When you can’t go any further, you know where you are

I went to the University of Oregon to begin my doctoral work in 1970.  I knew that they didn’t give doctorates out for really good essays on what I did last summer vacation.  I knew it would require original scholarly work.  And I didn’t even know what I wanted to study.

I did know who I wanted to study with, however, and that worked our just as well.  James C. Davies had written Human Nature in Politics in 1963. It was a serious consideration of important political ideas from the standpoint of research in social psychology.  So I did two things in pursuit of my new doctoral field.  I applied to be a graduate teaching fellow in the department of political science.  They said No.  So I applied to be the morning janitor at the public library in Eugene.  They said Yes.

boundary 2, 2From the standpoint of the dissertation I eventually wrote—I called it Undimensional Man, having a little fun with Herbert Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man—both the No and the Yes were crucially important.  This is all hindsight, of course.  I really wanted the fellowship and, except for the money, I really didn’t want the janitorship, but you really can’t tell, at the time, what is a good outcome and what a bad outcome.

Just before I would open the library doors to the public at 7:00 a.m., I would dust the whole library floor.  As a part of that process, I dusted past the theology section—and every other section—and in the theology section, three shelves up from the floor, was one of the ugliest book jackets I have ever seen.  It looked like it was designed not to be mistaken for a deer in hunting season; it was orange (not green, like the example) and yellow and black.  I noticed that cover for a month before I ever stopped to see what it was.  It was Gordon D. Kaufman’s magnum opus, Systematic Theology: a Historicist Perspective.  “Huh,” I said, “So that’s what it is.  Ugly cover.”

A month later, I picked it up again and noticed that he said, “a Historicist Perspective” as he should, and not “an Historicist Perspective” as many do. Then I noticed that he was raised Mennonite, which is not a religious background I associate with Harvard Divinity School, where Kaufman was a professor, and which is similar in many ways to my father’s upbringing in the Brethren in Christ church.  Eventually, I took the book out; I did have a library card, after all.  I have read it maybe a dozen times by now.  The Gordon Kaufman of 1968—he has moved on from his 1968 positions but I still hold them—is my “go to” theologian.”

When I started getting sold on Gordon Kaufman, I started working my way through his other books and by 1972, I had found God the Problem, a book of his essays.  In one of the essays, “Transcendence without Mythology,” I found this passage.

Consider, for example, the situation of a man imprisoned in a cell outside of which he has never been and from which he cannot escape. If he seeks to conceive the restricting walls of his room—with their resistance to his efforts to push through them, their hardness and solidity and color—as (material) realities, he will be able to do so only in analogy with the experienceable (material) objects within the room. Thus, his conclusion that the walls are composed of some sort of thickness of material substance, however plausible, in fact presupposes an interpretation of that which is beyond what is directly experienceable by him, namely the bare surface of the walls. The conception of the ultimate limit of his movements is constructed imaginatively out of elements derived from objects within his experience that partially restrict and limit him; for the stuff or structure of the walls themselves—that “behind” their surfaces—cannot be directly known, though the restrictingness of the walls is, of course, directly experienced.

It was the picture that did it for me.  A man in a completely dark cell.  What he knows aboutboundary 2.3 where he is can be determined by not being able to go any further.  He goes until he hits a wall and then he can’t go further.  By keeping track of where he is and moving in different directions, he can determine the size and shape of his “cell.”  He can learn the height of the cell and the makeup of the floor and what the inner surface of the walls is like.

And while I held that image in mind, I read a lot of anthropology and sociology and psychology and political theory and had conversations with a lot of really interesting professors and graduate students.  I began to notice that “what stops us from going where we want to go” is like the wall of a cell.  Skin color can be a wall; gender can be a wall; poverty can be a wall; being religious or irreligious or wrong-religious (depending on where you live) can be a wall.  And how do you find out that there are walls there?  By running into them and remembering where they are.

I was still thinking about walls when I read Amitai Etzioni on “inauthenticity” and how it is different from “alienation.”  The guy in the cell in Kaufman’s example is alienated as Etzioni sees him.  But look at this distinction: “The alienated man sees before him a tall unyielding wall; the man caught in an inauthentic situation feels entailed in a cobweb.”  You can find that on page 633 of Etzioni’s The Active Society or you can find it as the quotation introducing a paper Dave Campbell and I published last year, “Turning Cobwebs into Walls.”

When I read Etzioni on inauthenticity, I realized that you don’t really need walls to trap boundary 2, 1people.  Cobwebs will do the trick if the people have given up on going anywhere or if they are confused about where to go or even if the notion of “going somewhere” has lost all meaning.

The short way to end this story is that when I saw that cobwebs could function as “walls”—and in Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man, they do—I sat down and wrote my dissertation.  That wouldn’t be a fair account, but it wouldn’t really be false.  I needed to add some other pieces to that realization to bring me to inventing a “causal attribution journal” as a way to tell which were walls and which only cobwebs.

The work of devising the causal attribution journal has been on my mind since 1974.  I have been presented by my undergraduate classes with dozens of ways to misunderstand it which I would never have thought of.  And in all that, the image of the guy in the dark cell has continued to anchor all my speculation and all my teaching.  And I had forgotten about it until just last week.

Posted in Political Psychology | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

2014 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 5,800 times in 2014. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 5 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Simeon the Stubborn

We just finished the season of Advent.  On the church calendar, it is now Christmas.  How awkward is that?  Our whole society is saying “Been there, done that,” and the churches, the liturgical churches at any rate, are saying, “Wait.  We’re just getting started.”

So it’s Christmas now.  And at our house, it is the Christmas story according to Luke this year and that brings us to the character of Simeon.  Bette once said that a mind like mine that makes connections by so many different modalities really shouldn’t be trusted with a blog that just anyone could read.  She didn’t actually say that out loud, but I know the look by now.  Today, my goal is to prove her right.

