The Important Contrast of Our Values: Lessons on Faithful Presence from 1 Peter
Rev. Michael Langer
My son-in-law is all about Texas. He loves Texas. He grew up on a ranch in Texas. He went to Texas A&M (which I think is a cult). He holds Texas in high regard and always wants to see Texas succeed. Now, he is celebrating the Texas Ranger’s victory over the Arizona Diamondbacks. This is the first World Series win for the Rangers in their 52-year history. That is a long time to wait for a victory. After years of waiting, holding that World Series trophy is something of a huge honor. Especially when you win it - honestly.
That is why I am thankful that he’s not an Astros fan. Despite their recent string of baseball success, the Astros will always be known as the team who cheated their way to the 2017 World Series by creating an elaborate, illegal, and dishonorable sign-stealing operation. They were fined five million dollars for their action, but got to keep the trophy.
On the other hand, I am fortunate enough to have loved the Cubs (who, I should add, have won more World Series than the Rangers), since I was a little boy. One of my favorite memories of a rivalry occurred in 1998 when the Cubs and Cards were battling to get to the postseason. During that battle, something else amazing was happening —Sammy Sosa for the Cubs and Mark McGwire for the Cards were hitting home runs — many home runs! By midseason, it was clear they both had a chance to surpass the all-time home run record for a single season set by Roger Maris at 61 in 1961. Back and forth they went, sometimes hitting multiple home runs in a game. By the end of the season, “Slammin’ Sammy” had hit 66 to smash the record. However, the Cardinal’s Mark McGwire went “other-worldly” and hit five in the last five days to finish at 70! The accomplishment should have resulted in honor and a legacy ending in their enshrinement in the Baseball Hall of Fame. But that will likely never happen. Because, to achieve honor, they had both used steroids. They cheated —and baseball hates cheaters. What began as a quest for honor, ended in shame. It took another 18 years for the Cubs to finally get to the World Series and win. I lived in Chicago at the time, and it was a huge honor to participate in the party! Yet, sports is not the only area where we see a quest for honor and making a name for yourself ending in public humiliation and shame.
In 1972, the quest for honor played itself out on a different national stage. This time, it was the stage of the Presidential Election. President Nixon, seeking a second term in office, felt a great deal of insecurity about his chances. That insecurity led him to take measures intended to secure his victory and diminish his insecurity. Although Nixon won the election in one of the largest electoral landslides ever, he resigned from office less than a year later. Due in large part to the work of two Washington Post reporters, Nixon’s chief role in the break-in to the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel was uncovered. Several went to prison, Nixon left the White House in disgrace, and our trust in the Executive Branch was forever changed. In a sense, Nixon’s insecurity became our insecurity. Our lack of trust in the Presidency has moved many into a place of low-grade insecurity with our leaders, and that, in turn, has shaped the way we respond to various national cultural concerns.
While none of us will probably ever face those types of situations, we all share the quest for honor and a deep desire to avoid shame. Our problem is that in the quest to find honor and avoid shame, we often pursue goals that leave us far short of the honor we seek and struggle to cover our shame. That, as this essay hopes to explain, results in numerous issues that not only curtail personal and national flourishing but actually deprive us of fully participating in Christ’s mission of making all things new.
How do we experience the honor we were created to experience? In his letter to a series of churches in Asia Minor, the Apostle Peter proposes that we do so by “growing up into salvation”. It is a salvation based on a living hope, the death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that rescues us from our sins, and that is kept for us secure, unfading, and undefiled. This is the message that Peter has for the elect exiles to whom he is writing in 1 Peter. The Christians of Asia Minor, along with virtually everyone else there, had no real political agency to speak of. They lacked any real ability to Make Asia Minor Great Again or to Build Back Better. Peter intends not to guide them to political power or religious freedom, but to live in faithful presence in a way that brings honor and avoids living in shame as social, cultural, political, and religious outcasts.
