Luke 10:1-11, 16-20

I won't go into too much detail here. I know a lot of attention gets paid to wiping the dust off their sandals. It might be related to a tradition that indicates the town is pagan, more exclusionary lanuguage. I'm not sure it's that bad. First, it talks about going on their missions without any possessions. We don't see anything like this today, except maybe the Jainists in India. The idea is, spiritual teachers shouldn't be worried about worldly goods. They shouldn't be first trying to fund their excursions, then doing them, they should just go. If the community welcomes them and takes care of them, it is a sign of spiritual health of that community. The community is setting aside a little, in case such teachers do come by. They are ready to accept them and consider their words. It sounds strange in a capitalist world, but I like the vision.

I don't however recommend the strategy. I know there are stories like people throwing some instruments in a van and seeing what happens, and they end up singing the gospel and getting paid for it for a while. These stories don't usually mention the guy who called his mom from a gas station in North Dakota to wire them some gas money. I am very much an advocate for planning. These instructions from Jesus worked because the culture supported the idea. They also had to have some good lessons, good stories, and maybe some ointments to cure a few headaches. Somewhere between that ancient tradition and our modern world, there's a vision where teaching values is considered important and worth supporting those who do it.

Then, it examines what to do if they don't feed you. Well, move on. This strategy doesn't work in all cases, but frequently I see people doing the opposite. I see them looking for the toughest crowds, the thickest walls, and they want to go after those. They don't want to preach to the choir, and can't stop thinking about the worst problems. That strategy will fail almost every time. You won't have successes to celebrate. You won't be building a following. You will be wearing yourself down. If you fail, you won't leave much of a legacy.

This one wraps up with language about demons and getting into heaven. I don't have anything to say about that. It mentions you can tread on snakes and scorpions. I don't recommend that.

Galatians 6:(1-6), 7-16

The concise version of the Rule of Christ is given in Matthew 18:15-17. It comes around next year. This passage gives a little more detail about an aspect of that, the part about listening to one another. This is one of the things I like about the Bible. It is very open about dealing with internal problems. If you’re going to go out and save the world, you might want to lay out some ground rules. After you’ve gone out and done some good works then come back to have a meeting about it, there might be some disagreement. Before that happens, have a conversation about what you will do when you disagree.

The modern technical answer is Robert’s Rules of Order, or some variation. Those can be difficult to understand and subject to abuse in the wrong hands. Less formal groups will say they are using a consensus model, but people have different ideas about what that means. The Occupy movement has come up with some clever ideas using hand gestures, but getting older folks to adopt those might be a challenge. None of these systems will work if there isn’t an underlying spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. Systems allow you to point out disrespect without naming names or using subjective terms like “you interrupted me” or “I know how you think”.

The Bible tells us stories of the people who came up with these ideas for how to build community. This passage uses the example of a transgression, but we can’t go back 2,000 years and determine what rules may or may not have been broken. The suggestions given will work well for any type of disagreement. It says not to get drawn into it, and I take that to mean don’t get drawn into a shouting match about it either. “Bear one another’s burdens” can be heard as “seek first to understand.” And, don’t get too caught up in your own project and think it’s more important just because it’s yours.

Then we get into another discussion of “spirit” and “flesh”, like last week. I don’t find these words useful because they aren’t defined. We can however, take a look at the idea of reaping what you sow. We know what those words mean. If only it were true. If only life were actually fair. If, by doing “good”, things turned out well for us. If, when people were “bad”, they paid a commensurate price. That would be great. That is the promise here, and we all know it doesn’t work. But Paul is so sure it does, he even says to not “weary in doing what is right”. I could twist this into good advice by saying, “don’t worry about being perfect”. If your intentions and motives are good, hopefully life will go well for you, but it’s no guarantee. That’s the best I can do with that, but in context, it seems like Paul is brushing the difficulty of dealing with details under the rug, and saying just follow Christ, it will work out.

He tries to sum up that section by saying, “So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.” For me, this whole thing goes south right there. He goes right in to talking about getting circumcised or not*. He’s saying the old symbol won’t get you into heaven anymore, “but a new creation is everything”, the new symbol is the one to follow. If you follow this rule, he’ll wish you peace. This is exclusionary language. It’s ironic that he says some in the new Christian community are saying you should get circumcised, but they are only doing that to look good. It’s ironic that he’s talking about throwing away a symbol of your inclusion with the old in-group, then just replacing it with another. His symbol is about belief in an idea, but it’s not much of an improvement. He’s not taking the suggestions he made at the beginning of this passage. What this amounts to is, Paul first says, “let’s be reasonable and gentle”, then “just listen to God”, and then “obviously that will lead you to agree with me.”

* Some Jews in the early movement wanted to keep circumcision as a requirement for inclusion in this new religion. Jesus advocated dropping the requirement, although it was unclear so they argued about it after his death. He definitely advocated for allowing gentiles into the movement. Adult circumcision is a difficult surgery even today, so this would have been a big barrier to adding people to the following. Alternatively, the gospel stories may have been factions of the followers of this new movement using their stories to make the arguments. Paul carried a lot of authority, but he obviously had trouble selling this idea, so if someone claimed Jesus himself said something about it, that would carry a little more weight.