This Sunday I was at Sunday School, and we were discussing Ecclesiastes 7. This chapter is problematic for some Christians since right in the middle of it, a passage says.
Do not be overrighteous,
neither be overwise—
why destroy yourself?
Do not be overwicked,
and do not be a fool—
why die before your time? (v. 16-17)
I appreciated our class. They did not embrace the common Evangelical/Fundamentalist position that most of the book of Ecclesiastes is human wisdom, and the last couple of verses is Godly wisdom. I believe that is a deeply flawed way look at this beautiful book. The “Godly” message at the end of the book is actually repeated several times throughout the sermon. This suggests that it is the overall theme, and thus the rest of the material supports the theme. In our class, the focus was on balance.
BUT HOW DOES ONE FIND BALANCE?
Balance makes me think of three places. One is extreme position “A.” The second is extreme position “C.” The third is the balance or “golden mean” that we could call position “B.”
So what should we focus on?
- One perspective is to embrace an extreme position (either “A” or “C”). This, not surprisingly, leads to extremism. I recall a boss of mine (my first boss actually) who served as a camp director. He would ask that when one is driving on a mountain road, should one drive as close to the edge of the cliff or as far away as possible? The answer he wanted was to drive as far away from the cliff side, the drop-off, as possible. In my view, the middle of the road is likely the safest, since the opposite to the drop-off is likely to be the mountainside with falling rocks, or perhaps there is another drop-off. He was, however, simply expressing a position of embracing an extreme— the more extreme the better. Of course, for this position, Ecclesiastes 7:16-17 is nonsense.
- A second perspective is to “focus” on both of the extremes (both “A” and “C”). For a long time, I had embraced this. Find two extremes and recognize that “the truth” exists somewhere between those two extremes. I think there are two issues here. First, much like the first, one’s mind and heart is still emphasizing extremes. In the first position (above) one emphasizes a positive regard for one extreme and a repulsion to the other. In this one, one is repulsed by both extremes. The other problem is in the word “somewhere.” Just because one may have bounded the truth, doesn’t mean that one has located it. So returning to Ecclesiastes 7:16-17, if over-righteousness is an unhealthy extreme, and over-wickedness is an unhealthy extreme, avoiding them may bring some form of balance. But what if one simply finds an UNHEALTHY BALANCE, rather than healthy? Is a healthy balance being a little bit wicked? Somewhat righteous?
- A third perspective is to focus on the healthy balance “B.” In other words, the extremes are a good test for one’s balance, but should not be our focus. Ecclesiastes is a book with a recurring theme— “Fear God and try to enjoy the life that God has given you.” The theme combines two positive things— fear or, or obedience to, God, and finding joy or satisfaction in this life. The balance is seeking these two positives. When one seeks these two positives, a characteristic is that one is also avoiding unhealthy extremes. These are legalism or asceticism (asceticism not by choice for simplicity but in the belief that God likes us to be miserable), or licentiousness/immorality.
We can use this principle in many ways. For example, one can look at the qualities of the Fruit of the Spirit and recognize them as positive balances. They are not extreme positions or even simply an avoidance of extremes. Recognize the fruit of the spirit as a positive middle ground between two negative extremes, is helpful in my opinion. For example if Gentleness is a healthy and positive balance, one unhealthy extreme is its clear opposite— abuse. But another is the perversion of the balance— in this case weakness.
A post I wrote on the opposite and perversion of various virtues is The Two Sides of Christian Virtues.
