Discernment: doing what is right

I've been reading Bonhoeffer's Ethics for my course on ThM seminar on 'Theology of Bonhoeffer'. We're reading a collection of his work and I realize that Cost of Discipleship (now simply Discipleship in the critical edition, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works series), is the more popular of his writings. His life and writings offer much food for thought. For now, I'm chewing on some of these ideas ...

In discerning what Jesus is saying to us, we would usually confirm what we hear with some of the following guidelines: does it contradict with the Word? is it legal? is it in line with common sense? is it loving? With that in mind, has it ever bothered you that Jesus often chose to heal on the Sabbath? He could have healed on Monday or any other day, but he chose to do it on Sabbath. We know that Jesus' miracles did not usually stopped at the miracle (or healing) itself, but was a sign and an occasion which he used to teach. Usually he did not set out to heal in order to prove he was God. Otherwise he could have healed all those whom he met who were ill. But obviously that did not happen (and perhaps that's troubled you and you've often asked why). That is probably a good topic for discussion at another time, but for now, I want to focus on the 'legality' of what he did. Yes, we know there are no laws against healing or doing good. In those days, the Pharisees were troubled not because Jesus healed but because he refused to 'observe' the Sabbath. But Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. So perhaps in this case we may argue that he was fulfilling the spirit of the law, and the so-called Sabbath laws were not really God's commands but man-made additions and therefore can be ignored (??) for the sake of doing a higher good? ... food for thought. So perhaps you're thinking that to heal a person and set him/her free from a long term oppression is doing something loving towards another, and therefore should trump these 'laws'. We should not be legalistic about it. Pause for a moment to think about our use of the word legalistic. What about flouting the Sabbath laws to meet our needs - disciples picking corn on the field? Would meeting a 'selfish' bodily need also justify 'breaking the law'? No doubt in this case, one may say that the Sabbath law is a religious law and thus only have moral obligations, and it's not technically illegal. Well, in light of the Old Testament, it is more than a moral obligation, but is in fact a civil obligation, at least for a Jew. Jesus and his disciples were Jews. Was Jesus putting away an old order and instituting a new one ... and if so, would he still be fulfilling the law? Or was it justified because it was more moral and loving to 'break the Sabbath' than to observe it in these cases?

Take it one step further now with Bonhoeffer. Would God ask us to do something that is illegal which is also against His commandments? Bonhoeffer felt God had led him to be part of the plot to assassinate Hitler. And no matter how evil Hitler is, it doesn't change the fact that it would tantamount to murder, which is clearly forbidden both in the 10 Commandments as well as Sermon on the Mount. You may not agree with Bonhoeffer on whether such acts can ever be justified but the fact that the church considers Bonhoeffer a martyr (he was executed by Hitler when his plans failed), is a testimony that we believe he acted in good faith. Bonhoeffer does not deny that it is wrong in the sense that it is against the commandment of God, but he saw that this evil was necessary to bring an end to much greater evil.

Bonhoeffer views a Christian as one who is called to live responsibly, i.e. in response to the call of Christ (continued obedience to him), and to live responsibly towards others. In the latter, it means standing in solidarity with and on behalf of those who are poor, powerless and persecuted. In doing so, we're standing with Christ because Christ identifies himself with those who are least among us ... Failure to act and intervene as well as intercede on their behalf is to fail in our Christian duty. More food for thought.

Back to the question of discernment. Bonhoeffer points out that we must be careful not to be too confident in our own knowledge of good and evil. Often when we try to discern God's will we are too preoccupied with getting it RIGHT. While we do our best to discern, we can only be certain to some degree, because there is always an element of faith as we obey what we sense God is saying to us. This element of faith is an important one, and perhaps can put many of us at ease, rather than trying to attain absolute certainty when we are discerning God's guidance in our given situation.