So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. (2 Peter 2-8, ESV)
A Contrast of Cravings
When we enter the public square, whether as servants and leaders working vocationally at an NGO, policy center, lobbying group, or within any of the legislative, judicial, or executive branches of government, we must daily deal with our cravings. These cravings include righting wrongs, seeking the welfare of the nation, having our parents or friends finally give us the honor we have sought from them, consolidating power to ourselves so that we can feel important or secure, cashing in financially, or making a name for ourselves. None of our cravings are unique to the 21st century. The nature of cravings has been a pastoral issue forever.
Peter starts his letter by acknowledging that we have cravings, yet he avoids saying that their existence is sinful. Instead, he argues that they must be different. The entire letter is about embracing the reality that we are “called to be different,” and being different is all about contrasts. As Christians, we are called to have different cravings. In order to “grow up into our salvation,” we must pay attention to our cravings, because, often, our cravings reveal our true goals.
“So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.” (2 Peter 2:1-3, ESV)
Peter indicates that there are two categories of craving. On the one hand, we can crave “malice and deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.” Of course, no one admits to having these cravings, but when our goals are wrong, that is exactly what we crave to achieve the honor we desire. Our cravings embed themselves as practices when we find that through dining on “malice and deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,” we get what we want: the honor of our friends, family, and constituents. Whether it is fleeting or temporary, we learn that indulging these cravings often satisfies our desires. Think of how the “food” of “deceit, hypocrisy, and envy and all slander” brought Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa what they desired – at least temporarily. Consider the role these cravings had upon Richard Nixon and other political leaders. Then, consider the impact their misdirected cravings had on their friends, family, constituents, and community.
But Peter calls us, as elect-exiles, living in contrast, to “crave the pure spiritual milk.” What does that mean? To understand his point, we must first dismiss the notion that “spiritual” means “not real.” In the Scriptures, spiritual never means not real. Rather, it always means better and ultimately of origin outside of this world. What is the spiritual milk Peter is talking about? While some have said that this means, “the Word,” that is a bit short-sided. More likely, what Peter is talking about is all that comes from Christ, not just the WORD of God, but also grace and mercy, forgiveness, dignity, self-worth, and obedience. In other words, Peter is directing them to take all of our nourishment from Christ.
The point is that our cravings matter. Directing our cravings towards “the pure spiritual milk” is really a call to intentionality. It is a call that is echoed in Hebrews 12:1, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside (or put away) every weight.” Peter is calling us to make a decision about the fuel that drives us. This is difficult. Because, while Grape Nuts are good for you, they taste a little bit like cardboard and have the texture of gravel. Cap’n Crunch, on the other hand, is loaded with crunchy sugary goodness. Milk does the body good, but District Donuts taste awesome!
What Peter is commanding here is a decision. A decision that requires us to give up eating something that tastes good but only offers the illusion of providing us what we are seeking – honor, and the avoidance of shame.
The Apostle Paul has also written to churches contrasting these two types of cravings,
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (Gal 5:16-26, ESV)
In both lists, the cravings of the flesh are contrasted against the cravings of the Spirit.
C.S. Lewis wrote in his essay, The Weight of Glory,
It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. (1)
How do we shift our cravings? We come to understand the true nature of the honor God intends for us.
Finally, notice that Peter calls them to “grow up into salvation.” It’s important to recognize that Peter’s argument is that they have already experienced salvation. This is made clear by the qualifier, “if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.” It’s helpful because the statement clarifies that the thing we need most, our salvation, has already been secured - not by our actions but by the work of Christ on our behalf. Our salvation is safe and secure, so we can stop focusing on trying to earn it and start working on growing up into it. This truth is essential in leading us away from the cravings of deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander, and towards spiritual milk offered in Christ.
A Contrast of Identity
Peter’s initial argument about cravings has purpose, because of what he says next. “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house,… (1 Peter 2:4-5a, ESV)
Peter wants the elect exiles to understand that they are being built into a spiritual house. Again, this is not an imaginary house but a real house. In Peter’s argument, that house is the New Temple (aka the Church), the foundation of which is Christ. In keeping with his theme of contrast, Peter’s proposal is that this spiritual house is better than anything that we can build ourselves into.
