{"id":937,"date":"2019-05-20T01:43:24","date_gmt":"2019-05-20T01:43:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/2019\/05\/20\/in-the-gospel-of-john-we-hear-i-give-you-a-new\/"},"modified":"2020-02-15T18:20:32","modified_gmt":"2020-02-15T18:20:32","slug":"in-the-gospel-of-john-we-hear-i-give-you-a-new","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/2019\/05\/20\/in-the-gospel-of-john-we-hear-i-give-you-a-new\/","title":{"rendered":"Untitled"},"content":{"rendered":"

In
\nthe Gospel of John, we hear, \u00a0\u201cI
\ngive you a new commandment, that you love one another.\u201d \u00a0Of course,
\nit is not a new commandment. \u00a0At all. \u00a0Rather, this is as old of
\ncommandments as commandments come. \u00a0Love commandments are
\nfundamental. \u00a0There are two parts, the love your neighbor part
\n(Leviticus 19:18) \u00a0\u201cYou shall not take vengeance or
\nbear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your
\nneighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.\u201d and the love God part. \u00a0(Deut
\n6:4) \u201cHear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. \u00a0You
\nshall Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul,
\nand with all your might.\u201d \u00a0Jesus’ commandment to love each other is
\ngrounded in the already there tradition as an abiding commandment.
\nFurther, that’s a tenet of every major religion in some form or
\nanother. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

It
\nisn’t new, but it is still challenging. \u00a0You know that passage from 1
\nCorinthians 13 that people love to have in their wedding ceremonies?
\nThe one that says
\n \u201cLove
\nis patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant
\nor
\nrude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or
\nresentful; 6<\/sup>it
\ndoes not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears
\nall things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all
\nthings. Love never ends.\u201d \u00a0The one that is actually Paul writing to
\nthe church in Corinth who are fighting amongst themselves, and he is
\ntelling them what Christian love toward one another looks like?
\nWell, if Paul had to write that letter to do that, then we can assume
\nthe people weren’t following the commandment too well.\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

And,
\nof course, we have the history of Christianity showing us more
\nexamples of how badly we follow this commandment. \u00a0If our love for
\none another is meant to be way we show that we are Christ’s, OYE.
\nThere was the split between the Eastern and Western Church. \u00a0The
\nProtestant Reformation was a wreck \u2013 I can’t even go into the
\nhorrors it other than to say that at least 100,000 people were
\nkilled. \u00a0And then, in our tradition, our Methodist Church split all
\nover the place over the issue of slavery, and power, and money, and
\nwe’re facing a new split now because the church doesn’t know how to
\nlove. \u00a0We have NOT loved each other well. \u00a0We have not shown
\nourselves to be disciples of Christ, at least not on the big scale,
\nnot if it means showing the world how well we love.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Instead,
\non the large scale, I think we look like most other human
\ninstitutions, obsessed with power, money, and control. \u00a0It isn’t
\npretty.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

While
\nthere are great things that do happen on the larger scale (UMCOR,
\nAfrica University, supporting seminaries, Imagine No Malaria), I
\ndon’t think the larger scale is the one that CAN be reflective of
\nlove. \u00a0The blessed ties that bind us together are just not big enough
\nfor the size of organizations that exist.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Have
\nyou heard of Dunbar’s number? \u00a0The New Yorker explains it well: \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nThe
\nDunbar number is actually a series of them. The best known, a hundred
\nand fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends\u2014the
\npeople, say, you\u2019d invite to a large party. (In reality, it\u2019s a
\nrange: a hundred at the low end and two hundred for the more social
\nof us.) From there, through qualitative interviews coupled with
\nanalysis of experimental and survey data, Dunbar
\ndiscovered<\/a>
\nthat the number grows and decreases according to a precise
\nformula<\/a>,
\nroughly a \u201crule of three.\u201d The next step down, fifty, is the
\nnumber of people we call close friends\u2014perhaps the people you\u2019d
\ninvite to a group dinner. You see them often, but not so much that
\nyou consider them to be true intimates. Then there\u2019s the circle of
\nfifteen: the friends that you can turn to for sympathy when you need
\nit, the ones you can confide in about most things. The most intimate
\nDunbar number, five, is your close support group. These are your best
\nfriends (and often family members). On the flipside, groups can
\nextend to five hundred, the acquaintance level, and to fifteen
\nhundred, the absolute limit\u2014the people for whom you can put a name
\nto a face. While the group sizes are relatively stable, their
\ncomposition can be fluid. Your five today may not be your five next
\nweek; people drift among layers and sometimes fall out of them
\naltogether.1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/figure>\n

