Revisiting Maslow

Abraham Maslow proposed that human being have a hierarchy of needs.  The most basic and fundamental are their physiological needs - food, water, air and the like.  Coming out of this thinking is the notion that it is useless to try to address the higher needs such as love and belonging if the lower or basic needs are not met.  Makes sense.  People will care little about achievement (an esteem need according to Maslow) if they haven't eaten in 4 days or are constantly threatened by a band of marauders. An interesting manifestation of this theory can be seen on the reality program The Colony.  There a group of survivors fend for their basic needs.  Once those are met, some other needs come into play.

It's not that I think myself an adequate judge of Maslow's theory, or that I have studied it sufficiently to say I entirely understand it, but I sometimes wonder if we really understand what our greatest need is.

Take, for example, Jesus' interaction with a paralyzed man in Matthew 9.  In this text, a group of friends bring a man who could not walk to Jesus expecting or at least hoping Jesus would heal him.  Jesus responds this way:

And when he saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son, your sins are forgiven."  (Matthew 9:2)

A remarkable thing to say to this man.  An offensive thing, apparently, given the reaction of the scribes and Pharisees.  We, too, might find it offensive, but probably for a different reason.

The scribes and Pharisees were offended because Jesus was claiming to have the authority to forgive sins - something only God can do.  So, if we work it out logically, Jesus is claiming to be equal to God and that is blasphemous (unless, of course, it is true.)  What is also remarkable is that I am not bothered by Jesus' claim to be equal to God (because I think it true) but as a Maslowite, I am bothered by Jesus' insensitivity to the man's plight as a paralytic.  The has has a MAJOR practical problem.  He can't walk, can't work and provide for himself or a family.  He is therefore at the margins of his society.  And Jesus forgives his sins.  Not only does this gloss over his obvious pedal locomotion challenge, but it adds the insinuation that the man has a moral problem on top.  No pastoral sensitivity points to Jesus on this one.

In the end, what is alarming is that we, post-modern Maslowites, are farther away from Jesus than the scribes and Pharisees!  What Jesus and the religious leaders of his day have in common is the conviction that, despite the man's physical issues, his greatest problem is sin and his greatest need is forgiveness from it.  They are on the same page with that.  They only differ on who has the authority to dispatch the sin.  We are farther away.  We are not convinced that his need for forgiveness is the most basic one.  The alarming part is that Jesus said "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."  We seem to be on the wrong end of this spectrum.  It's never good when the Pharisees are closer to Jesus than me.

As a paralytic, the man has a social, vocational and physical problem.  He is separated, in part, from his society,  (Only in part, because he clearly has good friends.)  As a sinner, however, he is separated from God.  This latter has greater long-term ramifications.

There is more gospel in this story - Jesus heals the man's legs before he is done.  He deals with all of the man's needs.  (Maslow, I think, would approve.)  But Jesus is not confused as to what the man's greatest need is.

Waiting

A few weeks ago my son ordered a new set of bindings for his snowboard (an odd time of the year, I realize, but he will be good to go as soon as the snow flies.)  Well, to be perfectly frank, I ordered them on my account at the online store so all the shipping communication came to me.  There was a daily request on the status of the shipment - has it shipped?  where is it now? when will it arrive?  Due to the wonders of information technology all of these questions were readily answerable.  "It is in Chelmsford, MA."  Wherever that is.  Oh wait, that information is readily available as well. (It is just southwest of Lowell, making it northwest of Boston.)  We are relieved.

My son lived in a period of extreme anticipation, knowing that something he desired was on the way, but unsure of exactly when it would arrive.  And here, between the Ascension and the feast of Pentecost, the disciples found themselves in the same circumstances, if you take the snowboarding out of it and ratchet up the cosmic significance a few thousand notches.  And as I remember that time, Jesus command that they wait until they were clothed with power, his word that he would send the promise of the Father, as I wait, I am wondering about the work of the Holy Spirit.

He, the Holy Spirit, seems to create controversy in the ranks of the faithful.  I remember someone saying to me many years ago, in semi-allergic reaction to the peculiar (both meanings of "peculiar" intended here) manifestation of charismatic revival in his midst, "I liked it better when we called him the Holy Ghost and he didn't do anything."  Ah, the good old days.

