The foot washing scene moves immediately to several chapters of theological monologue. In some respects, these passages express a sort of theological framework for the community of the authors. In other respects, these passages seem to be intended as encouragement to people who are being persecuted. The obvious intention is for the reader to identify with the disciples in the story, as a recipient of the promises, directives, and encouragement of the Jesus character. We will continue to explore these writings from the perspective that the Jesus character is intended as an exemplar with whom the reader could identity. The concluding paragraphs of John 13 include some plot devices that make this a little more challenging, however, so we'll see what use we can make of it.
First, Jesus finishes washing the feet of his disciples and proclaims that someone among them will betray him. He seems disturbed by this, according to the text, and he and Simon Peter engage in a little subterfuge, working out a secret sign to reveal the betrayer. Of course, the readers already know the tale, but this singles Peter out as someone special -- someone in the inner circle. We've already explored how the metaphor of Satan entering Judas represents him being driven his own fearful thoughts and beliefs. It's odd that Peter doesn't stand up and accuse Judas, given the implication of the secret message exchange with Jesus, but for whatever reason, he doesn't let the cat out of the bag to the other disciples.
This is probably just as well, since by the end of the chapter, Jesus will make the unsettling prediction that Peter will also soon betray their friendship. It's important to remember that the gospels that made it into the Bible are stories with a narrative structure, and stories need some elements to keep the plot moving forward. Probably, we could comment that every relationship will have moments in which one party throws the other under the bus, valuing personal pride or apparent safety over loyalty or devotion. People are complicated, so relationships are bound to be complicated. It's what the authors have Jesus say in between the announcement of Judas' betrayal and the forecasting of Peter's betrayal that actually provides a meaningful framework for complicated relationships.
Here, the authors put forth a "new commandment": Love one another. There are obviously old commandments. Most simply, we could view the "ten commandments" as the old covenant that the Israelites perceived as their responsibility to uphold. There are a lot of other laws and commandments in Hebrew Scripture that are proclaimed as divinely authoritative, but some of these laws are clearly peculiar to an ancient culture. By contrast, the "thou shalt nots" of the ten commandments are generally moral and ethical admonitions that most people can agree with. Don't kill people. Don't steal things. Don't commit adultery. Don't lie. We quickly invent exceptions, of course, but we generally agree with the ethical premises.
The exceptions are where we get into trouble, though. Many times, we make exceptions to moral and ethical principles because we are afraid of something. "I'm afraid I'll get into big trouble, so I'll just tell a little lie." "We're afraid that our loved ones aren't safe, so it's alright if we kill someone else's loved ones to prevent them from hurting us." "I'm afraid that I'm not lovable, so I'll indulge in someone else's affection, even though I know it's wrong to betray the trust of my partner." Our exceptions, whether we realize it or not, are steeped in fear about ourselves or other people, and when we come up with enough exceptions, the ethical principles have little value.
Even when people consider their ethical principles to be commandments from God, they orchestrate clever arrays of exceptions. Then, they orchestrate convoluted processes by which their exceptions can be excused. People wind up with complicated patterns of exoneration behavior (going to church, doing some kind of social work, praying for forgiveness, etc.) in order to make up for equally complicated integrity gaps. "I hold this ethical principle, except in the following 219 special circumstances."
Many believers are even sketchy with regard to the old commandments to honor God and keep the sabbath holy. They define God as a supernatural who agrees with their perspective. They define keeping the sabbath holy as going to church, or watching it on television, or at least praying for their team before they sit down in the bleachers at the stadium. And these principles were already squishy two thousand years ago. This is not really a commentary on current society. The Jewish religious leaders had to invent a convoluted set of laws to put boundaries on just how far one could reasonably go to skirt the ethical principles.
Some will say that the old commandments are still in place, and this is true to the extent that we all agree on many of the ethical principles. To put a Humanist spin on the whole array: We are better off honoring our own authentic selves than trying to live up to some externally defined standard of success or worthiness. We are better off when we set aside time for rest and introspection. We are better off when we are impeccable with our word. We are better off when we consider the loving advice of our elders, even when we wind up disagreeing with that advice and heading in a different direction. We are better off when we are committed to finding non-violent solutions. We are better off when we are honest, when we honor the trust of our relationships, when we recognize our own abundance. We are better off when we manage our own anxiety about not measuring up and we relax into living with integrity and intention. And we are better off when we let other people express their own authentic selves without believing that we need to convince them, compete with them, correct them, or condemn them.
The authors, through the character of Jesus, are trying to simplify all of that. They are attempting to simplify the convoluted guidelines that define the laws that clarify the ethical principles. Perhaps they are even hoping to stem the potential for excuses and complex patterns of behavior to make the excuses palatable. Love one another. Act in ways that reflect genuine regard for one another's well-being. Ask yourself before you say or do what you are about to say or do, "Will this demonstrate love?" If the answer is Yes, go right ahead. If the answer is No, reconsider your decisions.
Who is one another, then? Did the authors mean just the disciples sitting in the room with Jesus? Probably not. They are writing these words to a community of people generations after the events of the narrative were supposed to have happened. Does one another just apply to members of the same community, then? So, show love to people who believe the same things you do, but you aren't obligated to demonstrate love toward anyone else? This is certainly the way some people seem to interpret it. This seems like another clever way of making excuses for claiming an ethical or moral position and still getting to treat people however you want to.
The point of having a "new commandment" is to establish a guiding principle for the community that is in some way superior to the previous principle(s) by which the community made decisions. Meaning, the authors are suggesting that if people "love one another," there won't be any need for rules about avoiding specific behaviors. People who love one another don't kill each other. People who love one another don't lie about each other. People who love one another don't steal from each other. They don't let their fear provoke them into doing harm or taking things personally. If "love one another" is taken seriously, without leaving room for excuses when love is inconvenient or uncomfortable, you don't need a long catalog of rules or an itemized list of what to avoid.
It isn't always clear what the most loving action would be in certain situations. There is certainly room for discussion about how to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That's rarely our motivation, though. Our motivation is more often, How can I seem loving at the least cost to my own sense of safety and comfort? This new commandment the authors are suggesting to their community takes a lot of thought and lot of work. It requires people to be very intentional in the way they treat people. It isn't weak or easy, and most people simply don't buy it.
Love people. How many excuses just popped into your head? Who do you think you don't have to love? What problems can't be addressed by love? What are you unwilling to give up when it comes to loving other people?
Part of our problem is a flimsy definition of love. We might reasonably define love as demonstrable concern for another's well-being. There is an element of compassionate connection in the word perhaps, but there is nothing about love that requires permissiveness, or giving up one's own authentic self for the sake of someone else's comfort. Love, as a foundational value, directs us toward actions that align with the guiding principle that every person has inherent worth and dignity. Love as a principle holds us accountable in a very different way from a checklist of avoided misdeeds.
Love one another. Respect other people's boundaries, and be clear about your own boundaries.
Love one another. Do what is within your means to contribute to the well being of people around you without being judgmental or condescending.
Love one another. Care for yourself well enough that you will be able to offer your best to others.
Love one another. Take responsibility for only what you are responsible for, and let other people be responsible for their own feelings, beliefs, and decisions.
Love one another. Listen compassionately without trying to fix people.
Love one another. Seriously. Get to the heart of what that means, and make your life about that. This is no small adjustment or simple task. This is a lifelong commitment to a deep value that permeates every relationship.
Love one another. When it starts to settle in that this is not a platitude, but that this is the very core of what it means to be fully human, you'll be on the right track.
Showing posts with label making excuses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label making excuses. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2015
Monday, October 21, 2013
Isaiah 5: We Are Capable of Justice
Using the metaphor of a vineyard, Isaiah 5 denounces injustice in the kingdom of Judah, pronounces the judgment of Yahweh upon the unjust, and connects the military threat from Assyria with the behavior of the people of Judah. Yahweh will either allow or compel the foreign army to overrun Judah because he is displeased with the behavior of the people. There are some problems with this theology, but there is also a message about justice that is still important for us to hear.
