We Can't Preach the Gospel in Antagonistic Ways and Truly Love Others

We have two competing commandments - or at least it appears that way on the surface. 

The greatest one is, “Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Love one another,” or any number of ways to phrase it. The other one is, “Preach the Gospel.” Christ said that the world would hate those who represent him, but he didn’t say that meant we should preach in such a way as to alienate automatically by our own words and actions. He generally didn’t do that (except when condemning hypocrites and the Pharisees, primarily), and neither should we. 

We can fulfill the command to preach the Gospel as well as the command to love others, but we can't do both if we approach preaching with an antagonistic spirit.  In that light, I believe strongly that we need to stop framing so much of our discourse in battle terms - us vs. others, generally, and, more specifically, us vs. "the world".  We need to stop blaming others for issues for which they are not responsible (like, for example, blaming the homosexual population for the deterioration of traditional marriage, which is the fault of the heterosexual population). 

We need to preach what we believe (including real repentance), but we need to do so from a position of love - and we can't say we "love the sinner" while using language that is not conducive to love (or in language that, as Pres. Uchtdorf said, essentially judges others for sinning differently than we do).  We can't preach repentance exclusively to others, particularly in detail; we need to preach the Gospel (including the correct principle of repentance) to ALL, including and especially to ourselves. 

At the most basic level, it's not us vs. them; rather, it's me vs. me - and us WITH them.  We can work to build up the kingdom of God on Earth, but it won't happen (won't really be the kingdom of God) if we aren't working in such a way that we simultaneously are establishing Zion - and Zion is based on a foundation of real charity. 

Balancing Zealousness with Concern for Others

On this day of unabashed patriotism, I want to share the following that has application to that topic, as well: 

There is a fine line between zealousness and fanaticism. I think charity is the delineator of the two - and, unfortunately, people do many things "out of love" that aren't at all charitable.

I look at the Golden Rule, and I can't help but wonder how (the collective) we would feel if our non-Mormon acquaintances acted toward us the way we sometimes act towards them - or if we learned that they talk about us the way we sometimes talk about them. I look at how some people interact with their "wayward" children and wonder how they would react if their parents weren't members and interacted that same way with them (their own "wayward children").

I believe in zealousness when it is manifested in a righteous manner, but I also have to be able to look at my own actions (and the actions of others as examples) and see the difference between righteous zealousness and something else. For example, I am concerned whenever I hear or read anything like the following - which I read in a comment a couple of years ago:

(In order to be zealous,) we have to stop worrying about “the other guy” and worry about how God views us.

Frankly, I think we have to be concerned about the other guy AND about how God sees us, specifically because if there is one lesson in all of our scriptures I believe it is that "concern for the other" is absolutely central to the Gospel and mission of Jesus Christ. I agree completely that concern for how others see us can't get in the way of doing the right thing, but I also believe that "doing the right thing" without regard for "the other guy" often (and I mean very often) leads to doing the wrong thing in the name of righteousness. I don't need to use extreme examples of that principle; regular, daily examples are all around us.

I believe that being righteously zealous is not a simple thing that can be measured by a universal checklist. I need to be concerned with my own zealousness and whether my own zealousness is acceptable to God - and, for me, that absolutely must include a deep, central, strong element of how my actions in the name of God impact "the other guy" - since charity is the heart of my own measure of my own righteous zealousness.

One example to illustrate my point:

I love and admire Captain Moroni, but he was wrong - 100% dead wrong - in his chastisement of Pahoran during the war he was fighting. He didn't write that letter out of righteous zealousness; he wrote it out of frustration over seeing his soldiers die unnecessarily. (Those are his own words, not my assumption.)  He wrote it in anger - and the condemnation in it of Pahoran was unfounded. Captain Moroni was described by Mormon in the abridgment as a "perfect man", but he erred in that instance when he wrote that letter (which does not contradict Mormon's assessment of him). The letter was not charitable; it was not accurate; it was not in line with the standard articulated in D&C 121; it was not sensitive to the plight of a friend, supporter and fully righteous man; it was not a righteous judgment; it was not an example of "being moved upon by the Holy Ghost"; it was not an example of righteous zealousness.

