The Higher Mandate

We constantly balance obligations. We have an obligation to spend time with our families, but if the neighbor’s house catches fire while he is sleeping in his bed, our obligation to wake him and get him to a place of safety outweighs our promise to read to the children. A book can be laid aside and picked up later. The flames will not wait.

Mandates function on a continuum. Some outweigh others. We have a mandate to offer hospitality to strangers, but if the stranger at the door is wanted by the police for questioning in an armed robbery / homicide, the mandate to respect civil authority takes precedence. All it takes to figure that out is a little calm thinking.

Some situations are not quite that transparent. Would you run a red-light to get out of the way of an ambulance running lights and sirens? Well, it depends. Is the cross street clear of vehicles and pedestrians? Is there any other safer option?

It is one of the most difficult questions facing the conscientious person of faith: how does one consistently obey the higher mandate? When every option on the table seems to breach a law, code or principle, how do we know which option to choose? Are we doomed to stand morally paralyzed while the situation unfolds around us?

Anyone who offers you a simple answer for this complex situation is either a fool or a liar. What is required in such a situation is spiritual clarity and discernment. I can’t tell you how to respond, but I can give you some tools to access discernment when you need it.

• First, calm your soul. God is not surprised or alarmed by the trial set before you. The One who called you to this situation will lead you through it. It is entirely possible to do the right thing.
• Next, filter the voices speaking to you, both externally and internally. The clamor of advice and command will eclipse the still, small voice if you let it. Don’t let it. Let the Scripture you have internalized through devotional reading, study and meditation run through your mind. It is a living Word, and it will come to you when you need it most. Listen for the ring of truth in the moment.
• Finally, embrace the possibility that doing the right thing may involve sacrifice. Sometimes, doing the right thing is costly to us. Noted clergyman Jim Elliot reminded us “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” If the only way that we can do good and prevent harm to others is by risking harm to ourselves, can we consider that risk acceptable? Perhaps the greater question is “Can we do otherwise?”

How do we prepare for crisis moments? We spend time in prayer and in the study of Scripture. We spend time in the company of faithful people. We spend time alone, learning to listen internally and developing a sense of our own mission and vision. We practice the art of an internal silence that invites God to speak into or lives.

Trials will come. We will face moral confusion and clashing obligations. Even in those moments, clarity is possible. Discernment is a spiritual gift worth seeking and cultivating. Ask God to build it into your soul today, and then brace for that construction.

As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I AM holy.”  1 Peter 1:14-16 New American Standard Bible

Plain Speech

John and Charles Wesley had a study habit that confused some folk. In their shared study of Scripture and discussions of Christian ministry, they conversed in Latin.* This is especially interesting in the light of Wesley’s denunciation of the ancient language as the appropriate tongue for the ministry of The Church. Wesley wanted the Gospel preached in the language of the common people. But in private study, he leaned into the older words. The idea, I believe, was to understand and transmit a precise message. Words tend to be redefined in a fluid language, but in a dead language, the meaning does not shift.

Words are being redefined at an alarming rate. This peculiar practice of our times is particularly hard for those who consider verbal communication a precision art. Why would people choose to redefine words in such a way that they come to be their own antonyms in common use? Could it be that the primary goal is obfuscation?**

The prince of thieves has, again, stolen a strategy from the divine procedures manual. See Genesis 11:5-8, NASB:

The Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. The Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

My favorite word-set that has been redefined to compromise its function is this pair: judgement and tolerance.

There was always some ambiguity with the use of any form of the word judge. It is both a noun (One who judges) and a verb (the act of judging). But the confusion goes deeper than that. In using the word judgment one can also mean to form, hold, or render an opinion. (As in “Use your own judgment.” or “The court has passed judgment.”)

It is argued in our current ecclesial climate that when Jesus said “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:1-2) Jesus was directing the people to form no opinion of right and wrong. If that is true, followers of Jesus are forbidden to name and disassociate from sin. This reading nullifies the entire concept of conviction, repentance and conversion. It is an absurd reading of the particular mandate in the light of the whole ministry of Christ. It is more faithful to render the passage “do not pass personal judgment” but let God be the Judge. The disciple may form and hold an opinion that governs personal faith and practice, but may not execute those who believe and act differently. (Drop the stones, brothers and sisters!)

Tolerance, on the other hand, was initially less ambiguous. It was a fairly straightforward word in its original use. To tolerate something is to allow it to exist without interference. It does not mean to agree with it, condone it or do anything to advance it – just to leave it alone. In fact, agreement and assistance negate the need for tolerance. We do not need to tolerate that with which we agree or choose to advance.

These days, however, tolerance has become its own antonym. In the name of tolerance, people are given a list of disapproved words and behaviors. They are told that they must, under threat of legal action, approve and advance the judgments of others with whom they may disagree. It is not enough to leave them unmolested. They must subsidize, celebrate and defend concepts that they define as wrong, because under the current definition of judgment, they are not permitted to decide what is right or wrong. Others will do that for them. 

You see, here is where the train goes off the rails. In an effort to liberate some, others are oppressed. The pendulum has swung too far, and it should not matter on which side of any given question one stands, thinking people must see that denying one segment of the population the right to form and hold an opinion and to live into their own belief set with equal protection under law, in favor of another segment of the population, is less than equal protection.

John and Charles Wesley conversed privately in Latin,* but among the people, they spoke in the common language. Can we take a cue from them? Can we stop the rabid redefining of words, and just say what we mean to one another? The gathered Church is not meant to be a battlefield, but a sanctuary. Children, drop your weapons – including your weaponized words! Speak truth (as you each discern it) in love to one another. We may not all form the same opinion in the end, but we can respect and genuinely tolerate one another when the discussion is over. Even if we part ways, let us be honest scholars practicing a modicum of humility.

* http://www.historyhome.co.uk/people/wesley.htm

** obfuscation – the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.