Amoeba. (clearly, a psuedopod). |
Beatitude Series - Part 3
GUEST PREACHER/BLOGGER: LISA LARGES
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."
I still
remember the bet I won against Jon Hanson. This was thirty some odd – mostly
odd – years ago. I was sixteen. We were on a camping trip – some kids from the
neighborhood, I don’t even remember exactly who all was there. I don’t remember
many other details about the trip either, except that Jon Hanson and I got in
to an argument about whether amoebas were pseudopods. I could take the time to
explain what this means; but the specifics here aren’t relevant. The only
important piece of the story that you need to retain here is that I was right.
If you do want to know more about what it means that amoebas are pseudopods you
could ask me at coffee hour, for I shall surely tell you, but I wouldn’t
necessarily recommend asking.
Whether or not
amoebas are pseudopods is a matter of fact. But this argument, oh my children, took place before the time when there were smart phones, or cell phones of any
sort. It was before cell phones, and before Wikipedia and Google, those tools
that have revolutionized bar bets everywhere.
I have
absolutely no idea how it was that we came to our disagreement about amoebas.
It’s not a topic that comes up often in every day conversation. I’m sure I have
never had a discussion about it with anyone since. But somehow we did come to
disagree about amoebas, and it seems to me that it must have been early in the
camping trip, because, as I remember it now, neither one of us, or rather,
let’s say I, didn’t have the decency or good sense to drop it, or at least let
it go until we got back to civilization. It wasn’t like we were arguing about
an opinion, or a principle, something that might benefit from a little back and
forth, the art of persuasion and all that. No, instead, for what seems now like
the entire weekend, I maintained strenuously that amoebas were pseudopods and
Jon Hanson was adamant that they were not. Basically, I spent the weekend
saying “yes they are,” and he, “No they’re not.”
Now, this was
also the time, oh children, when we looked up information in books! Home from
the camping trip, I went straight to the braille edition of my biology
textbook, found the paragraph that listed amoebas as pseudopods, got the print
edition of the textbook, found someone to help me find the right page number,
-- I was committed -- and walked up the street to the Hanson house with the
textbook open to the page on amoebas. I still remember the moment. I hadn’t
even gotten inside. I was standing on the Hanson’s doorstep, Jon stood just
inside the open door, the book between us. What he said was something like, “Oh
my God.”
Now, if I was
a. a better preacher, b. a better person, or c. a better Christian, I would
have begun by telling you a story in which I was wrong. There are certainly a
lot of them. For the purposes of our discussion I would even be willing to
stipulate that I’ve been wrong as often as I’ve been right, maybe the balance
is even a little bit over on the wrong side. I am now fifty, and it is true
that my on board memory and its retrieval system more and more return bad data.
There are more and more stories in which I am the one who miss-remembers or has
the facts wrong. What’s more, I have been on the wrong side in matters far more
consequential than the classification of amoebas. I could have told any of
those stories. But, and again, I know this is perhaps revealing a bit too much
about my character, when I sat down to write these reflections, I couldn’t come
up with a compelling example. I don’t remember any stories of being wrong with
anything near the clarity with which I remember being right when I was sixteen.
And I know
perfectly well that it could have gone the other way. I could have been the one
to miss-remember what I’d studied or not about amoebas. I could have been the
one to miss-remember so completely that I was willing to bet on it. The point
is, as I’d like you to recall, is that I was right.
“Why is it so fun to be right,” Kathryn
Schulz asks in her book called “Being Wrong,” “As pleasures go,” she continues, “it is, after all, a
second-order one at best. Unlike many of life's other delights--chocolate,
surfing, kissing--it does not enjoy any mainline access to our biochemistry: to
our appetites, our adrenal glands, our limbic systems, and our swoony hearts.
And yet, the thrill of being right is undeniable, universal, and (perhaps most
oddly) almost entirely undiscriminating.
We can't enjoy kissing just anyone, but we can relish being right about almost anything. The stakes don't seem to matter much; it's more important to bet on the right foreign policy than the right racehorse, but we are perfectly capable of gloating over either one. Nor does subject matter; we can be equally pleased about correctly identifying an orange-crowned warbler or the sexual orientation of our coworker. Stranger still, we can enjoy being right even about disagreeable things: the downturn in the stock market, say, or the demise of a friend's relationship, or the fact that, at our spouse's insistence, we just spent fifteen minutes schlepping our suitcase in exactly the opposite direction from our hotel.”
We can't enjoy kissing just anyone, but we can relish being right about almost anything. The stakes don't seem to matter much; it's more important to bet on the right foreign policy than the right racehorse, but we are perfectly capable of gloating over either one. Nor does subject matter; we can be equally pleased about correctly identifying an orange-crowned warbler or the sexual orientation of our coworker. Stranger still, we can enjoy being right even about disagreeable things: the downturn in the stock market, say, or the demise of a friend's relationship, or the fact that, at our spouse's insistence, we just spent fifteen minutes schlepping our suitcase in exactly the opposite direction from our hotel.”
