The Lost Sheep: A Haitian Parable

   Sefab is a famer and shepherd in rural Haiti, living in the Grand Anse River valley on the southern peninsula. He lives in poverty, even by many Haitian standards. Much of his day is spent moving his sheep from one grazing area to another. One of the challenges is that there is no land which he can call his, aside from a small shelter made of sticks and tarp used as his home. The land on which his sheep graze is unattended community land, available sparsely and separated by distance.

   On this particular day, he needed to move his flock of sheep from the west side of the river to the east. Further to the east and up the mountain lay areas he hoped his sheep would find new food. While there are no large predators, save man, in Haiti, the terrain itself can be treacherous. The river represents one of those dangers. Sefab must cross it regardless.

   He holds a long, thin, flexible tree branch and uses it to guide the sheep on the flanks of the formation down the dirty, rocky, and dusty road toward the least perilous river crossing. It is an area of the river that others in the community use to water or wash their animals, to perform laundry duties, or to simply bathe, sometimes with soap.

   At the time of this crossing, there are a few dozen people occupying the water. Some are washing themselves. One young man is washing his small motorcycle taxi. Two young women are bathing, clothes on, thereby accomplishing laundry at the same time. Another two young men are on the far side of the river, shovels in hand, digging holes in the shallow parts of the far shore to find sand to fill bags to eek out a living. A goat and another sheep, not of Sefab’s flock, are tied up to rocks on the nearest riverbank.

   The path from the road down the river is steep, eight to ten feet in height from the road to the river. The sun is hot, the air is humid. The river is deeper than it was yesterday. It rained overnight in the river valley. All rivulets and slopes spilled into the river from the rain which fell on mountains upstream. Sefab knew not to trust his sheep on the small footbridge located half a mile upstream. If the sheep panicked and fell, he might lose more than one to injury.

   These sheep needed to eat. Sefab needed them to cross the river.

   He guided them forward, down the sloped ramp, and into the current. The smaller sheep had a more difficult time than the others. Two of them began to float. They began to kick their legs to swim. Two more bobbed up, buoyant, and begging to swim forward. Sefab could safely wade across. The water was little more than waist-high to him.

   The smallest of the sheep then began to float downstream, struggling to stay afloat. Sefab glanced to his left, but knew the other sheep still needed prodding forward toward the far riverbank to avoid the whole flock floating away. Once they were safely ashore, he turned his attention to the smallest sheep.

   She bleated in a high-pitched tone of distress. She had struggled before and made it, but Sefab turned his attention toward her regardless. He could not afford to wait long. Some might expect him to accept this littlest sheep as a loss. If he tarried for too long without giving attention to the rest of his flock, he could lose others as well. After another two minutes of panicked swimming on the part of the smallest sheep, she was able to make it ashore. Sefab regathered his herd and pressed onward.

   Shepherd and sheep marched down the road leading up the mountain ridge toward the villages of Lori and Plik. The road runs alongside the mountain. It was cut decades ago and does not receive maintenance. The road poses a challenge for navigation by motorcycle taxi, and is doubly difficult to traverse via pickup truck.  Heavy rains cut draining troughs along the length of the road.

   One side of the trail is the side of the mountain that was cut away during the road’s construction. Signs of ancient geologic uplift are evident. Layers of limestone, created from prehistoric, submerged coral, create large diagonal bands interspersed with fractures, tree roots, and vines.

   On the other side of the trail is a steep drop. The slope can be navigable on foot or hoof, but not by conveyance. Some intrepid farmers grow small patches of corn on the cliffside. It’s the only arable land they have available.

   The road switches to the left and right. A steady rise in elevation is succeeded by a shorter fall, then by a quick bend to either side. It was at one such rise and fall transition that a moto-taxi, coming in the opposite direction of Sefab and his flock, revved its engine and startled the small lead sheep. She took off running, downhill, at breakneck speed.

   Sefab, guiding from the rear of the flock, was powerless to catch her. As she ran, she glanced left or right, slightly veering toward the side, she turned her head. A switch in the direction of the path to the right and tall plantain trees blocked Sefab’s view of his lost sheep.

   The path, composed of crushed limestone and small rocks, was dry and dusty up here in the mountains. Last night’s rain hadn’t affected this area. Though with its steep grade, it would have drained quickly of rainfall. No trail of the sheep was discernible.

   Knowing the need of his flock and hoping to find his lost sheep, he continued forward. He sang a song, “Mwen chache ou, mwen chache ou!” which translates in English to, “I search for you, I search for you!” This was initially meant to be a way for him to project his voice and allow his lost sheep to hear him and come back. After a few rounds of repetition, Sefab’s mind began to wander to remembrance of a time when he was searching for meaning in his life. That search for meaning for him became a search for God. When he found Jesus rejoiced, having freshly known that recent searching. Singing to his lost sheep, he was brought back to that same pre-jubilant anticipation.

   Rounding a turn to the left and coming around another mountain, Sefab and sheep were met by a thick cloud hanging in the air above the valley floor but stuck against the mountainside as if anchored. He continued in song, passing fog-obscured shapes of trees, rocks, shrubs, and huts. Suddenly, he sees a contrasting shape against a mapou tree.

   His panicked and lost sheep had become lost in the same fog and huddled against a large tree for security. Overjoyed, Sefab’s song became louder. The same melody changed its lyrics, turning to, “Mwen jwen ou! Mwen jwen ou!” Sefab picked her up and placed her on his shoulders. She let out a loud baa in a tone reserved for a child calling a parent, not out of distress, but out of joy and affection.

   The newly and fully reunited flock and shepherd soon made it to Lori, continuing in song. When others in the village heard the song, not knowing the circumstances, but hearing the joy in the shepherd’s voice, they joined him in chorus. When the lost is found, the whole world rejoices, regardless of the circumstances which led to the loss. It is the finding and reunion that is joyful.

Edinburgh 1910 and Protestant Missionary Expansion

As Henry Ford’s Model T first began rolling off the assembly line and down long stretches of American roads[1], planning was underway for the World Missionary Conference to be held in Edinburg in 1910.[2] But the man who said “history is bunk”[3] was far removed from the Conference’s efforts to learn from shared histories of missionaries to promote the gospel of peace down dusty trails, along trade routes, over mountains, and across rivers. Where Ford sought competition and profit, Edinburgh 1910 sought peace and unity. The Conference set a positive, though imperfect, tone for collaborative Christian missionary efforts and propagation of the faith; it can also be used as a prototypical model for ecumenism.

