The Court of Good Deeds (a Lectionary reflection by Steve Orr)

Without preamble, the tall man fixed his eyes on Bob and asked in the voice of one who was accustomed to speaking only with the most cultured members of society, "What did you do and how do you plead?"

Bob had no idea how to respond to that. Finally, after a few seconds, he cleared his throat and said, "Begging your pardon, sir, I do not know how to answer you. I do not know why I am here, nor, for that matter, what "here" is."

"Come, come, man. Surely you heard the Bailiff. This is the Court of Good Deeds," explained the tall man. "I am Chief Justice. You have been brought here to answer for your crimes. Now, please, can we move on? My brothers and I have other things to which we must attend."

Bob was starting to get it, or at least a glimmer of it. "Are you telling me there is a law against performing good deeds and that I have broken it?"

At this, one of the other . . . Justices, Bob presumed . . . spoke. He was short and thick, but spoke with the same cultured, pleasant sounding voice as the first. "It is most disingenuous of you to pretend ignorance of the law. I can assure you. Acting this way is not the path to obtaining our sympathy."

In response, Bob stated, "If I am brought before this . . . um, tribunal to answer for helping an elderly man regain his footing after a fall, then I can confirm I did so. However, I cannot understand how such an act caused me to be brought before judges. How can an act of kindness be a crime?"

The third justice, a man who was neither tall nor short, but upon whom appeared a continuous scowl, asked, "Did you have a permit?"

"A permit, sir?" asked Bob. "Where would someone obtain a permit to perform good deeds?" Bob asked this somewhat facetiously, thinking, even then, that this might be some kind of prank.

"You would obtain the permit from this court, of course," said the tall justice. "Where else? You need only apply, state your untended good deed, and pay the fee. It couldn't be simpler. And if you had done so, none of this morning's unpleasantness would be necessary. As it is, we are now inconvenienced with having to deal with the matter."

"But," replied Bob, "How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? By the time one came here, applied and obtained your permission, the person in need might have come to even greater harm. How, in your laws, does one, acting in God's love, assist another on the spur of the moment?"

All three justices, and even the Bailiff, were stymied. No one had ever claimed to perform a good deed, without premeditation and their approval, in the name of "God's love." Angered that they could think of no good response, they dismissed Bob, warning him to to conform to the law and not to discuss the morning's proceedings with anyone.

Bob walked from the cavernous chamber and back out onto the street. As he started away from the court, he spotted a young woman struggling with groceries and three small children. Stepping from the shadow of the court's edifice, he entered the sunlight, grinned, and headed her way.

______________________________

READINGS FOR THE COMING WEEK
Fourth Sunday of Easter (April 26, 2015)
First reading
Acts 4:5-12
Psalm
Psalm 23
Second reading
1 John 3:16-24
Gospel
John 10:11-18

______________________________

I hope you can be with us Friday morning for Lectionary Breakfast. We start at 8:00-ish, sharp, and are always done not one minute later than a few minutes after 9:00. The good folks at the Waco "Egg and I" restaurant ready the meeting room for us each time, deliver the food of our choice, and provide great service. We have a blast!

Don't judge us.

Enjoy the week!
Steve

The Kessel Run (a Lectionary reflection by Steve Orr)

You might be surprised to learn that real scientists can be upset by what is said by fictional characters.

Oh yes, it's true. In fact, they can get in quite a tizzy about the most arcane things. They get into heated debates about the accuracy, and more specifically, the likelihood, of such things.

Case in point: in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (the first movie), Han Solo boasts that his spaceship, the Millennium Falcon, is more than fast enough to meet the needs of Luke and Obi-Wan, claiming, "It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs."

Astronomers everywhere blanched.

A Parsec, it turns out, is a measurement of distance, not time. One Parsec is roughly 3.26 Light Years or 19 trillion miles (that's close enough for our purposes).

So, if Han wasn't bragging about the speed of his ship, what did he mean?

Well, the Internet is FULL of answers.

Many serious scientists have weighed in on this, and their answers run the gamut. A sample: one theory suggests that Han took a short-cut through a dangerous region of space to reduce the distance, went where a more risk-averse pilot would not. Another scientist talked of wormholes (or hyperspace). One even wrote a very learned paper on why it HAD TO BE time-travel.

The situation is somewhat akin to what happens when we read the statements of Jesus, especially when he tells a parable. We often get caught up in the details of the parable, completely missing the reason why Jesus told it.

In the case of Han Solo, it is unlikely there will ever be an answer that is acceptable to everyone. However, George Lucas is on record (there's a note in the script) that Han was "obviously lying." The reactions to Han's claim, especially that of Luke Skywalker, strongly support Lucas' answer.

And who knows better than the author?

