A Culture War Conundrum

sister-wives-tlc

Ah, here’s a tricky one.

According to a report by Daniella Silva of NBC News:

A federal judge has found key parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law to be unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a polygamous family known for their reality television show.

While all 50 states across the nation have laws against bigamy, prohibiting people from having multiple marriage licenses, the law went further in Utah, finding a person guilty of bigamy when a married person “purports to marry another or cohabits with another person.”

But Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that the “cohabitation” provision of the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to due process. His 91-page ruling now criminalizes plural marriages only in the literal sense, through acquisition of multiple marriage licenses.

The decision follows years of litigation in a case brought forth by Kody Brown, a star of the TLC reality television show “The Sister Wives,” which chronicles the lives of Brown, his four wives and their 17 children. The Browns are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, a fundamentalist church that shares historical roots with Mormonism and believes that polygamy is a core religious practice.

Kody Brown made a statement, saying, “While we know that many people do not approve of plural families, it is our family and based on our beliefs. Just as we respect the personal and religious choices of other families, we hope that in time all of our neighbors and fellow citizens will come to respect our own choices as part of this wonderful country of different faiths and beliefs.”

The Principle Rights Coalition, a group with members from many of Utah’s polygamous churches and families, issued a statement praising the ruling:

For over 130 years, various state and federal statutes have targeted our deeply-held religious beliefs and family arrangements.  These statutes were enforced arbitrarily and, by their vague and overbroad definitions, they brought fear into the lives of many families, prompting thousands to seek isolation rather than face selective prosecution.  As Judge Waddoups observed in this case, convictions for unlawful cohabitation appear to have focused solely on Fundamentalist Mormons who were legally married to just one spouse.

…The impact of this decision is both immediate and yet to be realized.  As a coalition, we will continue to seek broader acceptance through education and service, building bridges between a maligned culture and the rest of society.  We remain committed to the right of all families to exist.

As might be expected, social conservatives lamented that this ruling indicates another slide down the “slippery slope” toward redefining marriage to mean anything people want it to mean. For example, CNN ran this quote:

This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother and a father committed to each other for life,” said Russell Moore, of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated, again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.

However, one commentator is of the opinion that his fellow conservatives are missing the point and missing an opportunity in this case. Napp Nazworth thinks that this ruling actually supports conservative values because it is, in reality, more about religious freedom than it is about the redefinition of marriage.

He notes that the judge did not strike down the right of the state to define marriage as it pertains to the issuance of marriage licenses. The judge also said there is no inherent right to polygamy. What he ruled unconstitutional was the part of the law that forbids cohabitation and “marriages” such as those that might be blessed in private religious ceremonies. The plaintiffs did not ask the state to endorse polygamy by issuing multiple marriage licenses; they only asked that they be free to live together according to the dictates of their religious beliefs. As Nazworth summarizes:

In other words, the judge makes clear that the state is not obligated to legally recognize a polygamist marriage, but if the fundamentalist Mormon Church, to which the defendants belong, want to recognize a polygamist marriage, which their beliefs encourage, they are free to do so.

Mr. Nazworth asserts that, by considering this decision a ruling about marriage, conservatives are contradicting their own arguments in other cases, such as the fight against the “birth control mandate” in the Affordable Care Act, where they insist upon the right not only to hold certain beliefs but also to practice them according to their religious convictions and traditions. This is inconsistent logic.

It appears that the issue of marriage is so important to its defenders that they are incorrectly viewing the Utah decision through that lens when they should be looking at it from the perspective of religious freedom, according to Nazworth’s reasoning. This case is not, in reality, about defining or redefining marriage but about having the liberty to practice one’s faith.

So, which will it be — guarding the traditional view of marriage? Or siding with the polygamists for religious freedom?

Isn’t that a fine pickle?

They say politics makes strange bedfellows.

Wouldn’t it be something if standing for religious freedom should lead the defenders of traditional marriage to crawl into the sack with Kody Brown and his sister wives?