Edinburgh 1910 differed from prior Protestant interdenominational conferences in three ways. Despite its Protestant limitation, its delegates were representative of more than 170 mission boards and missionary societies.[4] It stated a goal of promoting a shared understanding of common issues experienced in the mission field and missionary business. The Conference also recommended “formation of a Continuation Committee, ‘…as means of co-ordinating [sic] missionary work, of laying sound lines for future development, and of evoking and claiming by corporate action fresh stores of spiritual force for the evangelization of the world’”[5]

The latter differentiation, namely the Continuation Committee, along with the Conference’s so-called Commission Eight (discussed in more detail soon) hold the most promise for prototyping both propagation of the Christian faith and future ecumenical cooperation. The Continuation Committee decided that the scope of the Conference would be limited to expansion in areas and amongst people who do not already consider themselves Christian, thus precluding competition with Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.[6] This was done, in part, “To secure the participation of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England.”[7] Though this declaration of stay-in-your-lane reminds one of a roadside construction sign, the adopted posture of relative evangelistic comity stands in stark contrast to centuries of Roman Catholic versus Protestant acrimony and violence. While neither Roman Catholic nor Orthodox representation existed at Edinburgh 1910, the relative sanctuary against cross-proselytization by Protestants and afforded to those churches amounted to an ecumenical olive branch.

This pacific spirit, preventing friction between various faith traditions of the Church, had another effect. It accomplished a spirit of unity, at least in the mission field, that worked to preserve the prospective mission harvest from seeing the Church’s dirty laundry and thus doubting the message of the Christ. Such doubt might arise in the mind of a potential convert or new Christian if perceived bickering, infighting, or outright hostility was prevalent, pervasive, and easily perceptible. Just as “the integrity of Christians’ witness to the gospel is impaired when Christians’ ethical claims and practices show widespread disagreement,”[8] so too interdenominational conflict impairs gospel witness. To further solidify cooperation and unity amongst Christians engaged in the business of propagating the faith to people in areas as yet untouched, Edinburgh 1910 made this goal of unity part of its continuing framework. As such, Commission Eight of the Conference was labeled “Co-operation and the Promotion of Unity.”[9] The commission’s sole priority was to foster and develop a spirit of unity within the Conference, and consequently amongst its represented constituent Protestant denominations and traditions. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a Scottish church and political leader, alluded to this priority at the Conference stating his hope that “a unity begun in the mission field may extend its influence, and react upon us at home and throughout the old civilisations.”[10] This is the key to where I see hope in ecumenism as fruit from cooperative planting in the mission field. One can imagine the laborers in the vineyard[11] rejoicing at the mutually worked harvest[12] instead of bemoaning nonessential distinctives such as primacy or recency of effort as is the case in the Jesus’ parable, or preferences of interpretation and tradition as is the case for most denominational variation. If those who toil in relatively austere or culturally disparate missionary contexts can focus on the commonality of the work at hand, differences in denomination can fade in importance. Perhaps then a paradigm of deemphasis of distinctiveness can find its way back to the root causes of differences, back to Lord Balfour’s old civilizations.

The Conference, though largely collaborative in its effort and purpose, suffered from some shortfalls. One such problematic shortfall was the exclusion from the Conference of what were considered to be “native churches.” [13] The de facto exclusion was based on the criteria for inclusion to the conference, namely that representative organizations met a minimum annual financial expenditure threshold for supporting “agents in the foreign field and expending on foreign missions.”[14] Exceptions, of a sort, did exist. While some representatives of indigenous churches attended, they were guests of other delegates and not delegates themselves.[15] One problem with exclusion of indigenous churches, if not the single biggest problem and a problem of pragmatic concern, is that a singular perspective can easily take hold. While much can be learned about a culture and its effect on evangelism and discipleship from missionaries living and working in the mission field, there will always be gaps in knowledge, experience, perspective, and understanding that can only be filled by someone born and raised in such a culture. In a foreign mission context, the voices of both indigenous people and missionaries are needed to generate effective communication and productive dialogue.

This hints at another problem, of which exclusion of indigenous churches from Edinburgh 1910 is a symptom. Many of the Conference’s delegates viewed themselves as having sole responsibility for the propagation of the Christian faith. That is, they as foreigners in the mission field bore responsibility for conversion efforts apart from indigenous Christians in that same field. In such a paradigm, it becomes difficult for a missionary to separate efforts at spiritual conversion from efforts at cultural conversion. This is, at least in part, a vestigial element of incipient historical missionary endeavors.  Both Protestant and Roman Catholic initial missionary efforts rode piggyback on national expansion of empire. It is only by severing the nation-church connection that missionary efforts can begin to truly be seen as having goals independent from those of military and economic conquest.[16] Conquest is, by its very nature, adversarial. It requires the conqueror to view those being conquered as inferior. This perspective is not demonstrated by Jesus Christ in Scripture and therefore has no place in the work of the Church.

Connection between secular and spiritual goals of mission work can further be severed by separating efforts which promote the culture of the missionary from efforts which promote faith through an indigenous lens. Missionaries must pursue spiritual conversion rather than cultural conversion. To be capable of doing so requires the missionaries to know the difference themselves. True cross-cultural communication requires boiling down a message to its core meaning. Cross-cultural communication of the gospel therefore requires burning away impurities accreted over time in one’s own cultural context. This distillation of truth is why I believe that missionaries may be best positioned to communicate the essence of gospel truth, not just to other cultural contexts, but back to the context of their cultural origination in general and their home (or “sending”) denomination or faith community specifically. As missionaries of various denominational backgrounds and traditions engage in this sacred distillation of truth, they can recognize the efforts of other missionaries as the efforts of a co-laborer. From this they can demonstrate cooperative unity which can also be communicated and subsequently modeled back home.

Pure, elemental faith then, being possessed by those engaged in mission work and having undergone the aforementioned processes, can be effectively communicated across cultural lines to those who do not yet follow Jesus. If Christian historian Mark Noll is correct when he states, “mission activity is incomplete without the local indigenization of the faith,”[17] it stands to reason that indigenous responsibility for the indigenized faith of indigenous people is the teleological goal of missionary activity. Noll goes on to say that “it is a delightful paradox that the more Christ is translated into the various thought forms and life systems which form our various national identities, the richer all of us will be in our common Christian identity.”[18] I submit that for Noll’s last statement to be true, one must first replace the word national with cultural. Furthermore, we will only be richer for the diversity if we choose to respect and embrace that diversity as at least equally worthy of Christ as our own personal context of faith.

