Have you ever been invisible? Have you ever felt as if someone was looking through you instead of at you; as if you didn't matte? Store clerks and waitresses know this feeling. So do parents, spouses, the homeless and those who are ill. We're taught to think of invisible people as being marginalized, ignored, abused, impoverished, victimized....nobodies. Perhaps you think I'm going to suggest that you not treat people as if they are invisible.
It's a good message and if you need to hear it consider it said, but that isn't the direction this is headed. In Mark 9:35b, Jesus told his disciples, "if anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." Servants are invisible people, which means that leaders should also be invisible people.
There are a couple ways that we can be said to be invisible. The first is to simply not be seen. This is the same sort of invisibility that was described in the first paragraph. The second way is to be hidden by what is visible. This is what Jesus was talking about when He said, "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and praise your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) This is what Paul talked about when he said, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." (Galatians 2:20) It is as we become more invisible that Jesus becomes more visible in our lives.
Another way to think of this second sort of invisibility is to consider what the Bible says should be visible instead - the things we put on: the armor of light (Romans 13:12), the imperishable and the immortal (I Corinthians 15:53-53), the new self (Ephesians 4:2 and Colossians 3:10), the full armor (truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Spirit - Ephesians 6:10-20), a heart of compassion (Colossians 3:12), love (Colossians 3:14), faith, love and hope of salvation (I Thessalonians 5:18) and above all, Jesus Christ (Romans 13:14).
Professor Dallas Willard expressed a good approach to invisibility: "I am learning from Jesus how to live my life as he would live my life if he were I. I am not necessarily learning to do everything that he did, but I am learning how to do everything I do in the manner that he did all that he did."
There is one final question to consider. Why is God invisible? We've been told that God said, "But, you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." (Exodus 33:20) Think about it. If the sight of God's face is enough to end our sin-damaged lives then He is protecting you by remaining invisible. He's not arbitrarily hiding Himself or withholding Himself from you. He's not invisible so that He can better catch you doing something wrong. He's not playing games or demanding that you jump through hoops of faith just for His amusement. He's making your life possible. He's approaching you in the most personal - perhaps the only - way He can. It is God's love that hides God from you. He would rather remain with you unseen than to be visible but alone.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Gleaning
In the Truth Project session dealing with sociology, a story is told about the owner of a carpentry business. The owner read in Leviticus 19:9-10 that landowners weren't to harvest to the very edges of their fields. They were to leave corners and edges so that the poor in the land could come and glean.
I don't remember whether this man's business made cabinets or furniture, but I do remember that they made sawdust. As he thought about what was left over that the poor could come and take away, he thought of the saw dust. Generally, his employees swept it up and someone else came along and charged to haul it away. The owner made a deal with some of the poor in his area. He provided the equipment and the truck. They came, they swept up, they took the sawdust to another business that purchased it, and they kept the proceeds. They also learned and developed discipline. They may not have made much money, but it was more than they'd had before and they had earned it.
This story speaks on several levels. First, it suggests that we need to think differently about solving the problems of poverty. Instead of someone else (especially the government) coming in like a knight on a white horse and solving the universal problem, we need to think creatively and personally. In my daily life, what do I do or produce or think of that would enrich others? What change could I make that might allow another to grow? What opportunities to do good do I miss on a daily basis because I'm too busy maintaining the status quo? I do not pretend that I've thought about this nearly enough. I can only think of two things I have done that might fit into this category.
About the same time Hurricane Katrina hit the southern coast, some shirts in the store where I work were marked down to $0.97 just to get rid of them. With my discount, the price ended up around $0.79. There weren't many, but I purchased what I could and arranged to have them shipped down to those who needed them. Since then, whenever I find stuff at what I call "ridiculously cheap" prices, I make a purchase and donate it somewhere. I could not hope to donate $200-300 a couple times a year, but I can buy $200-300 (original value) of clothing for $10-30 and donate that.
When I think of where I work, I can't help but think of how many hangers and how much plastic and cardboard the store pays to have someone haul away, or of how many stores there are in the area that do the same thing. Couldn't they do the same thing with this "trash" as the business owner did with the saw dust?
The other thing that I do is talk. Actually, it's a more than just talking because it involves thinking and then talking about the thoughts. Some may think I think and talk too much. The way I figure it, however, is that if what I say causes someone else to think, or if I give them an idea that they can use, then I've done good. The more I think and the more I talk, the greater the chance that I'll say something that will produce that good. What some might think of as verbal diarrhea I think of as fertilizing the thoughts and minds of others. Putting it a more socially acceptable way, I'm casting seeds of ideas and the more liberally I cast them, the greater the likely harvest, whether for me or for someone else. Then, from that harvest, gleanings can be left for someone else.
What does your life or work produce that can benefit others? What change could you make that would allow another to grow? What opportunities do you walk by on a daily basis because you're busy trying to make it through another day? What are your gleanings? What ideas do you dismiss because they aren't "good enough" because they don't solve the whole problem - or because they're not "sure things"?
I don't remember whether this man's business made cabinets or furniture, but I do remember that they made sawdust. As he thought about what was left over that the poor could come and take away, he thought of the saw dust. Generally, his employees swept it up and someone else came along and charged to haul it away. The owner made a deal with some of the poor in his area. He provided the equipment and the truck. They came, they swept up, they took the sawdust to another business that purchased it, and they kept the proceeds. They also learned and developed discipline. They may not have made much money, but it was more than they'd had before and they had earned it.
This story speaks on several levels. First, it suggests that we need to think differently about solving the problems of poverty. Instead of someone else (especially the government) coming in like a knight on a white horse and solving the universal problem, we need to think creatively and personally. In my daily life, what do I do or produce or think of that would enrich others? What change could I make that might allow another to grow? What opportunities to do good do I miss on a daily basis because I'm too busy maintaining the status quo? I do not pretend that I've thought about this nearly enough. I can only think of two things I have done that might fit into this category.
About the same time Hurricane Katrina hit the southern coast, some shirts in the store where I work were marked down to $0.97 just to get rid of them. With my discount, the price ended up around $0.79. There weren't many, but I purchased what I could and arranged to have them shipped down to those who needed them. Since then, whenever I find stuff at what I call "ridiculously cheap" prices, I make a purchase and donate it somewhere. I could not hope to donate $200-300 a couple times a year, but I can buy $200-300 (original value) of clothing for $10-30 and donate that.
When I think of where I work, I can't help but think of how many hangers and how much plastic and cardboard the store pays to have someone haul away, or of how many stores there are in the area that do the same thing. Couldn't they do the same thing with this "trash" as the business owner did with the saw dust?
The other thing that I do is talk. Actually, it's a more than just talking because it involves thinking and then talking about the thoughts. Some may think I think and talk too much. The way I figure it, however, is that if what I say causes someone else to think, or if I give them an idea that they can use, then I've done good. The more I think and the more I talk, the greater the chance that I'll say something that will produce that good. What some might think of as verbal diarrhea I think of as fertilizing the thoughts and minds of others. Putting it a more socially acceptable way, I'm casting seeds of ideas and the more liberally I cast them, the greater the likely harvest, whether for me or for someone else. Then, from that harvest, gleanings can be left for someone else.
