The quote in title, an unintentionally honest comment from a pious young woman, will continue to ring in my ears for decades to come. Scripture describes the word of God being “sharper than any two-edged sword,” but her romantic rejection came more like a hammer blow to my Mennonite worldview where spiritual was supposed to outweigh physical gain. I had patterned my life, up to that point, around a sort of practicality over flash and suddenly realized what I thought was an asset was actually liability.
I was reminded of these words again as my wife’s glowing approval of the monstrosity in my driveway, a Ford Explorer ST, still feels out of place for me. I mean, granted, I was not keen on transitioning to family life with a pedestrian option like a minivan or boring SUV. But I didn’t expect my always frugal—cost conscious—female counterpart to go along with it 100%. She was supposed to pump the brakes and did not. I’ve realized, in this, that every woman is happy with the nice things and won’t say no if you provide it for them. We’ve both agreed to blame the baby for our reckless financial decision.
So, back to Milton, a place I’ve since moved on from and to the higher cost town across the river. Up until the words from the mouth of this wholesome girl, I had thought having a little house completely paid off would be worth something—even attractive. After all she claimed to be interested in missionary service and what better place to get a start, right? From what I had believed, there are needs anywhere there are people and where better to start than a deteriorating industrial town? Milton is an example of the rust belt, a place of declining opportunities and costs of outsourcing production.
The phrase “you’re thirty years old living in Milton” was simply accurate conveyance of her underlying priorities. There’s always the difference between what we say we are and the actual truth. Even in the secular culture there’s a romanticization of the love of two impoverished people who stand together in desperate circumstances. And those raised in an environment where Christian mission is supposed to be first, living as one poor as a church mouse amongst common people would seem the ideal.
But it is not. No, this young woman, like the one who had rejected me for not pursuing a title of “missionary” or “pastor” years prior, was clearly after status. They will not say it outright, probably are not even aware, but it is a kind of glamour they seek in service. A call to some exotic location to impress their religious peers. Sure, a Bentley may not be status in a conservative Anabaptist church, but the ability to jet around the world (often on someone else’s dime) is thrilling where it is considered sacrifice. It is currency, a way to gain status in a community of faith or be seen as righteous.
Resources are showered on the ministry or mission. Sure, it comes with stress, my 9-5 does as well, but the payoff is proportional. And not talking about “treasures in heaven” or God’s favor. A pastor has access to the community resources. It is social power as much as it is a position of responsibility and there are always those who want to curry a little favor. Again, it also comes with more scrutiny as well, but most tend to minimize the costs when they set off in a particular direction. Besides that, for the Mennonite woman, this is for the broad shoulders of her husband to bear, right?
The high expectations of my wife have been a little surprising to me. To her credit, she has been putting up with a partly finished remodel of old house since marrying and moving in. But yet, despite coming from the Philippines, her standards are now close to that of an American woman. We comment about our son’s demands for what the other kids have, but often fail the test ourselves. I mean, is it at all coincidence that I decide to finally pull the trigger on a new vehicle after a Mennonite workmate showed up with his new truck? Probably not.
And that’s the bottom line here. We are all after power in different forms. Be it money, be it land, access to resources or just status in our peer group. What I’ve found is that a religiously trained (or ‘spiritual’) person is no different. No, all they do is give a righteous cover to their personal ambition. They live in a delusion. Materialism is bad, they will say, but they are fine with your donation of money so they can buy a bigger missionary compound in Southeast Asia. And, under the fluff of my own pursuit of love was the same sexual motivation of all men.
I hated when a physiatrist summarized my obsession with the impossibility as being a “sexual attraction” and dismissed it initially as a woman who knew nothing of my heart as a man of God. But now I realized this is undoubtedly the correct assessment. Men want sexually attractive women and women want high status men. This is an essential part of our nature—a matter of survival for our genes—a young healthy woman is able to bear children and a wealthy or connected man can give them much more than a thirty year old living in Milton.
