us politically, we see them as not only wrong, but deeply evil. Now, in fairness, there are political positions—on say, abortion—that Christians would label as morally evil.  But rather than love our political adversaries, we’re more likely to engage in name-calling or heated arguments.
• Finally, we tend to see our greatest problem not sin and death, but see our political opponents as our ultimate enemy. “Things would go so much better,” we say, “if the [democrats/republicans] were in charge.”

This matters—not only because all forms of idolatry cause our souls to wither, but because political idolatry can be corrosive to the Christian witness.  When doing research for their book unChristian, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons found that non-Christians were likely to describe Christians as “too political,” among other things.

This is a tragedy.

So what about you, right now?  This morning you’ve probably already heard the results of the Iowa caucus.  Are you sad?  Angry?  Frustrated?  Elated?  Enthusiastic?  Are you hitting the “share” button on political memes mocking your opponents?   Are you lamenting that “it’s over?”  Some of these reactions reflect an abiding concern for the City of Man—and this is a just and right response in preserving our immediate hope.  But ask yourself: is this dominating my attention and my thoughts?  Are my children seeing me express a trust in the City of God, or do they see my concern resting on the City of Man?  Where is my ultimate hope—my ultimate source of security and confidence?  Does it come from the world of the Bible, or from the electoral college?  The cross, or my conceal-carry permit?

God is in control.  One day his eternal city will come, and all will be set right.  Until then, we say Maranatha—come quickly, Lord Jesus.

Is Christianity good or bad for society?  It really wasn’t that long ago that the public square resonated with injunctions toward “tolerance.”  Now these conversations have been replaced by the language of power and privilege.  Christianity, it’s been assumed, has held too much power for too long.  All religions contain positive elements just as all religions are stained by hypocrisy and social evils.  So why elevate Christianity to a position of cultural privilege?  For example, in April of 2015, Frank Bruni wrote a piece for The New York Times in which he described “Biblical interpretation”—specifically in regard to human sexuality—as “debatable.”  But, wrote Bruni, “beliefs ossified over time aren’t easily shaken.”  His solution?  He joins his voice with a political advocacy group, saying that Christians “must be made” to change their minds with regard to their views on marriage and family.[1]  Not “must be encouraged;” not “must be encouraged.”  No; Christians “must be made.”

Christians have wrongly assumed that their faith has been pushed to the margins of human society.  This is no longer the case.  Now, Christianity is being brought into the public square—not for the purpose of dialogue but for a public flogging.  Christianity is the problem, we’re repeatedly told, not the solution.

Peter seems to have been experiencing something very similar to this in his own day.  He writes:

11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:11-12)

Peter sees Christianity as having the potential for a positive impact on the world around him.  This meant two things.  First, it meant that Christians demonstrate character by not being ruled by earthly passions, and secondly, it meant that Christians demonstrate character through “honorable living.”  Why?  Look at the text: the phrase “so that” tells us his purpose.  Christian character testifies that the gospel is not simply true—though it is—but that it also is good.

Peter unpacks this command toward ethical character with a series of commands—or, more accurately, one command that he applies to three different spheres of life.  “Be subject,” he says—and he repeats this command in the world of (1) poltics (2:13-17), (2) vocation/career (2:18-25), and (3) marriage (3:1-7).  We’ll unpack each of those areas as we move forward this week.  But first we have to understand the relationship between Christian hope and Christian character.

Earlier in his letter, Peter unpacks the gospel this way:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.  (1 Peter 1:3-5)

What serves as the basis for Peter’s faith?  It is the “living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”  The resurrection is a sure thing; it really historically happened.  Without it—well, without it we’re left to vague spiritual language and wishful speculation.  But because Christ literally rose from the dead, because he promises us “an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading,” this changes our outlook.  How?

First, the resurrection of Christ tells us that if we compare religions based on their impact on society, we’re asking the wrong question.  The issue is not: “Which religion offers the greatest social benefit?”  The issue is not even “Which religion has caused the least amount of violence?”  These kinds of questions may dominate the talking heads of nightly news; they may generate venom in social media debates.  But they are the wrong kinds of question. The issue is not primarily about which religion is “good,” but about which religion is true.

Secondly, there are commands in scripture that we may find culturally backward or even morally offensive.  The idea that I am to “be subject”—that is, to revere and obey authority—runs counter to my treasured value of personal freedom.  Such demands are difficult.  But again, the question for us is not: “Do I find Christianity culturally sensitive?   Do I find Jesus’ commands easy or hard?”  The question is: “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”  Because if the answer to that question is “yes,” then my objections don’t matter—or at least they don’t change the nature of Christ’s demands.  Instead, they press me to consider faith as an all-or-nothing venture.  I can’t selectively follow Jesus based on which commands seem best to me; I must devote myself to following Jesus because he has demonstrated victory over sin and death and invites me to share in that victory through daily living.

Such self-denial would seem almost cruel unless we consider the broader landscape of eternity.  If this life is all we’re given, then living for myself seems my best shot at being fulfilled.  But because the gospel provides us a grander vision of God’s eternal kingdom—coming at Christ’s return—then the surrender of my freedom for this paradise is less a burden than a bargain.

This week, we’ll look at how these kingdom values take shape on the stages of politics, career, and marriage.

[1] Frank Bruni, “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana.”  The New York Times, April 3, 2015.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html