The thing that’s hard to get about Simeon is just how bad he wants it.  Here’s what Luke says about him.

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

jacob 2The expression “the consolation of Israel” doesn’t have a single clear meaning, but everyone is sure it means that God will, at long last, take care of his people, Israel.  It is something a devout man might feel very intensely about.  He might want it more than he wanted anything.  He might very understandably want it more than he wanted life, but that wasn’t a trade he was going to get to make.

It is easy for people who haven’t thought about it to imagine that “should not see death [until]…as something like the invulnerability of Achilles.  And just as we think Achilles is “safe”—except for that little matter of the heel—so we might think that Simeon is “safe” until God provides the promised consolation; until, in Luke’s phrasing, he had seen “the Lord’s Christ.”

That’s not the way I’m thinking about it.  Let me add a batch of entirely fictional, but also entirely plausible, “facts” about Simeon.  He’s an old man.  Let’s say he has rheumatoid arthritis. He is in pain all the time.  He doesn’t sleep well, so he is fuzzy-minded all the time.  He doesn’t have any friends and he doesn’t get around the way he once did.  And yet, every day he goes to the office, so to speak.  He goes to the temple to pray for the one thing that he can set beside his pain and his drowsiness and his loneliness in such a way that they all would be worth enduring.  He wants to die, sure.  He is eager to die.  But he refuses until God makes good on His promise.

God looks down from heaven and pities the old man.  He says, “Simeon, this is taking longer than I thought.  It’s OK for you to let go. I know you want to die and it is a release you deserve.”  And Simeon says, “No.  Absolutely not.  You promised and I am holding you to it no matter what it costs me.  I will be here—I will be right here—until you keep your promise.”

Then one day the Holy Spirit says to Simeon, “Go to the temple.  Now!”  Simeon, being that kind of person, does what he is told and there he finds Joseph and Mary and their infant child.  This is really the only way for the standoff between God and Simeon to be resolved.  They put the child into his arms and he realized instantly that the two things he wants more than anything—but wants equally—are now his.  He is holding “the consolation of Israel,” in his arms.  God has acted, finally, and “the anointed of the Lord” is here.  God has kept His word.

Now he can accept the other gift God has for him.

29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace…30 for mine eyes have seen thy salvation.

Some translations read, “Lord, now dismiss your servant…”  The New Jerusalem Bible has “Now, Master, you are letting your servant go in peace as you promised…”  And then, as I imagine it, Simeon dies.  He dies, I am sure, with a smile on his lips.  He can lay all that down now.  He can die in peace.  God’s honor has been preserved and Simeon’s waiting has been rewarded.

As I was thinking about Simeon this year, how badly he must have wanted it impressed himself on my mind.  If Simeon had had a wife, she would have said to him, as Job’s wife said, “Why are you hanging on like this?  Curse God and die.”  And like Job, Simeon would have said, “No.  I will wait.”

Jacob 1Then, yesterday, I thought of it another way.  This is going to take us back to Jacob, later named Israel, wrestling with “the angel.”  See Genesis 32 for the whole story.  The being Jacob was wrestling—there is some confusion about who it was, exactly—said, “Let me go for day is breaking.”  Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

Jacob is not a character I have ever admired, but this year, I noticed that he was stubborn in the same way Simeon was stubborn.  Simeon had God’s promise, “I will not let you go until I bless you.”  In the fantasy I managed above, God tried to talk Simeon out of it but Simeon wasn’t having any.   In that fantasy, Simeon said to God what Jacob said: “I will not…go…until you bless me.”  Simeon knew the story and he was sticking to it.

As someone who has read the Bible all his life, I can’t tell you that I think these two passages—Genesis 32 and Luke 2—are related in any way.  But the transactions they describe suddenly seemed to me to be oddly alike.  This way of looking at it makes Simeon a lot more stubborn than he has been in the imagination of any commentator I have read, but it also makes me like him better.  He wanted to die more than he wanted any thing—except one.  And on behalf of that one thing, he came to the temple, day after day, to remind God of his promise.

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can you really prepare for Alzheimer’s?

I think so.

Last night, I watched a really good TED talk my brother, Karl, sent to me.  The talk is about Alzheimers disease and Karl is my older brother—the only one of the four of us to have cracked 80 so far.  Alzheimers is something Karl and I care about, so when he recommended this lecture, I paid attention.

You can see it here and I hope you do.

But if you don’t—and most of you are a lot younger than I am—let me tell you what it says and let me start at another place.  Here is Dylan Thomas’s well-known prescription:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

He had death in mind, of course, not dementia.  But the you—the person you are—is what is lost in dementia.  Dementia shows that “who I am” is a shorthand expression referring to who I have been.  I am proud of who I have been, but as that self slips away, I do not become no one at all.  I become the person I am then.  I may be shifting, frail,  and confused.  A disordered self, but a self, still.

As I look at the poem, I am struck that submission or acceptance are seen as one pole: the bad one.  And rage is seen as the other pole: the good one.  Really?  Are those the options?  Whatever a self is, it is associated with “agency,” that is, with the ability to intend an outcome and to act so as to achieve it.  Is it worth spending the last penny of agency on rage?  Maybe that’s a good use for some people.  I don’t think it is for me.

Alanna Shaikh calls her talk “Preparing to get Alzheimers,” which is a little catchier than the title I would choose.  She pictures herself as predisposed to get Alzheimers because her father had it—as my father did—but I still think I would want to say that I was preparing for the possibility of Alzheimers.  There are three things you can do, she says, and I like all of them.

Alz 1First, learn to do some activities that are not principally cognitive.  She chose knitting.  The idea is that you want to do things you take pleasure in and if the New York Times crossword is the kind of thing you take pleasure in, you are going to lose it quickly.  You aren’t going to lose knitting quickly.  You hands will know how to knit and you will  be able to take pleasure in what they do.

