Objections to Certain Unaffable Rites: Kim Davis and the American Conscience

Kim Davis, County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, was held in contempt for her defiance of Constitutional law on the grounds of her faith. She refused to issue marriage licenses altogether in response to marriage equality.

The Kim Davis case, the County Clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses in Rowan County, Kentucky, presents a conundrum. For many, the conversation is wraught with problems on both sides of the argument. The debate is redefining and has strained the relationship between government employment and conscientious objection to federal/state policies, which were already tenuous. One thought I had, however, is how accountable or not accountable should we hold government employees when they defy policy on any grounds?

As a Christian, I may disagree with certain policies that are incongruent with my faith. Under federal law, reasonable accommodations are to be provided to employees such as wearing a burka or accommodations for prayer. These are physical accommodations where no federal law necessarily eschews. But what about philosophical accommodations?

Former Secretary of State, First Lady and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has come under fire for using her personal email account for government purposes. As a federal employee, she defied a government policy that prohibited use of private email in her work. Everything from Benghazi to what staffers knew in her employ has been called into question. The GOP as well as America has held her accountable for not valuing transparency.  Clinton should have been more responsible by adhering to the rule rather than valuing her own convenience. Kim Davis, on the other hand, has invoked the name of God in both her defiance and defense of the Constitution. It would be silly to think Hilary Clinton could invoke the name of Jesus on the issue of whether to use her gmail account or the .gov account. However, in a pluralistic society where poly-fill-in-the-blank is the aspired value, is there room for a Christian science teacher working in a public school to choose not to teach the core curriculum when she knows evolution is incongruent with her belief in creation? Is separation of church and state a "hard and fast rule" or is it pliable? Are religious people to be more creative in how they perform their job responsibilities w/o violating their consciences? Or, are departments such as the DOJ the only ones given the grace to defy federal policies?

In the Jim Crow South, and across America, laws and policies were violated by many people of whom were not employees of the state. However, we do know that there were places where county and state employees who were white (not a whole lot, a smidgen really) subversively and secretively defied segregation laws. The conscientious objector is the role of a person ready to risk it all to bring public attention to harmful policies. Edward Snowden, for example, is now living in exile in Russia for whistleblowing the federal government's harmful surveillance debacle while many illegal immigrants (not all) gain certain protections under law.  No matter where you stand on immigration, does government of the people and by the people protect objections to certain unaffable rites in it?

There are consequences for being the conscientious objector living and preaching in a hostile environment that cuts to the core of faith, belief and what it means to be American in this country. Should Kim Davis be held personally accountable for her defiance of the federal law as a state employee? The answer is as much yes as was the case for Meshach, Shadrach and Abegnego who defied Nebechadnezzer's law to worship him instead of the one true God. That story can be found in the Book of Daniel in the Bible. Since God is sovereign, if it is His will, she will be vindicated. However, she and others have to get comfortable with facing negative consequences when we defy the federal government and its laws. All of us, not just people of faith.

Invisible People with Invisible Problems: Race and the Blindess of White Privilege

I am invisible, understand, because people refuse to see me — Ralph Ellison, "Ibisible Man."

More and more I tend to speak less and less into FB conversations on race and white privilege because more and more as an African American... Nay as a brother in Christ who is Black living in America, I'm mostly "wrong." However, whether one is liberal or conservative in his or her politics, as a black person there is one thing that history cannot deny and that is the severe handicap that many of us have experienced collectively (not necessarily individually, which I'll explain); but together under a system that traditionally has awarded the "disaffected."

Ultimately, white privilege or white "advantage" is about economics. Money and education often grant access to opportunities that those who have not have no access to. However, putting money and education aside for a moment; white privilege (at its heart) is about acculturation/assimilation. It is about espousing values that marginalize, minimize and diminish the cultural values, beliefs, fears, pains and baggage of the "other" in order to maintain a status quo. It doesn't always recognize its purpose, but that status quo tends to deem the values of the "other" as incongruent with itself. It devalues cultural diversity. English-only is one example of this.

In France, I am at a severe disadvantage culturally and economically if I don't speak French. Even if I am not a native speaker of French, I'm marginalized at best. If I learn French as a second language, it grants more access. However, if I'm from N. Africa and Muslim (heck, if I'm from America and gung-ho American), I will find myself at a disadvantage there culturally. The French won't see it as rudeness. They will see it as the way it should be. Finding oneself on the fringe of a society and of its espoused values and beliefs systems is a disadvantage. Advantage and privilege will go to the members of that social club.

