Vive La Difference

Who are we as humans? What is it that makes us hate others who are not just like us? I remember in my undergraduate years taking a course from the famous social psychologist, Carolyn Sharif. She and her husband Musafer Sharif (forgive me if I have spelled it incorrectly) conducted this great study of teenage boys called the Robber's Cave Study that I think was the foundation for some of the scenes in The Lord of The Flies. The net of the study was that is was regular behavior to define one's own group by the "out-grouping" of another. In other words, we are who we are because we are not "them." And so social scientists since the 50's and the Robber's Cave study had a way of describing what we do to each other. Read that as in "it is normal and regular to do that." Hey that is no news. Humans have killed off the "other" for as long as we have had tribes. But does it make it right or normal? I think not and in fact I am getting sick and tired of reading justifications of outgroupings whether they are based in biblical mistranslations or out of context quotations or hocus pocus bullshit made up by some egocentric narcissist too terrified of his own shadow to step into the light on his own. Well I am tired of it. What is straight or gay or whatever anyway? Who decided that mattered in determining your humanness? When I was a junior in college (that is a loooong time ago) I had a room mate who was gay (still is). And how he explained it to me was asking me if I decided to be 6'3". I said of course not, I just grew that way. Well, he said, I never decided to be gay, I just grew that way. (Thanks Peter, I still love you for all you taught me.) States and churches are falling into sides around same-sex marriages as if it is their right to legislate how tall a person should be to be considered a person. Cut me a break. It is not our decision! It is up to each individual to act on and become all he or she is meant to be irrespective of the local norms and mores of the dominant group. Despite what the Sharifs observed, it is neither right or normal to place a moral judgment on another because he or she is not like you and your group. That kind of clique behavior is as distasteful in adulthood as it was in junior high school, only the adults in question should have outgrown it! It is time we grow up as a society and face the fact that the human experience is not a unified or singular experience. Being human has about six billion different ways of manifesting and each one is as great and beautiful as the next. Thank god you are unique, and that the person next to you is unique and that I am not you. We need to stop bonding about how we are the same and rejoice in and bond around our array of differences. The human experience is a wide rainbow of colors and the boundaries are indistinguishable yet ubiquitous. I don't want to be you and you should not want to be me. So why do people think that someone else should have the same preferences as you and I do. I really don't know when it was that I knew I liked girls, but I do remember that it was after I had my boy experiences. We boys loved each other. We were inseparable and we learned about sex from each other, told tales to each other, gaped at our dad's Playboys together, and we were tighter than anything. Then one day, I noticed that girls smelled different, sounded different and I was uncontrollably attracted. I did not choose that. I just was. My room mate did not choose to stay with his boys, he just did. There is nothing more to it than that. Two of us manifesting two of the six billion ways to be a human. Praise god for that! And for god's sake, cut the crap about making differences wrong. It is what is right about being human - we are all uniquely different. Amen, amen, let it be so.

Discernment

Through both my formal learning in psychology and my continued education, growth and development I have come to ascribe to a school of thought called "constructivism." Essentially what that translates to is that I believe that we are only capable of seeing or hearing and conceptualizing that which fits within and can be described by our current level of education, training, experience and social context. Specifically that means that all thought we have come from the same pool of thoughts we have always had and can be described using only the vocabulary we have available to us at the time. Though this may sound like harmless psychobabble its impact on issues of justice and discernment of "God's will" are monumental. It is for that reason that the power elite cannot effectively enact matters of justice because of the very fact that all matters are seen through their lens of the host culture that causes the oppression in the first place. But in accurately discerning God's will we may be even more suspect. There is a story of Francis of Assisi who it is said heard God telling him, "Francis, rebuild my church." So, gathering his monks around, they set out to find the most broken down church and rebuilt its roof. A second time Francis asked God what He wanted him to do and again heard "Francis, rebuild my church." So Francis and the monks repeated the process - and a third time as well. It was not until Francis heard the same instruction a fourth time that he understood his mission to reform the Catholic church of the time. My continual concern is that well-intentioned and prayerful people (and even church leaders) mistake what they think they are hearing as a message from God when all they ever get is a confirmation of their existing mental paradigm. Naturally that message would be supportive of the existing structure and understanding. What they hear may (or may not) be a message from God but it gets filtered, interpreted and expressed through the only limited perspective that person has. History is filled with examples of how one group after another has inflicted injustice on others in the name of what they thought they heard or understood. That notwithstanding, this is amplified when we realize that not every word of the bible is "God's word." Much of what we read in the bible is "man's word" and at that it may not even be God-inspired. Research indicated that great portions of the gospels and whole books of the Torah have been written by religious leaders of the time to suit their particular agenda. That does not mean it isn't sacred literature that has endured the test of time, (take Deuteronomy for example) it just means that it is not outside the realm of possibility that what you are reading might just be someone's personal point of view. Perhaps the Desert Monks had the best approach by living in retreat for long enough to eradicate the noise of their own mind's experience to be able to let in the still small voice of God. But preachers who hammer on a vendetta of hate and exclusion and claim discernment as their source will never convince me that they listened to or heard anything divine.

