Wounded Sheep

"There was a rancher who owned a lot of sheep, and shepherds were hired to watch over different flocks. Some flocks were larger, some were smaller, but all the sheep belonged ultimately to the rancher, not the individual shepherd in charge of them.

Some of the shepherds were doing their job well and faithfully. The sheep were well cared for, and the shepherds had the exhaustion and bags under their eyes to prove it. Other shepherds however were not. Some beat the sheep under their care. Some didn't feed them properly. Others overfed them but then didn't exercise them. Some were abused in other ways, or poisoned because the shepherd didn't seem to know the difference between good feed and bad. Some shepherds were fleecing the sheep far too often, and as such they were sick and ill prepared for the winter.

As a result, some sheep broke from their flocks and stalls and ran for the hills, terrified of the shepherds put over them. Out in the hills, some of them were able to survive on their own and were doing okay for the most part. Others however got into poisonous plants. Some couldn't traverse the terrain and were injured, many of them quite seriously. Others ate themselves over cliffs, as sheep are quite capable of doing.

And as I saw this in my head, I could sense the concern the Rancher had for his sheep which had fled. I could also sense the anger which he had towards the shepherds in question, to whom He had entrusted His livestock."

This is probably one of the hardest forms of abuse to talk about for any Christian because we are conditioned from the beginning to submit to those in spiritual authority over us. They are supposed to have the answers and are supposed to guide us into a closer relationship with the Lord.

When we join a church or a Christian organization, we put ourselves into the vulnerable position of obedience to that church, and that church's leadership's authority over us because that is what we are taught to do by Holy Scripture and by common universal tradition within the church. And any dissent from the teaching of that church leadership, or accusation against that church leadership is almost automatically seen and dealt with as heresy and divisiveness.

We are taught that we need the communion, fellowship, and ordinances or Sacraments of that church (and sometimes only that church), in order to remain right with God.

This kind of abuse happens when this is used as leverage by the church leadership and other members of the congregation to extort money, favors, position, agreement with their decisions no matter how hurtful they may be, etc. from a church member. They are threatened with excommunication, shaming, and loss of friends and even family if they don't comply.

Another kind of abuse also happens when a church leader simply puts his own interests above the interests of those in his congregation who need his counsel, support, and guidance. This is the abuse of pastoral neglect.

In the same way, and using much the same leverage, pastors, priests, and other church leaders can also experience the same kind of abuse at the hands of their own pastoral superiors, or in the case of more democratic churches, at the hands of their own congregations.

The victims of this abuse are made to feel like they're the ones doing something wrong. They're the heretics. They're the ones causing the problem. They're too needy. They need to suck it up and get a life.

What can be worse is those within the church who haven't gone through it and who don't understand.

This isn't Jesus. But all too often, because people begin to associate their church leaders with Jesus, they react to Him as though He is the one abusing or neglecting them when nothing could be farther from the truth.

God is not the abuser, he is the one who heals, comforts, and loves His sheep. This is the first distinction which must be made clear so that, in fleeing the abusive shepherds, we don't run from our owner.

A Ramble About Meat

I was going back through this passage in Galatians today in Greek for a translation notes project I have been a part of. It says:

“λεγω δε πνευματι περιπατειτε και επιθυμιαν σαρκος ου μη τελεσητε η γαρ σαρξ επιθυμει κατα του πνευματος το δε πνευμα κατα της σαρκος ταυτα γαρ αλληλοις αντικειται ινα μη α εαν θελητε ταυτα ποιητε ει δε πνευματι αγεσθε ουκ εστε υπο νομον φανερα δε εστιν τα εργα της σαρκος ατινα εστιν πορνεια ακαθαρσια ασελγεια ειδωλολατρια φαρμακεια εχθραι ερις ζηλος θυμοι εριθειαι διχοστασιαι αιρεσεις φθονοι μεθαι κωμοι και τα ομοια τουτοις α προλεγω υμιν καθως προειπον οτι οι τα τοιαυτα πρασσοντες βασιλειαν θεου ου κληρονομησουσιν.”

