The half tribe of Manasseh...

It has been far too long since I have had the time to blog. I am missing it, I can feel a difference in my heart when I don't take my eyes off of temporal things and put them on God.



Today's OT reading had an interesting story. The people of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh are answering accusations from the rest of Israel that building an altar on the "wrong side" of the Jordan somehow is a sin against God. Israel sends a large contingent of people to asses whether they have sinned, and to understand what to do next. The fear of the accusers is that the actions of Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh will plunge Israel into a civil war, destroying the nation.



The response of the accused is that no, their intent was not to sin, but to function as a memorial that they, too, worship the same God, even though they are geographically cut off (by the Jordan) from the rest of the people of Israel. It is "a reminder of the relationship both of us have with the Lord." Joshua 22:28. Their fear is that the descendants of people on the other side of the river will not accept their faith, due to the geographic distance. The purpose of the altar is to justify their faith. The justification of that faith is acceptable to the main tribes of Israel, and thus, civil war is averted.



The actions and reactions stir up many questions. These questions are echoed throughout history in the idea of whether one is worshipping "in the correct way." Jesus will divide Judaism in His worshipping "the right way." Martin Luther will divide Catholicism forever with his statement of protest. Many church reformers attempt to bring a frozen doctrinal approach back to life by getting to the heart of the matter, the content of faith rather than the form of faith. And what do you do when you are confronted by such a reformer?



The lesson of Israel is pretty clear. Try to understand the "reformer" (here the tribes of Reuben and Gad, etc), and then see how it fits in one's theology. Israel was contented that Reuben and Gad were not trying to reform Judaism (the altar was a memorial, it was not for burnt offerings, which would have been a true break from the the scriptural doctrine in Moses and Deuteronomy), and so they accepted the actions of Reuben and Gad.



But what do you do when a reform is attempted? Rather than reject it out of hand, attempt to understand it, and then identify whether the message of the reformer is consistent with scriptural doctrine. In this case, the actions of Reuben and Gad were consistent with scriptural doctrine. But, the message of Jesus was not wholly consistent with Judaic scriptural doctrine at the time. Although there were extensive similarities, the fundamental doctrine of Jesus is at odds with Judaic doctrine. Similarly, Martin Luther's message was not consistent with Catholic doctrine, leading to the Protestant reformation.



The underlying point is the process. The first reaction to the action of the "offender" is to seek to understand the motivations. The second reaction is to assess those motivations in light of one's own spiritual doctrine (which necessitates that one examines and fully understands his own doctrine). The third reaction is acceptance or rejection of the action.



However, the process of assessing motivations and agreement with doctrinal purity begs the underlying questions of legalism and accountability. How legalistically does one interpret a document, making any reformer automatically at odds with the interpretation, but maybe not necessarily with the underlying content from which the human interpretation grows? And what human is able to decide the question of doctrinal purity? The one who argues the best? The most charismatic? The best educated?



Israel was scared. They were scared of civil war, but they were ready to go to war over a perceived sin. All of us would be wise to take a lesson from their behavior in learning how to resolve conflicts.

The practice of truth

In the NT reading today, Luke 11:28, I read,

"But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice."

Jesus says this in response to a woman who shouted out a blessing on Jesus' mother, who nursed Him and cared for Him. Jesus' response was emblematic of a seminal truth of His ministry. Someone gave birth to Jesus. Someone nursed Him, and cared for Him as a child. Those are facts, but they are dead, past facts. It is good to know that those are facts. Knowledge of the truth is important, but even more important is the daily practice of truth. It is one thing to study, and learn, and build a basis of knowledge, but without daily practice of what that knowledge teaches, and application to one's life and the lives of those with whom we come into contact, that truth is a sterile, useless idea. It is the practice that blesses others, and in so doing, blesses ourselves.

But what is the truth? The reading from the NT struck me today. I saw similarities in it when compared to the earlier readings of Matthew and Mark. And I know there are similarities to John, although John's accounts are, for me, more difficult to understand. So, we see a "Truth" reflected in four different ways. Does that mean that there are just as many versions of the truth as there are observers of it? Is my "truth" any more or less valid than yours? Can I point to my bible quote and say, "See, right here, I am doing it right, and you are doing it wrong!"?

The process of Luke, to me, is a fundamental struggle in the Bible. Here is a wonderful communicator, summing up accounts of Jesus ministry for his Greek audience, even though he was not present. How alike are we to him. We can only know through the accounts of others. These are not our own eyewitness accounts, but we can know the story through others; in our culture, that "other-ness" is the Bible.

But we come back to the knowledge of truth. Sure, Jesus lived and had an amazing ministry. But, so what? What is the value of the knowledge of that truth without its practice? And if there are just as many versions of the truth as there are observers, creating a deconstructionism paradise, fueling the final argument that there is no such thing as a final "Truth," so why bother, then how do we practice the truth.