Earlier I mentioned how the marginalized often experience disadvantage collectively through history and injustice. The reason why some people of color will succeed individually and personally is because they will have had access to certain aspects or components of privilege. Yet, this often comes at a cost. If I lose my language, lose my patois; if I lose my gutteral and broken English; if I stop eating/cooking/smelling-like "guk" food (watch Gran Torino) and disengage my family/ethnic/nationalistic values — then I'm closer to "whiteness" in America. But can a leopard change his spots? Can a zebra change her stripes? 

Think about the image of a zebra losing her stripes for a moment. In your mind's eye (and be honest), what color is the horse? If you said "white," then your closer to a large percentage of people who see "black" as bad or negative. I, too, see a "white" zebra. Why is that? Education. We're often taught that black/darkness is bad. What we do though is erroneously attribute that philosophical/moral sensibility to people and things. We don't realize this. And that is why "black" lives matter, not just "all" lives. This is why "black" is beautiful and not just "all" people; because when you are marginalized, you become invisible (read Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man — not to be confused w/ H.G. Wells' "The" Invisible Man). Invisibility means not counting, not being noticed, not-existent. White advantage/privilege doesn't see the problems. It only sees a white zebra because it has ignored the other stripes. 

So, personally, I have to lose a lot plus have independent wealth and education to experience less marginalization and more "whiteness." What if I lost my blackness both physically and culturally? Then will I have the greatest advantage historically and traditionally? Yes. I'm still a man. If no longer invisible.

Obama, Gun Crimes, the States and Gun Laws

In a recent interview with the BBC, President Obama lamented his inability to effectively tackle guns during his presidency. The President was quoted in "The Hill" saying, “If you ask me where has been the one area that I feel that I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient, common-sense gun safety laws.” As I think about this and the unnerving and seemingly escalating gun violence in the nation, I wondered what the laws looked like from state-to-state.

According to research collected by Deseret in 2013 for a report ranking the ten states with the most strict gun laws, IL ranked #2 overall. This was just before the laws changed allowing conceal-carry permits. As I was doing some brief research of my own, I wanted to know which states had the most gun crimes/violence in the United States. I was surprised with what I learned.

Alaska ranked #1 followed by Louisiana and Mississippi. Tennessee ranked #10. Other states in the top ten included Montana, New Mexico, Alabama, Wyoming, Oklahoma, & Arkansas. No where to be found in the top ten of the CDC's research from 2013 were Michigan, Illinois, California, Texas, or New York; though one may argue that gun violence in large cities like Chicago, LA, Houston and New York City; or mid-sized cities like Washington DC, Detroit, Baltimore and Cleveland make up the bulk of gun deaths in those states. I'm not sure. However, I wondered if there was a direct correlation between poverty and gun crime in subordination to the gun laws of any one particular state.

In 2013 Pennsylvania ranked #1 with having the strictest gun laws in that Deseret poll. California ranked #10. Other states included Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Connecticut & New York. Go figure. The states with the strictest gun laws had less gun crime than the top ten states that had the least restrictive gun laws including a common rule across those particular states: Stand Your Ground.

So in 2013, the states that had the strictest gun laws, including Illinois, had less gun crimes than the states that had less restrictive gun laws. This shouldn't be rocket science, but as a 2nd amendment supporter it bolsters my opinion that common sense laws safeguarding lives should trump my ability for legal easy access to guns.

We need to get illegal firearms off the street and tackle socio-economic issues that tend to exacerbate gun violence in our major, urban areas. In states like Alabama, Mississippi and Alaska, addressing social justice issues, poverty, education, and employment are critical. I was even surprised that of the gun crimes in the top ten at least four or five were located in the infamous Bible Belt. Maybe we need to open up the Word more rather than opening up a hail of .45 calibre bullets.

Overall, addressing poverty in direct correlation with common sense gun legislation should theoretically reduce the amount of real gun violence in states — perceived or not. But here's the rub: right now, gun crimes are down 49% nationally as a whole since the early '90's (Pew, 2013).