In this week's Lectionary passages, we have "the parable of the unjust judge" told by Jesus to his disciples:

"Then Jesus told them a parable to show them they should always pray and not lose heart. He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither feared God nor respected people. There was also a widow in that city who kept coming to him and saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’ For a while he refused, but later on he said to himself, ‘Though I neither fear God nor have regard for people, yet because this widow keeps on bothering me, I will give her justice, or in the end she will wear me out by her unending pleas.’” And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unrighteous judge says! Won’t God give justice to his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he delay long to help them? I tell you, he will give them justice speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” (Luke 18:1-8 NET)

The debates about the various particulars associated with this parable are, seemingly, infinite. How much of a role model is that judge for us? Are "we" the widow in the story? Who is her adversary, in "real life?" And what is Jesus trying to tell US with that last statement about faith? On and on.

All of it, in my opinion, missing the point.

If you read it and come away with any conclusion other than we "should always pray and not lose heart," then you have drifted from the purpose of the parable. It's right there in the very first line of the passage.

And who knows better than the author?

###############################
http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu

READINGS FOR THE COMING WEEK
Proper 24 (29) (October 20, 2013)

Jeremiah 31:27-34
Psalm 119:97-104
Genesis 32:22-31
Psalm 121
2 Timothy 3:14-4:5
Luke 18:1-8

We're continuing to meet for Lectionary Breakfast every Friday morning at the Waco "EGG AND I" restaurant. Join us at 8:00 for some excellent earth-based foods and some celestial discussions.

Astrophysicist are welcome, but must limit themselves to language we can all understand ;-)

Enjoy the week!
Steve

Justice For All?

(a brief Lectionary reflection by Steve Orr)

"What do YOU think?" 

The question significantly ratcheted up the tension in an already uncomfortable situation.  The person from whom I was collecting testimony wanted me to provide my opinion about the matter under investigation.  That question, or one like it, comes up a lot in the course of conducting a federal investigation.  They say things like, "Don't you agree?" or "You would have done the same thing.  Right?" or any number of things intended to solicit the Investigator's opinion.  In one sense, it is natural.  People involved in a conflict want to win others to their side of the issue.  And when federal law is involved, the pressure to be right grows exponentially for some of the parties.  It's a big deal.  For some of them, if they are wrong, if they don't prevail, the price can be steep. 

Is it any wonder that the folks providing evidence or testimony want to win over the investigator?  Still, that is not allowed.  Investigators are neutral parties. They do not render judgments.  And in that vein, they do not share any opinions they have formed about the matter under investigation.  In fact, for an Investigator to do his/here job correctly, it is essential they remain neutral.  Opinions, and eventually judgments, are the province of the adjudicators, the judges who render decisions.

If I do my job correctly ---do the digging, questioning, evidence gathering, probing, analysis, etc.--- then the judges can do theirs.  So, when asked, "What do YOU think?" I reiterate my roles in the process, explaining, again, that I am neutral.  It's not ever quite that smooth, though.  They don't give up easily.  People want justice, or at least, they want what they consider to be justice; to win, to beat the charge, to not pay the piper, or to force the accused TO pay the piper.  It's all in their perspective.

However you look at it, one thing is certain.  I am not the Judge.

Federal investigators become involved in some pretty interesting matters, not least of which is being up close and personal with our justice system.  There is a lot said and written about the justice system in this country, some positive and some negative.  But for all that, it is a rare person to suggest we should do without it.  We recognize that there are times when a person with discernment must settle the conflicts between parties because, whether laws were broken or parties believe themselves wronged by another, a decision must be made or the conflict will continue; or worse, escalate. 

Ironically (and the irony here is VERY heavy), conflicts over spiritual matters are far more contentious than those over matters of this world.  We SO want to be right in our spiritual choices.  After all, literally everything is riding on it.  We have committed our very selves.  But that just does not seem to be enough.  It doesn't seem like our being right is fully satisfying; those who are different must also be wrong.  And that is truly sad.  

A few weeks ago, I asked if we could not trust God in His declaration that HE will take care of any vengeance that needs dispensing.  And now I am asking, can't we trust Him in his commandment to not judge others?  If we cannot accept the explanation in this week's Lectionary reading (Romans 14:4), can we not just trust the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount?  I realize some of us will disagree on this, and perhaps part of that is due to differences in our definitions of judging.  So, to clarify, I am not addressing situations where we need to exercise discernment or wisdom.  And I am not addressing the judicial portion of our justice system.  In fact, about the only criticisms of justice systems in scripture is when they fail to serve their function.

No.  What I'm addressing here are matters of dispute between "people of the book."  For those, I stand with the Romans passage: "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall.  And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand." (Romans 14:4 NIV)

########################################

READINGS FOR THE COMING WEEK
Proper 19 (24) (September 11, 2011)

Exodus 14:19-31
Psalm 114 or Exodus 15:1b-11, 20-21
Genesis 50:15-21
Psalm 103:(1-7), 8-13
Romans 14:1-12
Matthew 18:21-35

If you are in Waco Friday morning, join us.  Maybe we'll talk about what really happened at the Red Sea crossing, or perhaps the price paid by the forgiven servant who failed to subsequently extend that grace to another, or something else from this week's scriptures.  We'll be at Cafe Cappuccino (8:00 a.m., downtown on 6th Street, near the Courthouse) for breakfast and a great time kicking around this week's Lectionary passages.  We would love to have you drop in.