I am James Hong and welcome to the Surpassing Value Podcast. The fuel and desire for this podcast was born out of a compulsion to flesh out what's been going on in the midst of an ocean of megaphones that may not actually withstand the test of scrutiny. As a signpost theologian, I will do my best to filter out the impurities and point people in the right direction.

For episode 6, I wanted to take a detour of sorts from some of the topics I've addressed because well, frankly, I think it's important to do so. The term I want to spend some time talking about in this episode is the term "contributory negligence." The term itself is solely a legal term that I'm borrowing to illustrate a concept.

So before we get to the borrowing, let's define the legal term first so we know exactly what we are borrowing. Britannica defines contributory negligence as follows, and I quote, "Contributory negligence in law is behavior that contributes to one's own injury or loss and fails to meet the standard of prudence that one should observe for one's own good.

Contributory negligence of the plaintiff is frequently pleaded in defense to a charge of negligence. Historically, the doctrine grew out of distrust of juries, which have usually been more sympathetic to plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits. The policy of not apportioning liability between parties to lawsuits, that is, charging each with some fraction of the blame, also encouraged the doctrine.

Contributory negligence usually arises in a lawsuit in which a plaintiff has accused a defendant of negligence. The defendant may then charge the plaintiff with contributory negligence. At common law, if the defendant proves this charge by a preponderance of evidence, the plaintiff cannot recover any damages, even if the defendant was negligent because the contributory negligence breaks the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and plaintiff's injury or loss.

In English law since the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence Act of 1945) and in many states in the United States, if the plaintiff is shown to have contributed to the injury, recovery may still be allowed, but provision is made for an equitable reduction of damages." I know that definition might be a little hard to receive just right away, so I want to illustrate this definition by giving you an example.

Suppose you live in an apartment with a leaky roof. It begins to rain heavily and the leaky roof begins to allow water to drip into the bathroom. You walk into the bathroom, you slip and you land straight on your back and cranium, rendering you unconscious. Indignant at the leaky roof, you sue the apartment for allowing the leaky roof in the first place.

When you hear these set of facts in a closed box, this might seem like an open and shut case, until perhaps I add some more facts. Suppose you've known about this leaky roof for over a year now. Suppose in the past year you had every opportunity to tell your landlord about the leaky roof that allows the water to drip into your bathroom, but you were just too lazy to contact him.

This changes things significantly, doesn't it? Remember, the leaky roof still isn't your fault. It was not of your doing in any way. You live in an apartment, not a home, so you're renting, you're not the owner. And what that means is that the responsibility of the upkeep of the apartment, especially outside the apartment on the roof, doesn't fall on you.

However, doesn't common sense dictate that having known about the leaky roof for quite some time, there should be some responsibility on your own part for not reporting the leak earlier? Should you receive a windfall despite the fact that you easily could have had the leaky roof fixed had you reported it?

Maybe some of you listening would say that you should still receive some compensation, but perhaps that compensation should be mitigated to some degree. Maybe not 100%, but to some degree. Maybe some would say that not reporting it when you had known about it for over a year is enough to not collect any compensation at all.

For those who think compensation should be received, how would we calculate what percentage should be mitigated given these set of facts? In other words, how do we calculate justice minus responsibility? I hope you're beginning to see that it's not the easiest task to put into concrete numbers abstract concepts and principles that we normally take for granted.

We typically demand justice when we see injustice, but who exactly has the requisite wisdom to mete out such weighty matters? How does this concept apply to what's going on right now? If you've been listening to this podcast, we've been covering some issues that have been hitting the entire world and the church pretty hard.

People are saddened, confused, dazed, indignant. Moreover, the anonymity that social media could bring has led to vile commenting, caricaturing of others or their positions, ultimately fueling suspicion and cynicism of the other. Before it was almost en vogue, it was almost in style to have a close friend or friends that had differing ideological spectrums from you that is now extinct like the woolly mammoth.

Before we look outside of us and wag the finger in dismay, I want us to consider if we ourselves could have possibly contributed in some way, in some way, to let's just call it a dumpster fire that is our current state of affairs. Because our current state of affairs in this country is a dumpster fire.

Is there any part we as individuals played in shaping today's society? Most poignantly, if you claim to be a Christian, the same Christian who claims to be an ambassador of a message that has the power to change minds, hearts, and lives, consider if you've been a good steward of that message, the steward that the gospel message deserves.

I have to tell you, as I say that, I'm inwardly cowering in shame. In the legal theory of contributory negligence, you don't have to purposefully intend to cause harm in order to have compensation mitigated. You just need to, as the phrase states, contribute in some negligent fashion even if the ultimate fault is not your own.

I am not saying that any one of us individually is solely responsible for where we are today as a nation and/or as a church. What I am saying though is that we all, all of us, every single one of us, play some part. And before we wag the finger at people we believe aren't getting it right, before we do that, before we wonder why the other could be so blinded, before we fill up with pride, this might be a good time and sit back and examine whether or not there is a log in our own eye.

