Stepping over lines all around

I was in a professional development session today. Out of about 50 people attending, I was one of 3 males. The presenter was female. She was supposed to have been presenting ideas on how to be an academic coach when helping with teachers in need of assistance. I was taken back at what was said at a professional development. It just goes to show what happens when people are not truly educated as to what information they are holding in their hands.

The female presenter first stereotyped males as wanting to give advice when asked a question. I have heard this said before by people outside the counseling profession, but scholars in the communication field know that relying on context rules out stereotyping. So, if a professional counselor or communication scholar were to make the same statement, it would not be generalized information, but specific information to a client or scholarly audience. But, I kept listening instead of tuning out immediately on the stereotyping comment.

Then, the presenter wanted to go into embedding phrases in statements that change how people perceive what is being said. It was pure manipulation doctrine. While it is true that how something is said can make a difference, rerouting a person's thinking to a reduced list of phrases to say a different way misses the point. Then, unbelievably, she crossed the line. She started saying how embedding certain phrasing was getting her husband to act a certain way and that sometimes her husband didn't respond to her pet embedded phrases. She crossed two lines, actually. She brought something personal into a professional setting. That alone is so-o-o unethical.

But then, she crossed into an area she apparently had very little knowledge of (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing [Alexander Pope]). She went from giving tips for communication in a quasi-counseling session to applying those tips to private and casual, even intimate, conversation. That is over the line, over the top, out of bounds, taboo, and otherwise academically sloppy. What is good for counseling sessions should never be applied to natural, casual conversation. The analyses of natural conversation is the subject of a whole body of scholarly work. She probably doesn't know that. But, too late. I was gone.

I left the session and did not return. At my age I don't have to attend a professional development session presented by someone who doesn't even know the tip of the iceberg about ethics or her subject matter. I guess I could chalk this up to a gender difference. But, that is a whole other matter with a body of literature all its own.

Looking for what fits best

There is no better book than Ecclesiastes to show how conservatism works in the interpretation of ancient philosophical books. The following is the text for chapter 4.1-3 of Ecclesiastes.

Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were crying, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side. I envy those who are dead and gone; they are better off than those who are still alive. But better off than either are those who have never been born, who have never seen the injustice that goes on in this world.

Conservatism requires one to take the surface meaning if at all possible. On the surface of the above passage, one is bound to see the pessimism or futility of living. "A person can't fight city hall" is the underlying message of the passage. In the second part of the passage, the dead and unborn are in better states than the living are. Have humans really stooped to such depths of depression as a group. The book is purported to have been written by a renowned philosopher. The first several verses of chapter 1 point this out. Does that mean that the prevailing philosophy of the time was one of bleakness, darkness, and futility? Even if the people didn't feel the way that the philosopher felt, the book that people of the generation wanted to pass on to posterity was filled with pessimism. That does say something about the people.

But there is another way of looking at the book and passages like the one cited so that it makes more sense that people would be proud to pass down such a book for the next generation. But, to do so, one has to throw the surface value out the window. One has to drop conservatism and take a more liberated approach. One needs to assume that literature was not being born as this philosopher was writing. The Iliad and the Odyssey were being written in a different part of the world about this time. The Indus Valley in India was experiencing some of its enlightenment and keeping records during this period. The Sumerians had recorded all kinds of stories a millenium and a half before Ecclesaistes came to the mind of the philosopher. So, people were fully aware of literary devices used in writing. Figurative language had been extant in languages of all kinds of people. Likely, the people of Israel were no different from their neighbors in understanding the elements of writing.

In every known society, injustices have existed. By bringing up the subject, the philosopher is not saying it is new or even overlooked. He makes a "life goes on statement" at the very least or he makes a broad generalization to denote a problem by stereotyping. Authors still do this in the modern era. It's a way get people to identify with a general set of characteristics so that they will stay interested in the book. He simply wanted people to say, "I have felt like this before" so that they would read what came next.

Another way to look at the passage is to capsulize it as an ancient document that reflected the philosophy of an era. Ideas from the book are bound by a context. Only if the ideas represent the universals of history should they be delivered to a future or applied to a past civilization. So, even if it was true that the philosopher was commenting about the harshness of life for most people, to say that he envied unborn or dead people presupposes that there is no afterlife. After the time of Jesus, the largest religion in the world values the afterlife. Thus, the reading is not to be taken univerally.

