A Piece of My Mind

A Piece of My Mind 

The temptation in confrontational times is to encounter someone you disagree with - and give them a piece of your mind. You know what I mean, tell them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong, and your own position is not only right, but far superior to their opinion. I am embarrassed to admit it, but I once took great pride in making snarky, sarcastic, cutting remarks. Clearly this is an example of using God given gifts for an unGodly purpose. 

It is not common to label this activity as selfish and put it in the bin marked “Greedy” or “Idolatry.” But it is truly an example of the kind of behavior that defeats relationship. It is like Adam and Eve spraying Roundup in the Garden of Eden. It makes a mockery of God’s good creation. It presents us as judge, jury, and executioner, without pausing to consider the limitations of our knowledge or experience. 

It is easier to dismiss all other opinions with a wave of the hand, than it is to confront often ugly rhetoric with respect for the possible relationship with the speaker. 

There are plenty of examples of ill-mannered and combative statements from both the conservative camp and from the liberal side. It is even more common to attack the character of the principals involved than it is to name the issues of the day and compare and contrast the positions of the candidates and the respective party platforms. 

I am not confused. I know that during the time the scriptures were written there were few if any examples of actual democracy among the nations of the world. In fact, the majority of all of our scriptures, were written from the perspective of people either in captivity and occupied by an invading army, or recently released from a time of capture. The geopolitical world of the scriptures assumes nation states in conflict. 

In Ecclesiastes, the writer tries to use reason and philosophy to sort out the meaning of life. In a practical sense, trying to determine what is real and what is true without relying on faith to determine a starting position often results in an approach we know of as Existential Philosophy. Clearly this ancient text identifies that the roots of this way of thinking are very deep in the human condition. 

He mourns, that if he accumulates great wealth, power and prestige, he could die overnight, and leave it all to some soul who does not understand or appreciate the effort and accomplishment it represents. It could all go to waste in the hands of the unappreciative. 

In the letter to the Colossians, the writer takes on the meaning of life from the perspective of one who has died to the world, and dedicated themselves to living with the mind of Christ Jesus. On one hand, we know it is impossible to live with purity of mind and action. On the other hand, we all have known people who are so gentle, so generous, so compassionate, we understand that it may indeed be possible to live at a much higher level that we have ever known. 

I think that it is interesting that Colossians is a disputed letter of Paul. There are multiple indications that make it likely this letter was written after Paul died. Paul died around the year 60 CE. The city of Collossae was destroyed by an earthquake around the year 60 CE. 

If Colossians was written after Paul’s death, then there is a distinctive poetic air to this text. There is a romantic sense of preaching to the memory of a now expired community, where the specifics of individuals - with their personal quirks and preferred positions - are buried, and the communal ideals of the now deceased fellowship are honored.   

Today we use Ecclesiastes and Colossians as an introduction to the text from the Gospel of Luke. We know that in the flow of Luke’s gospel, Jesus has made his turn towards Jerusalem. He has become much more specific in directing the disciples and expecting them to do more. The tone and tempo of his public ministry is much more focused than in the early chapters, wandering around Galilee 

In this episode, a man asks Jesus to intervene for him with his brother, in distributing the family inheritance. It was a common role for a rabbi to assist families in sorting out priorities, as guided by the scriptures, in structuring the distribution of the inheritance - in order to secure the future health of the family unit and the family’s place in the wider community. Specifically, the real property would typically belong to the oldest son, because if it was divided, the weaker managers of the family may be unable to preserve the capital. 

Clearly, it was an act of honor to Jesus to treat him like a rabbi, and ask him to work in this traditional capacity. Jesus dismisses the task, but claims the opportunity to make a teaching moment for his followers. 

Jesus tells them a story, a parable, to make his point. He does not invest any energy in the inheritance matter that the man found important, but instead, used the opportunity to talk about the very natural, human preoccupation with stuff. “My stuff is better than your stuff. I have more stuff than you have. I am going to protect my stuff, so that I can live in luxury all of my days. My stuff makes me important, and proves just how smart I am.” In the back of my mind I hear the voice of the comic George Carlin, a champion of sarcasm, who had a classic routine devoted to “our stuff.” 

We noticed before - that especially in this portion of Luke’s gospel, where he has stories that are not repeated in Matthew and Mark, Jesus uses the “certain man” as a part of his story telling. 

The “certain man” does not identify if he is Jewish or Gentile. This is important to Luke’s community - who we believe are largely gentile - because it tells them there are no Jewish code words that they may not understand. The story is the story, and does not require having a deep understanding of the Jewish backstory in order to “get it.”  

By using “a certain man” Jesus signals, this applies to all people. This is an important way to understand what matters to God, that does not depend on Jewish ancestors, clean bloodlines, or special cultural class distinctions. This could be anybody, and applies to everybody. 

Importantly, by using the story, we are taking the conversation one step above the sticky details of the day. We are not mocking some individual we disagree with, we are not creating an artificial boundary between us and them, we are not drawing battle lines. We are not looking to create a space for a debate, or rules of engagement; we are appealing to a sense of truth that we might all agree with. 

Jesus uses the image from Ecclesiastes, what if all of our success gathered us great wealth, only to be left to those who do not appreciate what an achievement this is? Is the response to an abundance of food to build bigger barns, or should we be building a bigger table? Do we know what pleases God? Would we make different choice, if we knew what pleases God?  

We opened this time together considering the temptation to give “a piece of our mind” to those that we disagree with. Here are two quick thoughts for the next time such a temptation comes your way. First, are you sure you can spare a piece of your mind? Are you going to have enough left? (I told you I can be sarcastic.) 

Second, does it serve God’s purpose better if you give people a piece of your mind (with its limited capacity), or if you give people a piece of your heart (filled with the infinite love of God)? 

God blesses your story, may you have the wisdom to bless those you meet.