Deciding Priorities .......... Parables 672

June 13, 2000

It was 9 a.m. and the south side lab was already filled with patients waiting for their various tests. A young man rushed in and slapped his medical requisition on the counter. The receptionist placed it under the pile. He looked around anxiously then blurted, “Do I have to wait long? That is a problem. You see, I’ve been fasting fourteen hours.”

She smiled and said, “So has everyone else.”

Fasting all night is not a problem for those who normally skip breakfast but even then, some folks have trouble getting started without their morning coffee. For others, self-denial is difficult no matter what time of day it is.

Ours is a self-indulgent society. For years, we have heard that we need to be individuals, independent, and put number one first, meaning ourselves. Selfishness, in Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged, is even promoted as the greatest virtue.

Christians are told the opposite. While the Bible says, “each one should carry his own load” it means we ought not be freeloaders. It also says, “Look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Sometimes deciding priorities based on those commands becomes a difficult balancing act.

Every now and then my to-do list gets out of control and I want to unplug the phone and stay home until everything is caught up. At the same time, needy friends may call. Sometimes a family member wants help with something. If everything happens at once, which is the most important? Some are more appealing but if the list is long enough, each can seem a sacrifice.

FIRST, THE MOST DIFFICULT? Household chores can be a challenge, so it is tempting to go shopping, but some days shopping seems more difficult and the chores become an excuse to not do it. For me, deciding the most difficult is too subjective and unreliable.

FIRST, THE GREATEST NEED? If someone breaks their arm, that is one thing, but not all needs are as easy to evaluate. How would a lab decide which fasting person was the hungriest? Not only that, the demands of others are sometimes best left unanswered so they can learn to handle their own problems. Maybe I am not the best person to help. Maybe it is not the best time to get involved. The greatest need is a hazy issue.

FIRST, THE PERSONAL SACRIFICE? Some Christians say we should do first that which requires the most unselfish action. The idea is that most of us tend to pick the easiest, the most familiar, whatever is within our comfort zone. Challenges produce a sense of inadequacy and no one likes that feeling, but they do urge us to trust God and sacrifice our personal comfort.

FIRST, WHATEVER FEELS RIGHT? This would work if our feelings were reliable and if we belonged to ourselves. Feelings come and go and Christians do not own their own lives; we belong to God. He asks that we be led not by whimsy, but by His Spirit.

FIRST, WHAT DOES GOD WANT? When God asks a thing, that must be our priority. He considered the difficulty level and knows the need. He also knows He is our greatest resource and that we “can do all things through Christ who gives us strength.”

It is not a matter of what we discern is hardest or easiest, the most important or the least selfish. Besides, we generally have no real insight into those issues, at least not like God. Instead, we need to seek and listen to our Lord. He says “The mind (and the life) controlled by the Spirit is life and peace.” Doing His will is worth it.

Note that Ayn Rand’s lead character disagrees. He says, “A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altar of others is giving you death as your standard.” Nevertheless, Jesus followed that standard and spent His entire life controlled by the Holy Spirit. Then by obedience, Jesus conquered sin and death and bids us to follow His example. The criteria is not whether the thing is easy or difficult, a delight or a challenge. Instead, we need to ask ourselves: Does God want me to do this?

Justice or Mercy? .......... Parables 469

April 25, 1995

Consider this moral and judicial dilemma. A woman has two rare diseases, one of which requires intravenous feeding. Government health care funds have paid for treatment, a legitimate claim. However, there is a complication; she and her husband have been accused of defrauding the government out of welfare payments.

Some say a thief is a thief—justice demands punishment. Others say the woman could die if she is not shown mercy, let her alone. If she is found guilty as charged, how can her crime be reconciled with her helplessness?

Should those who believe that we must uphold the letter of the law stop and consider the condition of the lawbreakers heart? Was this person desperately in need? Was she motivated by fear of dying? Did she attempt any legitimate means of getting enough money? Is she sorry for any wrong she may have done? There are no excuses for breaking the law but penalties can vary, depending on the guilty person’s attitude.

Those who make decisions based on pity also should consider what is going on in the perpetrator’s heart. Is she a deceitful crook? Is she selfishly taken up with her own needs without any concern for others who might suffer because of her actions? Did she ignore all legitimate methods and simply hope she did not get caught? Is she defiant toward those she may have deceived? Showing mercy is commendable but is it always right to do so?