What does your life or work produce that can benefit others? What change could you make that would allow another to grow? What opportunities do you walk by on a daily basis because you're busy trying to make it through another day? What are your gleanings? What ideas do you dismiss because they aren't "good enough" because they don't solve the whole problem - or because they're not "sure things"?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Learning
Do you play a musical instrument? Do you knit, crochet, sew, cook or drive? Did someone teach you these skills or did you do it on your own? Has anyone ever suggested that you do any of them differently than you learned?
I am an autodidact. I teach myself, and that's not always a good thing. When I was in elementary school, I began teaching myself to type on an ancient Underwood typewriter. I had an instruction manual so I learned to start with my fingers on ASDF JKL; but it wasn't long before I was banging on most of the other keys without much regard to which finger was supposed to strike them. I have also taken lessons. One of the big differences between teaching yourself and taking lessons is that someone else is in control. Someone else sets the pace, watches, corrects and guides. While we chafe at the discipline and method, the teachers knows its benefits.
You might find yourself resenting the discipline of a study system like the one that Ann Graham Lotz teaches. You may want to study Scripture your own way or use another system. You may be tempted to refuse to do something at all if you can't do it the way you want. I was. As I grumbled about the restrictions of the study method presented by Mrs. Lotz, a couple truths came to mind. First, being able to do things more than one way can be useful. We aren't locked into a method just because we learn it. We don't have to use it for the rest of eternity. There may be things about her method that we discard. There may be things about her method that prove invaluable. Secondly, I realized that my struggle wasn't with studying the Bible or right and wrong. It was with submitting to someone else - doing it her way instead of mine. This is actually one of the invaluable lessons I mentioned a moment ago: learning to lay aside our pride and try something different. Thirdly, my struggle was with getting the right answers. When my list of facts didn't match (word for word) her list of facts, I felt the urge to scratch out my list, crumple up the paper and throw it out. You can't do that when the paper is a page in a book or when it's a computer screen. It's not nearly so cathartic to close or delete a file and too expensive to destroy a book or a computer in order to express frustration.
Years ago I learned a lesson about discipline that may apply. I jogged in a cemetery that is on the side of a hill. My family would part at the bottom of the hill and walk or jog the outside circle. As soon as I started jogging, my mind would begin sinning my jogging song:
I am an autodidact. I teach myself, and that's not always a good thing. When I was in elementary school, I began teaching myself to type on an ancient Underwood typewriter. I had an instruction manual so I learned to start with my fingers on ASDF JKL; but it wasn't long before I was banging on most of the other keys without much regard to which finger was supposed to strike them. I have also taken lessons. One of the big differences between teaching yourself and taking lessons is that someone else is in control. Someone else sets the pace, watches, corrects and guides. While we chafe at the discipline and method, the teachers knows its benefits.
You might find yourself resenting the discipline of a study system like the one that Ann Graham Lotz teaches. You may want to study Scripture your own way or use another system. You may be tempted to refuse to do something at all if you can't do it the way you want. I was. As I grumbled about the restrictions of the study method presented by Mrs. Lotz, a couple truths came to mind. First, being able to do things more than one way can be useful. We aren't locked into a method just because we learn it. We don't have to use it for the rest of eternity. There may be things about her method that we discard. There may be things about her method that prove invaluable. Secondly, I realized that my struggle wasn't with studying the Bible or right and wrong. It was with submitting to someone else - doing it her way instead of mine. This is actually one of the invaluable lessons I mentioned a moment ago: learning to lay aside our pride and try something different. Thirdly, my struggle was with getting the right answers. When my list of facts didn't match (word for word) her list of facts, I felt the urge to scratch out my list, crumple up the paper and throw it out. You can't do that when the paper is a page in a book or when it's a computer screen. It's not nearly so cathartic to close or delete a file and too expensive to destroy a book or a computer in order to express frustration.
Years ago I learned a lesson about discipline that may apply. I jogged in a cemetery that is on the side of a hill. My family would part at the bottom of the hill and walk or jog the outside circle. As soon as I started jogging, my mind would begin sinning my jogging song:
Oh God, You are my God
And I will ever praise You
Oh God, You are my God
And I will ever praise You
I will seek You in the morning
I will learn to walk in Your ways
And step by step You'll lead me
And I will follow You all of my days.
Sometimes, by the time I began my second loop, and usually by the time I began my third loop, the song would end with a "I don' wanna do this." To get the real effect, add some whine to your voice, and 5 or 6 As and about 20 Ns to the word "wanna."
God said, "OK, you don't have to, but are you gonna?"
My answer was to set my jaw, silently say, "Yes" and start back up the hill, "Oh God, You are my God. . . and step by step. . . .and step by step. . . and step by step. . . Oh, I don' wanna...."
Perhaps the most amazing thing is that God didn't get tired either of the song or our often repeated addition to it. Sometimes I would sigh with resignation. Other times I would get the glint of battle in my eye. Now, whenever I hear myself think or say those words, I know the answer.
You're allowed to now want to follow the disciplines of life. You aren't alone. You don't have to do it. You may approach it with excitement, with resignation or with the glint of battle in your eye. God's question is, "Are you gonna?"
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Quotes
A few quotes collected over the years....
"It's a rare man wh is taken for what he truly is," he said. "There is much misjudgment in the world. Now I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so must I be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and it will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem and hardly ever what we dream." - Peter S. Beagle, from The Last Unicorn
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." - Shakespeare, MacBeth
"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day, saying, 'I will try again tomorrow.' " Mary Ann Radmacher (thanks to Jeff Holes.)
"Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the lmit of our sight." Rossiter Worthington Raymond (thanks again to Jeff Holes.)
"He knows not his own strength that hath not met adversity." - Ben Johnson
"I know it will come as a shock to most script writers, but the majority of American sdon't use four-letter words at a rate of five to a sentence. One does find, too, in contrast to the world as reflected in the movies, people who talk about subjects other than sex and making money. There are millions of people in business who don't cheat their customers or deliberately pollute the envionrment. Millions of Americans worship in churches and synagogues whose spiritual leaders are not child molesters or money-grubbing charlatans.
"Truth is not only stranger than fiction, but these days is lovelier, healthier, more decent and more inspiring. We can all be thankful that Amiercan is not the seedy, cynical, vugar, corrupt country reflected in the movies." - Charley Reese
"Character contributes to beauty,. It fortifies a woman as her youth fades. A mode of conduct, a standard of courage, discipline, fortitude and integrity can do a great deal to make a woman beautiful." - Jacqueline Bisset
"It's a rare man wh is taken for what he truly is," he said. "There is much misjudgment in the world. Now I knew you for a unicorn when I first saw you, and I know that I am your friend. Yet you take me for a clown, or a clod, or a betrayer, and so must I be if you see me so. The magic on you is only magic and it will vanish as soon as you are free, but the enchantment of error that you put on me I must wear forever in your eyes. We are not always what we seem and hardly ever what we dream." - Peter S. Beagle, from The Last Unicorn
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." - Shakespeare, MacBeth
"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day, saying, 'I will try again tomorrow.' " Mary Ann Radmacher (thanks to Jeff Holes.)