That idea caught me because my favorite activities, apart from running on Portland’s famous Wildwood Trail, are cognitively demanding.  I read a lot, I write a lot, I have discussions that require and that celebrate careful thought and careful use of words.  Maybe I could make a regular routine out of shooting baskets.  I used to be a pretty good shot.  Maybe weeding garden beds is my kind of thing. Something.  Alanna’s idea is that now is the time to start getting good at it and that, at least, makes sense.

Second, she proposes that becoming physically stronger and better balanced are worth doing.  If Alzheimers offers a straight decline from whatever level of fitness you had whenAlz 2 the decline started, then the higher the level, the more of the decline is at the good end of the scale.  She wants to maintain her mobility for as long as she can, and who wouldn’t?

I have had a quibble for a long time now with the notion of “getting fit.”  “Fit for what?” I always wonder.  Here, at last, is a good answer.  Fit for moving around safely under your own power.  Fit as in not falling down and hurting yourself.  Fit as in standing up and sitting down when you want to.  Those all seem to me to be things worth doing and retaining the ability to do them longer doesn’t have, for me, any of that burring sulphur smell of “rage against the dying of the light.”

Alz 3Shaikh’s third project is “becoming a nicer person.”  I have my doubts about that one.  I think becoming a nicer person is worth doing, but my sense of what Alzheimers does to you is that it takes you way back to your most natural and least processed self.  I don’t think I am going to “regress” in my 80s to the person I started trying to become in my 50s.  If it really works like that, I’m going to move toward the person I was as a little boy.  That’s a mixed bag, I’m sure, but I was a pretty happy little boy, so maybe it will work out.

Apart from the specifics of Shaikh’s proposals, I’d have to say that I really like the idea of doing what I can now to give me more good time then.  And if “then” never comes, how bad is that?  I’m stuck with some new skills and a heightened level of fitness and some surplus niceness?  Is that bad?

And then too, I just like being plan-full.  It feels good to me.

Posted in Getting Old | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Green Chri$tma$, 1958

When Green Chri$tma$ came out in 1958, I was about twenty years old.  I thought it was the funniest broadcast parody I ever heard.  I memorized it immediately—not much of a trick at twenty, really—and performed little impromptu snatches of it with friends and family.  It was AGAINST the commercialization of Christmas.  Can you imagine?  In 1958?
Now, in 2014, you can just google Freberg, Green Christmas and hear the whole thing and green 2if you are my age or so, you can just check off the products that are being referred to, one after the other.  What is it, for instance, that is “hot” as that kind of product “ought?”
But…of course…a lot of life has intervened between 1958 and 2014.  I still love the skit and I still remember most of it, but a couple of things have come slowly to my mind since the fifties.  One is that I have become a good deal more sensitive to the -zation suffix.  “-ize” is an action suffix; something has been done to a word that has been “-ized.”  A “personalized” birthday card, for instance, was impersonal and then you “-ized” it and now, if you did it well, it is “personal.”
It is easy and accurate to say that Christmas has been -ized and if it is an egregiously commercial “holiday” it has been commercialized.  But as a personalized birthday card was impersonal before you personalized it, Christmas was something before we commercialized it.  And before it became a celebration of the birth of the Christ (Christ-mas) it was, by various names, the Festival of Sun-return.  And some very enterprising Christian missionaries sacralized it and it became Christmas.  I’m fine with that.  I still celebrate Sun-return.  Everyone who is affected by Seasonal Affective Disorder during Portland’s relentlessly gray winters also celebrates Sun-return.  I also celebrate Christmas, mostly Advent in my case, and enjoy them both.
Green Chri$tma$ scandalized a lot of people.  It was played only twice in New York [City] by one disc jockey, and the station’s sales department threatened to have him fired if he played it again.  Robert Wood, manager of KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, told Freberg it was “sacrilegious,” which it might well have been although we would need to know Wood’s religion to be sure.
Sacrilegious?  Really?  Let’s look.

SCROOGE AND CHORUS:
Christmas comes but once a year,
So you better cash in,
While the spirit lingers,
It’s slipping through your fingers,
Boy! Don’t you realize
Christmas can be such a
Monetary joy!

CRATCHET: Well, I guess you fellows will never change.

SCROOGE: Why should we? Christmas has two s’s in it, and they’re both dollar signs.

You really have to like Cratchet, played by long-time Freberg associate Dawes Butler. He is so sincere it almost makes your gums hurt.  And Freberg’s Scrooge is so really really awful.  It is immediately satisfying to be opposed to Scrooge.  You find yourself backing into agreement with Cratchet as you are backing away from Scrooge.  But, of course, backing into a position is not a good way to understand the position you are about to take.

Cratchet’s position is that Christmas has a meaning, a purpose.  He doesn’t say what it is, of course, and Scrooge is not denying that Christmas has a purpose.  In Scrooge’s world, the purpose is commercial; in Cratchet’s, the purpose is…well…benevolent.  Christmas means good things.  Here’s his introduction to the idea.

CRATCHET: But Mr.Scrooge…

SCROOGE: What? Who are you?

CRATCHET: Bob Cratchet, sir. I’ve got a little spice company over in East Orange, New Jersey. Do I have to tie my product in to Christmas?

SCROOGE: What do you mean?

CRATCHET: Well, I was just going to send cards out showing the three wise men following the Star of Bethlehem…

SCROOGE: I get it! And they’re bearing your spices. Now that’s perfect.