Again, I admire Captain Moroni deeply, but I admire Pahoran even more deeply in that example - since he easily could have reacted very differently. It was Pahoran, not Captain Moroni, in that situation who "saved the day" - and he did it explicitly by remembering, in a time of great stress and distress, to "think of the other guy" and not return threat for threat. He did it by remembering the pure heart behind the mistaken accusations and not holding Moroni's mistake against him. He did it by loving the man even though the man's words must have cut him deeply. He did it by not being zealous in the traditional, stereotypical manner but by being zealous in love and meekness.

I believe in zealousness, but I also believe it is manifested differently in different situations and that, for me, at the very core, it absolutely involves "worrying about the other guy" in a very real and important way. I believe charity is the balancing agent between righteous zealousness and unrighteous fanaticism - and, if I have to choose between one extreme or the other, I try to choose to be overly charitable rather than overly fanatical.

Discretion Is the Better Part of Just about Anything

Discretion is the better part of just about anything. It's important to recognize and acknowledge that.

I can't say everything I might want to say in any group with whom I associate. I weigh my words all the time, both to consider their effect on me and to be careful of their effect on those who hear them. I try not to be misunderstood, even if I'm not fully understood. I don't succeed all the time in that effort, but I try. 

That's just part of life. Anything else is selfishness and lack of charity.

It's easy to forget that and think that church life is or should be different - that it should be a place where we can forget discretion and just say whatever we think and believe without filters of any kind. It's not that way, and it can't be - since it's a gathering of people who are just as short-sighted and weak as I am.

I'm not looking to carve out any "otherness" in the Church for any group of people. I'm looking to be a Papa D Mormon - for John Doe to be a John Doe Mormon - for Whomever to be a Whomever Mormon, etc. That's all, but it's vitally important to me - and discretion is the better part of that - just as it is for our apostles and local leaders, I would add.

I think leaders really do try to accomplish that (use discretion) well over 90% of the time. Even in cases like I've described here in some threads, with decisions and actions that left me scratching my head in bewilderment and caused some people real pain, most of the time the leaders involved really are trying to do the best they can.

They're human. Life is pain, because we humans inflict pain - because even our best efforts are undertaken as we see through a glass, darkly.

That's all I'm saying - that, given our collective humanity, discretion is the better part of everything we do, in all situations, among the people in all of our associations. I can't control them; I try to control me, to the best of my ability; I hope that I will not be held to a higher standard than I can reach, so I try my hardest not to hold others to a higher standard than they can reach.

That's easy when I like the others and they aren't hurting me and others in any significant way; it's not so easy when I don't like the others and/or they are hurting me and others in real, significant ways. Sometimes, I need to bite my tongue; sometimes I need to speak out; always I need to exercise discretion and think before I act - including before I speak.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Becoming Like Jesus: Lesson 1

The lessons this month are about "Becoming Like Christ".

We started our class by talking about effective ways to teach. They listed parables, example, object lessons, speaking at the level of the students and discussion. (Last week while I was gone, they talked about parables - using specific examples from the Gospels to show how Jesus taught.) I then told them those were important things and that learning how to teach more effectively using Jesus as an example is important, but I explained that we were going to focus on Jesus himself and becoming like him in a more literal sense.

I asked them how we can learn about someone. After some discussion, we narrowed it down to three things: what is written or said about the person (a description of some sort by others), characteristics or attributes they model and/or teach, and what they do (their actions). I told them we would focus on learning how to become like Jesus by focusing on each of those "study methods", in that order.

I asked them what we know about Jesus, in broad terms - like a timeline:

He was born in Bethlehem. Probably around the age of 12-24 months, his family fled Bethlehem and moved to Egypt. A few years later, after Herod's death, they moved to Nazareth. At the age of 12, his family traveled to Jerusalem, where he surprised educated people at the temple. (Note: There is no indication that Jesus was "teaching" anyone, as is commonly believed. The verses say he was "hearing them and asking them questions" and that they were "astonished at his understanding and answers".) The next 18 years are summed up in Luke 2:51, which says:

Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

We broke that verse down word-by-word, since I believe it is one of the least understood Biblical verses in all of Christianity.