As Jesus has said, the result is similar to knowing what type of tree you are viewing by seeing its fruit. In today's section, He describes what it is like when you are practicing the truth. "...your whole life will be radiant, as though a floodlight is shining on you." (Luke 11:36)

Put a fig tree in Tennessee, it will grow figs. Put a fig tree in France, it will grow figs. Maybe the figs will taste a little different, due to climate, soil, air, water, but at the end of the day, the fruits will share elements of that essential "fig-ness" which is the truth of the fig tree.

While we all may have our own versions of the truth, the truth still, underneath it all, tastes the same. It is a representation of the fundamental moral order in the universe which binds all things and was brought to us in Christ. When we practice that truth, for ourselves and others, we become radiant, and blessings flow into us, just as they flow out of us to others. God gave us the key to His love in the body of Jesus. What a gift of truth!

Worship

In the NT reading today, we see two sisters. One, Mary, sits at the feet of Jesus while the other, Martha, prepares the meal. (Luke 10:38-42) When Martha complains about her sister to Jesus, Jesus comments that Mary has discovered the only thing worth being concerned about, and that He would not take that away from her.

I am by nature an obsessive "doer." I have a hard time relaxing, and I tend to be a bit of a workaholic. Seeing people who are content to just sit there and do nothing, even though they say they are "worshipping" has always griped me. It is in my nature to feel like I ought to be doing something, and that they should do something also.

That is a temporal point of view. I am made the way I am made. It is in my nature to be doing things, preparing things, and organizing things. Because that is my nature, how can I hold it against someone who is not made like that? Instead, in my life, I have discovered that I can take the way I am made and use it in worship. Even though those shiftless, good-for-nothing layabouts take advantage... (big breath... breathe...) I can still use my nature good humoredly for worship.

I am being a little facetious here on purpose, but I know I have felt like Martha before. I know I struggle with that still. Aren't we supposed to be doing something in worship? Can we just sit around and let other people do things for us, and still be just as valued? If someone is made "lazy" but emotionally giving, does that make him or her "less" or "more" valuable than someone who is "industrious" but judgemental? The answer lies in using the way we are made in ways that express love and worship for Him and others. I am fortunate to have this personality, because it is effortless for me to pass on God's gift of action to others. That is a blessing to me, a blessing I continually remind myself of, especially when my human nature kicks in and starts shouting, "Unfair!" at people like Mary who let everyone else do the work. What kind of world would it be if everyone were like her, disorganized, chaotic, starving... Of course, what kind of world would it be with a bunch of Martha's and Philip's around, uptight, humorless, stingy...

At the end of the day, I am what I am, and I try to dedicate that to God. I am thankful for the frustrations I feel because they remind me of how much I have, and how much I have to let go of. I get that message loud and clear every day. I see the wall between me and God, and because of that vision, I see God more clearly. I am blessed beyond measure by the way I am made.

Responsibilities

Reading through the OT section today, and then extending into the NT reading, I am struck with the balance of personal versus social responsibilities referenced, and how far society seems to be tending away from this balance.

Deuteronomy 23:1-25:19 gives a variety of proscriptions of behavior, and admonishes the society to take care of each other, but also does not neglect to inform the individual of appropriate, and inappropriate behavior. Some of the rules don't make as much sense to us as an audience, because culture has changed so much, but at the end of the reading, one can see that for a society to flourish, both personal and social responsibilities must be heeded. If society tends to far away from either approach, the society will not flourish.

For example, we can all have personal responsibility all day long, but bad things happen to well intentioned people. If a personally responsible individual has an unfortunate accident, and the society does not take social responsibility for that individual, then we see the creation of a severely impoverished lower class being victimized by a class of people whose only real blessing is that nothing bad has happened to them. Life becomes a reflection of chance, and not of Godly intent, in that case.

However, if there is too much social responsibility, and the concept of personal responsibility is left unattended (at best), or ridiculed (at worst), then we have a welfare state where the soul is impoverished by lack of attending to its own growth. I fear we have seen the pendulum swing, in our time (the last 2000 years) to a point where personal responsibility is jeered. Society will take care of those who cannot or will not care for themselves. Those who can will be taxed to take care of those who can't, or won't.

But, what will be the inevitable result of the lack of balance? Both types of civilizations ultimately fail. The best civilization is the type of civilization that encourages both social and personal responsibility, as was demonstrated in the multitude of proscriptions given in the OT reading. People look at some of the non-sensical commands in this section, and use literalism and legalism to denounce the teaching, without getting to the fundamental point of what the teaching is about.

It's about both personal and civic responsibility. Care of each other, and care for one's self. Personal self control and public interest. Without one or the other, the civilization's tendency is downward.

I am saddened by what seems to be a right wing hatred of those who appear to be shiftless and lazy, not working or caring for themselves. I am also saddened by a left-wing rejection of "family values" as cheap, legalistic sentimentality. Both points of view have their merits, but taken without love, taken without earnest prayer and a focus on God, the arguments become messages of despair and selfishness.

God teaches us in the OT, be responsible in your own life, and be responsible for your neighbor. If everyone does this, and keeps his eye on God, we would flourish. It's just sad the world has fallen so far out of balance.