"...they drove the car into the ditch... now [Republicans] want the keys back. No. You can't drive."
- Barack Obama, May 13, 2010
The President's illustration spawned all manner of expansions, rejoinders and revisions... "Republicans can ride along, but they have to sit in the back seat." and "If Bush drove us into the ditch, Obama is taking us over the cliff." and "Republicans also rolled it, totaled it and refused to repair it!"
Very quickly people from all corners of society drove this metaphor so hard and so far in so many different directions that it ran out of gas as a useful analogy. This doesn't mean it was a bad metaphor—on the contrary, the sheer volume of debate using the car/ditch scenario tells me this was a great word picture. People got it.
Here's my lesson from the flame-out of Obama's little story: analogies have their limits. No matter how vivid a metaphor, illustration or parable may be...you can only take it so far. One of the most pervasive and longest-lasting tales in this arena must surely be WWJD.
Did you know the full original title of Charles Sheldon's 1896 novel was "In His Steps, What Would Jesus Do?". If you've read the book, you know the premise is a small-town pastor challenging his congregation to not do anything for a whole year without first asking “what would Jesus do?” The book has sold over 30 million copies to become the 19th-ranked best-seller of all time. There was recently a major resurgence of this saying abbreviated onto plastic WWJD bracelets.
The idea of stopping to consider Jesus during our daily activities is never a bad thing. And when a simple concept like this is introduced to teenagers—who are just becoming responsible for making independent decisions—it is probably indispensable. But after a few years of living as a devoted Christ-follower, you will have peeled back the top layer of this simple maxim to understand that the question isn't really what Jesus would do, rather...if I am serious about my Christian faith here in 2010, what am I going to do?
This isn't just semantics. I mean, try this thought question: after he had cheated and then lied to cover it up, what would Jesus do? Come on, in some really crucial ways, Jesus was utterly different from you and me—and not just in his uncreated person or his sinless life. Jesus Christ had a singularly unique mission, which was based on his exalted position towering above the entire universe (which he created).
Look, when Jesus saw somebody sick, he healed them with a touch. When Jesus saw hypocrisy in a place of worship, he kicked over the furniture. When somebody died, Jesus raised them from death. Are you doing those things?
I myself had driven into the metaphorical ditch. Jesus forgave me and restored me and gave me his Holy Spirit to comfort and keep me on the straight and narrow. The scripture reminds me that I now have the mind of Christ. So the non-metaphorical question really should be: "What Will Wayne Do?"
So here's one that I struggle with: it's easy to conceive of an application of the golden rule (what Jesus would do) when the circumstance is between myself and another person in an active situation - for example: considering whether or not to lie to someone. However, it gets harder when I'm the third party observer of a situation that doesn't directly involve me - for example: when I see someone begging for money on the street and I know they are a block away from an outreach shelter. Should I give them money, should I direct them to the shelter, should I let the "experts" in homelessness address the situation (usually government and social agencies) using the tax money and donations I've already given, or should I just keep on walking and leave them to ply their "trade"? In those situations, I struggle with what Jesus would do - and what I'm going to do.
ReplyDeleteI used to struggle with that too Merlin. Until I did some reading about "poor laws" in scripture. The concept of charity started at home, with the extended family. The benefactor and the recipient usually KNEW one another.
ReplyDeleteThe next circle was the community, and that is where your guy comes in. Let those people who LIVE near him figure out if he's sincere, or a professional panhandler. You drive by him once every two or three weeks and have no idea whether he's accepted offers of work, is constantly drunk or is willing to abide by the rules at the Union Gospel Mission 3 blocks down.
My rule of thumb is to be charitable to those people with whom I am acquainted--usually in my church or neighborhood.
I even got a call from our church elders cautioning me NOT to extend charity to a certain person because he rejected conditions of help from the church. Now, the guy was in my Life Group and I had been in his home, and I actually knew more about his situation than our elders. Plus, all I was doing was giving his wife a ride to a food bank--and loaning them $20 for gas, which was repaid in two weeks as promised.
The government angle is harder. And this is where "society" has bailed out of personal charity—opting to anonymously "help" by paying taxes for somebody ELSE to deal with these messy situations. I know that if Christians weren't forced to pay over 30% of their income to the government—ON TOP OF our tithe—we would see an explosion of local charity the way it was when all hospitals had names like "Baptist" or "Methodist" or "Holy Cross" or "St. Thomas".