And in case you're wondering how the legal theory of contributory negligence relates to what I'm saying here, since that theory applies to some wrongdoing against the plaintiff, my point is there are times we should see ourselves individually and there are times we should see each other collectively as one.

Romans 12, 3 to 13 says this, "For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think, but to think so as to have sound judgment as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we who are many are one body in Christ and individually members one of another. Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly, if prophecy according to the proportion of his faith, if service in his serving, or he who teaches in his teaching, or he who exhorts in his exhortation, he who gives with liberality, he who leads with diligence, he who shows mercy with cheerfulness.

Let love be without hypocrisy, abhor what is evil, cling to what is good, be devoted to one another in brotherly love, give preference to one another in honor, not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord, rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality." What a list, right?

Has our love been without hypocrisy? Have we abhorred what is evil? Have we clung to what is good? Have we been devoted to one another in brotherly love? Do you think the absence of these things would produce any type of effect in you? Would it produce any type of effect on a group at large?

Would the degree to which we exercise these commands corporately have any effect on our direct surrounding area? 1 Corinthians 12, 12-20 says this, "For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, 'Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,' it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.

And if the ear says, 'Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,' it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. The body is not one member, but while there are many members, but one body, we need each other.

We are stuck with each other, and we are not allowed to just cast off each other because we are one body. We are to love on one another, and win our brothers and sisters over as opposed to seeing the other as just that, the other. This is not an easy saying, and it doesn't mean that we throw judgment and discernment out the window.

However, what we should see in every human being is that imago Dei that brings inherent worth to every embodied soul. Imago Dei is Latin for the image of God. We see that in everybody regardless of a synthetic classification. Galatians 6.10 says it like this, "So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith." And we know that Paul wrote that in Galatians 6.10 because the world will know who we are in part by the way we love one another.

Does someone, your neighbor, your coworker, your brother or sister at church have a different view than you on masks or COVID in general? What about a differing nuanced political view on abortion or taxes, social justice, Trump, Biden, Republican, Democrat? Resist the urge to allow your heart to turn the corner into bitterness.

Again, I am not saying that we throw judgment and discernment out the window. I am not saying everyone should become completely eclectic in a flood of hippie harmony. What I am saying though is that whether you see it or not, we all played a part in where we are today.

We have all failed to grow in the way we should, to understand the Word the way we should, to understand the times in the way we should. We have all to some degree squandered our time, our money into frivolous things, rendering our testimony impotent at times. We have supposedly been students of the Word for years, yet know very little or have very little desire to get out of the rut that we are in.

Or perhaps our prayer lives have been muted for so long that we are afraid to even bring it to light and in so doing only prolong that mutedness. Perhaps we lack the humility to acknowledge our weak areas for fear of a tarnished reputation in the eyes of others, wanting so badly to build our kingdom within His kingdom as if that were even possible.

As we look at how deceptive philosophies have seemingly stolen the hearts of many, it is not a bad time to be introspective. Could it be, could it be, that at least in part the reason so many have become captivated to deceptive and empty philosophies is because they looked at those who purportedly held to a confession of truth, beauty, goodness, without the evidence of a changed life?

Colossians 2, 8-9 states, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form." Could it be that at least in part we are wired to believe that one's actions illustrate their own personal beliefs and convictions?

If someone is looking at you and your actions do not line up to what you profess, then why wouldn't someone want to look elsewhere? When we see our own house burning, it is not wrong to ask if there is some contributory negligence on our own part. Do you know what you believe?

Do you love what you believe? Does your life line up to what you believe? Titus 2, 11-14 states, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." I want to render a challenge to you.

A sign of true maturity is when what you take the most pleasure in lines up with what is eternally good and that is what you are also immersed in. I want to say that again. A sign of true maturity is when what you take the most pleasure in lines up with what is eternally good and that is what you are most immersed in.

I want to read to you Philippians 3, 7-15, "But whatever things were gained to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish, so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet, but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude, and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you." Did you catch what Paul said right here at the end? He says, "If you are perfect, then you will also adopt the same attitude as Paul." And if you think differently, if you have a different attitude than Paul, he doesn't say, "Agree to disagree." No, he doesn't say that at all.

He says, "If you think differently, well then, God will show you." God will show you. Meaning, what he's stating is exclusively the right way to think about Christian maturity. Paul is not saying, "This is a different level of maturity that is optional." He's saying, "If in anything you think differently, well, God will reveal, essentially, that you are wrong." That is a high calling.

It is an extremely lofty calling. But it is completely consistent in the sense that we are called to live a life worthy of the calling that we have received. Do not be overwhelmed by this. If you seek him, he will provide you with all the resources that are necessary.

Thanks for making it to the end. I'll continue to try to make the journey worth it. To him be honor, glory, and eternal dominion. Amen. Amen. (upbeat music)