Weightier Matters

Matthew reports these familiar words from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness...” (Matthew 5:6 NRSV)

It is crucial that we understand “righteousness”. In the original language, that same word in other contexts is translated, “Justice.” Too often, “righteousness” is understood as devoutness, virtue, piousness—qualities of personal devotion. And too often, “justice” is understood as retribution or punishment.

Qualities of personal devotion are important to any life of faith, and there are biblical words that represent those qualities. Further, retribution has valid application in civil law, and there are biblical words that represent that. But when Jesus said, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…” he didn’t use any of those words. And the word he used[i] doesn’t refer directly or necessarily to those qualities.

The word Jesus used relates to relational, rather than personal, contexts—qualities revealed in the ways we relate to people and social structures. I’m not sure how the English understanding of the word got separated from a concept of justice and tied so tightly to personal devotion; but, its fundamental meaning is simply “what is right”, whether it is translated “justice” or “righteousness.”

A crucial dilemma today is the disconnect between human need and some ideologies, both political and religious. Some things simply are more important than any philosophy or dogma: things that simply are “right.” And when the neglect of those things is justified in favor of any system or philosophy, such neglect becomes unrighteousness—things like Jesus outlines clearly in Matthew 25: “…for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”

Many find ways to back out of those things, justifying their neglect with political or religious ideology. I often concur with the ideologies[ii]; but some things simply are more important than political ideology!

The gospels portray Jesus and the Pharisees at odds over many issues, not the least of which fits the concerns of this discussion: “Moses said, ‘Respect your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone denouncing father or mother should be killed.’ But you weasel out of that by saying that it’s perfectly acceptable to say to father or mother, ‘Gift! What I owed you I’ve given as a gift to God,’ thus relieving yourselves of obligation to father or mother. You scratch out God’s Word and scrawl a whim in its place.” (Mark 7:10-13 The Message)

Even though the Pharisees used religious, rather than political, terminology, the principle remains, viz., they were giving precedence to an ideology over persons and relationships. And Jesus said they thereby were voiding God’s Word.

When ideology trumps people and people’s needs, then neither justice nor righteousness is enacted!

The effort to absolutize any ideology, philosophy, creed or theology is counterproductive to the gospel—in every way! “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but on the meat of God’s Law, things like fairness and compassion and commitment—the absolute basics![iii]—you carelessly take it or leave it. Careful bookkeeping is commendable, but the basics are required. Do you have any idea how silly you look, writing a life story that’s wrong from start to finish, nitpicking over commas and semicolons?” (Matthew 23:23-24 The Message)

Jesus, in keeping with the message of the later Hebrew prophets, reserved his harshest criticism for those who mistreated the poor and justified their neglect by cherry picking specific portions of their law, misapplying those portions and then absolutizing them. “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20 NRSV).

Bottom line: whether your ideology is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist or religious, there are some things more important that your ideology or mine. And to use any ideology to justify neglect of those “weightier matters,” is indefensible from a Christian perspective.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk

Jim

---

[i] Δικαιοσυνην (dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay) Strong’s Concordance defines the word thus: (usually if not always in a Jewish atmosphere), justice, justness, righteousness, righteousness of which God is the source or author, but practically: a divine righteousness.

[ii] For example, I believe most of us want smaller government; but, we also want just enough government to enact and enforce the values and policies we advocate. I believe most of us prefer that private charities, churches, non-profits and individual philanthropists, rather than government, take care of the poor. The sad truth is that the government got involved in the first place because those entities abdicated their roles in the helping ministries. Until that sad condition is corrected, who will take care of the poor? Moreover, some of those non-government entities are as corrupt as any government, and their high overhead (including 6- and 7-figure incomes for CEOs) demonstrates extremely poor stewardship. Among those that are not corrupt, most have limited resources. The overwhelming majority of churches in America have fewer than 200 members, and struggle to pay salaries and utilities, while maintaining their facility; therefore, their participation in ministries of compassion is limited. In other words, available non-government resources probably are inadequate to take care of all human needs. Some would justify neglect of the poor by way of accusations of fraud and laziness and irresponsibility. Those are valid concerns, but represent a significant minority of human need situations. Finally, there is validity to the argument that charity breeds dependence. There is a great need for an effective strategy for eliminating poverty. Even with such a strategy in place, it probably would take a generation or longer to accomplish the task. “Cold Turkey” is not a part of any effective strategy.

[iii] KJV, RSV, NRSV et al render the phrase, “weightier matters of the law”.