Internet References

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/249022-obama-inaction-on-guns-biggest-frustration-of-my-presidency

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/13/24-7-wall-st-states-most-gun-violence/71003050/

http://m.deseretnews.com/top/1428/0/10-states-with-the-strictest-gun-laws.html?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F%3Fref%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

In View of the SCOTUS Decision on Marriage Equality

When Jesus confronted the Pharisees who caught a woman in her adultery and then brought her before Him to test Him (John 8:1-11), they quoted the Law of Moses which required that she be stoned. Unmoved, Jesus (knowing their thoughts) began writing in the sand. We don't know what he scribbled there. Maybe he was biding time before responding to them. Yet, He replied to her accusers, "You who have no sin cast the first stone," then returned to his scribbling. Eventually, one by one from oldest to youngest, her male accusers dropped their rocks/stones and went away until there were none. Jesus then turned to the adulterous woman and asked her, "Where are your accusers, those who condemned you?" She replied to Him "There are none Lord." 

"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

In view of the SCOTUS decision on marriage equality, some of my dear brothers and sisters in Christ have made themselves into Pharisees. They've made themselves the moral authorities when to be honest they are not. Christ is the moral authority and we are flawed at best in our own moral standards.

However, many of my 'neighbors' in the LGBT community refuse to acknowledge that we've all stumbled in our attempts to create our own standards around sex and human sexuality rather than follow God's standard. Jesus simply desires that we confess our sin and he will be faithful and just to forgive our sin and to restore us from all unrighteousness; to restore us toward his standard. Jesus restored this woman, and he wants to restore us by his love and mercy: his moral authority. He gave her life when according to the Law she was deserving of death. We, too, are deserving of death, but Jesus offers us life in his name.

Jesus also confronts our sin w/o accusation. It is our responsibility to acknowledge our sin. He also wants us to sin no more, which is the task before us. Though we may fail at times, he still commands us, "Sin no more." In Christ and Christ in me there is no sin. Yet if I refuse to acknowledge my faults, I call God a liar. However, Father forgive me for when I fail. Lord thank you for your love and mercy towards me. Thank you for forgiveness. Thank you for the cross. Thank you for life in your name through the power of the resurrection. 

Many will ask, though, "Whose God?" This is also the metaphorical crux. If people refuse to believe Jesus, then they themselves are their own moral authority and do not acknowledge their nature as sinful in the face of challenges to their lifestyle choices, decisions and behaviors. For without faith it is impossible to please God, for one must acknowledge that he exists in order to pursue greater revealed knowledge of he truly is.

All this to say: as Christ followers, refuse to be hypocrites. Refuse to be Pharisees in your own eyes, in your own condemnation of others as a moral authority. Understand the motives of your hearts. Be like Jesus who, not lacking in compassion, confronted this woman with love, mercy and grace. Sinner — acknowledge your sin. Accept God's love and sin no more. If you stumble or fail, acknowledge it. You have an Advocate before the Father, Christ Jesus the Righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins. 

I love all of you and wish only the best that God has to offer each and every one of us.

Gun Violence and America's un-Civil War

Updated Post (6/5/2014): Sometime ago, I wrote a form letter to IL Senator Dick Durbin (D) as part of an assigment our government class were doing.  There'd been an increase in gun violence in Chicago over the course of the year, and gun deaths are still a pervasive problem; especially amongst our youth.  I wanted to understand Senator Durbin's platform on guns, gun safety and 2nd Amendment rights.  I wanted to understand what Congress was doing to help curb the violence.  The following is that letter and Senator Durbin's response.

----------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 2051

Dear Senator Durbin,

My name is Michael Lee Carter, and I am an educator in the northern suburbs of Chicago. I am originally from Detroit, having moved here just over ten years old. We challenged our government class to address their senator or congressman about a policy issue or piece of current legislation that concerns them. The goal of these letters is to teach our students that they have a voice in the democratic process and that their voices matter.

Certainly in recent years, let alone recent months, both of our hometowns have had a considerable amount of national and international attention. Plenty of positive stories are happening in Chicago and Detroit from art communities, church organizations and other non-profits endeavoring to help save the Motor City to everyday people in Chi-Town working hard to improve schools, neighborhoods and others' lives. Some of it has been negative, though, and has garnered more public scrutiny. Between bankruptcies and pension crises, both cities are embroiled in publicity surrounding gun crimes that have led to more tragedies than inspirational narratives.