"Increased" means he "gained or acquired more", and what he gained or acquired was "wisdom" (learning, understanding, ability to apply) and "stature" (size). Thus, Jesus learned things (just like we all learn things) and grew up. He also increased in "favor" (standing, rank, acceptance - especially compared to others) - and that increase was with both God and other people. We talked about what it means to be a "favorite" and how "favor" in this usage implies comparison to others. We then talked about how Jesus could increase in favor with God, especially if he was God's only begotten son AND if he was the God of the Old Testament before he was born.

We talked about the common misunderstanding of what it means to be "sinless" - and I mentioned again my dislike of the following song lines:

"The cattle are lowing, the poor baby wakes, but little Lord, Jesus, no crying he makes."

"He never got vexed when the game went wrong, and he always told the truth."

In the Primary Sacrament Meeting program, one of the children gave a short talk in which he said that Jesus never made any mistakes. I told the students that I understand the need to teach very young children in simplistic terms, but that being sinless does NOT mean never making mistakes. We talked about transgressions being mistakes made in ignorance - things we do that are wrong but not against our understanding or conscience, then we talked about sins being things we do in opposition to our own consciences. Thus, a sin for one person isn't necessarily a sin for someone else. One person's sin often is another person's transgression. If, therefore, Jesus increased in wisdom AND in favor with God and man, he could have made mistakes and "transgressed" some element of eternal law (like lying as a young child) without "sinning" (violating his conscience and understanding).

With this as the baseline, becoming like Jesus does NOT mean never making mistakes (even transgressions) but rather trying not to act in opposition to one's conscience - which, instructively, we call "the light of Christ".

We then moved to what he is said to have taught - focusing on the Gospels (since they are all we have of his purported words during mortality) and, particularly, the Sermon on the Mount - in order to see what he identified as the characteristics and attributes of godliness (or "blessedness", to use the exact word). I told them again about my three-year focus on understanding and living better the characteristics and attributes listed in the Sermon on the Mount and how badly I wished I had started that focus when I was their age rather than when I was in my 40's.

We talked about being "poor in spirit" - and we focused on the need to "value" each person as an equal spirit child of God. Being "rich in spirit" is a negative in that context, so it can't mean "spiritual" in the sense we normally apply. Being poor in spirit has to mean not valuing one's self above others, at the most fundamental spiritual level. I pointed out that one of the students is more valuable as a singer and actor than many others at their school, while another student is more valuable as a mathematician, and another one is more valuable as an athlete. There is something about each of the students that makes them more valuable than others in some "natural" way. However, there also are others who are more valuable in those ways than each of them. The tendency is to see differing value in objective ways and miss the equal value of each spirit child in God's eyes.

We talked about being able to mourn - and I asked them how mourning could be a condition of blessedness. That stumped them at first, but we had a good conversation about how we mourn only for the loss of that which we value highly and those we truly love. People who mourn are blessed for two reasons: they have something / someone in their lives of great value, and they have hearts that can feel deep love. Conversely, the inability to mourn is a sign of lack of value in one's life and an inability to love. We also talked about how much we can gain and give in the process of mourning with those who mourn and comforting those who stand in need of comfort.

We talked about meekness as a blessing. I asked them what they envision when they think of someone who is meek. It was interesting that their immediate pictures were of someone cowering in timidity and fear - or someone who was extremely submissive and weak. I asked them if that picture fit their understanding of Jesus, and they immediately realized it didn't. I said something like, "Dude was a carpenter, and he chased people out of the temple grounds with a whip!" We then talked about meek meaning "gentle, forgiving, benevolent" - which are VERY different attributes than weakness, timidity and fearfulness. We finished by talking about what that means in practical terms in their lives - how they can be more meek in the reality of their own situations without being weak, timid or fearful.

