Boundaries

Something I wish I had known 50 years ago:

· That relationships need boundaries.
· That boundaries are necessary for good relationships.
· That unless there are boundaries, relationships will suffer.
· That for relationships to be happy, there must be clear boundaries.
· etc. etc. etc!

Is it clear yet, that I favor relationship boundaries?

Although there is a proliferation of books, videos, and TV programs that might have offered guidance for my messiest relationships, some of those really can't be taken seriously, and so I tended to discount them all. What I really needed was someone to give me Scriptural principles for establishing boundaries in my relationships.

I needed to know that I was genuinely loved. God's purpose in human relationships was to provide for some of our core needs such as security, acceptance and significance. He formed a beautiful creation which included one human, but "then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.' " (Genesis 2:18) If a friendship is deep and intimate, both persons should share in that. If it is only casual, both should honor the limits. Sometimes our ideas clash about what love would look like in a particular situation; a disconnect can easily lead to doing or saying the wrong thing. "Spell it out" as necessary.

I needed to know that I could insist on honesty. "So stop telling lies. Let us tell our neighbors the truth, for we are all parts of the same body. " (Ephesians 4:25) "Does anyone want to live a life that is long and prosperous? Then keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from telling lies!" (Psalm 34:12, 13) Many relationships are based on pretense—face it, most romantic friendships start out like that! However, a deep and long-lasting comradeship must be an honest one. Hidden agendas do not make for a healthy relationship.

I needed to know that threats to my physical safety or sense of security were unacceptable. "Better to be patient than powerful; better to have self-control than to conquer a city." (Proverbs 16:32) "I didn't mean what I said," cannot completely remove the sting of those words. The angry person is the only one who thinks he/she didn't mean what they said. "You'll just have to accept me as I am," is not good enough for me (or God).

I needed to know, Can I count on you? "A friend is always loyal, and a brother [sister, too!] is born to help in time of need." (Proverbs 17:17) "Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance." (I Corinthians 13:7) Does this mean I expect my friends to agree with me, right or wrong? Certainly not—as Senator Carl Schurz said in the Senate on February 29, 1872, "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." A loyal friend will stick with me until we arrive at what is good and right.

God uses human relationships to teach us about our relationship with Him. We are part of the family of God; He is our Father, Jesus our Elder Brother, and there are many other brothers and sisters in Christian fellowship. Christ and His Church are portrayed as a marriage relationship. We are servants of Christ, but also His friends. In all of these, we can know with certainty that we are unfailingly loved; that we can depend on knowing how we stand with God; that He seeks our good and not some manipulative, hidden plan; and that we can, without fear, count on Him.

The "boundaries" in our relationship with God are very simple. "The Lord has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you: to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8) Boundaries in human relationships are not all that different.

Marjorie

Scripture quotations are taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved.
Source of the Schurz quote: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1641.html

Are Women People?

A hundred years ago a woman's suffrage advocate authored a column in the New York Tribune, entitled "Are Women People?" In 1915, some of the writings of Alice Duer Miller were published in a book by that title. The following is from her introduction:
FATHER, what is a Legislature?A representative body elected by the people of the state.
Are women people?No, my son, criminals, lunatics and women are not people.
Do legislators legislate for nothing?Oh, no; they are paid a salary.
By whom?By the people.
Are women people?Of course, my son, just as much as men are.

We would find that dichotomy humorous, except it is too true. Women were excluded from the electoral process, but conveniently included when it came to paying lawmaking and lawkeeping costs. Subtle reverberations of this attitude remain into the present.

It's been several decades ago, but when I applied for my first teaching position, the three board members who interviewed me asked, "Are you married? Are you planning to get married? We don't want a teacher getting pregnant." And it hasn't been all that long ago that car salesmen said to female prospective buyers, "When will you husband be able to come in with you?" Just recently, I overhead a delivery man make a disparaging remark about no women being present (or so he thought) to give the guys a hard time. Sometimes this slighting attitude is present even in the Church. One fellow made it clear that the men were meeting to pray about important issues like war and politics. The women, he scornfully assumed, met in "tea party" style to pray about the Sunday School and Aunt Susie's rheumatism.