The Cornell Square Park incident in Chicago's Back-of-the-Yards neighborhood is the latest example of the crisis besieging Chicago, Detroit and other urban centers. However, the inner-city is not alone. From Newtown, CT to Aurora, CO; from Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of the Tucson incident to most recently the Navy Yards shooting involving a mentally compromised reservist, America is at war with itself. It is a “civil war” with people standing on different sides of the issue: Do tighter gun control laws ensure the safety of citizens, or do they encroach on a Constitutional right to legal gun ownership? Laws such as “Stand Your Ground” don’t seem to help, especially when it seems to only polarize our nation over issues of race, equality and fairness under the law. Though I am an advocate of the Constitutional right to gun ownership, I believe that the laws governing unlawful discharge of guns, illegal ownership or distribution of guns, the breaking of inter-state laws in terms of purchasing guns to be distributed unlawfully in other states (a federal violation), and the carry or use of a gun in the process of a crime (felony or not) should have stronger sentencing guidelines that are fair across the board.

There has to be equal guidelines defining use of a firearm in self-defense that are clear and fair as well. Legal gun ownership in states with conceal and/or open carry should stipulate that gun owners have insurance for each firearm purchased and kept in the home that is separate from home insurance. This would add one more layer of accountability and ensure families are taken care of in the event that people are injured or killed in firearm discharge. If I have to register ownership of each car in my possession, carry a legal license to drive and have auto insurance for each driver authorized to drive in my family, then it makes sense that the same should be true of a gun owner. In the same vein, guns and alcohol do not mix. Drivers who drive under the influence suffer penalties for DUI’s across different states. Vehicles involved in DUI are often confiscated depending on the situation and one’s license can be revoke depending on the system in one’s state. If it is found that a shooter who discharged a firearm was under the influence of alcohol or mind-altering drug, then there should be stiffer penalties also.

Much has been said about diagnosed depression, emotional and mental disabilities and the use of firearms by those who live with these issues. The names Jared Lee Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza and Aaron Alexis has put mental health and gun access in the spotlight. Sensible people understand that not all people who suffer from depression or some form of social emotional disorder or mental disability have a propensity to kill. Yet for every 100 inner city instances of gun violence it seems there’s at least one kind of gun massacre that stands out. Whether it be Columbine or VA Tech, serious discussion must be had about protecting the civil liberties of people with disabilities while at the same time addressing access to firearms by the same population.

The gun manufacturers and organizations such as the NRA need to be pushed to ensure that each new gun manufactured in the United States is properly serialized just as vehicles are with a standardized code that is tamper-proof. These standardized codes, as registered with each state, would create a second layer of accountability, enabling law enforcement to track those guns from person to person, entity to entity and state to state. Ultimately, it would allow local and state police, DEA, ATF and FBI to trace a gun back to its owner, seller and manufacturer. 

Gun sellers argue that tougher gun control laws would hurt their bottom-line and prevent “law-abiding” citizens from legally purchasing firearms; that tougher legislation would impede their Constitutional right to “bear arms.” This may be true. However, is the bottom-line more precious than the lives of people loss yearly to gun crime and gun accidents? 

Our love affair with guns have to philosophically end. Responsible legislation regarding gun ownership must begin. No one disagrees that responsible legislation is necessary to stem the tide of gun violence in our nation. Though many fear that stronger advocates are pushing to take their guns away, countries like Japan, Sweden and Norway have an argument with fewer gun crimes because gun ownership is not a legal right. I’m not that advocate. I believe that there is a place for responsible legislation that upholds the Constitution and protects lives. Together, let’s stop the post-modern, American Civil War over our guns. Our class thanks you for your ear and for your kind response.

 Sincerely, 

 Michael Lee Carter

---------------------------------------------

November 13, 2013

Dear Mr. Carter:

Thank you for contacting me about gun violence prevention. I appreciate knowing your views and share your concerns about gun violence.

I am a cosponsor of the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act which would reinstate a ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ban on multi-round magazines expired along with the federal assault weapons ban in 2004. I also am a cosponsor of a bill that would reinstate the ban on assault weapons and would expand the definition of assault weapons to close loopholes that allow gun manufacturers to work around the previous ban.

I support universal gun background checks, which prevent the transfer of firearms without a background check by non-licensed gun sellers. I am a cosponsor of “terror gap” legislation that would give the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny gun sales to individuals who are known or appropriately suspected to be engaged in terrorism.

There are 314 million people in our country and about 300 million firearms available for sale or possessed by civilians. While gun legislation may not change the values that shape popular culture, it can significantly reduce the likelihood that innocent children and adults will be the victims of gun violence.