After considering the hopes and difficulties of Edinburgh 1910, one should take a look at the good which came from the Conference. Corporate self-awareness of the difficulties which prevented realization of those hopes led to the development of new solutions. One vector toward improvement of collaborative missionary activity was the International Review of Missions and the International Missionary Council (IMC) which grew out of Edinburgh 1910.[19] The IMC reduced foreign “missionary presence, and influence, in favor of increasing self-government by local churches.”[20] It learned the lesson from the Conference’s exclusion of indigenous churches and promoted equal collaboration and participation.[21] This created a diversity of voice which is capable of addressing all manner of cross-cultural issues and successfully navigating obstacles which would ultimately shipwreck a one-sided organization.

Another good which endured was that the hopeful spirit of unity between denominations in missionary work did not fade with the closing of the World Missionary Conference or become wholly subsumed into the IMC. Edinburgh 1910 continued to serve as ecumenical inspiration for the World Council of Churches (WCC), into which the IMC later integrated.[22] The WCC “is the broadest and most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose goal is Christian unity.”[23] It includes non-Western representation as well as representation from Catholic (non-Roman), Orthodox, and Protestant churches.[24] The Conference also quite likely contributed, at least in part, to the Roman Catholic Church’s perspective on ecumenism articulated through its Second Vatican Council.[25]

The Conference continues to inspire cooperation and Christian brotherhood in mission work today for any who believe that history is not bunk and therefore choose to learn from those who have walked in faith before them. The ongoing spirit of the Conference is one of both cooperation and cross-cultural communication. However, neither interdenominational cooperation nor cross-cultural communication is easy.

Seeing through denominational differences in perspective and forgiving past injuries is challenging. Depending on that history, work may be required to right prior wrongs, even those characterized by generational and systemic injustices. Periods of abuse and mistrust, especially if they are prolonged or recent, tend to leave lasting scars and often provoke reciprocity. Such cause and effect can easily become a vicious circle. That negative historical inertia must be overcome and wounds must be healed along the way. If we, who have been inculcated a denominational history predicated on being the victims of injustice, fail to offer collective forgiveness to those who have wronged us, we cannot cooperate. Conversely if we fail to recognize the wrongs we have collectively committed, repent those actions, and earnestly seek forgiveness and reconciliation, we cannot cooperate.

Cross-cultural communication is challenging at best because of each culture’s endless complexity. To communicate cross-culturally, one has to be culturally aware in both cultural spheres and be self-aware in every aspect. Each of those three required components of cross-cultural communication is difficult in and of itself. One key concept to remember is that any received Christian tradition has already crossed at least one cultural divide; such communication is possible. Cross-cultural communication of the Christian faith is documented throughout the New Testament.

In fact, the kingdom of God is one in which each citizen must become aware in the deep places of self and adopt a new cultural model of being; one that relates to God and to other people. Jesus summarized this process by stating, “unless someone is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”[26] A complete and personal overhaul is needed, one in which everything is re-approached with a fresh, newborn perspective. This is also what is needed on a catholic, world-wide Church level. The Church needs to be born again, whole and undivided. That is why what started at Edinburgh 1910 both in its process of learning from mission field laborers and in its spirit of ecumenism, idealized thought it may be, gives hope to our collective rebirth as a Church. Reborn, the Church will be united in common effort, able to communicate God’s truth in Christ across cultural lines without interference of our individual culture of origin, and view other indigenous cultural interpretations as equally valid as our own.

[1] Wells, Christopher W. 2007. “The Road to the Model T: Culture, Road Conditions, and Innovation at the Dawn of the American Motor Age.” Technology and Culture 48, no. 3: 497.

[2] Kerr, David A, and Kenneth R Ross. 2011. Edinburgh 2010: Mission Then and Now. (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Church Renewal Movement Ltd.), 5.

[3] Hirsch, E D, Joseph F Kett, and James Trefil. 2002. The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin.), 457.

[4] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 4.

[5] Ibid, 5.

[6]Ibid, 7.

[7] Ibid, 7.

[8] Arner, Neil. 2016. “Ecumenical Ethics: Challenges to and Sources for a Common Moral Witness.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 36, no. 2: 104.

[9] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 8.

[10] Ibid, 10.

[11] Matthew 20:1-16.

[12] Matthew 9:35-38.

[13] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 8.

[14] Ibid, 7.

[15] Ibid, 8.

[16] This is both a past and present concern.

[17] Noll, Mark A. 2012. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.), 265.

[18] Noll, Turning Points, 283.

[19] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 238.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid, 318.

[23] “What Is the World Council of Churches?” n.d. World Council of Churches. https://www.oikoumene.org/about-the-wcc.

[24] “Member Churches.” n.d. World Council of Churches. https://www.oikoumene.org/member-churches.

[25] Kerr and Ross, Edinburgh 2010, 276-286. This selection details, from a Roman Catholic perspective, the interplay between concepts of ecumenism brough forth in Edinburgh 1910, Roman Catholic concepts of ecumenism surrounding and informing the Second Vatican Council, and bridges from Western traditions to Eastern Orthodox Churches.

[26] John 3:3b (New American Standard Bible: 2020).

God Loves You

If you’ve had an abortion, God loves you. If you’re “pro-choice”, God loves you. If you’re “pro-life”, God loves you.

Yesterday, the nationally protected right to have an abortion was removed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al. which explicitly overrules the precedents of Roe and Casey.

There are different ways to discuss the political issue of abortion. Most organized efforts impose a lens of simplicity on the issue: “pro-life” versus “pro-choice”. Those are marketing terms meant to draw the public to a side, often for support, funding, and votes used for this issue and other issues unrelated to abortion. The efforts to impose simplicity on the issue of abortion effectively force each of the aforementioned sides to argue “anti-abortion” versus “pro-abortion” respectively.

The dialogue, if you want to call it that, often settles into a groove of argumentation surrounding the question, “When does human life begin?” This is a philosophical question, or at least one that necessarily depends on philosophical reasoning. Because that necessary reasoning is philosophically dependent, it will not be settled; such is the nature of all philosophical discourse. What can be settled relates to pragmatics and from there to politics. Rather than being an issue of simplicity, the issue of abortion is fraught with nuance. The political issue is multi-faceted and this will not be a comprehensive treatment of it.

