jump to navigation

revisiting the significance of jesus June 20, 2009

Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion.
Tags: ,
4 comments

Jesus spent his life talking about God and helping people, forgiving his disciples for the stupid things they did, telling stories, healing people, and being an amazing, selfless person. He gave up everything to go out and give. He challenged the religious institution, materialism, and people’s lack of faith. There’s a lot of stuff in the gospels, but the short of it is: Jesus was amazing and he was killed; his disciples would not defend him at his crucifixion; he knew his situation, he did not defend himself, and he died on the cross. Hanging there, beaten, suffering, he prayed for humanity as he was being betrayed, in the ultimate example of Humanity and divinity.

I was so affected by the story of Jesus, by this perfect human being that lived a beautiful, selfless life, and yet was crucified and died praying for those who crucified him.

I want, when I say “Christian,” for people to think of the teachings of Jesus… how he healed the sick and welcomed those who society spit at… how he forgave the unforgivable and ate with those that most people of his day would not even look at. I’m tired of “Christian,” meaning pamphlets with hellfire and gay-bashing. I’m tired of it meaning Bush-supporter and anti-evolutionist. I want it to mean “follower of Jesus” again.

I think that the idea of Jesus as a salvational figure is not useful. It becomes a shallow selling tool and, if it is even true, it is horrible motivation for being a Christian. As far as I’m concerned, one’s motivation for being Christian should be selfless… it should be about a profound connection with Jesus’ message and a will to live a certain way of Life—one in which the primary goal is to better Humanity, to help those in need, and to reach out to other beings in order to maximize the meaning that each derives from existence.

Jesus’ message is lost to mainstream Christianity —his significance is no longer as teacher, but as tool. He is the yellow brick road to heaven, his ministry trivialized by the exclusivist claims of Christianity. He is no more than the baptismal water that initiates us. The MESSAGE of Christianity has become to love Christians, to make Christians (whether by breeding or conversion efforts), to protect ourselves from heretics and Satan, and to fall in line behind the leaders that ask for 10% of our income so that they can convince teenagers to keep their fetuses and biology teachers to abandon science for Truth (with a capital T). His importance has become that he DIED for our sins… not that he LIVED a selfless Life preaching nonconformity and radical inclusivity.

The problem is, scholarly approach to scripture is absent from mainstream Christianity. The lay community is given no plausible alternative to the popular image of Jesus. This unfortunate truth is, as I see it, the core of the problem. If scholarly research could make it into Sunday school, perhaps Creationism wouldn’t be seeping into public schools. If Jesus could be given his context back, his ministry might start to have more importance than his death.

To be a follower of Jesus should mean that we were profoundly moved by his Life and ministry, not simply that we’re glad that he died so that we could go to heaven. How shallow.

More Translation Problems April 2, 2009

Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture, struggle.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

Jesus heals many conditions in the gospels. Most often, however, the Bible speaks of Jesus healing leprosy. The word translated as leprosy is “unclean,” which is how such diseases were often seen. Sin was related to health; ritual was related to health. While “unclean” often meant things like leprosy, it was not the only condition.

My question is not one I can answer on my own. It stems from what I know about Jewish ritual. Menstruation and ejaculation could make one unclean. Quite often, people were considered unclean without visible evidence of this state (often my mere exposure to another’s “uncleanliness”). Purity laws required rituals to make one clean again. They also required Jews to follow certain restrictions for periods of time after one was made unclean. Unclean people were to stay out of certain areas and often were prohibited from making physical contact with those who were ritually clean. (That’s half of what the story of the Good Samaritan is about– Jews not wanting to compromise their purity status by touching someone who was unclean.)

So my question is: Did Jesus heal an actual illness, or did he pronounce ritually unclean people as clean, by authority of God (also following the “legality is oftentimes silly” motif)? I could perhaps shed more light on this issue if I knew Koine Greek.

Of course, this is only relevant to Jesus’ healings of “unclean” conditions. Blindness and paralysis are different animals entirely.

Where are my Mother and Brothers? March 30, 2009

Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture, struggle.
Tags: , , , , ,
1 comment so far

The gospels tell an account of Jesus’ disciples interrupting him one day to tell him that his mother and brothers had come. Jesus asks who his mother and brothers are and answers that it is they who hear the word of God and live it.

