The Heinlein Theorem
Change is caused by lazy, greedy, frightened people looking for easier, more profitable, and safer ways to do things. And they rarely know what they are doing. – Ian Morris; Why The West Rules – For Now
Okay so that’s not really the Heinlein Theorem. Robert Heinlein is a science-fiction writer who once suggested that “Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things.” Sociologists jumped on this explanation and dubbed it the Heinlein Theorem but as Stanford University History professor Ian Morris has explained, the Heinlein Theorem is incomplete. It’s not just lazy people, it’s lazy, greedy and frightened people who affect change.
This explanation is of course a bit pithy.
The desire to work as little as possible is as much a function of sloth as it is a function of intelligence, why walk one mile when you can ride a horse ten miles, or drive a car a hundred? Man is intelligent, not lazy.
Greed, while not necessarily good, as Michael Douglas so famously declared in Wall Street, the desire for status, regardless of whether or not that status is monetary, is what rewards ingenuity. Without some type of reward there is no incentive for ingenuity and thus the entire market system that we know and depend upon today would never have developed. For lack of a better term, the desire for recognition is just as well described as a healthy amount of greed but the term doesn’t quite do the sentiment justice.
To say that change is driven by fear, to me makes man seem like little more than a scurrying mouse. A sense of self-preservation is not necessarily a result of fear as it is a function of the desire not to die. I wear a seat belt when I drive not because I’m afraid of the other cars but because I’d rather not find out what would happen should my head come in contact with the windshield. That’s not fear, it’s just common sense.
My own Heinlein Theorem goes like this;
Change is caused by highly intellegent people who like to be recognized for their acheivements and wish to keep on living.
The Burning Question
Over the last few months The Meekonomics Project has become an extension of my day job as a Financial Security Advisor. Most of the time I unpack some personal theological issues that come up throughout the day but rarely do I make any specific reference to my job. This blog isn’t meant to be a promotional vehicle for my business but lately I’ve had a few requests to be a bit more specific about what I do so since you asked for it, here it is.
Whenever I’m talking to someone and the question of where I work comes up I always tell them that I help people answer one of life’s most burning questions.
What happens if you a) Die Too Soon, b) Live Too Long, or c) Your Plans Get Interrupted Along the Way?
How people answer that question is the cornerstone of financial planning.
Financial planning isn’t just about some far off, undefined future event called retirement and it isn’t about insurance for yourself or your loved ones to cover off the possibility that you might die or become disabled. It’s about all of those things and none of them at the same time.
Let’s face it; the concept of retirement and the possibility of your death are both too abstract too real for most people to want think about. Too abstract because most of us haven’t really given much thought to what kind of life we want to lead after we stop working or how our loved ones are going to get by without our income if we are unable to work and too real because for many of us retirement and premature death are so frightening that most of us just stick our heads in the sand and refuse to think about it.
So when I ask people the burning question I almost always get the same reaction. The words may vary but the message is the same. People say they already have something at the bank, they have a plan at work or my personal favorite, my spouse takes care of all that. But what they are really saying is that the question makes them uncomfortable and they don’t want to talk about it.
I know the question makes people uncomfortable. That’s why I ask. It’s the reason it makes you uncomfortable that I want you to think about.
I submit that the question makes people uncomfortable not because they don’t think it’s important. Quite the opposite; it makes people uncomfortable because deep down they know it’s of utmost importance and they also know that they don’t have a good answer.
Isn’t it time you had a good answer? If I do my job right, the question won’t make you uncomfortable anymore, you’ll know the answer and you’ll feel confident about it.
For more information on how I help people answer one of life’s most burning questions send me an email at lauren.sheil@freedom55financial.com
I have NOT seen the Lord.
I can still remember the first time I read the story of Doubting Thomas. I can’t have been much more than 10 or 11 years old. My parents gave each of my siblings a Bible of our own on our 10th birthday and encouraged us to begin studying it and asking questions. Like any good evangelist my Dad told me to start with the book of John. I didn’t understand why at the time but I was a good kid and I did what I was told.
