IS GOD ON YOUR SIDE?
Updated: Oct 14, 2023
How to know if you're in the "right" group.
Before I go any further with this blog, I need to confess something up front:
I like to be right.
Even better, I like getting credit - publicly - for when I'm right.
My husband is not like that at all. Recently, I watched someone take credit for something he did, and he said nothing. He did not correct the person or speak up. (It was a minor deal; don't get me wrong. He is not a doormat.)
What he is, though, is humble and honorable and kind. He is just so about love that the supporting details don't matter to him. He will always choose the higher law - love.
Now, if I were in that same situation, I would have stood up and announced to the group that it was actually, in fact, my idea. (I acknowledge this is not a very attractive quality and it's something I'm working on.)
And I would have been right - technically.
But would that have been the right thing to do?
Because when something is "right," then it's true, correct, factual. But, doing the "right" thing implies it's morally good, upright, justified, righteous.
So, maybe being right is not always righteous. I'm saying, how we behave in response to our rightness matters.
When we believe our position or view is the correct one ("good") and other people are wrong ("bad"), we are introducing morality into human interactions and situations. We draw lines in the sand for people to stand on either side of and recruit others to "our side” of any given disagreement.
And we gravitate to groups of people who think and believe (and vote) like we do.
The motivations for choosing a particular group vary, but the reason for why you join is always the same: belonging.
Everyone wants to belong. This is why we feel such loyalty to our sports teams and social groups. It’s the reason behind networking events, political rallies, fundraisers, churches, group texts, and clubs of all kinds.
It makes us feel that we are not alone. That’s what groups do.
At their best, our identity groups give us a sense of purpose in the world - like the cycling club that rides the “Tour de Cure” to raise money for diabetes research.
But at their worst, they can promote harmful ideologies - like the KKK. (See my blog on identity politics for more about that.)
I think a good way to assess your group is whether or not you have enemies. (I mean, of course if you are a Tar Heel, any Blue Devil is your rival.)
Some rivalries are fun, playful and harmless.
But, if the group you belong to feels the need to ask others, “are you for us or against us?" that could be a sign that your group is flirting with the harmful side.
My mom always said there are two sides to every story, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I think that's probably mostly true.
And it is also true that some things DO require a hard line in the sand. Like injustice, inequality, hate.
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel
I remember after 9/11, when America declared war on terrorism. President Bush famously said, “You are either for us, or against us in the fight against terror.”
Black and white. No gray area. No middle ground. No “very fine people, on both sides.”
But, I admit, some things are not so clear cut.
So, how do you know if you and/or your group is in the right?
We see a lot of that, “You are either for us or against us,” and, "Whose side are you on?" playing out in our world. Groups of people declare war, literally and metaphorically, against other groups of people, like Republicans vs. Democrats. But it goes beyond politics.
Those kinds of groups can mean well. They can have the best of intentions. But, if your group is regularly defensive and combative, if they tend to make enemies of other groups of people, then I am simply suggesting that you may want to take a closer look at what drives that approach.
I’ll just be real clear about what I am getting at here: I am referring to religious groups.
And if these groups justify their "righteous" positions by leaning on and quoting the Bible, then I think it would be helpful to take a look at how the Bible handles these situations - from a different angle.
For example, in the book of Joshua.
In Joshua 5:13-15, a man approaches Joshua. Joshua, who is in full-on battle mode, confronts this man with sword-drawn and ready to throw down in defense of his group. Joshua demands to know whose side this guy is on.
“Are you for us or against us?” Joshua asks.
Pause:
Can you see this playing out in our world today? I do, all the time. And what I see is that when loyalty to ones’ religious group (often in the name of righteousness) takes the front seat, love is lost.
And I believe that the only "side" God is on, is the side of love.
So, back to the story.
When Joshua asks what side he's on, the man says, “Neither.”
The Bible immediately tells us that this man was a commander of God’s army. Joshua was fighting for God, right? So, why wouldn’t the commander of God’s army say, “I’m with you guys."