Yet a third way to look at the passage is to say that the philosopher is using the literary technique of hyperbole—exaggeration for an effect. He overstates the case so that people will see that the point of the passage is actually the opposite of what is being said. People should not feel so hopeless although circumstances could dictate that they do so. But who really wants to envy the dead or the unborn?

Even at the very end of chapter (vs. 16), the philosopher wants to make a point about leaving an imprint on the world.

There may be no limit to the number of people a king rules; when he is gone, no one will be grateful for what he has done. It is useless. It is like chasing the wind.

At face value, the passage is still very negative. Who can hope to be more than a mere speck in the sands of time? Give it up. No one is anybody. Percy Shelley said about the same thing in the beautifully written poem of the early 1800s, Ozymandias. If the great people cannot hope to be remembered, why would the ordinary person think he or she could? The second way takes the above cited verse and says that it has limited effect. The Jews in a little later time period came to understand that their way to be remembered was through their children. Their way to leave an imprint on the world was to perpetuate it through their lifestyle which lived on through their children, their children's children, etc. So, the passage is not universal but reflects only beliefs of a certain time period. The third way to understand the passage allows for one to say the philosopher is making an overstatement. He wants everyone to leave an imprint, but he knows that they will have to work hard to do so.

So, conservatism doesn't always work in interpreting ancient books. Sometimes the message of a book is like looking out at a certain terrain and finding features that don't fit the rest of the landscape. A person knows that there is an explanation for the anomaly of pointed rocks in a desert plain, but one has to go to the trouble of finding the explanation. Tolerance is the watchword I am trying to point to. Interpretation matters because it drives one's belief system. But, allowing for various supported conclusions takes maturity, education, or both.

The after-life place

At the heart of Christianity is the life after this one that is offered by the Teacher who said that he was from this after-life place. There is a monolog of Hamlet from the Shakespearean play by that name that expresses well what thoughts cross the minds of Christians about this after-life place. Hamlet refers to this place as "the undiscovered country," and hints that we would be worse people if this place did not keep us in check.

"For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourne
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?"
(Act 3, scene 2)

Hamlet is also thinking that life is so harsh that he would take his own life if he knew that he would not end up in a worse place in "the undiscovered country."

I think both of the aspects reflected in the thinking of Hamlet are true, but there's more to it when thinking of this after-life place. The Great Teacher told one of his twelve followers that he had clearly taught his followers in knowing how to get to this place. But, still people view this part of their belief as if they were a traveler looking at the ostensible parts of Christianity without knowing what is behind the viewable facade. It's as if a traveler were to look at a colorful shelter built in a paradise setting, wondering what the inside looks like. The outside is so inviting that surely the inside is at least as attractive. But no one knows for sure, so it makes the traveler a bit tentative.

It certainly gives us an occasion to reflect when someone close to us goes through the door of the beautiful house where we cannot follow. Our imaginations run wild. Our longings to be with them drive our pensive thoughts. What's on the inside? But, really, the journey is ultimately a solitary one. We have many cheerleaders in our lives, but we still choose for ourselves what to believe in life and how to act on that belief.

So, we arrive at the paradise island house alone with our deeds on our back. In the few moments before opening the door to the inviting house, my mind is going to be spinning, but I hope that I will be saying, "Think of a brilliant, white room. Think of a golden crown..."

Measured Words

Today gave pause to a really rare commodity—honesty. Many conversations don't have that quality or they scratch only the surface of a topic so that honesty comes easily. But, the conversation today was hard in some ways. So much of the time, I have to measure what is said because people anticipate what is going to be said. They think you said something you didn't. Or, people will take what you said and decide they don't like it. Then, they think you shouldn't have said what you did even if it was honest.

So, I look at nature and take a lesson in honesty from nature. Most of the time, what you see is what you get. I guess jungles might be an exception. Of course, if you understand the jungle, it doesn't really hide anything. If nature is rugged, it has a beauty. If nature is soft, hilly, or liquid, it is also beautiful because you can trust what you see. The beauty is a straighforward beauty.

So, I toast those rare moments of complete honesty—words that don't have to be measured.

At the intersection of learning

I had a chance to talk about what makes children learn today. It's really not good teaching although a good teacher can enhance learning. It's not really presenting information in a way that makes someone want to learn the information. It's what has been true since day one. People just like to put masks on learning. And learners are not to blame for being lazy. If someone is exposed to an idea, then it's a matter of how 5 factors combine. Those factors? Opportunity to proceed, personality of learner and teacher, interest in subject, intrinsic motivation to continue, extrinsic motivation to continue. If the combination of factors is negative, learning is minimal. If the combination is positive, learning is maximal. It's that simple no matter how many programs are sold or how many veterans learn their craft well.