I’ve moved on from Milton, but cannot move on from the reality I have encountered head on, we’re sexual creatures living in material reality and can’t escape this by denial. I had been better to learn this decades ago rather than cling to a naive notion of love where it ends like a storybook. But I am now living the best life available to me and hope that my wife is happy with her decision. She’s won my heart asking for the “simple and happy life” and now I want to give her that and everything else wonderful this world offers. The best thing we gained was the child born almost a year ago now…
It’s never too late to live the life that you should—which is more about perspective than what you possess—even if you were denied love for being thirty years old and living in Milton.
Great theology is not something I expect out of our politicians. Or at least not in the manner of a Western theologian. Theology, in the Protestant West, where Christianity is more about the mental exercise than about practical application. Unfortunately there are many great moral thinkers who are not good people. For example, John Howard Yoder, once the go-to Anabaptist pacifism explainer later disgraced by the many credible allegations of sexual abuse. Our theology is what we practice, not what we preach.
Needless to say, we won’t be reviewing “The Politics of Jesus” any time soon (although it may be fun at some point) and what we will do instead is parse a curious statement that was made by Vice-president JD Vance:
There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritise the rest of the world.
My first impression is mixed. Vance should probably stick to politics rather than delving into theology. I’m not sure he has a perfect understanding of what “neighbor” actually means in the Gospel sense. But his point that love starts local has merit. It is also important to note that the context of this is a moment of history where the second term of Trump administration, his America-first doctrine, and the dismantling of USAID and other arms of US imperialism.
Rather than disagree or agree with Vance, it is my intention to go through his statement line by line and, after that determine if he’s directionally right even if a bit wrong about semantic details. Where does Christianity (or the Gospel) teach us to love first?
“There is a Christian concept that you love your family…”
Objection, your honor! Jesus specifically taught us to hate our family (Luke 14:26) and, therefore, this JD Vance guy is just another Christian nationalist. Crucify him, crucify him! Oh, wait, you mean Jesus, on the cross no less, was assigning care for his mother (John 19:25-29) and had bashed the religious elites who neglected their own parents (Mark 7:11-12) claiming that their money was being set aside for God?
If there is any uncertainty left, the Epistle makes clear:
Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8 NIV)
Care for our families is a first and foremost priority and should be. What Vance did not make clear is what my high school coaches summarized better, in regards to priorities as, “Faith, family and then football.” Jesus, in saying to “hate” our family was employing a bit of hyperbole, his point was that we first follow him and after that put everything else in our lives. It is not one or the other, but it is getting the correct order.
“…and then you love your neighbour…”
This probably is the weakest part, in terms of rhetoric, that the Vice-president said and it is because of how Jesus so radically had reframed the Jewish discussion of his day and broadened the term “neighbor” to pretty much mean anyone we cross paths with. I am talking about his story which involved a good Samaritan and an immediate need.
When asked by a religious law expert, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus, sensing the man was trying to justify himself (or his lack of compassion for those outside the Jewish tradition) changes the question. Instead of asking who to love, Jesus reframed to make it about how to love. The punch of using a Samaritan as the good guy of the account would be similar to telling a story, in Israel today, about a good Palestinian or going to the DNC and using an example of a good MAGA hat wearing redneck.
Vance appears to be using “neighbor” in the more conventional sense. He’s not talking about the stranger, in need of help, that we meet along the road. Nor how to be a good neighbor, as Jesus did in response to a man trying to justify his own narrow exclusionary take on who is a neighbor, which is actually reflective of the Jewish law:
“‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. “ ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:17-18 NIV)
Neighbor is clearly qualified, by context, as a “fellow Israelite” or “your people” and not the broader use. Nevertheless, what Jesus does is turn the question around on the one asking for sake of an exemption. The true message is that we correct our own heart and fix our attitude towards those we hold in low regard. Americans should learn to love their neighbors no matter who they’ve voted for last election. Love starts local, it isn’t about ethnicity, race or politics, and is all about what we personally are doing for those whom we meet along the way.
“…and then you love your community…”
Community, in the Biblical sense, would be the community of believers. A Christian is supposed to be devoted to fellowship (Acts 2:42, 1 John 1:7) carry each other’s burdens (Gal 6:2), maintain unity (Eph 4:3) and love one another so that the world knows that you follow after Christ (John 13:5), which is local and also not ahead of obligation to our own families. Charity is a provision for both Godly widows and orphans. It doesn’t make mention of free condoms for foreigners nor giving to those outside the Church:
Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.