Dunbar’s
\nnumbers are about the limits of how many people you can feel
\nconnected to at certain levels. \u00a0They’re also about how many people
\ncan feel connected to each other as a group, and how much structure
\nis required to connect people at different levels. \u00a0The gist is, the
\nlarger the group, the less people feel connected, the more work is
\nrequired to create a sense of community.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This
\nmay explain a bit about church size and function, as well as a lot of
\nhuman behavior. \u00a0It also explains why we’ve struggled so much as an
\nAnnual Conference to feel bonded to each other \u2013 we get together
\nonly once a year and we’re STILL bigger than the largest group that
\ncan have actual cohesion. \u00a0The disconnect between levels of the
\nchurch makes sense in this model, although so does the fact that our
\nchurch is built in layers, so that relationships can be built.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The
\nkey seems to be, that human beings, human institutions, and human
\nsocieties run on relationships, and none of them can be successful if
\nthey outgrow relationships. \u00a0Institutions that are larger than
\nrelationship capacity EITHER have to have ways to subdivide to allow
\nrelationships to stabilize OR they will lose their focus and
\nidentity, because they lose their basis in relationship.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I
\ndon’t think Jesus was talking about institutions, I think he was
\ntalking about PEOPLE, and the way they treat each other. \u00a0The part of
\nthe command that IS new is that is it no longer love \u201cyour
\nneighbor\u201d but now \u201clove one another.\u201d \u00a0It takes the community
\nfrom physical proximity to one that is defined by shared work.
\n(Which may be more similar than it sounds to begin with.)<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Only
\nrelatively small groups can have enough cohesion to be defined by how
\nwell they love each other, it just can’t happen on a massive scale.
\nBut let’s be really honest \u2013 it doesn’t always happen on a smaller
\nscale either. \u00a0Humans can be REALLY hard to work with. \u00a0#shock
\nGroups can really struggle.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I’ve
\nreally been thinking a lot about group dynamics, OK, I ALWAYS think a
\nlot about group dynamics, it seems like they’re super duper important
\nto every part of following Jesus. \u00a0One of the harder things about
\nfunctioning in a group is that the group is usually looking out for
\nthe group’s best interest, and that doesn’t always line up with each
\nindividuals best interest. \u00a0 This isn’t that fun if you are one of
\nthe individuals whose needs aren’t aligned. \u00a0You’d almost think
\ngroups aren’t worth it, if it weren’t for the great benefits they do
\noffer: \u00a0companionship, connection, shared reality, wisdom, growth,
\nhope, a place to make a contribution, support, acceptance, belonging,
\nbeing known, laughter, inspiration, purpose, stimulation,
\ninterdependence \u2013 stuff like that. \u00a0(I think groups are TOTALLY
\nworth it, can you tell?) \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Perhaps
\nbecause of the constant need in a group to balance between the needs
\nof the whole and the needs of individuals, it is common in groups for
\nindividuals to attempt to gain control over one another. \u00a0Sometimes
\none, or some, or all of the people, just WANT THINGS DONE THEIR WAY.
\nI expect that sounds obvious, and I expect that you have experienced
\nit. \u00a0Vying for control is one of the basic dynamics of most groups,
\nand it can unravel them, and the degree to which people are vying for
\ncontrol can relate tightly to how functional the group is.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Now,
\nthinking about a person trying to control groups, and trying to
\ncontrol other people in groups is ALSO interesting, and it leads me
\nto some self-reflection. \u00a0After all, sometimes I’m that person and
\nsometimes I’m not, and I’ve been wondering about what makes the
\ndifference. \u00a0Two pieces of it have occurred to me: \u00a0I don’t tend to
\nseek control when I don’t really care what choices are made (so when
\nsomething doesn’t much matter to me), and I don’t tend to seek
\ncontrol when I trust the group process to come up with a good answer.
\n That suggests that I’m more likely to seek control when I think
\nsomething really matters (duh), and when I’m scared. \u00a0This has been a
\nbit of a relief for me as an insight, because I’m guessing I’m not
\nthe only one who gets controlling when I get scared, and that means
\nthat when I feel like people are trying to control me, it gives me an
\noption of being compassionate towards them because 1. they care a lot
\nand 2. they’re scared instead of \u2026 well all the other narratives
\nI’ve otherwise created in my head about other people trying to
\ncontrol me. \u00a0If people are feeling scared, that elicits compassion
\nfrom me, whereas if I just respond to my experience of someone trying
\nto control me, I’m far more likely respond with annoyance,
\nfrustration, and \u2026 let’s be honest, defiance. \u00a0Now, I dislike that
\nthis has to be said, but it does: \u00a0Having compassion for someone’s
\nfear does not require us to give them their way. \u00a0This is inherently
\ntrue. \u00a0Also, as people of God, we are seeking to be motivated by
\nlove, not fear, so we don’t let fear rule.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Now,
\nlet’s jump over to Peter in Acts. \u00a0 This is a hard story to preach
\non, because I want to be very respectful of the Jewish tradition of
\nkeeping kosher, which I find beautiful and meaningful. \u00a0Keeping
\nkosher is a form of being faithful by paying attention to eating in
\njust ways, and it forms an identity of faithfulness, patterned into
\none’s life. \u00a0All that means \u00a0that the formative story of why
\nChristians abandoned our Jewish roots, that were formed in keeping
\nkosher, is a tender sort of thing. \u00a0Giving up keeping kosher was
\ngiving up a primary Jewish identity, and Jesus’ early followers were
\ngood Jews. \u00a0Keeping kosher was good practice.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