First, a horticultural clarification: the vineyard metaphor claims that the owner of the vineyard expected grapes but got wild grapes. Some translations express the owner's disappointment by calling the expected grapes "good grapes" and calling the grapes that grew instead "bad grapes." Wild grapes, especially in the world of the Ancient Near East, were more acidic and bitter or sour than cultivated grapes. All sorts of animals feed on wild grapes, but they aren't of a high enough quality that they would be considered for wine production or put on a dinner table. The presence of wild grapes is very natural, but they aren't the high quality produce that one would expect after investing time and energy in process of cultivation.
So it is with people. We have natural ways of behaving without putting too much effort into it, and much of that is comprised of reactions based on irrational fears, judgments, and beliefs about ourselves and other people. When we invest in personal work -- recognizing more about how to be emotionally mature people, practicing more honesty about ourselves and others, and connecting more with people so that we learn not to fear vulnerability -- we can expect to have higher quality lives. The problem is that we sometimes expect that if we invest time and effort in other people's lives, they will be higher caliber people. Deeper satisfaction with our lives cannot be gained by other people's efforts, though, and we can't do anything ourselves to ensure that other people will dismantle their own fears, connect with their deepest, most noble selves, and engage in life with greater emotional maturity. Each person has to do this cultivation on a personal level in order for transformation to occur.
The vineyard metaphor only gets us so far, then. We can expect certain results from our efforts in a garden, but we cannot expect results from cultivating growth in other people. Our responsibility first and foremost must be how we represent our authentic selves. We can be an influence on other people, to be sure, but we can't predict such results and shouldn't be terribly upset when our influence is less than we'd like. The vineyard owner (God) decided to let the whole place go. If he didn't see the results he wanted in the people he had tried to cultivate, he was going to let the place become a wasteland until such time as those people saw fit to be high-quality produce.
One major problem is that the population of Judah included both the people who were being unjust and the people who were the victims of injustice. In casting aside the entire country to the ravages of a foreign army, Yahweh was pronouncing a universal punishment that did nothing to achieve justice for the oppressed -- in fact, those with less resources fared worse in times of military conflict. In trying to make sense of Judah's vulnerability to Assyria, Isaiah looks for a cause in the society of Judah, and he finds the rampant injustice to be worthy of reprimand. Or perhaps, the prophet saw the injustice and considered the threat from a foreign army to be something that would catch everyone's attention. Either way, the theology of a deity that punishes the oppressed just to teach the wicked a lesson does nothing for Yahweh's public image.
Of course, one may say that Yahweh knew the hearts of everyone in Judah, and thus his judgment was just. In this case, one might also inquire as to who was being treated unjustly in the first place if everybody in Judah was wicked. Trying to exonerate God's behavior is a bit silly, though. The reality was that Assyria was a political and military threat to Israel and Judah, and whatever the kings of Israel and Judah did to provoke the leaders of Assyria, it had little to do with injustice in Israelite society. It's understandable that a people would look around and try to figure out what they had done wrong to deserve being overwhelmed by foreign forces, but military actions are rarely about the actions of a civilian population. While the encroaching Assyrians were certainly a credible threat, the injustice within Israelite society was a relatively unrelated matter.
Since injustice and threat of war are separate issues in Isaiah 5, then, we can consider the two issues separately in our own search for meaning. Most of us have no control over military decisions, so it does us little good to try to control them. We can seek to have peaceful relationships in our own lives, and we can hope to influence others toward peaceful, thoughtful, respectful interaction. We don't control other people though, least of all people in government. The issue of justice is something that we are in a better position to address.
What kind of injustice is Isaiah 5 denouncing? Justice and righteousness are paired here, and the middle of the chapter details exactly what the problems are in ancient Judah:
In truth, we have built a society on countenancing injustice. With abundant resources, we create and accept policies that concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. Sometimes those few do good, humanitarian things with their wealth, but this does not equate with a just distribution of resources. As long as there are people anywhere in the world who are sick and without the money to pay for medicine, who are hungry or thirsty and without the means to provide for their own sustenance, or who are denied adequate legal representation because they cannot pay enough to be seen as worthy of respect, our global system of distribution is unjust. Yet, we are so protective of what we have that our politicians argue like children about whether it is reasonable to provide healthcare for all the citizens of a country. We are so entrapped by our fear of scarcity that we fail to notice that there are others with even less, through no fault of their own. We are as clever in our justification as the ancient Israelites.
We extol the virtues of greed, we reward people who take unconscionable risks, we wake up in the morning thinking about what television we will numb ourselves with in the evening -- or even, as the wicked people in Isaiah 5, seeking after strong drink, wine, and music. We don't practice hospitality. We don't seek to understand people who are not like us. We practice playing the victim and demanding that our rights be respected while ignoring or even trampling on the rights of others. This is indoctrinated societal injustice and unrighteousness, but there is still a part of us that resists calling light "darkness" and darkness "light."
Not everyone plays by these rules of engagement. Some people seek a deeper connection with themselves, the people around them, and the world we all share. Some people stand up for the rights of others, even when they have nothing to gain by doing so. Some people reach out in compassion without worrying about the sacrifice of time and resources. Some people are willing to be vulnerable. Some people are unafraid.
We will not meet with any large scale punishment for our injustice. We will not face a conquering army sent by divine fiat to punish our unrighteousness. Our prejudice and protectiveness will most likely go unchallenged by any outside force. Even if there is a God, and even if she should decide to bring down wrath upon us all for our wickedness, why should we ever think that would change us? The behavior of the ancient Israelites never really changed after repeated disciplinary actions by Yahweh, or so the story goes. We are on our own with this matter of injustice. No one will come along and correct our behavior for us or cultivate us into pleasing, succulent grapes of justice against our will.
This is not to say that there are no consequences to injustice. The oppressed have, throughout history, risen up to overthrow their oppressors. Many of the bloody battles being fought today are the result of misguided attempts to possess property and control people -- lopsided values of an unjust system. Violence is sometimes the only response people can conceive to perceived oppression or threat. Moreover, our relationships suffer because of our willingness to condone injustice. Our own personal growth is stunted. Even the sustainability of our planet is threatened by the unjust levels of consumption that we have come to accept. The consequences are numerous and pervasive. There is a better way.
We are capable of more. We are capable of justice. We are capable of looking another person in the eyes and saying, "You are worthy." Even if that person has different skin coloration. Even if that person has a different gender or sexuality. Even if that person practices a different religion.
We are capable of justice. We are capable of recognizing our own personal responsibility for the decisions we make. We are capable of dismantling our fears of scarcity. We are capable of vulnerability. This is really the message of Isaiah 5: We are capable of justice, and because we are capable of justice, we must not be satisfied with injustice.
We are capable, and you are capable. You are capable of justice. In your workplace. In your family.
In your casual interactions with strangers. In the way you spend your time and resources.
You are capable of justice. In the lives of people that you stand up for. In the choices of practices that you stand up against. In the way that you vote. In the way that you live.
You are capable of justice.
How will you engage your capability a little more?
First, a horticultural clarification: the vineyard metaphor claims that the owner of the vineyard expected grapes but got wild grapes. Some translations express the owner's disappointment by calling the expected grapes "good grapes" and calling the grapes that grew instead "bad grapes." Wild grapes, especially in the world of the Ancient Near East, were more acidic and bitter or sour than cultivated grapes. All sorts of animals feed on wild grapes, but they aren't of a high enough quality that they would be considered for wine production or put on a dinner table. The presence of wild grapes is very natural, but they aren't the high quality produce that one would expect after investing time and energy in process of cultivation.
So it is with people. We have natural ways of behaving without putting too much effort into it, and much of that is comprised of reactions based on irrational fears, judgments, and beliefs about ourselves and other people. When we invest in personal work -- recognizing more about how to be emotionally mature people, practicing more honesty about ourselves and others, and connecting more with people so that we learn not to fear vulnerability -- we can expect to have higher quality lives. The problem is that we sometimes expect that if we invest time and effort in other people's lives, they will be higher caliber people. Deeper satisfaction with our lives cannot be gained by other people's efforts, though, and we can't do anything ourselves to ensure that other people will dismantle their own fears, connect with their deepest, most noble selves, and engage in life with greater emotional maturity. Each person has to do this cultivation on a personal level in order for transformation to occur.