"Life is eternal, and love is immortal, and death is only a horizon; and a horizon is nothing save the lmit of our sight." Rossiter Worthington Raymond (thanks again to Jeff Holes.)
"He knows not his own strength that hath not met adversity." - Ben Johnson
"I know it will come as a shock to most script writers, but the majority of American sdon't use four-letter words at a rate of five to a sentence. One does find, too, in contrast to the world as reflected in the movies, people who talk about subjects other than sex and making money. There are millions of people in business who don't cheat their customers or deliberately pollute the envionrment. Millions of Americans worship in churches and synagogues whose spiritual leaders are not child molesters or money-grubbing charlatans.
"Truth is not only stranger than fiction, but these days is lovelier, healthier, more decent and more inspiring. We can all be thankful that Amiercan is not the seedy, cynical, vugar, corrupt country reflected in the movies." - Charley Reese
"Character contributes to beauty,. It fortifies a woman as her youth fades. A mode of conduct, a standard of courage, discipline, fortitude and integrity can do a great deal to make a woman beautiful." - Jacqueline Bisset
Friday, September 25, 2009
Autobiography, Part II
In our last episode, I challenged you to imagine advising God in the writing of His autobiography, and I presented my own conclusions about the scope and content. With those suggestions in mind, let's consider the matter a little more concretely.
Suggestion 1. "For practical purposes, it makes some sense for God's autobiography to begin with a brief summary of the creation up to the time when man enters the picture...."
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) The rest of the chapter summarizes the whole of that creation. Chapter 2 focuses in on the creation of man.
Suggestion 2. In general, biographies end with the death of the subject, events just prior to the publicaiton of the work, or a climactic, defining moment.... Usually, the conclusion makes it clear tht the end of the story is actualy "to be continued...." The ultimate ending then becomes, appropriately enough, "and they lived happily ever after."
Genesis 2-9 ends with God destroying a world gone mad in a climactic flood, but saving Noah and his family and promising them that the world would not again face that judgment.
Genesis 10-Malachi 4:6 is the story of God's often-broken relationship the nation of Israel, ending with a promises of the Messiah and 400 years of silence from God.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the story of the Messiah, the story of what God did in order to restore man's relationship with Him, the story of His fulfillment of many of the promises of the Old Testament; with the climactic moment being the resurrection. Acts-Jude explore this relationship further and in a practical manner.
Revelation (with Daniel and several other Old Testaments books of prophecy) foreshadows the rest of the story, anding with the climactic moment of "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." And He who sitws on the throwne said, "Behond, I am making all things new." (Revelation 21:1 & 4-5)
Suggestion 3. It would make sense for God to choose events that connect to His audience and reveal his motives.... He needs to also provide a more personal story, the "human interest" side.
"Human interest" is the hallmark of God's autobiography. Rather than placing the story in the first person singular (I, me, my) He chooses to tell His story through the lives of those with whom He has relationships. We not only hear God's story, but the stories of people who are both fascinating and "just like us." He doesn't ask us to take His word for things, He presents the testimony of witnesses. Thus, we relate to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, the Judges, Saul, David, the prophets, Peter, John, James, and even Judas Iscariot and Paul. And the theme, His motive can be found throughout - no matter how badly you've messed it up, God's forgiveness can be found and His grace is sufficient.
When you consider what God's autobiography should be like, what it has to be like in order for us to comprehend it even a little, and then look at the Bible, the "obvious" answer to the question of God's autobiography, it becomes so much deeper, clearer, richer, holier and amazing. Then consider Hebrews 11, in which time will fail the author if he tells of ...others.... Brothers and sisters, those "others" include us. We, too, are in God's autobiography.
Suggestion 1. "For practical purposes, it makes some sense for God's autobiography to begin with a brief summary of the creation up to the time when man enters the picture...."
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) The rest of the chapter summarizes the whole of that creation. Chapter 2 focuses in on the creation of man.
Suggestion 2. In general, biographies end with the death of the subject, events just prior to the publicaiton of the work, or a climactic, defining moment.... Usually, the conclusion makes it clear tht the end of the story is actualy "to be continued...." The ultimate ending then becomes, appropriately enough, "and they lived happily ever after."
Genesis 2-9 ends with God destroying a world gone mad in a climactic flood, but saving Noah and his family and promising them that the world would not again face that judgment.
Genesis 10-Malachi 4:6 is the story of God's often-broken relationship the nation of Israel, ending with a promises of the Messiah and 400 years of silence from God.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the story of the Messiah, the story of what God did in order to restore man's relationship with Him, the story of His fulfillment of many of the promises of the Old Testament; with the climactic moment being the resurrection. Acts-Jude explore this relationship further and in a practical manner.
Revelation (with Daniel and several other Old Testaments books of prophecy) foreshadows the rest of the story, anding with the climactic moment of "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." And He who sitws on the throwne said, "Behond, I am making all things new." (Revelation 21:1 & 4-5)
Suggestion 3. It would make sense for God to choose events that connect to His audience and reveal his motives.... He needs to also provide a more personal story, the "human interest" side.
"Human interest" is the hallmark of God's autobiography. Rather than placing the story in the first person singular (I, me, my) He chooses to tell His story through the lives of those with whom He has relationships. We not only hear God's story, but the stories of people who are both fascinating and "just like us." He doesn't ask us to take His word for things, He presents the testimony of witnesses. Thus, we relate to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, the Judges, Saul, David, the prophets, Peter, John, James, and even Judas Iscariot and Paul. And the theme, His motive can be found throughout - no matter how badly you've messed it up, God's forgiveness can be found and His grace is sufficient.
When you consider what God's autobiography should be like, what it has to be like in order for us to comprehend it even a little, and then look at the Bible, the "obvious" answer to the question of God's autobiography, it becomes so much deeper, clearer, richer, holier and amazing. Then consider Hebrews 11, in which time will fail the author if he tells of ...others.... Brothers and sisters, those "others" include us. We, too, are in God's autobiography.
Brain Bending
Recently, I've been debating the question of kids saying, or being required to say, the Pledge of Allegiance. I have also been reading the book, Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy. She provided what I thought might be an interesting and profitable way to recast the question. Much of the debate involved the contunuum between autonomy and society or collectivity. It's the discussion of the individual good, rights and responsibilities in opposition to the common, collective or social good, rights and responsibilities.
Does a child have a right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Does a child have enough responsibility to say it? Does a society have a right to require that a child say the pledge? Does society have the responsibility to make absolutely sure that that child understands the pledge, understands his right (or lack thereof) to refuse to say it, and has ample opporunity to refuse? Does society have equal responsibility with every other potential decision the child faces? Does the "good" of the individual (however defined) outweigh the "good" of society (again, hwoever defined)? Or, does the good of society outweigh the good of the individual?