Let’s look at this one way:

Does the government have a right to impose the philosophical preference of a particular religion (or sect(s) of a religion) on everyone else? The phrasing, even of that question, is philosophical. So, let’s rephrase the question. What happens when the government forces everyone to comply with the philosophical preference of a particular religion? That has the effect of imposing religious practice, permissive or prohibitive, on the population. This seems to run counter to the spirit of the First Amendment’s apparent intent to separate the government from the cause of religion.

Let’s look at this another way:

Prohibiting a doctor to intervene to save the life of a woman who has been diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy, is ludicrous and cruel. For those of you not familiar with the term, an ectopic pregnancy is one in which the fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, such as when it implants in the fallopian tube. This can cause internal bleeding and death of the woman, absent prompt medical intervention.

Forcing a woman to carry a stillborn or miscarried embryo or fetus to term, because medical intervention is conflated with abortion is cruel.

Forcing a woman retain pregnancy and give birth to a child of the man who sexually assaulted her or otherwise forced pregnancy upon her and, in some states, to be legally tied to that abuser after birth is cruel.

These are just a few scenarios that a ban on abortion forces. Furthermore, while I use the term woman in this writing to generically refer to anyone with female reproductive systems, young girls (long from being considered an adult) could be substituted into any scenario above, increasing the cruelty.

There is simply too much to unpack, especially in this format, and especially from a man. I am lending my voice to this solely in solidarity for women for whom the latest ruling disproportionately and adversely impacts: women, including and especially those “on the margins”, without the means (including travel) to obtain safe healthcare, and without the means to survive and thrive through pregnancy and with a child that results from it.

The world is not the same as it was 50 years ago when Roe v. Wade was decided. The world will continue to change.

Something that should not change: the government should protect a woman’s right to health and safety. Individuals should be free to make their own choices regardless of the religious preference of others.

For those who seek to follow Christ: using power over others in order to force their conformity to your religious view is antithetical to the call to follow Christ.

For those of you who question my faith for not siding with your single-issue view of American politics, check yourself for beams before coming after my mote. I’m available for respectful conversation. You know how to get a hold of me. God loves you.

Self-Appointed Judges

What follows is a lightly edited written account of a sermon recorded and broadcast on May 13, 2021.

We’re in the book of James right now in this series called The Intersection of Faith & Life, and our reading this morning is from James 2:1–13. And it reads:

My brothers (and sisters), show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment (ESV).

Father, help these words and the intent and message behind them and underlying them and connecting them. Lord, help those to be implanted firmly into rich soil in our heart. Remove any obstacles to understanding. Remove our prior biases and things we think we know, and help us to not lean on our own understanding, but to trust you and be led by your Spirit. In Jesus’ name. 

This passage mentions a word that not many of us use — “partiality.” Partiality is another way of saying favoritism. Why favoritism? Why partiality? These verses are very easy to just cruise over, to run right past to get to other areas, but there are important [stops] along the way, important points, destinations along the path that we need to stop and consider.

Why partiality? Because you hold, the verse says, hold the faith in our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. You hold, you presently possess, you grasp, you comprehend faith in our Lord Jesus.

For if you see a man or a woman wearing mad bling, the drip, the latest fashion, the trendy, the brand-new, the Gucci, whatever you call it and you say, “Right this way, sir or ma’am. Let me hook you up with the best seats — the best whatever it is.” And maybe you don’t even notice or worse yet, purposely ignore or pretend not to notice the man or woman that’s wearing plain clothes, looking disheveled. Maybe they seem dull or uninteresting at first glance, and you say, “Sorry, seat’s taken. Can’t sit here.” Maybe they’re not even offered a seat. Maybe they’re not even acknowledged. If you do this — and I’m sure we’ve all done it — you’ve made an artificial distinction between people. Worse, you’ve made yourself a judge. Worse yet, you have made yourself a judge who has evil thoughts. Self-appointed judges with evil thoughts dishonor the poor, the outcast, the downtrodden, the marginalized, the neglected, the rejected. What happens to those who dishonor poor, outcast, downtrodden and marginalized?

If we read Matthew 25:31–46, we [see]:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ’Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ’Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ’Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ’Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ’Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ’Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (ESV).

Those descriptions are also descriptions of our Lord Jesus and the gospels. He was nothing special to look at. In fact, many people dismissed him, “You? This guy?” These self-appointed judges with evil thoughts, they look after their own, they target the others. They call police for not looking the right way or for being in the wrong neighborhood. James, in this passage, may seem to only be drawing attention to outward appearance. Our attention, however, can be drawn deeper than that — beyond the surface.

For much of history — and this was true during the life of James — the quality of clothing was the first indication of the social status of the wearer. Some throughout history even use laws to enforce these indicators of social status, of class, of hierarchy. Those laws were known as sumptuary laws. Sumptuary laws played a large role in attempting to regulate medieval European life as the rising merchant class began to be able to afford the means to get the same type of clothing that the aristocracy was wearing.

And these laws aren’t really on the books anymore here in America. We do see some vestiges of them through things like dress codes. Businesses know that customers will judge the business itself by the way that their employees look. We make assumptions every day about people’s class and status and ability and worth based upon how they appear. Some deliberately seek to appear wealthier than they are because they know, consciously or subconsciously, that judgments will be made about them and people will act on those judgments favorably. Self-appointed judges with evil thoughts.

In the time in which James wrote this letter that we call a book of the Bible, it was rich blasphemers who seized those doing God’s work. We can read a specific example of this in Acts 16:16–24. It reads:

16 As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling. 17 She followed Paul and us, crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation.” 18 And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.

19 But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers. 20 And when they had brought them to the magistrates, they said, “These men are Jews, and they are disturbing our city. 21 They advocate customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to accept or practice.” 22 The crowd joined in attacking them, and the magistrates tore the garments off them and gave orders to beat them with rods. 23 And when they had inflicted many blows upon them, they threw them into prison, ordering the jailer to keep them safely. 24 Having received this order, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks (ESV).

James wrote that, if you obeyed the royal law according to Scripture, if you love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing well. But if you show partiality, favoritism, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Loving your neighbor as yourself involves suspending judgment, withholding judgment, avoiding judgment. In suburban America, do we judge someone by the appearance of their house or their lawn? Do we judge someone who lives in an apartment as less than someone who lives in a house? Do we judge someone who lives in a mobile home as less than someone who has a different living situation? Do we judge the man sleeping under the bridge as lesser? Self-appointed judges with evil thoughts.

