A Well Intentioned Roommate

A Well Intentioned Roommate

Suppose I have a roommate who cares deeply about me. He notices that I have been working long hours, have been under great stress, and look very tired. In my fatigue, I complain one night that I don't even have time to pay my bills. Later that evening, when I have fallen asleep, my roommate pulls together my bills, goes to my online account, and pays all my bills. The only problem...my roommate has never been good at math and my account is now overdrawn.

 

In the morning, when I wake up, my roommate shows me that my bills are paid. My shock quickly turns to horror as I realize that my account is overdrawn. I respond, "You have overdrawn my account!"

 

Ashamed, he lashes out, "I was only trying to help! Next time, do it yourself!"

 

Chaos

What we have here is a case of a person taking responsibility for something he does not have the authority to do and for which he is not held accountable. This is my definition of chaos--taking responsibility for something for which a person is not held accountable.  In our lives, some of our relationships are in chaos.

 

Purpose

Every relationship has a purpose. One is a spouse, a parent, a child, a sibling, a friend, a neighbor, a student, a citizen, an employee, a doctor, teacher, plumber. Every relationship is defined by at least one purpose. At times, relationships can have multiple purposes--i.e., my neighbor may also be my friend.

 

What Makes a Healthy Relationship?

Authority--This is the power that others have given a person to act in a certain role in a relationship. For example, my congregation has authorized me to serve in the office of Senior Pastor.

 

Responsibility--These are the tasks that are expected to be performed as part of the relationship. For example, the tasks a parent is expected perform include: provide for shelter, food, safety, nurturing environment, discipline.

 

Accountability--One is held accountable for performing the tasks and for the quality of the performance. A good neighbor honors property lines and maintains his property. If not, there may be legal repercussions.

 

What about Feelings?

With a healthy relationship, a person experiences a variety of positive emotions. There is empowerment, acceptance, collegiality, affirmation, affection. Psychologists will tell you, "Feelings follow." That is, when we shape a relationship based on authority, responsibility, and accountability, the positive feelings will follow.

 

When Feelings Take the Driver's Seat

In our highly emotional times, we can fall into the trap of desiring the positive emotions first, without fulfilling the obligations of the relationship. We want to be affirmed, no matter how we act. When this happens, our relationships become troubled and broken.

 

Right Relationships

One definition of the religious word "righteous" is "fulfilling the obligations of one's relationship."(Achtemeir) God is righteous and God makes righteous those who have faith. People of faith have been set free to have healthy relationships. Dare we fall into the trap that Paul mentions in Romans 8: 15? "For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption." Right relationships are healthy relationships.

 

Implications

1. Love can be considered as more than a feeling and more than a concept. Love is primary an action. The action of love is the act of engaging in a relationship in ways that are healthy. Love is the action of living out healthy relationships. Should we start with love as an emotion and apply that to a relationship, the relationship is in an immediate strangle hold. Based purely on a positive emotion like wanting to feel loved, a relationship allows no room for accountability and challenge. Liking can become the key determining factor for what is right or wrong. A leader may refrain from holding an employee accountable for poor performance out of fear of not being liked. An employee may reject challenge that can lead to growth by interpreting the challenge with the conclusion, "She does not like me."

 

2. M. Scott Peck, in People of the Lie, describes what happens to a group of people when one person is chosen as a leader. The others will instantly start to regress. How is it that a leader can lead, without the regression and immaturity of those in the group? I believe a leader can promote maturity by clearly defining the relationships; by giving authority to each group member to act in certain capacities based on that persons interests and skills; by being sure that the person has a clear understanding of their responsibilities and tasks to be performed; and by holding the person accountable for performing the task wit excellence.

 

3. Peck also describes human relationships as lateral. This is helpful in understanding that people are set APART for a purpose, not set ABOVE for a purpose.