Making Room

Today I attended our community Lenten Lunch, and was blessed by the brief message shared by a colleague. He told a story from Henri Nouwen about a man who went for counsel from a spiritual director. The spiritual director began pouring a cup of tea for his visitor, and when the cup was full, he continued to pour. The cup overflowed, making a tremendous mess; but, the spiritual director continued to pour.

Finally, the visitor shouted, “Stop! You’re making a mess!”

The spiritual director replied, “Like the cup, our lives become so full of our own opinions and judgments and dogmas that there’s no room for new understandings and growth.”

My colleague summed up the metaphor as an act of “making room for the Holy Spirit.”

I guess the application of the metaphor depends upon whether one believes he or she already has all truth, and that his or her understanding of truth is flawless. I don't buy it.

I worship and attempt to serve a God who is “always making all things new (Revelation 21:5);” thus, truth is never static. Truth is a living entity, always on the move, breathing, growing; and it is relational and responsive, adapting to circumstances emerging from God’s gift to humanity of free moral choice. I do not have the mental or spiritual capacity to comprehend truth absolutely; indeed, my understanding of the One who is the truth is, at best, incomplete.

Jesus said to Nicodemus, “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8 NRSV).

I need constantly to be letting go of some things to make room for the Holy Spirit's correctives to the errors nurtured by both my free choice and my incomplete comprehension.

My colleague does that by swimming laps. Before he gets into the pool, he gives that time to God; then, as he swims, he feels his spirit and his mind releasing the clutter that needs to go. In a very real sense, his swimming becomes a form of meditation.

I hope it’s obvious that times of prayer and meditation not only become direct channels of release, but also prepare one’s spirit so other activities can help clear the attic to make room for new understanding. I've not been a lap-swimmer; but I’ve experienced that release when I’m jogging, hiking, fishing or practicing guitar.

I think this whole idea of “making room” is what Lent is all about. I was blessed by the new perspective, as I hope you are. How do you "make room?"

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk

Jim

Lent Again

It’s Lent again. Day six. Lent is a forty-day season in which some churches focus their worship on preparing for Easter.

 The forty days represents Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness immediately following his baptism by John. There in the wilderness he struggled with his sense of identity and method in his life of obedience to the call of God. He was tempted to answer God’s call in several ways, but resisted those ineffective and counterproductive temptations, choosing instead the path of obedience.

Thus, for the Christian who observes Lent, it is a season of prayerful self-examination, repentance and recommitment to God’s call and claim upon his or her life.

In the oldest traditions of Lent, the Christian gives up something during the season: desserts or some other favorite food or drink, television, the Internet, etc. For the last three years I’ve chosen, rather than giving something up, to take some additional act of discipline: some topic of study or reading or writing. Last year I chose to read the gospels and write a daily blog on what it meant to follow Jesus. My intention was to take ten examples from each of the four Gospels, but by the end of Lent I was still in Matthew; in fact, by the end of the year I still hadn’t finished with Matthew’s Gospel (although I have to admit my writing slowed down significantly after Lent was ended.)

This year my wife and I are leading a study of Tim Cameron’s book, The Forty-Day Word Fast: A Spiritual Journey to Eliminate Toxic Words from Your Life. Cameron approaches his thesis through six categories of what he calls “toxic words”: judgments, criticism, sarcasm, negativity, complaining and gossip. In retrospect, I realized that in our first session we spent a lot of time describing how others (including absent spouses) were bad about using those toxic words. I suspect it will be a struggle for each of us to own up to our own impulse to use those words.

Cameron urges his readers to choose, instead, words that encourage and heal and restore. It’s the same song I’ve been singing through these blogs and on social media for some time; so I was drawn to the book.

I’ve not completed reading the book, yet; but, already I find myself wanting to say, “Yeah, but…” It’s true: Jesus used words to heal and restore and reconcile; and yet, he also confronted hypocritical religious leaders, corrupt politicians and apathetic people of faith. He used sharp words, and even physical force.

If I truly desire to follow Jesus I also will confront hypocrisy, corruption, injustice and cruelty—all those things called “sin” in the Scriptures. So, where is the line, and when do I cross it from Christ-like confrontation to destructive, counterproductive words that are antithetical to the love of God as manifest in Christ?

Today on social media I saw a video that may provide the solution to my struggle. The video demonstrated how a school stopped issuing detentions and other forms of punishment, turning instead to teaching students how to meditate—to find a calm center in their lives. As a result, the school’s environment changed completely. Here's a link: [https://www.facebook.com/DavidAvocadoWolfe/videos/10154276021811512/]

 

I call that a manifestation of Grace. Grace is not permissiveness (although sometimes it resembles permissiveness), and it’s more than forgiveness (although it includes forgiveness). Grace makes punishment irrelevant, because grace is transforming.