[Referencing my friend Neil’s prior statements:] We, in present day America, are among the wealthiest in history, and as such we have no problem qualifying as the rich man in any parable of our Lord Jesus. [end of reference]

Consider one such parable, the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus; Luke 16:19–31.

 19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ’Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ’Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ’Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house — 28 for I have five brothers — so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ’They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ’No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ’If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead’” (ESV).

We have this benefit, here on our side of the cross, to have not just Moses and the prophets, but also Jesus — our risen Lord. Now, for me growing up with what I felt to be modest means, I carried a bit of a chip on my shoulder for those who seemed to flaunt their wealth thinking that I didn’t belong in that class. Neil’s reminder last Sunday adds to other experiences that I’ve had in more recent years visiting countries and communities and people so poor that it’s near-impossible to comprehend unless or until you experience it or witness it firsthand. We have so much here that we can hardly begin to tally it all.

Our brothers and sisters who live in those communities are rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom. So are those brothers and sisters who are here who don’t look like you, don’t dress like you, don’t live in your neighborhood, don’t drive your car, don’t work in your profession.

This is not to say, as I sometimes hear, that you haven’t struggled. You have struggled. I have struggled. We have struggled. And through this series, we are reminded that, when it comes to struggles, we can count it all for joy. Don’t we?

Loving your neighbor as yourself goes beyond the basics that may come to mind when you hear that commandment. It’s not a mere affinity or affection or a measure of how much you really, really, really, really like them. It is a direction, a vector of action.

Love looks like doing. When we don’t love, when we don’t do, what does that look like? It looks like isolation. It looks like minding my own business, keeping to myself. It looks like passing the man who was robbed and beaten on the side of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho because, for whatever reason, you just can’t be bothered. It looks like turning away from a need. More importantly, it looks like justifying why you shouldn’t [help] because of how you view that person. A self-appointed judge with evil thoughts.

James goes on to make another point about the law. If you keep the whole law, but fail in one point, you are guilty of the whole law. I was raised in a Roman Catholic background, and so I had some basic knowledge of religion, of the Ten commandments, of there was Jesus and all of that. But in my early twenties, I was not thinking much about Jesus. A preacher was cruising the neighborhood on foot, going door to door, and I found myself face to face figuratively and literally I guess, with the Ten Commandments in print. I admit I was somewhat rusty on those, but I generally understood that murder, theft and adultery were sins. Pretty easy there, right? And this patient man showed me where in the Bible I could find the Ten Commandments and invited me to read them for myself right then and there. And he asked some probing questions. Did I have other gods? And I was fairly certain I wasn’t an idolator. Did I make graven images? That’s easy — sculpting really wasn’t my thing. Did I take the name of God in vain? Yeah, I’m sure I did, but not all the time. Did I remember the Sabbath and keep it holy? Not with any real frequency. Did I honor my father and mother? Well, let’s just say I wasn’t a good kid. Did I commit murder? Well, of course not. Hold on there. Did I commit adultery? Well, it depends on your definition of what that is. And did I steal? Well… Did I bear false witness? Probably not. And did I covet? Was I envious or jealous of anything my neighbor had? Yeah, definitely at times. But, and here at the end of that list, as if my spiritual goose wasn’t already cooked, or if I had any lingering doubts about where I fell according to any of those 10 categories, I was gently and politely guided to Matthew 5:21–22:

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ’You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ’You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire (ESV). 

Jesus equates anger at another with murder. Then on down to Matthew 5:27–30: 

27 “You have heard that it was said, ’You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell (ESV).

Jesus equates lustful intent with adultery. So, there I was: guilty. Even if I was guilty of just one thing, it was enough. But why is that enough? Because God is holy. 

Holiness is separation, is purity, is the only distinction — speaking of distinctions — it’s the only distinction which God draws. Sin places us on the opposing side of that line from God. One sin is enough to break that perfect pane of glass demanded by God’s holiness. You can’t patch it up. Its surface is forever marred despite whatever efforts you make to conceal the damage or to make repairs. Only full replacement will do, and that’s where Jesus Christ comes in. He was made to be sin who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

That new head knowledge of where I stood with God became a fire under me. God pursued me through that conversation long after that preacher had left and the conversation had ended. Over time, I became raw with the heart knowledge that I needed Jesus, and it was then that I surrendered the fight and chose to follow him. And since then, I want to tell you, despite all the trials, despite every new thing that pops up, his grace has never stopped flowing.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

It was those verses, from Matthew 5, which God used to ring in my ears like spiritual tinnitus. With a higher standard of holiness comes a higher need for a savior. Now, isn’t it interesting that these two simple thoughts, anger and lust, are perhaps universally experienced at one time or another by all of us in our lives? And isn’t it interesting that their corresponding commandments are the same two sins mentioned here in our reading from James.

This letter of James isn’t some one-off, throwaway book in the Bible that can be shelved, ignored or marginalized. This is a letter of and for action. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where we put faith into practice. Moreover, this is the intersection of faith and life. 

Consider the title of this series, The Intersection of Faith & Life. When I think of the word intersection, I think of cross streets. You’re almost always more on one street than you are on another street, unless of course you’re standing directly in the middle of the intersection — and if that’s you right now listening to this message, move to the sidewalk where it’s safe, okay? What I want is for you to challenge your thinking of this metaphorical intersection in another way. 

Many large roads, especially highways, they overlap. For large portions of road, you’re not just on one road, you’re really on two or even more. For those of you in the Chicagoland area, think about these — there’s a stretch of the I-90 and I-94 known as the Dan Ryan expressway. You’re on both roads at the same time. US Route 41 becomes Lake Shore Drive becomes South Shore Drive. Manheim Road at some point is a combination of US routes 12, 20 and 45. These intersections or concurrencies can have different names but there’s one commonality. They share the same right-of-way; they point in the same direction. And I challenge you in the same way that I challenged myself, and I invite accountability in this from everyone — I challenge you to put your faith and life in the same direction, to give both equal right-of-way. 

There’s something we can do to ensure that we’re on these concurrent roads, these long intersections of faith and life; we can pray. Prayer, in this way, acts like a sort of a spiritual GPS. It allows us to hear from God and to be spiritually rerouted as needed. If we travel too long without checking our spiritual GPS, we’re likely to get off track, be turned around, headed the wrong way. Like it’s been said in recent Sunday messages, it’s so easy to withdraw and say, “It’s just you and me God.” It’s similarly pretty easy to drive on the highway if you’re the only car on the road. It’s another thing entirely to live out your faith and life with other people around. 