The vineyard metaphor only gets us so far, then. We can expect certain results from our efforts in a garden, but we cannot expect results from cultivating growth in other people. Our responsibility first and foremost must be how we represent our authentic selves. We can be an influence on other people, to be sure, but we can't predict such results and shouldn't be terribly upset when our influence is less than we'd like. The vineyard owner (God) decided to let the whole place go. If he didn't see the results he wanted in the people he had tried to cultivate, he was going to let the place become a wasteland until such time as those people saw fit to be high-quality produce.
One major problem is that the population of Judah included both the people who were being unjust and the people who were the victims of injustice. In casting aside the entire country to the ravages of a foreign army, Yahweh was pronouncing a universal punishment that did nothing to achieve justice for the oppressed -- in fact, those with less resources fared worse in times of military conflict. In trying to make sense of Judah's vulnerability to Assyria, Isaiah looks for a cause in the society of Judah, and he finds the rampant injustice to be worthy of reprimand. Or perhaps, the prophet saw the injustice and considered the threat from a foreign army to be something that would catch everyone's attention. Either way, the theology of a deity that punishes the oppressed just to teach the wicked a lesson does nothing for Yahweh's public image.
Of course, one may say that Yahweh knew the hearts of everyone in Judah, and thus his judgment was just. In this case, one might also inquire as to who was being treated unjustly in the first place if everybody in Judah was wicked. Trying to exonerate God's behavior is a bit silly, though. The reality was that Assyria was a political and military threat to Israel and Judah, and whatever the kings of Israel and Judah did to provoke the leaders of Assyria, it had little to do with injustice in Israelite society. It's understandable that a people would look around and try to figure out what they had done wrong to deserve being overwhelmed by foreign forces, but military actions are rarely about the actions of a civilian population. While the encroaching Assyrians were certainly a credible threat, the injustice within Israelite society was a relatively unrelated matter.
Since injustice and threat of war are separate issues in Isaiah 5, then, we can consider the two issues separately in our own search for meaning. Most of us have no control over military decisions, so it does us little good to try to control them. We can seek to have peaceful relationships in our own lives, and we can hope to influence others toward peaceful, thoughtful, respectful interaction. We don't control other people though, least of all people in government. The issue of justice is something that we are in a better position to address.
What kind of injustice is Isaiah 5 denouncing? Justice and righteousness are paired here, and the middle of the chapter details exactly what the problems are in ancient Judah:
Some people are accumulating more and more property, beyond what they need or what is equitable, so they can have people renting and working on their property with no hope of ownership, and thus no hope of wealth or security. This is unjust.
Some people are living only for their own appetites, enjoying their lives as much as they can while at the same time numbing themselves to the work that remains to be done in the world. Ignoring the hungry or the under-served will not make the problems go away; celebrating as if there is nothing more to be done to improve people's lives is unjust.
Some people are arrogant, believing that they are entitled to property and privileges that others are not, thinking of themselves as deserving of special treatment because of their station or wealth. When people think they are worth more and others are worth less, this attitude is unjust and it leads to unjust behavior.
Some people are doing things they know to be wrong, and they are justifying it through lies. They absolve their own greed by claiming that gaining personal wealth is a positive thing, and they consider people who aren't greedy to be foolish and irresponsible. They defend expressing hatred toward others as clear-headed discernment, and berate non-judgmental people as being spineless. They indulge their own appetites, betray trust, and relish opportunities to get away with deception, and then they explain it away with a worldview that ignores the effects of their actions in other people's lives and rationalizes away remorse.How unfortunate that our own society is devoid of such behavior, so that we are left only to imagine what a duplicitous and treacherous place ancient Judah must have been!
In truth, we have built a society on countenancing injustice. With abundant resources, we create and accept policies that concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. Sometimes those few do good, humanitarian things with their wealth, but this does not equate with a just distribution of resources. As long as there are people anywhere in the world who are sick and without the money to pay for medicine, who are hungry or thirsty and without the means to provide for their own sustenance, or who are denied adequate legal representation because they cannot pay enough to be seen as worthy of respect, our global system of distribution is unjust. Yet, we are so protective of what we have that our politicians argue like children about whether it is reasonable to provide healthcare for all the citizens of a country. We are so entrapped by our fear of scarcity that we fail to notice that there are others with even less, through no fault of their own. We are as clever in our justification as the ancient Israelites.
We extol the virtues of greed, we reward people who take unconscionable risks, we wake up in the morning thinking about what television we will numb ourselves with in the evening -- or even, as the wicked people in Isaiah 5, seeking after strong drink, wine, and music. We don't practice hospitality. We don't seek to understand people who are not like us. We practice playing the victim and demanding that our rights be respected while ignoring or even trampling on the rights of others. This is indoctrinated societal injustice and unrighteousness, but there is still a part of us that resists calling light "darkness" and darkness "light."
Not everyone plays by these rules of engagement. Some people seek a deeper connection with themselves, the people around them, and the world we all share. Some people stand up for the rights of others, even when they have nothing to gain by doing so. Some people reach out in compassion without worrying about the sacrifice of time and resources. Some people are willing to be vulnerable. Some people are unafraid.
We will not meet with any large scale punishment for our injustice. We will not face a conquering army sent by divine fiat to punish our unrighteousness. Our prejudice and protectiveness will most likely go unchallenged by any outside force. Even if there is a God, and even if she should decide to bring down wrath upon us all for our wickedness, why should we ever think that would change us? The behavior of the ancient Israelites never really changed after repeated disciplinary actions by Yahweh, or so the story goes. We are on our own with this matter of injustice. No one will come along and correct our behavior for us or cultivate us into pleasing, succulent grapes of justice against our will.
This is not to say that there are no consequences to injustice. The oppressed have, throughout history, risen up to overthrow their oppressors. Many of the bloody battles being fought today are the result of misguided attempts to possess property and control people -- lopsided values of an unjust system. Violence is sometimes the only response people can conceive to perceived oppression or threat. Moreover, our relationships suffer because of our willingness to condone injustice. Our own personal growth is stunted. Even the sustainability of our planet is threatened by the unjust levels of consumption that we have come to accept. The consequences are numerous and pervasive. There is a better way.
We are capable of more. We are capable of justice. We are capable of looking another person in the eyes and saying, "You are worthy." Even if that person has different skin coloration. Even if that person has a different gender or sexuality. Even if that person practices a different religion.
We are capable of justice. We are capable of recognizing our own personal responsibility for the decisions we make. We are capable of dismantling our fears of scarcity. We are capable of vulnerability. This is really the message of Isaiah 5: We are capable of justice, and because we are capable of justice, we must not be satisfied with injustice.
We are capable, and you are capable. You are capable of justice. In your workplace. In your family.
In your casual interactions with strangers. In the way you spend your time and resources.
You are capable of justice. In the lives of people that you stand up for. In the choices of practices that you stand up against. In the way that you vote. In the way that you live.
You are capable of justice.
How will you engage your capability a little more?
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
1 Kings 14-16: Using God as an Explanation Rarely Leads to Wisdom
John the Baptist was certainly not the first prophetic individual to operate outside the organized Jewish church. The Jewish scriptures reflect an evolution of people (mostly men) who boldly proclaimed truth as they saw it, under the auspices of being chosen by God as special messengers. Often, these men were spiritual advisers to kings, as was the case with Nathan, who served as David's voice of conscience. In the historical interpretations of Kings and Chronicles, other prophets begin to appear, speaking for God. For whatever reason, Yahweh seems only to select certain people as his messengers, and this special honor is rarely bestowed upon people who have positions of power and authority. The historians themselves were acting as self-appointed prophets, speaking for and defending God in a way, since they interpreted the events they recorded through the lens of God's presumed intentions. Eventually, many of the prophets who figured into Jewish history would have books dedicated to them, perhaps even written by these holy spokesmen, and these writings are best understood in light of the historical context within which they were conceived.
