Tension (and release?)

I must admit that I'm still a bit of a newcomer to the whole "diversity of opinions" sort of thing in the church.  The Southern Baptist Church is pretty good at avoiding that whole problem within its denomination.  Presbyterians, however, seem to live with tension all the time.  The two sides (in reality there are way more than 2 opinions, but we tend to be a 2-sided sort of country right now) use their own vocabulary to describe the world, and I've just recently found a nice way to line them up:

1. If we err, we should err on the side of righteousness.
2. If we err, we should err on the side of grace.

It's not that either camp sides completely with one or the other, but it seems that a camp tends to favor one over the other.  Of course what's being described here is the dialectical tension between God's grace and God's justice- we can neither fully reject one nor fully embrace the other, and they do not fit into neat categories side-by-side, but they wrestle with each other.  If we wish to engage the tension, we will be forced to wrestle with both.  However, we're likely pre-disposed to let one side win over the other, and it may not rely fully on our fully-rational, objective choice.

Here's an interesting write-up in Time about a recent study that shows a difference in brain structure between self-proclaimed political "conservatives" and "liberals."  Note in the article that the study's author was not clear on whether the brain influenced preference or if the preference re-mapped the brain.

So when we have "open dialogue" about issues that come up in the politics of the church, how willing are we to compromise?  Yes, an open mind is necessary in a debate if some sort of compromise is desired.  However, we don't live in a context where debates are necessarily solved in the minds of all witnesses by the power of reasoning of the "winner" of the debate.  I cannot think of a single Republican Presidential Debate during the primaries/caucuses where the majority of viewers could declare an uncontested winner.  This fact might be more telling about those particular candidates more than the state of arguments in general though.  Truly, the practice we've put into political debates, regardless of which side we took, might have taught us well how to be more entrenched in our own pre-conceived notions.  Our lack of practice in effective communication tends to leave us 20 minutes or 10 hours after a debate coming up with new arguments for the side to which we've already committed.  I'm sure you, dear Reader, remember times when you came out of a difficult debate thinking, "I should have said this instead of that.  Why couldn't I think of that in the heat of the moment!?"

Is there really such a thing a "open dialogue" then?  Can we really put ourselves into the argument of our opponent and truly question our own arguments?  Obviously we don't want to imagine our "enemy" as correct or insightful, but it might be a good practice in general.

An alternative might be simply to pursue a third way.  Third ways, while they tend to open us to the wrestling with both sides of the dialectical tension, also tend to be wildly unpopular.  Still, the simple pursuit of the third way might add value to the conversation, as it can open the imagination of those on opposite sides of the table.

So, should we err on the side of righteousness or the side of grace?  I've tended to side with grace, mostly because I'm so deeply in touch with my own depravity (thank you, SBC).  If I can be forgiven by God and neighbor, I most certainly can offer grace to those who sin against me.  But I wrestle quite often with righteousness (which I tend to pair with the notion of "justice" from the Hebrew Scriptures).  I might lean toward theological liberalism, but I also engage in some questionable practices, writing letters to my elected officials in order to "lobby" for the poor, engaging in political dialogue with my neighbors, preaching about God's justice from the pulpit- things that upset greatly the voice for the "separation of church and state" that exists in others and in myself.

Still, when I wrestle with righteousness and grace, I remember that God is not as fragile as we presume God might be.  When we read all the scripture texts where God seems to be sinfully angry and jealous, we rely on our fear (and who wouldn't be afraid of an all-powerful, all-seeing, angry God?!) to push us in the direction of protecting God.  If our sin makes God angry, why wouldn't we try and hide it from God, or protect God from the sinfulness of ourselves and others?

But if Jesus came in love and sacrifice for sinners, then maybe God isn't as angry as we thought.  If God took on flesh and didn't shoot up the place, maybe God's more gentle and understanding than we thought.  So if we decide that there's no need for fear in the Christian understanding of God, then how else might be approach God- in trust?  In love?  In compassion?  In peace?  In understanding?  In hope?

Jesus asked Peter: "Do you love me?"  Peter replied, "Yes, of course Jesus.  Of course I love you."  "Feed my sheep," replied Jesus.  Jesus, wanting to fully establish his point, does this dance 3 times in a row.  Few things in the Bible get repeated with such intensity.  Jesus really means it, y'all.

If loving God does not require protecting God from the awfulness of our sin and the sin of our neighbors, maybe we can see how closely related our love of God connects to our love of neighbor.  Does that mean we should be righteous (act justly)?  Yes.  Does it mean we should offer grace?  Yes.

My honest question out of this goes as such: Why does the church so often pick sides between an excessive protection of God's righteousness (thus leading to our excessive judgement and condemnation of each other) and an excessive grace toward neighbor (that does not hold the people we love accountable when they work very hard for the destruction of the other people we love)?  Can we hold people accountable in love and still offer grace?  What does that look like in the context of current "debates" about our common life?

First Day

So, I was asked (called?  more like contracted) to become the Interim Pastor for a congregation recently.  Today is my first day, officially.  I came to the church/pastor's study around noon, in case the previous pastor was moving anything out- I wanted to make sure she had space to say goodbye.  Now I've been here all afternoon.  Here are some impressions:

-Where is everyone?  I've been here alone all day, except for the lovely couple coming to drop off some plates for a community dinner coming up.  Still, I somehow imagined this would be a completely relational sort of vocation, but apparently pastors spend quite a bit of time alone.  Today, I mostly prayed and planned and read and wrote.  If the Spirit is going to be my only companion during the day, I think I'll get a radio so we can rock it out all day together.

-Meal planning will be interesting.  I brought 1.5 meals with me, consumed everything for lunch, so I'm now eating a grocery-store made salad with mayonnaise and bacon on top (really, Midwest?  mayo and bacon need to be on everything?!).  I live approximately 40 miles away from the church.

-There's also no coffee shop here.  I'm hoping someone will clue me in to where there is "community" happening around here.  I'm guessing it might involve taco pizza at the local gas station (and I'm not even kidding).

-The Deacons meeting is in an hour, and I am more excited about just being around people than what it is we'll discuss at the meeting.  And I'm an introvert.

-How'd it get so cold again?  And what is this I hear about snow storms possible in April?  I'm not sure I'm okay with this.

-Despite not getting to meet with people so far today, nor talking with more than the local phone directory lady calling to update the church information, I'm still super excited about this Interim Pastor thing and have unbounded energy at the moment.  Seriously, can I just dance around the office in praise to God right now?  I've been filled with dreams for years about this, and here I am in the Pastor's study, writing liturgy and reading and dancing around the office with the Spirit.

Praise be to God!