It’s a nice sentiment– family is universal. True compassion requires us to expand our ideas of “family” and “neighbor.” These themes arise again and again in Jesus’ ministry.

However, it’s dawned on me that other passages refer to Jesus’ family having a negative reaction to his ministry. In fact, most references to Jesus’ family (after he began his ministry) do.

  • Is it possible that Jesus doesn’t want to talk to his family?
  • Is it possible that Jesus is criticizing his family for not hearing God’s word?
  • Is it possible that Jesus’ family was coming to stop him?

Meek and Gentle March 29, 2009

Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

“Fortunate are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.”
–Q11

“The most famous passage in this Sermon on the Mount has always been translated as “the meek shall inherit the earth.” Actually, the Greek word proates means “gentle but strong” and connotes strength that is under control and tinged with a spirit of caring.”
–Marcus Borg

Short Notes March 24, 2009

Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, religion, scripture.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Luke is an apology to a Roman magistrate.

Matthew is doctrine.

Mark is a story.

John is an apology against Docetism.

Rapture theology comes from a Biblical passage that is about imprisonment.

Too many people think, when studying scripture, “God will reveal all.” It’s a very Protestant idea that’s all fine and dandy when it’s about Biblical layering, but we need to note those layers. The history and linguistic nuances are part of those layers. God might show you unique ways of experiencing scripture, but God’s not going to teach you history and Greek.

My Tea is Cold March 19, 2009

Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, environment, nature, religion, scripture.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

So when I sat down to begin my Bible study, I had a giant mug of piping hot, fresh green tea. It’s now cold and I haven’t drank any of it, because I got incredibly excited and somehow just lost 2 hours of my life in scripture without noticing it. I still have more scripture to read through and some other reading to complete, as per my Lenten commitment.

ANYWAY…

Tonight I got to the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew. If you’ve ever wondered why it is on a mountain in Matthew and on a plain in Luke, here you go: Matthew is writing for a Jewish audience and therefore, his placement of Jesus on a mountain has Mosaic parallels which resonate with his audience. Similarly, Luke is writing for a Hellenistic audience, who appreciates more a Jesus who stands level with them, as an equal.

On a similar note, within this lovely speech, Jesus says (in Matthew), “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The funny thing about that, though, is that the word which is translated as “perfect” from the Greek, means something very different in the original. It means something more to the effect of: “live to your maximum potential.” In short, “give God’s work your all.” Again, however, there is a difference in Luke’s version, which doesn’t say perfect at all, but rather says “compassionate.” This is, again, because Luke is writing to a Greek audience. Because Greek ethics are more situational, the epitome of goodness in Greek society is compassion, and therefore it makes most sense to think of “perfection” as “compassion.”

Might I add that both of these “revised” translations make marvelous sense when viewed from a lens of process theology.

Next, I came upon the section of the sermon in Matthew which talks about the Law (beginning at 5.17). This section is unique to Matthew. Interesting, considering that Matthew was the writer orienting his words toward a Jewish audience. Could this view have been unique to Jewish Christianity, or was this something that simply wouldn’t have been emphasized or made much sense to a gentile audience?

Also, way back in my first year of college, I recall my RelS 99 professor saying that it was likely that the Pharisees were not so much an enemy of the Jesus movement (the Sadducees seem the more likely suspects). In scripture, however, they certainly take the most criticisms oriented toward Judaism’s legal system. I don’t know that his view represents scholarly consensus, but going over my notes from RelS 151, I now know why that theory makes sense– the Pharisees are anti-Hellenization. For a splinter group of Jews proselytizing to gentiles, Hellenization was their friend. In Jesus’ death, the gospel was for everyone and the Pharisees became the angry old ladies at church who didn’t want to see change.

And on a mostly unrelated note….

The Tree of Knowledge of Life and Death… my notes say, “God puts the tree there so that Adam knows he can exist without it.” This cyclical world, where it is easy to fall subject to ennui and lose touch with our spiritual sides, where it seems quite simple to live subject only to the laws of physics, is infused with spirit, hidden within metaphorical hedges… We are better than lives of routine and common courtesy. We needn’t be sucked into such mundane existences if we continue to eat from the Tree of Life, to grow ourselves in God and Spirit in ways that cannot be broken by the laws of this world. True knowledge and spirituality transcend time and space so that they daily land us in our inner Edens.