Some of the stories recorded as historical accounts are clearly folklore, such as the tale in 1 Kings 14 in which the prophet Ahijah predicts the death of everyone in Jeroboam's family because of God's anger. Obviously, transitions of rulership of Israel were more conflict-ridden than the passing on of the hereditary crown in Judah, but to claim that God decided certain people had to die is to miss the very human motivations for events. In fact, Baasha (whose ascension to Israel's throne is mentioned in 1 Kings 15:25-31) had all of Jeroboam's family murdered when he usurped the throne after killing Jeroboam's son, Nadab. It was an understandable decision, since it eliminated any people who could be perceived as legitimate heirs and it drastically reduced the likelihood of someone seeking vengeance for the death of a family member. Murdering Jeroboam's family was a very human act that didn't require God's involvement at all, but looking back at historical events, the writers of Kings apparently felt the need to elaborate above and beyond actual data and create a prophecy to foreshadow the murders.
This literary technique accomplishes a few things, not all of them desirable. It places accountability for all events on an untouchable deity. People are not ultimately responsible for who lives and who dies if God is the one who decides such things. Even if a man murders his next door neighbor, who can really fault him if God had already decided that his neighbor needed to die? If a general loses a battle, it is because God determined that course of events. If a foreign king invades a land, it is because God prompted him to do so. Except that the Israelites are constantly doing the very things that God does not want them to do, not in the rampant violence and warmongering, but rather in the worship of other spiritual forces. The spiritual lives of his chosen people are apparently outside of God's purview, but a large number of military and political decisions are squarely under his control.
Except when things turn out badly, as they did for Asa, king of Judah. The writer(s) of Kings look a bit more favorably upon Asa, because he was a descendant of David, and there is an obvious favoritism toward Judah in the book of Kings. The writer(s) of Chronicles also favor Judah, since the kingdom of Israel is barely mentioned, but Asa is described much less favorably. After a promising beginning, Asa is chastised for relying on a foreign government for aid rather than relying solely on God (even though God is said to be able to influence the decisions of foreign governments and the actions of their armies). At the end of his life, it is implied that Asa died from a foot condition because he sought the aid of doctors rather than the aid of God. Incidentally, his obituary in Kings is less judgmental.
It is certainly understandable that the ancient Israelites understood very little about the fallacy of false cause. When something happened in their lives, they looked for an explanation, and if an explanation was not readily apparent, the easy answer was God. Their God could be manipulated into doing good things for them if the general populace worshiped him properly, but this was historically a tough row to hoe for the Israelite people. Thus, bad things were always happening because enough people just would not fall in step with the whole monotheistic organized religion policy. In reality, religion most likely had very little to do with the things that happened to the Israelite people. It is far more probable that poor decisions, greed, and fear on the part of the Israelite leaders were largely to blame for the challenges they faced. On top of that, there were some serious empire builders emerging at the time. While the Israelites never seemed interested in widespread military conquest, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, and eventually the Greeks and the Romans all took an interest in adding the Israelites and their lands to a larger imperial body. That wasn't any sort of god at work; it was people.
The Israelites wrote their histories from their own limited perspectives, just as we interpret the events of our lives in our own very limited ways. Two things which have been said before bear repeating: First, we are responsible for who we are in the circumstances of our lives. Second, we are prone to inventing supernatural causes when logical, rational causes escape us. While there may be very straightforward causes for the events and circumstances of our lives, nothing is ever as it is because a supernatural entity decided that it should be so. We cannot control everything around us, but we can have some measure of control over our responses to everything around us. When we are willing to dismiss the easy dismissive answers like, "God must want things to be this way," we can look deeper for real, meaningful answers. While those answers are not always easy to discern, we can safely start from the assumption that rational answers exist. Nothing is magic, even the things we don't understand. Our lack of knowledge or understanding does not constitute evidence of the supernatural. Said another way, our not knowing does not make something unknowable.
When we look back at history, we can invent some hidden conspiracy theory tying events together if we like. We can assume a hidden supernatural agenda at work and connect imaginary dots to form a picture we invent. Human beings are by nature creative creatures, and our propensity for creativity can sometimes lead us to some strange and irrational conclusions. When we embrace the notion that there is no supernatural hand guiding decisions and events, but rather very real, natural, logical causes for the effects we observe, we will not be disappointed. There are no events in history that cannot be explained through rational means, and there are no events in our lives that require a supernatural explanation. The challenge is one of proximity. Sometimes we are too close to the events in our lives to engage in detached inquiry. We need a starting premise that can guide us toward realistic meaningful assessment of the decisions and events of our lives without being tempted toward the easy and unprovable supernatural. One possible starting point is our own personal responsibility for who we are in the midst of our circumstances.
Very few of us will ever be in a position to murder people and take their positions of authority, just like we do not have the occasion or need to personally send a nation's supply of gold and silver to foreign powers for protection. Still, we know the kind of people we most want to be, if we take a little time and really think about it. We know when our actions are out of sync with that vision we have of our potential. Inventing a supernatural justification or excuse will not get us any closer to being the people we most want to be. At a certain level, we have to get real about our personal responsibility in our lives. By claiming our personal responsibility, we gain the power to change the things we most want to change -- in ourselves and in the world around us.
Some of the stories recorded as historical accounts are clearly folklore, such as the tale in 1 Kings 14 in which the prophet Ahijah predicts the death of everyone in Jeroboam's family because of God's anger. Obviously, transitions of rulership of Israel were more conflict-ridden than the passing on of the hereditary crown in Judah, but to claim that God decided certain people had to die is to miss the very human motivations for events. In fact, Baasha (whose ascension to Israel's throne is mentioned in 1 Kings 15:25-31) had all of Jeroboam's family murdered when he usurped the throne after killing Jeroboam's son, Nadab. It was an understandable decision, since it eliminated any people who could be perceived as legitimate heirs and it drastically reduced the likelihood of someone seeking vengeance for the death of a family member. Murdering Jeroboam's family was a very human act that didn't require God's involvement at all, but looking back at historical events, the writers of Kings apparently felt the need to elaborate above and beyond actual data and create a prophecy to foreshadow the murders.
This literary technique accomplishes a few things, not all of them desirable. It places accountability for all events on an untouchable deity. People are not ultimately responsible for who lives and who dies if God is the one who decides such things. Even if a man murders his next door neighbor, who can really fault him if God had already decided that his neighbor needed to die? If a general loses a battle, it is because God determined that course of events. If a foreign king invades a land, it is because God prompted him to do so. Except that the Israelites are constantly doing the very things that God does not want them to do, not in the rampant violence and warmongering, but rather in the worship of other spiritual forces. The spiritual lives of his chosen people are apparently outside of God's purview, but a large number of military and political decisions are squarely under his control.
Except when things turn out badly, as they did for Asa, king of Judah. The writer(s) of Kings look a bit more favorably upon Asa, because he was a descendant of David, and there is an obvious favoritism toward Judah in the book of Kings. The writer(s) of Chronicles also favor Judah, since the kingdom of Israel is barely mentioned, but Asa is described much less favorably. After a promising beginning, Asa is chastised for relying on a foreign government for aid rather than relying solely on God (even though God is said to be able to influence the decisions of foreign governments and the actions of their armies). At the end of his life, it is implied that Asa died from a foot condition because he sought the aid of doctors rather than the aid of God. Incidentally, his obituary in Kings is less judgmental.
It is certainly understandable that the ancient Israelites understood very little about the fallacy of false cause. When something happened in their lives, they looked for an explanation, and if an explanation was not readily apparent, the easy answer was God. Their God could be manipulated into doing good things for them if the general populace worshiped him properly, but this was historically a tough row to hoe for the Israelite people. Thus, bad things were always happening because enough people just would not fall in step with the whole monotheistic organized religion policy. In reality, religion most likely had very little to do with the things that happened to the Israelite people. It is far more probable that poor decisions, greed, and fear on the part of the Israelite leaders were largely to blame for the challenges they faced. On top of that, there were some serious empire builders emerging at the time. While the Israelites never seemed interested in widespread military conquest, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, and eventually the Greeks and the Romans all took an interest in adding the Israelites and their lands to a larger imperial body. That wasn't any sort of god at work; it was people.
