Jesus and injustice

Events in our country, like failures of our justice system, heighten people's sense of injustice. Because the human condition is oriented towards fairness and rights, justice violations create outrage in most people. Also, because it is natural for the human condition to seek justice over most all virtues, reactions of Christians are put under the microscope. The world wants to know if the people who put their faith in Christ will rise to the occasion and be superheroes of justice.

The problem is, that is not why Jesus came for us. Bringing justice to the land and stamping out all injustice is not what Jesus is about until He comes again. Oswald Chambers writes in his daily devotionals, "Looking for justice is actually a sign that we have been diverted from our devotion to Him.... We put our common sense on the throne and then attach God’s name to it."

So, why is it that Christians and the church fall into this trap? Why is it that the witness of a Christian is supposed to be about justice when that is not what Jesus called us to?

The first part of the answer I have already alluded to. The human assumption is that the world we live in right now, the one we experience with our physical senses (our physical life) is the end game. Jesus came to invite us into a new and amazing life, an eternal one abiding in the Heavenlies. This is not only a future realm we live in but a present reality made possible to us by Jesus.

The second part of the answer is looking more closely at how Jesus viewed injustice.  

 

Paul tells us that Jesus "emptied Himself of the privilege of being equal to God." That doesn't seem fair. Why would He choose to do that? Why would He give up full time residency in the Heavenlies for you and me? The short answer is love. But, what did this love require of Him?

 That He suffer injustice

Wait a minute, Jesus endured injustice? Why didn't He fix the system so people would treat Him properly?


Not only did Jesus willfully give up His number one right to be forever dwelling in Heaven with God, He subjected Himself to many injustices while here in this realm called earth. He was run out of every place He preformed miracles and announced who He was by the authorities. On His final day the Jewish and Roman justice system failed Him by violating many of the rules and laws they are supposed to be guided by.

Jesus experienced injustice as a dominate theme of His life. In fact, God's grace behind the crucifixion isn't justice. It doesn't seem to me that ridding the world of injustice is what had Jesus' attention. This should be no surprise since He told everyone right off the bat that He was not here this time to be a purveyor of justice, but rather to provide a pathway for us back to our original purpose. God intended for His creation to be in proper fellowship with Him. But, none of us had a way to do that until Jesus arrives in a full array of injustice.

So, if Christians are the witness to the world who Jesus is and why He came, it seems like we should be dealing with injustice like Jesus. If we are to show everyone who God is, it may be by how we deal with injustice rather than how we produce justice. As I study His greatest sermon to His disciples, that seems to be what He is wanting us to know. The notion that Jesus "suffered" injustice means that Jesus' deepest emotion when facing injustice glorified God. 

It appears to me that "partaking in His sufferings" simply means that expressing the deepest emotions we have in the midst of injustice like Jesus is our Christian witness and what glorifies our Father.

Maybe that is the lesson we should ponder when it comes to JESUS AND INJUSTICE ....

Patterns of ideas

Summit Ministries' mission is to teach young Christians about worldview, the pattern of ideas that influences one's soul. The institutional or traditional Christian framework or lenses for this teaches that deep down people seek to answer four basic questions. Recently deceased Ravi Zachariah, one of the most trusted contemporary Christian apologists,

claimed the four basic questions are:

1. where did we all come from? (origin)
2. what is the right way to behave? (morality)
3. what is my purpose? the world's purpose? (meaning) and
4. where am I going or how does it all end? (destiny)

Let me first say, I have been around young people a long time and I don't find these are the questions that flow through their mind on a regular basis unless they are in a Christian worldview class. They are good questions, deep questions, fundamental questions, but not necessarily SALIENT or relevant questions to most people. I have found that what someone believes about "heaven and earth" seems to drive all other patterns of ideas. But, people are rarely aware of these beliefs.

These are consistent questions organized and institutionalized by Christian theologians and philosophers whose answers explain their worldview best. It is not really a lens but theologically crafted conclusions forming a framework Christian pastors and teachers embrace to defend the Christian faith. It is a convenient and often successful way to logically compare all other religions' to Christianity. Their well developed apologetics then can claim, "we (Christians) win!" But, young people who are subjected to these "patterns of ideas" go, "what?" Atheists and other religious scholars develop their counter arguments and the battle is on.

I want to make 2 points about this common, entrenched practice within the Christian church. Before I make my points, I do want to acknowledge the veracity of institutional Christian worldview apologetics. They have stood the test of time.

First point: the questions that are the most SALIENT (top of mind) to young people are more psychological than metaphysical. The study of the soul of human beings (psychology) has found that people wish to
(1) be happy or satisfied,
(2) accomplish goals, and
(3) be accepted.