Like most Bibles my Children’s New International Version broke the chapters and verses down one step further into headings of a few verses at a time. So I decided that I would read one heading a day. What with the demands of a busy childhood, school, sports and other activities that idea lasted about as long as my ten year old attention span and I was soon down to reading one heading a week if I was lucky. But I didn’t give up and a after a few months as I was approaching the end of the book of John I read a passage with the heading Jesus Appears to Thomas;
Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. [John 20:24-31]
As the ten year old me read that passage for the first time I was struck by the simplicity of it. Here I was reading through a book that has confounded scholars and theologians for centuries, a book that I hardly understood half of but when I read this, as a child, I immediately got it. And after months of dutifully following my father’s instructions I understood why he told me to read this book first. Thirty years later the meaning of this passage is even clearer to me today, but the core of my initial understanding hasn’t changed.
Why? Because even at ten years old, I could relate to Thomas. I can’t tell you the number of times I have prayed for God to “show yourself”. We all have been told that Jesus was the incarnation of God but we all want to see him, experience him, and learn from him in person. If only we could have been there and been with him in the flesh all of our doubts and concerns would be answered right?
That’s not the case though is it? We read in all four Gospels and elsewhere in the New Testament that people doubted Jesus and his disciples all the time. They questioned his authority, they misunderstood his teaching and they argued with him constantly. Even the Gospel writers themselves took years to reflect on their lives with Jesus before they were able to articulate and record what they experienced.
Doubt is natural when it comes to these things. The ten year old me took comfort in the fact the Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for his doubt. He simply gave him the evidence he was looking for and then proceeded to bless those who believed without physical evidence. The forty year old me has grown more comfortable with the questions even though I’d be lying if I said I didn’t wish I had more answers.
Many of my best friends are atheists. I get it. I understand their desire for evidence. I even support the efforts of scientists to find more answers to the questions of our physical world. But I am quick to point out that where the questions of science and philosophy overlap science alone will never be able to give a satisfactory answer.
I also like to remind my atheist friends that the father of the scientific method was a Muslim by the name of Ibn Alhazen who was quoted as saying;
Truth is sought for itself [but] the truths, are immersed in uncertainties and the scientific authorities are not immune from error. [Ibn Alhazen; Aporias against Ptolemy 1025 A.D.]
We are all Doubting Thomases to a certain degree. It’s best if we’re honest and up front about it. Because as John’s Gospel reminds us, we are blessed when we believe what we cannot see. John wrote his account of Jesus so that “you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. [John 20; 31].
Lawrence Krauss & Sam Harris Do It Again
Noted Atheist thinker Sam Harris recently interviewed fellow atheist Lawrence Krauss on his blog in order to help promote Krauss’s new book “A Universe from Nothing.” If you’re interested you can read the whole interview here – http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/everything-and-nothing
As I’ve stated before it is offensive to me when atheists claim a monopoly on reason. I actually find that the more convinced anyone becomes that their own view is correct, the less reasonable they are when faced with a contrary view. The fact that Mr. Harris refers to his non-profit foundation “Project Reason” is in my humble opinion the height of arrogance!
True to form, in reading the interview with Krauss I came across something not only unreasonable but downright deceptive in the way that many atheists approach the top of the origins of the universe and the so called “Big Bang” theory.
Krauss; Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that the Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy. (Indeed, religion and philosophy have added nothing to our understanding of these ideas in millennia.) I spend a great deal of time in the book detailing precisely how physics has changed our notions of “nothing,” for example.
Krauss is saying that science has essentially changed the meaning of the word “nothing”. Is it really possible for a scientific discovery to change the meaning of a word? It’s an interesting debate tactic, don’t like the meaning of a word, just change it.
