Christ and Community, 2: Striving for the Ideal

Stephen Fleming

•

It was a Jehovah’s Witness many years ago that pointed out to me the connection between “these my brethren” in Matthew 25:40 and Jesus calling those who “do the will of God … my brother, and my sister, and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35, Matt 12:46-50, Luke 8:19-21. See the comments in my last post). I’m interested in what you think of that connection, but I do think that it suggests an element of community building in Matthew 25:31-46 that I see as similar to Mosiah 18:8-9.

Yes, God cares how we treat people generally, but I do believe that Jesus did really care about attempting to create a holy “kingdom” on earth that would only be holy if his disciples in that community were committed to each other through the kind of mutual aid described in Matthew 25:31-46. I see this concept in line with John 13:34-35: the disciples of Jesus love EACH OTHER as Jesus loves them.

I think the JW wanted to make the point that just being generally charitable wasn’t good enough: you had to be in the right church (the JW). We also have a “true church” claim, and in my own unorthodox opinion, I don’t hold absolutely to that claim, but instead believe that as we strive to be what Christ wants we do his will. I see us as TRYING to be the “true church” and I see such an attempt as holy.

Being a part of community that treats each other like Christ’s instructions in Matthew 25: 31-46, John 13:34-35, and Mosiah 18:8-9 is a holy Christian endeavor, whatever the community’s name is (sorry if that sounds heretical!). “By this shall men know …” And yes, I do see Mormons as doing a pretty good job at community. So again, if there is a better one, let me know.

Naturally, a Christlike community will be kind to those not of their denomination, but I’ll be arguing in my next post that having mutual commitments to each other IS important. And yes, we and other Christians have come far short of creating heaven on earth in our communities. But we should still keep trying, because I do think we can make progress even if we continually come up short of the ideal.

Comments

10 responses to “Christ and Community, 2: Striving for the Ideal”

  1. SDS

    You’ve cited a lot of scriptures in this short post. Here are a couple more that I think support your general point.
    Matt. 18:20 (“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”).
    Mark 9: 38-40 (“And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.”)

  2. Jack

    It’s the love of God that makes the difference, IMO. While many people may be compassionate by nature–my wife is one of those–it’s really by being transformed through the atonement that we learn to love each other the way that Christ loves us–and my wife is on a faster track than I am in that regard. And so–yes–being in the “right church” is important because it gives us access to the powers and gifts of the priesthood that are necessary to the atonement’s transformational process.

    That said, while love is the crowning virtue–we have to remember that Zion is also known as the pure heart. That said, one could define “pure in heart” by suggesting that they all possess as it were “one heart” in the love of God–and that would be true. Even so, as both James and President Nelson have suggested: it is both virtue and charity that are necessary in practicing pure religion–which is Zion.

  3. Dan Ellsworth

    This reads like vague humanistic togetherness, mixed with scripture and sentimentality.

  4. Stephen Fleming

    Thanks for the additional references, SDS.

    Jack, to me the question is, what is the ultimate goal and what are the means to that goal? I see the ultimate goal in JS’s theology as the city of Enoch, where they are united and then later unite with God. So I see the other aspects of the gospel as serving to help us to that end.

    I like how Plato puts it (who presented an ideal city with all things in common). He talked about the need to “moderate” or control our passions, because without that self-control, we will act “unjustly.” In other words, we need that control (ie avoidance of sin) or we will be selfish and treat others badly. The ultimate in selflessness as I see it is what Jesus describes in Matt 12:31-46, and the ideal of all things in common. This will create heaven on earth
    (though it’s hard.) I’d assume it will be what the Celestial Kingdom will be patterned after.

    Plato said that living the in ideal city with all things in common would prepare its citizens for the best afterlife. I think Joseph Smith agreed.

    Dan, sorry if this isn’t your cup of tea. I disagree that the post is only “mixed with scripture.” I’d argue it’s a question of which scriptures we prioritize, and I think that if we prioritize the words of Jesus, this post is quite scriptural.

  5. Jack

    “Plato said that living the in ideal city with all things in common would prepare its citizens for the best afterlife. I think Joseph Smith agreed.”