So, it has ever been that men take care of serious business, while women are supposed to be less interested and certainly less capable. I grew up thinking that the only meaningful life for a grown woman was one of service (read: mother, teacher, nurse). Never mind that my real passion was ideas and words: reading them, and writing them. Society as a whole, and the Church in particular, believed that men and women were quite different inherently—God having made it so—and therefore must confine themselves to their prescribed roles. Those who study human behavior have changed many of their earlier-held views, but sadly, much of the Church has lagged behind.

Inequality, even arrogant domineering, shows up in many homes of the faithful. One writer, a man, says that ever since Eve, women have wanted to control their husbands. Is he implying that this would be wrong, but that it is okay for men to control their wives? Maybe so. With all due respect for his education and experience, I think that ever since that incident in the Garden, people have wanted to control other people. Unfortunately, some Christian men feel that the Scripture gives them license to do so.

Women, along with everyone else and perhaps not in any greater degree than others, want safety and security. I have to admit that not all women need or choose the same means of being secure. Some women want someone telling them exactly what to do. I think about one of the sweet songs from the movie, "The Sound of Music." Liesl sings to her admirer, the telegram-delivery fellow, "I am sixteen, going on seventeen . . . I need someone older and wiser, telling me what to do. You are seventeen, going on eighteen. I'll depend on you." Women of sixteen, twenty-six, even forty-six or ninety-six may feel that way, and that is their choice. But for someone to tell all women they must feel that way is ridiculous! Some women may prefer the security they find in knowing that that they cannot fully depend on anyone or anything but themselves and their relationship with God. They feel safe in their knowledge that there is no real security outside God Himself.

Of course women are people! In spite of traditional difficulties and prejudices, more and more women are recognizing that we matter to God and that we matter in His plan for life in this world.

Including election of the legislature or to the legislature, and paying taxes.

Marjorie

Source of Miller's piece: http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_awp000_introduction.htm
(is a part of The New York Times Company)

Harder Than It Looks

Recovery after loss is harder than it looks.

It doesn't matter too much what the loss is:

The death of a spouse or a child.
The loss of a house—destruction or foreclosure.
Or the loss of Home—you can't go back to that place of security again.
Layoff from a long-term job.
Health and strength and freedom from pain.
A broken relationship.
Betrayal by someone you trusted.
A missed opportunity that cannot be recovered.
Failure to accomplish what you were sure you could.
Faith and self-confidence.
A dream that has died.

Treat the one who has suffered loss with great compassion. Recovery is harder than it looks.

People may say, "You're a strong woman—so brave." And she thinks, I don't want to be strong or brave. I just want to stop hurting.

They say, "You are doing so well." Thank you, I'm recovering from what amounts to a 'surgery' that almost killed me.

"You're looking good." Nice of you to say that, but this is just the face I put on when I'm going out.

Treat the one who has suffered loss with much kindness; it is doing a kindness to Christ.
Without implying unreserved acceptance of Jungian psychology, here is something he wrote:

What I do unto the least of my brethren, that I do unto Christ. But what if I
should discover that the least amongst them all, the poorest of all the beggars
. . . that these are within me, and that I myself stand in need of the alms of
my own kindness—that I myself am the enemy who must be loved—what
then?

Treat the one who has suffered loss with great compassion—especially if it is you.

I recommend reading or re-reading these posts on my "Finding the Faith Way" blog:
The Courage to Grieve and Where Everybody Knows Your Name.

Marjorie

The Path of Forgiveness

The following poem was first published on July 31, 2008, on my "Finding the Faith Way" blog.

Forgiveness

Forgiveness is a path--
Not summit to be claimed--
That all the way is stained
With secret tears
And blood-red mercy-drops,
The Lord's and mine.