In permissiveness, something is overlooked. In grace, something is overcome.

Nor does grace always come wrapped in religious liturgies and tied with a holy bow. God is not confined to our understandings or expressions of faith. Grace transcends all our doctrines and ministries.

What if, as I eliminate toxic words from my life, I replace them, not just with sweet-sounding, uplifting words (although there’s absolutely no reason to avoid those kinds of words), but more importantly, with words that will build up—words that will make a difference.

What if I work to identify words that will confront and challenge, not with judgment, criticism, sarcasm, negativity, complaining and gossip, but rather with words that demonstrate and accomplish grace?

As I pray for God’s strength to eliminate those toxic words, may God’s grace be extended to me, that my words may edify and point to “a more excellent way.”

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

An Axe (or 2) to Grind

Fair warning: I have two axes to grind this morning. One is rather inconsequential; but, still, I’m blowing off steam.

Both for professional development and out of simple curiosity, I’ve taken several personality inventories over the years. They show change. I hope the change is progress, rather than regression. In the infamous Myers-Briggs inventory (a derivative of Carl Jung’s personality types), I was “INTP” 25 years ago. INTP means introverted, rather than extroverted; intuitive rather than sensing; thinking rather than feeling; perceiving rather than judging. If you want to go deeper, just Google Myers Briggs.

In the past year my Myers Briggs type was ESTP. I think the biggest factor behind the change is that I’ve become more comfortable in my own skin, and am more open to being motivated by people and environment. I still enjoy my self-motivating quiet corner with a book, however.

All the preceding is but prelude to this: a consistent personality trait identified when I first entered seminary has been that I’m a “fixer.” That trait did not play well in my early years as a pastor; and it still intrudes into my counselling practices on occasion.

I’m guessing I inherited the trait from my mother. She never tolerated the quarrels between my sister and me.[1] So I learned to become a “fixer”. I think that’s the basis of my liberal perspective. I try to understand all sides of any issue, so I can “fix” it. One of my strong suits is conflict resolution; in fact, I have several certifications in that field.

I’m confident that that personality trait contributes to my pounding temples when I read the hateful, disrespectful Facebook exchanges that have become pervasive on virtually all social media. COME ON, PEOPLE!!! BE NICE!!!

I wonder what personality trait(s) are operative when people hide behind the anonymity of social media and ambush and snipe away at anyone whose ideas deviate from their own.

It’s one thing to differ; indeed, diversity of thought is an enriching part of a democratic republic. Remember American history? Remember the famous “melting pot” mode that in the late 19^th and early 20^th century affirmed the various contributions of the differing ethnic and cultural populations? Of course, it also must be remembered that those times endured prejudice and even violence against those same ethnic and cultural populations.

Diversity of thought is an enriching element in any human interaction. I went to barber college and was a licensed barber during the decade of the 60s. One barber with whom I worked said to me: “Jim, you’re about as good a barber as I’ve seen come straight out of barber school. But don’t ever think you can’t learn more. If you’ll watch, you can learn something from every barber you work with. If you don’t learn something good to do, you’ll learn something bad to avoid.” I've noted that that counsel fits most situations.

So, what personality type becomes enraged over disagreement(s)? What is the personality type by which one gives oneself permission to call other humans “stupid,” when they don’t share the same ideology? What personality type justifies gross contempt for other people who are honest, compassionate people of integrity, but who disagree with that type’s opinions? What personality type is OK with insulting others, but is infuriated when his or her own beliefs are questioned?

God, we’re broken. Will you fix us, please?

That’s the way I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] And herein lies my second axe to grind (the inconsequential one). The “Grammar Nazi” part of my personality emerges, and I “need” to “fix” something. Perhaps it’s a sign of the times, and is becoming acceptable in formal English grammar pedagogy. Maybe I’m “old school,” and out of touch; but, per my own English grammar studies, the use of the personal pronouns, “I” and “me” have become confused in recent years.

People who are very intelligent, well-educated and otherwise quite articulate, have fallen into the trend over the past few years of misusing these two pronouns. I seldom see or hear “me” being used incorrectly; but, the incorrect use of “I” has become rampant.

In the sentence footnoted above, “me” is correct. It is in the objective case, the object of the preposition, between. Had I wanted to use the pronoun, “I”, I would have put it in the nominative case: “My mother grew intolerant when my sister and I quarreled.” Here, “I” is part of a compound predicate nominative.