“There are two trees in the garden… and too much of religion is stuck at the wrong tree. Does it bring Life? Eat from that tree.”
–Rev. Yvette Flunder

Our goal is to be in the world, but not of it– to fully engage in this world and delve into the majesty of Nature, but understand that pure physicality is not enough to nourish our souls. Whatever magical experience a tromp through the forest might provide us, it can only ever be elevated by praying while we dig our fingers into the soil…

I guess it’s true that if we seek, we find. Even more true, however, is that the more I seek, the more I find. The more I read and pray and commit myself to experience God daily, the more I am stunned by God’s beautiful presence within me and around me.

“You can become a blessing.”
–Dr. Rachel Naomi Remen

Jesus March 18, 2009

Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

What are some of the traditional titles used for Jesus?

lord, savior, Christ, messiah

How is the use of the word “Lord” (kyrios) ironic?

It was an imperial word… it was used to contrast who Jesus was with the caesar.

Why is an emphasis on believing the right things a distortion of what Jesus was on about?

Because Jesus’ ministry focused on love, acceptance, inclusion, and forgiveness.

Eucharist and Agape Meals March 14, 2009

Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Eucharist and Agape Meals
Eucharist, translated, means “thanksgiving.”

Originally, the Eucharist was practiced as a communal meal, as the depictions of the Last Supper in the gospels suggest. Early Christians shared a meal, confessed their sins, and had the Eucharist– the meal that unified them in the body of Christ. There was a mysticism attached to this ritual; the Eucharist is a mystical union of believers, somewhere in the middle of Catholic and Protestant intentionality regarding communion today.

Consider this Eucharistic blessing, found in the pages of the Didache, the oldest surviving Christian catechism:

“We give thanks to you, our Father, in behalf of the holy vine of David your child, whom you made known to us through Jesus your child, to you the glory into the ages”
“We give thanks to you, our Father, in behalf of the life and knowledge, of whom you made known to us through Jesus your child, to you the glory into the ages. As this which is fragments, while being scattered upon the hills and brought together became one, so the church shall be gathered together from the limits of the earth into your kingdom, because yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ into the ages”
–Didache, 9.2-5

It captures the mysticism of this Christian community, joined together through time and space through the ritual of the Eucharist.

Early Christians also held agape meals, which were basically giant potlucks to feed their religious community and whoever else might need nourishment. It was true embodiment of the movement’s redefinition of “neighbor.”

Crowds came from Jerusalem and Judea and the regions around the Jordan River to be baptized by John. He said to them, “Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the impending doom? Produce good fruit. Prove that your hearts are really changed. Do not think of saying to yourselves, ‘We are Abraham’s children’ because, I tell you, God can produce children for Abraham right out of these rocks. Even now the axe is aimed at the roots of the trees, so that any tree that fails to produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown on the fire.”
The crowds asked him, “So what shall we do?”
He answered them, “Whoever has two shirts must share with someone who has none. Whoever has food should do the same.”
–Q2

So often we think, I’m a nice person.. Jesus spoke words of truth when he reminded us that everyone is nice to their own friends and family. Rapists and thieves, after all, have friends. The test of Christian faith, I believe, is whether we put it into action– whether we are being nice to more than just our friends and family and giving to more than just our friends and family. Christianity’s intent is to extend our circles of compassion beyond those we might naturally be drawn to love. After all, there is nothing extraordinary about loving and being good to one’s friends and family… pretty much everyone does. Christianity calls us to, as Bishop Spong worded it, “love wastefully.”

And be a simplllllllllllllllle kind of man.

The Prayer of Jesus

Loving God, in whom is heaven.
May your name be honored everywhere.
May your kin-dom come,
May the desire of Your heart for the world be done,
In us, by us and through us.
Give us the bread we need for each day.
Forgive us. Enable us to forgive others.
Keep us from all anxiety and fear.
For You reign in the power that comes from love which is Your glory, forever and ever. Amen.

(re-worded prayer from the Sophia community)

I believe the translation intends to portray the panentheistic Nature of God by playing on the words of our traditional translations by saying “in whom is Heaven” and shows how the pursuit of God is heavenly and gives heavenly light to the souls of those who pursue God.