Of those Ten Commandments, commandments five through ten are focused on, are summed up by loving your neighbor as yourself. We must not be self-appointed judges with evil thoughts. We must not interfere with God’s role as judge. Our role is as ambassadors of mercy, conduits of grace. Mercy triumphs over judgment. Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy. 

Practical Application After the Message:

As you consider these thoughts, these challenges, I’m going to give you some prompts for discussion or for contemplation if you’re by yourself.

  1. What did God bring to your attention during this message that you have been judging others for? Maybe the way they look, the beliefs they hold, where they live, their status or class?
  2. Think of the neighbor you like the least, or maybe that you know the least about if you really don’t have judgments on them. How will you demonstrate your love for them? 
  3. What is your next spiritual GPS point? Where will your life and faith next intersect where it hasn’t been before? Where are you going next? 

Thank you and God bless.

The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard

What follows is a lightly edited written account of a sermon recorded and broadcast on September 2, 2020.

This morning, we are renewing our message and discussion series on the parables of Jesus. These parables are simple, illustrative stories and were used by Jesus to teach spiritual and moral lessons. They were used to tell his disciples, his followers, what the kingdom of heaven is like. 

I love that Jesus taught parables. I’m a visual learner. I interpret things visually and when I hear or read the stories of the parables, related in the gospels, I can see what’s happening. It’s just like reading a great book or watching a movie for me. This morning we’re going to talk about the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. 

Matthew 20: 1-16

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon [some translations say in the 11th hour] he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Father, thank you for your word. Thank you for Jesus and the lessons that he taught us in these parables. Help us to understand your word and your truth. 

The owner of the vineyard offered a denarius a day. It’s a day’s wage. It’s enough to feed a family for that day. He offered that to the first of the laborers. The owner of the vineyard in this parable is God. The day’s wage is citizenship in the kingdom of heaven. 

At first, it may seem like God says to those who would be citizens in his kingdom, toil work in this way, work in my vineyard, do my will and you will be rewarded. But listen carefully here. It is not the work that earns your place in the kingdom, it is your faith in the promise of God. The work is merely evidence of that faith. 

Ephesians 2: 8-9

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 

Then as God goes about throughout the day to find additional laborers, he finds them and finds them willing. God promises to pay whatever is right. Right is different than fair. Right, in this instance, is according to God’s terms.

In making the last round for laborers as the day was nearing completion, God finds others standing, and I’m going to paraphrase here. He says, “hey, why are you just standing around?” It’s then that they confess their willingness to be used. They say, “because no one has hired us.” God loves a willing heart — one willing to trust him, willing to follow him. 

The willing are invited into the work. These late arrivals are the ones who have just heard about the vineyard in need of laborers — the kingdom of heaven. These late arrivals are those who may have been isolated in life, perhaps older than those hired first, perhaps younger. They simply had not been invited. Have you been invited? 

If not, this is your invitation. Are you willing?

This collection of the willing, they all labor for various lengths of times, but all labor from that point of hire. They are all paid the same. 

There is a great upset. As those hired first who worked first and longest discover that their payment is no greater than those who were hired last and worked the shortest amount of time. Their payment is the same. Why is that? Jesus tells us in this parable that the payment is his to give and his alone. Do we begrudge his generosity? Are we envious because he is generous? 

Another way to translate that phrase from the original Greek writing is: is your “eye” bad because I am good. God’s generosity is referred to in the Bible as grace. Grace is unmerited, undeserved favor. God’s grace saves through faith. It’s God’s grace — it’s his to give as he sees fit. If it depended on our concept of fairness, on our concept of right, we’d be a lot like those hired first demanding more than what we were promised. 

There’s a concept of ‘just desserts’ that comes to mind. It’s the thought that says we will get ours someday. We deserve that thing. Maybe that thing that we think we deserve is a material possession — a sports car, a big house, a lottery jackpot. Maybe the thing we think we deserve is less tangible in nature — good health, a romantic relationship, power or fame. The bad news is that the thing we deserve for the sins committed in our life is death. 

Romans 6:23

23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That gift is grace. That gift is our denarius. I’m not just speaking from academic knowledge about the scriptures or anything like that. This is my experience. A few years back, I had a job in which I saw others gain recognition, praise and professional advancement. I saw that happening for others and I saw nothing happening for me. I became bitter and jealous. I couldn’t understand why others moved forward while I seemed to be standing still. I prayed relentlessly — often for a way forward. But that bitterness created a distraction. More than just a distraction, it nearly consumed me. It kept me away from the work that God had given me to do. It kept me from doing my best.

Of course, at that time I couldn’t see my own failings. Though I could see the flaws in others clearly enough. I was so focused on the speck in someone else’s eye that I didn’t notice the two by four in my own eye. Others notice my failings; though most never said anything to me directly. 

It wasn’t until I reached a personal breaking point that I saw what had happened. And I made the decision to focus on the work that God had given me to do. After I sincerely and diligently devoted myself to that work that God placed before me, I felt more connected and in line with God’s purpose for my life. Then new opportunities to serve were presented to me. It reminds me now looking back, of Luke 16: 10 —“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much.”

That brings us to the next point in this parable. There’s a concept of what I’m going to call, “What about-isms.” What about him? What about her? It’s the excuse that the driver gives the police officer after being pulled over for speeding on a highway. What about all those other drivers speeding? But it’s not about others. This is an arrangement between you and God. The gift of God and the invitation to participate in the kingdom is for you as an individual. It’s not based on the efforts of others. And this is good news. This means that no matter where you are in life, it’s not too late. You didn’t miss your chance. You can receive this offer right now.

Those who were hired first and worked the longest at the end of this parable make a complaint that has an old familiar ring to it. “You have made them equal to us” — that ‘what about him’ turns into a, ‘what about me?’ 

That is the tactic of the serpent that was used to tempt Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. “You will be like God knowing good and evil.” What about me? This is what caused the fall of Satan. 

Isaiah 14: 13-14 describes that fall and says:

13 You said in your heart,

    “I will ascend to the heavens;

I will raise my throne

    above the stars of God;

I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,

    on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;

    I will make myself like the Most High.”

These, what about-isms and things-we-think-we-deserve, run contrary to God’s plan for us as individuals and as His Church. In 1 Corinthians 3: 1-9, the apostle Paul addresses the church at Corinth about the jealousy and division among those in the church. Some at that time were saying that they followed Paul, others were saying that they followed Apollos. Paul tells them both that Paul and Apollos worked and that it is God who gives the increase. God makes things grow. 