The rules of grammar can be quite boring; but, in this case, one need not memorize rules or diagram sentences. It’s really quite simple. If “me” is correct when it stands alone, it also will be correct when compounded with another pronoun, as in the sentence under examination here: “…my sister and me.” The same is true for the pronoun, “I”.

If I am calling the dog, then it also is correct to say “My sister and I are calling the dog.” If the dog comes to me when I call, then it also is correct to say, “The dog comes to my sister and me when we call.” Really simple.

It probably means nothing to most of my readers; but, the “fixer” part of my personality is now at peace—at least, for now. There are other grammar faults out there that need to be “fixed.” As soon as I get my cape cleaned, I'll be back.

I Am Conflicted.

I deeply detest the divisive belligerence of the partisan political posts on Social Media. I have participated in the vicious “Mixmaster,” and thus far the investment of time, energy and emotion has produced a net loss.

I understand and affirm the right to express one’s opinions, and I understand and affirm the right and the obligation to stand up for one’s beliefs.

BUT…

I have begun to see that doing so on Social Media is totally useless. In fact, I’d venture to say such an effort is counterproductive.

In the first place, nothing is ever resolved in the venomous, malicious and hurtful exchanges that too often emerge. Essentially, Social Media becomes a venue, at best, for venting, and at worst, for cowards to hide behind its anonymity and become verbal terrorists, exploding over all who come within range.

I understand the human need to vent; but, it seems to me there are other, more appropriate and, indeed, more effective venues for venting.

In the second place, no minds ever are changed; indeed, most of the time it’s more like “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts;” “I’m right.” Period. Therefore, if you disagree with me “You’re wrong.” Period. It’s a short journey from “You’re wrong” to “You’re stupid,” to “You’re evil,” and the elimination of evil is justified in most ideologies.

Sadly, however, too often the aftermath is an end-justifies-the-means ethic. In my thinking, no cause, no matter how good or noble, justifies, or is enhanced by, ignoble means.

And so, earlier this week I resolved to abstain from participation in the adversarialism. It was just futile. Useless. Divisive.

Today, however, a specific on line article caught my attention, and convinced me that Social Media has become a viable indicator of the American political pulse and blood pressure. The news agencies pick up on it; and by extension, I’m guessing the politicians and policy moguls notice, too. Perhaps all that contempt and bitterness and hatred spewed across Facebook walls play valid roles in social and political influence.

Perhaps I should stay engaged, after all. My perception of Social Media is not at all representative of Social Media as a whole. Fully 85% of my Facebook friends are conservative--from traditional GOP to Tea Party to Libertarian to Survivalist. A large majority are from the South and are Evangelical Christians. While I make no value judgments here, the ethos of my Facebook community is skewed, and not representative of the whole venue.

[Yes, I understand that my unwillingness to pass value judgement begs the question whether the belligerence I experience on Social Media is a direct result of the ethos of my Facebook community. On the other hand, my liberal FB friends, though making up a small minority, are not immune to their own brand of venom!]

I’m conflicted.

By personality type, by profession, and by faith, I advocate peace, unity[1] and cooperation. I promote reconciliation, collaborative conflict resolution and empathetic human interaction. I belong to a church whose vision includes being "a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world." Thus, I detest the schoolyard bully façade projected by a disproportionate majority of Social Media pundits (and wannabees) in my Facebook community.

My gut wants to just drop out. I’m tired of the bile and the refusal to consider “other”

Downloaded from a public domain site

perspectives. I’m tired of ideology taking precedence over human need. I’m tired of the racism, the misogyny and the hatred directed at ethnic, religious and LGBT groups. And I’m tired of the denial of all the above.

Most of all I’m tired of the “I’m right syndrome”—the across-the-board refusal to collaborate, negotiate or even communicate with anyone who disagrees with “ME/US”[2].

I’m tired of it all because at the bottom line I’m convinced that between any two of us there are infinitely more similarities than differences, and that if we so choose, we can build on our similarities and agreements and can thereby create “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

That’s how I see it through the “Flawed Glass” that is my perspective.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Unity is not the same thing as uniformity. It’s more like harmony—a choir singing in unison can create beautiful music; but the same choir multiplies its beauty when the basses, tenors, altos and sopranos are singing different notes at the same time. That’s harmony. That’s unity.

[2] As I’ve written and preached many times, I believe in absolute truth; but I don’t believe any human or human group is capable of perceiving truth absolutely. Our human perception of “absolute” truth always will be “relative” to our personal experience of reality.

To Watch or Not to Watch

Today I watched the Inauguration of President Donald J Trump. Some of my friends felt I should have boycotted the event, instead of honoring him by watching.