In English, it says,

“But I say walk by the Spirit and you won't at all complete the craving of the meat because the meat craves against the Spirit and the Spirit against the meat because these things oppose one another so that you might not do whatever things you wish, and if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the Torah, and the actions of the meat are visible, which are whorings, dirtiness, wanton violence, idolatry, hallucinogenic drug abuse, hostilities, discord, jealousy, rages, campaigns, dissensions, factions, grudges, alcoholism, partying and such things as these which I speak to you beforehand just as I spoke beforehand that those practicing such things as these will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:16-21, my own translation)

The word sarx is usually translated as “flesh”. The problem with the word “flesh” is that it's an archaic usage of English. The modern English word is “meat” like the kind that you buy at the grocery store, throw on the barbecue, fry up into a hamburger, or what hangs off of your bones and is riddled through with blood vessels and nervous tissues. Really what it means is “animal tissues.” It's the part of the human being which is physical and grows from two cells into billions.

A theory proposed a while back by Abraham Maslow, called the Hierarchy of Needs, says that when a person's needs are not being perceived as met, then that person won't be motivated to focus on the higher stages of needs. The most basic level of this hierarchy is the physiological; needs for food, rest, drink, sex, etc. The person will be so anxious and tense over the perceived needs being demanded by their physiology that they won't be focused on the higher stages like safety, love/acceptance, esteem, etc.

It occurred to me today that the "craving of the meat" which St. Paul was writing about refers to the cravings for food, sex, rest, drink, etc. and the frustration, fear, anger and suffering which arises when they are perceived as going unfulfilled. This in turn precipitates whoring, wanton violence, theft, adultery, lies, drug abuse, alcoholism, rages, etc. It is a chain that begins with the cravings of the physical body and can be broken at the beginning by walking by the Spirit.

The cravings exist as part of the normal functions of the body. The chain goes like this, the body becomes hungry (a normal bodily function), it then experiences a craving for food. What happens next is where things go askew. If there is faith that this craving will be dealt with (one way or the other), then the psyche is patient until it is. If there is fear that the craving will not be dealt with, this precipitates the actions the psyche believes are necessary to fulfill the craving regardless of what those actions might be. Because,

“ουκ εκ πιστεως παν δε ο ουκ εκ πιστεως αμαρτια εστιν”

"everything not from faith is a malfunction" (Romans 14:23b, my own translation)

In 1 John, there is another list where the “craving of the meat” also appears.

“η επιθυμια της σαρκος και η επιθυμια των οφθαλμων και η αλαζονια του βιου, ουκ εστιν εκ του πατρος αλλ εκ του κοσμου εστιν.”

“the craving of the meat and the craving of the eyes and the false pretensions of one's mode of life are not from the father but are from the world.” (1 John 2:16b)

“The craving of the eyes” is generally understood to be the desire for material possessions. “The false pretensions of one's mode of life” can be understood as the esteem one generates from who they think they are. One thing I realized today as well was that these too can be seen as fitting on Maslow's hierarchy. During our lives, we legitimately run into needing the use of certainly material things such as clothing, housing, a vehicle, kitchen utencils, etc. in order to meet our physiological needs. The same fork in the road occurs between faith and fear as to whether or not these needs are being perceived as being met, or will be met. In terms of acceptance and esteem, we do the same thing and respond according to either faith or fear. When we respond out of fear, we turn to the false image we create for ourselves based on how we are living and who we think we are.

In terms of these things, Gautama Siddharta, 500 years prior, also identified the root causes of the sufferings and cravings as well. He said:

“The cause of all sorrow lies at the very beginning; it is hidden in the ignorance from which life grows. Remove ignorance and you will destroy the wrong appetites that rise from ignorance; destroy these appetites and you will wipe out the wrong perception that arises from them; destroy wrong perception and there is an end of errors in individualized beings. Destroy the errors in individualized beings and the illusions of the six fields will disappear. Destroy illusions and the contact with things will cease to beget misconception. Destroy misconception and you do away with thirst. Destroy thirst and you do away with all morbid cleaving. Remove the cleaving and you destroy the selfishness of selfhood. If the selfishness of selfhood is destroyed you will … escape all suffering.” (Gospel of Buddha VII:8)

St. Paul said that the key to avoiding this spiral into suffering was to “walk by the Spirit.” Walking by the Spirit is the letting go of all of the attachments and addictions a person has in this life in favor of a single relationship with God through Jesus Christ. St.Paul also wrote:

“οι δε του Χριστου Ιησου την σαρκα εσταυρωσαν συν τοις παθημασιν και ταις επιθυμιαις.”