Break it down for yourself. Why are you in the profession you are in? Did extrinsic motivation put you where you are? What factors combined for you to learn what you have learned? Interest in the subject? If you could learn in a field that you felt you were good in but that you felt you were cheated out of, then what factors would have to combine? Intrinsic motivation and opportunity to proceed?

So, it's true, no matter what the current wisdom of the professional educators is.

Looking back with no regrets?

I don't know about regrets. The word was coined because people have a tendency to look back on events and say that they wished that things had happened differently or that they wished that they could have said something more, or less, or not at all. Oedipus Rex has a scene at the very end of it where the chorus wants to give a moralistic lesson to the play. The last lines are to the effect that a person should conisder himself or herself fortunate if he or she can look back at the end of his or her life and find no regrets.

We've all had those moments in which we wish we could take something back. But, we all make choices as we go through life. We, most of the time, know what we are saying or doing at the time. But, to have regrets? I know a woman who has made it her goal to live life without regret. Her idea is that you make your decision at the time in the best manner you know how. If a mistake is made, you just ask forgiveness and go on. No regrets.

Maybe it's that simple. But, some tiny, little voice in my head tells me different. Life is challenging at best. In the case of Oedipus, destiny caused his demise. I sure don't believe that. But, is there a middle ground between destiny and always asking forgiveness and going on? I guess that middle line would be remembering what happened wrong and evaluating it so that it doesn't happen again or so that damage can be minimized or both. Self-evaluation is a human trait. Even though evaluation cannot stop something from happening again, it can help in minimizing the chances of something happening to the magnitude it did, again.

So once again, I am in the middle on this one. Maybe that's good, but it is a pattern - stiking the middle ground. Well, it limits regrets.

Believe it

"I can't believe what I just saw."

Such were the words of a colleague of mine today. Of course, it grabbed my attention. I had to ask what it was she saw. After she related the story, I couldn't believe my ears either.
"It's unbelievable." That was a favorite song of mine a few years back. I'm beginning to see a pattern form here. And then, there's the refrain in my mind I am reminded of whenever I decide to write something. A professor once wrote on my paper, "Incomprehensible." I really couldn't believe that comment since I was taking her for graduate credit. Amazing how I had made it that far in school and made other writing of mine comprehensible for other professors.

But most everything we experience goes in one of two categories—believable/unbelievable. The trouble is that the game is a guessing game, a game of perception, a game of illusion. Do I believe an experience because I want to or because something truly happened. Sometimes I look at my own, very real history and shake my head and comment inaudibly, "I can't believe that happened." So, to all who happen onto this blog, once you leave, tell yourself you had an unbelievable experience.

Into perpetuity

Easter is all about breaking the chains of death and seeing how God can tamper with the laws of nature He has set in motion. Easter is a perpetual reminder that the Son of Man visited but has gone ahead of us to prepare a place. Easter takes the symbol of the Great Teacher and lets it stand on coffins letting the world know not to seek the living with the dead.

I want my voice to join the millions of people worldwide both in this era and the great number of past eras in announcing our faith in the words of the apostle Thomas upon realizing that Jesus actually did go through crucifixion and resurrection, "My Lord and my God!" I want my eyes to look beyond this limited life to the world that remains an enigma and peer into Jesus' eyes like Thomas', when he said he didn't know how to get to where Jesus was going, and see Jesus say, "You have been with me; you know the way."

Yes, today is Easter and has been for 2000 years. It's the day that tells the world that the forces of evil will not win in the end. Someone is more powerful than the Controlling One from the Dark Side. The original apostles stared at Jesus' ascension with sheer amazement and wonder as he left the earth. They were silent with the inspirational awe that drives a life through its course come what may. Into perpetuity I will remember the last supper in which Jesus said, "In a little while the world will see me no more, but you will see me; and because I live, you also will live."

Hallelujah!

(The words of Jesus and Thomas have been taken from John 14 and 20).

Touchstone

The word "touchstone" derives from the year 1481 in written records. It was coined to show why silver and gold were so precious. If silver and gold touch a stone (a black silliceous stone such as quartz) the color of the streak left on the black stone would determine the piece's quality. The figurative use of the word was not far behind its coining. In 1533, the idea that something is a standard for everything else to be compared by surfaced. So the meaning still is today.