For the autonomous person, the good of the individual always outweighs the good of society (at any level.) At the other end of the spectrum is what I'll call the Hive Mind - the good of the society always outweighs the good of the individual to such an extent that there is no longer a separate individual good. Drawing an analogy from Star Trek, this is the Borg. I suspect my inability to develop a comparative analogy for the anarchic nightmare that is the opposite of the Borg/Hive Mind nightmare reveals a tendency in me toward the autonomous end of the sprectrum (though how far in that direction I go, I have yet to determine. I am also unsure whether the source of this autonomy is the American independent spirit or the even more ubiquitous desire to be "like God.")
There are two general lines of questioning to be explored here. The first is wehter or not there is apoint where the ideal balance between the needs, desires, rights and/or responsiblities of the individual and those of the society is found. If so, where is it? I doubt there is a universal tipping point of this sort. I beleive the issues must be resolved in a case by case basis, as with the Pledge discussion. It should be considered also that in addition the "good" of the individual or the society, and the harm of the individual and the society, there is a range in which the individual or society neither benefit nor suffer; there is a neutral territory.
The second line of questioning is where one finds the solution to the problem presented by each opinion. In Total Truth, the author refers to Rousseau's philosophy as being archetypal of autonomy. As I understand it, for Rousseau, society or civilization was evil and the solution was the state, whose job it is to control the society, but not the individual. The closest I can come to the other position is a variation of one in which privacy is seen as the origin of evil. In this case, the solution was the revolutionary overthrow of individualistic oppressors and the establishment of a collectivistic, socialist or communistic society. To whom doews the society turn to combate the "evil" of individualism? The model on which I based this variation looks to society itself.
Are these models accurate? I the example of the pledge, those who subscribe to the "society" model, who believe that children should say the pledge, that we should be patriotic, etc., seem to me to be those most likely to vehemently reject the idea of establishing a socialistic or communistic state. They are, at least stereotypically, of a Conservative persuasion. Those who subscribe to the "autonomous" model are stereotypically of a Liberal persuasion. I expect them to be in favor of a more socialistic state and of "politically correct" language, which regularly suppresses the very autonomy they appear to be championing in this case. The situation seems counter-intuitive.
What's going on, then? Am I working from stereotypes that are that off-base? Is the debate not ultimately Liberal vs Conservative? Have I chosen the wrong models? Can the models not be applied in individual situations? The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the problem is with the premise: that the debate is based on the continuum between autonomy and society. Certainly anyone reading the debate would reach the same conclusion.
Two possible (and not mutually exclusive) solutions come to mind. The first is that no group is pure. For both the Liberals and the Conservatives there are issues seen as best resolved by autonomy and issues seen as best resolved by a socialistic or collectivisitic approach. In short, we have returned to the first question of this post. The second is that the issue under debate was not accurately defined. Is the dilemma really autonomy vs society or is it merely being presented as such? Is it a conscious, deceptive tactic, a taught behavior/response or natural? The answers may depend on the individual making the argument.
Is the dilemma autonomy vs society? If the subject of the debate were changed to "should our children be permitted (or required) to" speak in favor of some Liberal agenda point would those both sides suddenly fall silent? In fact, they would reverse roles, assuming what is more traditionally their positions.
The answer may lie in the differing approaches taken by the opponents. Those who speak in favor of children saying the Pledge express authoritative universals. The Pledge is good. All children should say the Pledge. When they speak in favor of some other agenda point, do those who oppose the pledge use authoritative universals? I suspect that they present positive role models demonstrating the behavior. They show value for the behavior and the reason for it. They equate the behavior and the reason for it with intelligence, sophistication, and social benefits. They make the behavior and the acceptance of the reason for it desirable. Once they have built value, then they begin to pronounce negatively with regard to its absence. In other words, the Conservatives approach the issue objectively and through facts, while the Liberals approach it subjectively, through values and feelings.
Putting aside the sense that Conservatives might have that it is "right" to approach the subject of the pledge factually, historically, etc., perhaps the better approach would be to use the media to make it popular and attractive, sophisticated, cool, etc. to say the Pledge.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-LPbIls0iOnI/red_the_pledge/
Does a child have a right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Does a child have enough responsibility to say it? Does a society have a right to require that a child say the pledge? Does society have the responsibility to make absolutely sure that that child understands the pledge, understands his right (or lack thereof) to refuse to say it, and has ample opporunity to refuse? Does society have equal responsibility with every other potential decision the child faces? Does the "good" of the individual (however defined) outweigh the "good" of society (again, hwoever defined)? Or, does the good of society outweigh the good of the individual?
For the autonomous person, the good of the individual always outweighs the good of society (at any level.) At the other end of the spectrum is what I'll call the Hive Mind - the good of the society always outweighs the good of the individual to such an extent that there is no longer a separate individual good. Drawing an analogy from Star Trek, this is the Borg. I suspect my inability to develop a comparative analogy for the anarchic nightmare that is the opposite of the Borg/Hive Mind nightmare reveals a tendency in me toward the autonomous end of the sprectrum (though how far in that direction I go, I have yet to determine. I am also unsure whether the source of this autonomy is the American independent spirit or the even more ubiquitous desire to be "like God.")
There are two general lines of questioning to be explored here. The first is wehter or not there is apoint where the ideal balance between the needs, desires, rights and/or responsiblities of the individual and those of the society is found. If so, where is it? I doubt there is a universal tipping point of this sort. I beleive the issues must be resolved in a case by case basis, as with the Pledge discussion. It should be considered also that in addition the "good" of the individual or the society, and the harm of the individual and the society, there is a range in which the individual or society neither benefit nor suffer; there is a neutral territory.
The second line of questioning is where one finds the solution to the problem presented by each opinion. In Total Truth, the author refers to Rousseau's philosophy as being archetypal of autonomy. As I understand it, for Rousseau, society or civilization was evil and the solution was the state, whose job it is to control the society, but not the individual. The closest I can come to the other position is a variation of one in which privacy is seen as the origin of evil. In this case, the solution was the revolutionary overthrow of individualistic oppressors and the establishment of a collectivistic, socialist or communistic society. To whom doews the society turn to combate the "evil" of individualism? The model on which I based this variation looks to society itself.
Are these models accurate? I the example of the pledge, those who subscribe to the "society" model, who believe that children should say the pledge, that we should be patriotic, etc., seem to me to be those most likely to vehemently reject the idea of establishing a socialistic or communistic state. They are, at least stereotypically, of a Conservative persuasion. Those who subscribe to the "autonomous" model are stereotypically of a Liberal persuasion. I expect them to be in favor of a more socialistic state and of "politically correct" language, which regularly suppresses the very autonomy they appear to be championing in this case. The situation seems counter-intuitive.
What's going on, then? Am I working from stereotypes that are that off-base? Is the debate not ultimately Liberal vs Conservative? Have I chosen the wrong models? Can the models not be applied in individual situations? The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the problem is with the premise: that the debate is based on the continuum between autonomy and society. Certainly anyone reading the debate would reach the same conclusion.
