My Own Bucket List

I loved the movie, "The Bucket List." I had seen it one time previously, but it was better the second time, since I knew what was going to happen and could focus on the smaller details I missed the first time I watched it. It also allowed me to consider thoughts and conceptual things that struck me for the first time, and those insights were powerful for me.

The first epiphany was something quite simple. The very concept of a bucket list is a product of relative privilege and luxury. People who can consider a true "bucket list" (things they have reason to believe they might be able to do, as opposed to things they simply wish they could do in an ideal world) are able to do so due to some kind of privilege or luxury from their current and previous lives. Financial considerations are the best example of this disparity, since more concrete, objective goals often have an accompanying price tag, while poorer people usually are forced to focus on things that are more conceptual or subjective. In fact, many people don't have the luxury of even considering the concept of a bucket list, since all their energy must be focused on nothing more than survival. 

For example, in the movie, Edward’s list was about seeing the world, which was possible only because he was abnormally rich. It included, “Go on a safari,” “Visit Stonehenge,” “Sit on the Great Egyptian pyramids,” and “Drive a motorcycle on the Great Wall of China.” Conversely, Carter’s list was full of things like, “Kiss the most beautiful girl in the world,” “Witness something truly majestic,” “Laugh until you cry,” and “Find the joy in your life.” The differences in their buckets lists could be explained as nothing more than their individual personalities and perspectives, but it is not adequate to ignore the impact of financial success and security on those personalities and perspectives. Edward was able to record practical goals that were expensive to accomplish specifically and exclusively because he had the money to make them happen, while Carter was constrained by his limited resources to goals that were not attached in any way to financial cost and which were far more subjective.

The second thought was much more personal and enlightening. My own father would fit Carter’s character almost completely. Except for the element of race, which was a legitimate, major contributing factor for Carter, my father’s life mirrored Carter’s in nearly every way. My father gave up his professional dreams to marry my mother, then he did it again, 14 years later, to give her the support she needed to deal productively with her schizophrenia. He had eight children, specifically because my mother wanted as many kids as possible, even though he knew it would increase his responsibilities exponentially. He intentionally moved from financial security to serious poverty for his wife’s sake, and, as a result, he changed irrevocably the content of what he would have included on a bucket list.

In fact, even more fundamentally, he gave up the notion of creating a bucket list and made his own life his bucket list. He lived specifically and intentionally for his wife and children, giving up nearly all aspects of pure, undiluted individuality in the process. Watching this movie reminded me that I have come to read one particular Biblical verse differently as a result of coming to understand my father's sacrifice: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

This verse doesn’t say that he "die" for this friends; rather, it says that he "lay down his life" for his friends.” There is an important difference between those two phrases. Just as Jesus, of Nazareth, set aside whatever life he had created prior to the age of 30 to begin his ministry to the people of his area, my father set aside the life he envisioned, twice, to begin his own personal ministry to his wife.

I see that same example in Carter. He lived his life for his wife and family, and he lost himself in a real and practical way. Edward offered him a chance to focus on himself again, and, initially, Carter accepted that offer. Eventually, however, he realized that the life he had established was more important than a practical, tangible, measurable list of dreams – as much as he enjoyed living those dreams. Edward didn’t improve Carter’s life in any way, ultimately, except in helping him regain the joy of his former life of self-sacrifice and service.

Meanwhile, Carter literally changed Edward’s life. The things on Edward’s bucket list that matter the most in the end were the things Carter had added, especially, “Find the joy in your life.” That joy wasn’t in the grandiose, fancy, and expensive; it was in the personal, intimate, and costless gift of his daughter and granddaughter.

That is my takeaway from this movie. Bucket lists are enticing, and, for those who can afford to fulfill them, they can be enjoyable and fulfilling to a degree. However, the most meaningful bucket lists are what people live as a direct result of their normal, daily, steady lives. I have chosen a life path that probably will not afford me the temptation to create a bucket list like Edwards, even if only in theory and not actual cost, but that chosen path has given me a multitude of experiences like Carter’s bucket list. Perhaps more than anything in my life, I am grateful for that particular way in which I am my father’s son.  