When it comes to the teachings of the Great Teacher, I think there is one characteristic that pervades his teachings. It is best exemplified in the story from Luke that starts, "There was once a man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho when robbers attacked him, stripped him, and beat him up, leaving him half dead." The whole story is in Luke 10.25-37. In the story, a despicable human being helps another human being who badly needed his help. The humans who had status in society saw the same situation, but did not step in to help.

The idea of helping someone whose path has intersected with our own is the touchstone of Christian teaching. The color of the streaks of other characteristics do not have the same quality as acting for those who are in our path and need help. Christianity is but a religion if it exists without the streak that shows the high quality of rendering help. The saying is true, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." That's not in the Master's teachings, but it is a modern paraphrase of the story found in Luke. I hope my next 30 years reflect the touchstone of the Teacher's words.

Living in the third world

I go to work everyday in a very different environment from the man pictured. This is his shop in a Micronesian island. A few trappings of the modern world are there—car, plastic basket, roof of aluminum, swim trunks, glasses. He is a wood carver. He is holding a boat that he has made for the occasional tourist that drops by. He does other carpentry work because carpentry is his main trade.

Even though this man lives in a third world country, he has a little smattering of a civilization from beyond him. I tend to look on him with a certain amount of pity because of his third world status. But, he seems satisfied enough.

This gets me thinking about being trapped in this dimension of my life's time continuum. I'm relatively satisfied. I know there is another world beyond me, but it's beyond me. I know that others have preceded me there. But, I still practice my daily rituals in the world in which I live even though I see some of the trappings of the next world around me now. I don't have a great longing to leave any more than the man above is longing to leave. I just understand that one day, I will be forced to leave my third world and go to a grander civilization.

Ocean inspiration

There is something about staring at the ocean. It just goes on forever with a land break every now and then. It represents the timeless continuum humans are caught up in. Human species go back 3 million years. Our own species seem to have been around at least half of that time.

That being true, one has to consider that language also has to have been around that long. Communication had to have happened in order for the species to stay alive. So, when archaeologists find cave paintings dating back 35,000 years, those paintings are believable and instructive. When archaeologists find cuneiform tablets with writing dating to 3000-3500 BCE, then we also know that those tablets represent years and years and years for the writing to have developmentally reached that point. Humans have been around a really long time, as has human writing.

Staring at an ocean can enhance one's comprehension of the distant past because it too stretches on forever, inspiring one to think of what has happened on its watery surface for eons. The ocean makes one curious.

And from this curiosity, I allow myself to think of the world's origins and human origins. It makes me know that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is something recent. Although traces from human origins are in the text, the whole story is not—most of the story is not. It seems to have been condensed. Thousands and thousands and thousands of years of human activity have been made into story form. I choose to think the story is in allegorical form rather than literal form because too many years passed before the story was perpetuated in writing.

A little view of the ocean inspires such thoughts and much, much more. I keep my ocean pictures around for just such moments.

Jungle beauty

Our minds are like jungles in many ways. They consist of a bunch of thoughts that sometimes get out of our mouths as words, sometimes as gestures, sometimes as tone of voice, and sometimes by violent action depending on personality type. So when someone speaks, what is taking place in the jungle of his or her mind is glimpsed?

Today someone close to me got to see what was in the jungle of my mind. I was upset over a series of events. Someone I work with just happened to come to talk to me about an unrelated matter to my state of mind. Yet, I still decided to allow this person to capture what was in my jungle. My tone was louder than usual, my gestures more animated than usual. My words were well chosen to show a little vim, vigor, and venom.

All I could say was "Sorry you walked in at this moment," to the person. I don't know that others seeing what is in the jungle of our minds is wrong. It's simply what is there. Jungles are fierce places sometimes, scary places. But, they carry their own beauty.

Isn't it great that there is a way to see the beauty of the jungle on occasion.

Words as masks

Over the last 2 weeks I have seen a person in a position of power who likes to think that he exercises power, at least judging by his words. But his actions are far from powerful. People's words are what they have to exercise power because others judge that words have ensuing actions. When words are not succeeded by actions, the words are cheapened. They are mere bluffs.

In the case of the Creator, when he said, "Let there be light," light came into existence. No bluff. In the case of humans, when someone says something but fails to follow up with action, nothing comes into existence except contempt for the inaction of the person uttering the words. All bluff. In this case, because of inaction on the person with the power position, another person used harmful, challenging words against a friend, knowing there would be no consequences and followed up with some harmful, challenging actions, knowing there would be no consequences.

Surely, the teacher was right when he said that what comes out of a person rather than what goes into a person is what condemns or justifies that person. I am hurting for someone tonight. Words were cheap; people were hurt. Someone stands condemned tonight.