Forgiveness is a path.
The Betrayed One's nail-marked hand
Will safely guide
My Cross-ward steps
Through valley hemmed with pain
And dark as death.

Forgiveness is a path
I do not walk alone.
Before, beside, within,
The One-Who-Sees
Is present to beseech
When I cannot,
"Father, forgive."

Marjorie

Growing Forgiveness

Considering the difficult subjects I've considered the last few times I've written, perhaps it is time to share again a post first published on my "Finding the Faith Way" blog on August 11, 2008. This is how I see forgiveness growing—slowly sometimes, not all at once.

The Tiny Flower of Forgiveness

A friend betrayed me.

I confessed to a confidante, ”Something deep inside me is broken, and I don't even know what it is.” And I questioned myself, “Am I resentful? Have I let my hurt become anger, and my disappointment turn into bitterness? Am I unforgiving? How can I deal with the unknown?"

The Psalmist had the answer. He prayed, “Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my anxieties; and see if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” (Psalm 139:23, 24 NKJV)

The Lord was very gentle with me. He knows how very deep the wounds of the heart can be. He too was betrayed. He told me, "That little movement of compassion in your heart? That is the tiny flower of forgiveness. It is very tender now, but if you protect and nurture it, it will grow."

So I watered it with tears; I fertilized it with the compost of dead hopes; I turned under, again and again, the stubborn earth of unhappy memories. And the tiny flower of forgiveness grew and bloomed.

Marjorie

Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Restorative Justice

Here is what churches may do for those who have suffered childhood sexual abuse.

* Acknowledge that child abuse is an issue.
If the Church is doing its job, there are going to be sinners in the crowd, some openly acknowledging their condition, others wearing a cloak of respectable church-ianity. The community of God's people is not exempt from sexual misconduct. If it were, we would not have many verses of Biblical injunction recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and in Paul's epistles.

I have been attending church all my life, quite a long while now, and I cannot remember ever having heard a caution mentioned regarding child abuse in the home.. Of course, for half of my lifetime, sexual matters were hardly discussed anywhere—not even between husband and wife, not even in the doctor's office, and just barely with your children. But with the "sexual revolution" of the 60's, that changed. So let's say, it's been forty years of church-going for me. I estimate I've attended six thousand regular church services and countless other church-related activities. I've heard, "Protect our children from an evil-intentioned stranger"—yes, but never, "Mothers, teach your children respect for their bodies. Be alert. Listen to your kids. Believe them." I've never heard, "Dads, you have a holy responsibility to live a love that reflects that of the Heavenly Father. Teach your kids what is right to expect from the men in their lives."

* Provide protection.
Churches have a double responsibility to protect children in the faith community: a legal liability, depending on the state law, and a spiritual accountability to the Master who said, "Let the children come to me. Don't stop them!" (Luke 18:16) It is not enough to warn children—and their parents and caregivers—about "stranger danger." Some churches have elaborate systems to prevent children being taken away from nurseries, classrooms, or day-care centers by unauthorized persons. Many churches have taken steps to see that the children's workers are carefully screened, and they use every precaution to avoid even an appearance of impropriety. Yet in these same churches, it is often true that no one would dare question the parents of children who manifest definite signs of abuse.

Laws vary from state to state about reporting child abuse, but most say something like this: "Any medical practitioner; school or day-care professional; law enforcement officer; registered or licensed nurse, social worker, psychologist or employee of social services who has reasonable cause to believe that a child (or developmentally disabled person) has suffered abuse or neglect, must report such incident or cause a report to be made to the appropriate public protection agency"—this within a certain time frame, such as forty-eight hours. While some states' laws may exempt the clergy, or be unclear about required reporting, it is in the best interest of children for the Church to take some responsibility for their welfare and to report abuse appropriately. Churches often require their staff, paid and volunteer, to report suspected abuse first to a designated pastor or church officer, and strict confidentiality measures are in place.