This was used in a Sophia Community (Catholic) service. By kin-dom, I believe the translator intends to convey an idea that “Kingdom” is truly achieved when it becomes “kin-dom,” which is to say when we treat all members of the human family as true family.

And that does it for today, I think.

You are the body of Christ. You are the blood of Christ. Go into the world and be the hands and feet of God. See with God’s eyes and open yourself to the Holy Spirit as it lures you toward justice, compassion, and peace.

salvation March 12, 2009

Posted by relsdork in christian, church, religion.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

What’s your understanding of our need for “salvation” and its relationship to the doctrine of original sin?

I think of these in terms of my shadow self. I believe that original sin is a flawed description, but I believe that we each have the potential to do a tremendous amount of evil. Jesus is the exemplary form, and in following him, I “save” myself from my harmful tendencies.

Jesus March 5, 2009

Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

I’m going to post some questions from “A Course on Chistianity,” which was offered by a former minister at my church, and my answers to them. Here’s the first one, which is probably fitting:

What do the inconsistencies between the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life suggest about the way we should interpret not only the text, but the meaning of Jesus’ life?

The inconsistencies, for me, show that there were different understandings of what Jesus’ life and ministry meant. People found different aspects of his legacy important and formed different interpretations of his person because of it. This parallels our view of the scriptures… people find different stories meaningful. People translate the text differently. Because of this, none of us should be so arrogant as to claim that our understandings can be more or less meaningful or authoritative than someone else’s.

notes on notes February 28, 2009

Posted by relsdork in bible, christian, religion, scripture.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

“A text without a context is a pretext.” –Brent Walters

What I find astounding is how people can read through the Bible and take it at face value and think they’ve learned something. This is what disgusts me about a lot of American Christianity– it’s ignorant. Yes, there is something you can gain just by reading those words (although you are reading a pretty crap English translation, but that’s neither here nor there), but the layers of Biblical meaning are so intricate and sometimes hard to find that you’re cutting yourself short if you’re not coming at it from every angle possible.

The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Our English translations are not only biased, but oftentimes simply literal translations. Religious scripture is not like translating “see Jane run.” Scripture has metaphorical value, poetic value, and allegorical value (among others) which are lost with literal translations. That’s why scholarly research and cultural understanding is important.

For example During Jesus’ trial, Jesus tells John that he will betray him [x times, depending on version] before the cock crows. If we read that at face value, we’re imagining some rooster chillin’ in Jerusalem. However, if you understand the context, you know that 1) the “cock crow” was a term for a horn which signaled the switching of guards in the city and 2) there’s no way there would be a rooster running around in Jerusalem because it’s a holy city and such unclean animals were not allowed within its gates. In the context of this story, “before the cock crows” meant: “before midnight.” This is a small misunderstanding that is the result of ignorance on the part of translators, but imagine how many other times this happens (hello, the Bible’s kinda big) and how many other situations where that translation error could hold a lot more weight. The creation story is a shining example of this type of problem.

ANYWAY. Reading the Bible is hard work, if you do it right. Because a text without a context is a pretext, and scrounging up the context for a 2000-year-old work (much more if we’re using Hebrew Scriptures) requires consulting a lot of different fields of study and the works of many scholars.

I am ranting about all of this because I re-read the first chapter of John, which we all know and love, right. “In the beginning, there was the Word…”

Some time ago, in a class on Koine Greek, we went over this passage in the original language. It comes out a little differently: “In beginning was the logos and the logos was towards God, and God was the logos. This one was in beginning toward the God.”

Logos is a loaded term. It’s generally translated “word,” but that translation is a diservice to its meaning. Logos, as it was understood by those writing these texts, was more than just a word, it was a promise, and accounting, the logical implication of a divine order. Now, isn’t that more fun?

“you’re not a christian” January 31, 2009

Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture.
Tags: , , , ,
4 comments

While I don’t subscribe to most of the dogmas commonly associated with Christianity, I am certainly a Christian. I will be going to seminary, I have been baptized, I attend church, I read the Christian scriptures, I say The Lord’s Prayer, I take communion, my denomination is United Church of Christ, I am a Congregationalist (religious descendent of Puritans), I pray, and I wear a crucifix around my neck every day. As a student of Comparative Religion, I can tell you that what I am doing is indeed “Christianity.” The difference is that I am not a Christian the way most understand Christians.