To Persecute Others Less

My New Year's Resolution for this month is to persecute others less - taken from Alma 5:54, which says:

Yea, will ye persist in the persecution of your brethren, who humble themselves and do walk after the holy order of God, wherewith they have been brought into this church . . .

My overall resolution goes beyond the parameters of this verse a bit, since this verse focuses on those who persecute faithful members of a religion or denomination, but for this first post I want to focus more narrowly on the actual message in the verse - and examine if I do, in fact, "persecute" the humble who walk righteously before God.  It's a sobering subject, and it's one that I initially brushed aside without much thought - but as I was thinking of how to begin my contemplation and efforts this month I was struck by the thought that, perhaps, the actual question in the verse itself might apply in some way to me, as well. 

I certainly don't intend to persecute anyone, much less those who are humble and share my general beliefs - who have "been brought into this church".  I generally am quite tolerant and accepting, so it has taken some serious introspection to realize areas where I do, in deed, "persecute" fellow church members. 

In my case, it isn't so much an active, stereotypical persecution that concerns me about myself.  There are two primary definitions of the word "persecute" - and I have little or no inclination to inflict the first one, which is:

to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.

That simply is not in my nature, but as I read the second definition, I was struck by a thought I'm not sure I had considered in quite that way before beginning to think about this month's resolution.  That second definition is: 

to annoy or trouble persistently.  

As those who regularly read my blog (or my comments around the Bloggernacle) know, I am heterodox in some of my beliefs.  I believe deeply and passionately in the Restored Gospel taught in the LDS Church, but there are many areas and topics about which my personal views are quite different than many other members.  I am a "thinker tinkerer" by nature, so I spend perhaps an inordinate amount of time considering multiple possible interpretations of almost everything I believe.  I also am not exactly shy about sharing those views with others - although I do try to be aware of others' sensibilities and not push any particular interpretation on those inside the Church who see things differently than I do.  

What struck me this week as I thought of the idea of persecuting fellow believers is that sometimes I am prone to phrase things (verbal statements and written comments) in somewhat forceful ways - and I know that sometimes this general tone leads others to feel criticized in some way and, perhaps, even attacked occasionally.  I rarely mean to come across this way, but it struck me that if I am aware of this tendency and fail to be even more careful than I am inclined naturally to be, I am, in a sense, allowing myself to "persecute" those with whom I disagree.  At worst, I am "annoying and troubling persistently" other LDS members (especially when I continue to read and comment at sites where I know my views will be annoying to the author); at best, I still am allowing others to feel persecuted - and, in practical terms, sometimes perception truly is reality.  

So, my first focus this month will be to take even more care in how I write here and how I comment in other arenas - both online and in person - to try even harder to ensure that I do not "annoy or trouble persistently" those within the LDS Church whose views are different than mine.  I can't stop sharing what I believe, but I can strive to word what I share as charitably and non-annoyingly as possible.

Liberality Without Upbraiding

It’s a fine line we must walk between what we desire of others and how we treat them when they choose differently than what we desire of them. What causes someone to choose differently is beyond my ability to fully comprehend, so I simply deal with the choices and try to help that person to whatever extent s/he will allow it. I “preach” to those who are willing to listen; I simply love those who aren’t willing to hear my preaching.

Constantly preaching at someone who simply needs to be loved and respected can do as much harm emotionally and spiritually as slapping them physically. I believe we tend to equate our own desires and yearnings for the movement of the Holy Ghost far too much, so we end up “reproving” far too often - even when that reproof is couched in sugary terms of love and concern. “Giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not” is a difficult standard, but it is representative of most of the descriptions we have of how both the Father and the Son deal with those who choose to act differently than they have asked. Even Alma, as he went about trying to destroy the Church, was told that he could do whatever he decided with his own life - but that he should not try to drag others along with him.

Refocusing on the Beatitudes

My resolution for this month is to refocus on the Beatitudes, taken from Matthew 7:24-27. To set the tone for this post, I want to highlight only the first phrase from this passage:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them . . .

