Good. Good? Good!

What is good? This question opens my discussion of Christian Ethics each semester with students who are required to take the course. How that question is answered shall be the on-going subject of this post (which I shall revise and edit throughout the course of the semester).

Where is the promised parousia?

Scoffers in their scoffing have come in these last days

- worldly people,

driven by deep distorted desire, divisive, devoid of the Spirit.

Jesus said

“You are not permitted to know the times or periods

that the Father has set by his own authority.

But you will receive power

when the Holy Spirit has come upon you,

and you will be my witnesses ...

to the farthest parts of the earth.”

After this,
he was lifted up while they were watching,
and a cloud hid him from their sight.
They were still staring into the sky while he was going,
when suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them
and said,

"Men of Galilee,

why do you stand here looking up into the sky?

This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven

will come back …"

The Greatest Commandment

Consider the question: what is the greatest commandment. What do you think yourself concerning this question? Does your answer have some other reference other than your own thoughts? What is your primary reference for thinking about this question? If Scripture, why? Where does Scripture support what you think about the greatest commandment?

The following is somewhat representative of what a number of students answered in class: Love God above all else and love others as yourself. How is this statement like or unlike what you think? Consider something I said in class the other day - it is good to be able to turn one's face towards God. Following from this will be the ability to face others as well (see the story in Genesis recounting the renaming of Jacob after he struggled with God prior to his reconciliation with his brother Esau).

One perceives oneself properly by giving priority first to God, then others:

GOD<--(SELF)-->OTHERS

Read Mark 12:28-34.

One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"

Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, 'He is One and there is no other than he.' And 'to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself' is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Why do you believe what you believe? To what cultural community does your conception of life conform? Might there be some need for transformation so that such conception can be renewed so to give priority to what God considers to be good? Read Romans 12 (consider this chapter within the context of the whole book, especially verses 16-21 of chapter 1, verses 13-25 of chapter 7, verses 24-28 of chapter 8, and verses 8-10 of chapter 13).

RANT: Using the f-word ...

It disgusts me how quite a number of you (you know who you are) use the f-word so much. Doing so is mindless a best, perversely obscene at worst. It does not matter that what you write may be a snippet of some stupid pop song lyric - need you spell it out? Can any of you explain this to me?

• • ME:
    Please don't go researching what someone else may have written on this subject - I can do that myself, thank you. Why do you do it? I dare say that most of you have no clue - you just do it, much like the way you blunder through life in other ways. For those of you who take delight in using such language, for shock effect perhaps, why does it matter to you? What are you accomplishing?
  • FRIEND A:
    ‎"Fig" is my f-word. "Fish" works too, but when I hear "shut the front door" as an exclamation, I get figgin' angry.
    
  • I said "fig" a lot this morning, too. I rescheduled the Fun(d)raiser, by the way. Sunday, Jan 30. Too many folks driving, rather be safe than sorry.
  • FRIEND B:
    Overuse of any rhetorical device, not just profanity, is indefensible, and profanity is a particularly strong spice, easy to overuse. When onstage performing purely for adults, I sex up my jokes quite a bit. Even then, I pretend someone couldn't get a babysitter and there are two pre-teen girls in the front row. The resulting innuendo plays stronger than profanity. So I avoid profanity completely when on stage.
    
    That being said, sometimes it IS called for, and one must say "f[edit]".
  • When performing magic as a Christmas elf, I say "Awww frostbite!"
  • FRIEND C:
    It shows a lack of tact and poor communication skills on the part of the individual. It's a cheap way to vent, IMHO
  • FRIEND D:
    

    Shock does seem to be one part of it, and perhaps another part is a demonstration to the other party that I refuse to be constrained by the thoughtless rules of society---that I recognize and will fully exercise the` freedoms of my society, and that I'm not likely to allow someone else's sense of propriety dictate my behavior. In fact, giving others so much power because we fear their judgement is to my mind one of the greatest problems facing our society today. So I don't really plan to give up use of the word anytime soon, but I do tend to be rather judicious in its use.
    