What Is Advent?

advent-candles-francesa-millerWe are now in the third week of the liturgical season of Advent.  Okay, what does all that mean?  What is Advent?  To quote from my 1964 Mass missal (from the days when Mass was still said in Latin):

The ecclesiastical year begins on the First Sunday of Advent.  The season of Advent is a season of penance and prayer in preparation for the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, and also for His second Coming to judge mankind.  The Masses for Advent strike a note of preparation and repentance mingled with joy and hope; hence, while the penitential purple is worn and the Gloria is omitted, the joyous Alleluia is retained.

There are four Sundays in Advent, marking the four weeks leading up to the feast and season of Christmas.  The Christmas cycle marks “the Mystery of the Incarnation”, as the Easter cycle celebrates “the mystery of the Redemption.”  Lent and Advent are both periods of preparation leading up to the great feasts of the year, and they share a common character of being penitential and expectant.  I think we can see the penitential nature of Lent more easily than we do that of Advent, because Advent ends in Christmas which is joy and celebration.  Lent leads us into Holy Week, the Passion and Death of Christ.  In the same way, we overlook the expectancy that marks Lent since it’s not as easy to ‘look forward’ to a death as it is to a birth.  The purple (or violet, as it is also referred to) of the two seasons is a paradoxical colour, since purple is traditionally the colour of majesty, an imperial colour, but it is also used to denote sorrow, repentance, humiliation (or perhaps better, humility).  We see this double nature in the account of the Passion where Jesus was clad in a purple robe during the mockery by the soldiers and servants (or a scarlet robe, depending on whether it’s the account in Matthew or Mark: the association remains, however, as both scarlet and purple were colours associated with rank and dignity).

But Advent doesn’t end with Christmas; as mentioned in the excerpt above, we also anticipate the Second Coming of Christ when, as we say in the Nicene Creed, “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.”  Lent and Advent both encompass christological, eschatological and soteriological themes.  And now I’ve hauled out the Big Words and made you all think I know something about theology, I will talk a little regarding my thoughts about Advent.

First, when I consider the word itself, the name of the season, “Advent”, it brings to mind these phrases:

  1. Adveniat regnum tuum.  You’ll know this from the “Our Father”, meaning “Thy kingdom come”. 
  2. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.  Catholics are familiar with this from the Sanctus prayer during the Liturgy of the Eucharist; it comes from the Gospel of Matthew describing the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and means “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”. 
  3. As we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.  That’s the version most of us grew up with when going to Mass; in the new translation it’s been reformulated as “As we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ”.  It’s from the shor t prayer said after the recitation of the “Our Father” in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Those are the three themes of Advent: the eschatological, soteriological and christological.  We recall the anticipation and the longing of our forebears of the Old Testament for the coming of the Messiah; we lead up to our commemoration of the First Coming of Christ in His Incarnation as the child of Bethlehem; we wait in our turn for the Second Coming and the establishment of the Kingdom.  The Messiah and His Kingdom were not the way they were anticipated by the people of Israel; instead of a prophet or king, God Himself became Man and saved us not by force of arms but by surrender and death, and the Kingdom He came to establish is both “now and not yet”.  It will also probably do us no harm to remind ourselves that, just as the Jews did not get the king of David’s line who would drive out the Romans and re-establish Israel as a worldly power that they were expecting, so the form of the Kingdom to come (despite “Left Behind” style theology) will probably be very different to our imaginings of it.

Continue reading “What Is Advent?”

Thoughts on the Godhead — Part Two

Darwin_mountain_range“Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the incarnate Deity …”

—Charles Wesley

 

On the surface, my last essay was a vacation narrative. Metaphorically, it was a picture (albeit inadequate) of what it is like to diligently seek after Holy God and to try to know him. Every foray, however purposeful and strenuous it seems to us, is as nothing. It’s no better than examining a pebble that has fallen off a mountain that stands in a vast range of mountains that span the length of a continent in the middle of a planet that hangs in a solar system in a galaxy of numberless galaxies in all of Space. And then, there is another pebble … and another. It is exhilarating and exhausting and dangerous and never ending. It is impossible.