CRATCHET: No, no… no product in it. I was just going to say, “Peace on Earth… Good Will Toward Men.”

green 3I have nothing against “good will toward men.”  Toward women too, using the current notion that “men” is a necessarily gendered term.  But according to nearly all modern translations, what the angel host proclaims is “…on earth, peace for those [God] favors.”  That might not be the most culture-affirming meaning, but it is very much like Luke’s gospel.  In Luke, it is the infant child’s mother who says, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord…He has routed the arrogant of heart, He has pulled down princes from their thrones and raised high the lowly.  He has filled the starving with good things and sent the rich away empty.”
Unless Cratchet has a lot more stuff to him that I hear, he’s not going to be much attracted to this particular proclamation.  And the angel who gives the message before the heavenly hosts even appear isn’t all that full of “good will toward men” either.  “Look,” he says, “I bring you news of great joy, a joy to be shared with the whole people.”  It is, in other green 1words, good news for Jews.  It is good news for anyone who has been awaiting the arrival of the Jewish messiah, the one who will take “the throne of his father, David.”  But you have to notice that nearly all the people who have been waiting for the Jewish messiah are Jews.
This is not to say that there are not Jews in East Orange, New Jersey  Nor is it to say the Cratchet does not know these Jews and wish them the very best of the season.  Cratchet is a really good guy.  Not just in comparison to Scrooge.  He is a good guy.  But “peace on earth, good will to men” is not the message of the Season in any of the scriptures we have.
So Freberg winds up, very uncharacteristically, in the middle of the road. He offends the various advertising departments by being “anti-commercial.”  He asserts that “Christmas has a meaning,” but doesn’t go so far as to say what it is.  And Scrooge, although he is not a nice person, triumphs over Cratchet.  We know that because of the little choral war in the last few bars, in which “Joy to the World” alternates with “Deck the Halls with Advertising” and the last sound you hear is the ringing of the cash register drawer.
But here’s the beautiful thing about America.  Freberg satirizes two products in a very recognizable way: Coca Cola and Marlboro Cigarettes.  There are other references as well (“Ty-ne-Tim chestnuts roast hot, like a chestnut ought” for instance) but these two are blatant.  Within six moths, both companies asked Freberg to create an advertising campaign for them and Freberg actually did one for Coke.
So the commercial collegiality swallows up even a lampooning by one of the most astringent and certainly the funniest satirist of his time.  Ain’t it grand?

Posted in Getting Old, Theology, Words | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Mosquitoes in Heaven

Pope Francis is having the same kind of trouble the apostle Paul had.  It’s hard to be a pastor and a theologian at the same time.  And if any remarks you make are going to be seized upon by the participants in an ongoing public controversy, it is more difficult yet.
Laura Hobgood-Oster, of Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas, has given the matter some thought.  “The Catholic Church has never been clear on this question…Where do mosquitoes go, for God’s sake?”  You can see the whole New York Times article here.
The Pope consoled a little boy whose dog had just died.  “Paradise is open to all of God’s creatures,” said the Pope.  Presuming that by “paradise,” the Pope meant “heaven,” that gets us substantially beyimagesond Noah’s ark, in which a breeding remnant of all species was included.  It gets us to the inclusion of all animals and, depending on just what the Pope had in mind by “creatures,” all living beings whatsoever.
This suggests a different notion of ecology that we have been working with.  I know that sounds flippant and I apologize for any offense taken, but I am trying to cut a few corners here.  So let’s imagine a celestial ecology and a terrestrial ecology.  We know pretty well how things work in our terrestrial ecology.  There is a cycle of predation such that everything preys upon something, which preys upon something, etc.  Presumably, that’s what God had in mind for our earth.  Humans have had, for many hundreds of thousands of years, our own little niche in this ecology.  We are the food for animals able to kill and eat us; we kill and eat the animals we can, or scavenge from the kills of more efficient predators.  Everything works.  It is—or used to be—stable over the long term.
I’m going to skip right by some questions that might seem to be more important.  Does “paradise” mean “heaven?”  Does “heaven” mean a place where we will all be together?  Will we care?  I’m going to go to the practical questions.
If creatures go to heaven, what do they eat?  Does grass go to heaven too, or is it just the animal kingdom?  Are Flora and Fauna going to be separated for all eternity?  Do wild animals go to heaven or just domesticated ones?  Will a dog that was abused by his owner be reunited with that master in heaven?  You see the problem.
There is simply no way to map the terrestrial ecology onto the heavenly realm without starting to giggle.  Or cry.  Woody Allen quipped, using the famous passage from Isaiah as his launching pad, that in God’s rule, “the lion will lie down with the lamb.”  Currently, Allen says, only the lion gets back up.  Woody knew, I am sure, how much more productive sheep are than lions.  Possibly, he had begun to consider how the several populations could be maintained once the cycle of predation has come untied.
When you approach the matter theologically, you have to start at the other end of the images-1problem.  Things that have souls—the hypothetically eternal part of the entities we know—can go to heaven.  That means that if the question you really want to get answered is whether Rover has a soul, the answer will be “Yes” because you will not abide Rover being “just a piece of meat.”