[…]
No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. (1 Timothy 5:3-4;9-10 NIV)
As we see above, Christian community aid is conditional. No, this does not mean we cannot extend compassion to the broader community beyond the Church—only that it is an obligation within the body of believers first—starts with our brothers and sisters in Christ (James 2:15-16) before it goes out to the community beyond. As St Paul told the church in Galatia, we should “do good for all people,” but “especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” (Gal 6:10)
So, God, family, church community, and then…
“…and then you love your fellow citizens…”
This is probably the concept that is most difficult to find. On one hand the Church did send missionaries from Judea throughout the Roman Empire. But, probably drawing on my Anabaptist roots (where there is this tendency to over-literalize everything but the body and blood of Christ), we are told we’re “citizens of heaven” and so loving citizens is not necessarily about the country, state or nation. However, we are told to submit to our human authorities and institutions:
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17 NIV)
Where many from my religious background go wrong is by putting worldly government and citizenship at odds with the heavenly kingdom. This is wrong. No early Christian renounced their citizenship. St Paul did not and there are many places where they tell us to respect even secular government as being ordained by God. A Christian should not opposed to the punishment of evil (Rom 13:17) and should be a model citizen.
So it does make sense that this expanding bubble of love, from God to family to church to community would continue to growing to also include our fellow citizens. No, nation should never come before obedience to our moral conscience. But it is important that we respect institutions and the people they represent. It is appropriate to show a little respect to the flag, to remember those who died to fighting for an ideal, and to love the people of our own nation—like Jesus who spent his entire ministry amongst his own people that he loved first and foremost.
“…and then after that, prioritise the rest of the world.”
So now we’ve come to the final part of the expanding arc Vance described. Once we have fulfilled our commitment to our other priorities, then we should go beyond these borders to save the world.
The Great Commission is probably better described as the great omission the way it is used by those who fail to read carefully and miss the “wait, then” at heart of this—they rush forward, so full of answers, full of themselves and feelings of being superior to their peers. They can be Evangelicals or they can be young Marxists, but they have been indoctrinated and do not realize what they’ve missed while running out to prove their phony virtue has no bounds.
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.
[…]
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-8 NIV)
First in Jerusalem, their own city or people, then to Judea their state and neighbors—then on to Samaria, a region inhabitated by their enemies and then, finally they were to go to the whole world. That order is not a mistake. And those who ignore it are going on their own power, their own authority, and often contribute to hell more than they ever do salvation. Grandiose visions are so nice, such a comfort for the delusional, we want to believe we are better for our having more stamps on our passports and these global ambitions.
So, maybe Vance didn’t articulate it well or use terms in the same exact manner of as a doctor of theology, but lets not nitpick him or play semantic games, his concept of our help starting local (the need along our path or a Lazarus lying literally at our front gate), before going out from there, has very solid basis in Biblical texts. That is the pattern we see in the disciples Jesus taught. They didn’t travel the world trying to find greater needs—they started with their own people and worked out from there.
Jesus, the ultimate Christian example, never went beyond Judea, Samaria and Galilee.
Telescopic Philanthropy and Liberal Elites
Charles Dickens describes a phenomenon of globally-minded do-gooders who missed the needs right in front of their noses. This is a way the modern elites try to distinguish themselves from common people. And the same thing that religious elites did and was rebuked very severely by Jesus (Matt 23) as hypocrisy. Running an NGO certainly gets more attention than helping your neighbor across the street, but the latter better fits with a “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matt 6:3) ethic of the Gospel. Telescopic philanthropy is the opposite of what a Christian does.
Rory Stewart, attacking Vance’s perspective as being tribal pagan, decrying a million in additional funding being cut off from his wife’s NGO is a prime example of disconnect between the globalist elites and those forced to support their efforts. They’re good people, in their own minds, for using piles of our tax dollars to teach modern art to Afghani villagers. To them Vance is a rube. But I seriously doubt their massive virtue-signals are of much or any practical long-term value. Charity does not take from one to give to another. It truly makes no sense that British socialites get a dime of our money for their pet projects. It makes even less sense that any professing Christians would defend USAID.
Not a theologian.
