Jim Street

If we would become "gratitudians", that is, people whose lives are characterized by gratitude, we would do well to practice gratitude.

We become what we do.

Consider the words of Paul in Ephesians 5:20: "...be filled with the Spirit, as you sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts, giving thanks to God the Father at all times and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."  (NRSV)

Focus on those italicized words.  Paul uses a participle, which denotes continuing action, underscores it with the word always, and underscores that with the phrases "at all times" and "for everything."

Do you think maybe Paul thought that giving thanks ought to be a constant practice among followers of Jesus?

I read that this way: Always keep on giving thanks all of the time for everything and in ever situation.

Paul doesn't seem to think there are occasions when we should not offer thanksgiving!

His call is for constant, consistent, ongoing, thanksgiving at all times and in every circumstance. 

Now does that mean that we must constantly walk around repeating the words, "Thank you, thank you, thank you?"  Well, that wouldn't be a bad practice would it? (It might get a little tedious, especially for those of us who are not multi-taskers!)   But maybe that's what it would take for us to develop the habit of thanksgiving as we journey toward becoming gratitudians.

I think the deeper point is to become someone whose life is marked by gratitude, whose very being exudes gratitude, whose every gesture and word is filled with grace.

Such a person is a constant offering of gratitude. 

Let me add one other thing here that goes beyond this text, something I just realized this week-end...More often than not, far more often (maybe even always!) Paul directs all thanksgiving to God.  

While a few examples may exist of Paul offering thanks to a person, his practice seems to be to thank God for the person and for their actions.  "I thank God for you.." is more often on the lips of Paul than a mere "Thank you..."

I had not noticed that before this week-end when I was flipping through my trusty Strong's Concordance and noticed time after time when Paul employed that kind of language.

I think that kind of 'thank you' is better than a straight to the face thank you. 

When we thank God for someone (and/or for what they have done) we rightly name them and their action as "gift."   They are not just accidentally in our lives and their presence and their action are not accidents either. 

They are signs of God's grace. 

In thanking God for others and their actions, we place ourselves, the other,  and their their action toward us all within the province of grace. 

We are thus living the moment in the domain of ultimate reality, that is, in the domain of the sacred.  The ordinary give and take of life becomes charged with the grandeur of God.

I thank God for you!  I thank God for your many kind words of encouragement.  I thank God for good and patient people who read what I write because I have little choice but to write (or speak!)  I thank God for you because without you I could not be me.

You see?  My simple act of writing and your simple act of reading is a gift- a sign of grace, a sign of the love and presence of God!

Now what if we saw everyone and everything with those eyes?

More tomorrow.

First, a thought or two about "meaning."  It seems to me that objects or actions are meaningful only when located in some sort of context.  Or, at least I could say it the other way around...context determines meaning.

A lonely rock in my yard may mean something.  However, that same rock thrown through my window by an angry neighbor means something else.

An action- say the action of holding my hands up in the air- will mean different things depending upon whether I'm riding a roller coaster, being held up by a robber, or standing in an elevator.  In the first case I am "embracing the thrill".  In the second, I am doing "as I am told."  In the third, I am "acting nutty."

(Incidentally, humor can be generated by misnaming what seems obvious by an action in a particular context.  I remember once when I was at Six Flags Over Georgia with a friend and he pointed out the folks on the roller coaster and said: "Hey look... Pentecostals are riding the Scream Machine!")

To be meaningful, an action must be seen in the context that gives that action its meaning.  For example, a Christian who forgives is doing something that derives its rich meaning from the story of God as demonstrated and taught in the life of Jesus. 

A gang member who forgives may be seen as weak or even being a traitor.  (I saw a third baseman walk off the field in the middle of a game once because the pitcher would not hit the batter with a pitch in retaliation for a similar action by the opposing pitcher in the previous inning. Apparently, the willingness to retaliate was supposed to be evidence of loyalty or some such.)

As a Christian, I take the example and teaching of Jesus Christ to be fundamental to understanding what ideas and actions are fundamental to living well or to becoming whole as a human being.

I understand Jesus Christ to be the example par excellence of human wholeness.  I accept Jesus- his teaching and his life- as pointing to and exemplifying what a life well-lived looks like.

I am stating that out front for several reasons.

First, I think it is harmful to Christian teaching to simply lift practices out of the context of the Christian story and hold them up as good practices without regard to that larger story.  (e.g. some folks say you should forgive because it's a good thing to do for yourself.  What I'm saying is that it's a good thing to forgive whether it pays off for you or not.  It's good because it points beyond itself to the character and action of God.  Otherwise, forgiveness becomes simply a matter of pragmatic self-protection.)

Second, I want to be open about where I'm coming from in making the claims I am making.   I believe Jesus shows and tells us a way to live that leads to human wholeness.  I believe if you want to know how to be fully human, if you want to know the "life well-lived" then you can do no better than to look to Jesus Christ as example and teacher.

What does a "life well-lived" mean?

I do this to myself: I announce to the world that I am going to write about something.  I sit down to write.  Then, I realize I have no idea what to say!

Well..maybe that's not exactly true.  After all, I already live a certain kind of life and because I live it I must think it is better than other options. 

Perhaps the life I live is not exactly the "life well-lived".  However, it is a closer approximation to what that might mean to alternative lives I might live.

I think my suburban, middle class life is better than the thug life I read about in the papers.  I may not be living the "life well-lived" but at least I'm not dodging bullets or running from the police or always looking over my shoulder to see if a drug lord is on my tail wanting to collect his money.

Maybe the "life well-lived" is like quality.  I know what it ain't.  I know it when I see it  I'm just not sure I know how to describe it.

Part of the challenge of defining anything is related to the times we live in.  If I want to say "this is 'the life well-lived'" there will always be someone who asks, "How do you know?"

Here's a story about baseball umpire Bill Klem. The pitch was thrown, the ball whizzed past the batter and into the catcher's mitt.  Everyone waited for Klem to call the pitch.  The batter turned and asked: "Well, was it a strike or a ball?"   And Klem replied: "It ain't nothin' 'til I call it."

Is a strike or a ball a fact in the world (i.e. does it correspond to some predetermined standard that is seen as "THE TRUTH"?) or is a strike or a ball only because someone says it's a strike or a ball?

What is a "life well-lived"?  Does it correspond to some standard or is just whatever one wants it to be or what some community wants it to be?

All of this may seem like so much prattle.  (Is it prattle because it corresponds to some absolute as to what makes up 'prattle' or is it 'prattle' because you, dear reader, don't care or don't like it or because it is giving you a headache?  See the problem?)

However, isn't it the case that we are constantly shown competing images of what makes up a "life well-lived"?    Isn't that what much of the fight is about?

Is it the lifestyle of the rich and famous?  Is it the hip-hop life?  Is it country or urban living? 

What is the "life well-lived?"