Humble: Verb or Adjective?

The other day, a co-worker and I were discussing something. He, being Pentecostal, and I, ascribing to Eastern Orthodoxy, certainly have our differences. I’m not sure what the original subject was, but we landed on the topic of humility. Both of us had a lot of trouble defining the word “humble”.

According to Oxford, “humble” is an adjective which means:

     Having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance.

This would is probably a sufficient definition for the use of the word in common, everyday language. In all outward appearances, the person whom we describe as “humble” expresses his or her humility in the form of actions. Thus, it is often difficult to define “humble” without using an example. The definition is more in line with a “verb” or action rather than the adjective that it should be. Humility should be described as an attribute or, in the Christian sense, a spiritual condition.

The question at hand is, how should one define the actual “condition” of being “humble”? If one is working toward possessing such a condition, what is it they are actually working for? Alexander Schmemann, in chapter 1 of his popular Great Lent: Journey to Pascha, insisted that God was also humble. He explained this opinion by defining “humility” as essentially being synonymous with “completeness”. God is humble because praise adds nothing to His Glory. In the same way, a humble Christian should never allow worldly praise to build his or her pride. Alexander Schmemann wrote more than once on “humility”, and he better defines and explains this position in chapter 2 of the same work, as excerpted in an article posted here.

As it stands, perhaps the simplest definition for “humility” would be:

     Possessing accurate knowledge of one’s self.

This definition, while encompassing Alexander Schmemann’s, probably better conveys the Christian sense of the word. God is indeed humble in that He has an accurate knowledge of Himself. No human being is nearly as humble as God. In humanity, however, humility would involve knowledge of the depth of one’s own sinfulness.

A relative and I were messaging one another concerning her recent visit to a 7^th Day Adventist church in our hometown. Her experience was generally positive and she was very excited about the fact that they did “feet washing”. My Great Grandmother, who goes to a Primitive Baptist church, does feet washing as well. She went on to explain to me that it was to show humility just as Jesus did.

This is certainly a noble idea. But it lead me to wonder about whether it was effectively displaying real humility or was it an exercise to develop humility. In the parable, The Publican and the Pharisee, we get the sense that the Pharisee probably performed all of the tasks that are designed to display humility toward God. The Publican, as we know, actually possessed humility before God.

Prefacing the following with the statement that my Great Grandmother is an exceptionally humble woman, she takes a great deal of pride in the fact that her church does these practices as an act of humility. Perhaps the take home lesson is to recognize the many acts of piety within the Orthodox Church should be used as tools to gain humility, rather than performing them as displays of humility. If the lesson is taken to heart and we actually begin to possess humility, we will display it as a natural expression of ourselves.

Dogma of the Two Wines.

Below is an article my wife found on the net. I found the arguments within misleading and thought they deserved a proper refutation. The author is Pastor John Hamel and the article is The “Jesus Drank Wine” Lie: The Bible Exposé You Need to Read. The article is presented just as it appears here. All black text is Pastor Hamel’s, all red text is my own.

The “Jesus Drank Wine” Lie
The Bible Exposé You Need to Read
by Pastor John Hamel

One Sunday morning while preparing for a service, a young man who had previously attended our services approached me.  He explained that he wouldn’t be in Church because he’d been “drinking” the night before.  He then tried to justify himself by explaining, “Jesus didn’t have a problem with wine.  He drank it Himself.”  He claimed he could prove it from the Bible.  Half hung-over, he stood there dumfounded as I corrected this lie using the same Bible he referred to. 

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that a hung over man actually got up and went to church to tell you he wouldn’t be at church. Now it would be agreeable to address that this person was drinking in excess, but the author is claiming that alcohol is evil in itself. Let’s see what support can be mustered for this position.

I took him immediately to the following Scripture in Isaiah 65:8.  “Thus saith the Lord, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.”

In this passage, Isaiah is using an analogy to show the sinful Israelites that they were a bad batch of wine, but new wine was growing on the vine. Within the analogy comes a sense that the new wine has not yet matured. This passage is out of context and does not support the author’s position.