As is the case with any building project, the key is having a good foundation. The foundation that Peter presents is Christ, the cornerstone. The picture he is drawing here is of a large, firm stone that is perfectly true and level; a stone which, as you build upon it, results in a building that is straight and true and solid. Peter acknowledges another important contrast regarding this cornerstone: it doesn’t look like one! Jesus, for all his “come and follow me and do good for the poor,” was a stone that everyone rejected. Now, just as in the first century, followers of Christ must keep in mind that the Jesus we are called to embrace was rejected by nearly everyone, including the religious community.
Washington is a tough place to find your identity in Christ, because Washington, and much of the public square, is all about being accepted - not rejected. Polling data analysts enjoy lucrative careers helping officials ensure their favorability ratings are moving in the right direction. If the ads on television right now are any indication, sometimes the best way to ensure your favorability ratings are higher than your opponents is to use negative attack ads to misrepresent their views and smear their character. Winning matters, and public rejection rarely leads to winning.
No one understood the implications of Jesus as a stumbling stone better than Peter, who, after confessing Jesus as Christ, says that He cannot be crucified, because Peter had other ideas of how victory in Jesus would look.
And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” (Mark 8:27–33, ESV)
Peter drives his point home by quoting a series of Old Testament passages in 1 Peter 2:6-8.
“Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes [LXX(2): “in Him”] will not be in haste [LXX: “put to shame”]. (Isaiah 28:16, ESV)
“I thank you that you have answered me and have become my salvation. The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” (Psalm 118:21-22, ESV)
“And He will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.” (Isaiah 8:14-15, ESV)
We would do well to remember that the prophet Isaiah’s job was to tell the Southern Kingdom of Judah that the judgment of the LORD was coming, and they would soon find themselves in exile in Babylon. The reason for the LORD’s anger was, of course, that Judah, like the Northern Kingdom of Israel before her, had chased after cultural acceptance at the expense of following the way of life and worship they all pledged to follow before they entered the Promised Land.
Let’s be clear: the United States is not the new Israel. The promises of God do not run through America. If there is any similarity between the United States today and Judah of old, it is that we are really good at prioritizing our status as a nation over our holiness as a church - a church that is being built into a spiritual house by God.
The people in the 1st century are just like us. They didn’t want to be different, persecuted, or considered insignificant. They wanted a legacy. Many of us have spent our lives trying to become something or someone that is valued. But until we come to Christ and see that he intends to build us into a spiritual house, we will always fall short of the honor that we were created to receive.
If we are to avoid the perils of the public square as a venue for seeking our own honor, it seems incumbent for us to find our identity as bricks in the spiritual house that God is building rather than bricks in a house that we, or our party, are building, The house that we build will look far different than the one God is building.
The Creator-creature Distinction
When Peter says, “You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house,” he points out another important point about the contrast of their identity. Rather than finding our identity in what we are building, Peter reminds us that our identity is in what the Lord is using us to build. We are not the builders but the stones that are being built into a spiritual house. Theologians refer to this as the Creator-creature distinction. Often, this is where our identity gets misplaced – as we much prefer to see ourselves as the Creator rather than the creature. In shifting our identity from creature to Creator, our desire for glory comes quickly to the forefront, and with our failings (real or imagined), so does our experience of shame. Thankfully, the gospel saves us from the futility of building ourselves into a house with a shaky foundation and a temporary legacy. If we boil this all down, the point Peter is making is this, “You are the brick, not the builder!”
While this is an important shift of perspective, Peter is not saying that they are insignificant to the work that God is doing in the world. In fact, he is making a point about the immeasurable value and important role of the individual. A single brick or stone does not constitute a house. On the contrary, houses are built by design and from many bricks. As bricks in the spiritual house that God is building, it is mission-critical that we “grow up into our salvation” so that we can function properly in our role as bricks in this spiritual house. As our individual cravings are misdirected, the entire building suffers. This is why Peter says that we have been called to put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander because through those, both we and the house, are weakened.