Essentially Krauss is saying that since he doesn’t like the implications of “nothing”, he has set out change what it what it means, don’t get me wrong, science can change our understanding of a physical concept but it cannot change the definition of a word! And while “something” and “nothing” are physical concepts, they also carry significant theological and philosophical connotations. Any “reasonable” person would know that no amount of linguistic gymnastics (twisting of words) is going to change that. Without really meaning to Krauss has actually strengthened the theistic point of view by getting closer to proving that what we once thought of as “nothing” has the power to become something after all.
This brings me to the so called “Big Bang” theory. Many atheists are surprised when I tell them that I actually support this theory for the creation of the universe and a careful reading of Genesis Chapter One doesn’t contradict it. The central concept of the “Big Bang” theory is that the universe evolved from nothing while the central concept of Genesis chapter one is, wait for it; that the universe evolved from nothing. The two theories share one key ingredient, that before there was something, there was nothing. How the process of moving from nothing to something started remains a mystery but denying the plausibility of an intelligent creator as unreasonable on the one hand while attempting to change the meaning of the words that are central to the debate on the other is not only unscientific, it’s disingenuous, hypocritical and arrogant. Any high school debating coach would slap Krauss on the wrist for even suggesting it.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (BANG!) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (BANG!) God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (Genesis 1:1-5)
This Hurried and Harried Life
As the Christmas Holiday Season draws to a close and the New Year is upon us, I am drawn to reflect on a statement my wife made recently about how stressful life seems to have become in the past several years. I can’t recall exactly what she said but it was made as we drove home from a very relaxing and rejuvenating time visiting family and friends over. She wasn’t referring to anything specific either; it was just a general comment on the state of most of those close to us.
I will turn 40 in 2012 and most of our friends and close relatives are between the ages of 35 and 45. These are the years of peak activity for many. It’s when we start families, purchase our first home and jockey for position on the ladder of success. Apart from the death of a loved one; the birth of a child, moving and changing jobs are considered by psychologists the most stressful events one can endure. Add to that economic concern and the ever present specter of saving for retirement or the education of the aforementioned children and it’s no wonder that stress related illnesses like heart disease and general anxieties have reached epidemic proportions.
I blame the advertisers.
We are bombarded with messages everyday that are designed to make us feel bad about ourselves and then show the wonderful new product that will fix our lives and make us feel better. The fact is that in order to achieve that miracle thing we must spend more money. But in order to spend it, we have to make it and in order to make it we have to work harder and spend less time doing the things that truly bring rest and rejuvenation.
Of course we can always buy things on credit but that brings with it a whole host of other problems that I don’t have time to go into right now…
The point is that we are running around chasing after things that don’t last and digging ourselves into a hole financially, physically and emotionally that we may never be able to recover from. Our culture tells us to do more and go faster. But this cultural tendency is literally killing us. According to Statistics Canada, the most common time for a heart attack is Monday morning and the fastest growing demographic for heart disease are women under 50.
How counter cultural then is it to remember the words of Jesus on stress and our human tendency to chase after more?
Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? [Matthew 6:26-27]
I leave you on this New Years Eve with that thought and this prayer;
May 2012 bring you a stress free peace that comes from the wisdom and strength of saying NO when our culture pressures you to over commit your time, energy and financial resources to things that will pass away before or shortly after the dawn of 2013.
Peace on Earth
That night there were shepherds staying in the fields nearby, guarding their flocks of sheep. 9 Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terrified, 10 but the angel reassured them. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. 11 The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David! 12 And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly, the angel was joined by a vast host of others—the armies of heaven—praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased.” [Luke 2:8-14]
It’s Christmas time. The time of year when most Christians think about peace on earth, but few really stop and think about how profoundly different heavenly peace on earth really is from the worldly reality of peace we have been fed from our leaders. To my mind the verses above and indeed the entire account of Jesus birth in Luke chapter 2, leaves little doubt that we has humans have gotten the entire concept of peace on earth profoundly wrong.