I say I am not “saved.” What does Humanity need to be saved from? This is bankrupt language. I am not working from a framework that presupposes innate human corruption. Jesus is Hope and we will achieve salvation not by a death on the cross but by creating a world where all can live in Love and Peace, where there are no hungry or homeless because no one will let it be so. We will be saved by living in Jesus’ ministry, not his death.

I say I don’t believe in Hell and I am an agnostic about Heaven. Why do I need to believe in an afterlife? Do you know that there is no “Hell” as Westerners think of it in the Hebrew or Greek Bibles? It is in the English translation, though. Does King James have more authority than the orignal Biblical authors? “Hell” is a poor translation of other physical locations that literally existed on this physical planet and of Jewish concepts that we seem to be entirely ignorant of. This is why scholarship is important to religion… because if we truly are seeking to understand the word, it is not right to read it so superficially. If I claim the Bible as my sacred text, I owe it to God to study it as deeply as I can.

Other Christians who tell me I am not Christian strike a defensive chord in me. Under whose authority are people deciding I am not Christian? The Pope? Jesus himself? (Does he talk to you like he talks to President Bush?) I can just as easily claim my own subjective encounters as validating my practice and beliefs. What gives your interpretation more value than mine?

I have studied religion extensively and will spend my Life studying it deeper. When I was younger, my views were more conservative-leaning and Evangelistic. However, my understanding has progressed to an understanding of scripture as more complicated and layered. I refuse to cheapen my experience with scripture or divine presence by simplifying it. The changes my studies have brought to my faith are beautiful and I would never abandon them in order to homogenize my faith with Evangelical Christianity.

right christians, wrong christians October 12, 2008

Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, gay rights, politics, religion, scripture, struggle.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

While some communities simply view religious texts differently, I do think there is a great deal of ignorance on the part of many Christian communities. There are many Christians who could tell you little to nothing about the context within which their sacred texts were written and have less knowledge than that about the complications that arise in translation processes, not only because of the differences in language, but because of understanding the context.

Much of the disagreement has to do with different interpretations and selective readings of sacred texts… to an extent, every reading is selective because of how much contradiction there is within scripture.

It is definitely a tendency for Christians to label the Christians who hold different positions on such things as the “wrong” ones and I will certainly acknowledge that to a certain extent, I am guilty of that. I believe that there are certain things that Christians currently disagree about that needn’t be disagreed over… one side is simply wrong. There are other issues which I disagree with other Christians about, yet understand their position and their religious justification for their position… gay marriage, for instance. There are certainly biblical reasons to believe that God would think gay marriage to be wrong (even if these positions are arguable, as many do say).

The reality of the world is that there are many people who will never change their paradigms… they are raised in worldviews that I would consider damaging. I would have little success arguing with people in communities like those, where minds are made and people blindly obey leadership and completely trust voices of authority uncritically. I don’t have a solution, though I would definitely have arguments with these people, hoping that some logic might get through…

My “solution,” though it isn’t really one, is to raise my own voice. I choose to engage in dialogue and participate in furthering the causes which I believe in… hoping that for those whose minds are not made up, or at least are not so set in stone, the voice that I raise will be persuasive. I hope that the voice of my church will be persuasive, that people will hear our message and hear it as a more holistic, spiritual, and just answer to the soul and the world… I believe that the worldview my church perpetuates is working toward a better world than the ones that others seem to be holding onto. I hope that in our actions and that in walking our own path, that becomes apparent to people.

I guess that I see living by example as most effective. I think that’s what Jesus did (as well as some arguing). While I do think interventionary action is necessary in groups where their actions become violent and destructive, I don’t think it’s ever very effective to try and break up causes that people truly believe in… you make them victims and yourself the villain when doing so.

meh.

art domingue October 9, 2008

Posted by relsdork in God, christian, church, religion, struggle.
Tags: , , ,
1 comment so far

I’d like to share a little something from a sermon given by Art Domingue. A tidbit about three ministers who entered a church. The first entered and said, “Here I am. How can I serve you?” He served the people and wore himself out. The second said, “Here I am. How can you serve me?” The people sent him to the Holy Land and on many missions. He wrote back and the people loved him. He became their pet. The third said, “Here is Jesus. How can we serve Him?”

I like that.

