A Spoon or a Ladle?

Would you rather use a spoon or a ladle?

An odd question, I understand. Tools, whether found in the carpenter’s wood shop, the mechanic’s garage, or the chef’s kitchen, are designed to serve specific functions. And so I should probably expect you to respond with, “That depends on what I’m using it for.”

True, true. And yet that response doesn’t really answer my question, which is intended to elicit a gut-reaction; a knee-jerk response; a word-association type flash of the subconscious mind that wants a spoon, that wants a ladle. All things being equal, and without considering the circumstances, would you rather use a spoon or a ladle?

There is something comforting about a spoon. Maybe it’s the smooth contours, the way it goes into the mouth without concern for safety (although not all spoons are created equal in this regard. Haven’t we all noticed that the plastic spoons they give you at Wendy’s are too deep? You either have to pull it out of your mouth with an upward flourish, or contort your upper lip to ensure that it comes out clean! But I digress…). Maybe a spoon brings to mind the comfort foods that require one: hearty winter soups and chilis, Cream of Wheat or oatmeal, ice cream.

Ladles are something altogether different, aren’t they? Well… unless one realizes that a ladle is just an oversized spoon with a wonky handle. But a ladle is a different tool for a different purpose. We don’t eat our Cap’n Crunch with a ladle (if you do, it’s a sure sign that it’s been entirely too long since you last washed the dishes). A ladle is what we reach for when the soup is hot and ready to serve; when the throat is parched, and punch is in order.

The spoon is a tool used to consume. The ladle is a tool used to serve. Would you rather use a spoon or a ladle?

Jesus said, “Don’t judge, and you won’t be judged. Don’t condemn, and you won’t be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good portion—packed down, firmly shaken, and overflowing—will fall into your lap. The portion you give will determine the portion you receive in return” (Luke 6:37-38, CEB). It is interesting that Jesus contrasts judgment and condemnation with giving. Rather than judge our neighbor, rather than condemn her, Christ calls us to serve her. And not just half-heartedly, like someone who gives a cup of flour but cheats on the volume; but like one who packs it in, shakes it down, and allows the flour to spill over the edge of the scoop. 

Or to use another analogy, “Give, and it will be given to you. A good portion—where the ladle digs deep from the heartiness at the bottom of the pot, rather than a ladle of thin broth from off the top—will be served into your bowl.”

A spoon is used to consume. It is what we use to bring what we need or want to our own mouths. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Don’t do anything for selfish purposes, but with humility think of others as better than yourselves. Instead of each person watching out for their own good, watch our for what is better for others. Adopt the attitude that was in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:3-5, CEB).

That attitude is described by Jesus when he said, “Whoever wants to be first among you will be the slave of all, for the Human One [the Son of Man] didn't come to be served but rather to serve and to give his life to liberate many people” (Mark 10:44-45, CEB). A ladle is used to serve. It answers the needs or desires of another. 

Would you rather use a spoon or a ladle?

The Church IS Caving to Pressure to Adopt Societal Norms, But Not the One You're Thinking Of

Paul puts it in the clearest possible terms in the 14th chapter of his letter to the Romans: "Who are you to judge someone else’s servants? They stand or fall before their own Lord (and they will stand, because the Lord has the power to make them stand)." (Rom. 14:4, CEB).

At this point in his letter, Paul is talking about doctrinal issues of significant importance in the life of the church in his day. Should people eat food that had been sacrificed to idols? Should the Sabbath still be observed? Those aren’t the controversies that plague the church today, but we have controversies of our own, don’t we? We can certainly think of controversies about which we feel passionately—so passionately, in fact, that we might think that they serve as sufficient cause to reject fellowship with others: homosexuality, abortion, universalism, the authority of scripture, divestment decisions, and so on. But here Paul makes a clear argument that regardless of one’s personal convictions, such controversies are insufficient cause for breaking fellowship with fellow Christians.

He’s not saying we shouldn’t care about important issues, or that we should stop advocating for our positions. Paul engaged in theological arguments and disputes all the time. Paul is not as concerned about the moral rectitude of Christians’ deeply held convictions as he is about the spirit of those Christians for or toward those with whom they disagree: “Those who [hold one position] must not look down on the ones who [do not], and the ones who do not [hold that position] must not judge the ones who do, because God has accepted them” (14:3). Granted, this is not universally applicable. He acknowledges that whether they hold one position or the other, they do so as a conscientious act of faithfulness, seeking to glorify God (14:6). That is the litmus test — perhaps the only valid one — for determining continued fellowship. “I wholeheartedly disagree with my sister’s position on abortion,” one might say, “But in her position, she seeks to glorify God.” I suspect that this reflective attitude would almost invariably yield an unbroken fellowship, and it just might result in a dialogue wherein each party comes away with a better appreciation for (though not necessarily agreement with) the position of the other.

I have heard it said, especially lately, that the church is accommodating societal norms, “caving to pressure to be more like the rest of society,” and I couldn’t agree more. To whit, we have allowed ourselves to believe that we can hate and despise those who disagree with us, just like the rest of society. “Out in the world,” liberals and conservatives (because those are apparently the only two kinds of people who exist) disparage each other, hate each other, sabotage each other, and even stoop to the school-yard level of calling each other names, and all because of the self-righteousness with which they cling to their own positions.

Most troublingly, we’ve been seeing the same behavior happening in the church as well. We stop seeing another person as a child of God, and view him or her instead as the personification of a sin — such as the “sin” of being a liberal, the “sin” of being a conservative. Good people — good people — fall victim to this mentality, and it doesn’t just happen “out there in the world;” it also happens within the Church. And that is the sin. The closely held belief of the people with whom you disagree probably isn’t sinful; but the disdain, the dismissiveness, the very thoughts that you have about those people in your mind probably are sinful. That is the sin of society that we have allowed to infiltrate the body of Christ. We are called to be better than that.

Our identity is not derived from political or moral standing, or from identification with these people in opposition to those people. Instead, Paul points the Romans to the transcendent truth: “If we live, we live to the Lord; if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:8). Our relation to every other is mediated through our relation to God. Period.

When does forgiveness end? Never (Matt.18:21-22). Who shouldn’t we love? No one (Luke 10:25-37). Who is in a position to condemn? Only Christ (Rom. 8:34).

Only Christ.

How might the world respond to the church if it offered the positive example of disagreeing without being disagreeable as an alternative to the surpassing value the world places on “winning” political battles where no one actually wins? Rather than emulating the world, the church should “exhibit the kingdom of heaven in the world,” offering it an alternative model of interpersonal and inter-institutional dialogue worth emulating.