Back when I
was working with That All May Freely Serve, advocating for the full inclusion
of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, I attended a church service
one Sunday in New Haven Connecticut at which the pastor had used for the title
of her sermon the title of a bluegrass song called “You’d Rather be Right than
be in Love.” I don’t remember the Scriptural text nor the point or points of
the sermon, but the title stuck. There were plenty of instances from my own
life when I chose perversely for my own delusional infallibility. It also
seemed to me to be an apt diagnosis for what was ailing the church. As the
fight over ordination of LGBT folks wound its way through the church, at any of
its meetings or debates or assemblies at which the question was argued, you
could find a vast multitude of sincere Christians of all political and
theological opinions who exercised a strong preference for being right. Surely
there were many, of many a theological stripe who preferred the way of love and
mercy and grace, but their voices tended to get drowned out.
The payoff of being
right is that delicious feeling of being superior, which we know we ought not
admit to caring about, but which is altogether satisfying nonetheless. Being
right also helps us feel secure, and that is a feeling we’ll go to just about
any length to find. Being right is beautiful in its simplicity. Choose being in
love over being right and you’ve just opened the door to a world of
complications. These complications are too numerous to list, but chief among
them are the complications of heartbreak and vulnerability. As Kara would say,
it’s messy!
It’s a short
hop from being right to being righteous. Stir in some morality and a few
letters and your there. We all crave that kind of security – not just that we
have the facts right about amoebas, but that we’ve made the right choices,
acted in accordance with the highest principles. There is that part in all of
us – or, at least I know there is a part in me – that turns to religion to
satisfy our need to feel more secure. It is hard and humbling to realize that
faith leads us not to security but vulnerability –that faith calls us to choose
being in love over being right.
In his
ministry and his teachings Jesus endeavored to put a little daylight between us
and our righteousness. In Matthew’s gospel he starts out in a spectacular way –
reversing all of those assumptions about which we are so certain that we need
not even name them. We would not choose to be the poor in spirit, to be those
who mourn, to be the meek, or those who are perpetually hungry in spirit. But,
when Jesus begins his Sermon on the Mount it is suddenly opposite day.
Sometimes
gently, sometimes fiercely Jesus sets before us the truth both terrible and
liberating that we are creatures who are wholly dependent on grace, and wholly
interdependent with one another. Jesus holds out to us the salve of humility,
which is the balm for all of our striving and all of our obsessive hankering
after security. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
When I lived
in San Francisco, I was a member of a tiny little Presbyterian Church. There
was never quite enough money, and, what was more difficult, there was never
quite enough people to do all the things that needed doing. As I was getting
ready to move back here, that congregation was in the middle of an ridiculously
ambitious capital campaign. Our beautiful Victorian 110 year old building had
been damaged in the 1906 earthquake. We were the congregation of deferred
maintenance. But finally, we got to the point where we had to remodel or close.
We considered closing. Then we voted to continue. The rebuilding would cost $5 million. If each of the 62 members wrote out a check for $80,645.16 we would be done. But, most of us didn’t have a spare $80,000.
We considered closing. Then we voted to continue. The rebuilding would cost $5 million. If each of the 62 members wrote out a check for $80,645.16 we would be done. But, most of us didn’t have a spare $80,000.
So, our
already over-burdened membership set out to raise a lot of money. What’s more,
in order to complete the renovations, we had to move out of our church. We decamped to
the chapel at a nearby hospital. People hadn’t exactly been beating down our
doors when we worshipped in the beautiful Victorian church, but now, at the
chapel, it was almost impossible for those much coveted new visitors to find
us. You could call our decision to continue courageous, or you could call it
absurd.
When I decided
to move back here, I wanted nothing more than to find a church that would not
be linked to the adjective “struggling.” I wanted to find a church where you
could slip in on Sunday morning, shake hands with a few people, and leave
again, with your anonymity mostly intact.
Yet, as if I
needed more evidence that God has a vast appreciation for irony, the warmth and
hospitality of this little struggling church got to me before I had even had
time to experience the fun and freedom of being a church shopper.
I don’t mean
to suggest that there is any inherent virtue in struggling – of having always
to figure out how we will pay the bills, or who will serve on the Deacons, or
bring treats for fellowship time. I’m only suggesting that we are, because of
these things, relieved of the allusion of thinking that we are sufficient unto
ourselves. We have the blessing of being reminded in real and substantial ways
that we are dependent on God and on each other.
To be those
who hunger and thirst for righteousness is to know that there is a way beyond
our way. To hunger and thirst for righteousness is to finally come to know that
to feed on our own righteousness is to fill up on empty calories.
To be meek then
is not to be ashamed or small or groveling. It is only to be at peace with our
place in the universe, not to be secure, but to be at home.
Let us be the
church that would rather be in love.
No comments:
Post a Comment