1 Corinthians 3:9 

9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

That is something which I think is overlooked in this parable. We can get so consumed with what we think we personally deserve and what we think we deserve as we compare ourselves to those around us, that we forget that it’s always God that gives. 

God gives grace. 

God gives the increase. 

God causes vines to flourish. 

God turns water into wine. 

God gives us new life. 

God saves us from the ending that we deserve. 

We’ve gone back a few times to God’s grace — his unmerited favor. We can access that grace through faith. If you’ve never before known God in this way, I invite you to take a moment right now to believe God. Believe that in spite of what you’ve done or how you feel about yourself, that he gave his only son, Jesus, as a sacrifice for us to take upon himself what we deserve. 

There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for a friend, and Jesus did that for you. God calls you to be his friend — his co-labor — if only you place your faith in him. You didn’t miss your opportunity because you have one right now. It’s not too late. Just like the laborer who was approached in the 11th hour, Jesus is calling to you right now. Will you join him? 

Practical Application After the Message:

I’m going to give you some questions to consider in your time of discussion — in your house church or wherever your circumstances are this morning:

1. What is your main takeaway from this parable? 

2. With which of the laborers do you relate the most? 

3. Describe a time when you felt tempted to compare yourself to someone else. If you’re not with others, at least prayerfully consider it.

4. Lastly, how will you labor in the vineyard?

Solitude: All Oneness

What follows is a lightly edited written account of a sermon recorded and broadcast on February 3, 2021.

We’ve talked about prayer. We’ve talked about fasting. We’ve talked about Bible study, and today, this morning, we’re going to talk about solitude. 

Now, each of these we’re treating as fairly distinct spiritual disciplines. However, there’s not always a clear, cut-and-dry delineation between them. You can pray while you are fasting. You can have solitude while you study.

It’s okay that these are not mutually exclusive, that there’s overlap. We are not finite divisible beings in that way. You can’t divide us up… here’s me being happy, here’s me being sad, here’s me being alone, here’s me practicing solitude, here’s me practicing prayer. 

Solitude

Solitude is a state or situation of being alone. When we’re talking about solitude, we can talk about it in terms of a person and what they’re practicing, but we can also talk about it in terms of a place. When we’re referring to a place, instead of solitude, we might think of wilderness, and so I want you to keep those two things… in mind. It’ll make sense here in a moment. 

Solitude can be chosen either for us or by us. We don’t always get a say in when we are isolated, for example. It can be thrust upon us unwillingly by others. We can drive them away by our actions, our behavior. I know since the COVID pandemic there have been many who have unfortunately been isolated, been in intensive care units, who have a medical necessity and needed to be isolated and practice a form of forced solitude. Others may still be experiencing isolation either out of caution or by choice. But did you know that Jesus practiced solitude? Jesus sought to be alone at times. Why? Why do you think that is? After all, solitude is hard. 

We are tribal beings. We are built to be with other people. God invites, and in fact, he commands us to be in community. He also directs his followers to be alone for a time. Even psychologists recognize that to be both emotionally and spiritually healthy, we need both community and solitude. 

Why is solitude important? And there are a few things that I think we can discuss and we can think about, in terms of solitude, that serve to highlight its importance. The first I’ll offer is this: integrity. Integrity, as I like to define integrity, is the unity of both actions and words, right? Do they match up? Are they one? Solitude proves our integrity. 

Now, if you will [bear] with me for a moment, imagine driving a vehicle. You’re alone in the car. It’s at night. There’s no one around, and you see a stop sign. Are you going to stop at that stop sign? Are you going to come to a complete stop? There are no cameras. There’s nothing else. There’s no app on your phone judging whether or not you’ve completed that stop. Are you going to stop? Now, most of us, if we’re really being honest with ourselves, we’re going to kind of roll through that stop sign. My mother used to call this genuflecting; you just kind of briefly kneel and then go and move on your way. But solitude gives us an opportunity to prove to ourselves, to God, what we really are like when we’re left alone — when there are no witnesses with their eyes on us. How do we behave? How do you behave when you are alone?

I know when I’m alone — and this brings me to my next point here about vulnerability and distraction — when I’m alone, I feel unsure of myself. After all, who’s there to build me up? Who’s there to comfort me? And that’s when I feel the most vulnerable, and I think many of us, I would hazard a guess, that when we’re alone, there’s some measure of vulnerability that we feel. 

We’re often afraid of being alone. It’s a signal for us, I think, to reach out to God. We’re built to cry out to him. Worries, troubles, tribulations and all manner of negative thoughts and feelings can be invitations for us to reach out to God — to cry out to him. They can be invitations to seek solitude in spiritual communion with the Lord. When we are weak and when we are vulnerable, God has an opportunity then, in us, through us, to demonstrate his strength through my weakness, through your weakness. God can speak clearly to me when I have ears to hear and when there are no distractions. There is a vulnerable, singular focus on a relationship with God. 

A modern response to solitude and silence is distraction, noise, and company. Solitude can be scary. Distractions will happen without us having to expend any energy or effort. Solitude, however, true solitude, the spiritual discipline of solitude requires our effort, requires our energy. Those who have an ear, let them hear: the noise of others competes with receiving from God. Such is the case when solitude is not a cultivated spiritual discipline, and I believe that this is one of the many lessons that God has for us through 2020 and into this year, 2021. There’s a shaking, a loosening, a highlighting of what may have served as distractions for us. Distractions to which we tightly clung. 

We held on tightly to social events, maybe to going out to eat, going to the movies, going to concerts, big parties, in-person gatherings even for church, and none of these are bad in and of themselves. Some are good; they’re fitting, they’re proper, they’re things that we ought to do. But none of these, in and of themselves, is ever a purpose. Just as these things can be good, they can also be distractions. 

Some of these are things that we have often substituted for solitude. We’ve used it to escape from those moments of vulnerability. To make myself as clear as I can, we ought to make our relationship with God the priority no matter what the external circumstances. We need to make it a priority, in part, by exercising solitude. When physical isolation is not possible, inward solitude can even be cultivated. And now there’s a difference between solitude and loneliness. And this kind of gets me to my next point here about being filled and recharging and refilling. 