There are two perspectives that I can discern, each with strengths and weaknesses, on the work of the Holy Spirit.  And they sometimes seem to be mutually exclusive. The first is overtly charismatic - focuses on the charisms or gifts of the Holy Spirit.  Here the work of the Holy Spirit is seen as the power of God in miracles and wonders.  This is the Pentecostal (biblical event, not Christian denomination) perspective.  The Holy Spirit comes in flames and wind, in power.  This is also an Old Testament perspective.  the Holy  Spirit, or Spirit of the Lord would come upon individuals and they would prophesy.  It happened also to David when he was anointed by Samuel as king over Israel.  "And the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward." (I Samuel 16:13)   We see this work in the scriptures on the day of Pentecost and throughout the mission of the church in Acts as well as in Paul's letters.

And here is the strength of this understanding - God is present and powerful.  Good to remember, as we tend to relegate him to the role of distant judge or vaguely benevolent grandfather.  The weakness, however, is in the discounting of the sublter workings of the Holy Spirit - the glossing over of the less spectacular.  And, sadly, a disdain for those who don't "have it."

The other perspective is that the Holy Spirit is the one who leads us into all truth.  To be sure, he is that.  Jesus describes him as such. (John 16:13) And that he is the sanctifier of the faithful.  Again, no argument here.  He is the one who produces growth, change and holiness in us.  He is the one who convicts us of sin (a great reminder to those among us who feel this is our calling and pursue it with devastating zeal.)  He is the Comforter.  His work is to produce fruit in us - character and virtue: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control. (Galatians 5:22)

The strength of this perspective is that it acknowledges his work with is less spectacular, although no less important.  It acknowledges the quiet yet inexorable faithfulness of God to make us into who he intends us to be.  The weakness, however, is that it is safe, predictable and, if I play my cards right, ignorable.  It can easily domesticate God for us.  And, as Mr. Beaver and the day of Pentecost remind us, he is not a tame lion.  With it also comes a distrust of the exuberant charismatics who are "nice enough, but a little wacky."

Biblically, the work of the Holy Spirit is clearly both.  And as I wait this Ascensiontide, I wait for the supernatural presence of God who miraculous and spectacularly heals me and who, less spectacularly, teaches, sanctifies and comforts me.

HRH

I have been recommending, indeed advocating, that people take a moment to watch the Queen's (that would be Elizabeth II for those wondering which queen) Christmas message in 2011. The suggestion has been met with polite acquiescence, the "I'll humor him" look, as well as the rolling of eyes. My most recent plea included the thought, "It's seven minutes of your life." Clearly less than we waste hearing about cats and weight loss on facebook daily. It is hard to be a monarchist in a republican country...

My advocacy of the Queen's message this past year in particular has everything to do with its solidly and unapologetically Christian message (appropriate on CHRISTmas, I think.) This, of course is a digression. It is not every day that I am thinking about HRH. But I am today because today is essentially coronation day.

Today is the fortieth day after Easter, the day we remember the Ascension of Jesus to heaven. It is a major feast of the church but often slips by unnoticed because we either don't take notice of the feasts of the church (shame because feast is fun) or because it doesn't fall on our usual worship day.

All of the appointed lessons for Ascension talk about the sovereignty of God and the reign of Christ. "He ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of God the Father." says the creed. This is an ascension to a throne (sits being the give-away word here). Ascension is the Father's acknowledgement of the reign and rule of Jesus the Christ. It is his coronation day.

As coronation day it comes some time after his battle and victory. The battle was the cross; the victory, the resurrection. And some time after comes the coronation. Forty days in this case. In the Return of the King, the last volume of Tolkien's trilogy, Aragorn who becomes king fights his battles (one outside the his gates and one outside the gates of the enemy) and is victorious. After all this he returns to Minas Tirith and is crowned King. The coronation is the acknowledgement of his reign and rule, which is his both by right of birth and by the merits of his victory.

Aragorn is but a figure of Christ Jesus, whose rule and reign on this day we remember.

The psalm appointed for this morning says:
For God is King of all the earth;
sing praises with all your skill. (Psalm 47:7)

The writer to the Hebrews also reminds us today:
You made him for a little while lower than the angels;
you have crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet.

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, to that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:7-9)

The writer here underlines one of the common struggles of believing in the reign of Jesus, trusting in the truth of his ascension to the right hand of God - we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. (Yet is the give-away word this time). His reign, though real, is still being worked out in the world, and frankly in me. But that does not make it any less real. Another favorite book comes to mind as I think about the working out of reign. Caspian, king of Narnia, in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, relates to Edmund and Lucy what has happened since they had left Narnia, just after Caspian's victory. He tells them he still had to deal with some "troublesome giants on the frontier." Rule and reign is worked out over time, but that does not make it any less rule and reign, nor any less complete.

