Judging again

Can I be a reasonable judge, in the old sense of the word "reasonable"? As in "And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice unto thee."

When I first heard that sentence I thought it meant reasonable as in "appropriate" or "sensible" (i.e. not everything)! But my guess is that it does not mean that but it probably means something more like "intelligent" or "sound."

To be a reasonable judge of others means that I use my intellectual faculties to their fullest, both the analytical as well as intuitive and emotional sides, to grasp the full complexity that is a person - soul and body.

But to judge anyone I must begin with some prejudices (pre-judgments). These are critical. As a would-be judge must spend time working through my biases and predilections, not to necessarily purge out every vice (since that would be both impractical and impossible) but rather to know myself, to know where I am weak and where I need to be extra careful. I must spend time whittling down the log in my eyes so as to be able to help others with their specks.

I also must have some understanding of truth and reality. I must believe there is such as thing as perfect vision (20/20) and that it is objectively quantifiable (in a spiritual way).

You know how eye doctors use those eye charts with letters and numbers to test how accurate your vision is? And then they add some lenses and ask you to look again "Is it better now?" And so on. The process is very similar in spiritual life. We need to test our "normal" vision and find out how bad it is.

So the first test of "correct vision": can you see Jesus and Him only? If you can see Him clearly then your eyesight is fine. If not you need some corrective.

Second test is done in a community of believers where they are able to help you see better. Paul after the events on the road to Damascus needed that. Couldn't Christ, after blinding him and making the point, have healed his blindness? Why would he need to get Ananias (Acts 9) to do the healing? I cannot say what God was thinking but it is very fortuitous that God chose another believer to be the one who brought sight to the new convert. The fellow believer;through prayer;is able to restore my sight, to bring me back into focus. their holy life and example, their faithfulness to the call, their willingness to come to me when I am still far from the church (though, of course already saved by God), and then to pray for me, is what brings out the healing of my sight.

The third test is ongoing. I am going for regular eye checkups. Every Sunday, in fact, I gather with fellow believers and we check each other's eyes. We greet each other in the Lord's name, we gather to worship Him, we share a meal, we study His Word. This helps me make sure I am still seeing clearly.

Now that the seeing part is clearer, now that I am actively engaged in whittling away the log in my eye, now that I have people praying for my vision I am now empowered to be able to judge reasonably another.

Where does your hand go when you make a fist?

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/08/fist-and-hand-statue-and-lump-the-aporetics-of-composition.html

 

Question is it hand=fist, lump of bronze=statue? Or is it hand !=fist, bronze !=statue?

1) If you say hand=fist you are wrong because: “If you say that the fist = the hand, then when you make a fist nothing new comes into existence, and when the potter makes a pot out of clay, nothing new comes into existence.  And when a mason makes a wall out of stones, nothing new comes into existence.  He started with some stones and he ended with some stones.  Given that the stones exist, and that the mason's work did not cause anything new to come into existence, must we not say that the single composite entity, the wall, does not exist?  (For if it did exist, then there would be an existent in addition to the stones.)  

But it sounds crazy to say that the wall the mason has just finished constructing does not exist.”

2) If you say hand != fist you are wrong because: “If, on the other hand, you say that the fist is not identical to the hand, then you can say that the making of a fist causes a new thing to come into existence, the fist. The same applies with the statue and the wall.  After the mason stacks n stones into a wall, he has as a result of his efforts n +1 objects, the original n stones and the wall. But this is also counterintuitive.  Consider the potter at his wheel.  As the lump of clay spins, the potter shapes the lump into a series of many (continuum-many?) intermediate shapes before he stops with one that satisfies him.  Thus we have a series of objects (proto-pots) each of which is a concrete individual numerically distinct from the clay yet (i) spatially coincident with it, and (ii) sharing with it every momentary property.”