Skeptics like me will now come by to ask just what you mean by the notion of “soul” and how you know Rover has one.  At present, we cannot say with any confidence what a “self” is.  It is a problem of instrumentation as well as philosophy.  I’d feel better about locating a soul if we had located the self.
We could approach the question linguistically instead.  What is “heaven.”  It is a “place” in the heavens.  The heavens are a name we give to what the atmosphere looks like from ground level.  The most fundamental meaning of “the heavens” is that they are not here; they are “there.”  They are higher.  Presumably, celestial beings are better than terrestrial ones—that would be us—and they live there.  Heaven as a place is “in the heavens,” i.e., in or beyond the sky and God is “there” because He is our heavenly Father, just as we have earthly fathers.  And heaven is eternal because it doesn’t seem to end, by contrast with everything earthly, which does seem to end.
I’ve got an idea.  Let’s not go there.  Let’s take a much more traditional notion of God and let that guide us.  Everything that follows is standard Christian theology.  It won’t get odd sounding until I get to the “Now what…?” section.  God intended us for relationship with Himself.  That is our ultimate good.  Rumor has it that He values freedom, justice, and mercy—not necessarily in that order and meaning what He defines them to mean.  God is trustworthy in the sense that He has a plan and will see it through to completion.  That’s good news for everyone who wants to be a part of the plan, for sure, and might be good news even for people who don’t believe there is a plan or who want to see the plan defeated.  We don’t know, really.
But since God is a loving God and since he will persist until the end He has in mind is reached, we can trust Him to do in our time what we need and to do with us, when our time is over, whatever is best.  This works really well if you are someone who believes that this plan God has is really the only game in town and if you are someone who wants it to succeed whatever the intermediate costs are to me and to my pets if any.
Here’s the “Now what…” part.  We can’t know about the future beyond that or even whether there is a future beyond that.  Trusting God’s plan is really just a practical way of trusting God.  That moves me well beyond the “heaven or no heaven” question.  Trusting God provided that he will admit me to heaven is only a way of making our trust contingent.  That moves me well beyond the “Fido or no Fido” question as well; also whether my parents will be there or my kids and grandkids, not to mention my stepkids and their kids.  All those possible questions are short-circuited by trusting that the God who bestowed upon us life and breath and time and agency, can be trusted even when all those run out.
That does leave a theological scrap or two left to deal with, but I would rather deal with those than be the Pope and have to console a little boy about when he is going to see his dead dog again.

Posted in Sustainability, Theology, ways of knowing, Words | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Are there errors in the Bible? Don’t ask.

Imagine having a conversation with a man—it would be a man, I’m pretty sure—who wanted to “talk football” and whose only concern was with keeping the ball on the playing inerrancy 1field.  That might go like this.

Do you think they should kick a field goal?

Would that make the ball go out of bounds?

Yeah, unless it is blocked.

No, then.  No field goal.

Or how about this one?

It looks like they are going to be throwing crossing routes for the rest of this drive, win or lose.

That’s a good thing.

Why is it a good thing? They need to be throwing to the sidelines so the receiver can get out of bounds quickly and stop the clock.

I think they should keep the action in the center.  You know how I feel about going out of bounds.

O.K. there are two “conversations.”  They aren’t quite “about football,” but there is a game being shown while this conversation is going on.  Eventually, you will say in as polite a way as you can manage, “Why is it that the only question you care about is whether the ball is in bounds or not?”  Let’s say that he says, “Well…the game was meant to be played on the field, right?  So the first question, the one that has to be answered  before any other question are relevant is whether the ball in being kept on the field or not.”  At that point, you know that, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding,  you have not been having a conversation and until you can get him interested in another question, you will not have a conversation with him–at least not about football.

Then you will have to say, “I’ve got an idea.  Let’s ask a different question.”

A few years ago, I wrote a post called “The Gospel According to Gupta.”  You can see it here if the idea interests you.  It is about an Indian janitor in Steven Spielberg’s movie The Terminal who tells what happened when his friend Viktor Navorski faced down the manager of the airport, Frank Dixon in order to save the life of the father of a Russian man he didn’t know.  Gupta’s account is beautiful.  It is brief; it is exquisitely tailored to the audience; it raises the right question and answers it clearly.  Gupta’s answer is “true.”  It is not accurate, however, which brings us to our football friend.

inerrancy 2Many conservative Christians believe that the Bible is “inerrant.”  They believe, that is, that there are no mistakes in it.  There are hits and runs, of course, but no errors.  There are literatures of various kinds but the thing we really want to know is whether anything falsifiable is ever said and, if so, that it is shown, when investigated, to be accurate.  Not “true,” as in the Gupta story, but “accurate.”  Like our football friend, they are led by this notion to care a great deal about whether the ball ever goes out of bounds when other fans are wondering other things, such as, for instance, whether enough clock can be conserved in the last few minutes to get close enough to kick a field goal.

After a long life as a former conservative, I have to say that I am tired of the question.  No useful answer to it can be given and there are better questions to be asked.  When I argue that there are “errors” in the Bible, I am guilty of the same narrow focus as they are.  I have bought the premise—that the question of whether there are errors in the Bible is the right question—and all the shallow and pointless debates flow directly from the premise.

So here’s a question I think is better.  Let’s consider that scripture, which is “inspired,” i.e. God-breathed, has as its principal concern conveying to us the truth of the story.  You know, THE story.  Who God is; what God is like; what we are like in relationship to Him; what “the good life” looks like if it is a life meant to be in faithful relationship to a God who is like that.  That story.

So the story of creation tells us that God is the source of everything that is—not one of two sources, as was common in the creation myths of the time—and that the world is a good place.  It tells us what kind of relationship God had in mind for us, and what He did when we lusted after equality with Him and set up shop on our own.  Those cover some really important parts of the story of our own origins and none of them requires that a “day” of creation be defined as a certain number of hours or the availability of a serpent to tempt Eve or that “knowing they were naked” meant that there was something wrong with being naked.

If this story is “true,” it is true because it tells truths that we need to understand.  It doesn’t have anything to do with having “errors” in it.  If the story it tells doesn’t tell us anything we need to know then it is a bad story and being “accurate” about the order of the days of creation isn’t going to help it any.

So I don’t want to show that the notion of the error-free character of scripture is wrong.  That’s not even worth doing.  I want to reject the promise that inerrancy is a relevant virtue and get on to asking better questions.

Maybe just one example before I let this go.  How about this from Isaiah 40 and if you know the music Handel put to this you can just hum along.

Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.

3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places [a] plain:

5 And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

Was every valley actually exalted?  Were the mountains and hills made low?  Was the crooked made straight?  These are not the kind of statements about which we may say that they are factually true or untrue.  Isaiah absolutely froths with enthusiasm as he imagines the captive people of God in Babylon going “home” in a divinely expedited way.  And so should we all.