I saw it through different eyes. I saw it as honoring, not President Trump, but our Democracy, and honoring what President Ronald Reagan called the “common and miraculous” peaceful transfer of power that has been the hallmark of our Democracy since 1797.

I didn’t vote for President Trump, nor do I even respect him as a human being. But, like it or not—like him or not—he is the President of the United States. He is my President. His past suggests that he will not represent me or my views or my interests; but, I live in Arkansas, so it’s been a long time since I felt represented. Nevertheless, he is the President—the only President—of the United States.

Nor have I participated in or supported or encouraged any of the protests which have come to my attention—although I fully respect the right of peaceful protest. Indeed, there are situations in which I believe public protest is an effective strategy, the civil rights marches being one example. There, the purpose was to raise awareness and to rally pubic support against a gross injustice—to change public opinion and public policy.

The protests (I read that several hundred were being planned) today were simply that: a protest. No concrete or tangible effect or result was proposed or suggested. “My candidate lost, and I don’t like it.”

I don’t like it, either.

I fully expect that I will disagree with the overwhelming majority of what President Trump says and does; but I will oppose those things in ways I feel are more effective; although, letters to congressional representatives or Senators, in spite of the fact that they are the most accessible method of protest, generally have not been ineffective. Again, I live in Arkansas, and letters to Senator Tom Cotton are like letters to a brick wall (his responses give no evidence whatsoever that he or some staff member even reads my letters), and Letters to Senator John Boozman don’t even get a response. Still, I write.

I participate in several advocacy and interest groups, through which the power of numbers gives me a sense that I may be making a difference.

I also use blogs and letters to the editor. While I never use the pulpit for partisan political advocacy, the people in the church I serve know of my political persuasions, and I am strong in advocating biblical values that do impact political ideologies.

I appreciated Senator Roy Blunt’s (R – Missouri) comments in his opening remarks as Master of Ceremonies. It was he who reminded Americans of President Reagan’s words, which I quoted above, viz., the “common and miraculous” peaceful transfer of power that is the hallmark of our Democracy.

Democracy thrives on vigorous debate. Yes, each of should be actively involved in efforts to influence the outcomes of the political process. It just seems to me that that 220-year-old hallmark should take precedence on this one day—this one day—over our partisanism.

That's the way it looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,
Jim

As Innauguration Day Approaches

This morning I was reviewing some of my writings from the past year, and found the following "E-Pistle" to the congregation I serve. It was from the morning after the election, and I felt called to offer pastoral perspective. I find it still appropriate, and offer it to a larger audience through my blog. As always, I invite and encourage your respectful response.

* * * * *

"Good Morning, Church!

"As your minister, I feel called to provide encouragement and guidance—in all of life’s circumstances –to those who called me. It is most difficult to do so when my own cup is empty.

"This morning I have prayerfully gleaned words of focus and direction from several sources, and my cup is not so empty now. I want to share how my own spirit has found some peace and made some sense out of what happened at the polls yesterday.

"1.      For the first time in my memory, one party will control the entire government of the United States:

a.     The Executive Branch—The Presidency, the Cabinet and the White House staff.

b.    The Legislative Branch—both Houses of Congress

c.     The Judicial Branch—it seems to follow that the Supreme Court, and for the next four years all lower court appointees, will represent a conservative ideology.

"2.     One of two things will happen as a result:

a.     The ideology of the party that controls the government will be exposed as inadequate, or even counterproductive, for the good of the entire country.

b.    The ideology of the party that controls the government will be vindicated as adequate and effective in providing a foundation for the growth and integrity of our country.

"In either case, the direction of the country’s future will be clear: if (a) comes to pass, then we will be set back and damaged for a time; but, the way will become clearer as we move into the next election cycle. If (b) is the reality, the way also will be clear for the next election cycle.

"I pray that if (a) plays out, the damage will not be too bad. And if it is (b) that plays out, I pray that I will have the grace to own up to the inadequacies of my own ideology, and will be able to swallow my pride and support what seems to be working.

"I have my own ideas about which scenario will play out. For now, what do we as Christians do?

"As usual, I found great wisdom in the closing words of Bill Rose-Heim’s letter to the churches in the region he serves (Greater Kansas City Region):

"'We can re-commit to living out our Disciples identity:

“’We are Disciples of Christ, a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world.  As part of the one body of Christ, we welcome all to the Lord’s Table as God has welcomed us.

“'Talk about timely!  Let’s get around the Table.  Let’s listen and speak with humility and wisdom, compassion and hope. Then, let’s get to work!  We are ALL called and chosen for this time!'

"And Unity is our Polar Star!"

Together in the Walk,

Pastor Jim