I understand the Church's desire to protect parents as much as is legally possible from undue interference by outside authority. So some churches take steps to interview the parents, with or without the person who has concluded there is "reasonable cause" to suspect abuse. Others are not in the investigative business at all and will leave the matter entirely up to the public system. Either way, there is a price to pay: the suspected or guilty offender is likely just to withdraw from that faith community or, if he decides to stay, there will be time and effort involved in keeping a supportive relationship with him and the family (This does not exclude the need for professional counseling for any or all of the family members; indeed, it is probably essential.) Being "under Church discipline" is difficult for everyone involved.

If you are in a place of church leadership, although this may not be a personal issue for you, become informed and be alert. The Church has been asleep on this issue. It is time to take a stand, and that must be before it happens. "This is not right. This is a crime. This will not be tolerated."

* Seek to restore the wounded.
It is an injustice to both victim and offender for us to agree tacitly, "Well, probably nothing happened. Or if it did, it's over now." It's not over now. Neither of the individuals will be healed without restorative justice done—some recompense to the victim and some cost to the perpetrator. Even if the legal system has exacted a penalty from the offender, it is the work of the Church to offer healing and redemption.

One woman who had been wronged said, "I don't want him to go to hell. I just want him to be sorry. Is it wrong for me to want him to be sorry?" Of course, it is not wrong. The God who made us in His image is a just God. We want justice. We do not have to wish evil on an offender (although it is really difficult not to); the very least we can ask is for him to be sorry. I don't wish for the Church to become cruel or harsh, but perhaps confession needs to be made to responsible church personnel who can outline a program of restoration somewhat similar to that for clergy who fail morally. It's not likely that anyone who submits to this discipline of repentance, professional intervention, and accountability will repeat the behavior that brought them down. Nevertheless, strong safeguards must be put in place to protect him and his victim(s), so that it cannot be repeated.

* And if the offender does not accept blame, what then?
This is the "Nothing Happened" scenario I discussed in my previous entry. In addition to outright denial, there are the situations where the offender is long gone to parts unknown or even has died before the victim can bring herself to speak of her experience. And I know of some instances where the girl/young woman, now fully mature, has decided not to confront her abuser. Then what?

Not every church has a well-trained counseling staff. Those who do should periodically make known their ability to deal with the issues faced by adult women who endured childhood sexual abuse. Those who do not have such counselors must let women know that church personnel are ready to refer them to qualified counselors whom they themselves would trust. A woman with deep, unresolved issues needs someone to understand her pain—even if the offender will not/cannot admit to causing it. I'm not sure how God deals with such, but I do know what Jesus said. “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble [speaking specifically of a child that was present], it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." (Mark 9:42) If there is no legal or ecclesiastical recourse, then it's completely up to God. The ultimate judgment of the offender's guilt and repentance can be safely left in God's hands.

If anger and bitterness, fear and shame are allowed to grow in a woman's heart, they will destroy her. Forgiveness of others and acceptance of herself, however long it takes for that to grow, is her hope for health and emotional well-being. To illustrate this: When a person has been stung by a honeybee, the stinger remains embedded in the skin, pulsing its venom. The longer the stinger is allowed to remain, the greater the amount of poison is pumped in. In childhood sexual abuse, a life has had poison inflicted upon it, and the stinger may still be there, forcing in a stream of venom. The message of Christ and His Church can offer the hope of restoration. "O death [and death-making experiences of life], where is your sting?" Death, where is your stinger? Shame, where is your stinger? Anger, where is your stinger? "Thank God! He gives us victory over sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Corinthians 15:55, 57)

Marjorie

Scripture quotations are taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois 60189. United States of America. All rights reserved.

"Nothing Happened"

Many months ago I made a promise to myself that when I began writing specifically for women readers that I would not back away from the tough issues. Some of the traumatic things that girls and women suffer are outside my personal experience; nevertheless, I feel very strongly about such issues. I have talked with women many times whose lives have been altered permanently by what they have had to experience. The subject of this post is childhood sexual abuse, and may be distressing to some readers. However, this is such a serious and prevalent issue that I must address it here.