 

4. The use of titles helps sustain healthy relationships. This may lead the reader to conclude that I am promoting an archaic way of life. The use of titles, such as Mr., Mrs. Miss, Ms., Dr., Professor, Pastor, Mother, Father, the Honorable serves the purpose of defining the relationship. I insist that members of my congregation use the title Pastor with me. This is not about being heavy handed, power, or control. I believe the use of the title brings clarity to the relationship between pastor and parishioner. Each time a person refers to me as Pastor, I am reminded of the covenant I have made to care for the spiritual well-being of the people in the parish.

 

5. In groups, among staffs, or within leadership circles, clearly defining the relationships can keep the focus on the organization’s mission. The leader of the group does not make all the decisions, but performs the following roles:

            -Keeps the mission and vision in front of the group;

            -Keeps the clarity of roles in place by defining the responsibilities;

            -Has oversight for keeping a good decision making process in place;

            -Holds each  person in the organization accountable for performance

Integrity, Dignity, and Aristocrats--Dignity

Integrity, Dignity, and Aristocrats

A Sermon Series on Economy

Dignity

In this year of westward expansion of thought--what we are calling pioneering--not only are we looking at the capacity for opposites to come together for good, but also taking a radical approach to concepts. A radical approach looks at the root (the literal meaning of the word radical is "root", thus the word radish) of a word and concept, how the word has been used, and the outcome of that usage. I want to apply the radical approach to the word dignity.

"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." This is the slogan of a publication out of the University of Virginia called The Hedgehog Review. In the review, Michael Zuckart unpacks the word dignity.

The Latin root of the word dignity, dignities, means distinction, special merit. Most times, the concept was applied to aristocracy. An aristocrat carries him or herself with an air of distinction. Zuckart writes that dignity is an aristocratic notion, not a democratic one.

Foundational to our nation are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Frequently, Zuckart writes, the right to property is added to the list. American citizens will consent to a government that exists to protect these rights their its laws. The laws of a government that protect these rights are what Zuckart calls "negative laws." Negative laws are laws that make any action that impedes upon the rights of another as illegal. For example, I am not breaking the laws of the nation unless I take your life, or impede your life in such a way that you cannot survive.

Starting at the end of World War 2, after seeing horrific violations of the integrity of others in Germany, international documents were drafted in which the word dignity started to appear. With the use of the word dignity, also came the mention that there were certain goods that were to be mandated for all people, such as social security, holidays, time for rest.

Zuckart states that mandating goods--that which is perceived to be good, is not the customary negative law as mentioned above, but are positive laws. It becomes the mandate of the government to provide that which is good or good for a person.

The use of the word dignity brings the government into the central role of  authority in human life. We have seen a shift from an economically driven country to a government driven country since the Great Depression. Government has been placed at the center of authority without any parallel institution to challenges its assumptions. We lose sight of the reality that the decisions a government makes will be a functional decision, supported by a majority of people, that may or may not be moral.

There is no common definition of what makes something good. We, at this time in the history of our nation, do not have a common set of criteria to determine what is good. Personally, I think this is at the root of our national divide. The foundational rights are in place, yet the definitions of the criteria for good are as diverse as the ideologies espousing them.

This is where the notion of aristocracy connected with dignity returns. It was Marie Antoinette, when confronted with the hunger of her subjects, who stated, "Let them eat cake." The trap of aristocracy is to draw the conclusion, "If people would just like me, and do what I do, and follow my lead, they would be better off."

This may be the end result of the use of the word dignity, and the reason why I believe that the use of the word integrity is better for our conversation on economy. Integrity, among other things, indicates that I know where I stop and your start, where my needs come to an end and where your needs start. Integrity challenges me to refrain from violating our integrity and calls me to be responsible to challenge and possibly restrain those who would violate the integrity of those who cannot defend themselves. Integrity calls me to clearly define myself, and to be in the world a presence that strives to honor the integrity of others.

Integrity, Dignity, and Aristocrats

Integrity, Dignity, and Aristocrats

A Sermon Series on Economy

Integrity

We are in a year of pioneering for our congregation. Part of our "heading west" is in the ways we think. In a culture highly divided, we contend as a congregation that the opposites need to stand in tension with each other. Out of the tension, a new thought may be imagined that is a blessing to humanity and creation. Joel Hunter, in his book A New Kind of Conservative, speaks about Salt--also known as sodium chloride. Sodium, by itself is highly harmful to people. Likewise is Chlorine. Brought together, one has a staple of human life and creation.

