Skip to main content

Live Into Who You Want To Be

I watched an initial training for the Nurtured Heart Approach today. It is a child development system that seeks not just to reduce "poor" behavior but to turn the energy of the caregivers toward "good" behavior. In one segment the observation is made that if you asked a bunch of kids to suggest behavior rules for their own group, they would begin to list things like no hitting, no yelling, no talking while the teacher is talking, no horseplay, and no throwing things. Pretty standard, uh? 

Do you notice anything about that list? It's a list of "nos." The kids have been taught that rules are "don't do this and don't do that." This is so ingrained in them that when asked for their rules, they readily provide a stream of what not to do. The problem here is obvious - there are no expectations or rules for what you are supposed to be doing. There isn't even a mix of answers from the kids of positive and negative rules - they are all negative: no.
Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

The problem with negative rules, especially when the concept is so obviously deeply ingrained in us is that we don't know what to do. We can meet all the negative rules by simply sitting on our hands. Why don't we make positive rules: "be kind, be considerate, be patient, be helpful, be respectful, be responsible?" I suspect that if we focused on what to do - and reinforced it in a positive manner - the negative behaviors we don't want would slowly disappear.  In the mix, we might learn how to be.
In the Christian tradition, we have a long history of making up negative rules. This isn't entirely our fault in 2020 since we do have the Decalogue which is pretty negatively stated and then a seeming unending story of God punishing people for doing stuff wrongly. Then again, one of the most famous preachers and sermons are Johnathan Edwards and his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." And of course, the development in the Christian system of original sin and total depravity which do nothing much other than to reinforce the view that you are bad and need to be controlled. Whether we like it or not, much of Christianity buys into this paradigm.—using no rules.
One significant reason the Law could not save people is because not doing things, can’t save anyone. This because the point of the Christian tradition is the transformation of people into the image of God. Galatians 5 and its parallels are quite clear what sort of people God expects us to become.
There are some benefits to the negative approach and a challenge for the positive one. One benefit of the negative is that it is usually phrased very specifically - we should have no doubt about what specifically we are not supposed to be doing. After all, don't murder is pretty specific and unambiguous. Don't throw things is similarly not open to much interpretation. But if I tell you to be kind, what does that look like? The one being kind and the one to whom she is being kind may disagree on just what that is. So the positive has some challenges because they can be considerably vague. 
This is a common problem. It is exactly why Paul's letters so often have concrete examples in them,. Paul has to tell us what he’s expecting. In Ephesians, we find an admonition to be submissive to each other, and then a series of examples of what that means. You want me to submit to my wife - just how does a first-century husband do that, Paul? Paul gives us a short excursus on what that might look like in Ephesus to help us see what it is he’s after.
We can still hear - or read in our feeds - folks who lament those whose messages are too upbeat and positive because well you know, people should be told what they're doing wrong and how bad they are. We don't want to be scratching peoples' ears, you know. We humans love structure and we don’t want to get in trouble, so we often want to know the specifics and no rules provide a handy way of solving that problem. And so we get another sermon about what not to do.
Negatives then are usually specific and positives are often vague. How are we to nurture the positives in each other? By spending more time and energy in seeing what others are doing that are positive, and then commenting on it. Sometimes this is called “catching people doing good, and that phrase captures the idea. If instead of looking to ferret out what others are doing that they shouldn’t be doing, we want to actively look for those times and behaviors that lead in a positive direction — that actually will result in transformed people. If we notice and reinforce positive behavior sufficiently, the negative behaviors will naturally fall away. If I have become kindness incarnated, the chances of me murdering you are pretty slim and we don't need to use "don't murder" as a rule. We will have shaped each other into disciples and images of Jesus. And that’s what we want.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Passover, The First Born, Abraham, and You

Israel has been in captivity in Egypt, Moses has completed his contests with Pharaoh, and the People of Israel have been expelled from Egypt. The death of Egyptian firstborn children and livestock has compelled their removal into the wilderness. At the end of Exodus 12, God institutes the Passover in remembrance of the Angel of Death passing by the homes of Jews on the night the Egyptian firstborn children were killed. Notably, they were spared if in a house with blood around the door.  The Passover is established for Israel herself, including their slaves who have been circumcised. If a sojourner wants to celebrate the Passover with you, he can after he circumcises all males with him. I suspect that pretty much eliminated any visitors participating. In chapter 13, the protocols include redeeming Israel's firstborn. In this discussion, God says your firstborn belongs to God, and you must redeem your firstborn or you must kill it. God has redeemed Israel's firstborn by the blood...

Wineskins II

       In chapter 16 of Matthew, Peter ‘makes the great confession’ - Jesus he says is the Son of the Living God. At Covenant, when someone wants to become a member or to be baptized, we ask them who Jesus is and we expect this response. Peter is correct when he says this, but it is not clear that Peter (or the other disciples) understood the ramifications of his statement. Following Peter’s statement we find a series of incidents that make us wonder just how much Peters actually believed what he had said.      In the first instance, Jesus compares Peter to Satan. Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to Jerusalem and there he will die. Peter exclaims that he will not let that happen; Jesus will not be killed. Peter is expecting great things from Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God on behalf of Israel and he cannot fit Jesus dying into his hope for a greater Israel under this Messiah. This cannot happen, he reasons. Jesus’s response is a harsh re...

Elders redux

A reader (I am always amazed that people actually read this blog) submitted a rather long comment on the original post on Elders. It is apparent that the reader did some good homework as the comment has several, well, more than several, reference citations. It is clear that they both read the original post and did some Bible study before posting their comment. Because the comment was so long, I thought it appropriate to post another entry rather than bury the response in the comment log. In the following discussion, I have included the text of the comment without the Scripture references. If you want to read the comment in its entirety, scroll to the Elders post and click on the comment. --------------------------------------------------------- [Comment~~~~The church is expected to be a people in exactly this sense. We are the people of God who are charged with continuing and preserving the values, culture, hopes, and the identity of God’s people in our time.~~~~ Does this include th...