Two possible (and not mutually exclusive) solutions come to mind. The first is that no group is pure. For both the Liberals and the Conservatives there are issues seen as best resolved by autonomy and issues seen as best resolved by a socialistic or collectivisitic approach. In short, we have returned to the first question of this post. The second is that the issue under debate was not accurately defined. Is the dilemma really autonomy vs society or is it merely being presented as such? Is it a conscious, deceptive tactic, a taught behavior/response or natural? The answers may depend on the individual making the argument.
Is the dilemma autonomy vs society? If the subject of the debate were changed to "should our children be permitted (or required) to" speak in favor of some Liberal agenda point would those both sides suddenly fall silent? In fact, they would reverse roles, assuming what is more traditionally their positions.
The answer may lie in the differing approaches taken by the opponents. Those who speak in favor of children saying the Pledge express authoritative universals. The Pledge is good. All children should say the Pledge. When they speak in favor of some other agenda point, do those who oppose the pledge use authoritative universals? I suspect that they present positive role models demonstrating the behavior. They show value for the behavior and the reason for it. They equate the behavior and the reason for it with intelligence, sophistication, and social benefits. They make the behavior and the acceptance of the reason for it desirable. Once they have built value, then they begin to pronounce negatively with regard to its absence. In other words, the Conservatives approach the issue objectively and through facts, while the Liberals approach it subjectively, through values and feelings.
Putting aside the sense that Conservatives might have that it is "right" to approach the subject of the pledge factually, historically, etc., perhaps the better approach would be to use the media to make it popular and attractive, sophisticated, cool, etc. to say the Pledge.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-LPbIls0iOnI/red_the_pledge/
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Autobiography
A friend once asked me "Why didn't God include an autobiography along with the Ten Commandments?" Imagine that you are a writer and that God has asked you to help Him write His autobiography.
What would you set as the scope? When should it begin? When should it end? How many pages should be in it? What sort of details and events would you suggest He include? For what sort of audience should you (or He) write? Intellectual? Influential? Average? Is there anything specific you would suggest He include? Is there anything specific you would suggest He not include? What questions would you want Him to answer. Put aside the "obvious" answer and really think about this.
If I were advising God in the writing of His autobiography, one of the first questions I would face is where it begin. In my experiences, biographies generally begin with one of four points in the subject's life: with some genealogical information (at the very least an overview of the lives of the subject's parents); with the birth of the subject; with the earliest memories of the subject; or with some pivotal event.
God told Moses that He is the self-existent one (Exodus 3:14) that He had neither parents nor a birth; in fact that He has existed through eternity past and will exist through eternity future. For us to begin prior to the creation of the universe would give His audience no frame of reference in which to operate. It would be irrelevant and incomprehensible. The creation would seem to be a good pivotal point at which to begin.
That only helps a little. If one accepts the estimates of the scientists, the universe came into existence something like 14 billion years ago. Do we start there? Do we assume that - just because the earth didn't exist yet, that God was sitting around doing nothing for billions of years? Earth supposedly cooled about 4 billion years ago. Humanity supposedly evolved into its present form about 155,000 years ago. On the other hand, conservative Bible scholars estimate that the universe, the earth and man came into being about 10,000 years ago. The earliest writing is estimated to be about 5,500 years old (http://news.bbc.co.uk.1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm)
For practical purposes, it makes some sense for God's autobiography to begin with a brief summary of the creation up to the time when man entered the picture because until man enters the picture, there's no connection between God and His audience.
Where to end is not quite as difficult as where to begin. In general, biographies end with the death of the subject; events just prior to the publication of the work; or a climactic, defining moment. A true autobiography can't end with the death of the subject/author, so most autobiographies end with some combination of the other two. Usually, the conclusion makes it clear that the end of story is actually "to be continued...." Such an ending is uncomfortable unless we are reassured that the story will continue.
What would you set as the scope? When should it begin? When should it end? How many pages should be in it? What sort of details and events would you suggest He include? For what sort of audience should you (or He) write? Intellectual? Influential? Average? Is there anything specific you would suggest He include? Is there anything specific you would suggest He not include? What questions would you want Him to answer. Put aside the "obvious" answer and really think about this.
If I were advising God in the writing of His autobiography, one of the first questions I would face is where it begin. In my experiences, biographies generally begin with one of four points in the subject's life: with some genealogical information (at the very least an overview of the lives of the subject's parents); with the birth of the subject; with the earliest memories of the subject; or with some pivotal event.
God told Moses that He is the self-existent one (Exodus 3:14) that He had neither parents nor a birth; in fact that He has existed through eternity past and will exist through eternity future. For us to begin prior to the creation of the universe would give His audience no frame of reference in which to operate. It would be irrelevant and incomprehensible. The creation would seem to be a good pivotal point at which to begin.
That only helps a little. If one accepts the estimates of the scientists, the universe came into existence something like 14 billion years ago. Do we start there? Do we assume that - just because the earth didn't exist yet, that God was sitting around doing nothing for billions of years? Earth supposedly cooled about 4 billion years ago. Humanity supposedly evolved into its present form about 155,000 years ago. On the other hand, conservative Bible scholars estimate that the universe, the earth and man came into being about 10,000 years ago. The earliest writing is estimated to be about 5,500 years old (http://news.bbc.co.uk.1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm)
For practical purposes, it makes some sense for God's autobiography to begin with a brief summary of the creation up to the time when man entered the picture because until man enters the picture, there's no connection between God and His audience.
Where to end is not quite as difficult as where to begin. In general, biographies end with the death of the subject; events just prior to the publication of the work; or a climactic, defining moment. A true autobiography can't end with the death of the subject/author, so most autobiographies end with some combination of the other two. Usually, the conclusion makes it clear that the end of story is actually "to be continued...." Such an ending is uncomfortable unless we are reassured that the story will continue.
What would be the climactic, defining moments in God's life? Some further discussion of this must be given in a discussion of the content, but keeping a human audience in mind it seems clear that each of the series of endings of the works should contain a climactic, defining moment that builds on the others so that the whole produces not just a list of events, but some sense of purpose, progress and completion that is all somehow connected to humanity. Each "book" within the larger book should generate a picture of who the subject is, but they should also build on one another to produce a clearer picture still. The ultimate ending then becomes, appropriately enough, "and they lived happily ever after." Ever after could easily be applied to eternity future. Like eternity past, it is incomprehensible to us, but the climactic , defining moment that precedes ever after would likely complete the brackets begun with the creation: the end of the earth, time, etc.
Perhaps the most difficult questions are those addressing the content of God's autobiography. Even if He were restricted to the shortest time period, which moments in the past 10,000 years would He think important for His audience, for us? We dare not assume that because we don't notice activity that it doesn't exist. How many events could be included without making the book too long for most people to read. If we restricted him to one page per years, the book would still be at least 5,000 pages long by the time of Moses and 10,000 pages long now.