Yes, We Are Our Brothers' and Sisters' Keepers

Remember: It was Cain (a murderer) who replied to God, when asked where Abel was, "Am I my brother's keeper?"  
There are hundreds of verses and passages throughout the Bible (and other religious texts) that say, quite explicitly, that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers in some way and to some extent. 
It is the determination of the way and the extent where there can be reasonable discussion and disagreement. (For Mormons, however, King Benjamin's sermon sets an incredibly high bar for refusal.) For Christians to deny their responsibility to help "keep" God's children (any of them), at all or minimally, however, is a direct denial of the ministry and teachings of Jesus, of Nazareth. 
Quoting Cain in doing so is the height of irony.

The Measure of our Christian Conversion: How We Treat Others

At this time of extreme contention and lack of civility, particularly in our political and religious discourse, I find the following quote enlightening and the final paragraph important to consider:

It seems interesting that the first principles the Lord Jesus Christ chose to teach His newly called Apostles were those that center around the way we treat each other. And then, what did He emphasize during the brief period He spent with the Nephites on this continent? Basically the same message. Could this be because the way we treat each other is the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  

During an informal fireside address held with a group of adult Latter-day Saints, the leader directing the discussion invited participation by asking the question: “How can you tell if someone is converted to Jesus Christ?” For forty-five minutes those in attendance made numerous suggestions in response to this question, and the leader carefully wrote down each answer on a large blackboard. All of the comments were thoughtful and appropriate. But after a time, this great teacher erased everything he had written. Then, acknowledging that all of the comments had been worthwhile and appreciated, he taught a vital principle: “The best and most clear indicator that we are progressing spiritually and coming unto Christ is the way we treat other people.”  

Would you consider this idea for a moment—that the way we treat the members of our families, our friends, those with whom we work each day is as important as are some of the more noticeable gospel principles we sometimes emphasize.  

- Marvin J. Ashton (The Tongue Can Be a Sharp Sword) 

Be a Light Others Want to Understand

We do not draw people to Christ by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it.  

- Madeleine L'Engle 

"Called of God" vs. "Inspried of God" or "Leading of God" or "Acting for God" or "Being Godly"

I think whether or not a particular leader (or anyone serving in any calling) is "called of God" depends largely on whether the person doing the calling is "inspired of God" and/or "acting for God" - and, frankly, whether there's a need for God to be involved to some degree, for some reason, in the calling. Those are two very subjective, difficult to determine criteria - so I don't spend a lot of emotional capital on trying to figure it out in most cases. I also think it doesn't matter much if someone is called of God if they wind up not "leading of God" or "being godly".

However, I have experienced situations where I absolutely believe the calling was "of God" (meaning directed by God) - and, interestingly, one of those cases was when the person turned down the calling.  He said he wasn't ready for such a calling but needed the assurance that God knew his heart and was willing to answer a private prayer asking to know if he could serve God in a formal calling if he changed his life in the way he knew he should. I had struggled mightily with trying to figure out who should be asked, and I questioned the answer I got even more when I learned about the man's situation. I didn't know him as anything but a name on a page, and what I heard about him before our meeting didn't ease my concerns. When I left, however, I was humbled that his name had jumped out at me so forcefully. 

A Conversation We Have Far Too Infrequently in the LDS Church

"As I have loved you, love one another."

Jesus actively spent his time serving (loving) the people in his society whom everyone else rejected and judged. ("the least of these" - the leper, the sinner, the publican, etc.)

Identify the people in our own society who are the outcasts and those rejected and judged by people - and especially by us as Mormons. (the poor, the immigrant, the gay, the unwed mother, etc.) 



Now, ask yourself, based on the account we have in the Gospels:

What would Jesus do?

That can open a conversation that we have far too infrequently in the Church.

The Sacrament Is Not Just about Me; It Is about Us

Thoughts on the sacrament, part 2: The meal and the garden - Aaron R. (By Common Consent)

The final two paragraphs are especially meaningful and profound. 

A Beautiful Christmas Post: The Power of a Baby, not a King

Holy Innocents II - Kristine (By Common Consent)

I Want to Be a Mormon Christian, Not a Christian Mormon

If you look closely at multiple General Conference talks and statements over the years, I think it's obvious that the top leadership of the Church believes there is a difference between church membership and Christian discipleship. In fact, at least twice in my memory during General Conference, it was said in crystal clear terms that activity in church doesn't guarantee Christian discipleship. The issue is that many talks appear to illustrate a belief that it's hard for most people to live a Christ-centered life without also having a church-centered life - and, frankly, they probably are correct in most cases.