The Israelites wrote their histories from their own limited perspectives, just as we interpret the events of our lives in our own very limited ways. Two things which have been said before bear repeating: First, we are responsible for who we are in the circumstances of our lives. Second, we are prone to inventing supernatural causes when logical, rational causes escape us. While there may be very straightforward causes for the events and circumstances of our lives, nothing is ever as it is because a supernatural entity decided that it should be so. We cannot control everything around us, but we can have some measure of control over our responses to everything around us. When we are willing to dismiss the easy dismissive answers like, "God must want things to be this way," we can look deeper for real, meaningful answers. While those answers are not always easy to discern, we can safely start from the assumption that rational answers exist. Nothing is magic, even the things we don't understand. Our lack of knowledge or understanding does not constitute evidence of the supernatural. Said another way, our not knowing does not make something unknowable.
When we look back at history, we can invent some hidden conspiracy theory tying events together if we like. We can assume a hidden supernatural agenda at work and connect imaginary dots to form a picture we invent. Human beings are by nature creative creatures, and our propensity for creativity can sometimes lead us to some strange and irrational conclusions. When we embrace the notion that there is no supernatural hand guiding decisions and events, but rather very real, natural, logical causes for the effects we observe, we will not be disappointed. There are no events in history that cannot be explained through rational means, and there are no events in our lives that require a supernatural explanation. The challenge is one of proximity. Sometimes we are too close to the events in our lives to engage in detached inquiry. We need a starting premise that can guide us toward realistic meaningful assessment of the decisions and events of our lives without being tempted toward the easy and unprovable supernatural. One possible starting point is our own personal responsibility for who we are in the midst of our circumstances.
Very few of us will ever be in a position to murder people and take their positions of authority, just like we do not have the occasion or need to personally send a nation's supply of gold and silver to foreign powers for protection. Still, we know the kind of people we most want to be, if we take a little time and really think about it. We know when our actions are out of sync with that vision we have of our potential. Inventing a supernatural justification or excuse will not get us any closer to being the people we most want to be. At a certain level, we have to get real about our personal responsibility in our lives. By claiming our personal responsibility, we gain the power to change the things we most want to change -- in ourselves and in the world around us.
Monday, November 5, 2012
2 Samuel 1-5: God Does Not Appoint Leaders, Send Hurricanes, or Determine the Outcomes of Wars
Back in chapter 16 of the First Book of Samuel, the biblical narrative suggests that God chose David to be the next king of Israel. He had chosen Saul before, but he wound up regretting that decision, so apparently he was hoping for better luck with David. When one reads the first five chapters of the Second Book of Samuel, it's apparent that not everyone agreed with God's decision. David and his supporters apparently had to fight for acknowledgement from the rest of the Israelite people, at least in the account in Samuel. The book of Chronicles doesn't mention all of the infighting among the Israelites, since this would presumably be poor form. After the fact, it's easy to read some kind of intelligent plan at work, but the truth of the matter is that it was the actions of people that determined leadership, just as it is today.
In this election season, as with some previous elections, certain Christian leaders are suggesting that the outcome of the presidential elections will reflect either God's blessing on America or God's judgment. To listen to some people speak, it is as if the elections have nothing to do with voters or the electoral college and everything to do with divine intervention. While there is nothing inherently morally or ethically wrong about seeking comfort from a belief in a divine plan, the ramifications of that belief are potentially dangerous, especially when people stop thinking for themselves and allow other extremist views to abuse their belief in divine providence for personal gain.
It's healthily optimistic to say that good can come from any circumstance, or that there is something to be learned from every situation. This kind of thinking prompts people to take some measure of responsibility for outcomes in their lives, and it encourages awareness of opportunities rather than restrictions. When this thinking shifts to some external entity, however, it becomes more dangerous. It blurs the clear lines between the things over which people have authentic power in their lives and the things that are beyond their control. On the one hand, if it becomes God's responsibility to work everything out for good, then personal power is minimized. People develop a perception of themselves as weak and incapable. On the other hand, if people believe that God is going to work things out for their benefit (often at a cost to someone else) this can lead to a sense of superiority that is unwarranted and harmful.
To address the first scenario, people are simply not weak and incapable. There are systems in place in various parts of the world that are oppressive, and there are natural limits to what an individual can control. In terms of how one is going to live in the midst of one's circumstances, however, people have power over their own choices and decisions. Even in America, where most twenty-first century citizens know nothing of real oppression, if circumstances don't line up to our desires, we cry out as though our value as human beings was at stake. Some people believe that they are oppressed when someone merely voices an opinion different from theirs. Of course, some of this is for show. Melodramatic righteous indignation can be convincing. People are not really so weak that another person's opinion can harm them. And yet, we often play the victim rather than create the lives we truly want.
There are places in the world in which dictators and tyrants take action against defenseless innocent people. Some people would suggest that the United States military takes action against defenseless innocent people. This certainly reflects an authentic powerlessness to control the behavior of those who are willing to abuse their authority at the expense of others. Our power as human beings does not extend to the actions of others, but everyone everywhere has the personal capability to manage their own thoughts and behaviors if they choose to do so. Sometimes this is admittedly a challenge.
Belief that God is in full control of all the world's activities often gives people a skewed sense of reality, though. If God exerts such active control that he chooses leaders, then God is also responsible for all of the tyrants and malevolent dictators in various parts of the world. If God sends hurricanes to punish a group of people, he is also responsible for every natural disaster that has made life more challenging for deeply religious people. He is responsible for every earthquake, tsunami, and mudslide that profoundly impacted the very impoverished people the Bible says are worthy of compassion. If God chooses sides in war and justifies the military actions of believers, then he is accountable for all of the "collateral damage" in terms of innocent lives and economic and political turmoil that results from those military actions. Is he also responsible for traffic collisions? Plant explosions? Gang violence? The housing bubble? Where does his control over people's actions stop and personal responsibility begin?
The ancient Israelites looked at their history and saw successes and failures, heroes and tyrants, and they determined that their god was responsible for their circumstances. Other peoples in the ancient world had similar perspectives. Various Roman emperors, ruling a thousand years after David, even believed that declines in Roman culture could be remedied by returning to more fervent worship of the Roman gods. Due to the tenacity of their beliefs, the Israelites would eventually claim that their god was responsible for placing foreign oppressors in power, for allowing the Israelites to be taken into exile, for orchestrating the outcomes of wars of all the nations around them. It is a perspective that ignores the capability and responsibility of individuals and communities and places control squarely in the hands of an imaginary figure that cannot be controlled.
Except that God can be controlled, in the minds of the ancient Israelites and in the minds of twenty-first century Christians. For the ancient Israelites, God was susceptible to their behavior. If they were faithful to the requirements of their cultural religion, then God would show them favor. If they misbehaved, then God would exercise judgment and wrath. The actions of the people controlled the actions of God. Today, some people believe that they can pray circumstances into being, that fervent prayer will convince God to sway the election in their favor, will help the poor and oppressed in other parts of the world, will change laws about abortion and marriage rights. Prayer is thought to keep people safe on the roads, when actual skill and awareness as a driver probably has more of an impact in that arena. In the minds of some people, if enough people pray with enough faith, no other action is required. As if God will take care of the details and work everything out to benefit us, often at the expense of the less faithful -- or at least at the expense of the people who do not agree with us. The twisted ramifications of this kind of belief are staggering.
We are responsible for our lives and our actions. As individuals, we are responsible for our personal choices and decision, and as a collective we are responsible for the outcomes of our collective decisions. God did not put David on the throne of Israel; a bunch of people with swords and the will to use them put David on the throne. God does not send hurricanes to punish sinners; hurricanes and other disasters are just a natural part of the world we inhabit. God does not determine the outcomes of wars, and belief in God does not justify any measure of violence against other human beings. Violence in the world is fully the responsibility of the people who carry out the violence, whether they be gang members or decorated soldiers. God is not a valid scapegoat for human atrocities.
And God is not responsible for elections. Whoever wins or loses, God is not trying to send any sort of message of approval or disappointment. Elections are determined by people. Perhaps there are problems worth addressing in the system by which leaders are elected, but those problems are within the sole purview of human beings, not an external divine agent. If we want our lives to be better, it is our responsibility to make them so. If we want other people's lives to be better, then we must do more than toss pennies into a wishing well. If something within us is calling us to take action to connect with other people, then we are responsible for taking that action. If we want our country to be a better place, then it is up to us to connect with other people in this enormous community -- to connect with them and listen to them, without being so self-assured of our superiority that we will accept no view but our own.