These questions likely can be answered through the worldview models of Summit and Ravi Z. However, the more salient psychological yearnings of young Christians can lead to BLUNDERS in applying a clear epistemological (what is knowing) and ontological (what is real) pattern of ideas when underlying biases form a lens inconsistent or at odds with the worldview presented.

Which questions do you think Jesus was answering? Did He mention creation in His teachings? What was His view on morality? Actually, He had His harshest words for the moralists. Interestingly, Jesus thought the psychological questions were important and relevant. He addresses each in the Sermon on the Mount. The Beatitudes explain the way Kingdom dwellers are satisfied (Blessed or fortunate), a contrast to humans' view of happiness. Jesus covers the 2 components of motivation with "where your treasure (value) is, there will your heart (motives) be also" and "seek ye first (saliency or primacy) the Kingdom of God." Jesus invites us to reflect His light (glory) to the world as our goal. This is quite different from humans' desires to pursue and produce their own outcomes. Finally, Jesus explains that righteousness, the verdict of the judge, is taken care of by Himself. In other words, He has made the way for your acceptance, nothing more you need to do.

When a young person can connect psychologically with the Gospel, he or she is ready for point two.

Second point: The institutional approach of the four metaphysical questions are heavily cognitively loaded. In other words, there is great reasoning from head knowledge, but the apologetics do not necessarily foster a passionate relationship with Jesus. It's in the intimacy with Jesus that we we receive the best answer to the 3 psychological questions.

The "patterns of ideas" that form or shape a Christian worldview starts with a deep relational knowledge of Jesus (gnosis knowledge). Head knowledge of Christian worldview absent a heart knowledge of Jesus will be puffy and arrogant, not humble. Do you KNOW Jesus (the Bible calls gnosis knowledge) or just KNOW ABOUT Jesus (eido knowledge)?

Anyone else see what is happening around us?  This led me to ponder the core ideas of psychology within a relationship with Jesus. Try it!

What else can steer you away from blunders that often come from proper theological and metaphysical patterns of ideas but are absent Jesus' psychology?

the ridiculous futility of fairness

Is it fair that low wage workers are putting their life on the line while office workers are safely at home earning more money?

I have often written and taught on the topic of fairness and justice. This Dilbert cartoon is my all time favorite. It perfectly captures the issue. This question has been expressed by many recently with the societal impact of the Corona Virus. It's not surprising the question never goes away and shows up often in public discourse. Some scholars believe the notion of fairness is mankind's preeminent concern.

You may be surprised by the title of this blog. It may seem mean spirited or draconian to you. I agree, anyone who speaks out against "fairness" is set up to be shamed. This is likely why politicians and journalist "weaponize" fairness when they are trying to show their opponent in a bad light or trying to get others to accept their agenda. 

I look forward to the time (foolishly futile I admit) when someone will answer a question like this in a new and more insightful way. First, let me ask how you might answer the question? The question is asked by progressive liberal advocates, who wish to sway public policy on reward systems away from free markets to government. Second, I do not want to debate in this blog the right way people should be rewarded but rather to explain why the question above (and others like it) is "ridiculously futile."

"Fairness" has to do with the distribution of rewards and has at least three ways it can be viewed. Each of the three are mutually exclusive of the other. No two views can be satisfied at the same time. That's futile. Moreover, each of the three are subjective. That makes agreement impossible and thus ridiculous to try.

I've covered this many times before, but let me review the 3 ways to view "fairness" that are normal.

1.  equity - something is fair if there is reciprocity, people get what they "deserve" (usually defined by receiving in proportion to what is given)

2.  equality - something is fair when everyone receives the "same"

3.  need - something is fair when everyone gets according to their "need"   

I would "jump with joy" if I ever saw someone answer like this (below) when confronted with the above question:

"That is an impossible question to answer. First, your idea of fairness and mine are likely not the same. You would use your idea of fair to claim I am "unfair." There are three ways to view what's fair and each is subjective. If you would ask me specifically what you mean by "fair," then I could give you my perspective on that. I could also give you my view of fairness in this situation, but because it isn't your view, you would then shame me and announce to all, 'YOU ARE NOT FAIR'. So going any further with that question is ridiculously futile."

"Can I trust you with my love?"

When we are pursuing a loving relationship, the most important and often asked question we have of the other person is, "if I give you my heart, can I trust you?" It's not surprising that too often the Christian approaches God this way. We profess, "I'll join, if I know you will deliver." We seek to know if He is trustworthy, not vice versa. What if the title of this blog were the question God is asking you?

Have you pondered that?

