Skip to main content

A Question of Ownership

Sometimes in working with some daily devotional material, I am brought up short on some assumptions.  As I have noted in the past, I follow the lectionary---daily readings---from the Benedictine monastic tradition.  I like doing daily what I know Benedictine monks and nuns around the world are doing.  As I follow that, I know every time they worship, some portion of their time is taken up by reading a selection from the Psalms.  Reading this Psalms in this way has filled in a gap in my growing up as a Quaker.  We weren’t against the Psalms, but we did not use them very much.
   
In the reading from today for the first morning prayer, the Psalm selection was from Psalm 24.  I know I have read this Psalm multiple times before.  I know that I have even written on some of the verses in this Psalm.  Maybe I have thought before about the initial verse of the Psalm, but I don’t remember it hitting me like it did this time.  It makes me wonder what is going on in my life right now that makes me latch on to and reflect on this initial verse.
   
Psalm 24 begins by affirming “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it.”  The Psalm continues to talk about God as creator and how we respond to God as our creation.  However, I simply want to focus on the first verse.  I know what I share is not novel and the theological profundity has been articulated by others.  But the truth of the verse is what hit me this time.
   
The earth is the Lord’s.  I know this intellectually.  I have taken the Genesis creation story to be true at some real level.  I don’t think God created literally in seven days and I don’t read those Genesis creation verses literally.  But they always have spoken a truth to me.  God created it all---the world, animals, trees and me.  However, it is one thing to take something and hold it as true.  It is another thing for that truth somehow to hit home.  That is what seems to have happened.
   
The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it.  I suspect the Psalmist also meant what is on the earth and above the earth.  Whatever is, belongs to God.  Theologically, I believe this and have no problem with it.  Somehow it seems like it should be this way.  But there is where the humor of the situation hit me.
   
I have a piece of paper that says I own my car.  In fact, I own two cars!  And I also now own my house.  The mortgage is paid and the county in my state thinks I own my house.  And with that goes a little portion of the earth.  I am not sure how deep into the earth my ownership goes, but apparently the law says the property on which my house sits in mine.  I agree.  But that is where my normal way of thinking hits a theological snag with this Psalm.  Is it a question of ownership?
   
I don’t want to jump into deep theologizing nor plumb the depths of jurisprudence and lawyer talk.  I want to find a way to balance two truths.  On truth is that legally I do own cars and a house.  And the other truth is the biblical truth that the earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it.  I want to explore how both of these can be true, but true on different levels. 
   
The first level of truth is the human law level.  At this level, I do own things.  I bought them, paid for them and legitimately own them.  If and when I want, I can sell my cars and my house to someone else.   My cars certainly won’t be worth the same amount of money I paid for them.  And my house---who knows?  But I have used them all and appreciated having them.  That has been the true value.  The value was not the paper that said I owned them; the value was the availability to have a place to rest and a vehicle to transport me.  None of this is necessary to life.  But they have been very helpful and made my life easier. 
   
At a deeper level, I appreciate the Psalmist reminding me of the theological truth.  Everything is the Lord’s.  And that includes not only cars, houses, but me, too!  I don’t plan to turn this into some kind of stewardship sermon.  What I do think matters, however, is explain how I understand the verb, “belong.”  The earth and all that is in it “belongs” to God.  I don’t want to understand that in terms of ownership as much as in terms of relationship.
   
Quite simply, I think God is ok with me “owning” my cars and house.  They are not eternal and I am mortal.  Time will take care of my ownership thing!  What matters more to God is relationship.  I am related to God.  We are related as creator-created.  That sounds a bit dry.  I prefer to think God and I are related as lovers.  God loved me into being.  And when I have done the relationship very well, God has reconciled me back into relationship. 
   
I suppose God is also related to my car and my house---related at least in the sense of the materials that make up all of them.  My theological perspective recognizes I can live without a car and a house, but I cannot live without God.  God is the source of my being and the resource of my continuing to be.  I affirm it all goes better when I attend to the relationship with God and cultivate a deeper relationship.  That makes life richer and more meaningful. 
   
If it’s a question of ownership, God says to go ahead and keep the papers to your stuff.  God is more interested in keeping our relationship.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I-Thou Relationships

Those of us who have read theology or, perhaps, those who are people of faith and are old enough might well recognize this title as a reminder of the late Jewish philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber.   I remember reading Buber’s book, I and Thou , when I was in college in the 1960s.   It was already a famous book by then.   I am not sure I fully understood it, but that would not be the last time I read it.   It has been a while since I looked at the book.             Buber came up in a conversation with a friend who asked if I had seen the recent article by David Brooks?   I had not seen it, but when I was told about it, I knew I would quickly locate and read that piece.   I very much like what Brooks decides to write about and what he contributes to societal conversation.   I wish more people read him and took him seriously.             Brooks’ article focused on the 2016 contentious election.   He provocatively suggests, “Read Buber, Not the Polls!”   I think Brooks puts

Spiritual Commitment

I was reading along in a very nice little book and hit these lines about commitment.   The author, Mitch Albom, uses the voice of one of the main characters of his nonfiction book about faith to reflect on commitment.   The voice belongs to Albom’s old rabbi of the Jewish synagogue where he went until his college days.   The old rabbi, Albert Lewis, says “the word ‘commitment’ has lost its meaning.”    The rabbi continues in a way that surely would have many people saying, “Amen!”   About commitment he says, “I’m old enough when it used to be a positive.   A committed person was someone to be admired.   He was loyal and steady.   Now a commitment is something you avoid.   You don’t want to tie yourself down.”   I also think I am old enough to know that commitment was usually a positive word.   I can think of a range of situations in which commitment would have been seen to be positive.   For example, growing up was full of sports for me.   Commitment would have been presupposed t

Inward Journey and Outward Pilgrimage

There are so many different ways to think about the spiritual life.   And of course, in our country there are so many different variations of religious experiences.   There are liberals and conservatives.   There are fundamentalists and Pentecostals.   Besides the dizzying variety of Christian traditions, there are many different non-Christian traditions.   There are the major traditions, such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on.   There are the slightly more obscure traditions, such as Sikhism, Jainism, etc.   And then there are more fringe groups and, even, pseudo-religions.   There are defining doctrines and religious practices.   Some of these are specific to a particular tradition or a few traditions, such as the koan , which is used in Zen Buddhism for example.   Other defining doctrines or practices are common across the religious board.   Something like meditation would be a good example.   Christians meditate; Buddhists meditate.   And other groups practice this spiri