Some basic questions we use in 'confirming' our decisions are as follows:
1) Is it legal? The concern here would be legally permissible, which is the lowest common denominator. We will probably agree that this consideration is irrelevant if it breaks God's moral code. Thus we do not obey an order of the State if we are told to worship an idol. Although some may say this is a given, but it probably should not be surprising how many of us fall back on this in ethically gray areas, especially when it is to our advantage.
2) Is it according to God's laws? The concern here is for what is right and morally permissible. A good guideline in principle.
3) Is it loving? If doing what is morally permissible will hurt our neighbour, aggravate or extend their suffering, then it is more loving (and not immoral) to break the moral code. I expect this might ruffle some feathers. This is a good time to re-consider the word we used earlier: Legalistic.
Other questions include: is it in line with common sense? Does it lead to desolation or consolation? (Ignatian discernment; i.e. does it lead me to withdraw from God or draw closer to God?)

However ultimately the one question we seek to answer is: Is this what God is calling me to do?
It may be legal, right and loving thing to do but if it is not what God has asked me to do, then it may be wrong for me to do it. Or should I assume God has called me to do that? (More question mark!) Can the reverse be true? Even if it is illegal, wrong, and unloving, my duty is still to obey. (At this point alone, you are probably all ready to conclude I'm a heretic!) Bonhoeffer was speaking against German Christians who went along with Nazi's program (doing what is legal) and consoled by the fact that they were doing what was "right" (morally permissible but even though it was unloving towards their Jewish neighbour). However in being part of the assassination plot, he did what was illegal (against Nazi regime), immoral (moral ideal would be to forgive your enemy ... hmm always? further food for thought), and unloving (at least to Hitler), and yet ...

Nb. I am aware of examples like Corrie Ten Boom's sister who refused to lie when asked by the authorities if they were hiding Jews in their home. She believed God would protect them without her having to lie about it - although some would argue that in this case, it was necessary and probably justified, to prevent a greater evil and protect lives. She openly pointed out their hiding place when the authorities came to search the house but they refused to believe she was telling them the truth and did not search that spot, thus God honoured her faith!

Jesus said, "my meat is to do the will of the one who sent me" (John 4:34) and "The Son is not able to do anything himself; he is able to do only what he sees the Father doing" (John 5:19).
Is this idea dangerous? Yes, you bet. Is this what it means to walk by the Spirit? (Gal 5) Probably.
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)


Response? Bring them on! Love to hear your input.

National Identity - Conflict for Christians?

I often read blogs that begin with an apology, especially for not blogging. While that would be most justified here, I shall resist the temptation to follow the trend, and get right into it.

I have been giving a lot of thought to this topic of how Christians should think of their national identity. Is national pride biblical? Or are we to renounce all national ties and be loyal to our heavenly citizenship alone? I've read articles of Christians who'd go as far as saying that we should not salute or stand at attention to the flag, sing the national anthem or recite the 'Rukunegara' (equivalent to a national pledge). In light of the recent developments in Malaysia I've been having very strong feelings for the nation, a deep concern for its future. I feel passionate about some of these issues, and realize that I care a lot about her people. I don't believe this is of my own doing, but then again I'm trying to understand how do we relate to our national root. It's not uncommon for me to hear others , or even for myself, speak in terms having a burden for a certain nation. How does God view nations?

In Genesis, we saw the birth of different nations. He started revealing himself to a nation, through a man and his family. God built this nation, dwelt among them and called himself, her leader and king. He addressed different nations according to how they related to Israel, the people of God. People groups and nations were not always differentiated in the Bible, although in socio-political definition there probably are differences between the two although I'm not entirely sure what they are. Jesus himself was born a Jew and that was part of his identity as a man. He fulfilled his civil responsibilities by paying taxes (that could have been a temple tax, and thus arguably a religious duty). But he did exhort the people to pay what is due to Caesar, who was clearly a pagan ruler that demanded the people's total loyalty, calling himself Kurios (Lord). In the Great Commission, Jesus calls us to disciple the nations - the word here can also mean people group, but it definitely points to distinctive groups rather than the world as a whole. In the New Testament, we are told to pray for our government. Paul himself was not afraid to claim his full rights as a Roman citizen when he was unlawfully detained. Nevertheless we also have exhortations stating, "In Christ, there is now no Greek or Jew..." (Gal 3:28) Finally at the end, in Revelations, the nations will be judged and in the new earth, the nations will be present to offer their worship to God.