Narcissism is regularly displayed in sports, Washington, and, sadly, in the church. Narcissistic leaders make everything about themselves always at the expense of others. They see themselves as both the builder and the cornerstone, and it’s the job of all the other bricks to embrace that twisted and false reality. The church, interestingly, finds itself as both the abused and the very organization encouraging the abuse. As pastor and licensed therapist, Michael Coggin says in his upcoming book, On Spiritual Abuse,
As the church has become both enamored with the American dream as well as being greatly influenced by the business world, we often fail to see the traits of narcissistic bullying because ministry ends are allowed to justify the means. We are caught up in the American church as we assess and pursue leaders with what I refer to as the AAA. Achievement, attractiveness, and articulation more times than not are the characteristics of the leaders we gravitate to in the business world as well as the church. A leader who is charismatic, a type A visionary who is an achiever, attractive, and articulate gets elevated to positions of leadership within the church. The AAA qualities are emphasized and even celebrated often at the expense of asking questions about Christian character, empathy, a person’s love for the Lord, and their love for people. Taking our cues more from the world than from God’s word, we often choose charisma over Christ-like character. (3)
This is why whole-life discipleship matters. Not just for those leading and serving in the public square, but for everyone who is being built into this spiritual house. Our discipleship must address our spiritual, emotional, relational, vocational, ideological, cultural, and evangelical formation. Therefore, we must intentionally focus on our own discipleship. Further, we must also concern ourselves with the whole-life discipleship of others, since they are bricks in the same spiritual house. Without considering the whole person, the church risks producing bricks that simply cannot bear the weight we need to bear as we proclaim “the excellencies of him who called us out of darkness and into his marvelous light.” This means that the local church plays an important role in how we think about and engage in the public square. The concept of engaging in the public square is what many in the church refer to as missional posture. Mission, as we will see, is all about evangelism.
A Contrast of Mission
As wonderful as being built into a spiritual house is, it is only the means to the end. The end, in the closing verse of this passage, Peter points out, is that we are called, “to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Christ.”
Contemplate what Peter is saying: everyone who is an elect-exile is made a part of the priesthood. What was once reserved for a select few of the tribe of Levi is now the standard issue vocation for all followers of Christ. What was the purpose of the priesthood? It was to offer sacrifices to God on behalf of the people and to lead them in worship. But, now that Christ has laid down his life as the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, there is no longer a need for us to offer blood sacrifices. instead, we are called to offer “spiritual sacrifices.”
If you are keeping track, this is the third of Peter’s spiritual contrasts. First, there was the contrast of cravings between desires of the flesh and spiritual milk. Second, there was the contrast of living stones being built into a spiritual house rather than a house constructed to make a name for ourselves. Now, Peter takes us to the final contrast, that of mission.
This is where Peter wants to take them, and it is where he wants to take us - so that we can understand our purpose and find the honor for which we were created! The Westminster Confession of Faith says that “the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever,” and there is no better place to ground that statement than from this closing verse.
The reason we must crave pure spiritual milk is that we are being built into a spiritual house so that we can offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Christ. Once again, these spiritual sacrifices should be seen as better than the sacrifices we make when we are busy building ourselves into a house that results only in our temporary honor. As we grow up into our salvation, we enjoy salvation from the futility of making sacrifices that have only a fleeting value.
Peter understands that we desire to receive honor and avoid shame. As Peter points out, this honor flows in two directions. Peter’s message is that you were made, first of all, for giving honor, and that honor is found in worshiping God. That worship does not just take place inside church walls on Sunday morning, it takes place in every situation and vocation we find ourselves. It occurs outside the walls as we seek to build up one another in our families. It takes place as we seek to glorify God in our vocations. It takes place as we seek to glorify God through as we engage in the public square.
What is our primary mission as Christians living in America? Is it to Make America Great Again? Is it to Build Back Better? The trouble with each of these quests, which are not inherently wrong, is that they rely totally and completely on our efforts and the direction of the leader we choose to follow in their pursuit.