Where does your hand go when you make a fist? You get a handful of fist? Or is it a fistful of hand? This kind of thing can be frustrating for some, but for me these questions are delightful. They work on at least two levels – one is a level of language and propositions, then other is the level of phenomenon and perception. As someone who engages the world predominantly through the intellect and others primarily through argument (the good kind, the kind that seeks the truth, not the shouting-until-I-am-hoarse kind) the first level of this puzzle helps me to remember the limits of communication and thought. But also its importance.

It does matter – at some level – whether there is a “hand”, a “fist”, or neither, or both! See in the beginning was the word, and that word was Light…or perhaps that word was “Make light”, or more imperative: “Light – be!”…at any rate there was a creation out of a Godly word. That very same Light at the beginning of Creation is shining in me: “For God, who said ‘Let there be light in the darkness’, has made this light shine in our hearts so we could know the glory of God that is seen in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:6)

The “very same Light” is shining in my heart. So: is it one light or two lights? How can the Light which started Creation be starting me, a new creation?

Here we bump into language, into the limits of intelligibility. Before I myself received the gracious enlightenment of the Spirit such wordplay was meaningless, but now I have come to see and know that there is no more apt or fitting description of the process. This words are inspired – in the sense that what they describe is fittingly, efficiently and correctly described. Further I have come to understand, to experience that that-which-is-described is protected and incorruptibly transmitted from generation to generation, from culture to culture by the Holy Spirit, who is at work even now in every person and committee which prayerfully seeks the Spirit’s guidance when translating Scripture.

I have frequently said that I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture the same way I believe in the inerrancy of a great poem: it could not be other than it is. But I have come to see this more broadly now. After all, a poem is perfect in its original language. Translation of a poem does it much harm and is inferior (no matter how good). Scripture is perfect in the prayerful reading, or receiving, of it. This means the words flooding a plowed and seeded heart lead to abundant fruitfulness.

In the meantime

In the meantime put on the mind of Christ and go where he is, do what he is doing. Christ leads always by example. Watch him, and then mimic. Imitation is the sincerest form of prayer, to twist a term. But how do we do that? There are some things that need to happen first, and then there are some other things that need to happen always.

* Happen first
To anyone who wants to become a Christian you need to first die in Christ. you need baptism, and you need resurrection as well. You need Easter and Pentecost. You need to step up, or stand up, in a crowd of hostile and indifferent people and sing a new song to Yahweh. A love song, hopefully. But a new song is what is called for here. 

You need to find that you have been found by Jesus.

* Happen always
You need to find a community of believers who want to be what you want to be. 
You need to find a group who is encouraging everyone to greater effort at going where Jesus is going and doing what He is doing. I am not too concerned by the externals, the methods and practices by which this inner practice is achieved. Some like bells & smells, others prefer happy-clappy. It is all good if it is done for God. 
Any serious group of believers will have a good grasp of where they came from and where they are going. This means a good grasp of history, of tradition, or reformation(s). 
They will magnanimous with the past and hospitable to the future. 
You will take time daily to soak in the Word of God. A nice long bath in the waters of Scripture will help melt away all troubles. Are you a morning bath or evening bath person? All times are good. Be diligent and deliberate.
You will take time daily to have a deep conversation with God. The ancient practice of "colloquy" (developed in some more detail by Ignatius) is a good place to start. Perhaps journaling. 

* Eventually as you wait
Eventually, as you wait, you bring all of life to Him. This does not mean pray for intercession in this or that event (Oh please God, oh please God, let me/get me...). Instead this typing on a keyboard, this talking with someone at work, this TV watching - is done for and with Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Life becomes a sacrament. 

Are you not clear yet on what to do? Then do nothing. If Jesus is not doing anything, or if you cannot see Jesus doing anything, then sit contentedly waiting. Waiting is the key here. It is a non-anxious but deliberate and attentive waiting. 

Choices

The serpent
Choice devours itself
Tail to mouth
Eternally
Trapped by its own
Hunger to God
Apples to apples
Choice to choice
From dust to death
If I choose now
If I choose then
I am encircled by Satan
If I choose not
If I refuse, resist
I am encircled by Satan
Ancient wise serpent
Mouth to tail
Eternity of hunger
Trapped in choice

Creativity

Steps in creative thinking:

1)      Fact-finding - divergent - broad inquiry into issues relevant to case. How? What?