“But those of Christ Jesus crucified the meat together with the sufferings and the cravings.” (Galatians 5:24, my own translation)

He also wrote:

“ο γαρ αποθανων δεδικαιωται απο της αμαρτιας.”

“Because the person having died is put right from the malfunction.”(Romans 6:7, my own translation)

Walking by the Spirit means allowing all of these attachments and addictions to who you think you are, physiological needs, and what you think you might need wither and die within you. It means actively putting to death those attachments which you look to in order to inform you of who you are. It means actively having faith that all of these needs will be met at one point or another by a single relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and trusting that if they aren't, then they aren't really needs no matter what your “meat” is screaming at you. And once these attachments and addictions are dead, then so is the chain which gives birth to suffering and more craving.

One final thought, regardless of what you have convinced yourself of, if you aren't actively putting these attachments to death, then you aren't of Christ Jesus, because that is what those who are of Him do according to St. Paul. 

A Ramble About the Psyche

"ος γαρ αν θελη την ψυχην αυτου σωσαι απολεσει αυτην ος δ' αν απολεση την εαυτου ψυχην ενεκεν εμου και του ευαγγελιου ουτος σωσει αυτην"

“Because whoever wishes to save his own psyche will destroy it, and whoever would destroy his psyche for my sake and the sake of this gospel will save it.” (Mark 8:35, my translation)

I've reflected on this passage a lot. It's one of the teachings of Jesus that occurs in all three synoptic gospels. It's usually translated as “...save his own life will lose it...” But the problem with this translation is that the original word is, quite literally, psyche, and not one of the regular words which “life” usually translates (being ζωή  or βίος) .

The most common translation for “ψυχη” is “soul.” Other translations are “life, self, conscious self or personality, center of emotions and desires, etc.” According to Dictionary.com, “psyche” means “soul, spirit, or mind,” and the psychological definition of “psyche” is “the totality of the human mind, conscious and unconscious.” “Psyche” is comprehensive of the combination of experiences, memories, reasoning, and physiological factors which inform and contribute to “who” a person is. If one were to look back at all the possible translations and uses of the word “ψυχη” in Greek, it seems like the definition hasn't really changed much in two thousand years.

The simplest definition of the word “psyche” as it pertains to the person is “I”. Whenever we say “I do this” or “I go there” or “I think” it is our psyche that we are referring to as the “I.”

As human beings we tend to cling tightly to the notion of our own psyches. That is, we have a set idea of the psyche we think we are, and we do everything we can to protect it and keep it the way we think it should be. We treat the psyche of a human being as though it is set in stone and immutable.

The problem with this is that the human psyche is only the sum of its components, just like a computer is only the sum of the hardware and software that is put together in order to form a whole system. But unlike a computer, the human psyche is in constant flux. Every new experience, every new thought, and the countless chemical reactions within the brain all cause the psyche to change from moment to moment, and thus the person changes from moment to moment, even if the change is only slight.

The root of the Buddha's teaching was that the idea of a permanent, indivisible self (in Sanskrit, “atman” which translates into Greek as “psyche”) was an illusion. The Buddha said that “The existence of self is an illusion, and there is no wrong in this world, no vice, except what flows from the assertion of self. The attainment of truth is possible only when self is recognized as an illusion.”

To cling to the psyche is like trying to hold on to the wind with your hand. And this is another definition of the word “ψυχη”, “breath.” The harder you try to hold on to who you think you are or are supposed to be, the more it escapes your grasp and all you end up with is frustration, futility, and in the end you find that you have destroyed your psyche in the attempt to save and protect it. Living in a large city area, it's not hard to find people on the streets who have suffered from this psychological destruction as they were helpless to prevent the loss of everything with which they identified their psyches.

The only way to preserve one's psyche is for one to let it go. Let go of the illusion that the psyche is fixed and permanent. Allow it to change and grow and be aware that it is never the same from one moment to the next and accept it. Don't cling to the idea of it, or allow it to be identified with anything which can be lost or destroyed.

Finally, Jesus said that the only way to save one's psyche was to destroy it for his sake and the sake of his Gospel. Traditionally, it is taught that the Gospel only refers to the death for our sins, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But if you look at how Jesus Himself used the word, Gospel refers to His entire body of teaching in the same way that the word “dharma” is used by the Buddha.