As Christians misdirect their cravings, they find themselves inadvertently drawn to the posture of Timothy Leary in “turning on, tuning in, and dropping out.” In other words, just checking out of the culture completely and forming an entirely new counter-culture. Another option is that of Christian Isolationists like Rod Dreher, who, believing that the culture war is lost, advocates hunkering down into Christian communities with the intent of preserving our culture while secularism runs its course.
In “The Benedict Option,” Dreher writes,
Benedict Option politics begin with recognition that Western society is post-Christian and that absent a miracle, there is no hope of reversing this condition in the foreseeable future. This means, in part, that what Orthodox Christians can accomplish through conventional politics has narrowed considerably. Most Americans will not only reject many things traditional Christians consider good but will even call them evil. Trying to reclaim our lost influence will be a waste of energy or worse, if the financial and other resources that could have been dedicated to building alternative institutions for the long resistance went instead to making a doomed attempt to hold on to power. Instead, Christians must turn their attention to a different kind of politics. Part of the change we have to make is accepting that in the years to come, faithful Christians may have to choose between being a good American and being a good Christian. In a nation where “God and country” are so entwined, the idea that one’s citizenship might be at radical odds with one’s faith is a new one. (4)
Certainly, much of what Dreher says is true. We do live in a post-Christian culture, and we have lost much of our influence. But, ending attempts to regain our influence is a misplaced capitulation. The church of Christ exists as a protest against all the broken systems of the world, and as a lighthouse to a kingdom of justice and flourishing. This lighthouse might be better seen as a spiritual house, an embassy residing in our fallen world to proclaim the excellencies of the one who called us out of darkness and into his marvelous light (to quote Peter’s mission statement for the church once again).
Opposite Dreher, depending on your perspective, is the lure of a reconstructed Christian nation, commonly referred to as “Christian Nationalism.” The draw here, of course, is that Christians move back into the role of chief builders of community and culture. While not entirely unbiblical, it is fraught with “do not Lord it over them” difficulties and prone to misinterpretation of Scripture. The mission of Christians is not to reconstruct America as the Israel that could have and should have been, but to participate in Christ’s mission of making all things new.
This means that as Christians, we are called to participate in all areas of life in a posture of faithful presence, offering foretastes of the coming kingdom. We have an important role to play in the marketplace, in the education landscape, and, yes, the public square. But we do so in contrast to the posture taken by those around us who are not living stones being built into a spiritual house to offer spiritual sacrifices.
In this, we not only give honor to Christ but, as it says in verse 7, we receive honor from Christ. One difficult aspect of this honor is that it is not the kind of honor that comes from society holding us up on a pedestal, or others singing our praises. Instead, we receive honor from Christ now in all that we do to worship him. Christ is pleased with us right now as we make spiritual sacrifices to him.
Peter’s encouragement to those in Asia Minor translates well to those serving and leading in the public square. Embracing the right contrasts, while not necessarily leading to our being remembered for having our name on a piece of legislation or our portrait on the wall of a Cabinet agency, will give us an honor that cannot be taken away because it cannot be earned. This frees us up to participate in the public square with perseverance and without hostility, confident that we will never be put to shame.
The fullness of the honor that we receive comes certainly at the consummation of the age, when we are welcomed into the new heavens and the new earth. That honor should be a strong motivation for us as we await his return. In this proclamation comes the reality that we will not be put to shame when Christ, the stumbling stone, comes to judge the living and dead. Rather, in that moment, we will be honored with life in communion with God and free from death, sadness, and sin.
Footnotes
- Lewis, C.S. The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (p.26). Simon & Schuster, 1996.
- The LXX (The Septuagint) is a version of the Old Testament translated into koine Greek (the language of the New Testament). This translation took place from 300 to 200 BCE and would have been well known to the disciples.
- Michael Coggin. Abusers in the Church. White Rose Press, forthcoming. The first two chapters of this forthcoming book are also included in this edition of the Presence Journal.
- Dreher, Rod. The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation (p. 89). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.