The Ten Commandments & Jesus' summary of the Law & Prophets

I hope it is the case that all Christians know that Jesus summarized the Greatest Command and the Second, which is like it, as - You shall love the LORD your God  and You shall love your neighbor.

Many Christians, though, may not realize these two summary commands are not from the Ten Commandments. 

The Ten Commandments are found in two nearly identical lists found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

The Greatest Commandments that Jesus lists though, derive from the Shema found Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and a specific command found in a larger list of commands in Leviticus 19:18.

These facts are well known to anyone who has taken the time to study the statements of Jesus.

Having noted these facts, it would be good for Christians to recognize that the themes about God and Neighbor are clearly part of the Ten Commandments. 

The provisions of the first several commandments begin with a call to honor and recognize the LORD-God by not having other gods and by honoring the LORD's name! 

And, one should not miss that the provisions at the end of the commandments are not just about "coveting" someone's belongings.  They are provisions of protection from coveting the property and possessions and life of one's neighbor!

Jesus did not quote the Ten Commandments, even as Jesus understood that the Ten Commandments begin with God and end with Neighbor.

The Central Claim of Psalm 23 & the Bible.

I shared this reflection with a Masters in Organizational Leadership class I taught on Conflict and Negotiation.

I think it has ample meaning for any Christian.

The more I mature, the more I realize that the most profound insights of great wisdom deep reflections on quite simple claims.   I think Jesus had this same insight in his “simple” reflection on the “deep” truth that all of the Law and Prophets are found in the claim to Love God and Love Neighbor.  [Including the claim that loving our neighbor means loving the neighbor we may not like – our enemy!]

The South-African-Dutch Bible Scholar C.J. Labuschagne observed that the 23rd Psalm (along with each of the Psalms) is more carefully constructed and intentionally structured than we have previously noticed.  Many before Labushcagne noted that at 23:4 the language of the Psalm moves form 3rd person (“He guides me . . . “) to 2nd person (“You prepare . . . “).  Labuschagne, though, is the first I know of to point that the exact place of this change in the Psalm also is the exact center of the Psalm.  There are 26 words in Hebrew, that lead up to a 3 word centre, with 26 Hebrew words coming after the centre statement. 

The central 3 Hebrew words, since they are compound words, take 5 words to translate into English.  The five words that translate the deliberate centre – the very heart – of the 23rd Psalm are these:  “for you are with me.”  [A phonetic transliteration equivalent to the 3 Hebrew words is “key  a-taw  im-ma-dee.”]

For.

You.

Are.

With.

Me.

It strikes me that the central claim of the 23rd Psalm is the core claim of the book of Psalms.  In all of the highs and lows (laments and praise) of the book of Psalms – each Psalm understands that the LORD reigns and that in all things, the LORD is with us.

And, it strikes me that the stories of Old and New Testament alike come back to the same claim, again and again and again.  Moses – don’t be afraid, the LORD is with you.  Joshua, don’t be afraid, the LORD is with you.  David and Israel standing before the Philistines, don’t be afraid, the LORD is with you.  Jeremiah and Exiles heading out of the Land, don’t be afraid, the LORD is with you.  People of Judah, don’t be afraid, the LORD dressed in swaddling clothes, teaching as an itinerant preacher, calming storms at sea, is with you.  Disciples after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, do not be afraid, the LORD as Holy Spirit, is with you.

Psalm 23 understands that in “green pastures” of plenty – or – at a table with enemies! – the LORD will be present.  For You are with me.

Psalm 23 understands that there will be “calm waters” and “dark valleys” – and the LORD will be present.  For You are with me.

Perhaps, one of the greatest realizations we need to discern – in the midst of whatever conflicting situation we are trying to negotiate – is the reality that in all of life, the LORD is with us.

Whatever the conflict . . .

No matter the trouble of negotiation . . .

“For You are with me.”

Perhaps the heart of the entire message of the Bible – from Genesis where God creates heaven and earth – to Revelation where God creates new heaven and new earth – is the claim that in the midst of the conflict humans have brought into God’s good creation, the LORD wants to be with us. 

The LORD is with us.

The message of the Bible may simply be this sentence derived from three central words of the 2rd Psalm.

“For You are with me.”


Reference:
http://www.labuschagne.nl/

"I didn't win" - the $600 million lottery

The Powerball $600 million lottery just "ended" (actually, no winners have yet been confirmed, thought he winning numbers have been selected.)

I happened to be online to several news-sources, to read the comments within minutes of the winning numbers being posted.  Numerous persons commented, "I didn't win." Others commented, "I won!  I won!" - clearly they did not.  A few posted they wish they would have bought a pizza instead - and several commented that they wished the winners luck and hoped they would share the winnings.

I don't get people who "buy" into lotteries. [I've read numerous sociological or economic studies on those who do "play" so I do "get it" in some way, even while I still do not comprehend it.]

For one, the only genuine and guaranteed way in life, as shaped by years of experience worldwide, to reap any harvest or gain on any achievement is to sow & work and then reap a harvest in due time, hopefully of ample yield.   Long term, diligent, careful work, over time, can yield a result.