When ordinary words are not ordinary

Words are playtoys for people who like language. I've been watching comedians this afternoon. They take the usual and the mundane and turn them into highlighted material. It's a lot like looking out over a lagoon at sunset. Both lagoons and islands are mundane. But, when taken together, they are very noticeably beuatiful. Everyday events or observations and humor are like this.

Inside insight

I am going to write one last meandering about the characteristics of the followers of Jesus that I found to be outstanding in the account from Mark. I found 9 characteristics. Today's discussion is on characteristic # 9.

Characteristic 9: (S)He seeks to understand God from lessons of nature or from interactions that people have with nature. This understanding serves as inner enlightenment for living.

Representative text from Mark: (Mark 4.10-12)

When Jesus was alone, some of those who had heard him came to him with the 12 disciples and asked him to explain the parables. "You have been given the secret of the Kingdom of God," Jesus answered. "But the others who are on the outside hear all things by means of parables so that

'They may look and look
And yet not see.
They may listen and listen
And yet not understand
For if they did, they would turn to God
And he would forgive them.'"

This last characteristic puts one on dangerous ground. Inner enlightenment can come for single individuals. It can come for a few or for a larger group. It can be reflected in one’s life or in written documents. It can come from flashes of mental thought or in interpretation of events. It’s dangerous ground.

Few people know that the early church had followers of Jesus in its midst that tried following inner enlightenment.But, between 70 AD and 200 AD, the orthodox church relentlessly ostracized it as a bad movement, a plague to rid itself of. It succeeded because few people know about the “Gnostic movement” that happened at that time.

Today, organized religion still does not recognize the value or place of inner enlightenment. It’s a threat mainly because one can worship and understand God and His son outside the scope of organized religion. That hits at the pocketbook of an organization that claims to be the legitimate successor and guardian to all of Jesus’ teachings.

However, if one were to read only the gospels, and not allow for Paul’s application or the Jewish interpretation of the Jesus movement in the early days after Jesus’ ascension, would he arrive at the same conclusion as the churches in the landscape of society today? The opposing side would readily point out that Jesus’ teachings were made in a context many times implied (understanding by those in the original context without having to have written it down). Churches can supply that context.

I get a different story. And I have had a dose of inner enlightenment to light the way. Even in Mark, Jesus asks his follower to be faithful to him and acknowledge his divine status. So, when the time in my life came in which there was a very definite, real and present danger of abandoning the family arrangement and all it stood for, I went on a trip with a friend. At the end of the trip, I climbed to the peak of a mountain. I could see God’s creation for miles. And He spoke to my mind by leaving an impression. He reminded me that Abraham had climbed a mountain many years ago, and he had had to trust God for supplying a sacrifice. Abraham’s job was to remain faithful. A ram in the thicket was provided for a sacrifce. My lesson also was to remain faithful for God would provide. Since that time life has not been kind. But, with each trying circumstance, God has provided a way through the storm—sometimes by sending the right people, sometimes by sending the right circumstance, and sometimes by providing just the right job opportunity.

In days since that mountain-top moment of enlightenment, it has not been what has happened with organized religion that has provided food for my soul. It has been songs written by Christian songwriters that have kept me faithful. It has been associations made with other Christians. It has been a circumstance in which I was truly needed to help show God’s steadfastness. It has been walking in the park where I converse with the Creator of the universe. It has been seeing the evil empire in all its power and knowing that I would do well just to hold my own. It has been having an experience in which I had to look death squarely in the eyes and tell God what I was going to do as I peered into the dark abyss. It has been acknowledging that I live in a fully dysfunctional world and family, and that I would still remain faithful. So when I read from Mark about Jesus’ life and teachings I get a whole other story than the one presented on Sunday mornings in auditoriums around the USA. Jesus came to leave his imprint with us—inside of us.

Mark 7.20-23
And he went on to say, “From the inside, from your heart come the evil ideas that lead you to do immoral things, to rob, kill, commit adultery, be greedy, and do all sorts of evil things; deceit, indecency, jealousy, slander, pride, and folly—all these evil things come from inside you and make you unclean.”

It’s inner enlightenment. It’s the reign of God in my actions with my daughter, my colleagues. It’s the reign of God seen in my actions on the business trips I take or the personal ones. It’s the acknowledgment of Jesus as the son of God in my actions speaking so loudly that others with their dysfunctional lives can know that they too can be healed. Enlightenment outside any earthly system is something Jesus left for us.