The majority of Americans and the majority of thoughtful gun owners and hunters agree that there must be reasonable limits on gun ownership and weapons. We must institute common-sense limits, such as barring those with a history of mental instability, those with a history of violent crime or who are subject to restraining orders, and those whose names have been placed on a terrorist watch list from owning weapons. Straw purchasers and gun dealers should face firm penalties. There should be limits on how many firearms may be purchased in one month. Those who own firearms that are within the reach of children should have protective locks on their weapons.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to work for the passage of these and other reasonable gun safety measures to reduce the prevalence of gun violence in our country.

Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

RJD/bc

Murda City

Murder is murder, but like I've shared with many here in my adopted home of Chicago, though Detroit may have an infamous reputation of being the "murder capitol;" its percentages are skewed because of its smaller population amongst other large urban populations across America. Chicago has seen a 35% increase this year in deaths resulting from gun violence over this same time in 2011. So far, there have been 228 gun murders in the city, percentage wise more than LA and NY (5/30/2012 stat 208 murders = 7.7 per 100,000 people compared to 3.2 in LA and 1.9 in NY). Detroit currently has 149 murders or 3.5 per 100,000 people through 6/10/2012 (Detroit Police Dept. stat). Detroit may have its woes, but Chicago is also seeing its share in 2012 with more national spotlight.

Pray for the violence to cease in both my hometowns and across this nation. Pray for the families and victims who are left with the pieces. Pray for our children to have a safe summer, that they can play again. Pray for law enforcement that they have the strength, grace, and humility to justly police the streets (not just for NATO summits and high profile weddings). Pray for local governments to support its own police department, to get more officers on the streets, to stop de-funding neighborhood programs that help stem the tide. Pray for community activists and local churches to not grow weary in fighting the good fight.

To my friends in places like Baltimore, DC, B'Ham, N'Orleans, St. Louis, Memphis, Cleveland and Houston: What is the outlook there? Pray that the Father will stem the tide in our cities. Five hundred in Chicago is very possible. Father, save our cities and the people in them.

Job 24:14 "The murderer rises before it is light, that he may kill the poor and needy, and in the night he is like a thief."

Deuteronomy 21:7-9 "...and they shall testify, ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it shed. Accept atonement, O Lord, for your people [ ], whom you have redeemed, and do not set the guilt of innocent blood in the midst of your people [ ], so that their blood guilt be atoned for.’ So you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from your midst, when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord."

The context here is [Israel]. However in the new covenant, atonement and redemption is secured through the blood of Jesus Christ for all people, particularly to those who believe and receive this atonement. The principle here encourages the redeemed to intercede for the city, its blood-guilt, victims and families as Jesus did on our behalf.

Jeremiah 29:7 "But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare."

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/15/061512-news-chicago-murders-knowles-1-3/

WILD WEST IN CHICAGO www.thedaily.com City officials fight back as murder rate outstrips N.Y., L.A. – even Kabul

The Law and the Prophets

In his famous painting, Norman Rockwell illustrates his visionary interpretation of "The Golden Rule" found in the Gospel of Matthew 7:12. It should be the intent of an urban remnant to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to ALL people. We should seek the welfare of the cities to where we've been sent (Jer. 29:7); to prayerfully build cross-cultural relationships with the people around us in order to foster platforms for dialogue. Because of God's great love towards us and His church, we realize that every relationship we foster within our personal spheres of godly influence presents opportunities for significant ministry and service. We intend to passionately live out the Law and the Prophets. But what does this mean?

Matthew 5:17-20 ESV

""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells the crowds who were listening to Him not to "think that [He] came to abolish the Law or the Prophets" (v.17). To "abolish" means to do away with, put an end to, annul, or make void. The KJV uses the word "destroy" which is a synonym. The Greek here is "kataluo," which means to loosen, but implies "demolish." So Jesus informs the same kind of people who He described as "distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd" (Matt. 9:36, NASB) that He did not come to do away with the Law (not necessarily the same rules that the scribes and Pharisees added to the Law, which became burdens on the people) and the prophecies spoken about Him, but to "fulfill" them (v.17).

