Tangled Conversation: To the Lens

Here's an old quote from May 19th. "A Christianity anchored in meetings as its foundation for our expression of life will become performance based and focused. Performance based in our expectations of what those meetings should achieve, and therefore performance focused in our expectations of the people attending those meetings." There's a point I'd like to illustrate, shall we play Gracehead-Lawhead? I'll be Gracehead, you be Lawhead.

I'm game. I'll start....okay, let me get in character...and you do know I can never stay in this character more than a few minutes, anyway...okay...ready...Hey, you're saying we should not have meetings.

No.

So we should have meetings, just not focus on performance.

No.

So we should not have meetings, except when necessary.

No.

Then I don't get it, what should we do?

I can't tell you.

What! Why not. You think you're better than me? Why can't you tell me?

I cannot tell you until you can receive it. I cannot tell you until you are willing to see it. Until you are willing to drop your lens, and pick up my lens. The problem wasn't in anything you said, except for one word, should. Get rid of that, and you'll find you have less trouble understanding what I'm saying.

Get rid of should? So you're saying I should stop using should?

Well, let's not turn this conversation into a fugue (hat tip Hofstandler) of self-referencing and strange loops. I'm talking about the attitude and dependency behind the should. There's nothing wrong with the word "should" itself, but it's overuse, well strike that, misuse reveals an inner attitude. And it is this attitude that blinds you to seeing what I'm talking about. I guess the best way I've found into discussing this is to shock you into questioning one of your secret favorite words.

Well, what else is there? There is should and there is should not. There is right and there is wrong. Unless of course you're one of the benighted moral relativists who don't believe there is right or wrong.

Interestingly enough, I'd say the moral relativists are right in that they have it exactly wrong. It's sort of like you have a yard with a fence going through the middle of it. One side is the right side, the other side it the wrong side. What else is there here? What else is obvious, but we miss? It's that there is ground below the yard and sky above it. The moral relativists goes subteranean in their leaning. Rather than right and wrong they define it as whatever you want -- now this is simplistic. There is another way, and it's above the yard, the sky.

Okay, interestingly illustration. What's your point?

For Christian you can be above the yard of right and wrong. Above should and should not is IS.

That's crazy talk!

Not really. Above the Law of Sin and Death is the Law of Life. Above the Law there is the I AM. The one Who is. The Truth. Christ. The one you are in and the one Who is in you.

Intriguing, go on, you have to make some semblance of sense eventually.

Well, does Christ worry about shoulds and should nots? Or does He just do? His character is perfect love, so does He bother with the oughts and ought nots? No, that's ludicrous.

So what are you saying?

A preoccupation with should and should not in Christian community is an occupation NOT with Christ. It is a focus on rules, regulations, etc... which is a self-focus. It is not watching Christ. You cannot be watching Christ if you are watching yourself and others follow the rules.

So what should we do?

When God shows you what He's already done and who you are to Him, then it won't be so much a question of what you should do. You'll see and you'll know.

So meetings?

I don't know, seems kind of small compared to the whole Christ thing?

Yeah, definitely. Get Him, and you've got the meeting question.

Yep, and frankly every other question one could argue. I mean, if you have the one who IS love, what else do you need?

All in all. Christ is all in all.

Couldn't say it better myself.