In the conversation on economy, I want to bring into tension two ideas from Scripture--Hearing and obeying God's commands and Seeing and being in the presence of God. Walter Brueggeman speaks of these two loving responses to a God who engages Israel in his book An Unsettling God. I borrow heavily from Brueggeman below and mark the next paragraphs with quotation marks to indicate that.

"God has initiated a relationship with God's people. There is an imperative dimension to that relationship. God's people are to order their lives in ways that are appropriate to that relationship. The appropriate response is to resonate with the will, purpose, desire, hope, and intention of God. Two appropriate responses are to listen to God and to see God.

This response includes an obligation to listen to God and do justice, as shown in Deuteronomy 10: 17-20. Listening to God is to attend to the needs of those who are too weak to protect themselves. Wealth and social resources are to be managed and deployed for the enhancement of those who are the weakest. See Proverbs 14:31 and 17:5. The weakest are entitled to such treatment for no other reason than that they are part of the community.

This response also includes an invitation to see God and to be holy. In Exodus 24: 3, 7, not only does Israel hear the commands of God, but in 24: 10-11, they see and behold God. So, God's people not only listen to God and do justice, but are to be in the presence of God, see God, and submit to the overwhelming nature of God. This is based on the concept that it is possible to host God, as we read in the Tabernacle and Temple traditions. This hosting of God is done with great care, costly investment, and scrupulous attention to detail. The investment is a purity or holiness code in which God's people engage to avoid defilement and vulgarity.

So, God's people practice justice for the sake of community and order life in such a way that one is qualified to be in communion with God. This creates a setting of opposites. To be with the weakest is many times to be with the unclean, thus violating the purity codes. To be pure and follow the holiness code, one is removed from those who are weakest and not able to engage in acts of justice.

We do not choose one over the other, but allow them to live in tension with one another. Integrity is the outcome of the two opposites living in tension with each other. To have integrity is to be whole, complete, coherent, innocent, unimpaired, and sound. It is to will one thing, living a life that is undivided, unified in loyalty and intention.

One with integrity practices justice with the weakest and lives with passion the disciplines of holiness. See Pslm 25:21 and 26: 1, 11-12. Every aspect of life--personal, public, cultic, economic--shows complete devotion to God." (Brueggeman, An Unsettling God)

This quality of integrity is what is believers bring to life and conversation about any issue that they face. It is my belief that the conversation on economics is best shaped by rooting it in the need to have integrity oneself and to honor the integrity of others.

What then Should We Do? Answering a Question with a Question.

What then should we do? Answering a question with a question.

 

In a previous blog, I laid my Christian belief over top of the emotions which are a normal and faithful reaction to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Then, I spoke of my Christian belief as a radical (in the sense of getting at the root of the issue) approach to thinking about the shooting.

 

By laying my belief in God over my emotions and starting my thinking from my faith, I have a truth/authority/axiom that has the capacity to restore wholeness to human life. This truth re-integrates humanity and restores humans to their fullest capacity for good. This truth re-integrates humanity and restores humans through a promise of a time when all is set right. Until that time, while we wait, we believe.

 

Do you believe? In the story of the death of Lazarus in the Gospel of John, we read that Lazarus has died and has been buried for 4 days when Jesus arrives in Bethany. Immediately, Jesus is confronted by Martha, the sister of Lazarus. "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died!" Jesus does not answer her accusation by explaining why Lazarus had to die. Instead, he asks a question, "Do you believe?"

 

As we confront the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Do you believe that Christ was born for this?

 

As we find the shock, and fear, and horror well up within us, Do you believe that the hopes and fears of all the years are met in Jesus Christ?

 

In the face of death, when parents should not have to see their own children die, Do you believe that "nails and spears shall pierce Jesus through, the cross that is borne for me and you.?"