God did not appoint David to leadership, and God is not pulling strings today. But the divine nature within us is constantly at work, calling us to act in ways that are congruent with our deepest selves, seeking connection with other people, challenging us to set aside fear and take responsibility for our impact in the world, for our impact on other people. When belief in God becomes an excuse for people to set aside personal responsibility, it is time to examine that belief very critically. When belief in God becomes an excuse for feeling superior, it is time to examine oneself very critically. When belief in God becomes an excuse for hatred and violence, it is time to look in the mirror and ask, "What do I stand for?"
When Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God, he used one word to summarize that ideal: love. The ancient Israelites didn't get it. Their histories are full of the evidence that they floundered to make sense of their cultural religion. Their beliefs led them in many directions as a result. If our belief leads us in any other direction than love, then our belief serves neither us nor the world. Whether you believe in God, in the divine within each person, or in something else entirely, the only valid application of that belief is ultimately love. How is that love being expressed in your life and speech and actions today?
In this election season, as with some previous elections, certain Christian leaders are suggesting that the outcome of the presidential elections will reflect either God's blessing on America or God's judgment. To listen to some people speak, it is as if the elections have nothing to do with voters or the electoral college and everything to do with divine intervention. While there is nothing inherently morally or ethically wrong about seeking comfort from a belief in a divine plan, the ramifications of that belief are potentially dangerous, especially when people stop thinking for themselves and allow other extremist views to abuse their belief in divine providence for personal gain.
It's healthily optimistic to say that good can come from any circumstance, or that there is something to be learned from every situation. This kind of thinking prompts people to take some measure of responsibility for outcomes in their lives, and it encourages awareness of opportunities rather than restrictions. When this thinking shifts to some external entity, however, it becomes more dangerous. It blurs the clear lines between the things over which people have authentic power in their lives and the things that are beyond their control. On the one hand, if it becomes God's responsibility to work everything out for good, then personal power is minimized. People develop a perception of themselves as weak and incapable. On the other hand, if people believe that God is going to work things out for their benefit (often at a cost to someone else) this can lead to a sense of superiority that is unwarranted and harmful.
To address the first scenario, people are simply not weak and incapable. There are systems in place in various parts of the world that are oppressive, and there are natural limits to what an individual can control. In terms of how one is going to live in the midst of one's circumstances, however, people have power over their own choices and decisions. Even in America, where most twenty-first century citizens know nothing of real oppression, if circumstances don't line up to our desires, we cry out as though our value as human beings was at stake. Some people believe that they are oppressed when someone merely voices an opinion different from theirs. Of course, some of this is for show. Melodramatic righteous indignation can be convincing. People are not really so weak that another person's opinion can harm them. And yet, we often play the victim rather than create the lives we truly want.
There are places in the world in which dictators and tyrants take action against defenseless innocent people. Some people would suggest that the United States military takes action against defenseless innocent people. This certainly reflects an authentic powerlessness to control the behavior of those who are willing to abuse their authority at the expense of others. Our power as human beings does not extend to the actions of others, but everyone everywhere has the personal capability to manage their own thoughts and behaviors if they choose to do so. Sometimes this is admittedly a challenge.
Belief that God is in full control of all the world's activities often gives people a skewed sense of reality, though. If God exerts such active control that he chooses leaders, then God is also responsible for all of the tyrants and malevolent dictators in various parts of the world. If God sends hurricanes to punish a group of people, he is also responsible for every natural disaster that has made life more challenging for deeply religious people. He is responsible for every earthquake, tsunami, and mudslide that profoundly impacted the very impoverished people the Bible says are worthy of compassion. If God chooses sides in war and justifies the military actions of believers, then he is accountable for all of the "collateral damage" in terms of innocent lives and economic and political turmoil that results from those military actions. Is he also responsible for traffic collisions? Plant explosions? Gang violence? The housing bubble? Where does his control over people's actions stop and personal responsibility begin?
The ancient Israelites looked at their history and saw successes and failures, heroes and tyrants, and they determined that their god was responsible for their circumstances. Other peoples in the ancient world had similar perspectives. Various Roman emperors, ruling a thousand years after David, even believed that declines in Roman culture could be remedied by returning to more fervent worship of the Roman gods. Due to the tenacity of their beliefs, the Israelites would eventually claim that their god was responsible for placing foreign oppressors in power, for allowing the Israelites to be taken into exile, for orchestrating the outcomes of wars of all the nations around them. It is a perspective that ignores the capability and responsibility of individuals and communities and places control squarely in the hands of an imaginary figure that cannot be controlled.
Except that God can be controlled, in the minds of the ancient Israelites and in the minds of twenty-first century Christians. For the ancient Israelites, God was susceptible to their behavior. If they were faithful to the requirements of their cultural religion, then God would show them favor. If they misbehaved, then God would exercise judgment and wrath. The actions of the people controlled the actions of God. Today, some people believe that they can pray circumstances into being, that fervent prayer will convince God to sway the election in their favor, will help the poor and oppressed in other parts of the world, will change laws about abortion and marriage rights. Prayer is thought to keep people safe on the roads, when actual skill and awareness as a driver probably has more of an impact in that arena. In the minds of some people, if enough people pray with enough faith, no other action is required. As if God will take care of the details and work everything out to benefit us, often at the expense of the less faithful -- or at least at the expense of the people who do not agree with us. The twisted ramifications of this kind of belief are staggering.
We are responsible for our lives and our actions. As individuals, we are responsible for our personal choices and decision, and as a collective we are responsible for the outcomes of our collective decisions. God did not put David on the throne of Israel; a bunch of people with swords and the will to use them put David on the throne. God does not send hurricanes to punish sinners; hurricanes and other disasters are just a natural part of the world we inhabit. God does not determine the outcomes of wars, and belief in God does not justify any measure of violence against other human beings. Violence in the world is fully the responsibility of the people who carry out the violence, whether they be gang members or decorated soldiers. God is not a valid scapegoat for human atrocities.
And God is not responsible for elections. Whoever wins or loses, God is not trying to send any sort of message of approval or disappointment. Elections are determined by people. Perhaps there are problems worth addressing in the system by which leaders are elected, but those problems are within the sole purview of human beings, not an external divine agent. If we want our lives to be better, it is our responsibility to make them so. If we want other people's lives to be better, then we must do more than toss pennies into a wishing well. If something within us is calling us to take action to connect with other people, then we are responsible for taking that action. If we want our country to be a better place, then it is up to us to connect with other people in this enormous community -- to connect with them and listen to them, without being so self-assured of our superiority that we will accept no view but our own.
God did not appoint David to leadership, and God is not pulling strings today. But the divine nature within us is constantly at work, calling us to act in ways that are congruent with our deepest selves, seeking connection with other people, challenging us to set aside fear and take responsibility for our impact in the world, for our impact on other people. When belief in God becomes an excuse for people to set aside personal responsibility, it is time to examine that belief very critically. When belief in God becomes an excuse for feeling superior, it is time to examine oneself very critically. When belief in God becomes an excuse for hatred and violence, it is time to look in the mirror and ask, "What do I stand for?"
When Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God, he used one word to summarize that ideal: love. The ancient Israelites didn't get it. Their histories are full of the evidence that they floundered to make sense of their cultural religion. Their beliefs led them in many directions as a result. If our belief leads us in any other direction than love, then our belief serves neither us nor the world. Whether you believe in God, in the divine within each person, or in something else entirely, the only valid application of that belief is ultimately love. How is that love being expressed in your life and speech and actions today?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Numbers 5: Forgiveness and Communication Is Just So Much Simpler
Numbers chapter 5 brings up some issues that have already been addressed in previous books of scripture: atonement and adultery. Unlike some previous verses dealing with adultery, we now get a formula that the priest is supposed to follow if a husband suspects that his wife has been unfaithful. The wife really has no say in the matter, and let's face it, refusing to succumb to the priest's "faithfulness test" would probably be seen as an admission of guilt, the punishment for which is death by stoning. The formula assumes that there is nothing wrong with a husband being so jealous that he would make a spectacle of dragging his wife before a priest to have her tested. On top of that, as you can see, the "test" is really little more than witchcraft.