I don’t come to this subject as a theologian. In fact, I probably shouldn’t have come to it all as I have written and thrown out, written and thrown out, three times over and decided to share only one real conclusion with you. Besides, two thousand words is a pittance and I’m very likely to make a fool of myself whether with two thousand or twenty thousand. I lack letters and periods behind my name and the years of formal education they would indicate. But I have loved God for thirty-eight years and I love to try to think about God … who he is and what he is like … a subject higher and deeper than my frail humanity will allow. Perhaps it is this frailness or a shaky spiritual formation (if one could call it that) that has put emphasis on separating Father, Son and Spirit and categorizing the qualities of each rather than on the Godhead’s divine communion and indivisible proceeding.

I can’t really blame my background or myself. I’ve come to the conclusion that, like trying to explore every square inch of the great and vast and dangerous American West (see Part One) in one vacation or in many vacations over a whole lifetime, the Godhead is not to be discerned or explained by one mind or by the cumulative mind of man, in one moment or in all the moments of time and history. Every time we open our mouths to speak on it or put pen to paper to write about it, no matter the inspiration God breathes into us, we will leave something out. We cannot describe the fullness and mystery and speech-defying indivisibility of the Godhead in a few succinct sentences. We are left to dribble it out on page after page of Scripture and in spiritual writings and hymns and psalms and in creations of art and expressions of love and acts of compassion and mercy and goodness over lifetimes and generations and centuries and eons of history. And still it is not enough.

After all, we can only look at one pebble at a time. As finite beings with finite understandings and finite tools for communicating, we stop well short of complete understanding, let alone expression. It’s a problem that may be responsible for most of the ruckus in the history of the Church. Whatever our brothers fail to perceive or express (in our opinion) is cause for us to pounce, or for them to pounce where we fail.

Continue reading “Thoughts on the Godhead — Part Two”

Thoughts on the Godhead — Part One

Montana“There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the Divinity. It is a subject so vast, that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity; so deep, that our pride is drowned in its infinity … nothing will so magnify the whole soul of man … Then go, plunge yourself in the Godhead’s deepest sea …”—J.I. Packer

 

[The following story was originally intended as a brief intro, but is now expanded to be part one. If you don’t mind being taken for ride out West, we’ll get to spiritualizing in part two this afternoon.]

A few years ago, when our oldest daughter was newly married, we planned a family vacation and, for the first time, included someone who wasn’t born in … our son-in-law. The prospect put me under intense pressure. My husband had decided where we were going. The West had always been our happy place and we tried to get there every few years. Our own kids knew what to expect … mountains, big skies, simplicity and communing with nature. But suddenly I was faced with entertaining a new member, one whose biological family was accustomed to beach vacations and good restaurants. I have nothing against beaches and good restaurants, but our modi operandi are grueling road trips, meals out of the cooler and digs off the beaten path.

I went to work diligently planning the route, the stops, the accommodations and day trips in every direction from the cabin where we would stay. We would cram as much West into a week as we could and try to make sure our son-in-law loved it as much as we did by the time it was over.

On the way out, we made visits to several historic sites including the windswept, rattlesnake-infested hills where Custer made his last stand at the Battle of Little Big Horn. We met bison too close for comfort at Custer State Park and peered at the giant granite faces carved by dynamite into the side of Mount Rushmore. We locked our keys in the car in the Badlands and worried about the prospect of being eaten by wolves if a ranger didn’t show up to break into our car before sundown. He did.

Our stay in a cabin in Red Lodge, Montana was not without its perils either. We woke up to drink coffee on the back porch and listen to the sounds of creek waters crashing over its rock-strewn bed thirty yards away and noticed the yard moving. It was alive with dozens of snakes … apparently one price of admission to God’s country.