Sexual abuse of children may be society's worst crime. It is so contemptible that the very people that society locks away for some other crime will not tolerate the perpetrator in the prison environment. A person need not be a confirmed pedophile, but "merely" a person who was caught taking indecent liberties with a child. He (usually the offender is male) may be raped, maimed, or even murdered in order to be "held accountable" by those who are disgusted and enraged by the behavior, even though the self-appointed punishers have committed other atrocious crimes themselves.

I have listened to the personal stories of women who told of their own abuse or the abuse of their daughters by someone the child trusted. Why is it that such a devastating thing is often hidden by the child, or if told to someone, is ignored or dismissed? Because something in us tells us to be ashamed. As shameful as the occurrence of abuse is, the shame is compounded by the concealing of it by those who know better—not the child, but the perpetrator and anyone else implicated in any way. The very adults that should be most concerned about what the child has suffered commonly deny it. Sadly, it is often the mother—a child's first line of defense—who defends her husband, boy friend, father, or other male. "Nothing happened," she says, and the victim therefore is made to feel this trouble is somehow her fault. (Not always, but most often, "her.") It is not her fault. It is not.

Nothing that a child (anyone under 18, the law says) could do or say warrants an adult taking advantage of her, even if her appearance or behavior exhibits early sexualization. It is simply not right. It is not fair, it is not moral, and it is not legal. And yet, we are slow to confront sexual abuse. Even the Church is guilty of tiptoeing around this "elephant in the living room." [A huge issue that everyone knows about but no one has the courage to discuss] Some of the worst offenders have come from environments that protect everyone in the name of compassion. Compassion for whom? Not for innocent children, but for powerful males—in the Church itself and in the home. Although it's appropriate to teach our children about "stranger danger," they are less likely to be mistreated by someone who wanders around on the streets than by someone they know and trust. We are misplacing some of our caution.

What can possibly be the rationale for molesting one's own daughter (granddaughter, sister, or niece)? It's the ownership thing. "This isn't really all that bad," is often what he is thinking. "She is mine, anyway." The spectacular news accounts of kidnapping are spectacular for the very reason that they are relatively infrequent. The man who would never go out and terrorize and sexually abuse a child/young girl that he does not know, may excuse the very same behavior in the safe confines of his home or church community, and repeat it over and over again.

I have known a few women who, decades later, confronted their known abuser or the confidante who had failed to believe them. I am not speaking of so-called "recovered memories," a term which became popular more than a decade ago but has since come into some question. These women are not just now remembering; they have never forgotten. Their memories are as clear as when the events occurred. Sadly, the response in more than one case was, "It isn't true. Nothing happened."

To be sure, a child's memory is not always accurate, but something happened. These women have carried with them, into and even throughout their adulthood, such consequences as fear, anger, self-hatred, sexual dysfunction and depression. They were not casting about to discover some cause for their personal problems and "Aha!" landed upon sexual abuse. They clearly remember, and some even have further supporting evidence.

But the abuser insists, "Nothing happened." One cannot just agree, "Okay then, nothing happened." The life-damaging experiences cannot be denied, but must be faced. We cannot change the past; not even God can go back and make things that happened not to have happened. But He can move us toward healing.

-- Books are written for women with just this kind of wounded heart; you can find
them at a bookstore or your local library. (Don't be embarrassed to ask. We have
been far too careful for far too long.) Realizing that one is not alone is often
in itself a great relief.

-- There are people who will listen and help. Some counselors are experienced in dealing with the issue of childhood sexual abuse and can offer beneficial perspective. Other women may find their way in a support group, or even by just finally telling one other person. Telling someone means that the frightful thing that has been living a life of its own in the dark has to come out into the light. There it can be recognized for what it is: an especially cruel crime against a child and a terrible offense to God. Sometimes the abuser himself must be confronted; more about that later.