It is critical to consider that the last words we have in the Sermon on the Mount are a very clear call to ACTION - a re-statement of the idea that not all who cite His name actually do His will and produce righteous fruit of the true vine. In that vein, as I recap the Sermon on the Mount at the end of this two-year resolution, I want to focus specifically on what "these sayings of mine" are - to identify exactly what Jesus meant in the final four verses of this wonderful sermon and, for the rest of this month, excerpt some of the things I have learned about some of those things. I also want to highlight each one in a way that draws it back to the exhortation to be someone who not only heareth but also doeth them.

So:

Blessed are the poor in spirit.

Are you a little more humble than you were a year ago?

Blessed are they that mourn.

Do you mourn (particularly with those who mourn) a little more than you did a year ago?

Blessed are the meek.

Are you a little meeker (more gentle, forgiving and benevolent) than you were a year ago?

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Do you crave righteousness a little more than you did a year ago?

Blessed are the merciful.

Are you a little more merciful (more compassionate, more willing to not punish others for their actions, more ready to let things go that bother you) than you were a year ago?

Blessed are the pure in heart.

Is your heart a little cleaner and more purified than it was a year ago?

Blessed are the peacemakers.

Is there a little more peace in your own soul, and do you bring a little more peace to those with whom you associate, than you did a year ago?

The time-line I have chosen is an arbitrary one, and I'm NOT suggesting that we must answer each and every question affirmatively in order to be following the admonition to do what we hear, but I believe strongly that we must be able to answer positively to at least SOME of the questions posed above (or others in the same vein) in order to be "faithful" and "repentant" as represented by the imagery of the wise man and his rock-built-upon house. I love Pres. Hinckley's plea to do a little more and be a little better, but I am convinced that the key is a constant and conscious movement forward - no matter the pace.

"Judge Righteous Judgment"

“Judging righteously” is perhaps the most over-used, mis-applied concept in religious history. I look at judging righteously as meaning making the exact same judgment that Jesus would make - based on both actions and the condition of a heart. All of us are required to judge actions, words and situations in a way that informs our own actions, words and responses, but not one of us should extend those types of judgments to the point of divisiveness, personal rejection, condemnation, or any other result that shuts the door on future fellowship - even with our enemies and those that spitefully use and persecute us.

For example, I truly hate and loath what a friend of mine did to his daughters, but I am commanded not to pass judgment on him - unless I am in a calling where that is required. If I knew absolutely everything that had contributed to his actions, then perhaps I could judge righteously, but I don’t have that understanding and knowledge. Therefore, it is not my right to pass judgment on him, even as I must pass judgment on his actions.

I don’t know enough about anyone who contributes to a blog to come CLOSE to a proper level of understanding to judge their faithfulness.

Learning from Other Perspectives

One of the best things I did during my years of driving the rural roads of OH, PA and WV was to listen to the religious broadcasts that were the only alternative to farm-related futures. (Those farm futures broadcasts could cure insomnia. Even thinking about them years later makes me yawn.) I regularly had to turn off the radio when the hellfire and damnation preacher started to rant, especially when it turned explicitly anti-Mormon (as it did more frequently than you might imagine), but I also heard some fabulous sermons from slightly different perspectives than I had considered previously.

I learned things - gained insights - that I probably wouldn't have learned without hearing them from that type of source. Honestly, I ended up rejecting or being bored by 75-90% of what I heard, but the 10-25% that enlightened me was worth sorting through the garbage to find.

Blessed are the Peacemakers

My resolution for July is to become more of a peacemaker. The actual verse from the Beatitudes is Matthew 5:9, which reads:

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." I will focus on the first part (the characteristic) in this post and the second part (the reward) in another one.

It is interesting as I begin to focus on this attribute of perfection to point out that the term "peacemaker" is found only twice in our entire scriptural canon - in the two "Sermons on the Mount" we have recorded in Matthew and 3 Nephi. There are 366 instances of "peace", and some of the more instructive ones for this particular resolution include:

Isaiah 9:6 - "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

(It is fascinating that this name - "Prince of Peace" - is the last title listed in a group of names that appears to be in ascending order of importance. Again, I find that fascinating, and I will have to think about that some more.)