 

In this Advent and Christmastide, commonly we hear sections of Handel's Messiah. Indeed, it is the more popular of large works for Christmas. But, J. S. Bach was a better theologian. Listen to closing text of his Christmas Oratorio, sung to the musical theme that is used for the Lenten\Good Friday hymn, "O Sacred Head Now Wounded."

 

 

9. (62.) Aria T

 Now, you arrogant enemies, you may tremble;

 what kind of fear can you arouse in me?

 My treasure, my sanctuary is here with me.

   You may seem still so horrible,

   threatening to defeat me once and for all,

   yet see! My Savior lives here.

 

 

11. (64.) Chorale

 Now you are well avenged

 upon the horde of your enemies,

 since Christ has pulverized

 what was contrary to you.

 Death, devil, sin and hell

 are weakened once and for all;

 the place of the human race

 is next to God.

 

Amen.

What Then Should We Do? Belief as a Radical Approach to Understanding

What then should we do?

 

In my last blog, I laid my Christian belief over top of the emotions so normal and so faithful to witnessing the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Now, I want to start with my Christian belief as a radical (in the sense of getting at the root of the issue) approach to speaking about the shooting.

 

We may want to take the psychological/sociological approach to understanding. There is some benefit to this approach. Coming at the conversation from a psychological approach aids us in naming and defining what was happening emotionally with the shooter. Perhaps, at a certain level, this approach will make the situation understandable by naming and defining what was "wrong with him." There is a long step to make, however, from understandable to acceptable.

 

We may want to take the political approach. As with the psychological approach, there is some benefit to looking at the situation politically. In this methodology, the problem is quickly identified and addressed. The conclusion from the shootings in Connecticut is that assualt weapons brought about this tragedy, so we address assault weapons. In the political system, identified problems are addressed by laws. Laws will most likely be placed on the book against this type of weapon. Yet, I ponder the reality that there is already a law against shooting and killing another, and yet, that law did not stop the shooting from happening. The power of the law is coercion. There is a threat imposed. If you perform this act, this will be the consequence. We call it a deterrent. There is a sentence set down if the law is broken. The power of the law is external to the person, and does not change a person's character or address a person's mental and emotional state.

 

We may want to take the religious approach. Unfortunately, religious life has been dminished to moralism. The shoulds, should nots, and oughts of life are as far as religion may go. On one extreme of this moralism, I will be told that I should love everybody and should not have enemies. The pitfall of this moralizing--we need to learn to recognize and address our enemies for our own safety and security. On the other extreme of this moralism, I will be told the root of the problem is the day we removed prayer and the 10 commandments from the schools. Yet, these children came from faith communities that prayed and believed. And, we have seen shootings, in the past, happen in churches.

 

Certainly, we can also consider the genetic conversation, the decline of the family, the lack of civility, and so forth. While we are unified on the horror of this event in Connecticut, we are divided on how to get at the root of the issue. In that division, we choose one discipline over another. This leads to a dis-integrated society, unable to be brought back to itself.

 

Perhaps it is this dis-intgration that is at the root of the issue. A dis-integrated society is reflective of dis-integrated people--broken, hurting, diminished, desperate, angry, darkness dwelling people.

 

At the root of the word "crisis" is the moment that a verdict is handed down, and a person has to live with himself, his actions, and the consequences of his actions. Those filled with pain, rage, and darkness--dis-integrated--have a diminished capacity  to cope with that verdict and are most susceptible to the power in this world that seeks to destroy and undo the goodness of creation. In the moment of crisis, a person's pain becomes more important to him than the lives of others. He violently violates the lives of other people.

 

By laying my belief in God over my emotions and starting my thinking from my faith, I have a truth, an authority, and axiom that has the capacity to bring life back to wholeness. This truth re-integrates humanity and restores humans to their fullest capacity for good. This truth re-integrates humanity and restores humans through a promise of a time when all is set right. Until that time, while we wait, we believe.