Charles Wesley, in acknowledging this day and his King wrote this:
Hail the day tha sees him rise
To his throne above the skies
Christ, the Lamb for sinners given,
Enters now the highest heaven!

And for those who have seven minutes of their life to invest, here's the link to the Queen's message:
Queen Elizabeth II Christmas Message 2011

The Beautiful

Being of rural Nova Scotian Scots Presbyterian (heavy on the Scots, a little lighter on the Presbyterian) extraction, I was exposed to a very frugal, utilitarian, waste-not-want-not mindset. This is perhaps why my grandmother insisted that the moldy cheese was perfectly fine (cheddar, not stilton which is meant to be moldy.). In her defense, no one became ill from ingesting the stuff. It is perhaps also why my father never threw anything out. Contra Jesus' suggestion, he just built larger barns to hold the goods, including the horse-drawn sleigh that was notably missing the horse.

All that to say usefulness and practicality were the measures by which an object's value was measured. Beauty was a secondary or even tertiary concern. A thing need not be beautiful. It needed to be inexpensive and useful. That it was beautiful was not considered necessary. We were not art collectors (although Dad collected almost everything but.)

The Presbyterian-rooted church I went to as a child was UNADORNED. Pale blue walls were accented by exactly nothing except perhaps the standard-issue burgundy church carpet down the aisles. In my adolescent years there was a great debate about the addition of a (very) plain cross. One would have thought this a Rococo addition by the controversy. (By the way the Rococoans won.)

In my anemic rebellion against the Scots Presbyterian roots, beyond becoming Anglican, I have utterly rejected the notion that beauty is unnecessary. Beauty, be it visual, musical, literary or natural, is needed. Without beauty the soul withers. Beauty enlarges us. I remember driving from the Laurentians back to Montreal one day. As I rounded a curve in the road my vision (and soul) were filled with an impartation of Beauty in the trees and mountains before me. It overwhelmed me to the point of tears. It was the moment, the light, the trees and the rocks together in visual symphony. I was, for a time, larger more gracious, more human as I took it in.

Shriveled souls starved for beauty make for a shriveled and mean existence. The Beautiful changes us. St. Paul, without using the word beauty, exhorts us to the practice of dwelling on the good, the true and the beautiful:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
-Philippians 4:8 (NIV)

The True

I am hesitant to broach the subject of the True.  It is so divisive and I am frankly irritated by sloppy intellectual use of concepts of truth as well as angry and uncharitable ones.  I will first vent my irritation.

I wish we could stop thinking in categories of something being “true for me” and not for you.  This is the sloppy use of the concept.  If you think of what “true” actually means, the idea becomes nonsensical.  When building something, in making it “true” we bring it into an exact shape or alignment.  Either the structure is true or it is not.  It cannot be true for me and not for you.  But, the objection comes, that has to do with actual verifiable things that can be measured.  It is different when it comes to philosophical things or religious belief.  While I agree that there may be differing perspectives, the word “true” is not protean in its meaning.  Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not.  It is either true or it is not.  It cannot be true for me and false for you.  (And don’t bring Schrodinger’s cat into the conversation.  While from a probability perspective the cat is both dead and alive, in fact he is one or the other.) Far better to use our words more carefully and say things like, “that does not make sense to me,” or “I don’t believe that.”  Here we are being honest and are not cheapening the meaning of the word True.

Irritation number 2 – The use of Truth as a bludgeon to hit people with.  This, sadly, is often the particular vice of Christians.  We cheerfully ignore St. Paul’s exhortation to speak the truth in love.  Truth and love together are powerful.  Like salt.  Sodium and chlorine, separately, each is toxic.  Together they preserve and bring flavor out of foods.  Truth without love is toxic (as is love without truth – sentimentality – a sweeter poison, but poison nonetheless).  I have heard the truth from people who have had an axe to grind with me.  It is easily dismissed.  I have also heard truth from those whose actions have clearly shown they love me.  Those words are hard to ignore.

My father had a profound respect for the truth and instilled in me the importance of telling the truth regardless of the consequences.  And I think that it includes telling the truth to others and to ourselves.  This latter is at least as difficult, for as Jeremiah reminds us, the heart is deceitful above all things.

But here I am making it sound like the truth is always bad news.  Of course it is not.  While the truth may be hard from time to time, the truth also affirms, blesses and encourages.  And Jesus says that the truth will set us free. 

Like the Good, the True in its glorious objective reality, is a thing to be loved.  It is reality as it is, the universe, both physical and moral, as God made it.  And as I recall, He thought it very good - thus worthy of our love.