    Help me understand something, by the way: why is the word 'f[edit]' obscene and not to be allowed on television but the word 'kill' is AOK?
  • FRIEND B:
    ‎@FRIEND D: That bothers me too. To put a finer point on it, why is "f[edit]" obscene but "rape" is just swell? One describes an act that can be jolly good mutual fun, the other is an act of pure evil.
    
  • FRIEND E:
    

    It demonstrates a perversity of mind which is at once misogynous, rebellious and crass lewdness; the Bible, Old and New Testament, describes and condemns this sort of habitual speech; the consequence is not only the coursening of our society but the demeaning of young men and women, and their nascent idea of sex and marriage; such speech becomes habitual with the speaker self-righteously offending critics by defending, and rationalizing, their ugly habit as they often find even sharper ways to deliberately offend others as if it were their duty to do so. I would warn any women in the vicinity that such pornographic speech should be a red flag concerning the character, and probable lecherous imagination and even intentions, of the one caught in this sad habit. At the very least it is discourteous and impolite, and offensive as I am certain this statement will be to those who read it. Good news: Jesus can clean up our speech as well as our imaginations and life through a renewing of the mind and heart by the Spirit of Christ Jesus Who, as the Bridegroom, will someday return for His Bride and the consummation of His Kingdom.
  • ME:
    

    Thanks for the comments. Some of my own thoughts in response:
    - "Fear" can have the meaning of respect - one constrains how one speaks in respect for others. The presence of another defines the ethical boundaries one sets for oneself.
    
    - Performance presents a whole host of issues that are worthy of further discussion. How and how much does one consider one's audience as an "other" to be respected as would be expected in human relationship?
    
    - The words "rape" and "kill" are not used in the same way as the f-word. That argument does not address my question. As I understand it, "evil" describes a basic breach of relationship between persons - an act is evil when it cannot be ordered to the good of the other person. Using a word is an act of communication; what is being communicated and why?
    
    - Why is it that the term "adult" so often describes what is actually immature? For example, an "adult" bookstore caters to those who lack the maturity to be sexually responsible [sexual responsibility meaning developing a mature relationship properly so that the persons therein may freely participate in "an act that can be jolly good mutual fun"]. I understand how an adult audience is expected to be mature enough to choose how to respond to information presented to them and mature enough as well to resist becoming malformed by that information. My concern is that too many people are NOT resisting such malformation more and more, becoming conformed to what is other than good.
    
    - I am aware of my own cultural bias [see my brother's comments above] in how I respond to the f-word. Given my desire to remain friends with those from diverse cultures, I am willing to risk being exposed to what other friends of mine may not be willing to tolerate. However, toleration has its limits and this discussion is intended to explore those limits. In writing that "It disgusts me how quite a number of you (you know who you are) use the f-word so much" I suppose I mean that I find it intolerable.

TO INTERVENE OR IGNORE: RESPONDING TO APPARENTLY IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS

The following "conversation" happened on-line over a few days following a walk in a National Park with a friend:

ME:

Per our discussion in the park regarding responsible intervention - I am still pondering what you had to say, wondering whether it is ever right to ignore apparently irresponsible behavior. Acting to intervene is always risky, depending on one's relationship to the other. It often is a question of power and authority, is it not? Is one ever wise enough to determine how responsible another one might be?

March 23

• • MY FRIEND:
    What's apparently irresponsible behavior? Every action is risky. It tramples on human dignity to take responsibility for their actions, unless they have given you that authority. By entering the park we gave the guards that authority. Were I a guard, I would prefer to warn instead of command and help people learn their limits rather than dictate limits.
    
    I think there's more dignity for us in that.

    March 24
  • ME:
    

    How would "warning" be preferable to "commanding," especially if one is in a position of command? Helping people learn their limits is laudable, but is it possible without some determinative dication that is decisive in defining limitation? How can one be helpful if one's decisions are merely ideally-based opinons unrelated to real limits? The law of gravity is not subject to opinion; one falling from some height may get hurt.
    
    Help is related to humility. One humbles oneself in order to accept help. On the other hand, pride goeth before a fall.

    March 24
    
  • ME:
    

    Pun intended.