What Then Should We Do? Laying the Truth over Our Emotions

What then should we do?

 

Our feelings are normal and they are faithful. The emotions of horror, sadness, fear, and anger are signs within us that something is wrong. Feelings of sadness, fear, and anger stemming from the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School are normal and faithful for what happened to the children at the school was wrong.

 

Christians can allow room for the very real feelings of being a human. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his book Life Together, writes about the use of emotions in human community. He acknowledges the presence of emotions in human community, but cautions us about the workings of the heart. He writes that the essence of emotion is desire. These desires include "dark and impenetrable urges." Bonhoefer goes on to write about a spiritual community--at the core of which is truth. "The essence of spiritural community is light."

 

Over our emotions, we lay something larger than ourselves--the truth.

 

I believe that this world was created good and created for good. I believe that there is an order to this world that allows all that live within the world to thrive and flourish. I believe that all that lives in this world relates to all other living creatures. I believe that each part of this world has integrity in those relationships. And, most key, I believe that it is God who put this world into place and made the world for good.

 

I also believe that there is a force in this world that has at is core to work against the goodness of the world. This force strives in unpredicatable, uncontrollable, and horrifying ways to undo the order of the world. When this force has its way in the world, all that lives within the world cannot thrive but is destroyed. This force violates the integrity of other living creatures bringing about havoc, destruction, and despair.

 

This force can work through the natural processes, such as cancer cells. It can work through the natural processes, such as natural disasters. And, it can claim the heart of people whose lives are formless, void, and filled with darkness. This force can claim the heart of Adam, and bring about the death of so many people.

 

Foremost, I also believe this. Evil will not have the final word in life. The acts of violation, one person upon another, is not all there is. There is more. God will restore humanity and creation. This act of restoration is the work begun in Jesus Christ, and will be complete on the day of his coming. Death has no more dominion over us. This I truly believe.

What Then Should We Do?

What then Should We Do?

Luke 3: 7-18

The question asked of John the Baptist in Luke is a question that comes easily from our mouths today.

If you were to take the story of John the Baptist from the gospel of Mark and from the gospel of Luke and lay them side by side, we would notice that Luke's account is greatly expanded. Luke includes the question, "What then should we do?" and John's answer to that question. Mark is writing to a community of believers who believed that the return of Jesus was not only imminent, but also immediate. Repentance is all that need be mentioned, for Jesus will return any minute. Luke is writing to a community of believers at least a decade later, who, while still believing in the imminent return of Jesus, do not see the return to be immediate. As a result, there is a need for an ethic. Out of that need comes the question, "What then should we do?"

The response to the question comes to people who have lived first hand the brokenness of human life. There are those who live in poverty. There are those who live under the power of extortion. There are those who are the victims of violence. The ethics that John puts in front of the listeners is one that counters the brokenness of society and brings healing.

What we do is shaped by our feelings.

As we sit horrified by the events in Newtown, Connecticut, we have strong feelings. They may be feelings of horror and deep sadness, feelings of fear, and feelings of anger. These feelings are normal and faithful. It is normal to be horrified by acts of violence such as this. It is normal to feel afraid for our own children following this act of violence. It is normal to be angry at the man who committed this crime and the situations that led to this act of violence. It is normal to have these feelings, and it is faithful to have these feelings.

The feelings of horror, fear, and anger are indicators that something is wrong. It is wrong for a man to enter an elementary school and shoot 20 children and 6 adults to death. It is wrong for parents to send their children off to school in the morning, not to see them again, but knowing their bodies are lying on the floor of the school without the sustenance of their love.

Our feelings are normal and faithful, for they tell us that there is something wrong. When we apply the question, "What then should we do?" I think we must consider this concept. Our feelings are normal and faithful, what we do with them, can make the situation better or the situation worse.

I can, right away, let you know one thing you can do. You can wrestle with God about this tragedy. Our ancestors in the faith, Abraham, Jacob, Job, the psalmists all wrestle with God. We even hear in the words of Jesus as he dies on the cross an echo of the words for Psalm 22, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"