On the topic of atonement, this chapter of Numbers commands that any Israelite who has wronged another person should confess and make restitution. Some people today still expect that if someone has wronged them, that individual should take it upon themselves to apologize and seek to make amends, but that doesn't always happen. To make matters more complicated for modern-day Christians, the New Testament solution for these sorts of problems is for the "victim" to forgive. That's right, when someone has committed some hurtful act against you, Jesus doesn't say that they should offer a elaborate sacrifice. When you suspect your spouse of being unfaithful, Jesus doesn't say you should drag her before a priest so he can perform some hocus-pocus. His answer is, when people wrong you, forgive them.
This is one of those times when the simplest answer isn't necessarily the easiest answer, but there really is no reason to complicate things. If you have done something which has brought harm to another person, admit it and make whatever amends you are able. It's as simple as that. If someone else has brought harm to you, don't dwell on it, just forgive them and move on. There's no reason to be a doormat, but there's also no reason to bear a grudge. You can learn something from the situation and exercise more wisdom in the future, but once a deed is done, it's done. Forgive and put the matter to rest. People may not even realize that you think they've done something wrong, so stewing and waiting around for them to apologize is pointless. Even should you decide to inform people of their wrongdoing, they won't always respond the way you want. Forgive them, learn your lesson, and get on with your life.
Of course, if you have a relationship with more longevity, like what one would hope for in a marriage, it helps to cultivate open and honest communication. Forgiveness is still key, but it's also helpful to let the person with whom you're planning to spend the rest of your life know what you're thinking. That sort of meaningful communication requires vulnerability, not a power trip. It certainly doesn't require a priest to perform any special magical ceremonies. Simply communicate with the people you care about. If they don't accept what you reveal about yourself, it's better to know that truth than to live a lie. It's more likely that they have their own fears about being vulnerable, and they may even be grateful that you make vulnerability seem safe.
If you want to hold on to grudges and spend entire relationships protecting yourself, no one can stop you. Imagine for a moment what kind of life that would be. How satisfying and enjoyable is a life without vulnerability? How satisfying and enjoyable is a life spent demanding that other people apologize for what they've done to you? However counter-intuitive it may seem, meaningful relationships result from apologizing when you legitimately have something to apologize for, practicing forgiveness instead of holding grudges, and embracing vulnerable, honest communication in the relationships you value. That's not overtly Christian, it's just healthy human behavior.
It may be tempting to base decisions on how we think someone will react. In fact, we can probably come up with plenty of excuses for why we shouldn't own up to our misdeeds or forgive people who have somehow wronged us. Any excuse we come up with is ultimately going to boil down to one word: fear. The truth of the matter is that being honest and forgiving actually makes our own lives better. Fear saps us of energy. Grudges rob us of opportunities. Trying to hide from the truth about our own actions is exhausting. Being honest in our communication and forgiving people frees us to focus on the things that are actually important in life. Life doesn't have to be complicated.
On the topic of atonement, this chapter of Numbers commands that any Israelite who has wronged another person should confess and make restitution. Some people today still expect that if someone has wronged them, that individual should take it upon themselves to apologize and seek to make amends, but that doesn't always happen. To make matters more complicated for modern-day Christians, the New Testament solution for these sorts of problems is for the "victim" to forgive. That's right, when someone has committed some hurtful act against you, Jesus doesn't say that they should offer a elaborate sacrifice. When you suspect your spouse of being unfaithful, Jesus doesn't say you should drag her before a priest so he can perform some hocus-pocus. His answer is, when people wrong you, forgive them.
This is one of those times when the simplest answer isn't necessarily the easiest answer, but there really is no reason to complicate things. If you have done something which has brought harm to another person, admit it and make whatever amends you are able. It's as simple as that. If someone else has brought harm to you, don't dwell on it, just forgive them and move on. There's no reason to be a doormat, but there's also no reason to bear a grudge. You can learn something from the situation and exercise more wisdom in the future, but once a deed is done, it's done. Forgive and put the matter to rest. People may not even realize that you think they've done something wrong, so stewing and waiting around for them to apologize is pointless. Even should you decide to inform people of their wrongdoing, they won't always respond the way you want. Forgive them, learn your lesson, and get on with your life.
Of course, if you have a relationship with more longevity, like what one would hope for in a marriage, it helps to cultivate open and honest communication. Forgiveness is still key, but it's also helpful to let the person with whom you're planning to spend the rest of your life know what you're thinking. That sort of meaningful communication requires vulnerability, not a power trip. It certainly doesn't require a priest to perform any special magical ceremonies. Simply communicate with the people you care about. If they don't accept what you reveal about yourself, it's better to know that truth than to live a lie. It's more likely that they have their own fears about being vulnerable, and they may even be grateful that you make vulnerability seem safe.
If you want to hold on to grudges and spend entire relationships protecting yourself, no one can stop you. Imagine for a moment what kind of life that would be. How satisfying and enjoyable is a life without vulnerability? How satisfying and enjoyable is a life spent demanding that other people apologize for what they've done to you? However counter-intuitive it may seem, meaningful relationships result from apologizing when you legitimately have something to apologize for, practicing forgiveness instead of holding grudges, and embracing vulnerable, honest communication in the relationships you value. That's not overtly Christian, it's just healthy human behavior.
It may be tempting to base decisions on how we think someone will react. In fact, we can probably come up with plenty of excuses for why we shouldn't own up to our misdeeds or forgive people who have somehow wronged us. Any excuse we come up with is ultimately going to boil down to one word: fear. The truth of the matter is that being honest and forgiving actually makes our own lives better. Fear saps us of energy. Grudges rob us of opportunities. Trying to hide from the truth about our own actions is exhausting. Being honest in our communication and forgiving people frees us to focus on the things that are actually important in life. Life doesn't have to be complicated.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Exodus 3-4: Purpose, Passion, and "Calling" Come from Within (no shrubbery conflagrations required)
Moses’ story continues in Exodus 3-4, in which he is called by God to return to Egypt and negotiate the release of the Israelites from the country. When Moses argues that he isn’t capable of the task, God teaches him some magic tricks (gimmicks that were known by other “sorcerers” of the time). When Moses still resists, God angrily suggests that Moses’ brother Aaron can help. God also promises that there will be “dramatic displays of power” that will convince Pharaoh to do what God wants, and that God will forcibly keep Pharaoh stubborn until the displays of power have run their course. If Pharaoh acquiesced after the first couple of plagues, it would be like the audience leaving before the grand finale. As icing on the cake, God promises Moses that the Egyptians will heap wealth upon the Israelites when they leave, going so far as to label it a robbery on the part of the Israelites.
Then there is this tricky little scene that is so fraught with pronouns and euphemism that every translation says something slightly different. Basically, when Moses fled Egypt and ran to Midian for safety, he married Zipporah and adopted the cultural and religious practices of the Midianites. As such, Moses’ son went uncircumcised. When Moses and his family set off for Egypt, after God has gone through a great ordeal to convince Moses to even consider the journey, the Lord decides that Moses’ son needs to die because he wasn’t circumcised. So, with her son in the throes of what appeared to be a life-threatening illness, Zipporah gave in and circumcised her son. Depending on the translation, this was either something done with an understanding of symbolic ritual, or it was a repulsive act she performed out of desperation for her son’s life. Either way, once he’s circumcised, the boy gets better.
The matter of free will is certainly central to how things play out for the character of Pharaoh, and there will be plenty of opportunity to explore that in later passages. Having established the character of the biblical patriarchs and their god in our exploration of the book of Genesis, it is not of utmost importance to go through each verse in meticulous detail to point out further moral, ethical, and psychological issues with the narrative and its characters. It is more useful to look beyond the assumptions of the text and draw spiritual insight that can be meaningful in everyday life.