 

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Thanksgiving at, and for, Starbucks

Thanksgiving 3Tomorrow morning, Thanksgiving morning, Bette and I will go over to “our Starbucks” and meet friends who will have family obligations the rest of the day.  I am tempted to say that we will all have “other family obligations” that day, but that would be getting ahead of the story.

“Our Starbucks,” in the Multnomah Village section of Portland, Oregon, is an amazing place.  It isn’t oriented to people who stop in and get coffee on their way to somewhere else, although of course, they serve them too.  It is oriented to the community of people who meet there, who meet each other there.  And that’s why everybody will be there on Thanksgiving morning.  On Christmas morning, too, if it works the way it has for the last several years.  Very often, the baristas hand around samples of the pastries.  Apparently, that is what is happening in the picture below.

This morning, the usual crew met in the usual space: the northwest corner of the store.  We’ve taken to calling ourselves the Northwest Corner Caucus.  There are very few mornings when “all of us” are there.  Apparently lives have other demands as well as coffee and conversation.  But some of us will be there, for sure, and when we get together in that corner, certain habits of conversation are presumed and, in most cases, practiced as well.

Thanksgiving 1We try pretty hard, for example, to have conversations where there aren’t any losers and where everybody who has a story to tell has a chance to tell it.  That means that while there is a “discussion of political issues” side to the conversations, there is a “soap opera” side as well.  I know you were anxious about that conversation with your boss; how did that go?  I remember that you said you were trying to move over into a new line of work; is that going well?  So…that woman you met on eHarmony…has anything come of that?

This morning, for instance, there were a lot of family stories, partly because everyone is setting up for a Thanksgiving of some sort.  But one son is thinking of a bold new business venture and the Caucus has been following the deliberations.  Does water exercise really offer any hope for rehabbing bad hips and ankles?  Looks pretty good so far.  So I know you have been checking out some local senior centers in anticipation of moving into one.  What have you found out that you’d be willing to share?

And, this morning, we spent a lot of time on Ferguson, Missouri.  Can you really deal with a case like that at the grand jury level?  Wouldn’t it be better to bring it into court where cross examinations can make a difference?  Is there a way to make police more strictly liable for the consequences of their actions and still find people who are willing to be police officers?  Does the culture of the police department exercise a lot of influence over how police behave in crisis circumstances?  Will the commission report about the killing and the burning in Ferguson help at all, or is it just the standard process by which we put things like that behind us.

Are labor unions victims of their own success?  Now that so many workers have pension benefits and weekends off and rights to arbitration, is there really any need for “a labor movement?”  Does the labor interest work better when it is expressed directly through political parties, as in many European social democracies,  or is the American approach of trying to influence policymakers better?

Did the twelve-year-old Jesus of Nazareth get lippy with his mother when she reproved him for hanging around the temple instead of going hope with his parents?  Actually, I introduced that one.  There was a line from a blog I posted yesterday that I was proud of and every time a new member showed up, I would read it again.  Here’s the line: “Jesus, a master rhetorician as many twelve-year-old boys are, knew that if you buy the premise, you are stuck with the question  just the way your mother asked it.”  We don’t actually make it a habit to talk about Jesus of Nazareth, but we did this morning.

There isn’t a starting time for the Caucus.  It starts when the second person arrives and continues thereafter.  I have no idea what we will talk about tomorrow, but the full crew should be there and I am eager to find out.

Thanksgiving 2I decided to write this little note when I realized how genuinely grateful I am for our Starbucks.  The manager understands that this is a neighborhood coffee house and she does everything she can do to make it work.  She teaches each new barista what superb customer service looks like and every day she is there, she is a walking tutorial in how to do it.  She introduces people to each other—people whom she knows but who have not yet met each other—and very often those introductions turn into conversations and sometimes into friendships.  Every current member of the caucus is someone I met at Starbucks, including my wife Bette. [1] So our Starbucks is a gentle and generous place.  It is kept that way by a manager and a corps of baristas who know what kind of gift they can provide—well beyond the rich coffee and the goodies—and greet people by name and start preparing  the drink they always order.  The Caucus is kept that way by a very solid and stable understanding among the members that the levels of trust and understanding we have built up simply can’t be readily duplicated, so they have to be protected.

And they are.  And that’s why, first thing tomorrow, I will remember to give thanks for Starbucks.

[1] When I was dating in January 2005, I met women at Starbucks when I could.  Bette lived right across the street from a Starbucks—not the Multnomah Village Starbucks—so we agreed to meet there.  It was stimulating in a way that had nothing at all to do with the caffeine, although I had a tall dark roast coffee, myself, and I bought Bette a tall latte.

Posted in Living My Life | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

In my Father’s house

At my house, this is the year we study Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus.  Every Advent, we focus on one—only one—of the two narratives the Bible gives us about the birth of Jesus.  I’ve been doing this for twenty years or so; I’ve lost count, really.  I hope, by this practice to get “clean and sober.”  That’s what I call it and I call it that because that’s what it has felt like to me over the years.

What most of us call “the Christmas story” is a hopeless hodgepodge.  Matthew’s story, by contrast, is clean and dramatic.  Luke’s story has its own character too: not so clean, but a great deal more dramatic.  But this is true only if you read each story on its own merits.  And given that we all learned, as children, the hodgepodge version, it takes some effort to really invest in one at a time.  For me, that means one a year.  I just ignore the other one.  And this is Luke’s year.

Matthew ends his story when Joseph takes his family to Nazareth so the child will have a chance of not being killed as a child.  It means moving all the way up to the highlands of Nazareth, so 80 miles  from Jerusalem by the most direct route, rather than the more convenient five miles from their home in Bethlehem, but Joseph has his eye on giving Jesus a chance to grow up. And when they move to Nazareth, Matthew’s story is over.