This is just a brief stream of thoughts on this topic. I'm still thinking through about this issue and appreciate if I can have some input, especially if you've given it some thought or can direct me to a good resource. Some may argue that the nations are really people groups, and it's not about a nation State, which is a human construct. That's a possibility, but I need help to see how this applies biblically and where does that leave me in terms of my civil responsibilities and rights as a Christian. One fear that others have voiced is the fear of patriotism and nationalism, which for them, often leads to a sense of superiority. Again, I admit that fear is not unfounded, however I believe it is possible to speak of different national identity without speaking of them in terms of one being superior than the other.

One thing that I've been giving more thought is the number of Malaysians I know who've chosen to migrate and reside in another country, but never gave up their Malaysian citizenship (and of course this is a common phenomena not only with Malaysians). I guess in a sense I am feeling some tension about that and still trying to reconcile what I see. I realize that people often migrate for many different reasons and I don't want to, nor can I, judge them for their decision. I can accept that one who love the country may, for very good reasons, feel compelled to leave it and choose to reside somewhere else. The question I have is, after living for a while out there, why not give up your Malaysian citizenship and choose to adopt a new citizenship? I know that everyone has a freedom to choose and if the government does not require you to make that choice, it's not for me to question your decision. I'm just trying to think through the Christian ethical implications on this issue. I've always been raised to think that a mature adult = a responsible citizen, which means doing your part and contribute towards the country, building it up for future generation. Don't ask me where I got all these ideas - Civic class? Thus if you decide to put your roots in one country, then fully adopt the country as your home. I have no issues with such changes because I recognize that's part of life. I cannot see the point of keeping Malaysian citizenship when your ability to contribute to the country is minimal. What really bugs me is when friends who've left Malaysia insist on telling us how we can do better if we only .... or keep sending me emails about how badly Malaysia is being governed, which only serves to further justify their decision to leave (yet not give it up altogether). In such case, they have one mind/heart in Malaysia, while they are living off those lovely countries they have migrated to. What then is your contribution to the country you've migrated to, if not to participate in it fully as a citizen ...?

Perhaps you find my view too narrow and too polarized. I don't mean for this to offend anyone, and apologize if you've been so offended. I am simply trying to think aloud. I admit I'm often told that I think in too "black and white" terms. I am open to be corrected. I also understand that life is often much more complicated than that. Some plan to return to Malaysia eventually, perhaps to retire. Others still have lots of ties to family in Malaysia, thus prefer to have their options open. Some move because of marriage, and others may be there because of work. I have also met those who felt led to move, but did so with great reluctance, and continue to care deeply for Malaysia by constantly praying for her. What should be our considerations in making such a decision as a Christian? That's what I'm after.

The New Holy Trinity

We live in an age in which we have all been trained from the cradle to choose for ourselves what is best for us. We have a few years of apprenticeship at this before we are sent out on our own, but the training begins early. By the time we can hold a spoon we choose between half a dozen cereals for breakfast, ranging from Cheerios to Bran Flakes. Our tastes, inclinations and appetites are consulted endlessly. We are soon deciding what clothes we will wear and in what style we will have our hair cut. The options proliferate: what TV channels we will view, what college we will attend, what courses we will take in school, what model and colour of car we will buy, what church we will join. We learn early, with multiple confirmations as we grow older, that we have a say in the formation of our lives, and within certain bounds, the decisive say. If the culture does a thorough job on us – and it turns out to be mighty effective with most of us – we enter adulthood with the working assumptions that whatever we need and want and feel forms the divine control of our lives.