I shared with this Brother that when the juice of the grape is still “in the cluster” God calls it “wine.”  “Grape juice still in the cluster is not ‘fermented’ wine,” I explained.  “It is un-fermented wine.  It is grape juice.  There are two kinds of ‘wine’ in the Bible.  Fermented and un-fermented.” 

What many don’t realize about the teaching that there are “two kinds of wine” in the bible is that it is a dogma. Having a dogma is not a bad thing. In fact it is a necessary thing. However, one must consider where a dogma originates. Has it been a position of the Church from the beginning? Is there any support in the Hebrew tradition? The answer is “no” to both questions. Temperance is a Protestant movement.

I then explained that Jesus neither drank nor created fermented wine.  That would have been disobedience to His Father’s Word.  Disobedience is sin and He never sinned. (Hebrews 4:15) 

This is a method often employed in propaganda. The Pastor has presented a specific axiom to be self-evident or already proven when neither is true. He has not yet shown that drinking or creating wine is against the Father’s will. The Pastor and Orthodox Christianity agree that the Son never sinned as supported by Hebrews 4:15

I then took him to the following passage of Scripture that Jesus, our High Priest, would have obeyed or He was just a sinner man, like everyone else. 

“Do not drink wine nor strong drink, …when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;” (Leviticus 10:9, 10)

This is the Pastor’s most powerful proof-text. It is also dependent on a certain level of ignorance. It is, of course, a matter of respect to not enter the Lord’s house intoxicated. Conversely, it is also a matter of duty to receive all who come in repentance. When comparing the traditions of both the Church and Judaism, there is simply no room in this passage for understanding it as a prohibition of imbibing alcohol.

I explained to my hung-over Brother in the Lord that unfermented “wine” or grape juice is “Holy” or “clean” while fermented wine is “unholy” and “unclean.”  All alcoholic beverages are unholy and unclean! 

As I have already demonstrated, this is a dogma. There is more on this later.

I proceeded to explain how ignorant, immature Believers use Jesus’ Miracle of “turning water into wine” as an excuse to drink alcohol without stopping to acknowledge the following. 

Jesus did not disobey Leviticus 10:9-10 by “creating” alcoholic wine to be consumed against His Father’s will.  He created unfermented “wine” or high quality grape juice. 

As has already been demonstrated, the author has failed to prove that Lev 10:9-10 is a prohibition of creating or imbibing alcohol, except on the basis of a recently created dogma. Still more to come on that.

Not to mention that fermentation is an aging process that happens over a long period of time.  It’s a process of decay.  Decay is death.  Jesus created that high quality grape juice instantly, not over time, without decay and without death!  All of Jesus’ miracles are rooted in Life and Love.  God’s Life.  God’s Love.   

Actually, fermentation is a result of life! Yeast reacts with the sugars in the juice to create Alcohol. Yeast, as most people know, is a living organism. The analogy is understood, but the good pastor should also recognize that wine is traditionally served at celebrations of life.

People who use the “water into wine” excuse are simply being deceived by one verse of Scripture taken completely out of Biblical context.  They need to be delivered.  This is why Jesus said we must have two or three confirming passages of Scripture, in context, to verify all doctrine or behavior.  Otherwise, we shouldn’t accept it at all. (Matthew 18:16)

It is unknown whether the author understands what he has done here. He begins the paragraph by asserting that a verse has been taken out of context, but finishes it by taking a verse out of context. I invite the reader to read Matt 18:16, in context, as a rebuttal to this argument.

Often, after sharing this revelation with shocked, “wine bibbing” Believers, they almost always respond, “Well, Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach.  I’m just doing it for my stomach.” (1Timothy 5:23) 

Pay special attention to the next paragraph.

I then explain that Paul knew the difference between fermented and unfermented “wine” and obeyed the Bible, too.  It was common in his day to put grape juice in water to kill water-borne bacteria, which caused stomach ailments such as Timothy’s.  This is what Paul told Timothy to do.  He was not telling Timothy that it was acceptable to “catch a holy buzz in the Name of the Lord.” 