Christianity and church affiliation are so intertwined now, as much outside the LDS Church as inside it, that it's really hard for people of pretty much any denomination (or even "non-denominational" congregations) to separate the two - and, given the communal nature of the New Testament focus, I'm not sure the two actually can be separated properly. In a very practical way, it really is difficult to divorce being a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth from being part of a religious community - a group "following", if you will. In Jesus' ministry, it wasn't a formal "church", per se - but people absolutely left family and friends to follow him around as he preached. They formed a religious community, even if they didn't build and gather in meetinghouses of their own.


Furthermore, as I have said in other posts here, the Mormon conception of the next life is not focused on individual salvation but rather communal exaltation. 

The difficulty here, in my opinion, is not that we need to separate the two affiliations totally and make it Christian discipleship vs. church membership; rather, we need to balance the two and prioritize them so that we live Christ-centered lives within the LDS Church - not that we live church-centered lives that include Christ.

In other words, we should be Mormon Christians - not Christian Mormons.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Modeling the Titles of Jesus in Our Own Lives

Last Sunday, we talked about the titles we attribute to Jesus and how we can model many of those titles in our own lives. We used the Topical Guide from the Bible to identify titles, since that was the most handy, traditional source to use. The list included the following, with a brief example of the conversations we had about each title:

Bread of Life - We can nourish people in need (physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc.) by understanding them well enough to give them the nourishment they actually need - and by not drowning them if they are suffering extreme thirst.

Creator - We can develop our creative talents, whatever they are, and use them to help others.

Advocate - We can look for people who need support of some kind, especially those who are being hurt in some way by others.

Exemplar - We can be examples, focusing especially on loving charity.

Good Shepherd - We can help gather, protect and feed people in dangerous situations - and we can avoid driving people away who would gather with us if not driven away.

Mediator - We can defend the defenseless and speak for those who can't speak for themselves.

Second Comforter - We can comfort those who need comfort.

Son of Man - We can honor parents - even with bad ones for whom honoring means nothing more than passing on a better life to our own children and "redeeming" our family name.

How Do You Remain United in the Body of Christ When A Leader Abuses Power?

I have a good friend who was hurt quite badly by a pastor who initiated a harmful program and insisted that my friend help him administer it.  When my friend refused, he faced serious consequences at the practical level within his church community.

That friend asked me, after the fact, the following - and my response follows his question, with a nod to Mormon-speak for this blog:

The reality is that church leaders are just regular people. As such, sometimes they abuse their power in their leadership positions. Generally this is minimal or not a problem - however sometimes it can be extreme and even abusive.

How do you deal with this? How do you reconcile it with the command to be united in the body of Christ?

1) by recognizing and admitting exactly what you just said. There's nothing "magical", in and of itself, that changes someone who is in a position of leadership in a church - man or woman. The only thing that changes automatically is the power and influence they are able to wield - the scope of their potential unrighteous dominion.

2) by recognizing that increased responsibility pushes "the natural (wo)man" toward increased unrighteous dominion. It pushes "the unnatural (wo)man" forward to greater at-one-ment. It pushes most people who live somewhere between those extremes either or both ways.

3) by defining "unity in the body of Christ" as "doing my best to help the entire community" - and realizing that sometimes the best help I can provide is a different perspective - or a simple refusal to do something.

4) by not being a jerk about it or refusing to do anything for the person but continuing to do everything I feel I can do in good conscience and balance.

5) by going above the person's head in extreme situations, if possible - always calmly and meekly and humbly, but clearly and precisely (and pointing out that I take my commitment to sustain God and the overall church community above my commitment to any one person).

Within the structure of my own religion, if I were to go to a Stake President, for example, about a Bishop, High Priest Group Leader, EQ President, etc., I would make it crystal clear that I am doing so out of genuine concern for the Stake President, the other person and the LDS Church itself - that I believe the problem I am trying to address is serious enough to be talking with the Stake President AFTER I've tried to talk with the other person. Again, as I say a lot, tone, attitude and appearance mean a lot in situations like this. I won't contribute to someone being stomped on, but I'm not doing any stomping on or punch throwing at any point in the process.

It's Not about Jesus; It's about You and Me

Jesus, from the view of a hardcore non-believer, was a complete failure. Some of his followers perpetrated some truly horrific, evil things.

Jesus, from the view of a hardcore believer, was a complete success. Some of his followers have done remarkable, marvelous, great things.

What separates a "faithful" torturer during the Inquisition from Mother Teresa? After all, both of them claimed to be doing the will of God, via Jesus.

