This is about thirty seconds of our road trip from Isiro to Ibambi, August of 2005.

For, or against?

I read Mark chapter 9 today, and came across verse 40, "For the one who is not against us is for us." I recalled the ironic placement of that verse next to Matthew 12:30: "Whoever is not with me is against me."

I think I've heard of these verses defining a tight in and out group, with both sides clearly defining themselves, but I took a closer look at their contexts, and I was a bit surprised at what I found.

Mark 9 reads: 33And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you discussing on the way?" 34But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. 35And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." 36And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." 38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name,[f] and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us. 41For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.

So the immediate context of the first, inclusive, statement is a question of his disciples, who want to stop someone from casting out demons, "because he was not following us." John says "we tried", and I wonder if they had then failed, and were asking Jesus to back them up. The larger context shows Jesus having just criticized his disciples for seeking to be the greatest -- and saying that being the last, and receiving children, is what counts in his kingdom. One must wonder if the "not following us" referred to submitting to the disciples, or to Jesus. How much was this question tied to Jesus teaching his disciples not to lord their power, either over each other or over others? This would also make sense of Jesus' comment "no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me." If someone is truly experiencing Jesus' power, they will come to him. We don't have to worry about where they fit, if anywhere, in our hierarchy.

This is born out in the abbreviated account given in Luke 9: 46 An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 47But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side 48and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great." 49 John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us." 50But Jesus said to him, "Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you."

The second, exclusive statement, comes from a conversation with the pharisees, who criticize him after he heals a demon oppressed man:

Matt 12: 22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons." 25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. 30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and wh oever does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Jesus' statement is part of a larger criticism of people that stand against him. He says that divided kingdoms don't last. He says that they are criticizing their own (who also cast out demons). He says that if his power is from God, it is bigger than this one healing. You can't steal from a strong man unless you've dealt with him first (meaning that, if Jesus is stealing souls from Satan, he must have already dealt with Satan?). Then comes his if you're not with me you're against me, followed by if you're not with me, you scatter. Then follow some strong statements about blasphemy, and what can be forgiven. Namely, much, except if you're blaspheming the Holy Spirit (which he seems to be implying they were doing, attributing his works to Satan). Apparently one can even be forgiven of speaking against Jesus, but speaking against the Holy Spirit is another matter.

So he criticizes the pharisees for being internally inconsistent in their criticism of his work, as well as missing a much bigger thing than they thought. This isn't two sides, and you'd better pick which one you're on, this is the Creator of the universe against anyone else who would set himself up as a god. There is only one Rock of stability in this world, and there is only one question so important you really can't afford to get it wrong. And they were in the process of stumbling over that rock, and getting that question (i.e., by what power does Jesus work?) dead wrong.

The importance of this question is shown by the fact that, when they brought it up later (in Matt 21:23-27, Mark 11:27-33, and Luke 20:1-8), they didn't criticize the source of Jesus' power directly, but asked him where it came from. And when Jesus through the question back at them, they refused to take a public stand. This was, understandably, in part for political reasons:

Matt 21: 23 And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" 24Jesus answered them, "I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" And they discussed it among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' 26But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet." 27So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

I find it sad that the don't seem to engage the question, and claim to not know, when "we don't care to take a public stand" might have been a more truthful answer. We cannot take a man (either John or Jesus) as from God, but not listen to him. And if we take a miracle working man to be acting on his own (or Satanic) power, we need to be ready for the consequences. There is no decision that doesn't have consequences. But in trying to take the middle road themselves, the cut the legs out from underneath their own implied criticism of Jesus.

But we digress. In Matt 12 Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for their inconsistency, as well as for not recognizing the power of God, and the importance of that question. We see the same account repeated in Luke 11: 14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven. 17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. 18And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 20But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. 23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

So, when asked for backup, Jesus tells his disciples to stop hindering people who don't follow them yet work miracles in Jesus' name-- perhaps as an application of the principle that their authority is one of servanthood, not lordship. And Jesus answers the Pharisees' criticisms by saying that they are not only bad debaters, but they have missed the point of the power of God -- and in not coming to them, they will lose more than this debate.

So it would seem that these two verses are not meant in the same context at all. They weren't meant to be put together, ever, I suppose. If you're trying to follow Jesus but also want to shut down other people working in Jesus' name, back off, calm down, and let the power of Jesus work. But if you're trying to shut down Jesus himself, back off and think about what you're doing, because you can't afford to get this question wrong.