That
\nsaid, the history of Christianity is also found in this story. \u00a0What
\nwas once a sect of Judaism became a major world religion, in part
\nbecause of these decisions \u2013 the ones to include Gentiles as equal
\npartners in the Way of following Jesus, and not to require Gentiles
\nto become Jewish in order to become Christian. \u00a0A GOOD THING had to
\nbe let go in order to make it possible to do ANOTHER GOOD THING. \u00a0To
\nwelcome in new people required letting go of what had been very
\nimportant. \u00a0To make space for what God was up to next in that
\ncommunity required letting go of something that was already sacred.
\nPeter is horrified in this story about what is being asked of him.
\nBut we wouldn’t be here if he hasn’t adapted.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

That’s
\na lesson that we all have to learn time and time again, particularly
\nif we want to live well in community. \u00a0The \u201clove one another\u201d bit
\nrequires adapting to each other, and it requires constant attention
\nto the living tradition, to see what needs to bend, or adapt, or be
\nlet go. \u00a0This loving each other thing \u2013 its really hard work.<\/p>\n

But,
\nit is worth it. \u00a0We know a God of love BECAUSE we know love through
\neach other. \u00a0Thanks be to God, and may we continue to love one
\nanother. \u00a0Amen\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

1<\/a>Maria
\n\tKonnikova \u201dThe Limits of Friendship\u201c \u00a0October 7, 2014
\n\thttps:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/science\/maria-konnikova\/social-media-affect-math-dunbar-number-friendships<\/a><\/p>\n

– <\/p>\n

Rev. Sara E. Baron<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Pronouns: she\/her\/hers<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

http:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u2028https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FUMCSchenectady<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

May 19, 2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the Gospel of John, we hear, \u00a0\u201cI give you a new commandment, that you love one another.\u201d \u00a0Of course, … Continue reading Untitled<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[34,38,28,39,33,184,187,56,185,57,186],"class_list":["post-937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons","tag-fumc-schenectady","tag-progressive-christianity","tag-rev-sara-e-baron","tag-thinking-church","tag-umc","tag-dunbar-numbers","tag-groups-are-worth-it","tag-schenectady","tag-season-of-easter","tag-sorry-about-the-umc","tag-why-do-we-seek-control"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/937","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=937"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/937\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1152,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/937\/revisions\/1152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}