In common grace found in nature there is broad acceptance (unrelated to approval) of mankind by God, and hopefully by society, of all peoples of the world. Without that acceptance from God there would be no common grace, a grace applicable only to nature and holding no status we know about in divine grace. In the various populations there are significant differences some of which are built into nature’s patterns. These are pointed out in anthropology courses, even to the measurements of body parts as head forms/sizes (the cephalics), noses, eyes, even the range in the sizes of the buttocks. What is natural and attractive to one group in the human population can be diminished in respect and meaning by another group. There are overlaps so that persons gifted in one area look down on persons lacking some form; those of one gender are put-down by the other; those of one race are thought of separately in respect from another; and so the story can be extended, even to generations, wealth, health, celebrity and whatever gains attention to differences. God sees humanity as one and many. His evaluation is not in the factors of human achievement in creative application, or wealth, or celebrity, or power, or other identification but in faithfulness to biblical faith growth and conduct. For God, this must include spiritual concerns if the individual is to qualify for the best God offers for the race of mankind. Without spiritual insight we have no adequate source for values, and without that insight there is insufficient understanding of the redemptive plan of God. Without that plan for acceptance the imperfection of the human race accounts all individual persons unacceptable to a perfect God. It should not surprise us that when we find unacceptable persons (ethical/natural), that holy God may as well – but God includes objective spiritual (moral/divine) reasons. Some are mystery to us.
God does not relate value preference to anything except that which serves the needs of human beings in righteousness (right). To that any one serving those human needs is equal to anyone else serving needs in reputation with God. The mother changing a baby’s diaper is equal in reputation with God to the acts of the most powerful person in the world. To God she may be higher in reputation because of her motives, and the leader diminished because of lesser motives. The concern for the need of the infant is motivating mother. The desire for self-enrichment may motivate the leader. Faithfulness related to the benefit of another wins, in God’s evaluation over selfishness. Both acts can be made equal if performed with right motives, but one is not better intrinsically to God than the other even when both are done rightly. Faithfulness to God’s values in performance of any humane service achieves what we want from God. Status is determined in the application of the redemptive plan. The effectiveness of that plan is seen in the beliefs and conduct of Christian in living out life in nature, so to gain maturity in Christlikeness. The more fully the Christian achieves Christlikeness, the greater is his or her reputation with God.
I like to think of Christlikeness as ordinary (normal). It ought to be ordinary (habit) for any Christian to seek to be a follower of Jesus Christ so to do as ordinary the conducts that Jesus followed serving others, and living daily in an objective moral pattern as outlined in Scripture. It is interesting that Jesus lived among the general population, seeking no greatness, but doing what others did eating, sleeping, walking, conversing, relaxing, but all the while exuding something special the disciples wanted, and ultimately received – Christlikeness. His life was lived in the affirmation of life. It gradually became obvious to the disciples that Jesus’ interest was entirely in life. He illustrated spiritual life with human life – even to the analogy to Nicodemus: Ye must be born again. Nicodemus didn’t catch it at first. The ordinary in the Christian should relate to life, human and divine, as an evidence of God, of the grace of God in its continuance, and proper concern about how human beings ought to live in nature’s context. Francis Schaeffer’s theme was entitled: How Should We Then Live? The new life should be ordinary for the masses of Christians. It is to that standard that we live as ordinary models, listen to lessons to make us what God perceives as ordinary, read Scripture to find what Jesus taught and his closest friends illustrated in their lives and to which they gave themselves – to live rightly and advance the gospel of Jesus Christ. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020