The core of what Jesus taught in terms of practice was the letting go of possessions, passions, judgments and relationships, as well as one's own psyche. He taught that if anyone wanted to follow Him, that person needed to disown himself, take up the method of his own execution (that is, die to himself), and then follow Him. This is what it means to destroy your psyche for His sake and for the sake of the Gospel. It means to let go of everything your psyche is attached to in obedience to what He taught. And once you let go of everything impermanent and corruptible with which you have identified your psyche, then, through the joining of your psyche to Him through baptism into His death, you will save it. Because He has risen immortal and undying, so too will your psyche be immortal because it is grown together with Him.

As long as you cling to and assert the idea of your psyche, you will suffer loss and destroy your psyche instead. The only way to preserve it is to destroy all attachments to everything impermanent with which it is identified and identify it with what is permanent and immortal.

Just Rambling...

I haven't been writing on my blog as much as I have in the past. I suppose there are several reasons for that, but one of the main ones is that over the past year or so, I began to see that I kept saying a lot of the same things over and over again. For a preacher in a pulpit, that works just fine. Recycled sermons are the lifeblood of a pastor's Sunday mornings. But when your sermons are written out and published online for posterity to ponder on, it doesn't work quite as well.

Looking back over where I was when I started this journey to where I am now, I know that I'm not the same person I was in many, very important ways. I'd like to think that the gray in my hair and beard reflects some wisdom I've acquired along the way and not just poor genetics and a stressful life.

I have been writing lately, just not anything of real spiritual or philosophical import. Instead I've been working on my fiction writing with both fan fiction and original stuff that I've been posting online on various sites as well. I actually started writing fiction first when I was nine with a one page short story called “The Fury of Samod” on a manual typewriter which my mom used. This was before we had our first “real” computer back in 1984, a Tandy 1000EX with 256 KB of RAM, no hard drive, and less than VGA graphics. I think it might have had a 286 processor? Maybe? I wrote different short stories up through high school on that old computer, and then later used one just like it in college. While everyone else was getting acquainted with Windows 3.1 and '95, I was still using DOS on a floppy and a text based word processor for all of my papers with a Dot Matrix printer, but I digress.

As I've been writing and publishing my work online, I've actually been getting people dowinloading and reading it. They've even liked it! No, it's not the NY Times Bestseller list, but a few hundred people over the last few months is still a few hundred people more than were reading it while it just sat gathering digital dust on my hard drive.

As I've been working on my latest fan fiction project, “Xena: Warrior Princess – Crossroads,” it occurred to me, this is another audience for me to try and reach with what I understand the path of Jesus Christ to be. More to the point, it's an audience that probably wouldn't bother reading my blog, or anyone else's for that matter if it's openly theological or spiritual. But they do like reading about The Legend of Zelda, or Xena, or Star Trek, or a number of the same TV shows, movies, and video game stories I've been using as spiritual illustrations for years now. No, I can't be blatant about it, but I can sneak in ideas and concepts here and there.

My latest project is a little more blatantly Christian than normal, although it will still probably have my more conservative brothers and sisters screaming at me. That's okay. Because in the last week since I began posting chapters, it's been getting an average of ten views a day from around the world. That's at least ninety people now that I've had a chance to introduce Jesus and what He taught to in a non threatening way.

So maybe I still am rambling just as much as I used to. It's just that these days my rambles have a lot more heros, villains, and dragons to slay in them.

A Ramble About Xena

Recently, I've been indulging in an old favorite series of mine, Xena: Warrior Princess. For those who don't know the series, Xena is a spin-off from Hercules: The Legendary Journeys set in a fantasy world based on Greek Mythology. The title character Xena is a woman who was previously a terrible warlord bent on conquering everyone she could. She is converted to the good side of things by Hercules and then spends the rest of her life repentant trying to redeem herself by fighting against the forces and powers she had been previously allied with. She travels with a young woman named Gabrielle who becomes Xena's best friend and moral compass, as well as the chronicler of her story.

This particular television show is infamous both for its popularity, and its controversy surrounding the relationship between Xena and Gabrielle, which throughout the series grows more and more explicitly homosexual (though I don't believe any actual “sexual” scenes were ever shot between the two women, but I haven't yet actually seen every episode). Oddly enough though, this is one of the more realistic aspects of ancient Greek culture that the show deals with.