    March 24
    
  • MY FRIEND:
    

    Right. So I would accept the help after I broke my arm from the fall. The limit is defined by my mental and physical ability, which he does not know.
    
    He should have told me to put my shoes on too. I might have hurt my feet.

    March
  • ME:
    

    I suppose it really is a matter of trusting those in positions of authority. Judgment is the duty of one trusted with authority. You seem to have found the judgment of this Park "person of authority" to be faulty in that he failed to judge us responsible enough to continue our apparently irresponsible behavior without some authoritative intervention. One wonders why he made that judgment, but more the wonder is why we should be so quick to second guess his authoritative judgement?
    
    Might the fault be more in our arrogant conceit than his authoritative command? Believe me, Lord knows I am no mild-mannered milquetoast always ready to be subject to those in authority - but meekness can be a virtue when one's heart is truly humble. To be able to submit to authority is something to which Christians are all called. To everything there is a season - a time to submit, a time to resist subjection.
    

    March 24
  • ME:
    

    I suppose it is just frustrating to consider oneself fully responsible, then have to confront someone else who seems to not share that same consideration. My father taught me the following statement that may be relevant to this discussion: "Evil is the tertium quid of two autonomous minds." What good can come of a conflict of wills? How is compromise with integrity possible?

    March 24
  • MY FRIEND:
    

    Is meekness submitting to authority?

    March 24
  • ME:
    

    Meekness is being wise is one's action, considering well one's strength and weakness. The one who is strong must take care in how to exercise one's strength; the one who is weak must take care in exerting oneself. For example, just because one can act with great strength, does not mean one must - I have a loud voice, but I can control my volume so that I do not speak too loud (anyone who knows me is aware of how I continue to struggle with this - getting older doesn't mean I've matured as much as I've aged!). The more mature one becomes, the more one can control one's capabilities, constraining one's actions in accordance to one's conscience. Meekness is a sign of maturity.
    
    Our model for meekness, of course, is Christ Jesus himself. "He could have called ten thousand angels, but He died alone to set us free." Constrained by His great love for us, God in Christ considered death by crucifixion over conquest by human might. Philippians 2:8 tells us: "Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
    
    Imitating His example, we die to self so that we may love the other. Meekness helps us be wise in how we might heed the Word in Romans 13:1-5, which tells us:
    "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
    
    "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
    
    "Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake."
    
    The chapter ends with these words:
    "Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts."
    
    Following the flesh is folly for we, created in the image of God and re-created according to the character of Christ, are more than flesh. By grace we can overcome the furor of the flesh to act responsibly toward others who provoke us, especially those in authority. That is what it means to be meek.

    March 25
  • ME:
    

    Pray for me that I may learn meekness myself.

    March 25

Tolerance rather than hypocrisy

Any public performance taking place in a pluralistic milieu presents one with the challenge of coping with differences of opinion concerning what is to be affirmed or opposed. Intolerance cannot stand opposition; the consequence is inevitably social conflict, that is, unwholesome relationship. Tolerance acknowledges opposition without causing social conflict, giving one the opportunity to remain in wholesome relationship with another who may not affirm that which one affirms oneself.

“If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.” This scriptural injunction (Romans 12:18, New American Bible) emphasizes how one, professing to be Christian, is to live with others. One continually considers how one is to be with another now. Such consideration demands that one decide whether or not one will remain with another or not; love answers, “yes, I will remain with you in peace.” Toleration is a loving way for one to remain with another when the other holds to different affirmations and oppositions. Others are to be “… accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives … .” This particular excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which happens to be taken from section 2358 giving the Roman Catholic teaching on the nature of homosexuality) may be considered an apt definition of tolerance that any Christian is called to follow.

Such relationship has risks involved, as any relationship will; one may influence the other over time so that one’s affirmations or oppositions are less firm than at first. This riskiness then requires that one remain in careful communication with the other so that both can come to a fuller understanding of what is being affirmed or opposed. In my own experience presently in the theatre community, I have had ample opportunity to practice tolerance in that I find myself at odds with dear friends whose lifestyle choices do not square with my Christian conscience; by being open in communication with them, I believe I have proven myself tolerant without being a hypocrite. I understand tolerance to be the ethical alternative to hypocrisy. To publicly affirm some virtue and oppose some vice without privately practicing that virtue or abstaining from that vice is hypocrisy.