JD Vance’s commentary, for all its semantic stumbles, offers a grounded counterpoint to this telescopic philanthropy. His emphasis on starting with family, neighbors, and citizens before tackling the world’s woes challenges the elite obsession with grand, distant causes that often serve more as status symbols than solutions. While the globalist set may scoff at his provincial framing, they’d do well to heed the Gospel’s call to tend first to the needs at hand—quietly, humbly, and without fanfare. Vance may not be a theologian, but his instinct to root love in the local cuts through the hypocrisy of those who’d rather save the world on someone else’s dime than lift a finger for the suffering next door. In a culture dazzled by far-off heroics, his words remind us that genuine charity begins where our feet are planted.
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
(1 Timothy 5 KJV)
I had to think about that verse when reading an article about terrible dating advice given out by an Evangelical superstar shared by a friend. The article itself may be a bit unfair, in that we can rip quotes from a book and make almost any point we want. But I do believe that it raises an important point. A man who does not provide for their own family (and wife) is worse than an unbeliever.
There are so many highly motivated religious men that should never be married. As cited in the article, St Paul gave this advice:
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided.
(1 Corinthians 7:32-34 NIV)
In Orthodoxy, a priest must be married prior to ordination or remain single. Bishops are unmarried. This, I believe, is to help prevent conflicts of interest and so they remain ministry focused. Of course, if someone is so completely ‘sold out for Christ’ then they should not marry at all. And yet there are some who seem to want both the pleasure of marriage and also credit for their ‘missionary’ devotion. In other words, they neglect their responsibilities at home because they must be seeking their own personal vision. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Someone is getting shortchanged:
He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
(1 Timothy 3:4-5 NIV)
Red flags should go up when a church leader’s children do not respect their authority or leadership. It reminds me of the pastor that I knew, all of his children seem to be sexual addicts at a young age, they were totally wild, and most not in the church anymore. But, when this man was approached about stepping down or even taking a sabbatical, he would always find justification for not doing what Scripture clearly instructs. He reasoned that his leaving the pulpit would mean Satan win, and yet I’ll have you know that Satan won because he refused to repent or be humbled.
No, that is not to say a parent is completely responsible for the choices of their children either. However, there is influence there. And, if his example wasn’t working at home, why would he be so sure that it was beneficial to the church? He should have obeyed the word of God, that he would preach of so vigorously, and focused on the salvation of himself and his own children.
Being Truly Devoted To God
For those married being truly devoted to God means caring for those entrusted to us. The King James translation of 1 Timothy 5 may be use “he” and yet other translations do not. When men and women are too focused on career or climbing the social hierarchy, even if it appears righteous, they are betraying Christ. Even to neglect care of our elderly parents is in opposition to the word of God:
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ a and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
(Matthew 15:1-5 NIV)
This rebuke reminds me of a man that was always so devoted to beautifying the parish. An Orthodox of Orthodox, by appearances, and yet had emotionally and otherwise neglected his home. In fact, he had once bought a Christmas tree for the church and, meanwhile, left his wife fending for herself to decorate their home. I know this may seem insignificant. Still, it reflected some seriously screwed up priorities and, while his hidden infidelity was a disappointment, it was also not a big surprise. A righteous man should, first and foremost, be the priest of his own home.
So, in conclusion, devotion to the cause of Christ that results in a man who does not devote himself first to the needs of his own family is false devotion. It is the same spirit of the Pharisees (passage above) who would set aside care for their elderly parents and use it for a visible religious purpose. They would claim these resources were ‘devoted to God’ and yet God had told them to honor their parents first and foremost. In the end they were only virtue signaling and deceiving themselves, but Jesus was not fooled.
Christianity prioritizes the spiritual without sacrificing physical practicality. It is about faith that expands possibility and potential rather than limit it.
Many religious people teach some form of asceticism. This an idea that individuals who empty themselves totally of physical desire will find something spiritual and redemptive.
In the early church many did give up their material possessions (Acts 2:45) and were willing to sacrifice their all in faith as Jesus taught:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27)
Paul builds further on the same theme while encouraging the early church:
“Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” (1 Corinthians 4:16-18)
This is acknowledgement of reality. This world, our life in it, is temporal and will pass away. But in faith we can see what cannot be known through physical means. Through the Spirit, through the mysterious backdoor of our consciousness, we are able to see spiritual reality greater than what physical senses can detect. It is for this reason that we adjust our priorities according to what we know as the greater transcending reality.