It's not really Jesus that is the key, in any real, material, practical way. It's the specifics of the devotion of the different followers - the path each took in crafting their devotion, if you will. It's not the founder; it's the follower. In other words, at the most practical level, it isn't the "founder" of the religion that is paramount; rather, it's what followers individually and collectively make of the founding in their own lives.

There is plenty in Mormonism for someone to make himself be damned - but there's plenty in Mormonism for someone to be given exaltation.

One of my favorite questions when it comes to discussions of culture, practice, doctrine, etc. is:

"Lord, is it I?"

"We" are "The Church" - in every way that matters, and, I believe, it is up to each of us (as an individual "I am" within the collective "we are") to own that question - not to "outsource our sin" by blaming others for what "we are" but to model the devotion we hope to see from others. It really isn't about Joseph Smith, since there are good and bad "Mormons" sharing his heritage; it's about me - so I need to ask myself regularly:

"Lord, is it I?"

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Baptismal Covenants; or, Serving Only "Our Own" Is Not Following Jesus

Last Sunday, we talked about only one aspect of ordinances and covenants: the baptismal covenant to bear one another's burdens, mourn with those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need to comfort.

We spent the entire lesson talking about: 1) the fact that the Gospels detail a LOT more time spent serving people than time spent preaching; 2) exactly whom Jesus served during his mortal ministry (lepers, the sick and afflicted, the unclean, the despised, the poor, the powerless, etc. - his "kingdom of nobodies", as a friend of mine once wrote) and whom he did NOT serve (the religious leadership, the rich and famous and influential, etc.); 3) whom he might serve if he was born and ministered now; 4) how all of that relates to our own baptismal commitment to bear, mourn and comfort and, overall, to take Jesus' name upon us and become more Christ-like.

The list of whom he might serve now was created by the students and included: the sick, the poor, unwed teenage mothers, alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, the homeless (especially those who are mentally disabled). I pressed them to keep adding to the list, asking them to consider those who are marginalized specifically by our current Mormon culture and not already on the list, and they added homosexuals and the divorced. I personally added church members who see things differently than a locally dominant culture, struggle with aspects of faith and remain silent in order not to feel rejected in their congregations.

We talked about how natural it is to try to avoid becoming unclean or hurt (and how, in some cases, that is an unfortunate necessity) and how that translates inter-personally and socially into avoiding people who we see as unclean and/or dangerous - either physically or spiritually. We talked about how doing so is diametrically opposed to becoming Christ-like (except in the extreme cases when it is necessary), since he spent his entire ministry interacting with, serving and physically touching the people whom everyone else labeled as unclean and avoided in order to remain clean.

To end the lesson, I quoted my oldest daughter after she went through the temple for the first time. She said:

Dad, we spend so much time trying to build up the kingdom of God on earth that we forget to establish Zion.

I told them that we aren't really fulfilling our baptismal covenants if we aren't serving people who live outside our comfort zone - if we aren't helping people in a deeply personal, individual way who are rejected by other people, even people within our own church circles. I mentioned how much we construct our service projects around helping "our own" and too often ignore the people around us who are carrying the heaviest burdens, mourning alone and need comfort the most desperately. I asked them to think about the people on the list we created and look for ways to reach out to SOMEONE - actively and directly - who would be on that list. I told them that such an effort was vital to being a true disciple ("follower") of Christ - since, to do so, we have to be willing to go where he went and serve whom he served.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Kingdom of God and How We Help Build It on Earth

The subject for this month is "Building the Kingdom of God on Earth", which has a lot of potential. I am excited about this month, especially since I want to incorporate a Christmas and New Year's slant the last two weeks of the month (focused on modeling Jesus' life as an aspect of building the kingdom of God and on New Year's resolutions as a way to learn repentance - both of which I am going to discuss in the context of establishing Zion).

Anyway, the lesson last Sunday was very much a discussion lesson. I started by putting the month's discussion topic on the chalkboard and writing "What?" on one side and "How?" on the other side.

I asked the students to define "the kingdom of God" how they see it. I got the following responses:

Those who follow God

All of God's children

Those who try to keep the commandments

Those who serve others

I was really happy with those answers. I have some wonderful students in my class.