-- Most of all, "The Lord is close to the brokenhearted; he rescues those whose spirits are crushed." (Psalme 34:28) One brave woman shared with our church women's group, "I forgave him," and she told about her long, painful struggle to come to that place. He did not want her pardon—"Nothing happened," he said—but she explained to us, "Forgiveness is not about his peace, but mine."

-- Don't be discouraged when, perhaps even after a long time, memories still surface. As is true with a physical trauma, some deep emotional wounds may never disappear completely. But we can find release from the shame. It is not ours to bear, but the offender's. We did nothing wrong. The remaining scars only show us where the wounds have been healing.

Next post (in a day or two): Some thoughts about the Church's responsibility, "Restorative Justice."

Marjorie

Scripture quotation is taken from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton

Another Bad Word: Submission

This post was first published on my "Finding the Faith Way" blog on September 1, 2008, and is no longer located there.

Yesterday I stated that to people who misunderstand it, “authority” is a bad nine-letter word. Here is a ten-letter word, also with terrible meaning for many people: submission.

Did you think of any particular group of people when you read the above? Slaves? Probably not. Children? Maybe. Women, especially wives? Many women would answer, “Yes, without question.” Perhaps you didn’t think of wives at all; you wouldn’t have any reason to unless you had experienced the negative results of cultural and/or religious subordination of women. Especially in very conservative religious groups, there is concentrated teaching on the subjection of women to their husbands.

The Scripture passage often quoted for this view is an abbreviated version of I Peter 3:1, which says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The shortened form we often use is only, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Clearly, this is not all that the Scripture means to say. With the words, “in the same way,” Peter is referring back to verses in chapter 2. He speaks of suffering, reminding us that one can bear up under unjust suffering when he/she is God-conscious. He warns us, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (I Peter 2:21-23) So what Peter is really saying is, "Women, be like Jesus."

We sometimes forget to continue reading verses further down on the page: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” (I Peter 3:7) Some women bristle at the idea of being called weaker, but face it: females lack, usually, the size, the strength, and the vocal power of males. Men are called upon to treat those differences with respect. What Peter is really saying is, “Fellows, be like Jesus.” By ignoring the gracious gift of God’s life in both husband and wife, the man puts himself in grave danger: His prayers will be ineffectual.

Submission was not meant to create a master-servant relationship nor even a formal authority figure. It was not meant for the control of one person over another. Submission to each other was urged in order for there to be harmony. “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’" (I Peter 3:8-12)

That sounds like a happy home to me.

Marjorie

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Having Authority

This post was first published on my blog, "Finding the Faith Way," on August 16, 2008. It is repeated here as an entry that may hold special interest for women readers.

Authority, the dictionary tells me, means several things: for one, the power to enforce obedience. In practical affairs, we often think of it as the right to tell others what to do. Wouldn’t you think that if anyone has that right, it would be those who know the law best? One would suppose that interpreters of the law would have, above all others, the understanding of what is expected of those under them. In Jesus’ day, that would be the scribes and/or the Pharisees. And yet, when Jesus taught, people were amazed, not only at what He said, but how He said it: with real authority. Twice the Gospel writers tell us what happened. “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matthew 7:28, 29 NIV) This was Jesus’ teaching called “the sermon on the mount.” In the synagogue at Capernaum, “The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.” (Mark 1:22 NIV)

Those who listened were used to authority, even religious authority. But Jesus spoke with real authority, some versions emphasize, not like the other teachers. What made everyone so amazed at Jesus’ teaching? What’s the difference between real authority and not-real? Jesus did not enforce obedience; he invited obedience by His love and wisdom and hope.

Authority is a bad word to many people, a bad nine-letter word. They have no particular problem with submitting to governmental authority; they pay taxes, they obey traffic laws, they don’t participate in illegal activities. They deal successfully with authority in school or the workplace too. But when confronted with the idea of authority in the home or in the Church, they become confused, afraid, or stubborn. Why is this?