But this is not asceticism in the sense of merely our emptying ourselves as an individualistic spiritual pursuit. No, this is intentional self-sacrificial love that compels us to go beyond our own individual gain and love as God loves. Our cross is not suffering for the sake of suffering, it is not a Gnostic self-loathing of our physical bodies, but is rather a means to the end and expression of deeper divine love.
Many practice asceticism as a means to judge their neighbors. Many deny themselves as to prove themselves superior to others and earn their salvation. However, this is not the way of Jesus. Jesus did not need to die to save Himself from sin or earn God’s favor. He did not sacrifice to prove our inferiority and bring judgement or condemnation:
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (John 3:17-18)
It is simply reality that we will all eventually die a physical death. That is true by default and not something inflicted upon us for sake of manipulation. This is scientific, a result of physical processes, something with causal explanation, and established. You will not physically die because you reject Jesus, but rather you will eventually physically die (with or without Jesus) and the only way to eternal life is faith in Jesus:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
We are saved because we believe in Jesus and through our belief are empowered to love in a way that transcends individualism and becomes all things to all people (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) so they too might be saved. Jesus explains obedience succinctly:
“Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)
It is that simple. This is not denial of physical desires for sake of individual spiritual gain or asceticism. This is denial of self for the collective good, as directed by the Spirit in those who believe, and so the lost can be saved.
It is not sin to enjoy life. It is in no way wrong to enjoy sexual pleasure (in appropriate context) and relationships based in biology. Having friends because of our physical proximity and the community we were born into is not inappropriate. However, when our preference for what is familiar supersedes Christian commitment, when we prioritize temporal pleasure over eternal gain, then we must repent.
Ultimately, what we do or do not possess individually and materially is of little consequence. It is not sin to have a successful business, big family or nice car. What ultimately does matter is that these pleasures of physical life do not distract and blind us. We must find our security in God rather than our possessions or other worldly pleasures.
To be in this world but not of it doesn’t mean a life of misery and complete abstinence from pleasure. Rather it is to possess the transformation of mind (Romans 12:2) that enables us to love more completely and experience greater joy than the world offers.
If you sell all or leave family behind, do it out of genuine love for your neighbor and not asceticism. Give freely because you believe in the eternal life Jesus promised and love God.
The one thing I did not cover in my recent post on the Good Samaritan story (and came up in a discussion with a friend afterwards) is that Jesus never did answer the question of who. The man asked who his neighbor was, but Jesus answered the question of how to be a good neighbor and told him to “go and do likewise.”
Not my neighbor, not my problem…
I was reminded of that again when discussing my frustration with social media. I’ve noticed how cute pictures and funny stories get dozens of likes or shares. However, when I posted a link to a woman with a real need and asked people who couldn’t give to like or share it the response was astonishing. It was zilch, nada, nothing…
I was lamenting that lack of response to another friend. They defended it saying that people get many requests for help and that I could sympathize with. But what was said next disturbed me coming from a person familiar with the story Jesus told about how to be a good neighbor. They suggested the “Biblical method” is that this woman’s family or local church should provide.
“If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:46-48 NIV)
That doesn’t seem like the ethic Jesus was describing. I don’t think the Samaritan cared much about jurisdiction or if it was his turn to give. I believe he saw a need, saw a person who needed help and simply gave it. That’s what it means to love your neighbor. That’s the example Jesus told the legal expert to follow.
On the other hand, I assume those men who passed by the battered man along the road were in good standing in their own communities, provided for their own families and gave tithe. But doesn’t everyone do that? We take care of our own because it is natural to do so, it is reciprocal altruism and a way to ensure our own survive.
Loving beyond the tribe of race, gender or denomination…
Yet Jesus was describing something far more radical. Jesus went as far as to tell his followers to hate their own families (Luke 14:26) and give all they had to the needy. This goes beyond the normal religious obligation of his day. This goes beyond defending our own biological progeny. It is a love bigger than nation, denomination and tribe.