First off note who is proclaiming the peace, it is the armies of heaven. The only time an army ever proclaims peace is after the battle has been fought and won. The battle that is eluded to here is the battle between the forces of good and evil that is waged in the spiritual realm and at the birth of Jesus the armies of heaving appear to proclaim that battle over and peace on earth.
Secondly if we back up a few verses we are given a bit of historical context to the birth of Jesus. We learn that it occurred during the reign of Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor who ruled a united and peaceful Rome. This was the beginning of the period known as the Pax Romana, or Peace of Rome. But we also learn through historical writings and the biblical account itself that this “peace” was extremely oppressive and did not extend to all people groups. It was peace achieved at the point of the sword and maintained but the ever present threat of violence against those that didn’t tow the line.
At the time of Jesus the Jewish people were expecting the arrival of a Messiah who was a conquering hero to drive Rome out of their lands and usher in a sort of Pax Israeli. This is not the kind of thing you would expect from a people group who felt that there was any kind of peace on earth regardless of what their political overlords may have been trying to tell them. And of course we know that when the Jewish people finally did rise up about 70 years later, it ended in disaster with the destruction of their temple. For all intents and purposes the destruction of the temple ended the Jewish religion itself. The entire sacrificial system commanded in the Old Testament centers around the temple.
So when the army of angels appeared and proclaimed peace on earth, what were they saying?
I think that they were saying something incredibly scandalous. They were saying that the only battle that mattered was in the spiritual realm and they had won. The Jewish people need not worry about taking up arms against Rome to obtain peace on earth and they didn’t need to put their faith in any earthly religious symbols. The battle was over and any attempt to continue the fighting was a denial of that fact. True peace comes from a spiritual place, earthly battles and physical places are nothing more than constructs of the human mind that the arrival of Jesus signaled the end of.
Jesus would go on to preach love and the end of religious and political institutions that served to create unnecessary boundaries among people. He would command his followers to “put away their swords for he who lives by the sword dies by the sword” and turn to more constructive and life affirming pursuits.
We live in a time and place that is very close to the Pax Romana of Jesus day. Some observers have coined the phrase Pax Americana to describe the fact that we live in a time of world peace achieved in part as a result of the military and economic dominance of the United States of America. How scandalous would it be for the angels to appear to us today and once again tell us that peace on earth has been achieved through the birth of a child, rather than through the military might of a nation? That’s exactly how it happened before and we would do well to remember it today.
Peace on earth was ushered in by child who was born in poverty and grew up to preach love and the end of religious and political institutions, including armies.
Estate vs. Stewardship Planning
I am a big believer in giving it all away and have always said that the best financial planning ends with bouncing the check to the undertaker. – Michael Bloomberg
Estate planning is a fancy term we financial advisors use to talk about how your hard earned money get’s carved up and distributed after you die. But let’s call a spade a spade here shall we? It’s really about trying to exert some control over your how your survivors behave from beyond the grave. It’s the last chance most people get to tell their family what to do.
The fact of the matter is though that, once you’re already dead no will or estate plan in the world is going to guarantee that people honor your wishes. And if people don’t honor your wishes there’s nothing you can do about it – you’re dead! Sure you can name certain people or charities in your will but short of dumping all of your money into an insurance policy with a named beneficiary there is no guarantee that your final wishes will be honored. And that’s if you even have a will in the first place, nearly 70% Canadians don’t even have that much of an estate plan.
But I digress…
What I really want to talk about is Stewardship planning. That’s what a Meekonomist does instead of estate planning. If estate planning is all about how to distribute your wealth after you die, stewardship planning is about giving your money away while you’re still here to direct its usage and see the benefit it can provide for others.
Michael Bloomberg is not a Meekonomist but he wasn’t far off when he stated that the best financial planning involves bouncing the check to the undertaker. What I think he was getting at is that since you can’t take it with you, you may as well spend it. I’d rather see you give it away than spend it on yourself or your family. I can hear some of you already, “That’s all fine and good for a rich man like Mr. Bloomberg but he’s a billionaire and I’m just getting by.”