I think it was the concept of the main character that always intrigued me. Here is a woman who is deeply contrite and almost desperate for redemption. She is constantly having her past thrown back in her face no matter how hard she tries to get away from it, and she seems to always be facing the temptation to say, “to heck with it,” and return to that past in anger. In reality, Xena was a complicated character, and Lucy Lawless played those complications believably, allowing for a good blend of both drama and comedy.

I just recently watched some of the later episodes that were intended to parallel the beginnings of Christianity, and intended to use elements from tradition “Christian” mythology. In my opinion, there are two ways to view these episodes. The first is heretical and blasphemous, and a good argument could be made for that. However, theological orthodoxy was never the intention of either the Hercules or Xena series. And to judge the story lines on that basis is both unfair and pointless. The second way however opens up the potential for some profound, Christian, truths being expressed through metaphor in a way that they rarely are to an audience that may otherwise never bother to hear them.

I found the story arc of Xena's archenemy, Calisto, to be one of the more profound ones. Calisto was a little girl when Xena's army attacked her village and burned it, killing Calisto's parents in the process. This set the little girl on a path of anger and vengeance that drove her to the edge of insanity, and then through the series shoved her off the edge as she became a worse warlord than Xena. Ultimately, Calisto is condemned to Hell as a demon. After Xena and Gabrielle are crucified by Caesar and his legions, they die and are carried to heaven by angels, though Gabrielle is captured by Calisto and her demons in order to draw Xena down to Hell. In the process of trying to rescue Gabrielle, Xena (having been made an Archangel) goes into Hell to help the other angels free her friend. Gabrielle is rescued, but Xena fights the demon Calisto. After Calisto rages at her because of the death of her parents which caused all of it, Xena, out of deep compassion and forgiveness, gives up her own place in heaven to redeem the soul of Calisto, her worst enemy, from Hell taking her place in the process. Can anyone really not see the metaphor for Christ in this?

This theme of redeeming love continues in the series with Ares, the god of war, whose character's relationship with Xena is similar to an abusive ex-husband or ex-boyfriend. When Xena gives birth to a daughter, there is a prophecy by the fates that her birth will herald the end of the Greek gods. Many years later, her daughter (having taken the warlord path her mother first took and then becoming repentant) is baptized into the “cult of Eli” (the Xena series' version of early Christianity, also persecuted by the Romans), and then like St. Paul who first persecuted Christians and then received a call from Christ, so her daughter receives a call from Eli to be his messenger.

The Greek gods try to kill the girl, first as an infant, and then later as an adult. Xena is given the power by Heaven to kill gods in response, and she becomes her daughter's protector against them, slaying them one by one as they try to kill her daughter. Finally, there are only four remaining gods after she takes the fight to Mount Olympus; Athena, Artemis, Ares, and Aphrodite. Artemis is slain with her own arrows by Xena. Aphrodite, the goddess of love, because she has attempted to help Xena and her friends is allowed to escape. Ares is engaged by Xena and is down but not killed. Xena's daughter and her friend Gabrielle are mortally wounded and dying. And then the battle comes down to Athena and Xena.

One interesting thing I learned about Ares is that, for all of his abusive behavior, he did actually care about or love Xena. And out of his love for her, in this moment when she is about to be killed by Athena, in order to save her, he gives up his immortality to restore her daughter and Gabrielle which enables Xena to end Athena. Ares, the Greek god of offensive war, sacrifices his own immortality out of love for her. In a later episode, as he is going insane she allows him to nearly drown her to use his grief to bring him back to reality. As he realizes what he's done, he dives into freezing cold water to retrieve her body (which Gabrielle is able to resuscitate). In so doing, through her act of self sacrifice, she is able to start Ares on the path to his own redemption, and possibly to him finding peace later on as a mortal farmer. There's a profound metaphor there as well.

These themes of redemption by forgiveness, love, and self-sacrifice run through this series and the teachings of Christ where He taught to love one's enemies and to forgive those who have wronged you are, in the later episodes, played out in story after story, adventure after adventure as Xena constantly puts her life, and even her eternal soul on the line for those who had been her enemies, and had hurt her and those she loves deeply until she finally sacrifices her mortal existence completely in the final episodes.