That difference between solitude and loneliness — perhaps you can tell the difference from some of the situations I’ve used as an example. Allow me to offer this: loneliness is felt when something is missing on the inside. Solitude, however, is achieved when inner completeness is found. Think about the word alone. We don’t always think about where it comes from, but that word alone came from the joining of two words, all and one — alone. That’s all oneness. 

True solitude and quietude [bring] communion with God. So think: all one alone, all one in communion — it means, “with together,” right? All one with together, all oneness together.

And there are examples throughout the gospels. Mark 1:35 says:

35 And rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, he departed [he being, Jesus] and went out to a desolate place, and there he prayed (ESV).

Desolate place — a wilderness, right?

In Luke 5, we read:

15 But now even more the report about him went abroad, and great crowds gathered to hear him and to be healed of their infirmities. 16 But he would withdraw to desolate places and pray (ESV).

In Luke 6, he spent the night alone in the desert hills before choosing those who would be his closest disciples. Speaking of the twelve, in Mark 6, we read:

7 And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— 9 but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. 10 And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. 11 And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” 12 So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.

Now get this, when they came back:

30 The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught. 31 And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. 32 And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves (ESV).

In Matthew 14, we read about Jesus feeding the 5,000 with only five loaves and two fish, and afterward, he dismissed the crowd and he went up by the mountain by himself to pray and when evening came, he was there alone. So he had sent the 12 in a boat and he went up the mountain to pray alone, and when he went to meet them, he met them walking on water. Between miracles, Jesus sought solitude. But even when Jesus was alone, he was never truly solitary. He enjoyed fellowship with the Father who sent him.

In John 8:29 and again, in John 16:32, we read:

29 “And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him” (ESV).

32 “Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me” (ESV).

He had communion with the Father in his solitude. 

Now I found some ways to practice solitude. I do a lot of long driving for work, that’s why sometimes my analogies are about driving in a car, and I’ll often fill that time by listening to music or podcasts or audiobooks. But there are times when I can tell that is distracting me. There are times when I just need time with the Lord or time in silence, time in solitude when I can turn off those distractions and just be with the Lord and hear from him. 

Or early morning in Haiti, there were times when I, for some reason, would wake up without an alarm clock before other people and, looking around not wanting to wake anyone else up, I found an opportunity for solitude, and those were some of my sweetest moments in prayer, in studying the scripture and in exercising some of those spiritual disciplines that we’ve already learned about together. 

Or on a walk through nature, not with headphones in or talking with someone — and those can be great things, getting fresh air, getting exercise — but just looking and searching out solitude and having that experience in the wilderness.

Think back to all those times when Jesus withdrew or he instructed his disciples to withdraw to a lonely or desolate place. Oftentimes it was just after or just before a miracle. It was in the valley between peaks. Those low places where the water runs, collects the rainfall, where it forms rivers are the places where we can recharge for our next journey up the mountain.

In the book of Ecclesiastes 5, we read:

5 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil. 2 Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few. 3 For a dream comes with much business, and a fool’s voice with many words (ESV).

We need and we ought to cultivate stillness and quietude and give opportunity for a peace that surpasses all understanding. We ought to seek solitude and communion all one together with our Lord. 

Practical Application After the Message:

As you contemplate solitude, as you are maybe together with other people right now taking this in and thinking and you will soon be discussing this, I’m going to give you just three quick questions to help facilitate that discussion. Or, if you are by yourself, you are practicing solitude, I’ll give three things for you to purposely consider. 

  1. What resonated with you the most from this discussion, this discourse on solitude?
  2. How have you found success in seeking and practicing the discipline of solitude? Not just times when you were alone, because you had nothing better to do, but times where you successfully thought, I’m going to go and I’m going to spend time with my God. 
  3. And lastly, I invite you, for full honesty and candidness, to answer: What has been a distraction to you this past year? I have been tempted with distractions. I have had to expend effort and energy to remove them, with better success sometimes than others. But for you, what has been your distraction? 

Use a Critical Lens

In school, I was taught to write in a coherent manner in order to express my thoughts to others. I was taught to think critically and evaluate what others say or write.  Aristotle’s concepts of rhetoric (logos, pathos, ethos) were explained in their essence, if not outright.

Age and generation notwithstanding, I was not taught how to “do” social media. I don’t think it is even part of the standard curriculum in public education today. However, I was taught a bit about propaganda, “card-stacking”, advertisement and other related tools and techniques of persuasion.

Each of the above is still valid, i.e. usable, in today’s realm of communication, social or otherwise.

More in-depth writing is forthcoming. In the meantime, here are some bullet-pointed observations and nuggets of wisdom.

  • Many may read your post. Of those, some will signal their approval (likes, etc.) while others will silently nod. Others still will shake their head and roll their eyes. Don’t take lack of disagreement as a sign you are winning mass approval. Don’t take modest agreement as a sign you are winning mass approval. Don’t take someone stopping the conversation (exchange of comments) as a win for you, it’s probably not. 
  • It’s easy to sound pithy. Writing something that will fit on a bumper sticker, unless intended for solely humorous effect, will be an incomplete thought at best. If you think you’re writing a new proverb, you’re not. But seriously if you think you are writing a new proverb, don’t share it on social media.
  • Before you are critical of others, do your utmost to examine yourself before applying that correction in a public forum. Others will probably see your hypocrisy and shake their head and roll their eyes. I do my best to self-regulate and self-evaluate. Still, you will probably spot the beams that I’ve missed in my own eyes.
  • It’s easy on social media to make vague statements or take a narrow stand on something. When someone points out the ready exceptions to your blanket statement, it’s just as easy to say that it wasn’t the point of your original post or that they are misunderstanding what you really mean. Bottom line: don’t take make vague statements or take narrow stands on social media. If your goal is to bait someone into an argument where you can move the goalposts and then gaslight the moving of the goalposts, then by all means be as vague as you want to be!
  • On social media, everyone does the work of author and editor. Absent specific training in journalism, you will likely do a poor job at both. You will read headlines instead of full articles. You will do a terrible job of evaluating sources of news and information. You will follow pages, share articles and friend/follow people who you think stand a good chance of agreeing with you. You will both consciously and subconsciously avoid challenging your thoughts and beliefs. In fact, you’ve probably not read this far into this post. If you have, congratulations! You might not be part of the problem.
  • If you choose to respond to others, respond in a way that demonstrates empathy and compassion. There are real human people, bots notwithstanding, on the other side of the screen. This is hard to do, especially when someone makes the errors listed above.  When they do, you have a choice: respond well or poorly in person, respond well or poorly online, or ignore them. Choose wisely.