Man was not made for the Sabbath

I am going to dedicate the blogspot for one last week to meanderings about the characteristics of the followers of Jesus that I found to be outstanding in the account from Mark. I found 9 characteristics. Today's discussion is on characteristic # 8.

Characteristic 8: (S)He treats the strict adherents to religious traditions as those who need to be guided further, redirected, or challenged to give up their traditions.

Jesus did not mince words. He did not politely treat those who wanted to use the law as if it were a straight jacket. He would tell them hard sayings to follow such as it is harder for a camel to thread the needle's eye than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. He showed them his authority over nature, with his divine attributes of forgiving sins. He would drive out Jews from the temple area where they sold merchandise because they had turned the house of prayer into a den of theives. He would command waves on a sea to convince his followers that he was in charge of nature and could do what he wanted if he so chose. He would tell those who listened that he was Lord of the Sabbath and that they also were not made for the Sabbath, but vice versa.

If we take that to heart, then it seems that we have much in our religious world that we need not heed. We simply need to follow Jesus' teachings. We are not bound to follow people's traditions. And just what falls in the category of tradition? All kinds of practices. The church has made attendance a high priority. But, maybe just being with other Christians at work, at play, in leisure, on trips, etc. is a more effective arrangement for being with other Christians. The church has made worship "acts" a definition of worship. Paul's application was the living sacrifice. Our daily habits might be a better definition of our recognition of God than our "acts." Religious people don't let religion get in the way of their business. Followers of Jesus operate business through their integrity, honesty, decency. Who is worshiping at what place has a higher importance than exhibiting kindness and compassion to the people around us. At the very least the arrangement should be vice versa. Perhaps the second part of the statment is the only action that counts. Religious people place a priority on which church, and by extension, which doctrine is correct. What should be more important, perhaps, is the knowledge of the tenets of Jesus' teachings, that is, he fed hungry people, he relieved the pain of the afflicted, he cast out limiting demons of the flesh, he assured the insecure, he forgave sins. Our religion should not be rules but forgiving responses, healing touches, encouraging words.

It's refreshing to be around people who don't act religiously. Jesus encountered the religious people, and we do too. Our response should be the same as the teacher's response. We follow the Lord of the Sabbath.

The DNA of the message

I am going to dedicate the blogspot for at least the next week to meanderings about the characteristics of the followers of Jesus that I found to be outstanding in the account from Mark. I found 9 characteristics. Today's discussion is on characteristic # 7.

Characteristic 7: (S)He trusts that Jesus delivered the message of God that spawns a life that never ends.

Representative sample from Mark: After this, Jesus himself sent out through his disciples from the east to the west the sacred and everliving message of eternal salvation.
(Mark 16.9-10) The shortest ending

It would stand to reason that if the other 6 characteristics of Jesus' followers are true, then Jesus would send out his message through his disciples from the east to the west. Jesus would have wanted his message to have been perpetuated. I don't think that perpetuation is in the form that most churches say that it is to be accomplished. But, Jesus had in mind that his message would last through the ages.

Many churches want to have everybody "doing evangelism." Thus, a number of phases have been passed through. In the 1950s there was the "Go ye means me" movement. Door-to-door evangelism was tried. In the 1960s people set up film strip studies and home Bible studies. In the 1970s buses rolled out of a great number of church buildings to pick up the kids of the slackards who weren't coming so that they could be reached through their kids. Vacation Bible Schools existed for the same purpose. In the 1980s "reaching the unchurched" became a popular phrase for the aim of evangelism. So, churches tried different social events to invite the community to. In the 1990s "friendship evangelism" was the watchword of the day. Christians were to be a light to and talk openly with everyone in their sphere of influence. 2/3 of the way through the first decade of the 2000s, the emphasis so far has been on reaching out through a combination of 1980s and 1990s methods and a few attempts at using internet methods, although those are still in their infancy, and attempts at joining forces with other denominations, such as church planting.

But, Jesus may have meant that he wanted his message to simply be the trademark of a person. So, the plumber acknowledges the reign of God in his life through his words and actions, as does the school teacher, the electrician, the entrepreneur, the attorney, the medical doctor, the supremely educated, the carpet layer, the roofer, the accountant, the oil investor, the landmen, geologists, and geophysicists, etc. When each person on the earth claims Jesus as the Son of God, (s)he is saying that the message is other-worldly (the meaning of "holy" or "sacred") and that it has embedded in its teachings the claim a follower's life never ends.