Jesus preached (and those who continued to carry his message) against tribalism. They forsook their own wealth and families to preach a revolutionary message about a kingdom made up of all tribes and nations. They spoke of a kingdom where allegiances didn’t fall around race, gender or economic status. A kingdom of good neighbors.
Disturbed by visions too superficial, self-interested and small…
“Disturb us, Lord, when We are too pleased with ourselves, When our dreams have come true Because we dreamed too little, When we arrived safely Because we sailed too close to the shore.
Disturb us, Lord, when with the abundance of things we possess We have lost our thirst For the waters of life; Having fallen in love with life, We have ceased to dream of eternity And in our efforts to build a new earth, We have allowed our vision Of the new Heaven to dim.
Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly, To venture on wilder seas Where storms will show Your mastery; Where losing sight of land, We shall find the stars.
We ask you to push back The horizons of our hopes; And to push back the future In strength, courage, hope, and love.”
(Francis Drake)
It disturbs me when millions will be poured into political campaigns rather than used to meet real needs. Frankly, if you conservatives don’t think we need socialized medicine or if you liberals truly have a heart of compassion, then prove it with more than talk. Help somebody you can help rather than wait for others to take the lead for you.
It disturbs me when churches spend thousands on missions of questionable value to give young people an experience. If you are truly zealous and motivated by love (not self-interested like a kid on spring break trip justified by a thin veneer of religion) then be a good neighbor.
It disturbs me when our love is superficial. Our love is only superficial when we like cute pictures, comment on funny stories, advocate for political ideologies, seek donations so we can go on an adventure around the world and then aren’t disturbed by unfilled needs well within our reach.
My boss and I generally get along well. He has his preferences, I have my own preferences and usually we are able to find an agreement. But occasionally there are times of conflict as well.
Most of the conflicts are caused by abuse of exceptions. Exceptions are those times when my usual ‘rules’ are stretched to allow something I otherwise do not tolerate. Surprises, working weekends or working too late on a Friday are some of my understood (but unwritten) terms.
It is reasonable in the industry I am in that some flexibility is required. Delays often arise that are no fault of my employer and are the surprises I must tolerate to be reasonable. Then there are favors or the times I am flexible just because my boss is my friend and I want a good relationship. I will sometimes break my rules voluntarily as a matter of good will.
However, there seems to be a limit to how many exceptions can be made before the exceptions begin to become the rule. If I do too many favors soon they become expected entitlements rather than appreciated exceptions.
When I feel the balance of our mutual self-interests has been violated too far I will respond with protests. I suppose if my boss would not respond appropriately there would be further reaching consequences.
Broader Application and Implications
Individuals make arrangements between themselves my boss and I do. Groups of people also make arrangements with their individual parts that allow exceptions to the general rules for representatives of the group or to benefit exceptions within the group.
For example, there is an expectation that if one wants to eat they should work, but we do make exceptions for children and the disabled. But that list of beneficiaries can eventually grow to include irresponsible adults and those less truly disabled. It can also morph from being a special exception into an entitlement that is eventually is unfair to those paying the cost and abuse.
If the group never considers the needs of exceptions that is also a failure and negligence. It may not be at a noticeable cost to the group right away when the weak and minorities are unprotected or considered only an afterthought, but there is a cost even if it isn’t measured in financial losses. Lack of compassion is a moral loss.
Keeping a Balance of All Factors
This complex mobile of competing interests must constantly be fine tuned to maintain an appropriate balance. Part of balance is order of priority. It is recommended in an airliner cabin depressurization emergency that adults put their own masks on first so they aren’t incapacitated and unable to help others.
Rules must always define the exceptions in the same way the gravity that defines the order of a mobile must be respected or chaos will be the result. The picture of the Liebherr crane mobile above (watch this video) is a prime example. It is an exceptional display of engineering and some flexibility in weight bearing capacity, yet there are underlying rules that must be followed or the whole system will collapse.
The results of miscalculation, ignoring factors that influence stability and over stressing various structures (social, physical or otherwise) can result in catastrophic failures. Failure like that of “Big Blue” which fell into a tangled heap on a gusty day:
Prevent disasters by finding a balance that puts rules and exceptions in proper order and plans for the winds of life.
Irregular Ideation 