At that point, I asked for any other definitions people might give, and I got the following:

Members of the Church

We then talked about who constitutes each group, and everyone agreed that all of them except the last one include members and non-members alike - especially if we define "God" as broadly as possible to mean "whatever people call God". Given that understanding, I mentioned that we would talk in the next lesson about how we "build up" those who follow God, all of God's children, those who try to keep the commandments, those who serve others and members of the Church - and I initiated the next conversation by sharing what my oldest daughter said after her first endowment session in the temple:

Dad, we work so hard to build up the kingdom of God that we forget to establish Zion.

I repeated that we would focus on building the kingdom through "missionary work" in this lesson and talk more about establishing Zion in the next one.

We talked about the difference between the Gospel and the Church, and the we talked abut how to share the Church effectively - since we will talk more next week about sharing the Gospel in the context of establishing Zion.  I asked how many of them had hunted and/or fished. Most of them had fished, and a few of them had hunted.

I asked how we fish now, as concisely as possible. One of the students said, "Rod, line, hook, worm." We laughed, and since I can't be that concise, I rephrased it as, "We pick a spot where we think fish are, pick bait we think they will want to eat, and throw that bait and hook on a line into the water where we think they are." I asked if there was any other way to fish, and one mentioned fly fishing. I described that style as, essentially, the same thing but using a different method of trying to attract the fish - a more quick-hitting method of putting the bait on the surface instead of deeper into the water to mimic a different kind of bait for different kinds of fish.

We turned to hunting, and the summary was, "Gun." (Teenagers can be hilarious.) We talked about how the only real difference between hunting and fishing as we had discussed was that when you hunt you can see your target and choose whether or not to shoot a particular animal, whereas with fishing you have to real it in to see what it is and whether to keep it or not. Hunting is much more like choosing a particular person to approach.

I then asked how people fished in Biblical times, and we discussed the difference in using nets cast into the water.

We ended the lesson by applying those methods to missionary work - discussing how we can target an area where we think interested people are, choose a topic (bait), throw it into the area and see who asks questions (takes the bait) - or we can focus on a particular person, wait for them to come into our view or seek them out and launch an attack (rifle hunting) - or we can cast a net (by talking with everyone about our lives and seeing who swims into the net).

We talked about how each person will respond to various methods differently and how it is important to try to understand people as well as possible before picking a method for any individual - to not assume one approach method will work for everyone. We talked about what can happen if we use the wrong method on people - for example, how the students would feel if someone else tried to convert them in a way that simply didn't resonate at all with them. We also talked about how people react when they feel "targeted" or "attacked" - how much more effective sharing anything is when the other person knows it's being done out of real love and genuineness.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Becoming Like Jesus: Charity

Today was a "bridge" lesson - moving from last month's topic of becoming like Jesus to this month's focus on spiritual and financial self-reliance. We missed a week last month due to General Conference, so I chose to do a combo lesson on the two topics.

I started by asking the students what "self-reliance" means. They looked at me like I'd asked a stupid, obvious question, which was partially true, so I rephrased the question and asked them what "self-reliance" means within the context of the Gospel we teach in the LDS Church - and by telling them that I believe there are important positive and negative aspects of it and ways to define it in Gospel terms. One of the students said it is not having to rely on anyone else - to be able to take care of yourself. I then asked why that might be a problem in the context of the Gospel and the Church. That same student said that there are people who aren't completely self-reliant at times, and there are some people who can't be completely self-reliant - and that if we preach self-reliance as the only good situation, we can end up making them feel ashamed of themselves when they shouldn't be ashamed. (I've driven that point home about a number of things over the last year as I've taught this class - how preaching only a theoretical ideal can be damaging to those not in that situation, especially through no fault of their own, and it's exciting to see the students start to see it without explicit prompting.)

We talked about the extremes: the mentally or physically disabled as an example of someone who can't be self-reliant and the intentional hermit who is completely self-reliant but living a life that is not of any service to others. We talked about how none of us in the room are completely self-reliant (that we all live in the middle somewhere) - from them still living at home and being supported by their parents to me being unemployed and needing fast offering assistance right now. When we finished that discussion, I was ecstatic to hear one of the students say, "So, the ideal really is community self-reliance." I told them we would talk about that more next week.

We then talked about how we really can't be spiritually self-reliant. I asked why that is, and one of them said, "Because we all need the Atonement. We can't become like God without it. We can't do it on our own." I used that as the bridge point to explain that what we had studied last month was how to use the self-reliance we can exercise to access the elements of self-reliance we can't access on our own - to create a condition of mutual-communal-reliance personally with God and then as a group with others.