The content of any autobiography is linked to the motives behind is writing. For example, an author who is seeking acceptance will tell different stories (or tell the stories in a different way) from an author who is seeking glory and from an author who wants his audience to benefit from the work. This is a very complicating point because an author may have more than one motive for writing. While motives may never be clearly stated, their influence is enormous.
Another complicating factor in an autobiography is that the author can relate stories that could not be told by a biographer. Activities about which no one else knows can be revealed. Stories can be told in which the subject worked behind the scenes as well as stories in which the subject took center stage.
It would make sense for God to choose events that connect to his audience and reveal his motives. Somewhere near the beginning, some attention should be given to the initial relationship with man - God's revelation of Himself to man and man's response. From there, any changes in that overall relationship would need to be explored. The problem is that if we only deal with stories of God's handling of crises, we wouldn't get an accurate picture of God. He needs to also provide a more personal story, the "human interest" side.
With all of this in mind, I can't think of a better thing to say than, "To Be Continued...."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Out of Context
Over the past couple days I've been reading a thread at http://www.topix.net/forum/city/erie.pa called "Why I Left Christianity." One of the posters has been quoting verses of Scripture, mostly from the Old Testament, which most people would find difficult or impossible to understand or accept. Someone said she was quoting out of context. This evening she raised a criticism with which I have to agree. "We" quote John 3:16 out of context all the time.
I also have to agree with her next statement: that whether John 3:16 is in context or out, it's bizarre. Think about it. Why would any god in his right mind love the world - given how the world has treated him - enough to give anything, let alone his only begotten son - so that anyone (not just those who are "special") who believes (just believes, not deserves) should not perish but have eternal life? If there is a more bizarre concept, it doesn't come to mind.
Her point and conclusion will probably be simple: if it is as bizarre as we agree that it is, then it cannot possibly be true. My point and conclusion is equally simple: even if it is as bizarre as we agree that it is, that doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, it is more likely to be true because it's bizarre. Would you have come up with such an off-the-wall idea?
Have you thanked God for being bizarre recently?
I also have to agree with her next statement: that whether John 3:16 is in context or out, it's bizarre. Think about it. Why would any god in his right mind love the world - given how the world has treated him - enough to give anything, let alone his only begotten son - so that anyone (not just those who are "special") who believes (just believes, not deserves) should not perish but have eternal life? If there is a more bizarre concept, it doesn't come to mind.
Her point and conclusion will probably be simple: if it is as bizarre as we agree that it is, then it cannot possibly be true. My point and conclusion is equally simple: even if it is as bizarre as we agree that it is, that doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, it is more likely to be true because it's bizarre. Would you have come up with such an off-the-wall idea?
Have you thanked God for being bizarre recently?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Ten Commandments
Is God subject to the Ten Commandments? Is He legally bound to them? Could He break them? Would He?
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," "You shall not make for yourself an idol..." and "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain."
Consider the first three commandments, and the idea of God having a god before himself, worshipping idols or taking His own name in vain. I can't bend my brain far enough to be offended by this idea not because it's blasphemous or unthinkable, but because it's absurd. "Absurd" may not be extreme enough to express the situation. God (rightly) has too high an opinion of Himself to break these commandments, even supposing that He is subject to them.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Here are some questions - what constitutes work to God? If God is everywhere, by which standard of "day" does He calculate when it's the seventh?
Honor your father and your mother....
He has none.
You shall not murder.
This may be the most significant of the commandments in terms of the question of God being able to break them. Can God murder? Murder has been generally defined as the unlawful taking of a human life by another human. Most people don't think of a cat killing a mouse as murder. They don't call it murder when a hunter kills a deer. It's not even murder when a shark kills a human. Further, a judge who sentences a criminal to death is not then tried for murder. Can it then be murder when God kills a person (keeping in mind that all have sinned and that the wages of sin is death)?
You shall not commit adultery.
Considering the fact that we are a lower life form, it probably wouldn't be too far off the mark to suggest His response would be "Yuck!"
You shall not steal
Can He steal what is His by right?
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Why would He, unless He was submitting to someone else for some sort of judgment?
You shall not covet....
Again, if it all belongs to Him, and if He an create more of whatever it is, why would He?
Is He subject to the Ten Commandments? You tell me.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," "You shall not make for yourself an idol..." and "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain."
Consider the first three commandments, and the idea of God having a god before himself, worshipping idols or taking His own name in vain. I can't bend my brain far enough to be offended by this idea not because it's blasphemous or unthinkable, but because it's absurd. "Absurd" may not be extreme enough to express the situation. God (rightly) has too high an opinion of Himself to break these commandments, even supposing that He is subject to them.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Here are some questions - what constitutes work to God? If God is everywhere, by which standard of "day" does He calculate when it's the seventh?
Honor your father and your mother....
He has none.
You shall not murder.
This may be the most significant of the commandments in terms of the question of God being able to break them. Can God murder? Murder has been generally defined as the unlawful taking of a human life by another human. Most people don't think of a cat killing a mouse as murder. They don't call it murder when a hunter kills a deer. It's not even murder when a shark kills a human. Further, a judge who sentences a criminal to death is not then tried for murder. Can it then be murder when God kills a person (keeping in mind that all have sinned and that the wages of sin is death)?
You shall not commit adultery.
Considering the fact that we are a lower life form, it probably wouldn't be too far off the mark to suggest His response would be "Yuck!"
You shall not steal
Can He steal what is His by right?
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Why would He, unless He was submitting to someone else for some sort of judgment?
You shall not covet....
Again, if it all belongs to Him, and if He an create more of whatever it is, why would He?
Is He subject to the Ten Commandments? You tell me.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Mind?
"You need to keep an open mind." I've been told this more times than I can count. As I considered this statement again tonight, I found myself considering not only the question of open and closed minds but also active and passive minds. One of the characteristics of an open mind, I'm told, is that it believes that "anything is possible." One becomes guilty of being closed-minded the moment X (whatever X might be) is deemed impossible. (I have found, however, that this rule only apply when the X that is rejected is on someone else's "favored" list. If I reject the same things that someone else rejects, I'm no longer closed-minded, I'm perceptive, or discerning, or intelligent, or wise, or..., and I'm still open-minded.)
I wonder whether the critical point here is truly open/closed, or active/passive. The person who says "anything is possible" really doesn't have any more to think about, except perhaps some romantic considerations of possibility that amount to flights of imagination. The mind in question is passive no matter how active it may seem. An idea can produce large quantities of highly energetic romantic "possibilities." Does that mean that said mind is active? Is such a mind any more active than the mind of someone having a dream?
On the other hand, what I've called an active mind does not accept "anything is possible" as sufficient grounds on which to stop thinking. The active mind examines, probes, analyses, compares, contrasts, and questions. It, too, may use romantic flights of imagination, but not as ends in themselves. And if the activity of the mind becomes the end what's left is a "gerbil wheel." Is that mind then any more active than the dreamer's?
And if all of this is true of the mind, is it not also true of the spirit (or soul)? Can one have an open spirit, a closed spirit, a passive spirit, or an active spirit? The idea of passive spirituality brings to mind those in my past who have questioned, "Why do you have to question everything? Why can't you just believe?" My answer is that I do believe. I believe the answers exist, even if I never find them.