Are you? Nearly every one of us in North America is among the top 5% of the world’s wealthiest people. We spend more in coffee shops than nearly a third of the world’s population make in a year. You may be just getting by but I promise you are also frivolously spending, or simply wasting enough money to make a significant impact on the lives of countless millions of people all over the world.
But I digress… Again…
The point here isn’t that we waste a lot of money, or that certain people have larger estates and therefore more options than others. The point is that wealth accumulation is only good if it one day turns into wealth distribution. You can either wait until you’re dead and hope that your survivors honor your wishes, or you can start to distribute your wealth now while you have the ability to control where it ends up.
When Jesus said that “whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me,” [Matthew 25:31-46] he meant for you to do it in your lifetime, not to sit on your money until you die and leave it up to the next generation. By then it’s too late. Giving is meant to be an active choice that has a price. Sitting on your money and leaving the distribution, even with the greatest of philanthropic intentions, until after you’re gone ensures that you never have to pay that price yourself.
That’s not stewardship.
It’s actually the ultimate in selfishness. It’s the financial equivalent of giving torn clothing to the thrift store or moldy bread to the food bank. In reality you just gave away your leftovers and your garbage and it had absolutely no effect on you or your lifestyle at all.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ [Matthew 7:21-23]
Traditional estate planning has its place, especially since we have no idea of when we are going to die but for a Meekonomist it needs to compliment, not take the place of, stewardship planning.
International Development, Chinese Style
There’s been a lot of talk in recent years about the growing influence of China on the international stage. As the world’s most populous country, (by some estimates over ten percent of the population of the entire planet is Chinese), embarks on a rapid industrialization their need for raw materials, natural resources and electrical power is unprecedented. Understandably much of the rest of the world is quite nervous about what an increasingly assertive China might mean for the rest of us.
China has always been an isolated country. They intentionally separated themselves from the rest of us centuries ago and hid behind a literal and metaphorical wall. It wasn’t until recently (in the past 50 years or so) that they began to immerge from behind that wall. Tentatively at first but ultimately out of necessity, once the process was started it was impossible to reverse.
The size of China makes a lot of people nervous. What happens when the world’s largest population makes rapid industrialization a priority and becomes the world’s largest economy almost overnight? To hear some economists and politicians speak, it’s as if a growing Chinese economy is a harbinger of the apocalypse.
However, from the very beginning China has had an over-riding policy on the way they engage in international trade, especially when dealing with less developed, resource rich countries. This policy was originally published in 1964 and is still referred to regularly by Chinese politicians and industry today when making their international deals. The so called “Eight Principles of China’s Aid to Foreign Countries” is not at all what you might expect from a communist country, especially one that is seeking to export not only its products but also its ideology. On the contrary China’s approach to international development is far more egalitarian and less confrontational than the United States and the major western donor organizations.
What follows is a complete listing of the eight principles as published in 1964, we in the west could learn a thing or two about mutually beneficial, no strings attached aid and market economics from the Chinese.
1. The Chinese Government always bases itself on the principle of equality and mutual benefit in providing aid to other countries. It never regards such aid as a kind of unilateral alms but as something mutual.
2. In providing aid to other countries, the Chinese Government strictly respects the sovereignty of the recipient countries, and never attaches any conditions or asks for and privileges.
3. China provides economic aid in the form of interest-free or low-interest loans and extends the time limit for repayment when necessary so as to lighten the burden of the recipient countries as far as possible.
4. In providing aid to other countries, the purpose of the Chinese Government is not to make the recipient countries dependent on China but to help them embark step by step on the road of self-reliance and independent economic development.
5. The Chinese Government tries its best to help the recipient countries build projects which require less investment while yielding quicker results, so that the recipient governments may increase their income and accumulate capital.
6. The Chinese Government provides the best-quality equipment and material of its own manufacture at international market prices. If the equipment and material provided by the Chinese Government are not up to the agreed specifications and quality, the Chinese Government undertakes to replace them.