With that foundation, we turned to 1 Corinthians 13, and I told them that we were going to do with that chapter (for as long as we had today) what we had done with the Beatitudes the previous two weeks (go through it word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase) - and that part of gaining spiritual self-reliance to the greatest extent possible is to study the scriptures carefully and deeply in order to build a personal understanding of them, even if that leads to different insights and perspectives than others - even each other. I told them that we too often read something shallowly and then, thinking we understand it already, never dig deeply and reach a profound understanding of it. Understanding something shallowly usually means understanding what others say about it, which is the exact opposite of spiritual self-reliance.

The following is a summary of what we covered in 1 Corinthians 13:

Verses 1-3: We talked about how the result of not having charity in each verse is the exact opposite of what we naturally assume should be the result of the actions described in each verse. Speaking with the tongues of men and angels ought to produce sounds that are pleasing and enlightening (that are melodious), but doing so without charity actually produces sounds that are distracting and jarring - like a brassy sound or the sound of cymbals clanging indiscriminately throughout a concert. Understanding prophecy and all mysteries and having all knowledge and faith ought to result in becoming someone important and powerful, but doing so without charity actually produces someone who has no lasting worth - who is nothing in the end. Giving everything to the poor and dying as a martyr ought to provide a great reward, but doing so without charity produces no eternal profit. (Think of the passage that says, "They have their reward" - just not God's.)

Verse 4: I used this verse to show the students how commas and semi-colons are used in this chapter - commas linking multiple aspects of the same general characteristic of charity and semi-colons introducing a new characteristic. (This is important, especially, in verse 5.) We talked about what it means to suffer long AND be kind - and how being able to suffer long depends on kindness. We talked about various things that make us suffer, not just temporarily but also for an extended period of time - and how enduring things that others cause in a charitable manner requires not just patience but also kindness. We talked about how easy it is to lash out when someone causes suffering of any kind, but how charity allows us to react kindly. We talked about how charity allows us to avoid envy and, instead, be happy for others and their blessings. We talked about what "vaunting" and being "puffed up" mean: elevating one's self above others and expanding one's self with nothing but empty air. (A student mentioned a puffer fish, and I physically puffed myself up in an arrogant way to make the point visually.) We discussed how charity keeps us from elevating ourselves above others and not getting "full of ourselves".

Verse 5: All of these aspects of charity are linked with commas; there are no semi-colons in the verse. This means that the entire verse really is one combined characteristic - each aspect being built on the previous ones. Behaving "unseemly" means "inappropriately" - and we talked about different situations requiring difference behavior. I asked how they might act inappropriately at school, and one of the students mentioned not following the school's dress code - and he compared how we would dress to go swimming and how we would dress to attend school. I added business meetings and church meetings, and I told them how much I dislike the idea that we need to dress in "Sunday best" for nearly all church-related meetings, no matter their purpose or location. In that light, "unseemly" is much more expansive than we often assume.

We then discussed Paul's statement about not eating meat with those who abstain from meat as an example of not behaving in an unseemly manner - and how we need to be aware of the sensibilities of those with whom we interact and be willing to "suffer long", be kind, not elevate ourselves or puff ourselves up by not following things that are important to others while in their presence - and I said that is why I usually wear a white shirt to church, even though I have no problem wearing different colors (as they have seen occasionally). I also told them that I have a bit of an addictive personality (combined with some extended family psychological issues), and I am grateful I was raised with the concept of the Word of Wisdom - and how others who could have handled a little alcohol in moderation chose to abstain and allowed me to be raised in an environment where I never had to find my own limit, since I can't be sure if I personally could have walked that particular line properly. That also is an example of people not behaving unseemly solely for the benefit / protection of others, since they would not have behaved unseemly regardless due to their ability to handle alcohol in moderation.

We talked about how moderating our behavior in the company of others is part of not "seeking our own" - both in sacrificing "our own" for "others" and also in not limiting ourselves only to those who are most like us (with whom we can "be ourselves" more fully and not be concerned about acting inappropriately). Thus, charity actually allows us to step outside our comfort zones and be productive and loving in those more difficult circumstances. Charity expands our spheres of influence and exposes us to things and people who challenge our natural inclinations, prejudices and biases, then it allows us to grow as a result.

We talked about how easy it is to be provoked (and to provoke) when we are with people who are different than us and how critical it is for growth and expanded understanding to be "not easily provoked". We talked about how easy it is to be provoked in every situation involving multiple people (even just people we love and who love us), much less with people who are different - and why being easily provoked naturally leads us toward "seeking our own" and "behaving unseemly".