Authority in the places where the heart is drawn in—the home and the Church—where one’s most intimate self is exposed, can be a frightening concept. This is because many misunderstand what authority in these circumstances means. And who is it that most misunderstands? The authority figures themselves. It is perfectly clear to the person—most often a woman or a child in the home but anyone in the Church—who has been wounded by experiences of misuse or abuse what “authority” means. It means to be wary of those who can hurt them again. If the person(s) in authority cannot be trusted to act in one’s best interests, then it makes absolute sense to be watchful, perhaps even fearful of them.

There are indeed some willful women or naughty children and selfish, cranky church members. But far too often, those who say, “My wife won’t submit,” or “My kids better obey or else,” or “That church member is not conforming,” are requiring those who follow them to give up something of their personhood. They are asking that they themselves be lifted up as makers, interpreters, and enforcers of the law—and there is no one more dangerous to others in these situations than the person who presumes to know what is “good” or “right” for everyone and has the power to make them do it.

Jesus drew people, not with fear or threats, but with the force of love. Tax collectors and prostitutes knew He wouldn’t beat them into observing the law. Cowards and big-talkers alike knew there was grace for them. Children knew they would be welcome and gravitated to Him. The sick and the mentally ill and even a dying thief somehow knew they could ask loving favor from this Man. And this brings us to another definition of authority: the power to influence thought and behavior.

Authority, to a lot of people, is a bad nine-letter word. It can be reduced, though, to a couple of four-letter words: l-o-v-e or f-e-a-r. Only the first carries authority that is real. And that is Jesus’ style.

Marjorie

Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
A note: Do you know who made the statement about “the most dangerous person”? If so, help me give credit.

The Circle of Relationship

The following post was first published on my blog, "Finding the Faith Way," on July 30, 2008. I have repeated here, with minor additions, because of its significance in this context.

I recently finished reading, “The Shack,” a controversial but wildly popular new book of Christian fiction. (A few days ago, #2 on the USA Today bestseller list of trade paperbacks; yesterday #1 on the NY Times list of the same!) It has big-name recommendations printed right on the cover, and can millions of buyers be wrong? (Yes, of course.) Even so, I found it less than engaging as a novel, not having the captivating beauty or staggering clarity I was told to expect. It does have, however, many very long passages of didactics by God the Father who appears to the main character as a large, outspoken black woman who loves to cook. Aided by an Asian-woman Holy Spirit who gardens in blue jeans, and by Jesus—a Jewish carpenter, naturally—God (called Papa) proceeds to teach Mack about the Trinity, and the suffering in life, and the ultimate plan of God.

Some readers can’t get past the “heresy” these characterizations represent to them. I’ll admit it wasn’t easy. Nevertheless, I came away from the reading with a new insight of significance. It is this: We will never quite understand the Trinity, because we cannot understand the Trinity. Mack marvels at the simple, beautiful, easy way the Three relate to each other. He can’t figure out who’s in charge; he’s always thought of God as being the Boss, but then that doesn’t seem to fit in this situation. So he asks about the chain of command.

God explains that there is no hierarchy because they are in a circle of relationship. Among themselves, they do not recognize the concept of a final authority. That is a problem humans have; they are so damaged in their relationships that they cannot imagine—let alone function in—a situation where there is not someone in charge. He (She) goes on to say that once hierarchy has been established, rules have to be made to protect and administer it, hence laws and enforcers of law. People then end up with a system that destroys relationships rather than building them, and seldom experience any relationships without some expression of power. That is the human paradigm.

Mack objects that after all we’ve adapted pretty well to that system, and the Holy Spirit girl is quick to point out that he must not confuse adaptation with intention. Made in God’s image, humans were meant to be unencumbered by artificial structure, free to just “be” in their relationship with God and one another. That intention was spoiled by man’s choice to act independently of God. The first step to restoring God’s intention then is to find, as much as we can on earth, the unity with God that the Three have in themselves, and then expand that unity into our human relationships. Is this possible? Yes. Jesus prayed, “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us . . .” (John 17:21)

Get the book. Read it if you can.

Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Marjorie