2)      Problem-finding - convergent -  focus on possible solutions and design issues (too costly? too big?). Discard least likely to succeed. When? How much?

3)      Idea-finding - divergent - from the possible solutions begin finding ways to implement it.

4)      solution-finding - convergent. Look through possible (implementable) solutions and pick the best (beauty, simplicity, efficiency, cost).

5)      Plan of action. Scale models. Negotiation. Persuasion. Alliances.

 

Divergent/convergent thinking:

·         Divergent: open-ended, broad, wide

·         Convergent: focused, narrow, deep

 

Applying to study of sacred texts:

·         Fact-finding: When was it written? Where else was this written about? What else does it reference? What type of writing is this?

·         Problem-finding: Why was this written? What is the message? What is the purpose? Who is the audience?

·         Idea-finding: What are the possible interpretations of this passage? What are the possible implications of each interpretation? What issues does it address?

·         Solution-finding: of the many ideas identified which one speaks to my current situation? What does it mean to me? Why should I care?

·         Plan of Action: Who else should hear about this? Who else can I engage in this work?

 

Of course this approach can (should?) be applied to all forms of study. Perhaps it could be stretched to include all forms of communication? The first four steps involve active listening - not only not rushing to get a plan of action/advice but also asking questions which are both divergent and convergent. Only the final step involves speaking, i.e. offering suggestions, advice, to-do items.

 

If only I could be silent during four fifths of my conversations!

Poem

It is white
               electric
And boundless - stretching in all directions
She said in the dark after we made love

I touched her curves still moist with sweat
Like a potter running his hands in wet clay

Boundaries, curves, delimitations
Uncovering and recovering hidden sacred grottoes of pleasure
Suffocating, intoxicating
                              closeness

The one word for me is embrace
No         she said         release

On intimacy

False sense of intimacy: Facebook, email, Skype. At what point do we say you are intimate even if you have no physical contact?

Tabloid culture: a recent article in Newsweek taunts, "In defense of our Brangelina-loving, Jon and Kate-hating, Tiger-taunting, tawdry tabloid culture." 

One of the hallmarks of intimacy is that I know both the good and the bad about you. We have shared enough time and words together that I know you in a more rounded way. I know you are wonderful with your kids, for example, but that you are very bossy at work. Or I know that you are incredible good listener, but that you are cold to your spouse and cheat on him. I know you have no fear in defending the poor and the orphans, esp. in other countries, but that you also drive this year's model BMW. 

This is intimacy - I come to see that you have many qualities, some good and some bad, some appropriate and some inappropriate, but I continue to have a relationship with you. I will talk with you, I will share with you, I will go to lunch with you, I will invite you over for dinner.

It seems that the foundation stone of all relationships, and certainly of the ones which claim the title "intimate" is trust. By this I mean that a relationship will be more intimate in direct proportion to the amount of trust I have in you. I have to trust that you will not attack me, turn your back on me, betray me, or share my secrets with others. The more I am certain of this the more intimate our relationship. A second critical part is respect. Even if I expected that you would not ever reveal something about me to others, there is a line of behavior that I find unacceptable (we all do). If you behave in a way I find unacceptable I will have to end the relationship. Where is your line? Adultery? Drugs? Theft? Murder? At what point would you have to say that your trust in me has been broken?

The annoying thing is that most of the conversation about intimacy tends to focus on physical intimacy, which, strangely is the least interesting and least important of all levels of intimacy. Frankly, anyone can get naked with anyone else and exchange bodily fluids. This is trivial to the point of boredom, though the porn industry seems to make a killing out of this most unintimate form of exercise. 
Becoming judges: the difficulty with intimacy is that in becoming more intimate with the case (or person) gives you fresh perspectives on the subject matter, and thus, paradoxically allows you to judge them better. Let us not kid ourselves: we all judge, and harshly, each other. From wardrobes to demeanor to word choice we are constantly judging and being judged. Around our dinner table at home at least half of the conversation with the children tend to be a subtle (and not-so-subtle) way of teaching them to police their own behavior better (sit up straight, chew with your mouth closed, don't talk with your mouth full) so that they will not be negatively judged by others - and therefore bring a bad judgment upon us parents by proxy.