Grape juice does not kill waterborne bacteria. Perhaps the good pastor is mistaken in his history and ignorant in chemistry, or he has accepted this from one of his teachers. Regardless, I must insist that he is mistaken. Wine, on the other hand, contains alcohol which kills waterborne bacteria. And this is where Pastor Hamel's "dogma of two wines" falls apart. Paul could not possibly be referring to a non-alcoholic wine if it is intended to kill microbes.

The Bible calls fermented wine and all strong drink a “mocker.”  It calls those who use it “deceived” and “unwise.” (Proverbs 20:1) 

It leads to poverty. (Proverbs 21:17) 

It will bite you like a serpent. (Proverbs 23:32) 

The Bible also calls God’s children “Kings” (Revelation 1:5,6) and says, “Wine is not for Kings.” (Proverbs 31:4) 

All of the above passages have traditionally been recognized as warnings against the dangers of over indulgence. Proverbs 31:4, especially, recognizes the importance of a sober mind when one possesses great responsibility. One wonders whether the good pastor read the rest of Chapter 31.Only a few verses later, it seems the Proverbs are recommending alcohol.

Say, “Jesus, I choose You and Your Word.” (Romans 10:13)  He’ll forgive you for what you didn’t know.  However, now you do know!

Oh, yes, my intoxicated friend who insisted that Jesus was a wine drinker, which makes it okay for everyone.  Within weeks of rejecting my Scriptural, loving correction, he raped a 13 year old child while intoxicated.  He’ll pay for that for the rest of his life.  He was bitten by the mocking serpent of strong drink.

This is a most unfortunate turn of events, to be sure. My prayers are with this young girl as well as the “imbiber”. Indeed, this is where one must recognize that excess is an evil to be avoided. I hope that the good pastor has made this up for the sake of making a point.

Regardless, there is a difference between correlation and causation. Alcohol lowers one’s inhibitions. All well and good when one is dancing at a wedding. Excessive alcohol lowers ones inhibitions excessively. If this gentleman was struggling with a perverse sexual appetite, excessive alcohol may have eroded his judgment and self-control. It did not, however, create that appetite within him.

Someone always says, “Something like that would never happen to me.  I can handle it.”  Interesting.  That’s what my young friend said, too.

It doesn’t happen to exponentially more people than it does happen to.

A Catholic friend of mine once told me a joke:

“When fishing with a Baptist, how do you keep them from drinking all your beer?”

Answer:

“Bring another Baptist.”

As a former Baptist, I almost fell out of my chair laughing because I knew it was true. The truth of the matter is people drink. If Prohibition showed us anything, it showed that the criminalization of a normal human behavior brought far worse consequences than the acceptance and normalization of the behavior in a healthy social environment. I must disagree with Pastor John Hamel in the entirety of his essay. Jesus did drink wine.

On the other hand, Jesus was not known for getting falling down drunk either. It is doubtful that He ever had a hangover.

Be blessed and be strong!  ... John and Barbara Hamel.

John Hamel Ministries is based in Nashville, TN and his website can be found at www.johnhamelministries.org

Welcome to My Blog

      It seems reasonable, as I introduce myself, that I should lay down exactly what it is I believe and understand.

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio

      Who am I?  First, I must establish that I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I am still a Catechumen and, as such, submit my doctrinal understanding to be subservient to the doctrine of the Church. There are bound to be ways in which I have misunderstood and this blog, in part, is a way in which I can work these things out. For me, it has always been a good way to organize and standardize the cloud that my thoughts usually exist in.

  Why Orthodoxy:  I was raised a fundamentalist Christian, with roots in Pentecostal and Baptist (both Primitive and Southern) denominations. At some point, I lost faith. This will be explained in detail in other posts. At a certain point, I felt it necessary to come back to Christianity. This was in no small part thanks to the homilies delivered by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, in Canada, delivered via YouTube video. You way think what you want of the man. I know what I think of him. His message attracted me because he did not live in fairyland or “Dance with Unicorns”, as he most elegantly put it. He took a realistic understanding of the world and was able to add depth to his faith rather than cloister himself away in it. This is what was lacking in my own Christianity.