And so, a mother teaches that to her children, people marry and teach it to their children; those children marry and pass on the good word—ad infinitum.

One might call this the DNA characteristic. A follower will every day of his or her life transmit the message in some form to someone else. The reign of God is forever.

Blabbing the superficialities of God's generosity

I am going to dedicate the blogspot for at least the next week to meanderings about the characteristics of the followers of Jesus that I found to be outstanding in the account from Mark. I found 9 characteristics. Today's discussion is on characteristic # 6.

Characteristic 6: (S)He can see the wisdom of internalizing what God has done for him or her so that every person experiences God in his or her own way.

Representative sample from Mark: “What about you?” he asked them. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” Then Jesus ordered them, “Do not tell anyone about me.” (Mark 8.29-30)

Other textual support for characteristic:1.34, 3.12, 7.36, 8.26, 8.30,
Fact from Mark: In 58% of the healing episodes, Jesus tells the ones healed not to say anything.

In my teens, as I became familiar with the gospel of Mark, I often wondered why Jesus told those he healed or cast demons from not to tell anyone else. It seemed that the people would be excited enough to tell others what Jesus had done for them and that Jesus should have appreciated the spread of his gospel. Later, in college, I thought that Jesus knew the state of people's minds well enough to create the reverse phsychological effect. Later, I just thought there would be a day that I would understand the dynamic, but the day never came for 20 years.

Then the day came. I was asked to analyze Mark for the outstanding characteristics of the followers of Jesus. Again, it stood out that Jesus told those he healed not to tell others. It bothered me since Jesus told those he healed to keep quiet in 58% of the recorded stories of his healing. I started with my childhood idea. But, that idea was wrong because Jesus' stated mission was to preach his message (characteristic #1). And I strongly believe the idea from my college years is wrong because it seems that reverse psychology for manipulative purposes of individuals is a game, and Jesus did not come to play mind games with people. So, I had to look elsewhere.

It dawned on me that anything meaningful in life really has to be discovered before it can be fully internalized. Even if someone else "discovers" some miracle of God, some realization for me, that is, a miracle or realization happened to me because of someone else's goodwill toward me (not my discovery), the meaning would still have to be internalized. If I am busy telling everyone about the miracle or realization, it encourages all manner of remarks from others on whether it was from God or not. I need to let the miracle wash over me. I need to internalize the generosity of God. I need to know to the deepest fiber that Jesus is the Son of God. I need to know I have no control nor have I created any good reason (such as a good life) for the miracle or realization to have happened. I need time with the Maker of Heaven and Earth to give thanks and to be overwhelmed that he considered me, a tiny speck in the universe of his. Then, I can go in power because God can use me.

Placing faith in Jesus calls for us to look at Jesus' other-worldy nature. It calls for us to trust that he represents the Maker of all. It takes a little time to award that trust to someone. It takes time to internalize what God has done for us. If we go in power later, it takes internalization now, not blabbing the superficialities of God's generosity to everyone and their dogs. Otherwise, our story is shallow both for us and for the one to whom we are talking. Instead, I need to spend the time being overwhelmed because God has shortened the discovery process for me. As the evangelist Landon Saunders used to say, "First tell his story. Then tell your story." The other order is out of order. It lacks power. It focuses on the wrong person. This is the Maker's world.

An old name, a new meaning

I am going to dedicate the blogspot for at least the next week to meanderings about the characteristics of the followers of Jesus that I found to be outstanding in the account from Mark. I found 9 characteristics. Today's discussion is on characteristic # 5.


Characteristic 5: (S)He knows the imagery of Jesus’ references to himself as the Son of Man.


Representative sample from Mark: And Jesus concluded, “The Sabbath was made for the good of human beings; they were not made for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2. 27-28)


Other textual support for characteristic:2.10, 2.28, 10.33, 10.44, 13.26, 14.21, 14.62
Fact from Mark: Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man 7 times, split evenly over his ministry

Jesus called himself the Son of Man so much that it is noteworthy. Nobody seemed to question the meaning of the phrase. Also of note is the fact that the apostles did not leave any written record of their calling Jesus by the name Son of Man. So, should modern followers think that since the apostles left no written record of calling Jesus by a name he called himself that we too should not call him by that name? Was the name treated like Yahweh was treated by the Jews of old, that is, the name was much too sacred to pronounce even?