You can’t really do that with Luke.  For Luke, the principal narrative device, the turning point, is Jesus’s baptism by John[1], the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth.  In fact, nearly all the first chapter of “the birth of Jesus” is spent dealing with the birth of John.  So really, Luke’s “birth narrative” is not over until the baptism and given that, the previous scene of the 12-year old Jesus in the temple at Jerusalem is part of Luke’s “Christmas story.”

You are all likely familiar with Luke’s story of the boy, Jesus, who hung around the temple in Jerusalem instead of going back to Nazareth with his parents.  If not, Luke 2:41—52 can serve as Cliff’s Notes.  The question I want to raise today is not why he stayed.  We don’t know that.  I want to look at what account he gave his mother about why he stayed and why Luke wants us to know about that account.

temple 3Mary is angry with the boy for violating his parents’ trust.  Everybody packed up and headed back to Nazareth, but Jesus stayed behind.  He may have been an early practitioner of the maxim that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.  Had he asked permission to stay in Jerusalem by himself, you know what answer he would have gotten and he probably knew that as well.  He had lived with his parents for more than a decade by that time and none of the gospel writers thinks Jesus was stupid.  I have an alternative picture of this scene below.  What do you think?

So he didn’t ask permission.  He just stayed behind.  And that’s why Mary was so angry with him.  “Why have you done this to us?” is the way the New Jerusalem Bible puts the question and Raymond Brown, my principal source for the underpinnings of this story, says the question is even nastier in Greek.  Jesus’s answer has nothing at all to do with why he has “done this” to them.  Jesus, a master rhetorician as many twelve-year-old boys are, temple 1knew that if you buy the premise, you are stuck with the question as it was asked.  The premise is that Jesus has behaved thoughtlessly to his parents and ought to be apologetic about it.  None of the gospel accounts gives us a Jesus who is any good at being apologetic.  Maybe he didn’t know how; maybe he thought it was inappropriate; maybe the gospel writers combed out all of Jesus’s known apologies because those apologies wouldn’t advance the story they are telling.

In any case, Jesus offers a new premise and embeds it in a new question: “Why were you looking for me?”  The question here does not ask why they wanted to find him; it asks why they were searching aimlessly.  Why did you go from door to door and from person to person when you might have known I would be here?

This gets theological really fast.  The mother asks why the son did not meet her expectations.  The son asks the mother whether she really has no idea at all who he is.

My guess is that this story comes from another source than the birth narrative Luke has been building.  This is the Mary who was visited by the angel Gabriel and whose cousin, Elizabeth, called her “the mother of my Lord,” and who was visited by shepherds, who repeated to her what the angel had told them, and whose baby was referred to by Simeon as “the salvation which You have made ready.”  A Mary who had been through all of that would have been ready to understand the behavior of her 12-year-old son as Who He Is and not as an irresponsible pre-adolescent.  For that reason, I think this story comes from a source where Mary has not had all those not so subtle clues.  The Mary of this story has had no preparation for understanding what Jesus is going to tell her.

Jesus, on the other hand, needs to say, “You were going home to my father’s house (in Nazareth) but this, this stunning temple in Jerusalem is my Father’s house.”  He does not hook a thumb at Joseph and say, “Him?  He’s not my father.”  He says something like, “To be who I am, I must have an earthly father and a heavenly Father.  When I wasn’t on the temple 2way to the one, you should have known I would be at the other.”  Jesus’s answer, please note, counts on the Mary that Luke has been building for nearly two chapters.  Jesus’s answer is not aimed at the hapless Mary who had no way of knowing who her son was.  This little sign indicates a path Mary chose not to take.

Why does Luke give us this story?  I think it is because he wants us to know three things.  The first is that Jesus knew who he was.  Maybe the notion was remote then and got clearer later.  Maybe he doubted it later and rediscovered it at his baptism in the Jordan.  Luke needs to sound that note, however, because the next thing he tells us is that Jesus went back to Nazareth with his parents and “lived under their authority.”[2]  And third, having Jesus live in rural obscurity for—at a rough guess—the next 16 years, enables Jesus to come to John as an unknown and to be baptized.  Luke needs for Jesus to be unknown to his contemporaries, but he doesn’t need him to be unknown to us.  Luke tells us everything.

There isn’t any way for us to know how Jesus thought about the event at the time, but there are lots of other stories in the gospels where people wanted Jesus to be something he was not or to do something before it was time.  The Devil in Luke’s next chapter offers Jesus three really interesting opportunities to bail out of the role God had called him to play.[3]  In Mark’s account, Peter says that Jesus is way too nice a person to have to undergo the suffering and death he had just said was his future.

In this story, Mary says, “Your proper place is at home with your father and me.”  Jesus replies, “I will come with you now, but being with my Father is the home I will ever have.”

 

 

 

[1] Later called John the Baptizer, and whom I grew up hearing as John the Baptist.  That was before I began reading the biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown, who refers to him as JBap and also before I met Charles Svendsen, who has a brother who is a Baptist minister and whose name is John and whom Charles refers to as “my brother, John the Baptist.”
[2] There is a lovely little analogy to this point in the German movie, Vitus.  Vitus is a genius and his parents are very proud of him.  But the life of a genius in not what Vitus wants or needs, so he fakes an accident and then fakes being a boy of normal intelligence until his parents leave him alone.  He lives with them as “a normal boy,” knowing he is not, until he is forced to reveal the truth to his grandfather.  I think Jesus’s experience in Nazareth might have been like that.
[3] Ordinarily we say three temptations because three are described, but the New Jerusalem Bible translates Luke 4:13, “having exhausted every way of putting him to the test, the devil left him.”  If there weren’t more than three, the Devil is really too stupid to worry about.

Posted in Advent, Biblical Studies, Living My Life | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Beginning Place

I have a few favorite books, not very many, and I read them over and over.  You cannot imagine the grief I take for that.  Nearly all my friends read broadly and with enjoyment and comprehension.  And I’m married to a librarian.  She’s a very nice person, but she is still a librarian and she doesn’t say, “What! You’re reading that book again?”  She says, “Oh, I remember how much you always like that book.”