Perhaps Joshua's heart wasn’t fully in the "right" place. Maybe Joshua's loyalty to his group and his desire to be righteous, was overriding his loyalty to God. When the man tells Joshua he is on “neither” side, it tells me that God is not interested in taking sides.
Look, maybe I am stretching the text. I don’t think I am, because part of the beauty of the Bible is in it’s INTENTIONAL vagueness, so that it stands the test of time - all time, in all places and all contexts. And this is how this story speaks to me. But I could be wrong.
So, the commander of God’s army said “neither,” and then he told Joshua to, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” (Think Moses at the burning bush - Joshua is given the same command.)
We need to remember to situate ourselves in the ancient Hebrew context while we read this story. And taking off sandals was what the priests did when entering the sanctuary, as a sign of respect and submission in the holy presence of God.
Another word for submission is surrender. Is it possible that in addition to acknowledging God’s presence, that Joshua was also being told to surrender?
Not so that the Philistines could turn around and enslave the Israelites. But for Joshua to set aside his attachment to his "rightness," to his his identity group (“are you for us or against us?”), and to surrender fully to God’s desires for all of humanity, which was to bring everything and everyone back together again, back to Him. To set things truly right in a broken world.
Maybe Joshua’s military campaign - maybe - was not what God desired. Because if we are all made in God’s image, and I believe we are, then how can God favor one group over another?
I feel like when we read this story, we will fall into one of two camps.
If we read this story and think, “Well, Joshua was just following God’s orders,” then we can justify this divisive militant approach in our lives today. We will believe that “our group” possesses God’s special favor, and we’ll go to war - literally and metaphorically - with people who we deem to be “against” God. We read this text and think God condones righteous violence and wants us to go into battle with certain groups.
This is how religious groups justify their engagement in “culture wars.” They go into battle over religious issues (gender roles and women’s ordination/leadership in the church), political issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, gender identity), even school curriculum (critical race theory, prayer in schools), all in the name of God.
So, that’s one camp. And then there are those who belong to the second camp on this issue.
If Joshua was “just following God’s orders,” then that’s an example of why some Christians today want to “unhitch” or divorce themselves entirely from the God of the Old Testament. Because they do not want a God of righteous anger and wrath that is hell-bent on destroying certain groups.
This is the problem many people have with much of the Old Testament representation of God. And I am just suggesting here that maybe God has been mis-represented.
(I recently heard someone say that when Jesus came to earth, he came to represent God. But said another way, Jesus came to re-present God. To present God in a new way. And I love that. And that is what I am trying to communicate here with this blog.)
I propose a third way to read this story, and others like it. Which is to read it with the whole story of the Bible in mind. (That God created a good world, that humanity chose to take power into our own hands, resulting in chaos and war and death...but that God's plan is restorative. He wants to bring everything back into right order again, like it was in the garden.)
And so we should read these stories and ask, how might God have been working here? What should I gather from this story? Where can I see this playing out in my life?
Because regardless of which camp we are in, shouldn’t we strive to learn from the Bible? Shouldn’t we read these stories and say to ourselves, “All of this war did not solve the problem. It only caused more separation from God. Maybe my group destroying other groups is not the right solution, and not what God desires. Maybe we should try a different approach?”
That’s what some later prophets thought, anyway. They called for God’s people to turn away from their wicked ways and to be a different kind of group. A truly righteous group.
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. - Hosea 6:6
And so, if we are ever tempted to ask - or answer - the question, “Are you for us or against us?” I hope we will think about the answer the man gave Joshua: “Neither.”
“I’m with God, whose only side is love.”
“I’m with God, who made every one of us in his image.”
“I’m with God, who desires mercy, not sacrifice.”
What would happen if we stopped looking at ourselves and our groups as being “for” or “against,” or "right" and "wrong," and simply starting saying, “I’m with God,” instead?
What if we focused less on the supporting details and more on the higher law - love?
What if we formed the habit of taking off our sandals, acknowledging that every place is holy ground?
What if we laid our loyalty to our groups aside and surrendered to a God that requires mercy, not sacrifice?
What might our groups look like then?
Comments