Accepting that the divine is something within us rather than outside of us, there are some significant ideas in Moses’ confrontation with the divine that are worthy of consideration. The divine is displayed as a burning bush which is never consumed. Fire can be frightening and fascinating. We talk about a people having a “fire in their bellies” or being “on fire” for a particular cause because we recognize the similarities between actual fire and human passion. Passion for an ideal or for another person can at times be frightening as well. It may threaten to overwhelm us and take precedence over everything else in our lives. Some of us tend to be afraid of being controlled by our passions, but it’s foolish to try to ignore them completely.
The things that we are passionate about stem from our essence. They are deep truths about us becoming manifest. Everyone isn’t passionate about the same things or in the same way, but there is something that burns within every person, untamed, unquenchable, and ultimately unavoidable. When we stoke our passions, they burn brighter, and when we ignore them, our own energy and sense of purpose gets consumed. There are ways to focus our passions and maintain them in a way that doesn’t run roughshod over every other aspect of our lives. However, in order to manage that fire, we have to embrace that it exists and that it is divine.
To say that the passions we have are divine is to acknowledge that they originate in that place of deep truth, beauty, and creativity within us. If it seems that the most obvious way to express our passions is to do something harmful to ourselves or another human being, we are missing something. The fires of our true passions are not about gaining power, but rather they inspire us to exercise the power we already possess in a meaningful way. That may seem like a challenge sometimes, but the reward is authentic connection with ourselves.
When Moses asks the burning bush for a name, the response is “I am who I am” (depending on the translation). While this is often interpreted as an indication as to the character of the Israelites’ god, it is also a healthy point of view for us to adopt about ourselves. We spend so much time worrying about being healthier, skinnier, more beautiful, wealthier, happier, more socially connected, more influential, more knowledgeable, more vindicated, and on and on. We are who we are. We can aim for lofty goals, provided those goals are tempered in the reality of our capabilities. That is precisely what our passions drive us to do. But any time and energy we spend detailing the ways in which we don’t measure up to some arbitrary ideal is squandered time and energy.
All of us can name some essential truths about ourselves. They may be character traits or things we experience for just a moment. We may think of them as positive or negative, but truth is simply true. If a person is sad… or unsociable… or fearful… or obese… or angry… or whatever, judging that state of being as inappropriate or wrong is a denial of truth. People are able to take action and make changes, but in order to travel to any destination, you have to be aware of your starting point. You are who you are. I am who I am. That is a divine truth.
Acknowledging who we are includes acknowledging the passions that blaze within us. If your passion is making birdhouses, it doesn’t make sense to spend all of your time campaigning for a political cause. There are other people who are passionate about various political causes, and it wouldn’t make sense for them to spend all of their time building birdhouses. Other people do not have to validate who you are. Who you are is simply true. People will not always agree on what is most important in life, in politics, in industry. But no one can determine what is most important to you except you.
Like Moses, we often make excuses as well. Fire is scary. Passion is scary. Truth can even be scary if we are accustomed to thoughtlessly accepting other people’s opinions as our own truth. There are plenty of resources on the market to help people stop procrastinating, stop making excuses, and take action. The key is that you know when you are making excuses. You may fool yourself into thinking that the excuses are true, but the part of you that burns with inspiration knows better. The truth of who you are is not a secret to you, although for some there are decades of excuses piled on top of that unquenchable fire.
Within each of us, that which we call “divine” burns with a passion for something that honors the truth of who we are in congruence with the value of every human being. It may be birdhouses. It may be freedom for people suffering in addiction. It may be dancing. You are who you are. You know what your excuses are. You can be done with them whenever you are ready.
Then there is this tricky little scene that is so fraught with pronouns and euphemism that every translation says something slightly different. Basically, when Moses fled Egypt and ran to Midian for safety, he married Zipporah and adopted the cultural and religious practices of the Midianites. As such, Moses’ son went uncircumcised. When Moses and his family set off for Egypt, after God has gone through a great ordeal to convince Moses to even consider the journey, the Lord decides that Moses’ son needs to die because he wasn’t circumcised. So, with her son in the throes of what appeared to be a life-threatening illness, Zipporah gave in and circumcised her son. Depending on the translation, this was either something done with an understanding of symbolic ritual, or it was a repulsive act she performed out of desperation for her son’s life. Either way, once he’s circumcised, the boy gets better.
The matter of free will is certainly central to how things play out for the character of Pharaoh, and there will be plenty of opportunity to explore that in later passages. Having established the character of the biblical patriarchs and their god in our exploration of the book of Genesis, it is not of utmost importance to go through each verse in meticulous detail to point out further moral, ethical, and psychological issues with the narrative and its characters. It is more useful to look beyond the assumptions of the text and draw spiritual insight that can be meaningful in everyday life.
Accepting that the divine is something within us rather than outside of us, there are some significant ideas in Moses’ confrontation with the divine that are worthy of consideration. The divine is displayed as a burning bush which is never consumed. Fire can be frightening and fascinating. We talk about a people having a “fire in their bellies” or being “on fire” for a particular cause because we recognize the similarities between actual fire and human passion. Passion for an ideal or for another person can at times be frightening as well. It may threaten to overwhelm us and take precedence over everything else in our lives. Some of us tend to be afraid of being controlled by our passions, but it’s foolish to try to ignore them completely.
The things that we are passionate about stem from our essence. They are deep truths about us becoming manifest. Everyone isn’t passionate about the same things or in the same way, but there is something that burns within every person, untamed, unquenchable, and ultimately unavoidable. When we stoke our passions, they burn brighter, and when we ignore them, our own energy and sense of purpose gets consumed. There are ways to focus our passions and maintain them in a way that doesn’t run roughshod over every other aspect of our lives. However, in order to manage that fire, we have to embrace that it exists and that it is divine.
To say that the passions we have are divine is to acknowledge that they originate in that place of deep truth, beauty, and creativity within us. If it seems that the most obvious way to express our passions is to do something harmful to ourselves or another human being, we are missing something. The fires of our true passions are not about gaining power, but rather they inspire us to exercise the power we already possess in a meaningful way. That may seem like a challenge sometimes, but the reward is authentic connection with ourselves.
When Moses asks the burning bush for a name, the response is “I am who I am” (depending on the translation). While this is often interpreted as an indication as to the character of the Israelites’ god, it is also a healthy point of view for us to adopt about ourselves. We spend so much time worrying about being healthier, skinnier, more beautiful, wealthier, happier, more socially connected, more influential, more knowledgeable, more vindicated, and on and on. We are who we are. We can aim for lofty goals, provided those goals are tempered in the reality of our capabilities. That is precisely what our passions drive us to do. But any time and energy we spend detailing the ways in which we don’t measure up to some arbitrary ideal is squandered time and energy.
All of us can name some essential truths about ourselves. They may be character traits or things we experience for just a moment. We may think of them as positive or negative, but truth is simply true. If a person is sad… or unsociable… or fearful… or obese… or angry… or whatever, judging that state of being as inappropriate or wrong is a denial of truth. People are able to take action and make changes, but in order to travel to any destination, you have to be aware of your starting point. You are who you are. I am who I am. That is a divine truth.
Acknowledging who we are includes acknowledging the passions that blaze within us. If your passion is making birdhouses, it doesn’t make sense to spend all of your time campaigning for a political cause. There are other people who are passionate about various political causes, and it wouldn’t make sense for them to spend all of their time building birdhouses. Other people do not have to validate who you are. Who you are is simply true. People will not always agree on what is most important in life, in politics, in industry. But no one can determine what is most important to you except you.
Like Moses, we often make excuses as well. Fire is scary. Passion is scary. Truth can even be scary if we are accustomed to thoughtlessly accepting other people’s opinions as our own truth. There are plenty of resources on the market to help people stop procrastinating, stop making excuses, and take action. The key is that you know when you are making excuses. You may fool yourself into thinking that the excuses are true, but the part of you that burns with inspiration knows better. The truth of who you are is not a secret to you, although for some there are decades of excuses piled on top of that unquenchable fire.
Within each of us, that which we call “divine” burns with a passion for something that honors the truth of who we are in congruence with the value of every human being. It may be birdhouses. It may be freedom for people suffering in addiction. It may be dancing. You are who you are. You know what your excuses are. You can be done with them whenever you are ready.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)