I have just been listening to a sermon by Jon Tyson, pastor of The Church of the City NY, on faithfulness. It was one of the best sermons I've heard. I thought I'd share a few points he made that are worth repeating and pondering:

"unfaithfulness" is
       a life controlled by the shifting winds of circumstances
       mistakes circumstances for the person

"faithfulness" is
      a relational orientation
      about who we love
      a lover's loyalty, not a worldview belief
      enjoying the One who loves you, not a duty to the rules
      functional trust, not theological proficiency
      confessing (deeply align with) Christ vs. professing (publicly endorsing) Christ

"where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is tested"   Luther

Faithfulness is "loving what God loves"
     His Word
     His Kingdom
     His Glory

"Can I trust you with my love?" is not the question you should ask God, but the question He puts in front of you when He invites you to be His treasured possession.

That's pondering material .....
     

does faith and reason belong together?

There is a lot of confusion around the ideas of faith and reason. You may not ponder this much, but your deep seated understanding of these two terms, especially in relationship to each other, makes a huge difference in how you think, feel, and act.

Let's explore some of the ways people mistakenly make sense of faith and reason and why it may matter to you.

What are some typical views that need closer examination? Many believe that faith is a religious term and reason is equivalent to science. I would propose that both of these are myths that can restrict understanding or confuse people and their discourse with each other.

By definition, faith comes from an ancient Greek word denoting a reliance on evidence that we cannot gain through our physical senses. Everyone has faith. Faith is NOT emotion. Faith is the beginning of all reason. Psychologists point to intuition or conscience. Business people claim "my gut tells me." Christians associate faith with revelation from God's Spirit and His word. The simplest way to understand your faith is asking this question in any situation, "what is obvious to me?"

When we put a source to our unseen evidence, then we have a type of faith. So, when we simply say, "have faith," we are generally trying to eliminate or minimize the role of reason or the need for physical evidence. We actually are making a meaningless statement because there is no target or source of the evidence in which we are applying trust. Often, there is an implied, trust your heart or some benevolent cosmic force, but the target of faith is likely unclear.

Typical views of reason as science and vice versa can also be misleading and confusing. Science is the process of collecting and organizing evidence gained through our physical senses to understand how different "things" relate to each other. Science uses reason to obtain its inferences (conclusions), but so does faith. Reason is the cognitive activity of drawing meaning from evidence, which can be gained through our physical senses (observable evidence) or our faith (unobservable evidence).

The point of this blog is that there are two kinds of evidence upon which humans apply reason to draw conclusions. Reason is applied to unseen evidence (faith) as much or more than to physical evidence (science). In fact, most often the purpose of reason applied to physical evidence or science is to confirm what we have reasoned or concluded from unseen evidence (faith). The human condition is biased (compelled) to confirming one's deep seated faith with what it observes.

This leads to differences in the meaning of trust. Human nature actually views trust as a "trust but verify." The soul that is transformed by the Gospel of Jesus views trust as "trust the Sovereign will of the Father." I've said this many times, the Christians who love to quote Proverbs 3: 5, but still struggle with how God is working in their circumstances, may just be relying on their own understanding of trust.

So, in many ways Christians and non Christians are alike in their humanity. In both cases the soul reasons evidence from unseen sources and from physical sources. The difference is that the Christian soul does not need the confirmation of science in order to trust the unseen evidence. For the Christian, science has practical application for temporal activities while on earth. Human nature orients the soul to trust their reasoning of the "outcomes of things" in the physical world. A Kingdom nature orients the soul to reason Holy Spirit revelation from the "source of all things" generated from their intimacy with Jesus.

While no person can escape the claim, "I am human," Christians can thankfully praise God by claiming, "I am not ONLY human."

The message of this blog does not come easily or naturally to the human mind, but it may be what Paul is calling the Christian to when he says, "do not conform to the systems of your nature, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

While you may yet to fully grasp this, you can at least ponder it .....

"beware of the undertow"

Sometimes when I would go to the beach, there would be a sign warning swimmers of dangerous conditions, "beware of the undertow." What is undertow ans why is it dangerous? Webster defines undertow as, "an underlying current, force, or tendency that is in opposition to what is apparent."


The danger is that undertow will take you in a direction that is different than the direction you think you are going. In fact, a direction that is dangerous. Undertow takes you out to sea when the waves appear to be taking you toward the shore. Have you ever been in undertow and felt what that is like?

There are many forces at work in nature that have a similar characteristic. Its not apparent or visible to normal sight, and it can take you somewhere that is different than what you think, maybe even to somewhere that is dangerous.

You may have heard, "all nature seeks equilibrium." You see the force of equilibrium especially in economics and ecology. In human behavior it is the force of equilibrium that holds relationships together. This force is deep seated in the nature of humans and their institutions. This force is called "social exchange." Social exchange is a theory claiming that people naturally give in order to receive and when they receive, they return in order to keep the relationship in balance. Social exchange is essentially reciprocity based in the human obsession with justice.