What is more, the math of lotteries is phenomenally and outrageously against the simple probability of winning.  Perhaps if I buy a raffle ticket from the local school, and I have a 1-in-1000 to win, it's possible I might win the raffle, but I have to remember I have a 999-in-1000 chance of not winning.

Maybe I'm in a crowd of 15,000 at the local NBA game, and they toss out 20 shirts, I have a 1-in750 chance to grab a shirt (though even that is not true - there are some seats in the arena that will never get a shirt!)  But, in this lottery a winner had a 1-in-175,000,000 chance of winning.   That means 174,999,999 people will not win!!  That's the probable number for persons who "played."  A person thinking about buying a ticket should have said to themselves, "If I buy this ticket, I am 99.999999999 guaranteed to not win!"

At current population rates - California has 38 million people and Texas 26 million people.  That means if I took 3x the population of California (every city, every town, every neighborhood, every person!) and added to that 3x the population of Texas - from all of those persons, 1 of them will win.  1! One!  Only 1!

I don't get why anyone thinks they "have a chance" in any realistic way!

Meanwhile, consider every person who paid $2.00 or $10.00 or $100.00 to buy a ticket.  The total value of tickets exceeds the $600 million given out - and I would guess total sales revenue is closer to $1 Billion for this lottery. Statistics I've read suggest that the powerball lottery alone (not the various other scratch-offs and other forms of gambling that exist) will gross over $5 billion this year. 

If every person who played these games of chance would instead contribute to agencies performing acts of justice - we could give 1,000 agencies $1,000,000 each.  Or - we could give $2 million dollars to 500 agencies.   We could fund $20 million dollars to 50 agencies!

Alas.

I didn't win the $600 million dollar Powerball lottery.

I didn't buy a ticket. 

I wish we lived in a society willing to "play" at acts of charity and the transformative work of justice  which could transform our world - instead of "playing" on the nearly impossible chance to win a lottery.

Investment in transformative justice could yield results that would yield returns in predictable and sustainable ways to make our world better!

Reciprocity and Eutrophia

Reciprocity is one of my favorite words &  favorite concepts. 
 
I enjoy participating in relationships of mutual growth & development. 

Nurtured relationships of reciprocity create a eutrophia to daily existence.

Is Psycho-therapeutic diagnosis accurate?

I'm glad to read that some of the best neuro-scientists are challenging the validity of the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual used to diagnose patients.  Specifically, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is distancing itself from the the American Psychiatric Association and its upcoming Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

The director of NIMH, Tom Insel, writes:

The goal of this new manual, as with all previous editions, is to provide a common language for describing psychopathology. While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. (Link to source.) 

After finishing my Master's Degree in counseling a few years ago, I intentionally elected to not pursue licensure by the State.  This was an elective decision, rooted in many reasons, one of which had to do with my antipathy with psychological diagnosis for billing.

I am a person who embraces the ideas of existential philosophy and human-personhood including Theistic elements.  Additionally, I embrace the manifold complexities of what science can "know" about the body and the brain.  [I accept Science!  I just think it continues to find that the more we know - the more we realize what we do not know.]

The simple, neat and tidy" diagnostic descriptions from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual) bothered me for what they failed to contain - and for how they qualified and quantified certain subjective factors.  I had no trouble passing the class on Psychopathology when I applied the ideas within narrow categories to sample-case-studies, but I could not make myself believe the categories were more than helpful frames of reference in most cases, and even in the best diagnostic situations, they still had to be discerned alongside many other cognitive, hormonal, cultural, social and situational dynamics.

In my final cumulative research project, after having spent many hours with a client, I completed a full diagnostic evaluation of him.  I earned a "C" on the project, thus, pulling my grade to a B, and "ruining" the 4.0 GPA I had worked for was lost in my Master's Degree.  Given the rhetorical directness with which I challenged the Professor of the class, and the Director of the program, in his review of my diagnosis, I'm surprised I did not receive a lower grade in the course!

Though I was a straight "A", competent student, also an adult who had spent countless hours with persons in personal and pastoral settings, I did not diagnose my client in the way the professor expected from me based on his giving greater validity to the DSM-IV.  Even though I had spent many hours with the client (and the Professor only knew him as a fictitious name on the pages of my full report), and even though I described the nature of why I ruled-out the diagnosis that the professor expected of me, and even though I defended my diagnosis at my Oral Defense, based on the entire social-situational perspective that I saw from the client, I was forced by the professor to resubmit the paper and use his diagnosis in order to pass the class and finish the program.

Oh, the irony therefore, that the links I include in this post actually came to my awareness from the self-same professor who, now in a new role himself professionally at a hospital it seems is around other scientifically astute persons and he is recognizing the hubris of the DSM as a perfect model for pristine diagnostic evaluation.  

I do not believe the categories of the DSM are "wrong," nor unhelpful. (In my view, Thomas Szasz went too far.)   I believe, instead that the hubris with which some clinicians use the categories to narrowly and exclusively "box" persons in to limited confines, only discernible to those with the skill to diagnose in these predictable and exclusionary ways, can too often be an act of vanity.