The word "fulfill" is defined as the ability to carry out or bring to realization (as in prophecy); and to perform or do as duty, obey, follow. It can also mean to satisfy or bring to completion. The Greek word is "pleroo" (play-ro-o), which implies satisfying, executing, finishing, verifying, and/or accomplishing; all five of which Jesus does. He satisfied the righteous requirements of the Law through obedience. He executed His office as both Son of Man and Son of God without sin. He finished His task of accomplishing redemption for all by the shedding of His own blood to satisfy God's wrath against sin. He verified the scriptures written about Him in the Law and the Prophets by fulfilling them in their presence. He accomplished this work forever during his earthly visitation and with power and authority through His resurrection.

So, what could Jesus have meant by verse 18 when he declares, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished?" Whenever Jesus accords the word "truly" to any of His sayings (particularly "truly, truly"or "verily, verily"), He is insisting on the direct, honest, and authoritative facts of what He is saying. He is being more, accurately literal and less, figuratively metaphorical as in his parables. There is no deep meaning to what He declares. "It is what it is." So we can avoid asking the question, "What does this mean to me" because it's not about my personal interpretation of what Jesus meant that means anything. It is about author's intent. What was the intent behind the words that Jesus declared to the people?

Jesus intends to help us understand that the Father holds each one of us accountable to the Law and the Prophets, particularly as they are revealed in the Gospel; which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 1:16). However, Jesus knew that man in his own sinfulness could never fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law, although the scribes and Pharisees would have the disheartened people think otherwise. All of us have broken the Law at one point or another. None of us can ever say, for example, that we've never lied or told a story or thought evil of someone we didn't like. None of us can say we've never been selfish at times. None of us can say that we have loved God with all of our hearts, with all of our minds, with all of our soul, and with all of our strength. None of us can say we've loved all of our neighbors, let alone our enemies, as we have loved ourselves.

So, we are accountable to the righteous Law that Jesus declares He would not abolish, remove, nor relax. In fact He declares that anyone who "relaxes [even] the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (v.19). Elsewhere in the Gospels, Jesus speaks of the "least" and the "greatest." He declares to His disciples that whoever desires to become great among you must become the least and servant of all. He demonstrates this through the washing of His disciples feet, which was not only a preparation for them, but an act of love towards them. It was His intent to set for them an example of how real leaders lead: through acts of love and service. If we learn to love God and love neighbor as Jesus taught and commanded us to do with humility, then we too can follow the Law and it's commandments. However, even this is not accomplished through our own strength. For we make mistakes. Mistakes are errors. Errors imply missing the mark. Missing the mark is sin.

"For ALL [not some] have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). We are not as righteous as some of us may falsely believe. This was the mistake of the Pharisees. Jesus continues, "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (v.20). Wow. Exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees? But they're always reading the scriptures and praying every day in the public squares. They must be closer to God because they fast all the time and give "generously" to the temple. They're always pointing out my own mistakes, all the while seemingly living "perfectly." How can my righteousness exceed theirs? Jesus answered this question earlier in the text. It is not my own righteousness that will exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees. It is Jesus' fulfilling the righteous requirements of the Law and the Prophets, His righteousness, that would exceed them on my behalf.

The Apostle Paul, a Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, writes in his letter to the church at Rome, "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:19-26 ESV). Hence, our righteousness comes by faith, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17), which is the Gospel of our salvation.

Jesus fulfilled it all without abolishing anything. It is finished, and we can proclaim, "Hallelujah!" We have work to do, but it's not the work of the legal requirements of the Law by which no person can be justified. It is the works of righteousness afforded us through redemption because of our faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. For we have God's righteousness bearing witness in us who are justified by His grace.

Yet, Jesus still cautioned us: "Anyone whosoever relaxes...teaches the same...least in the kingdom of heaven" (v.20). We must be careful to fulfill the ministry of love and reconciliation that is set before us because of God's great love and mercy towards us. He desires that we serve with gladness; that we walk in the Spirit; that we walk as Jesus walked, with eyes of compassion rather than contempt. He knows that we are still flesh and that we fail, but He encourages us to confess our sins because He is faithful and just to forgive our sins. And the result. He restores us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

See. God is not unjust. He has not left us alone. Jesus is both our Advocate and the propitiation (or atoning sacrifice) for our sins. So lift up those feeble knees and stand your ground. You are not alone. Demonstrate your faith through the works God has prepared in advance for you to fulfill. You are His workmanship (Eph. 2:8-10). His poem. If you do this in God's strength and show others the way too, you "will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (v.20). In short, Jesus sums this up with a simple message: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 7:21, KJV). God bless you and keep you and may His face shine upon you.