Regression to the Mean

I have been watching and following the posts of my daughter, an ordained minister, while she attends her church's national convention. Mostly I had hopes for what she might be able to do as (and this is not just a father talking) she is both brilliant and magnificently articulate. I prefer to listen to her podcast sermons than actually attending my own church. And her ability to shape and present a cogent position on nearly any subject is inspiring. Her youtube post called "It's not a Sin to be Gay" is a great example But what I forgot is that when you put ten thousand people in the room together there is that old statistical problem of regression to the mean. Essentially the greater the number the more likely the overwhelming majority will center around the middle - in this case that which would not rock the boat; that which would not be upsetting; the status quo. Many equally brilliant orators spoke on the topics for which she was passionate - reproductive rights and total inclusion - and the masses of the regression rolled over them all like some gigantic tsunami. It was washed clean and wiped out as if there were no discussion at all. I experienced the same a few years ago at a regional conference of my denomination. Also speaking to radical inclusion as part of our policy on Human Sexuality, the masses quoted Martin Luther and the need to stand strong on his polity of the 1500's. There was no recognition of the practice Jesus modeled of inclusion, there was no discussion of the meaning of love. The masses quoted Martin to me. And I left. My prayer this day is that my passionate daughter might not be so easily dissuaded. I am so proud of her and of her stand, I would hate for it to be swept away by the next tsunami. You go, Becca!

Easter Quiz

The fun part of being a non-literalistic fan of the bible is that one can tolerate the many discrepancies held within these "sacred" texts. And among the best of the best in confusing events (with second place going to the feeding of a large number of people) is the Easter story. Here are but a few of the wonderful parts of this story in the form of a little quiz (answers included):

1. How many women went to the tomb early that morning (before sunrise as in John, after sunrise as in Matt and Mark)? Was it just Mary Magdalene by herself (John)? A whole bunch (Mary M, Mary Mom, Joanna, and their friends in Luke)? Or was it three (Mary M, Mary mom, and Salome in Mark)?

2. Then there was that confounded stone - was it rolled away (as in Mark, Luke and John's account) or by the angel after they/she arrived (Matt's version)? And while we are at it, how many angels or young men were there: two (John and Luke) or one (Matt and Mark)? And where were they? Inside the tomb (Mark and John) sitting on the stone after rolling it away (Matt) or suddenly appearing standing beside them (Luke)?

3. Ah, but what did the one or two angels or men say? "Woman (to Mary M) why are you crying (John)?" "Don't be afraid - you are looking for Jesus (Matt and Mark)" "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here (Luke)"

4. Now here is the stumper: What did the women do or say? Did they flee from the tomb saying nothing to anyone, despite being instructed to tell Peter and the Disciples (Mark); hurry away to tell the Disciples (Matt); bow in reverence, remembering what Jesus had told them, whereupon they "returned" to tell the Disciples (Luke); or stand there crying and say, "They have taken my Lord away." (John)?

5. And then, we have to deal with the guys themselves. What was the reaction of the 12? Mark doesn't mention any, Matt says they went to Galilee as instructed, Luke says they did not believe the women, but Peter ran to the tomb to see for himself, and John says that both Peter and the beloved disciple (presumably John) both ran to the tomb.

Bonus Question: When and where did Jesus appear and to whom? If you side with John, he appeared to Mary Magdalene right then and there at the tomb, engaged in conversation with her but warned her not to touch the merchandise as he had not yet returned to his father. Matt says he appeared to the women on the way back shortly after they left. Then Luke says that the first appearance wasn't till later that day as two of the disciples were walking to Emmaus. Poor Mark missed class the day they discussed the appearance and doesn't mention it at all! And least we forget, in 1 Corinthians, Peter claims to have seen him first, but that wasn't part of the contest.

So what do we make of this remarkable comedy of errors? Well if any of you had ever been at an astounding event, or traumatic event, you quickly know what happened here. Recall for example what you and your friends and colleagues did and said on 9/11. Then compare stories with them and you will find that no one tells the same story. Oh yea the towers fell, and some planes hit them, but the story of what you and they discussed will vary quite a bit, and that is what happened here. So overwhelming was the execution and days following that event that the telling and retelling of those accounts many times before writing them down, resulted in these wildly varying accounts, no one of which can be trusted literally as the god's honest truth.

What is true is that something happened and and it was pretty shaking. What is true is that we are still astounded by that event. And what is true is how that event lands on you. What you choose to believe is your Easter experience and that is all that matters.

The Gospel According to...

I had the opportunity of talking to my son's midrasha class on the occasion of the coincidence of Maundy Thursday and erev Pesach. It was only the remnants of his class as a town dance thinned the numbers quite a bit but it was interesting to hear what might have been taught as Christianity by their teacher and to be able to contrast that with some thoughts from a modern day theology student.

I started off by separating the stories of Jesus from the history of Christianity (ugh!). I spoke of Jeshua the Rabbi and his message from the Torah - his message straight out of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Love your enemies, free the slaves, care for the sick, feed and clothe the poor and lift up the widowed, and orphaned and children. All these things the the kids had learned as mitzvoth - and they were this Rabbi's messages. But what happened in chronicling and documenting that message was completely another story. They had no idea that at one point there were perhaps hundreds of "gospel" stories (Read Luke 1:1) but that only these four accounts were selected because they best represented what the prevailing theology of the time (ca. 100-300 CE) believed and wished to portray. They saw Christians (with plenty of good reason) as literalists but did not realize that our biblical stories, like theirs, were subject to revision and adaptation.

For example, I asked them what the Romans were like. Few really knew the unabridged version of Roman culture, of their lust for blood and sport of killing. Why then, I asked would there be little of no reference to the Roman tyranny in the books of the Christian bible? Because would you risk writing anything negative about a people who would think nothing of finding a reason to kill you? So perhaps as Rabbi Shmuel Boteach writes (Kosher Jesus), they might be inclined to whitewash the text and finger the Jews or the ruling class of the priesthood as the bad guys. After a few centuries of telling the story the the bad guys became the killers, and in the name of telling a story of crucifixion and resurrection, antisemitism became institutionalized in the catholic church.

But that was not the message of this man (who never once referred to himself as the Messiah or meshiach). I also pointed out the many similarities between a Christian service, our ritual prayers and sacraments as rooted in or directly lifted from the Shabbat service. And that today we (mostly) believe that the day before his trial and execution at the hands of the Romans, these followers and their rabbi gathered to remember the Passover, to share unleavened bread and drink wine in whatever the seder rituals of the day prescribed.

I only had a half hour to get this out and there are so many things that need to be untangled - what's this trinity thing and how can you explain the crusades. We just did not get there. But perhaps for three kids and my son, today a few of us bridged a little bit of the gap. And I would like to think that I might be invited back to talk again for a little bit more time in an open forum with the Rabbi and the whole class. That would be nice.

Love and Evil

My daughter - the real deal - posted a very moving message on the problem of evil in reaction to a tragic event in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. This is what I said in response.

Long ago and far away I was a Child Protection Caseworker for the VT Department of Social Services. Though my stint was short lived, because of the nature of the work, I witnessed horrors that humans can inflict on each other. Not nameless, faceless strangers lurking in the bushes - fathers, and uncles and mothers, brutalizing and molesting their own. I left because of the violent nightmares of what I would do if anyone should harm one of my daughters. The dreams would make Saw and Chuckie and Freddy cringe.

The evil that lives inside each of us is horrible. As a peace seeking and nonviolent man, I embarrassingly admit that chromosome is part of my DNA as well. We (I) endanger ourselves and others when we egotistically deny its presence. Its roots run deep in our heritage.

Think of it like this: in the history of humanity there has never been an era that was devoid of war - sometimes global, often regional, but always there killing and thinning the ranks of the human species. And who do you think survived through all those wars, the nice and the gentle ones? Hardly! The survivors, and the progenitors of us all were the conquering tribes - the killers, the rapists and the raped. Violence in in our bloodstream.

But as you so wisely pointed out, that is not what beats our hearts; that is not what causes us to breathe and live on. Within us also is love - call it what you will - I name that "god." So our human genetic predisposition toward evil - not our fallenness - our natural selection in action, is confronted by our life itself. But the scary part is that we appear to have been gifted with free choice. That is the rub, as the Bard would say. Each day we either surrender to the love that lives us into being or the hate and evil that is our birthright. And when we go unconscious love often takes second place.

My prayer today is that we hold tightly onto that holy and sacred force in us, in full awareness that we must root out the other force, the evil that courses through our veins. Every great sage has said it: love conquers all; love is stronger than hate; love is all we need. May we choose love today, and tomorrow and each tomorrow after that.

I am so sad for my former colleagues and neighbors and family who, living in the "Kingdom" must face that specter today. May love rule the day.

Theist or Atheist

One of my very best friends is an atheist. He is a doctor and a scientist and prides himself in his use of logic when dealing with questions of life and meaning. Last week when our families got together for dinner we got into a discussion of beliefs – one might be tempted to call it a theological discussion. It started with a compliment on something I had written in this blog – it had made him think. And so the conversation was on.
Most of my friend’s questions about religion are wrapped up in an understanding of religion that smacks of pre-Vatican II Catholicism mixed with fundamentalist Sunday school platitudes – and, no, I do not believe in all of that. But if I don’t believe in a robed grandfatherly Michelangelo god, he asked, then who or what is god? Well, I start talking about Tillich’s concept of the ground of being and the in-dwelling force of life which is what I call god. But I cannot point to it I say. So I try to make an analogy: I ask, “Where is the life in one of your patients? Can you point to a place in the body?” How is it that at one moment the patient is alive and the next moment, still and lifeless? What happened? Was it the stress of the operation? Had he touched some life line that flipped the switch? No. Of course not. There is no place that holds life more than the other (though I suppose you could argue for the heart or the brain – but he got my point).
And that is when he pops the real question; “Are you afraid of dying? Because I am terrified of the nothingness.” Behind the question was the whole eschatological orchestration of heaven and hell and afterlife and redemption, and my friend just could not get his logic to go there. I told him that I really did not know if there was anything after death. Perhaps it just ends there for our bodies. But this life force that beats within our hearts, I believed, did continue. No, I did not believe in the resurrection of our bodily physical form – because then I would have to ask which form – my 21 year old or my 36 year old or this failing 62 year old body. My ego might want the youthful one but, I told him that it was my belief that most of the afterlife stories were the fantasies of too many men’s egos desire for special treatment. And I don’t believe in that kind of god – a god that grants favors.
I told him I felt that god was the source of life and that that force ran through all things – but that is was everywhere and nowhere at the same time. You cannot point to god any more than he could point to life. And when our physical bodies die, that life force simply rejoins with the mass of universal energy that is god. He told me I sounded like an atheist (in terms of the actual definition of the word) and I told him he sounded like a believer who was missing words to describe his fears and concerns. I don’t really know, but I do know that we aren’t that far apart, that such discussions don’t scare me, and that each time we have these talks, we both feel closer as friends.