The way of love (the way taught in Christian Ethics) involves toleration in that love hopes for what can be better in a relationship and works to bring what is better to pass. Intolerance terminates wholesome relationship, presuming that one’s own judgment is final, pronouncing a verdict one has no authority to make. Toleration opens the opportunity for something better to come to pass. One’s faith defines what one believes, one’s hope looks forward to that belief becoming reality, and one’s love enables one to tolerate life in the meantime.

Reflecting on "Borges and I"

In a brief piece entitled "Borges and I," the writer points out how the other self turns one's own preferences "into the attributes of an actor." What is it, however, that one prefers?

The problem is not the acting but the objective of one's action - we are called to become "imitators of God." Without God's grace to breathe life into what we do, our imitative action is an empty performance, essentially absent rather than present. To say "I am" is presumptuous. There is only One who can truly utter those words. Rather we are called in Scripture to imitate the Pauline self-identification by saying, "By the grace of God I am what I am."

Truth may be the key. Perhaps when what one writes is true, than that which has been written may have been inspired by the Spirit of Truth which proceeds from God. All truth being God's truth, even the atheistic writer whose words are true may be breathing the Word of God, albeit unwittingly.

Fiction need not be falsehood. One’s story of seeing a sparrow may still carry truth in its telling even if one is pretending to have seen the sparrow. The pretense is problematic if one’s intention is to lie rather than to tell the truth. Consider the difference between acting in theatre and hypocrisy in personal presentation. Is one concealing rather than revealing what is true? This is what matters.

In the case of "Borges and I," the writer is careful to remain mindful of the difference between his person and his persona, the "me" of one's self and the "not-me" of the mask his words may have made from this same self. The confusion comes when one is confronted with the "not-not-me" created over time when the multitude of words remaining in one's memory begin to define one's personal image of oneself. This is where intimate relationship with others becomes very significant; those who know one best are most beneficial for revealing who one really is apart from who one may present oneself to be.

Truth identifies itself. One either recognizes truth or not. Truth may be concealed and then must be revealed in order to be known.

The elemental property of truth is coincidental with the ultimate authority of the Creator Himself. All truth is derived from what is ultimately and absolutely true. (The same can be said for all that is good, all that is beautiful, etc.) I do not mean some Platonic Ideal though it may seem like it. Right relationship with God really matters in making one's ideal correspond with what is real. Yet even when one may not be in right relationship, one may still, by the grace of God, express what is true.

The problem comes when one and others do not recognize why it is true. The consequence that may very well follow from this misrecognition will be something less than true. Thus is it possible that the quality of what one creates is commensurate with one's perception.

I believe truth is that which does the defining. What is the purpose of definition except to truly describe something so that it may be known? If a definition fails to describe something well, there is something false about the definition. Perhaps this has something to do with recognition – a definition makes most sense to us when we recognize it as describing something we have perceived/conceived ourselves. This object upon which I sit is a chair, a chair being an object designed/used for sitting.

Consider one's own face – each of us carry some idea of what we look like as an individual. Seeing oneself in a mirror presents one with as exactly true an image as one can have; representing that image becomes more and more problematic depending on the medium of representation, whether posed photograph, candid snapshot, painted portrait, quick sketch, or cartoonish caricature. One may more or less recognize the representation of oneself as being true. Others may agree or disagree with our assessment of the representation depending on how well they know us – again we see the significance of relationship in regard to truth.

Perhaps I am too taken with the idea of mimesis. Our call to become imitators of God is to be understood in the light of our being created in the image of God. This ultimate truth about ourselves defines who we are and who we must strive to present ourselves as being.

Disguise often depends on socially recognized conventions – even if one is unconventional. Social convention is often why someone may be presented as someone else; to discover the truth about such an imposter can be quite difficult (consider the movie CATCH ME IF YOU CAN). In this way it is interesting to re-read the essay writers complaint, "... my life is a flight and I lose everything, and everything belongs to oblivion, or to him."