Later that morning, we encountered another treacherous consequence to exploration of the still Wild West when we started our trip over the scenic Bear Tooth Pass to Yellowstone Park. A young couple sat stunned and bloody at the side of the road with a dead deer half in and half out their shattered windshield. We stopped to offer help, but a sheriff arrived at the same time and waved us on. The switchbacks proved too much for my eldest daughter who was severely stricken with altitude sickness. We drove with the windows down despite the frigid air in the upper climes. My son-in-law faithfully deposited the up-chuck bags in bear-proof trash containers at every stop until the sickness wore off and we could finally have some fun. Opting to save Yellowstone for another day as we’d gotten off to a slow start, we veered off the Bear Tooth to a ranger station and asked for a map and guide to a family friendly hike. We worried mostly about bears, but encountered a moose instead. Moose are grumpy and dangerous too, so we gave it a wide berth and lost thirty minutes just waiting for it to finish grazing and move a safe distance from where we needed to pass. The older kids went farther up the trail to find a lake and my husband and I decided to head back to the car with our young daughter. She wasn’t up to the lengthy hike. Then we realized we’d left one of our two-way radios in a boulder field half a mile back. What to do? What to do? I left the two of them and ran back while they continued down the trail. Being alone gave me the creeps. I felt watched, whether by that moose or mountain lions or bears. I prayed the whole way and though I was afraid, I was also hyper conscious of being fully upon that Montana mountainside. I was experiencing the air, the pines, the rocks and the creatures I had seen and sensed around me. I could have read about it in a book, but here I was rewarded with a joy I’d driven seventeen hundred purposeful miles to find.

Fortunately, God protected us in his beautiful creation from our own ignorance and humanity that day and the days to follow.

Continue reading “Thoughts on the Godhead — Part One”

The Resurrected Christ at Christmas

Nativity, Strozzi/Angelico
Nativity, Strozzi/Angelico

At this season of the year, when we consider Jesus’ birth and infancy narratives in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and are confronted once more with the fact that they differ from one another, and that the other Gospels do not include any material at all from Jesus’ early life, we invariably must deal with questions of their historicity and nature.

I am no expert on Gospel studies, though I try to keep in touch with trends as much as I can. So anything I write here is designed to be general, an outline of what I consider to be a reasonable way to think about these things. I heartily encourage you to go to the true scholars for detailed theories and arguments.

One person who taught me a great deal about these matters is the late Raymond E. Brown. His biography notes, “In an oft-quoted article, Time magazine named Brown “probably the premier Catholic Scripture scholar in the U.S.,” and the Catholic Theological Society of America named him “the outstanding American Catholic theologian of the year’ (1971). Brown’s primary contributions to N.T. studies were in the Johannine writings, and his two-volume Anchor Bible commentary on John remains my favorite resource for study of the Gospel. He also wrote in detail on the birth and infancy narratives and the passion accounts in the New Testament.

The Gospels: History and Theology

First, let’s consider Raymond Brown’s overall conception of the process by which the Gospels were composed.

Fr. Brown was involved in Vatican II, and with regard to this subject he refers readers to the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1964), which was incorporated into the Council’s documents. In his final book, Christ in the Gospels of the Liturgical Year, he affirms the Instruction’s encouragement for Bible students to pay attention to the three stages of tradition by which the story of the life and teachings of Jesus have come to us.

Stage One: The public ministry of Jesus — During Jesus’ ministry with his disciples, they and others witnessed his teachings and acts. The records that have come to us show that their witness was selective — they concentrate on those aspects of his life that involved his proclamation of God and kingdom, and do not include the kinds of ordinary details about his life and personality that we have come to expect in a modern biography. Brown also warns us that we must hear Jesus in the context of his own culture and background and refrain from reading our contemporary questions and issues back into his words and actions.

Continue reading “The Resurrected Christ at Christmas”

Homily for Advent III: In a Prison Cell of Doubt

John in prison
St. John the Baptist in Prison Visited by Two Disciples, Giovanni di Paolo

In a Prison Cell of Doubt
A sermon for the third Sunday in Advent, 2013

When John heard in prison what the Messiah was doing, he sent word by his disciples and said to him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.’

As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written,

“See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.”

Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

– Matthew 11:2-11

* * *

Jesus gives great praise to John the Baptist in today’s Gospel. He commends him as a strong man of truth, a prophet of God, a specially chosen messenger to prepare the way for the Messiah. “Among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist,” Jesus says. We should be impressed by John. We should honor him and look up to him.

Having said that, please notice that Jesus proclaimed these words of commendation at one of the lowest moments in John’s life. In this very same text — where Jesus praises John up one side and down the other — we discover that John was struggling with doubt. He was in prison at the time, where I’m sure it was a challenge to stay positive and not get discouraged. He was so out of sorts and and his mind in such turmoil that he sent messengers to ask Jesus if he was really the One, the coming Messiah, the King God had promised.

This great servant of God found himself locked in a prison cell of doubt.

Imagine that.

Who had devoted his life to preparing Israel for the coming of her Messiah? John.

Who had introduced Jesus to the public? John.

Who had said Jesus was so great that he wasn’t worthy even to tie his sandal? John.

Who had baptized him? Who heard the voice from heaven affirming Jesus as God’s Son? Who had seen the Holy Spirit descending upon him as a dove? John.

Who had pointed to Jesus and proclaimed, “Behold! the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”? John.

Out of that same mouth, now we hear, “Are you the One? Or should we look for another?

We can’t be sure why John was struggling with doubts at that moment. Certainly being in prison couldn’t have helped. But, as Jesus says here, this was no weakling. This was no reed in the wind, easily swayed or broken. Yet he found himself racked with doubts. I wonder why.

Continue reading “Homily for Advent III: In a Prison Cell of Doubt”

Saturday Ramblings 12.14.13

RamblerWe are at the end of another busy week here at the iMonastery. Wrapping paper, ribbons and bows have been flying freely. For a while we couldn’t find Martha until someone looked under the tree and saw a package wiggling just a little too much. No fear—we set her free and fortified her with a large glass of eggnog, so all is well. As a matter of fact, we have all settled down and are enjoying our eggnog—fat-free, as prescribed by Mother Superior Denise. Adam Palmer and Mike Bell baked some gingerbread men cookies, which are full of fat as prescribed by Betty Crocker. Christmastime is upon us. Now all we need is to watch Elf for the 26th time this month and the season will be complete. Well, all except for our Saturday morning ritual. Shall we ramble together?

Pope Francis continues to be rockstar popular. Time named the pope their Man of the Year. I’m sure there are conservative Catholics who are upset with the Bishop of Rome being pictured on the cover of Time. After all, they don’t want a pope who connects with so many people in so many ways, or so it seems. There is no pleasing some people.

But even Pope Francis is not the biggest name in all of history. That crown belongs to … oh come on, you have to ask? But Napoleon at number two? Really?

So there is a news babe on Fox by the name of Megyn Kelly. I say “news babe” because she can’t possibly be a journalist. Ms. Kelly “reported” this week that Jesus and Santa are both white men. “Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change,” Kelly said. “Jesus was a white man, too. It’s like we have, he’s a historical figure that’s a verifiable fact, as is Santa, I just want kids to know that. How do you revise it in the middle of the legacy in the story and change Santa from white to black?” And she gets paid to say things like this? Really? Would someone please introduce her to the Middle East, where men and women are neither black nor white …

Continue reading “Saturday Ramblings 12.14.13”

A Values Charter?

chartervalues
Update: The spam attack seems to be a little more under control.  Thanks for the great comments!

Chaplain Mike had an interesting post this week when he criticized an organization that invited us to patronize businesses that “welcome us and respect our values.” I found it interesting because I wanted to write about another organization that also wants people to respect their values. In this case it is the government of the Province of Quebec in Canada.

Premier Marois is quoted as saying: “To recognize secularism as a Quebec value is to take cognizance of the evolution of a people which, for the past half century, has become increasingly secular and has taken the confessional character out of its institutions.”

This is a move towards a secular society where those providing public services would be banned from wearing “conspicuous” items than have a religious connotation. It would apply to all those providing a public service, including healthcare workers, and educators. In addition those providing or receiving a state service could not do so with a covered face.  The images above are from a poster from the government showing examples of religious symbols that would be banned under their proposed Values Charter.

Baltej Singh Dhillon
There have already been a number of cases in Canada dealing with similar items. In 1990 a Sikh, Baltej Singh Dhillon, was accepted into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He was told that he would have to shave his beard, and discard his turban. He protested and asked, “Is somebody really asking me to protect [the RCMP] tradition, or are they asking me to sacrifice my religion, my principles, my disciplines, my respect in the community, the respect I have from my family, and all the other things that tie into this religion?” In the end the Canadian government ruled that he could wear his turban as part of his uniform, and Mr. Singh has gone on to have a distinguished career with the RCMP.  The  debate over religious items of clothing for the most part was considered settled in Canada.  Until now.  The debate has begun to be rekindled.

It seems though as if societies are always debating “values”.  The recent post by Chaplain Mike talked about a very different set of values than those being proposed by the government of Quebec.  I would like us to continue the discussion begun by Chaplain Mike.   What kind of values do we want for our society?  What kind of values are important to us?  Should our expressions of belief and religion be public or private?  Should one religion dominate society, religion have no place in society, or somewhere in between?  If in between, then what should that look like?  Are the cases mentioned here and in the earlier post both examples of intolerance or a lack of respect for the views, beliefs, and values of others?

One final thought here.  The words “tolerance” and “respect” jumped out at me as I was writing this.  They seem like they might be synonyms, but check out these dictionary definitions:

Tolerance:  “A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own.”

Respect:  “Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability.”

When it comes to the values of others, are the values expressed in these posts intolerant, tolerant, respectful, or even embraced? Where on this continuum should Christians be when it comes to the values that others hold?

The Pastor: Remembering the Poor

 613EHnHjnfL._SL1076_…when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do.

– Galatians 2:9-10

* * *

As Gordon W. Lathrop says in his book, The Pastor: A Spirituality, “‘Remember Jesus Christ’ (2Tim. 2:8) is never far away from ‘remember the poor.'”

The third task of the pastor, along with proclaiming the Word and serving at the Table, is to remember the poor. From the earliest days of the Church, when Paul asked for offerings from mostly Gentile congregations around the Mediterranean to bring relief to their poor brethren in Palestine, pastors have seen to it that collections be taken up and distributed to the poor. Liturgically in the tradition of the Church, this collection has been understood as a necessary corollary to the Lord’s Table. As we, the needy, are fed, so we feed others in need.

Paul’s testimony in Galatians 2 shows that this is a root implication of the Gospel itself. It is the “one thing” the Jerusalem Council urged upon Paul and Barnabas after they agreed upon the unity of Jews and Gentiles under one Gospel. And Paul, his life transformed by the risen Christ, eagerly accepted this calling. In Lathrop’s succinct words: “The Apostle Paul preaches the gospel and remembers the poor.”

This inevitably involves Christians and pastors in political matters. Though I dislike the word and fear the ethos and machinations it so often represents, Lathrop reminds us that the word’s roots are not entangled with political parties and candidates and slogans. Polis simply means the way we organize our life together in communities.

Churches are meant to be part of the communities in which they exist. Too many congregations live in the Christian “bubble” and have little to do with their neighbors or the common life of their neighborhoods, towns, and cities. They may engage in forays out into the community once in awhile on special missions, only to withdraw once more into a “temple” mentality that remains divorced from the world around them.

One of the first marks of the Reformation in Wittenberg and other communities was setting up better ways of caring for the poor and needy. Gordon Lathrop quotes Luther: “As love and support are given to you, you in turn must render love and support to Christ in his needy ones.”

For us today, Lathrop also reminds us that this is not just a matter of taking collections or engaging in special projects: “It also calls the Christian to inhabit, at least with his or her imagination, something of the affliction of our neighbors and of the trauma of the world.” He reminds us that Christians are sent out at the end of the liturgy to “Go in peace and serve the Lord.” We don’t just send our money or goods. We ourselves are sent.

The pastor leads the congregation in this vocation by:

  • Maintaining the well-being of the congregation’s liturgy, which is the source of our continuing vision of Christ and the Good News he came to offer the poor.
  • Faithfully bringing the Word of the Gospel to the congregation, stimulating their imagination toward Christ who feeds us and toward our calling to give ourselves as bread for the hungry. One way he suggests doing this is by making wise use of the liturgical year — especially seasons like Advent and Lent, seasons of reflection and repentance when themes of poverty and need are expressed most clearly.
  • Seeing to a well organized and carefully managed collection that is regularly distributed to meet needs.
  • Remembering that poverty is not only about lack of food or material possessions. There is a poverty of spirit that should be addressed through pastoral care for the weary, fearful, and grieving, practices such as confession and absolution, teaching that guides the ignorant and wayward, and services and acts of healing and reconciliation.

* * *

This is part 5 of a series. Here are links to previous posts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

The Most Loving Thing?

timthumb.php
Building Bridges, Liz Jardine

“The most loving thing anyone can do is tell the truth.”

– John MacArthur (and a host of others)

* * *

It has been an evangelical mantra that I have both said and heard for many years. The sentence may arise in a conversation about evangelism or dealing with someone struggling with sin or the subject of preaching and teaching about spiritual matters. “The most loving thing anyone can do is tell the truth.”

This sentiment is often spoken in defense of someone who has boldly stated an opinion about sin and its consequences. “Telling the truth” means, in this context, saying something that may be difficult for the recipient to hear, but which is for his or her own good. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6). “Telling the truth” is code language for exercising tough verbal love, saying the hard but necessary word of warning, exhortation, or rebuke. It describes a sort of intervention — as one author put it, “Caring enough to confront.”

How can it be loving to say nothing when someone is engaged in destructive thinking or behavior? Aren’t we called to warn others about sin and God’s judgment? If you were about to run off a cliff and I stood by and kept quiet, would that be the loving thing to do?

Those who recommend that “telling the truth” is the most loving thing people can do for one another sometimes appeal to Ephesians 4:15“But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ….”

All kinds of messages, articles, even books have been written about what “speaking the truth in love” looks like. Most of them, however, miss the fact that Ephesians 4 is not addressing our personal relationships and dealings. It is describing how the Church grows by more fully understanding the Gospel and avoiding false gospels that deceive us and keep us immature and unstable in the faith. The passage says that God gave gifted ministers to the Body of Christ to help us have a more mature and grounded faith in Christ. The Word they speak in love enables us to stand strong, united, and growing.

Furthermore, the text does not say it is always loving to speak the truth. It says that, when truth is spoken, it should be done in love. We should not contemplate speaking truth outside the context of love. This suggests to me that truth can, indeed, be spoken without love, and that, therefore, simply “telling the truth” in and of itself is not and cannot be the most loving thing anyone can do.

There are certainly occasions when not speaking the truth (i.e. saying something someone needs to hear for his or her own good) is an unloving sin of omission. Maybe 5-10% of the time. (That’s completely unscientific folks, just my intuition). In my experience, there are relatively few occasions when we absolutely have to say something in order to demonstrate real love. Far, far fewer than most of us think.

If you ask me what “the most loving thing anyone can do” is, therefore, my answer would not be “telling the truth.”

My answer would be: The most loving thing anyone can do is to listen.

To listen.

To learn the truth about the other person rather than tell the truth you think that person needs.

Close your mouth — except to ask questions that will help you understand your neighbor better. Or to encourage her that you really just want to hear what she has to say. Or to affirm that she can feel perfectly safe talking to you.

Open your ears and really listen.

And don’t respond right away to what you hear. Keep that mouth closed. Think about what you are hearing. Learn to appreciate your neighbor’s perspective. Imagine what it’s like to be this other person before you. What life looks like through her eyes. What it feels like to face what she is facing. Listen to how she puts things together in her mind. Consider why she might think that way. Watch body language. Hear the tone of voice. Observe her eyes. Don’t assume you know what she’s thinking and don’t form conclusions.

Make this encounter about her, not about you. Resist the urge to make it about you and what you think, what your opinions are, what you’ve experienced, what you believe, what you count as good and right and true and what you consider wrong and sinful and dangerous.

Give your neighbor your complete attention. Listen. Listen well. Listen deeply. Listen as a learner. Listen and take note of every single thing you can appreciate and affirm.

Do this 95% of the time as you interact with people around you.

Maybe you can build strong enough bridges to bear the weight of telling the truth the other 5% of the time.

* * *

Header Art: Jardine Studio