If I had to pass judgment on this situation, I would pray for the wisdom of Solomon. He was a king of ancient Israel and once approached by two women arguing over a baby. One rolled over during the night and suffocated her child so she took the other’s baby and claimed it as her own. Only the women knew which was which and both of them accused the other of negligence and kidnaping.

Solomon was not baffled. He asked for a sword and ordered the child be split in two, half given to each woman. One said that was a good idea. The other said “No! Give the baby to her,” pointing to the other woman. Solomon knew a mother’s heart. He gave the baby to the one who would rather give up her child than see it killed.

Because we cannot always evaluate someone’s motives, sorting it out the claims made by those involved in a dispute is difficult. When my children had their three-way spats, I usually asked what was going on or how it started. Sometimes they offered three convincing but different stories while each claimed innocence.

Unlike me, or even Solomon, God knows what makes everyone tick. No “story” can fool Him. Also, He knows how guilty people will respond if they receive harsh condemnation or if they are given leniency and mercy. He knows when chastening will result in a changed life and when mercy will have the most impact.

Anyone evaluating cases like that of the sick woman in the first story will ask many questions. Whose prerogative is it to pardon or charge a seriously ill person for abusing the system? If she is not charged and goes unpunished, how many people will try it next? If she is charged, how can she pay any penalty if she is so ill she cannot move?

When one doubts whether to pass judgment or show mercy, someone once said it is better to err on the side of mercy. Guilty or innocent, God is the ultimate judge. Anyone who is unjustly punished in this life will be vindicated and those who escape justice will eventually answer for their crimes.

Issues of right and wrong ....................... Parables 104

We live in an age of issues. Canadians are wrestling over everything from zoning laws to abortion rights. These issues are dividing people, drawing them to opposite sides in political, moral, religious and social wars. As angry words are hurled across various battlefields, few are left in the middle without opinions. It is “get on a band wagon” or get slaughtered by the cross fire.

There is much talk about rights in these issues, but should the focus be limited to rights? In concern for personal life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, have people cried “I want my rights” so often that they have lost the ability to want or even ask, “What IS right?”

Why have we stopped asking that question? Is it because we have lost the sense of any standard of right? Has modern philosophy, in all its sophistication, become so “me-first” oriented that we don’t even care what is right anymore? Are we only interested in what is comfortable?

It that is so, Jesus Christ encountered similar people. They wanted religious and political rights and the right to do whatever they pleased. But He told them that this life is but a breath of smoke, a short preparation for eternity. He told them that He was the eternal God and that He came, not to judge them, but to save them from wasting their short lives on sin, sin that at best offers only temporary pleasure. He said, “The words that I speak to you . . .  are life” (John 6:63).

Jesus said that His Word brings life to those who heed it, separation from God to those who reject it. He warned that ignorance of His Word or neglect offers no permanent escape.

The people didn’t want to hear that. They were caught up in their secular philosophies, no different from today’s attitudes: “This life is all there is . . .  I will give it my best shot . . .  eat, drink, enjoy myself . . .  when you’re dead, you’re dead . . .  what is right for me is right for me and no one is going to interfere with my rights . . .  least of all God.”

Jesus saw people like sheep without a shepherd, wandering away from the values that would guide them into decisions that bring eternal blessing. He was filled with compassion. He cried out to them. He performed miracles. He healed the sick. He cast out demons. He walked on water. He raised the dead. He told them to follow Him and He would not only give them abundant life, He would give them eternal life.

Even a casual reading of the New Testament reveals that the life of Jesus is a perfect example, worthy of possessing. Furthermore, by His standard we can evaluate the quality of our life. But what happens if He is rejected? We are left with our sin-tainted human values, lacking in clarity, unity and objectivity; left with conflicting standards that are so very subject to the “I-wants” of whoever is setting them.

Most of the people Jesus challenged didn’t want eternal life or abundant life. They would have settled for an earthly king who would bring them comfort, but when He wouldn’t do that, they decided to kill Him; “We will not have this man rule over us.” They didn’t like the divine measurement of His sinless life.

Jesus warned them of the consequences: “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day . . . “ (John 12:48-50).

We may say, “What is right for me is right for me . . .  I make up my own rules . . . “ but God is outside our systems of philosophy. Psalm 2 says that he laughs over the puny efforts of self-centered man grasping for his “rights” and one day His Word will prevail. In other words, Jesus said those who reject His Standard will some day stand before Him and be judged by the Word they rejected.

It’s never too late to dust it off and see what it says.