    I think that’s correct in principle. But the question (for me) is how do we get people to do it freely and continuously without descending into envy and strife? And I think the gospel gives us the answer: covenants. It is only through making covenants with God that we can be transformed into the kinds of people that are virtuous and loving enough to live up Plato’s ideal. Zion is really a covenant community. Though rather counterintuitively, it’s citizens make covenants with God first–and then their covenant relationships with each other flow naturally.

  6. Jonathan Green

    I think it’s worth spelling out the value of the Church as a community, both practically and theologically. Otherwise it invites the criticism that a church is an unnecessary, artificial barrier between people and the neighbors they should be helping, and that the clannish church members are focused on themselves instead. And that is certainly possible in defective cases, but when done right, a church organization brings people together across barriers and creates the structure and context for help to be given beyond what a single individual could do.

  7. Not a Cougar

    Stephen, thank you for the thoughts and I find your suggestion that building the Kingdom of God through service rings true, but I think your position is undercut at keast somewhat by Jesus’s parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan is emphatically NOT a part of God’s covenant people. Moreover, he renders aid simply because he sees a fellow human being in peril. There is no expectation of a continuing relationship between the two beyond the Samaritan returning to pay for the injured man’s care, room, and board. And yet the Savior announced the Samaritan to be neighbor to the injured man and not the priest or the Levite who, we can argue, were simply trying to keep the covenant God had made with His people in the Law of Moses (which includes avoiding contact with what would almost certainly soon be a dead body).

  8. Stephen Fleming

    Jack, I very much agree. I think Mosiah 18:8-9 is all about that, and will be asserting Jesus teaching similar things.

    I agree that organizations are important, Jonathan. I thing we need voluntary organizations like churches now more than ever.

    Cougar, I’m not sure that it undercuts this point. I’m certainly not arguing that Jesus was against the kindness he teaches in the parable. No doubt that parable has thousands of years of interpretation, but I think one could be to argue against Jewish clannishness. Christians would work hard to bring many people into the kingdom: Jews and Gentiles. Samaritans matter too. But I really do think that bringing people into the kingdom was a central point of Jesus’s program.

  9. RLD

    The parable of the Good Samaritan puts loyalty to the group or community in conflict with helping others, and unambiguously declares that helping others is more important. (Jesus does this with all of Haidt’s moral foundations.) That doesn’t mean loyalty to the group isn’t a good thing, just not the best thing. I agree it doesn’t undercut your point, but it might put limits on it.

    As for reading “the least of these my brethren” to be limited to believers because Jesus calls believers his brethren on other occasions, I’m always skeptical of arguments that insist that because a word or phrase is assigned some particular meaning in one passage, it must have the same meaning in other passages. The scriptures just don’t use language that consistently. (When the psalmist says “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron” he does not mean with the word of God!) But what bugs me about this particular reading is my sense that someone who is part of a community–any community–is better of than an outcast. Thus the very “least of these” is always an outcast in my mind. That’s not proof, of course, just my sense of it.

    “But I really do think that bringing people into the kingdom was a central point of Jesus’s program.”

    Here I completey agree.

  10. Stephen Fleming

    The similarities in the wording, “brethren,” isn’t just a similarity in the whole canon, but an particular author (“Matthew”) writing the words of a particular person: Jesus. I think in a case like this the similarity is worth noting.

    The question Jesus was addressing with the good Samaritan was “who is my neighbor,” and I think there is some relevance to Matthew 25:31-46.

    Moral obligations can be tricky, particularly in the global world we live in. We help with meals and moves in our ward and tend not to feel those kinds of obligations to those who live far away. The Samaritan helped out a person he came across in person. Jesus seemed to define such an activity as helping ones neighbor and wanted to include Samaritans in the group.

    But wards in areas where Mormon percentages are small wouldn’t offer up the EQ as a general free moving service. That would be overwhelming. That doesn’t mean that we can’t ever help other people (I’ve helped others) but I think some acts of mutual service are more doable within communities of mutual obligation.

    And I think such communities are quite nice and really important. Without them we have isolation. But I also think the element of mutual commitment matters as well (Mosiah 18:8-9). Of course one should help one’s neighbor you find robbed and beaten in a ditch, but some forms of aid (like shared goods, my next post) come with mutually covenanting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.