John 9 September 24, 2008

Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, religion, scripture, struggle.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Hillel, a 1st century Rabbi whom Paul of Tarsus studied under, was once approached by a man who told him: “If you can teach me the whole of the Torah while I stand on one foot, you can make me a Jew.”

Hillel responded: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study.”

Think on that… “the rest is commentary. Go and study.”

One of the continuing themes in the Bible is Jesus’ healing on Sabbath days. In all of the gospels, the Pharisees are irritated with Jesus for breaking Sabbath law. If we look in the story of John 9, where Jesus heals the blind man, we see that not only does Jesus give this man the ability to see, he does it in a funny way. Jesus spits, gathers up dirt, rubs it in his hand to make mud, smears it on the man’s eyes, and tells the man to go wash his face.

Why didn’t Jesus just say “abra cadabra” and heal the man?

At this point in the history of Jewish legalism, Sabbath law had become so particular that simple things like molding mud and spitting were considered breaking the law. It had become THAT particular. So why did Jesus spit, gather up dirt, rub it in his hands to make mud, smear it on the man’s eyes, and tell him to go wash his face? Because each of those steps was breaking Sabbath law. Because Jesus was pointing out NOT ONLY how Sabbath law was preventing good works, but also the ridiculousness of how unnecessarily picky Sabbath law had become. He performed the healing in such a way as to rub it in the face of the Pharisees.

Jesus is rubbing his “disobedience” of Sabbath law in the faces of these religious authorities.

If you were standing there that day, wouldn’t you just say, “Oh snap”?

What conclusion do we draw from this story? The easy conclusion to draw from this story is that the law of compassion trumps all other Biblical law. It’s a good conclusion.

I like to think about this in an additional way. I like to see this as a way we should approach religion in general. Stay with me.

“Because God says so” is bad reasoning. I mean, Sabbath law was all about “because God says so.” For a fearful populace that thinks of God like we are ants and God is a human cleaning God’s kitchen, maybe that makes sense. Maybe we should just do what God says so God doesn’t smoosh us. What’s wrong with thinking like that? It’s playing it safe. Jesus was all about playing it safe, right?

(the answer is no)

For one thing, within ANY religious tradition, you can say, “it says in scripture that this is the right action,” and there is ALWAYS another passage you can draw from that contradicts that position. ALWAYS. So we can say that the contradictory nature of religious scripture should make clear to us the problem of Biblical literalism.

Well, that’s dispassionate, isn’t it? “Don’t claim God as your reasoning because someone can use your same God to contradict your reasoning.” There’s my dispassionate position.

My passionate reasoning goes more like this: To be compassionate because God says so is cheap. It’s no longer compassion, it’s again adherence to law, and the problem with law is that it imposes boundaries. We should never put boundaries on compassion.

One night, I was driving home… from IHN, actually… with my then-boyfriend. As we were heading down Ellsworth, he exclaimed, “Oh my gosh, I think that guy was hurting that girl.”
“What? Where?” I asked.
“Back there,” he said and motioned. “He had her pinned against that wall.”
I turned the car around.
“What are you doing?” he asked.
I said, “I’m going back.”
“Why? What are you going to do?”
At this point, we see that the couple was merely making out. I didn’t have to figure out what I was going to do. What was I going to do? I don’t know. Call the police? At least shine my headlights and get him to take his hands off her? Invite her into my car? What was I going to do? I don’t know. Not the point.

As we drove away, he asked, “Why do you always do that?”

Of course, he wasn’t referring to some tendency I have to interfere in instances of domestic violence. Thankfully, I don’t often encounter domestic violence. He was referring to the times I’d step in between his friends in bar fights. To the times I’d help out a random girl in a club. To the times I stop and try to talk to someone crying on the street. To the earfuls I’d give to large strangers exhibiting sexism. To the conversations I’d have with homeless people. To the times I’d run outside and break up a cat fight (the kind between cats…). To the everyday small things, sometimes stupid things, I would do. To all the things he’d get irritated with after I did them. Why do those things?

What he meant was, “Why do you always get involved in other people’s business?” And perhaps… “especially when it involves some kind of risk.” It really bothered him. He saw my actions as butting into other people’s lives. If his friends were going to get hit in a bar fight, they deserved it for being stupid. I’m a 110-pound female. How am I going to help?

Well, I like to think that because I am a 110-pound female, a man is unlikely to hit me. It’s maybe a risky bet, but it’s one that I’m willing to make.

But my boyfriend’s question goes unanswered. Why? Why do I do that? Do I do it because it’s what God wants? Because it’s what Jesus taught? Because it says somewhere in the Bible? I say I do it because it’s the way my momma raised me. And my mommy didn’t raise me talking about God or Jesus… or Buddha or the Pope or the Dali Lama…

My mother raised me to take other people’s experiences into my own. She told me not to hurt other people in my words or actions. People don’t like to hurt. “Would you like someone to do that to you?” she would always ask. I avoid hurting people for the same reason I try to help people… because we should be acting with a mentality of Human community. Of course, my mother never said this. Before now, I never have, either.

Why do we try to help people? We just do it. It comes from inside, not from outside. If God told me to help people, God did it from the inside. Not through scripture, through Humanity.

God gave us free will and these beautiful minds that are capable of some extremely complex thought. Why would God do that if God just wanted us to simply surrender our own judgment to authority? It doesn’t really make sense, does it? Why give us these beautiful analytic minds and then say, “everything you need to know should be in Leviticus”? It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense because God is still speaking.

God gave us a mind and a heart and a moral compass. God gave us these tools with which to learn from scripture, to learn from Life. I think that God’s main guiding tools for us are internal. After all, scripture only has meaning to us BECAUSE of those tools, because of that Spirit of God in all of us.

If God is in me, God is in you, and if God is in MY motivation, God is in yours as well. I should take EVERYONE’S wellbeing into my decision-making. God probably does.

My willingness to stand in between 2 people on the verge of violence is because my mom taught me not only to anticipate MY possible outcomes, but others’ as well.

One of my professors referred once to a book called, Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed by Philip Hallie. The subtitle of this book says it is “The story of the village of Le Chambon and how goodness happened there.” What a funny way to phrase things. The book is about a small village whose center was a small Protestant church. The pastor, Andre Trocme, started housing Jews during the Holocaust. As time went on, his home and church became full of Jews and his hiding them seriously endangered his own life, the lives of his family members and the lives of everyone in their village… but this whole village came together and helped hide these Jews from the military. They all risked their lives for the well-being of complete strangers.

Compassion does not know the boundaries of law or religion or any other boundaries.

Andre Trocme believed that beyond the moral strengths and weaknesses of human beings, there is something much more valuable. In Trocme’s eyes, God showed how valuable each and every Human Life was when he sent Jesus to help us. Trocme believed that every Human life had a “spiritual diamond” that God cherished.

At the time that Hallie wrote his book, Andre Trocme had passed away, but his wife was alive and available to interview. I’d like to share a passage from the book.

“When I asked her why she found it necessary to let those refugees into her house, dragging after them all those dangers and problems, including the necessity of lying to the authorities, she could never fully understand what I was getting at. Her big, round eyes stopped sparkling in that happy face, and she said, “Look. Look. Who else would have taken care of them if we didn’t? They needed our help, and they needed it then.” For her, and for me under the joyous spell she casts over anybody she smiles upon, the spade was turned by hitting against a deep rock: there are no deeper issues than the issue of people needing help then.”

“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.”

How could the people of that small French village let the Jews stay in harm’s way? They recognized the community of Humanity and saw that those lives mattered as much as their own. They took on the struggle of strangers… because those strangers needed help then. When a girl is crying on the street in San Francisco, she probably needs help then. When 2 people are about to break into violence, they need help then. Getting an ice pack 20 minutes later is helping a different problem.

The gospel stories are inspirational and illustrate time and again how compassionate service matters. When Jesus heals the man in front of the Pharisees, he doesn’t say “God told me to.” He just does it. He does it by rolling up his sleeves and getting dirty… quite literally. He doesn’t justify himself in any way and in fact does it in direct contradiction of those rules which are supposed to be moral guidelines. Jesus doesn’t refer to some section of the Torah or wisdom literature to substantiate his reasoning for acting this way. He just does it.

Why do you behave the way you do? Why do I behave the way I do? I try to think about my whys and what I want my whys to be. When someone asks us, “Why do you do that?” hopefully we can say: “it needed to be done, and it needed to be done then.”