Mark 4:39 - "And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm."

I really like the way that peace in this verse is followed by a command to be "still" - and that the result is described as "a great calm".

Revelations 12:18 - "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

This verse is intriguing, because it appears to grant that there are some situations where it is not possible to live peaceably with others, but that we should strive to do so "as much as lieth in (us)".

As I begin this month's focus, I immediately think of two places where I need to work on becoming more of a peacemaker: at home, with my wife and children, and on the blogs I frequent. I also am struck by something as I think of this attribute in relation to those that come before it in the Beatitudes. It is worth considering.

To be a peacemaker requires me to step outside of my own life, if you will, and insert myself between others. Of course, part of "making peace" is establishing peace within one's own soul (reaching an internal stillness and a calmness), but to become a "perfect" peacemaker ("complete, whole, fully developed") requires me to step out of myself and mediate peace among and between the non-peaceful. It requires me to step out of a comfort zone and risk rejection by those whom I am trying to help. It means pointing out instances of arguing and fighting and bickering - and the natural man is not prone to enjoy that type of effort, even when done in meekness and mercy.

This means it will be CRITICAL in any effort to be a peacemaker for me to have internalized my earlier efforts to be more meek and more merciful, and it highlights the fact that the Beatitudes were structured on a progressively ascending scale - that one really does lead to the next, which leads to the next, which leads to perfection (completeness, wholeness, full development).

The Difference Between Mercy and Kindness

I was struck yesterday by the difference between mercy and kindness.

If I had not focused on meekness earlier this year, when I defined meekness and where I discussed being gentler with the ones we love, I probably would have defined mercy in terms of being kind. However, as I thought about it yesterday, it hit me that "mercy" is more than being kind and gentle - in a very important and fundamental way.

Meekness includes gentleness and benevolence - which includes kindly generosity. Being meek means reacting with kindness - by being gentle in your response to others. For example, meekness is the central concept in Proverbs 15:1 - where it says, "A soft answer turneth away wrath." In other words, meekness comes into play whenever something needs to be done or said by mitigating the harshness that naturally would accompany a "rebuke" and helping us "say this as gently as possible".

Mercy, on the other hand, encompasses "soft answers" (since they do not "inflict harm" to the same degree as "hard answers"), but it goes beyond meekness in that it often requires us to give no answer at all - to inflict no harm, even to the more minor degree that a meek response would cause. It requires us to "turn the other cheek" - an act of full mercy (not striking back although "justified") NOT merely meekness, as I have assumed previously. In this way, someone can be meek (gentle and kind) without being merciful (fully non-judgmental and understanding and forgiving), but it is impossible to be merciful without being meek.

Let me use one example from the life of Jesus to illustrate this point - and to show that meekness and mercy are required of us fully ("of you it is required to forgive all men" - D&C 64:10), but they are not required always of a righteous judge. When Jesus cleared the temple, He was neither meek nor merciful. He acted forcefully and dispensed justice energetically. He was able to do so "righteously" for two reasons:

1) As the designated God of this creation - the divine representative of the Father, He had authority over the temple which had been built as His house. He was the "Master of the House" in the fullest sense.

2) As the Eternal Judge, he had the authority to administer justice - literally to choose whatever action was "correct" for that situation. He could see the big picture and "judge righteous judgment".

There are times, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, that we may act with neither meekness nor mercy - when we may "reprove betimes (once in a while) with sharpness (precision)" - since these instances explicitly are directed by a member of the Godhead. All other times, when we are not acting through direct communication from deity, we must strive to be either merely meek or truly merciful - by inflicting as little harm as possible through gentleness and kindness or no harm at all through mercy. That is a fine line that must be drawn, I believe, in each and every instance - which is one reason why the Gift of the Holy Ghost is so critical to our progression and growth.