Can You Solve This Jewish Riddle?

This is an old Jewish joke/parable that you can find all around but in case you have not read/heard it, here is a parable of men going down a chimney. Can you solve it? 

A young man knocks on the door of the Rabbi. The man says, “I would like to study the Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic and Hebrew and have you studied the Torah?” the rabbi asks.

“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation on Socratic logic. I believe that I am ready to study the Talmud.”

The rabbi says, “If you wish I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”

The young man agrees.

The Rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face.”

 “I cannot believe I did not think of that!” the young man says. “Give me another test.”

The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

 "The one with the clean face washes his face, you just said.”

 “Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. Therefor they each wash their face.”

“I didn’t think of that, but now I understand. Test me again.” says the young man.

The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

 “Each one washes his face."  

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So neither one washes his face.”

The young man presses on. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

The rabbi groans as he lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

 “Neither one washes his face.”

 “Wrong. Do you now see why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is  foolishness! If you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”

No, Jesus Does Not Pay Our Debt

The story is preached from the street corner to pulpits around the world: Humans are sinners all sin demands repayment (justice), but the "good news" is Jesus paid the debt. It is a fine story. But it is not Gospel. 

Photo by Ruth Enyedi on Unsplash

When framed this way, Christ does not forgive the debt of sin but only pays it off. Meaning that God is still a God who demands a tit-for-tat. Every sin requires a payment. Every debt is due. At the end of time, all accounts will balance. This sense of balance is often described as justice, which makes us feel good, but it is not Gospel. 

Rather than paying the debt, Jesus forgives the debt. To forgive a debt means that the debt that was owed is erased. To pay the debt means the debt is still there but now it is balanced. God who demands the debt to be paid is not the God of the radical grace and love that Jesus points us to. This pay-the-debt god is a false idol that we place our trust in because it "makes sense" that every debt is to be paid. 

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is one that does not "make sense" in so many ways. The Gospel is one that proclaims that there is no debt to pay off. It is, and you are, forgiven. If you have to have a ledger page to show it, the debt line has been erased - as though it was never owed to begin with. 

It is a nice story, Jesus pays our debt, but this story maintains a social order built upon score keeping, grudge holding, and gracelessness. It is not Good News. 

Indispensable: What Leaders (or Pastors) Really Matter

Gautam Mukunda's 2012 book, Indispensable: When Leaders Really Matter explores the "filtering" process to identify leaders within an organization. Specifically Mukunda argues that those who make it through the filtering process could be called "modal" leaders - the variance of decisions made within modal leaders is very small, thus modal leaders are interchangeable. That is if a pool of people make it through the filtering process then that pool of people (no modal leaders) will make very similar decisions even if there is only one job to contend for. Modal leaders are consistently on the spectrum between "bad" and "good". This mans they are rarely horrible, conversely it also means they are rarely game changing excellent leaders.

Photo by Joseph Pearson on Unsplash

In my way of thinking, modal leaders are leaders who will consistently give you a single base hit. Every now and again, the modal leader will do something flashy to get to the base, but they are only getting to first base. Even rarer, the modal leader may hit a double but conditions really have to be right.

However, Babe Ruth was not a modal baseball player. He was a high risk/high reward player: hitting home runs or striking out. Mukunda identifies these high risk/high reward leaders as "extreme" leaders. Because of their risk, extreme leaders in an organization often are people who for various reasons skit the filtering process. Mukunda says there are many ways you can skirt the process: money, celebrity, legacy, etc. Often we hear of successful extreme leaders, but extreme leaders are risky and most organizations are interested in mitigating risk not amplifying it. 

The United Methodist Church is an organization that has a very stringent filtering process. Most clergy have a high school degree, a four year bachelors degree, a four year graduate degree and then a two (or more) years of residency. Put another way, the youngest someone can be an elder in full connection in the UMC is 28 years old (do keep that in mind when thinking about how few clergy are under 35 years old, you can only be in that category for seven years.)

This stringent filtering process means that the UMC is full of modal leaders. I am a modal leader. Modal leaders are solid but of course we have our limits and when an organization asks modal leaders to function as non-modal (aka: extreme) it is an uphill climb. Truthfully, if modal clergy were extreme clergy then they, more than likely, would not have been ordained to begin with.