We talked about what it means to "think no evil" - and the difference between thinking evil and having a bad thought. We used the example of thinking, "I wish so-and-so was dead," and thinking of ways to kill that person. I mentioned that the thought of wishing someone was dead is not a good thought, but it is different to have the thought and to dwell on it and end up actually thinking evil. We then put the entire verse together, and I showed them how each aspect builds onto the previous one(s) until we have the end results: thinking evil or not thinking evil. Charity is the foundation of avoiding becoming and evil person - and it comes from interacting with people who naturally challenge our charity and acting properly with them.

We ran out of time at that point, so I finished by sharing the following, to tie it all back to the principle of becoming like Jesus and being spiritually self-reliant:

Jesus suffered long, and was kind; Jesus envied not; Jesus vaunted not himself, was not puffed up, did not behave himself unseemly, sought not his own, was not easily provoked, thought no evil.

Developing charity is the most fundamental way to become like Jesus, and it ought to be one of our primary goals in life. We can't do that in a vacuum, and we can't do it by interacting only with those who are most like us and with whom we are comfortable. It will manifest itself in different ways for each of us, and it will be challenging in different ways, but it can't happen in a life of relative ease and comfort. We have to love those we are not inclined naturally to love, and that means interacting with them, being made to suffer but remaining kind, learning not to envy, not elevating ourselves (especially above those of whose choices we do not approve), acting appropriately and lovingly (and, in some cases, sacrificially), not seeking our own benefit or kind, risking provocation and not giving in to it and, ultimately, being able to do so without succumbing to the temptation to think evil (about or of others).

Charity, for the vast majority of us, is a learned, gained characteristic, not a natural gift. In the words of Paul, we need to seek after it - to make it a personal quest. 

I told them that this quest has to be personal - and that the challenges will come from all kinds of sources. For some, it will include their own families and church congregations; for some, it might be in a future marriage; for some of them, it will happen on missions; for all of them, it will happen only as they expand their horizons and leave their comfort zones and begin to love as Jesus loved by living more like Jesus lived.

Who Is a Christian?

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)

You are a Christian if you try to follow what you believe Jesus asked of people - if you try to live according to your understanding of his words and the will of the Father. It isn't about what you say - or even about many of the specific, theological details of what you believe.  It's about what you do and what that says about what you really believe, in practical terms.  It's not about being a theologian or a "believer".  It's about being a disciple and a "follower". 

To me, it's that simple. 

As an aside, in our 5th Sunday lesson a couple of years ago, one of the men in the ward mentioned how much easier it is to be a good Mormon than it is to be a good Christian. He said it calmly and introspectively about himself, and nobody batted an eye. I really like the thought behind his statement - that it's harder to live the life Jesus asked of his disciples than it is to obey a checklist of do's and don'ts that gives an outward appearance of discipleship. 

We Are Responsible, Largely, for the Experiences of Others at Church

[Normally, I would proivde a link to a good post from somewhere else today, but I felt impressed to share this memory, instead.  I hope that decision was inspired - that this post touches someone, somehow today.]

There was a discussion in a leadership meeting I attended once that centered on the question of why members left the Church and what we could do about it. I knew how it probably would go naturally, so I piped up right at the beginning and said that most of the people who have left with whom I have talked personally mention being bored and feeling unfed at church - and that the best thing we can do, in my opinion, is to make our services and classes and meetings at all levels and of all kinds more spiritual and more spiritually filling.

As I expected, there was an initial, immediate reflection of that onto the people who don't come prepared to feel the Spirit (as if it's their own fault for not feeling fed and feeling bored), but the conversation eventually ended up focusing on the "standard" idea that everyone needs a friend, something to do and nourishment with the good word of God. I agreed and simply pointed out that it is up to the leadership of each ward and branch to set the example of nourishing with the good word of God and insist that the membership do that, as well, to the best of their ability.

This is one issue where I agree completely with the "standard Sunday School answer". Everyone needs a friend (someone with whom s/he can talk honestly and openly without being judged or condemned), something to do (to not feel like a nobody and to serve others) and spiritual nourishment (thoughtful, uplifting, enlightening, spirit-directed teaching and sharing). One is social; the next is active personal; the last is spiritual.