How often do we find it simpler to enjoy large quanitites of highly energetic, romantic but passive spirituality than to actively pursue spirituality? When does the activity of the soul become a spiritual "gerbil wheel"?
Several years ago a friend commented that the characters in the movie "The Two Towers" were noble. This idea stunned me. Noble? I fussed and fumed. Noble? Eventually I realized that I had somehow attached the idea of detachment to nobility. Nobility was separate, clean (not in a moral sense) , and "above." The characters in "The Two Towers" were constantly dirty. How could they be noble? They were - and ultimately I realized that at least some of their nobility was the result of their being willing to be dirty.
Is the "open" and/or passive mind the separate, clean and "above" mind? Is the truly closed mind just as separate, clean and "above"? (A truly closed-mind is not discussed above, but it which will not consider any possibility. Doesn't that, however; include the mind that dismisses a specific possibility with an "anything's possible"?) Is the mind that is on a gerbil wheel any less detached? Are these statements just as true of spirits/souls? Is this not at heart of the call to be doers of the Word, and not merely hearers?
I wonder whether the critical point here is truly open/closed, or active/passive. The person who says "anything is possible" really doesn't have any more to think about, except perhaps some romantic considerations of possibility that amount to flights of imagination. The mind in question is passive no matter how active it may seem. An idea can produce large quantities of highly energetic romantic "possibilities." Does that mean that said mind is active? Is such a mind any more active than the mind of someone having a dream?
On the other hand, what I've called an active mind does not accept "anything is possible" as sufficient grounds on which to stop thinking. The active mind examines, probes, analyses, compares, contrasts, and questions. It, too, may use romantic flights of imagination, but not as ends in themselves. And if the activity of the mind becomes the end what's left is a "gerbil wheel." Is that mind then any more active than the dreamer's?
And if all of this is true of the mind, is it not also true of the spirit (or soul)? Can one have an open spirit, a closed spirit, a passive spirit, or an active spirit? The idea of passive spirituality brings to mind those in my past who have questioned, "Why do you have to question everything? Why can't you just believe?" My answer is that I do believe. I believe the answers exist, even if I never find them.
How often do we find it simpler to enjoy large quanitites of highly energetic, romantic but passive spirituality than to actively pursue spirituality? When does the activity of the soul become a spiritual "gerbil wheel"?
Several years ago a friend commented that the characters in the movie "The Two Towers" were noble. This idea stunned me. Noble? I fussed and fumed. Noble? Eventually I realized that I had somehow attached the idea of detachment to nobility. Nobility was separate, clean (not in a moral sense) , and "above." The characters in "The Two Towers" were constantly dirty. How could they be noble? They were - and ultimately I realized that at least some of their nobility was the result of their being willing to be dirty.
Is the "open" and/or passive mind the separate, clean and "above" mind? Is the truly closed mind just as separate, clean and "above"? (A truly closed-mind is not discussed above, but it which will not consider any possibility. Doesn't that, however; include the mind that dismisses a specific possibility with an "anything's possible"?) Is the mind that is on a gerbil wheel any less detached? Are these statements just as true of spirits/souls? Is this not at heart of the call to be doers of the Word, and not merely hearers?
Monday, August 24, 2009
What's More Evil?
"What's more evil, murdering someone or eating a spoonful of peanut butter?" What a strange question! You know the typical answer. Of course, it's more evil to murder someone. I won't argue with you, but consider....
If you kill someone, you are "playing God."
When I talk about eating a spoonful of peanut butter, I'm not talking about providing sustenance to prevent starvation over the next day or to run a marathon. I'm talking about lasting another hour...another 20 minutes.... long enough for the microwave to beep its announcement that my "other" snack is done. I'm talking about when our appetites - for whatever - "play God." In that sense, the actions are equal.
Here is the critical question. To which temptation do we give in more often? The good news and the bad news for me is that I give in to eating peanut butter by the spoonful.
Pick your own evil for the comparison. Which is more evil, to murder someone or to ____________________? The greatest evil is the evil that you do, not the evil that you don't.
If you kill someone, you are "playing God."
When I talk about eating a spoonful of peanut butter, I'm not talking about providing sustenance to prevent starvation over the next day or to run a marathon. I'm talking about lasting another hour...another 20 minutes.... long enough for the microwave to beep its announcement that my "other" snack is done. I'm talking about when our appetites - for whatever - "play God." In that sense, the actions are equal.
Here is the critical question. To which temptation do we give in more often? The good news and the bad news for me is that I give in to eating peanut butter by the spoonful.
Pick your own evil for the comparison. Which is more evil, to murder someone or to ____________________? The greatest evil is the evil that you do, not the evil that you don't.
This is a Test
It may have been amusing at first. It may even have been socially or financially advantageous. Maybe it was just a little tic, a little quirk, or a bit of divined knowledge. We don't know how old the girl was or how long this had been going on. We don't know what role her mother may have had in creating the situation. It seems that her mother saw the danger that everyone else ignored, or she saw the hope that everyone else rejecte. More than likely the friends and family who were amused at first became embarrassed or even frightened as time went on. If there was a husband in the picture, if he hadn't disappeared with the others, perhaps he was the only one left who could physically control the girl so he'd stayed home.
Whatever the reason, she was on her way, and on her way alone. We don't know if she's stopped caring about how she looked, but the look in her eyes would have told anyone who saw her to stay out of her way. On her way. She shouldn't have been on her way at all. There was absolutely no reason for her to believe this man could or would help her. Oh, she'd heard rumors about him. He did miracles, they said. He was also male, Jewish and a Rabbi. She was a woman, a Canaanite, and she'd lost count of the number of gods she'd worshipped. What was one more? She started again. Alone and against all reason, she was on her way and nothing and no one was going to stop her from getting the help her daughter needed.
On the other side of town twelve men were on a mission. Their recent ministry schedule had been grueling. None of them had been getting enough sleep, meals were irregular at best. They were all exhausted. There was nowhere in Judea they could expect to be able to rest and recover. To make matter worse, Herod had beheaded John, and it was not the safest time to be a rising star in the Jewish religious community. So they'd left Israel and gone to the area of Tyre and Sidon.
The problem was Jesus. He was as exhausted as the rest of them, but the disciples knew that if anyone asked him for help, any hope of a rest would be lost. It was their job to protect him from the gentiles around them, and from himself. When they saw the woman, they knew the look on her face. They tried not to listen as she cried out but the words rang in their ears... My daughter... demon.... please.....Without a word and without warning, their rabbi began to test them all.
The first question to the disciples could have been, "Demonstrate what the Torah teaches about the treatment of aliens, strangers, and gentiles" (e.g. Leviticus 19:34, Leviticus 24:22, Deuteronomy 10:19.) They were startled by his silence. Perhaps he was even more tired than they'd thought. Perhaps he wouldn't help this woman - at least not tonight. They dared to hope.