Dan in Real Life

I just got back from seeing Dan in Real Life. I was impressed, more than I expected to be. I'd read reviews, and it looked like your average mixed up love triangle kind of movie, with your typical Hollywood romance ending, making null or wrong conclusions about what true love is. Well, it still did some of that...
But the humor, while intended for adults at times, wasn't crass. No explicit love making. One of Dan's brothers was in a stable marriage, however much he wanted something else a time or two. The other brother, who brought "home" the heroine, stayed true to his brother, even after the apparent betrayal.
While some don't think this line important, I was glad that they talked about how to control their relationship while it was inappropriate, and waited to do anything else until she had broken up with his brother. Not the "Tom Hanks steals Meg Ryan's heart while she's still in love with someone else, but all's fair in love and war, eh?" movie. Not that it felt any different to the brother, and they could have been more transparent.
Many scenes in the movie (like when the new lovers are discovered) are clearly manufactured for situational humor value, but this is a Steve Carrell, so what were we expecting? If you come looking for a goofy take on the mishaps during a weekend getaway of an otherwise stable and loving family (somewhat distinct from his role in Little Miss Sunshine...) You just may enjoy it enough to buy it.
We probably won't, because the null ending basically left the impression that the 14 year-old was right about love all along -- not the father who was happily married 15 years before the death of his wife. Having seen "Love at first sight (or at least less than three days)" both from the inside and the outside, He seems converted from "it's not love" to "it's all that counts in love". I would rather he had said, "Wow, this is a lot more powerful than I had thought, so I shouldn't ignore it. But let's take some time, get to know each other better, and make sure this is a long term good decision. Then we'll get the best of both worlds". I loved seeing him humbled, and to have his hypocrisy unmasked. But I'm not sure that what we find underneath is any better than the mask itself.

Commercialism indicted, again

In celebration of 'black Friday', I left the house this morning at 5:40am, to do shopping on the day after thanksgiving, for the first time in probably 10 years. Something about the crowds, the commercialism, and the half-sincere lures have kept me home doing something more valuable to me -- just about anything... But I went today for a few reasons. I saw a couple things I wanted to check out, that i really wanted to get anyway. Also, it will be many years before I'm back here and able to observe this American ritual, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Perhaps more important, I had a shopping partner, and one with an "in and out quick" shopping ethic. The first store we hit opened a few minutes before 6am, with 15ish people waiting outside, and more arriving. Even knowing what we wanted, it took a second to find it, and then one item couldn't be pulled off the shelf without "customer assistance". Given that there were 4-6 crazed customers for each employee, that took awhile. When we finally got to the counter, there were 20-25 people behind us waiting to check out. And it wasn't even 6:20 yet. The next store advertised $2.99 DVD's, so we thought we'd see what was left. Since the store had opened at 5am, we knew that we'd be getting pickings at 6:30, but we weren't prepared for what we saw. I think it was due to fire code or something, because they were letting people in one at a time, and there was a line out the door. The line went down the long front of the store, and around the corner. Needless to say, we went on to the next store. Which, though it had a full parking lot, didn't have a line out front. But maybe it should have. The store itself was easy enough to navigate, but the checkout line went to the back of the store, along the back of it, and then back to the front -- something like 200 people. Fortunately they were each calmly waiting their turns, and I was able to leave the store and be back in bead by 6:40am. Later, in the afternoon, I went back to the store that I hadn't even entered, just to see if anything was left. But no. Lots of cheap junk, and lots of regularly priced stuff still hanging out. So what made me go out twice? Did I really believe that everything would be as cool as the ads promised? Did I really believe that this was a better time to shop than others? Did I really believe that this was anything other than a day to get the stores back "in the black"? Did I imagine that this would be particularly good for me, and not for them? Why would I want to get ahead of all the other guys subjecting themselves to these difficulties to get more stuff? Perhaps this is what the scriptures refer to as the deceitfulness of riches? Anyway, I think that anything that implies they're on my side is a lie.

I want a house

I was thinking today about my life and work, and realized that I really want a house. Having lived in far too many different places in our eight years of marriage, and most of them apartments in cities, I really want to live somewhere where I have a stake in its prosperity, and where there is room to expand.

Having lived under the restrictions imposed by landlords, from the crazy rule that all walls (even the internal ones!) had to remain this certain off-white, to the guys who jack your rent with no apparent reason or concern, I want to own something. Call it raging against the man. Call it wanting some self-determination in my otherwise turbulent life.

Much of that time has also been sharing an office with our 9month old, who will only want more and more space (and her own bathroom, someday) over time. This year we've had a bit of a garden (and only a bit of time to spend in it, but I guess that speaks more of my priorities than my space available. So I'd like four bedrooms, or space to construct an office apart (possibly the better option, anyway).

Enough room (and walls?) to segregate our living functions (caring for the house, children, etc, office work) so they can work at full capacity without butting against each other for geography, as they currently do.

Anyway, as long as I'm dreaming...

But I realize that this is not the end of life, and some or all of these things may well need to be sacrificed for something more important.

Pillow fights

This morning my children finally caught on to pillows as a medium of entertainment that doesn't have to involve adults. The five year old runs around and collects all the pillows, then piles them systematically on the 9 month old, who pushes them off as quickly as she can. Ultimately she is buried, at which point everyone sees just how much fun this game is.

Occasionally she gets scared, or hurt, or from some reason she starts to cry or whine, and I teach the boys to back off and comfort her. They got the idea surprisingly quickly, and I was unexpectedly pleased at how infrequently they needed to back off. It was almost as if they are learning to be gentle with her. Or maybe it is because they're throwing pillows on her instead of legos -- or, say, matchbox cars...

My Second Post, again

Here I am in Thunderbird, setting up my ability to post with only a POP mail connection. If you know what that is, it's much more useful where we work than a web interface. This pic is a map of Paris for my Grandmother, who was wondering how to tell the Rive Gauche from the Rive Droit. Apparently it is clear if you assume you're coming up the river from the southeast.