7. In providing and technical assistance, the Chinese Government will see to it that the personnel of the recipient country fully master such technique.
8. The experts dispatched by China to help in construction in the recipient countries will have the same standard of living as the experts of the recipient country. The Chinese experts are not allowed to make any special demands or enjoy any special amenities.
Mercy
Peace Without Justice is Oppression.
Several years ago I wrote that statement on a napkin and started to build a worldview of Peace and Social Justice around it. Those of you who have been following my writing for some time might remember one of my first published articles that expanded on that exact statement. If you like you can see the original postings here…
My original thought centered around the fact that most Peacemakers and Peace keepering forces around the world are focussed on the belief that peace is simply the absense of violence and when the shooting stops they’ve done their job. But when we take a closer look, a state of war and oppression can often continue long after, only to flare up in violence again at a later date. Often times, what appears to be peace is not peace at all and just because the fighting has stopped does not mean the war is over. In order to have a lasting peace we need to engage directly with those who may disagree, spend some time actively listening to their concerns and work towards justice.
At least that’s what I thought.
Recently I was challenged in that belief by a friend of mine who pointed out that what Jesus taught wasn’t justice in the traditional sense, but mercy. If we recognize our own sin and brokenness in everything and are really honest with ourselves about it what we really want for ourselves isn’t justice but mercy. Justice says “you do the crime, you do the time” but mercy says “forgive and forget.”
In the teachings of Jesus this point is driven home in what has been called The Parable of The Unmerciful Servant. Most people remember what Jesus said when Peter asked how many times he should forgive someone who sinned against him. Seven times? No Seventy-times seven! But what we forget is that Jesus then went on the tell the story of the unmerciful servant.
Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded. His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’ But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened. Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart. [Matthew 18:23-35]
You see, the servant couldn’t pay his debt and he knew that the just thing to do would be to sell al of his possessions (including his family) and give the money to the master. It wasn’t that he didn’t have the assets that he could liquidate and cover his obligations, the text is actually pretty clear that he did but the justice the situation required would have been quite painful. I don’t know about you but I think selling my wife to pay off a loan would be pretty devistating for everyone involved. So the servant asked for and received mercy, not justice.
The challenge for me, and hopefully for you, in this passage is this; knowing how much I fail to show mercy on a daily basis, do I really want to follow a God that is only interested in justice? Is it a good idea to only concern myself with what is just? Or should I instead be focussed on mercy?
As a result of looking at this passage I’ve modified my original cocktail napkin scribble to read; Peace AND Justice without Mercy is SIN. And pray daily that I continue to show mercy, just has God has been merciful to me.
This is Not About Cannibalism
Have you ever played the parlour game, “What three people would you like to have for dinner?”
It can be a good way to get to know people. If you could invite any three people, living or dead, to your home for a meal, who would they be and why? In my experience some of the more popular choices, in no particular order are Ghandi, Nelson Mandella, Mother Theresa, a president or some other head of state, Bono and Jesus. Every once in a while some smart-ass will throw in the name of a tyrant like Hilter or Attila the Hun but you can usually tell that they’re doing it just to be different and the game usually ends at that point.
I’m most fascinated by the people who name Jesus. When questioned on it they will usually say that they want to hear first hand if he really did say the things that the bible records that he said. They have just enough bible knowledge to know that systematic theology and the narrative itself don’t always line up and the only what to clear up the confusion is to go right to the source.
Makes sense right?
Unfortunately all we have is the bible to tell us what Jesus said and did. If it doesn’t line up with the way you’ve been taught to interpret it, which do you think is wrong? Over they years many church leaders have attempted to add some traditions on to the teaching but at the end of the day traditions are not scripture. They may add a level of clarity or comfort and even reverence but if you take the traditions away you haven’t really lost anything.
I think if you had Jesus over for dinner, that’s what he’d tell you. In fact, he already did;
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” [Luke 10:25-37]