He tested the woman as well. What would she do if he ignored her? At first she was startled by his silence. She'd thought he'd send her away. But then again, he was a rabbi and she was a gentile woman. He wouldn't talk to her. If he were a charlatain he might have tried to encourage her or show of his skills. Instead, he kept walking. She dared to hope, and continued her plea.
The disciples finally spoke up, to ask Jesus to send her away. Jesus said nothing, but could have asked a second silent question: demonstrate your understanding of what I taught the Pharisees (e.g. Matthew 12:9-12, Luke 6:6-9) and of what I taught you (e.g. Matthew 5:43-45.) Jesus didn't send her away, but the house where they'd be staying was in sight. If they could just get him there.... they dared to hope.
His silent challenge issued to the woman: what do you do if you face opposition? When the disciples (guards? keepers?) started suggesting he send her away, he didn't say anything. He didn't send her away. He behaved like a rabbi would, not like a charlatain. She dared to hope.
They'd reached the house. Jesus silently presented a third test: demonstrate what you learned from my feeding of 5000 people. They ushered Jesus inside and closed the door, and they dared to hope.
They'd closed the door. What would she do? She wanted to scream in frustration. Then the frustration melted into surprise. They hadn't posted a guard. She walked to the door and worked the latch. As she pushed open the door and stepped inside, she dared to hope.
The disciples gaped. Why hadn't they posted a guard? Why hadn't they barred the door? The woman had just barged in, strode right up and knelt before Jesus. She repeated her request as Jesus asked a final silent question of his disciples: Demonstrate what you learned in Samaria with the woman at the well, or the centurion with the paralyzed servant.
He finally spoke, "First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Here was his final challenge to her. What do you do when even I seem to reject you?
She wanted to laugh. He was finally talking. He was still acting just like a man, a Jew, and a rabbi. He was still not saying no. As an opening gambit in dickering, she'd heard better. She'd been bargaining, trading insults and flattering men and merchants all her life. This was familiar ground. If he could do what she'd heard.... She dared to hope and perhaps to smile. "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."
"Then he told her, 'For such a reply, you may go; the demon as left your daughter.'" (Mark 7:29)
1. Demontrate you understanding of what the Torah teaches about the treatment of aliens, strangers....
2. Demonstrate your understanding of what I taught the Pharisees and of what I taught you.
3. Demonstrate what you learned from my feeding of the Five Thousand.
4. Demonstrate the lesson you learned in Samaria with the woman at the well, or with the centurion with the paralyzed servant.
1. What do you do when I seem to ignore you?
2. What do you do when you face open opposition?
3. What do you do when the door is closed?
4. What do you do when even I seem to reject you?
Are you taking one of these tests right now? Which one? How are you doing?
Whatever the reason, she was on her way, and on her way alone. We don't know if she's stopped caring about how she looked, but the look in her eyes would have told anyone who saw her to stay out of her way. On her way. She shouldn't have been on her way at all. There was absolutely no reason for her to believe this man could or would help her. Oh, she'd heard rumors about him. He did miracles, they said. He was also male, Jewish and a Rabbi. She was a woman, a Canaanite, and she'd lost count of the number of gods she'd worshipped. What was one more? She started again. Alone and against all reason, she was on her way and nothing and no one was going to stop her from getting the help her daughter needed.
On the other side of town twelve men were on a mission. Their recent ministry schedule had been grueling. None of them had been getting enough sleep, meals were irregular at best. They were all exhausted. There was nowhere in Judea they could expect to be able to rest and recover. To make matter worse, Herod had beheaded John, and it was not the safest time to be a rising star in the Jewish religious community. So they'd left Israel and gone to the area of Tyre and Sidon.
The problem was Jesus. He was as exhausted as the rest of them, but the disciples knew that if anyone asked him for help, any hope of a rest would be lost. It was their job to protect him from the gentiles around them, and from himself. When they saw the woman, they knew the look on her face. They tried not to listen as she cried out but the words rang in their ears... My daughter... demon.... please.....Without a word and without warning, their rabbi began to test them all.
The first question to the disciples could have been, "Demonstrate what the Torah teaches about the treatment of aliens, strangers, and gentiles" (e.g. Leviticus 19:34, Leviticus 24:22, Deuteronomy 10:19.) They were startled by his silence. Perhaps he was even more tired than they'd thought. Perhaps he wouldn't help this woman - at least not tonight. They dared to hope.
He tested the woman as well. What would she do if he ignored her? At first she was startled by his silence. She'd thought he'd send her away. But then again, he was a rabbi and she was a gentile woman. He wouldn't talk to her. If he were a charlatain he might have tried to encourage her or show of his skills. Instead, he kept walking. She dared to hope, and continued her plea.
The disciples finally spoke up, to ask Jesus to send her away. Jesus said nothing, but could have asked a second silent question: demonstrate your understanding of what I taught the Pharisees (e.g. Matthew 12:9-12, Luke 6:6-9) and of what I taught you (e.g. Matthew 5:43-45.) Jesus didn't send her away, but the house where they'd be staying was in sight. If they could just get him there.... they dared to hope.
His silent challenge issued to the woman: what do you do if you face opposition? When the disciples (guards? keepers?) started suggesting he send her away, he didn't say anything. He didn't send her away. He behaved like a rabbi would, not like a charlatain. She dared to hope.
They'd reached the house. Jesus silently presented a third test: demonstrate what you learned from my feeding of 5000 people. They ushered Jesus inside and closed the door, and they dared to hope.
They'd closed the door. What would she do? She wanted to scream in frustration. Then the frustration melted into surprise. They hadn't posted a guard. She walked to the door and worked the latch. As she pushed open the door and stepped inside, she dared to hope.
The disciples gaped. Why hadn't they posted a guard? Why hadn't they barred the door? The woman had just barged in, strode right up and knelt before Jesus. She repeated her request as Jesus asked a final silent question of his disciples: Demonstrate what you learned in Samaria with the woman at the well, or the centurion with the paralyzed servant.
He finally spoke, "First let the children eat all they want, for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." Here was his final challenge to her. What do you do when even I seem to reject you?
She wanted to laugh. He was finally talking. He was still acting just like a man, a Jew, and a rabbi. He was still not saying no. As an opening gambit in dickering, she'd heard better. She'd been bargaining, trading insults and flattering men and merchants all her life. This was familiar ground. If he could do what she'd heard.... She dared to hope and perhaps to smile. "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."
"Then he told her, 'For such a reply, you may go; the demon as left your daughter.'" (Mark 7:29)
Two Tests:
2. Demonstrate your understanding of what I taught the Pharisees and of what I taught you.
3. Demonstrate what you learned from my feeding of the Five Thousand.
4. Demonstrate the lesson you learned in Samaria with the woman at the well, or with the centurion with the paralyzed servant.
1. What do you do when I seem to ignore you?
2. What do you do when you face open opposition?
3. What do you do when the door is closed?
4. What do you do when even I seem to reject you?
Are you taking one of these tests right now? Which one? How are you doing?
Not as well as the disciples?
Better than the disciples?
As well as the woman?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)