I think this, more than anything else, is why I liked Xena and still do. In these things, the character of Xena ultimate follows what Jesus taught better than most who actually profess to follow Him.

A Ramble About the "Beast-People"

One of my favorite computer game and book series is the Myst collection of games and books, which taken together tell an expansive story of an ancient, fallen civilization, the D'ni; a secret, powerful Art of creating links to the worlds described in great Books; and the intrigue and pain of the last family to carry the legacy of this lost civilization and their unsuccessful attempts to rebuild it.

In one of the books, Myst: The Book of D'ni, the main protagonist of the series, Atrus, discovers an ancient Descriptive Book which leads him and his followers to a separate branch of that lost civilization, the Terahnee, one which never fell from the plague which swept the D'ni. As they get to know and be amazed and dazzled by the wonders and art of this civilization, they uncover a dark secret about this seemingly perfect world.

They employ a class of slaves which they refer to as the bahro, which in the D'ni language means “beast-people.” These people are stolen from their families in the other worlds to which the Terahnee link through their books, brought to their world, castrated, their wills are broken through torture and discipline, and then forced to serve the Terahnee mostly out of sight, only appearing through a system of extensive tunnels that run throughout their cities and town to perform their duties and then leave again as quickly as possible. The Terahnee also refer to them as the “unseen,” and there are severe consequences if anything happens that forces a Terahnee person to acknowledge their existence publicly or privately.

As I've been working for an event security company, and riding the public transportation, I've gotten to know and see a great many of the people that, like the bahro, are willingly unseen by those people they serve every day. Many of these people work two or three “part-time” jobs, at full time hours, at minimum wage, because the cost of living in Southern California is so high, they can't afford rent, food, or utilities without doing this. They sleep when they have a day off from one job. Many of them share small apartments between two or more families in order to just have a roof over their heads. Virtually all of them are a hair's breadth from homelessness, and it doesn't take much to snap the hair keeping them safe.

When people look at Southern California, all they see is the glamor, the entertainment industry, the movie stars, the concerts, the theme parks. But the millions of tourists who come through don't see the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of minimum wage workers who make it all happen, unless they have to interact with them to make a purchase, or suffer the indignity of submitting to a security screening. They're not meant to in the same way that those people coming of the Interstate 5 freeway to Disneyland aren't meant to see the dilapidated apartments and houses of the predominantly low-income residents who live within walking distance of the theme park. The freeway exits are specifically devised to avoid those areas of town. The signs won't even let you right turn down the street to get there.

Growing up here, I didn't really see these people either. My culture and society conditioned me to not see the Hispanics on the street corner that work twelve hour days for what amounts to birdseed. I was conditioned to not really see the worker at McDonald's or Burger King as anything more than a flesh and blood fast food ATM. The people who ran the rides, attractions, and manned the concession stands at Disneyland were just as much a part of the ride as the animatronics. They were always there, but you didn't talk to them, you didn't know them, and you didn't see them a second time if you saw them at all.

Our culture and society in this Southern Californian civilization dehumanizes the majority of its population into unseen, biological background mechanisms in order to provide a playground for the wealthy. When a member of this “unseen” class of people falls behind in some way, they are mercilessly thrown to the side and become homeless statistics, begging on the streets just to feed themselves and no one who has the power to do anything about it sees or cares. For this reason our social services are overwhelmed to the point that even housing assistance is more of a myth than a help, as the waiting lists are often two or three years long.

The practice of the Christian Faith is lovingkindness and compassion. We cannot afford to not “see” anyone because of who they are or where they work, neither can we afford to dehumanize someone into just a part of the background machinery. We will answer for it to our Lord if we do. “Inasmuch as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it also to Me.”

No human being should be treated as an unseen beast of burden. It flies in the face of everything Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught.

A Ramble About Minding Your Own Business

I wish I could say that I've been pursuing a more openly spiritual path of study and contemplation lately, but in reality I've just been busy working as an event security guard and have recently started work with the Garden Grove School District. I've also been trying to assist where it is appropriate, and where I am able, with the services at the Lutheran Church my family and I became members of this past September, though I received a reminder in the past week that I need to be careful so as not to overstep my bounderies..