   Furthermore, in historical context, Orthodoxy has maintained the teachings of the ecumenical councils and remained essentially unchanged in those doctrines. If there is any salvation within Christianity whatsoever, it is in the correct form. If there is any correct form, it is in the original form. Lest anyone object and maintain that Eastern Orthodoxy is corrupted, I must maintain that “the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). My meaning, if not very clear, is that the Church was One, for a millennium. If it was not correct for that millennium, then the gates of Hades has already defeated it. The rest, as they say, is history.

      Am I a Creationist:  In a sense, yes. If the question implies that I give credit to God for my existence as well as the beauty of the world around me, then I am most certainly a Creationist.

      If, however, the question implies that I believe the universe is only 6,000 or so years old, the answer is no. God is not a Liar.

      If I can see a supernova event from a star 2 billion light-years away, then I must submit that the age of the universe is very old. If a whale is sometimes born with legs, I must submit that they are indeed vestigial. Men of science are sometimes men of God and sometimes they are not. But what they are always is a group of men who, regardless of how excited by the claim, would be even more excited to discredit it. Even if Natural Selection didn’t apply to biology, it would apply to Science, as only the strongest and best supported theories will survive the test of peer review.

      The atheist says (at least this atheist said), "See, nature shows us that it isn't true", and is content to believe that there must not be any truth in it. The fundamentalist says, "It is true, regardless of what nature says", and is equally content to call God a Liar. What must be remembered about Genesis and Creation is that one was inspired by God and the other was written by His own hand. It becomes less important that it took longer than seven days, was done in a different order, or that there was (possibly) never an actual Garden, when one recognizes that forbidden fruits are sampled daily. The truth of Genesis (and Scripture as a whole) is not Archeological, Geological, Biological, etc. The truth of Genesis is experiential. We discard paradise for the sake of power; we murder our brother, lust after Abraham’s wife, and whole scores of other sins and are not repentant until we are called out on them. Genesis is more correct in describing the human condition than it is incorrect in describing, well, Genesis.
    All of that being said, the Orthodox Church hasn't released a dogmatic statement regarding the relationship of Genesis and science, probably for good reason. I understand very well that many have trouble accepting their physical body is descended from apes. Many more have trouble with the idea that Genesis might not be literally true. Let's proceed in all discussions on this topic with humility from both sides.

      Am I a Fundamentalist?  Rabbi Tovia Singer has stated that a fundamentalist was a person who believes that society and culture should be subservient to Scripture. In the Jewish tradition, he understands himself to be a fundamentalist. I say that a person’s own heart should be subservient to Scripture. And the lenses by which Scripture should be understood are by the love of your fellow man and the Tradition of the Church. To me, this is the fundamental core of Christianity. What is common between Rabbi Singer and I is the understanding that that the words, in and of themselves, are insufficient. For him, it is the Oral Torah. For me, it is the Dogmas of Orthodoxy. The person whom we commonly term, “fundamentalist” (at least in the Christian sense), is a person without Dogma or Tradition. In Sola Scriptura, he must connect the dots on his own. He must, in essence, create his own Tradition before he comes to some “understanding”. The hardest thing for the convert is to look at that body of Patristic writings and realize that you are standing on the shoulders of giants.

      Infidels?  I must warn the reader that I will, on occasion discuss other religions. Mostly they will be discussed in relation to Orthodox Christianity. One need not fear that I have a greater love of any religion other than my own. If I thought there was a more pure and true religious philosophy than Christianity, then that would be the philosophy I would have. It seems rather foolish that a man should sit in a darkened cave and admire the light the folks outside are enjoying. But wisdom is wisdom and I have no fear of highlighting how others have learned to live by it.

      I also feel compelled to mention that the sole criteria by which we are judged is in how we serve Christ by serving each other. I have seen Buddhists, Atheists, and Jews serve each other better than I have seen many Christians. It is not a matter of good taste or politeness that I do not continue this line of reasoning. It is that I am simply satisfied to leave it at that. The truth and beauty of Christianity is reflected in its members and the Body is often not as polished as it should be. 

     We know where the Spirit is, we do not know where it is not. That is the Ekonomia of Christ.