The Conversation on the Other Side of the Red Sea

There is a midrash story told about the splitting of the Red Sea. Specifically about who will go into the sea first. I collected this translation from Conservative Yeshiva Online. I hope you might read the original writing as it is very good.

(Exodus 14:22) "And the children of Israel came in the midst of the sea on the dry land": Rabbi Meir said one interpretation. When the tribes stood at the sea, this one said: ‘I will descend first into the sea’ and the other said: I will descend first into the sea’. In the midst of their argument, the tribe of Benjamin jumped and descended into the sea first, as it is written: ‘There is little Benjamin who went into the sea (rodem), the princes of Judah who stoned them, the princes of Zebulun and Naphtali. Your God has ordained strength for you, the strength, O God, which you displayed for us on high.’ (Psalms 68:28-9) Do not read “rodem – ruling them” but “rad yam – descended into the sea” Then the princes of Judah threw stones at them, as it says: ‘The princes of Judah stoned them’

A parable. To what can this be compared? To a king who had two sons, one older and one younger. The king said to the younger one: ‘Wake me up at sunrise’ and he told his older son: ‘Wake me up at the third hour of the day‘. When the younger son went to wake his father at sunrise, the older brother did not let him, saying: ‘Father told me to wake him at the third hour.’ The younger brother responded: ‘He said top me at sunrise.’ While they were standing and arguing, their father woke up and he said to them: ‘My sons, in any case, both of you only had my honor in mind. So, too, I will not withhold my reward from you.

Here the ironic part of the story that the tribes who wanted to prove that they were the most faithful to God were the ones who attempted harm. One might think that God would reward the tribe of Benjamin for their faithfulness and also punish the other tribes for their attempted harm towards Benjamin. And yet, the midrash calls that into question with the parable in which neither son fulfils the commandment of the king. It is also worth noting that each son attempts to stop his brother in the attempt to accomplish the commandment the other was given. Then the king wakes up and does not punish either son for their failure to follow either commandment nor for being an obstacle to the other.

Be it the LMC, the GMC, (both of which have an image of communion on the homepages) or the UMC (with an image of serving those in need on the homepage), or any other movement/denomination that ends in “MC”, there is a strong temptation to pick up stones and take aim at the other we see being “irresponsible” while our side is “faithful”.

The current UMC stands at the edge of the sea. We are stuck between the fear of being powerless to stop the coming armies of change, and the frustration as we face a legislative sea we cannot navigate. Some are arguing, others are quite, still others are jumping in.

The parable suggests that God can give contradicting commandments to the children. This parable suggests to me that it is our unease with contradiction that is the problem, not the commandments. Until we come to peace with the contradictions we find in the Bible, the contradictions we find in ourselves, the contradictions of being a church, we will be tempted to thwart and stone one another. Rather than try to eradicate the contradiction by splitting and breaking and “othering”, the contradictions give us a chance to practice living with one another - even as we disagree - so that we can learn to love fully.

We spend a lot of time focusing on the conversations we are having on this side of the sea. However, one day we will get to the other side of the sea. The crisis will subside. The threat will be gone. And then we will have to turn to one another and realize God did not leave anyone behind.

I wonder what the conversation was like on the other side of the sea between the tribes? I doubt they argued about who was the most faithful, but turned their attention to thanksgiving and praise for God’s faithfulness. I wonder what the conversation of the sons were after the king rewarded them both, even in their failures? I bet it was less about who was the better son and more about how can they mirror the king.

Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy - Two "Rights" Making Us Wrong

One of the ways that people talk about the divisions in the church is along a fabricated line between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. One is about having the right beliefs while the other is about doing the right actions. One elevates the head while the other elevates the hands. One wants to be sure you are able to confess the correct beliefs while the other wants to be sure you are doing the correct pro-social behavior.

It is too simple to say that those who elevate orthodoxy do not care about what you do or that those who elevate orthopraxy do not care about what you believe. It is rather that in any sort of dichotomy there will always be one that is elevated as slightly more important than the other. We may say we hold these two equally, and for the most part we do, but inevitably we will put things in a slight order. Like going to the grocery store. You don’t get the milk last because it is least important, but because that is how the store is organized.

And so, over time, the church fabricates a division between the orthodoxy and the orthopraxy. While making the case for their slightly elevated preference, a fine line is created. Over the years the line gets more and more visible and rigid to the point where now there are “camps” within the church. There are those who feel that if we do not have the correct beliefs then the church will become obsolete since you can do correct action in a lot of places. There are others who feel that the mystery of God is so vast that the narrowness of belief will turn people off to the church thus making church obsolete, so liberate people to have a wide beliefs so the church can promote the right actions of Christ.

The irony is that both approaches are much closer than they realize.

It might be thought of in this way. The Orthodox group want people to first believe the right things, then they will do the right behaviors at which point they will belong to the Church.

Conversely, the Orthopraxy group want people to first do the right behaviors, then they will come to believe the right things at which point they will belong to the Church.