Intoroducing the new Holy Trinity. The sovereign self expresses itself in Holy Needs, Holy Wants, and Holy Feelings. The time and intelligence that our ancestors spent on understanding the sovereignty revealed in Father, Son and Holy Spirit are directed by our contemporaries in affirming and validation the sovereignty of our needs, wants and feelings.

My needs are non-negotiable. My so-called rights, defined in individually, are fundamental to my identity. My need for fulfillment. For expression, for affirmation, for sexual satisfaction, for respect, my need to get my own way – all these provide a foundation to the centrality of me and fortify my self against diminution.

My wants are evidence of my expanding sense of kingdom. I train myself to think big because I am big, important, significant. I am larger than life and so require more and more goods and services, more things and more power. Consumption and acquisition are the new fruits of the spirit.

My feelings are the truth of who I am. Any thing or person who can provide me with ecstasy, with excitement, with joy, with stimulus, with spiritual connection validates my sovereignty. This, of course, involves employing quite a large cast of therapists, travel agents, gadgets and machines, recreations and entertainments to case out the devils of boredom or loss or discontent – all the feelings that undermine or challenge my self-sovereignty.


Eugene Peterson, Eat This Book (p31-32)


postscript:

In many Asian cultures, the common good is given much more value than the individual needs, wants or feelings. Thus there is tremendous pressure to conform and not stick out. Add to that, it is a taboo to offer a dissenting view or to look critically at tradition and culture. We know that one of the biggest threat to individuals in any given society is to be ostracised or treated as an outcast. While this is true of human socieities at large, it is particularly poignant in Asian communities. While this may keep the new un-holy trinity at bay, what really happens is the needs, wants and feelings of the group takes the place of the individual and forms the alternative un-holy trinity. The needs, wants and feelings of the group is sovereign. At times, this can result in deep inner conflict when the needs of the individual are in conflict with the needs of the group and the individual's desire to remain part of the group.

In Asian churches, this pressure to conform is translated into teachings that emphasise on the unity of the church and concern for our neighbour. As a result we baptise our culture and this creates cultural blindspots in our theology and teaching. We use the Bible to coerce members to conform to certain (culturally acceptable) patterns of behaviour or get them to align with the leader's (or leaders') agenda. We manipulate and control people and forget that we are all unique individuals created in the image of God.

It is important to know our own cultural blindspots and be careful that we do not baptise our own culture but need to learn to look at ourselves critically. This applies to Asian communities as well as Western ones. Only then can we see what is needed in our theology and teaching to challenge our cultural assumptions and values that are in conflict with Scripture. Asian churches that emphasise on our uniqueness as individuals may be accussed of bringing in western values. The fact is we are called to be counter-cultural and we need each other to help read and understand the Bible more faithfully. while the emphasis may differ from one culture to another, it is not because any particular culture that is superior or that we should seek to emulate.

However what we strive for is the Christian perspective and to emulate Christ. The call for Christians is to give up and hand over our individual's needs, wants and feelings, not in exchange for the group's, but for His will. We are to submit to Him as our sovereign Lord, trusting Him to meet our needs as He sees fit. This does not mean He will ignore our desires, wants or feelings, because, at a deeper level, even these desires are given by God. However we are not to take things into our own hands and be preoccupied with meeting them by our own means. We are called instead to surrender them to Him, submit our wills to Him and allow Him to mould our feelings, to align with His will. We are respondible to do our part and work to meet some of these, but if this is the goal of all our efforts then they become our idols. No, then we become our own gods. But in submitting to Him, He does call and enable us to live beyond ourselves, to love others and consider others more than ourselves. Not because the other, or the group, is more important and valuable than we are, but because He is sovereign and Lord over all. It is His kingdom and plans that He is committed to bring to pass according to His good and perfect will. It is for us to align ourselves with His agenda, by His grace. We ask the wrong question when we ask whether God is on our side. Our concern should be whether we are on His side because in the end, it will be the only side left standing and victorious!