To be honest, I think I'm doing good when I can get through all of my prayers for everybody on my list in the morning, although I get unpleasant reminders when I don't pray for the people on my list in the morning by the reports of the disastrous days they've had.

In one of the rare moments when I've really just been able to sit down and a Scripture has jumped out at me, this passage has come to light repeatedly over the past month, Romans 14 (WEB), especially the first several verses:

“Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. One man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Don’t let him who eats despise him who doesn’t eat. Don’t let him who doesn’t eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.”

“One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks. He who doesn’t eat, to the Lord he doesn’t eat, and gives God thanks. For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.”

“But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written,

“‘As I live,’ says the Lord, ‘to me every knee will bow.
Every tongue will confess to God.’”

So then each one of us will give account of himself to God. Therefore let’s not judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother’s way, or an occasion for falling. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if because of food your brother is grieved, you walk no longer in love. Don’t destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. Then don’t let your good be slandered, for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then, let us follow after things which make for peace, and things by which we may build one another up. Don’t overthrow God’s work for food’s sake. All things indeed are clean, however it is evil for that man who creates a stumbling block by eating. It is good to not eat meat, drink wine, nor do anything by which your brother stumbles, is offended, or is made weak.

Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who doesn’t judge himself in that which he approves.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because it isn’t of faith; and whatever is not of faith is sin.”

Jesus said explicitly in the Sermon on the Mount, “Don't judge so that you won't be judged. Don't condemn, so that you won't be condemned.” Jesus also said at the end of the Gospel of John, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

The practice which Jesus and His Apostles taught is a practice of self-regulation, not the attempt to regulate the behavior of others. In a nutshell, Jesus explicitly told His followers, and St. Paul expanded on it, to mind their own business regarding another person's relationship with and obedience to Him.

All too often we make the mistake that the path of discipleship He lays out for one of us is the right path for all of us. It isn't. He will instruct one of us to do things on his journey, and send him down paths that would be counterproductive for another of us. He doesn't ask us to understand, He just asks us to trust Him and not judge each other's path. It is our personal obedience to Him that matters. Not necessarily what that obedience looks like.

I don't agree with all of the beliefs or practices of the average Baptist, or Pentecostal for that matter. The truth is, I really think most denominations are way too far afield from the original practice and teachings of the Church and don't resemble it at all. But, God works through the teachings and practice of each one to speak to people and bring them closer to Himself. Do I think it's the best way? No, but then the relationship of “that guy over there” with God is really none of my business unless either he or God somehow make it my business. If God has told him to do something that doesn't make sense to me or doesn't jive with my understanding of the faith, who am I to question it? I am responsible for the light I have been given, not the light “that guy over there” has been given.

Does that mean we can't hold our own opinions or debate them? No, but it does mean that we can't attempt to force our opinions on others attempting to follow him to the best of their ability. One example of this is the “homosexual Christian.” For me, this is a contradiction in terms, but that is my opinion. It is not the opinion of a friend who happens to be a homosexual and a professing, church going Christian. I can point to all the bible verses I want trying to correct the behavior, but the bottom line is that it's not my behavior to correct. This friend must give their own account to Christ at the Bema Seat just like I must.

The word for “Lord” in Greek literally means “owner.” Fundamentally, I must answer for my actions and decisions to only one person, my Owner. My own journey of faith, while it intersects with others, remains mine and mine alone. Only I can answer for me, and I can answer for myself alone. Either my actions have given evidence of my faith in Christ or they haven't, and it is only by His mercy that I will stand or fall, as I cannot do anything but fall without His mercy. He and I both know the foolishness of my trying to stand on my own merits.

I know I can be the worst about this at times, and I can be quite vocal about it, especially on Facebook, and especially where other pastors are concerned if I think they're being dishonest or teaching something other than what Jesus taught. I know that St. Paul openly criticized and rebuked other Christians and other Christian leaders when they weren't doing what he understood that they should be doing. So there's a line there which needs to be understood so as not to cross it, and I'm not always certain I understand where it is in my own attempts to do what I understand the Lord wanting me to do.

The only person's behavior and practice we must truly be concerned with is our own. Jesus also said, “Why are you concerned about the speck of wood in your brother's eye, but completely ignoring the log in your own eye?” If we do not bind ourselves with the practice of the faith first, why should anyone else want to be bound by it?