Today’s book is Ursula Le Guin’s The Beginning Place.[1] Like a lot of my favorite books, itbeginning place 2 is classified as a Young Adult book.  It is about young adults, beyond any question.  As to who it is for, I’d say it is “for” anyone who wants to think about the ideas that are central to this story, or who wants to see amazingly realized characters, or who appreciates a clean uncluttered flow of narrative.  And for me, particularly, there is the wonderful experience of seeing patterns in the story, eventually, that a more perceptive reader might have seen on the first pass.  Sometimes it takes me a dozen passes, but when I get there, I enjoy it a great deal.

Here’s a piece I read yesterday.  I’ll give you the line; then I’ll back up and look at the theme it is a part of.

“And though at first he saw her, like the armchair, as trying hard to do a job she wasn’t up to, he could not keep seeing her from the quiet place…”

“He” is Hugh Rogers, a teenager; a complete loser.  “She” is Hugh’s mother, the only principal character who is given no name at all.  It’s really the armchair I want to talk about.

Hugh has had two very recent experiences with that armchair—one before and one after his discovery of “the quiet place.”  Here’s “before.”

He (Hugh) took the bag (of peanuts) into the living room and turned on the television set and sat down in the armchair.  The chair shook and creaked under his weight.”[2]

Then something happens to Hugh.  He runs out of his house and winds up in a small wooded area with a little creek, where it seems always to be twilight.[3]  In his own mind, he comes to call it “the quiet place,” not only because it is quiet there, but because he is quiet there. When he goes back home, he is, briefly at least, a changed person and has the “after” experience with the armchair.

He finished the peanuts, moved into the living room, turned off the light, turned on the television, instantly turned it off again, and sat down in the armchair.  The chair shook and creaked, but this time he was more aware of its inadequacy as an armchair than of his own clumsy weight…He felt sorry for the poor sleazy shoddy chair, instead of disgusted with himself.

beginning place 3That’s a lot of change, isn’t it, for a life-changing experience that took no clock time at all.  Michael Polanyi says that a newly blind person, using a cane, experiences the cane smacking against his palm and his fingers.  A blind person who is accustomed to the cane, doesn’t feel anything in his hand: he feels a chair leg or a curb, or the wall at the end of the hallway.  For the recently blind person, the cane is the experience.  For the accomplished blind person, the world is the experience and the cane is the means by which he explores it.  The blind person who is good at it attends “from” the cane “to” the world around him.[4]

In the “before” scene, Hugh sits down in the armchair and experiences himself, rather than the chair.  He attends from the chair to himself.  The chair, not being examined at all, is assumed to be as it should be, but Hugh is not as he should be.

It is obvious that there is a discrepancy between how heavy Hugh is and how sturdy the chair is.  The discrepancy is a fact.  Hugh can attend to how great the burden is—he feels himself to be “a heavy animal”—or to how inadequate the chair is.  Neither of those is a fact; they are habits of mind and they act to control what Hugh might focus on.[5]  He condemns himself, you notice, when he focuses on his weight.  He feels a kind of sympathy for the chair when he focuses on the chair.  It is a “poor, sleazy, shoddy chair” and it is probably doing all it can, but the demands of the job are too much for its poor quality construction.

I want to argue in passing—it is hard to do in the context of this novel because Hugh is such a good guy—that not everyone is well served by attending to the inadequacy of the chair.  Hugh is trapped in this place by his duty to his mother and by the hard facts of his life.  Attending to the fragile chair is the only useful thing for Hugh to do.  There are other people, however, who need to pay attention to that part of the difficulty that is contributed by their own values or their own behavior.  They need to change what they are doing and sympathy for the chair will not help them.

Hugh, having attended to the chair from “the quiet place,” which is now a place in him, is presented with a much harder task.  His mother comes home and starts in on him right away.

“Really, Hugh, you cannot manage the simplest thing.  How can I be comfortable about going out after work to have a little time with my friends when you’re so irresponsible?  Where’ the bag of peanuts I bought to take to Durbina’s tomorrow?”

Here’s LeGuin’s account of Hugh’s effort to respond to his mother in the new way; the way he had just hit on that evening.

And though at first he saw her, like the armchair, as simply inadequate, trying hard to do a job she wasn’t up to, he could not keep seeing her from the quiet place but was drawn back, roped in, till all he could do was not listen…”

That is where we started, remember.  “He could not [and so] he was drawn back.”  Nice try, Hugh.  His new awareness of how he might look at things differently and feel differently about them is as inadequate to the provocation his mother presents as the armchair is to Hugh’s weight.  You can see this isn’t going to work and it doesn’t work.  At least not in this world.

In the world, Tembreabrezi, of which the little woods is “the beginning place,” it does work.  Here is the way LeGuin ends the story.

Next morning they left the hospital together.  It was raining again and she [his girlfriend, Irene] wore the patched and battered cloak, he the stained leather coat [both gifts from friends in Tembreabrezi].  They went off in her car together.  There is more than one road to the city.

 

 

[1]  You can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_Place. For a good deal of useful information about the book, but nothing works quite like reading it.
[2] Earlier in the paragraph, we get this: “He felt heavy, a heavy animal, a thick, wrinkled creature with its lower lip handing open and feel like truck tires.”
[3] Also, his watch won’t run when he is there.  Odd.
[4] If you know what you attend from and what, by means of that, you attend to, then you know a great deal about yourself.  Polanyi’s The Tacit Dimension is an easy introduction to his work on perception.
[5] They could become choices rather than just habits, but that will require some work and the work would benefit greatly from understanding that “the world we live in” is, in many cases, just “the world we are in the habit of seeing.”  You can change habits is you really want to and if you work at it long enough.

Posted in Books, Paying Attention | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment