Loving My Neighbor

 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” (Mark 10:36-37)

The one who had mercy - that's the definition of loving our neighbor. It is a love that is active. Practical. Inclusive. It is a love that gives up something of value for the sake of the other. It will consume our time. It will require that we show respect and compassion. It requires looking beyond, and putting aside, differences and instead looking squarely to the humanity, the imago dei, of the other.

Woof. This was a Word for me this morning.

I want "loving my neighbor" to be an abstract, woowoo kind of love that doesn't require much of me other than to "pray for them" -- to talk about them in quiet, concerned tones in my circle of friends at church or in Bible studies or around coffee shop tables -- with folks that are mostly like me. THAT is not love, according to Jesus. 

I want "loving my neighbor" to be spouting "the truth" on social media about them. THAT is not love, according to Jesus.

I want "loving my neighbor" to somehow include laws that dictate and leveraging power that pushes those I disagree with to the margins - or out all together. THAT is not love, according to Jesus.

I want "loving my neighbor" to leave space for casting dispersions, for judgement, for accusation. THAT is not love, according to Jesus.

I've heard my whole life, in bits and pieces, about the age old animosity between Jews and Samaritans and how Jesus was disrupting the status quo by making a Samaritan the hero of the story -- but the edges are always softened when we start looking for ways to make it practical today. It. Was. Radical. To many of His listeners, it was heretical. There was nothing soft-edged or even safe about the way Jesus crafted and told this story.

Who is my Samaritan? Who is your Samaritan? Who is almost beyond redemption in your mind? Whose sin, in my mind (in yours) does Jesus hate the most? THAT'S our neighbor.

Active. Practical. Inclusive. Respectful. Compassionate. Disruptive. Time consuming. Resource consuming. 

THAT is loving our neighbor, according to Jesus.

Learning From Job

I've been reading Job of late. In the past, this has been a tough book for me, but in the last few years, I've grown to appreciate it. As I've read this time, I've spent a little more time sitting with Job in his grief. I suppose just the act of staying alive for enough years will help us to acknowledge the reality of grief and the ways it wrecks us -- and eventually comes for us all. Job did not try to get through this with a lot of positive thinking. He did not look for silver linings. He did not ask for "good vibes only". He did not consider angels getting their wings. He wept. He mourned. He screamed at the heavens. He demanded (though he did not get) answers from God. He walked unimaginable grief out and through with honesty and transparency. And he did not take any crap from his "well-meaning" friends.

I've also spent time listening to what his friends had to say, once they decided that simply being present with Job in his grief was not enough (Spoiler alert: it was enough). They are just packed full of wisdom, aren't they? (*still needing that sarcasm font*). I think one of the things that has always bothered me about this book is just how much of what his friends spout sounds eerily similar to things Christians still spout today when confronted with the trauma and tragedy of others. It is so easy for us to "speak the truth" without stopping to consider that we just might be wrong this time - without stopping to consider that our words are ripping open fresh wounds again and again - without stopping to consider that we are. not. God. 

"Speak the truth in love." -- I cannot even count the number of times I've heard this verse quoted only to be followed by words that do not, in fact, speak or show any love, but are rather an excuse to shut down a conversation or put someone "in their place". I'm quite certain I have been among the numbered guilty. When our words alienate, when they kill conversations and relationships, when they are where curiosity and imagination go to die, when they isolate others rather than bringing them in, we've become "friends of Job" and are truly no friends at all.

I'll stop with words I read today from the lips of Job: If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom. Your maxims are proverbs of ashes; your defenses are defenses of clay.

If only.

What Are We Becoming?

 Dehumanize:

to deprive (someone or something) of human qualities, personality, or dignity: such as:

to subject to inhuman or degrading conditions or treatment

to address or portray in a way that obscures or demeans that person's humanity or individuality

to remove or reduce human involvement or interaction in (something, such as a process or place)

***************************************

Do you see it?

This is what our culture has done. I see it nearly everyday on social media. Choose someone you strongly disagree with and then begin to strip them of human qualities. Name-calling. Mocking. Retribution. War.

I see it in how we view the working poor. How we speak about those experiencing homelessness. How we talk about "those neighborhoods."

I see it in our justice system. The ways we speak about and treat people that have been incarcerated. The ways we DON'T speak of them, essentially forgetting they exist and have human needs. The judgements we presuppose of anyone with a criminal record.

I see it in our policing. There are many, many good men and women in our policing system. I know some of them personally. But far too often, they are trained and/or enculturated to cease thinking of some people as fully human. Beginning generations ago, when forces were formed to capture and return people escaping enslavement and carrying forward, through many generations of determining who is worthy of our compassion and humanity -- and who is not.

 I see it in the ways we excuse, dismiss and justify individual examples, even when they are glaringly obvious - this is also a participation in dehumanization.

• How many individual incidents must we be forced to read about, watch play out on body cams and cell phones, participate in on social media (less deadly at first, perhaps, but the end goal of hatred and dehumanization is no different) before we are brought to our knees? 
• How much do we soak ourselves in it, silently accepting, before we become what we are viewing? 
• How many stories must we read before we advocate for and demand new ways of living with one another and new ways of applying justice? 
• How many times must we punish and scream out for vengeance and retribution before we face that it simply isn't working? 
• How many innocent people, simply living their everyday lives, will we read have been gunned down before we're willing to sit down at tables with people we disagree with and work. it. out? 
• How much can we witness and participate in dehumanizing speech and behavior before we lose our own humanity?
• How many innocent people must we execute?
• How many people must we watch be tried, judged and executed without ever reaching a jail cell?
• How many must die in a jail cell without ever going to trial?
• How many must freeze to death on the street?
• How many of our friends will we silently sit by and watch gleefully mock and ridicule those they disagree with?

How long will it take us to realize that when we strip the humanity - the Imago Dei - from another human being -- from ANY human being, we are stripping ourselves of our own humanity. We become the monsters.

How many and how long?

Who Is My Audience?

I was listening to a podcast as I walked a few days ago that was reviewing a study they had read about how Democrats view Republicans and vice versa. It was such a sad commentary to listen to as it unfolded. There were several questions - things like: Are Democrats trustworthy? Are Republicans humble? -- that kind of thing. And each question was asked to both sides about the opposing party. The answers, unless you're living with your head in the sand, were sad but not surprising. Into the 90th percentile, every single question was answered in the negative about people in the opposing party. All of this renewed some thoughts I've been mulling on for a long time, so I thought I'd attempt to get it written down coherently.

This tendency to view those who disagree with us in the worst possible light is likely just a dark trait of human nature in general, but I strongly believe that social media and 24-hour news cycles and our tendency to live in bubbles with other people mostly like us, have exaggerated it to lethal proportions. It's moved beyond politics (though politics has become an identity that, for many, exceeds every other aspect of their lives), and is part of our theology, our worldviews, our lifestyles -- anything we see as "different" becomes suspect and "those people" eventually vilified.

When I see a quippy meme about the party that least represents me, what face comes into my mind as I read it? As I post it? Am I considering the person I know and love, that I break bread with, that I would literally die for that is a member of that party? Or am I considering the person I do not know, that I cannot personally verify, that exhibits horrific behavior in the cable news cycle? Now consider this... when I post that quippy meme (because it almost always makes us feel better to "stick it" to the other guy), which of those folks do you suppose is reading it? 

If I share posts that are demeaning or just plain mean, (but it'll get applause from those that agree with me), about people I do not agree with, either their politics or theology or lifestyles, am I picturing that person I KNOW or am I picturing the worst example I can find on the internet? And again... who is reading what I've shared? The person I love, that I work with, that sits next to me at lunch, that is watching me from across the sanctuary at church... the person that KNOWS me and knows I know them... that is who is reading what I've shared. Chances are pretty darn slim that Trump or AOC or Greg Locke or Nancy Pelosi are reading what we post. But people we love ARE reading what we post. 

When I approach differences of opinion, of politics, of theology, of justice and societal issues with disdain, with mean sarcasm, with arrogance, I am doing nothing to build bridges or to persuade with kindness and gentleness. I am much more likely to be driving people further away, driving understanding and nuance further from the discourse.

Here's what I'm NOT saying:

I am NOT saying we shouldn't have hard discussions. I am not saying we shouldn't stand up loud and clear for those who are being harmed. I am not saying we shouldn't share important issues and the reasons we feel like they're important to bring into the public discourse. I am not saying that nothing is worth getting riled up about. I am not saying that peace*keeping* is ever the goal. I'm not even saying that our goal should be that we always agree.

Peace*making* is the goal - and that requires dragging some uncomfortable, even ugly things into the light of day so they can be seen for what they are and dealt with. It requires hard, sometimes uncomfortable conversations. But HOW we have those conversations matters. Do we want a conversation or do we just want to shut them down, silence the opposition? This matters as well.

I am saying we need to see people rather than issues as our primary goal. (One of my favorite follows (Carlos Whittaker) says, "Stand with people, not issues." -- this is some truth.) We need to love our neighbor at the same time as we have super hard conversations with them. We must learn to recognize that we are not loving when we "speak the truth" in ways that shut down, demean, isolate. We need to be curious rather than trying to shut people out and down. This leaves people feeling judged, unaccepted and unloved. If this is how we leave people feeling, we can call it love all we want, but it is not love. I recognize that I've been this person at times, that I come on too strong or I become too passionate and run over people rather than engage them curiously. I don't want to be that person. 

 

My goal over the last year or so has been to carefully consider the words I both speak and post. To speak boldly, yes. To speak for justice and reconciliation, yes. To talk about the ways I've changed and why, with honesty and openness. But to never forget the actual people receiving those words and HOW they will be received. To consider whether I am speaking to retaliate, to "stick it" to the other side, to gain applause... or to actually effect better communication and ultimately, healing and change. I know I've failed at times, and likely will again (blood runs hot in my family genetics!), but I pray it is less and less frequent and that when it happens, I'll be humble enough to call myself out and apologize.

Keep in mind who is seeing the words you are writing, sharing and speaking. Jesus might have said something like, "Be careful how you post and share on Facebook and Twitter to be seen and applauded by others like you -- for THAT will be your reward in full."

I Am a Christian

Christian: A follower of Christ. 

One who belongs to Christ. 

One who strives to faithfully study, learn and follow the words and ways of Jesus of Nazareth. 

This word, Christian, has a meaning. 

Christian does not mean American. Or Republican. Or conservative. It does not mean Democrat. Or progressive. I know faithful Christians in ALL these categories. 

I am a Christian. And an American. And an Independent voter. And a Progressive. I have spent long hours studying, praying, discussing and listening on this journey. I have come to exactly none of my convictions lightly or quickly.

• Not for acceptance.
• Not for show. 
• Not because it's easier.
• Not so "the world" would love me more. 
• Not to destroy children or families.
• Not because I hate my country. 
• Not because I hate babies.
• Not because I hate democracy.
• Not because I want to distort history.
• Not because I am mean, or cruel, or deceived, or deluded.

All of these are categorically false, yet I have heard all of these as descriptions of people who would self-describe as Progressive. And not just in the virtual world of fringe extremists. But from people in my actual world, in sermons from folks who, it is clear, have not had a serious conversation with a progressive Christian, people who I know personally and have easy access to asking questions of those they're slandering (and yes, I know this is a strong word, but this is what is happening)... Folks who feel free to demonize without seeking to know or understand the actual people they speak and preach and "meme" against.

I see this tendency on both sides as we continue to push further and further apart, demonizing "the other" with greater and greater glee and self-righteousness. 

I speak of what I know. I lived most of my life in a conservative, Republican, very isolated pond. That is what I know. So I know that many within that group are also doing their best to follow the words and way of Jesus, even when I now deeply disagree with some important conclusions. 

I came to new convictions based on my firm belief that it more faithfully reflects the ways and words of Jesus. (Read that sentence again please. And then again, if you still aren't hearing it.) You do not have to agree with another person's conclusions (obviously), but disagreement does not mean that they are not sincerely held, faithfully thought out, prayed over and studied convictions. Every single "progressive" Christian I know personally defies the descriptions in the above list. Every one.

I am exceedingly thankful for a local community of faithful, committed followers of Christ that also hold, within this group, to a wide variety of political and societel opinions. I am thankful for pastors that lead us to walk together in our differences. I want to remain open and empathetic in a world that is screaming for me to close off, to isolate, to cast dispersions. This community is leading me in that harder but, I believe, more faithful way. We all get it wrong at times. I spent a lifetime of years mostly comfortable in my certainty. I want to spend the rest of my years willing to be somewhat uncomfortable, willing to sit with: "What if I'm wrong?" "What if there is something I need to learn here?"

This mindset, I believe, will more likely keep me kind, hopefully humble, gentle, curious. Love must be the driving force as we wade through this thing together.

I pray that our disagreements would drive us to ask better questions. To be curious. To think more deeply. To draw toward rather than away. To pray rather than disparage. To study rather than assume. To cultivate greater imaginations for what could be. 

This is hard work. Everything in us wants to pull away, to find comfort and safety in "likeness". Likeness will give us a sense of camaraderie. Kinship. Comfortable belonging. Peace-keeping. But it will not bring healing. It will not make for true peace. Or shalom. Or justice. 

I do not know all the answers, but I know these ways we are most prone to choosing will eventually destroy us. I know when we demonize and dehumanize, we are not only hurting others, but we are hurting ourselves as well. When we redefine people and words to fit our arguments, we've cut off any hope of real communication. We must lean into love - with all of its messy unknowns, if we're ever to find healing together.

The Plain Truth

 Quick survey: Who here believes...

The earth is flat?

Women must cover their heads in church?

The sun revolves around the earth?

Women must be silent in church?

It's acceptable to enslave people?

Women must wait and direct any questions they may have to their husbands at home?

Men must keep their hair short?

Any one divorced and remarried is an adulterer?

Tattoos are an abomination?

We can't eat lobster, shrimp or pork?

Without asking for a show of hands, let's move on...

When Galileo (a devout Christian) began to talk about the earth revolving around the sun, he was excommunicated from the church for going against the plain truth of scripture and the historical teachings of the church.

When churches began to allow women to have positions of authority in their churches and *gasp* even preach, many were kicked out of their respective denominations for going against the plain truth of scripture and the Church's historical teaching (unfortunately, some are practicing this, still today).

When folks, both inside the Church and outside, began to speak out against slavery, and later Jim Crow laws, they were ostracized, most vehemently by other Christians. It went against God's natural laws, they said.

The Bible has been used to justify slavery and segregation, abuse of women and children, the genocide of Native Americans. We used it to kill those judged to be "witches." It's been used to blame mental illness on demonic activity.

Still today, it's used to create hysteria around vaccines and CRT. For some it's used as evidence to shame people with illness and disability on the grounds of sin and lack of faith. We use it to cancel celebrities and amusement parks, movies and other churches.

As far back as our own original scriptures, folks were arguing about whether they could allow gentiles into the Church, and if they did, should they have to eat like us, cut themselves like we do? Scripture was very clear on these topics. Yet...they changed.

Add to this literally thousands of denominations forged solely from divisions on thousands of more minor differences in interpretations and understandings of our scriptures.

You wanna know what the plain truth is? The Bible is ancient literature written within ancient cultures. It's inspired. It's important. It is truth. It's packed with wisdom that all of us need and can apply within today's world, nations and cultures. But it's not easy. And it's often not plain. 

"The plain truth of scripture" is too often used to shore up hard things, things we do not want to investigate, wade through or have to admit we may have been wrong about. I believe strongly that God preserved our scriptures for us to be able to continue, as early Jews and Christians did, to discuss and disagree and pray over these words and seek the wisdom God has for us within them -- together. Going back to the early Church that I mentioned above, I don't think we fully grasp the seismic nature of what happened in that space within the earliest days of the church. This was not a minor disagreement. It was MAJOR. They were being asked to consider moving in a different direction from bedrock teachings of the Jewish faith since Moses - thousands of years of teaching that they firmly believed went from God's mouth to Moses' ear - and then to them. And what, after much discussion (likely very heated) and prayer did they say? "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." And they changed. I am NOT saying that we should not have opinions - we should. I do. Strong ones. I AM saying that we need to be careful to hold those loosely, holding ourselves accountable to others in both our local communities and the wider universal Church. We've mostly lost this skill. Instead, leaving near zero space for disagreement, we face forward and listen to one person TELL us what is safe to think about scripture and it's application today - ostracizing any that dare to doubt or question.

Change is hard. But it is not impossible. It will require some humility to admit that we've been deeply, dangerously, wrong before and we'll all be wrong again. All manner of atrocities have been justified as "biblical." The litmus test could much better be, not "Is it biblical?" but, "Does it look like Jesus?"

We need to be very, very careful about who we judge and exclude, who we cancel and who we deem to be deceived or heretical, based on "plain truth." Our history shows us that future generations have a much clearer understanding of the ways we were deeply misguided and do not look kindly on the ways we justified harm and exclusion. We'd best approach certitude carefully and with great caution.

If we are going to err (and we are) may we err on the side of love. Again, I think it bears repeating: 

Does it look like Jesus?

Sunday School Jesus

 You guys that have taught kids in Sunday school... You know how you invest so much time in studying; in imagining ways to tell the story that will reach their little hearts and show them how it can be effective in their lives today; verbally paint them a picture of the beauty of Jesus; creating a craft that will reinforce the lesson and it's application? Maybe even creative reenactments, songs, art? Remember that? 

Now do you remember how at the end of class you would ask a few questions to see what they kept from all that investment in their little hearts and minds? Think back -- what was, no matter the question, the most oft given answer?

"Jesus." 

I'm not kidding. 90 times out of 100, "Jesus." Of the 10% remaining, most of those are either what? ..."Sin" or "The Bible."

Was that frustrating? All that time. All the truth they could walk away with. All the lessons. All the ways that lesson could bring life changing truth. 

"Jesus." 

Why, do you think that is? 

Here's my thought:

Jesus is the BIG answer. Always. We know that and we taught them that. It's true. But it's also often the lazy answer.

There are a million different ways we can creatively apply the wisdom of our scriptures, of following Jesus, being a good citizen and a loving neighbor. We can almost 100% know that when we keep falling back on our answer to everything being, "Jesus" or "The Bible," or "sin," we've chosen the lazy way rather than the creative way, the deeper way.

This is what I feel like I'm seeing among entirely too many Christians around racial justice, justice reform, gun control, equal rights. We are given so much beauty and creativity and depth in scripture and in the life and ways of Jesus. So much truth in how to walk out justice and mercy and peace. Detailed accounts in the Sermon on the Mount of what it could look like. Right here. Right now. Not just in the sweet by and by.

All of that, and we reduce everything to, "Jesus."

Yes. JESUS. But how? Where? Toward who? What does it look like - right. now? We've lost all creativity and imagination. "Just Jesus" is the lazy way out. Both are truth. Which one will take us to deeper change that brings His Kingdom? That allows all to flourish? That allows us to live in abundance rather than scarcity?

When it's ten year-olds in Sunday school, we've got some time, the stakes aren't so high. But now? Losing our spiritual imagination has much graver consequences. It's brought us innocent people languishing in prison, dead kids with Skittles in their pockets or a violin in their backpack, scores of dead school kids, LGBTQ kids with astronomical suicide rates. We cannot afford lazy answers.

We must do better. Sunday School Jesus is true. But He means for us to go so much deeper.