If all three of these things were provided to every member, there still would be issues - but they would be much fewer, far between and less serious. So, my advice to everyone is simple:

If you want to deal better with some of the things that cause you to struggle at church, be a real friend to someone at church, find something to do at church that is important and meaningful to you (whether that is an official calling or not) and provide nourishment of the good word of God to those who need it (including yourself outside of church time, if you aren't getting it directly at church from others).

A Story that Broke My Heart - and Why

The second link to a thought-provoking article I posted here on my blog (way back in September 2007) was one that hit me really hard when I first read it.  It is about life in Africa and the practical application of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I decided to re-post it now, since I wasn't able to work on my New Year's Resolution post this week.  I am providing the link and then my own commentary on what hit me so hard when I first read it. 

Little Street Vendor - Wilfried Decoo

I do not mean to call the teacher a Pharisee. I am much less bothered by the “buying something on Sunday” aspect as I was by this thought:

“We shouldn’t chase that vendor away, but if you don’t buy from her, SHE WON’T COME BACK.”

Those last four words are what broke my heart.

Not buying from her is one thing; not putting our arms around her and not talking with her and not thinking that perhaps God inspired a choice daughter to take up a post at our church and not inviting her into our fellowship but, instead, truly chasing her away - that breaks my heart. I want her there - where she is relatively safe, where she at least can hear that she is a child of God, where she can rest with faith that families with children of their own (relatively well-dressed, clean, happy children) will understand her plight the best they can and have pity on her, etc. Taking that away from her - that breaks my heart. She’s not an object lesson for Sabbath Day observance; she’s a daughter of God and my spiritual sister - and using her as the first instead of treating her as the second broke my heart.

I understand the overwhelming nature of poverty in Africa and the hesitancy to do anything that might encourage hundreds of poor vendors to flock to the Church, but I have a feeling that the astute businesswoman in that little girl would have recognized the benefit of keeping her spot hidden from competition. I wonder if anyone sat down with her and just talked with her about her life, about the Gospel, about the Restoration, about her divine nature as a daughter of God. Whether or not anyone gave her money or bought something from her, did anyone take the time just to love her and listen to her. Wonder of wonders, she can read!  I wonder if anyone even thought to give her a Book of Mormon or something else to engage her mind. 

“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these . . .” couldn’t find a more perfect application than this little street vendor - and would we really want to ignore Him, so He won't come back? .

Helping Those Who Are Poor: Self-Reflection

As I have contemplated further how to recognize and help those who are poor (especially in non-monetary ways), I have been struck by the need to step back a bit and make a very simple but profound point.  I hope I can do so in a way that is instructive.

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.  (Romans 3:23)

In other words, in very real and critical ways, all of us are poor - especially in non-monetary ways.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  (Matthew 5:3) 

In our striving to become more Christ-like - and to be able to be "saints" or "disciples" of Jesus, it is easy to get so focused or caught-up in that attempt that we lose sight of the fundamental, foundational reality that all of us are non-monetarily poor - and that we actually are counted as "blessed" if we remain or become poor in some ways.  It's easy to view our "wards" at church more like political wards (which was the original meaning behind the organizational term) and forget that we also can see gatherings on Sunday like hospital wards - where sick and hurting and needy people gather for care and healing.

That, perhaps, is the greatest failing I have seen in too many congregations within our modern church - a lack of conscious, intentional, comprehensive, openly expressed recognition of our own "sinnerhood" and the  accompanying masks we too often wear to cover it.  Sometimes we preach the ideal so much that we fail to acknowledge the real - and we too often end up hurting those whose "poverty" is harder to hide than our own. 

Yes, I need to strive to recognize and help those who are non-monetarily poor - but I must do so from the standpoint of someone who is not yet non-monetarily rich (from the position of someone who is "in the same boat", so to speak, and simply is trying to help others find and wear the life-jacket he has found).  I need to understand that, in relative terms, I might be less poor in some ways than others - but that, in absolute terms, I still am a poor beggar who, ultimately, will need to rely on the mercy of He who is mighty to save.

Incorrect Definition of a Christian: Confessing His Name Is Not Enough

There is a classic line that many people know: 

"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to the garage makes you a car." - Laurence Peter 

I would like to add something similar, in direct refutation of one of the major doctrines of many Protestant denominations:

"Saying you accept Jesus (confessing His name) doesn't make you an actual disciple of Christ any more than saying you accept a doctor actually cures you of anything."- Papa D

At some point, you have to do what they tell you to do in order to be serious about your acceptance of them and be healed.