The worse judges are the ones who claim not to judge, because there are only two alternatives to not judging: either you are not judging me because you have no interest in intimacy with me ("I do not care about you"), or you are simply unwilling to share the results of your judgment with me - perhaps saving it as juicy gossip (again showing your lack of respect for me). Of the first kind we see our indifference to the atrocities committed in other countries (most of the African continent for a start). But we do not care about them, so we avoid the complicate dance into intimacy with them by simply refusing to judge, to speak clearly and in love against atrocities against injustice and oppression. We also do not care about the poor, and it will be a very cold day in Hell when I stop my SUV to become intimate with a homeless person. 

Of the second kind they tend to be more personal. they are people whom we think superficially that they are open-minded or loving or good listeners. But there is judgment there. At best they agree with you (i.e. pass a positive judgment), at worse they desire the attention or the information which can fulfill some other of their needs. Those who claim to not judge others are the most profound egotists, at a level that would make even Ayn Rand blush. They are in this life for themselves and themselves only. 

So, assuming you want to avoid egoism and callous indifference, assuming you accept the reality that we are all in this together, in one planet, members of one species, responsible for the future health and well-being of all creatures in this planet. Assuming this, what does the Bible recommend us judges to do?

Born to fear

Any of our ancestors in the African savannahs that were inveterate optimists, constantly underestimating risks (predators, loss of food, aggression from others of their kind) simply and in the blunt calculus of life did not live long enough to pass on their genes.

So which ones succeeded? The pessimists, the paranoid. Perhaps Andrew Grove had it right after all: "Only the paranoid survive". Consider this: we are the many-time removed inheritors of paranoid and pessimistic grandparents. Their fear enabled us to sit comfortably in our 5 bedroom houses and 3 SUV garages watching oil spew in the Gulf on our hi-def TVs.

So, biologically we are wired with super sensitive systems in our brains which monitor our environment for threats. 24-7. Is it any wonder you are tired all the time? But our threats these days tend to be more abstract. Our hearts start racing when our self-esteem is threatened, for example, or during the (mostly) bloodless battles of boardroom and bedroom. These "threats" activate the same circuits that enabled us to successfully flee a saber-toothed tiger: hormonal overloads to activate our fight-or-flight responses.

Of course, as we all know, when we are defensive (or offensive - in more than one way) we immediately activate the same responses from our fellow workers and mates. Having evolved to live in groups it is natural that we also evolved to pick up "vibes" from others and respond appropriately.

The depressing fact is how much energy we all expend on a daily vicious circle of attack and counter-attack, grudges and gossip,  withdrawal and defensiveness. At the end of about 18 hours of such activity we crawl into bed exhausted, only to get up to the alarm clock the next morning berating us for a new day's battle.

But there is another way. It requires less energy that our accustomed way, though at first it will feel more difficult - mostly because you are trying to run your life two ways at the same time. This is similar to what happens when people begin an exercise routine. At first they are more tired, hungry than before. After a while the beneficial aspects of exercise start to percolate, and they find themselves with more energy, sleeping better, and so on. Why would we expect spiritual activity to work any differently.

So here are the 5 exercises in sobriety which, if practiced with diligence, will lead to higher levels of energy being available to be used in more noble pursuits:

1) Fear God
2) Vengeance is mine says Yahweh
3) Think of yourself as last and least
4) Be vigilant ("be sober, be watchful") to your intentions behind thoughts and actions. If these are the wrong intentions then stop and immediately smash them against the Rock, that is Christ.
5) Seek silence. First reduce your speech (spoken and unspoken), then reduce your thoughts.