Where is the danger?

People submit themselves to institutions in order to receive some goods or services from the institution. Social exchange explains why employees stay with their employer and employers seek to keep their employees through reward systems. When employees believe the reward is insufficient exchange for their labor, they leave. When employers believe the compensation for the employee is too much of an exchange, the employer eliminates the employee.

You might say, "this seems reasonable to me, where's the danger?" Good question. Danger is likely not apparent because this looks normal on the surface, like the waves taking everything toward shore.

Let's look beneath the surface to the nature of the exchange. One party, the employees, receive goodies from the institution they cannot produce for themselves. What do they give in return? They give control to the institution. The institution is willing to give goodies to people as long as the people do what the institution wants. If this balance satisfies both parties, then the relationship remains intact.

The danger is that the institution may slowly and subtly grab control to the point that the people cannot get back their liberty. If you are old enough, you have likely heard the old Tennessee Williams' song, "I owe my soul to the company store." This is a recognition that often organizations "enslave" workers because the employees believe they cannot live without the goodies provided by the company.

The same thing happens with government. The public looks to government for goods and services. In return government desires to control aspects the public's life. Over time, does the relationship evolve into the public being in bondage, so to speak, to government? History has shown this occurs time and time again. The public wakes up one day and they have gone out to sea, not toward the shore.

Social exchange is an undertow. It is a force at work in relationships. It is not apparent relationships of fair exchange take one party to a greater and greater sense of obligation to the other party. As long as institutions, like companies and government, value control where they provide benefits of product and services to others, the end game of the members of the institution is a loss of freedom.

"Beware of the undertow." When things look attractive on the surface, it's possible you may find yourself far out to sea and not safely on the shore. Certainly worth pondering .....

Is your vote a moral choice?

There is so much emotion around voting based on which candidate is on the right side of morality. This issue basically has two parts. One is judgments about the individual candidates themselves and the other is the policies advocated by the people who seek public office.

Unfortunately, most of the voter's attention is focused on being against the person they don't like. In other words, its much easier and more convenient to criticize and reject the person you don't want than to ponder the effect of that person in their governing practices, AND the basis for rejecting them is more likely about their character or morality. The idea that you vote for the person you like personally more than for any policy reason has been captured in the question, "which candidate would you prefer to have a beer with?"

More recently candidates can easily be rejected based on their political correctness or sexual mistakes of the past. Elections ultimately become voting AGAINST the candidate you dislike more than voting FOR the one you believe will govern in a way that is best for society.  Because elections are essentially a choice between 2 candidates, people on each side try to "justify" their vote by deeming the one they are against as immoral or otherwise unworthy.

Beyond fondness for and moral consideration about individual candidates, it has also become customary to judge political views you hold as right (aligned with truth) and those you oppose as wrong or immoral. This is a more complex and interesting topic. More liberal progressive advocates believe income inequality, closed borders, lack of access to education and healthcare by the poor, war, anti-abortion as a restriction on women's reproductive rights, and demographic privilege are immoral. Their view is increasingly seen as Biblical. They believe a moral people (represented by their government) are only JUST when they provide all citizens with what they need (and maybe want) regardless of their ability to pay for it. The idea of "deserve" means the govt grants people God given rights to certain benefits just because they are human. This leads to more of a socialistic view of the economic and political system. Govt control is the best producer and distributor of goods and services to society. Often this is expressed by pointing to the immoral nature of capitalism based on greed of those who game the system. 

The opposing view, also often biblically based, is that the most moral thing a society can do is to grow prosperity, which ultimately produces the least amount of poverty and neglect. Here, personal liberty, such as right to life and religious freedom, and free markets are God given rights that provide incentives to take personal responsibility for actions and to innovate so that BOTH the risk taker and society can gain from new and improved products and services. Justice is not guaranteeing equal outcomes but a system of people getting what they deserve based on what they do. Privilege is immoral because it is seen more as sloughing and entitlement. Conservative political people see government control as a constraint on prosperity and personal freedom. This view is seen by many as the moral imperative of society and becomes the basis for choosing their candidate.

While each side touts their view as moral and the opposing view as immoral, there is a chance that the choice is not a moral one at all. The choice is maybe JUST one of civics and economics. What if an election was society simply choosing whether they prefer to give up some prosperity for more safety or whether they wish to give up some safety to provide opportunity for higher levels of prosperity.

These are the choices every country makes at every election.

The trade-offs between the human's deep seated desires for safety and liberty is a very REAL choice in elections, but its not a moral choice. I ponder the time when public discourse debates the competing biases and not camouflage the debate in which candidate has the moral high ground ....