In each group belonging to the Church is contingent upon having both right belief and action first.

The struggle is that Orthodoxy and the Orthopraxy camps are both correct and yet both missing the mark. Studies in psychology, sociology and anthropology (not to mention theology and philosophy) show that humans crave and need the safety of belonging. In fact humans will believe or do some very awful things in order to acquire the security that comes with belonging.

And so, this is in part why the Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy camps will always come up short. Each side has is bass ackwards. If we are interested in midwifing the kingdom of God, the repairing of the light, the restoration and regeneration of the world, and the flourishing of all, then we must BEGIN with belonging.

Beginning with belonging is not orthodoxy or othopraxy but orthocardia - having a right heart.

When we signal and show that we belong to one another, that we are safe with each other, that we care for and about one another, then we can talk about what should come next (belief or action). Perhaps more profound is that we will discover how belief and actions are too interrelated to separate out, but that is for another time.

As the world and church continue to fight about what is the right way to live or the right things to think, we will continue to grow more aggrieved and lost. We will find that the more extreme viewpoints will get greater influence. The more we build churches on “what we believe” or “how to become a member” the more we will continue to fail to meet the deep need of humanity. It is not until we abandon the need for litmus tests of word and action that we will see the right heart of Christ beating in the world.

Frontier and the UMC

In my undergraduate studies I was introduced to this idea called “Frontier Thesis”. Upon reflection, I wish we spent more time unpacking the thesis, but we did not. Taken from the Wiki on the subject the thesis in a nutshell:

In the thesis, the American frontier established liberty by releasing Americans from European mindsets and eroding old, dysfunctional customs. The frontier had no need for standing armies, established churches, aristocrats or nobles. There was no landed gentry who controlled most of the land and charged heavy rents and fees. Frontier land was practically free for the taking. 

This thesis promoted by Frederick Jackson Turner suggests that the frontier provides a vision for a utopia. In the frontier there would be no need for bureaucracies, rent, institutions or even standing armies because the land was “practically free for the taking”. Of course the land was not free for the taking. There were millions of people living on those lands, and they were not “free for the taking.” These lands were conquered through enslavement, killing and displacement. The frontier continued to be the draw for so many people because of the perception that there would be more land and resources for everyone. If you arrived somewhere and there were already people on the land, you could kick them off with a guilt free conscious not only because of racism but also with a sense that there was more land “out there” they could go to.

We hear echos of this today when someone says, “This is America and if you don’t like it you can go somewhere else.” Even if it were possible to easily move from your home, which it is not, the assumption is that there is always “another” place that you can go. There is always a frontier, there is another place that we (or you) can expand to in order to allow for a utopia.

Frontierism, at it’s core, suggests that there is no problem that cannot be fix through expanding. Putting the double negatives aside, it assumes that every problem can be fixed by expanding. Of course there are some problems that can be addressed by expanding. For instance, expanding access to the ballot box by expanding voting measures. However, not every problem can be addressed by expanding. Additionally, expanding creates more problems than we care to admit.

In the UMC we face a set of denominational issues before us: declining of membership, aging membership, decline of finances, etc. As it stands now, the solution being offered is some version of the frontier myth. If we expanded our market then our problems would be resolved. If we had more disciples. If we had more money. If we had more churches. If we had better and more leaders. If we had more robust theological education. The assumption is that if we had more then we would not be in the trouble we are in.

It is argued that expanding can solve problems, but if we are honest we might come to see that expanding is constantly good at one thing - masking.

Expanding masks problems rather than address or fixes them. For instance, if the UMC had growing membership and bank accounts to the brim, our problems would still exist. We would not see the structural and systemic problems of our denomination. We would be too juiced up on all the new and expanding churches, and not have time or interest to the underlying and hidden problems. And here is perhaps the greatest problems that needs to be addressed:

The mythology that expanding is the solution is part of the problem because it masks.

I am reminded of the late Carlo Carretto who wrote:

How baffling you are, oh Church, and yet how I love you! How you have made me suffer, and yet how much I owe you! I would like to see you destroyed, and yet I need your presence. You have given me so much scandal and yet you have made me understand what sanctity is. I have seen nothing in the world more devoted to obscurity, more compromised, more false, and yet I have touched nothing more pure, more generous, more beautiful. How often I have wanted to shut the doors of my soul in your face, and how often I have prayed to die in the safety of your arms. No, I cannot free myself from you, because I am you, though not completely. And besides, where would I go? Would I establish another? I would not be able to establish it without the same faults, for they are the same faults I carry in me. And if I did establish another, it would be my Church, not the Church of Christ. I am old enough to know that I am no better than anyone else.

We can expand by starting new denominations, but we are only continuing to mask the reality that expanding (which is a form of expulsion) only continues to divide the house. And as we know, a house divided cannot stand. The house is the myth of expanding and one of these days that myth will fall. Until we repent of our addiction to the frontier myth we will always be willing to divide the world with the false belief that the divisions will bring utopia.

Maranatha!