The link given (either by clicking the title of this blog or the other link) is to a spot on Studylight.org. A series of 7 short articles have been written (December 15th-January 26) in order to help illuminate the origins of the phrase and explore how Jesus may have used this appellation. Interesting reading. Click on the title to this article (the cursor will change to a hand as you place it on the title) and you will be taken straight to the archives where you may click on the Son of Man article of your choice.

Say no to attitudes from platitudes

I am going to dedicate the blogspot for at least the next week to meanderings about the characteristics I found to be outstanding in the account from Mark. I found 9 characteristics. Today's discussion is on characteristic # 4.

Characteristic 4: (S)He understands that there are intrinsic barriers to the reign of God in one’s life that must be overcome.

Jesus looked straight at him with love and said, “You need only one thing. Go and sell all you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have riches in heaven; then come and follow me.” (Mark 10.21)

Other textual support for characteristic:10.17-31, 12.28-34, 3.20-30, 6.1-6, 3.31-35, 16.14
Fact from Mark: barriers in trust come from one’s own family, town, or belief community

Beyond the restorative touch needed to return their lives to normalcy, beyond the beginning point of acknowledging that Jesus is God's son in order to rid themselves from the slavery of their addictions, followers of Jesus know that they have to beware always of those traditions and values that they grew up with. Values and traditions pose as foundations for good living, but so often they are masks for a corrupt and rotten system of status quo. Even people brought up in church traditions have to beware that the church traditions themselves are not a barrier to the authentic teachings of Jesus.

In Mark 12.28-34, a man versed in the Jewish law came to Jesus and asked him what the greatest commandment was. Jesus told him. The man agreed with Jesus. Then Jesus told the man that he was not far from the kingdom of God. Jesus didn't compliment the man for being in the kingdom since they had agreed. Jesus didn't invite the man to join the kingdom. Instead, Jesus told the man that he was near the kingdom of God.

Assumedly, a modern person could find himself or herself in the same condition, that is, near the kingdom of God. If so, then perhaps understanding what the kingdom of God is would keep one from only being near it, but allow one to fully participate in it. If one were to be able to fully participate in the kingdom, then one would also know what could be a barrier to that full participation.

The word kingdom is an archaic term, not in the sense that the word has passed from our language, but in the sense that the term is only used of a time period that is not our own, but in the past. Americans hate irrelevance, so another idea that is relevant should be understood. A kingdom is a geographic location for most Americans; perhaps Americans extend the idea to castles, serfs, knights, or other symbols (by metonomy) for what a king has sovereignty over.
Americans are, however, familiar with the idea of a rule of someone over another. If one still needs to feel that some vestige of Jesus' teachings needs to represent the age of the original teachings or the manuscripts that bring those teachings to the modern person, then the idea of reign could be substituted for rule. Thus, to the man who asked Jesus about the greatest commandment, Jesus replied that God's reign in his life was not too distant. Although the man agreed with Jesus, he still had a barrier that kept him from fully participating in the reign of God for him. Mark does not elaborate on the man's barrier like he did for the rich young ruler cited above in the representative sample from Mark. Somehow, though, the man was not vested in the rule or reign of God.

What might keep a modern person from having God's reign in his or her life? Mainly, attitudes. A follower of Jesus accepts and knows the teachings of Jesus. So, the follower should be living decently toward others. But, actions are generated by one's thoughts behind those actions. And, the thought behind the actions comes from attitudes which are derived from traditions and values. So, how does one respond to an insult from someone else? What acknowledgment is allowed if an addiction has taken over a person? When is the best time to go to someone with whom a problem exists? Where is it that one should want find himself or herself on Friday nights? Who is the master one truly serves?

For many, platitudes provide the thought behind their actions. "A penny saved is a penny earned." So, they save, maybe even in miserly way. "Those who make the gold make the rules." So, they work their way up the ladder to make more money. "The early bird gets the worm." So, people are so very busy breaking others backs to get the worm. "Plan you work. Work your plan." So, meetings at all hours abound for planning, and working at all hours and at all costs carry out those plans.

So, when does the follower of Jesus have the time and stamina to know Jesus' teachings? When does the decent living happen in front of families? When does one have time to see the healing taking place in his or her own life? What kind of restoration takes place when so little time is given for recognizing the need for restoration? When does the follower of Jesus have time to reflect on his or her attitudes to know if adjustments are necessary? What keeps one a short distance from participating in God's rule, His reign for one's life? Simple agreement with Jesus' message keeps one at arm's length from the rule. So, it must be more than simple agreement.

If attitudes from platitudes disappear, then the distance to the reign of God in our lives disappears. Jesus' teachings can then be authentic. Then we can go and follow him.