Preaching Peace

It Matters

Eight years ago we were married on the Sunday before the election. On our honeymoon we made a big bowl of popcorn and sat down to watch the election returns. There was no declared winner that night and we hoped our team would come out ahead. It seemed though that there was not a lot of difference between the two. If our guy didn’t get in, then it seemed the other guy would be the type to spend the next four years playing golf while occasionally steering the ship of state through the waters of peace and prosperity.

Rarely anymore do we encounter someone who says, “It really doesn’t matter who wins the election; they’re all the same. Nothing changes.” There is a layer of truth in that. The layer being that element of life that goes on in spite of who is running things at number 10 Downing Street or in the White House. We still go about our lives.

Sometimes we feel a pinch related to a particular policy brought about by the folks in charge. The pinch might be a higher tax bill than we had hoped for. Or it might be the “pinch me I’m dreaming” of an unexpected windfall. Sometimes we ponder the oft asked, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago,” or its offered variations.

Next Wednesday we’ll be getting up in the wee hours to watch the election returns as they come in. We are of the belief that the outcome of this election matters and that who gains office will have a direct impact on our lives.

Yesterday I was reminded of just how the people we choose to run things can have a direct impact on our lives. I attended a parade in the city centre. The parade consisted of hundreds of soldiers from the Royal Highland Fusiliers marching through the city centre, led by the music of the pipes and drums. The soldiers were dressed in combat fatigues and carrying their assault rifles. It was their homecoming from Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would not describe it as a victory parade. The mission has not been accomplished and the war drags on. It was simply a homecoming. Earlier in the week there was a memorial service to remember the members of this brigade who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not a glorification of war; just a sad remembrance.

At the end of the parade the soldiers milled around George Square until they were due at the day’s next event. I wandered through the crowds and met up with a few people I know. One woman was there because her brother had once been a soldier in the Fusiliers, but he had been killed in Iraq. She needed to be there to see the rest of them home. She said, “It feels like he’s going to come walking up with that big smile on his face, but I know he isn’t.”

I ran into a soldier I had not seen in over four years. I shook his hand and said, “Welcome home.” The last time I had seen him he was part of an honour guard carrying a coffin into my church. The coffin contained the remains of his comrade killed in battle.  

Political decisions are applied on the ground where people live; or in the case of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, where people die. It would not be right to say that in this election one side represents life or one side represents death. There is no telling the challenges that will present themselves to the next President. There is no predicting the outcome of unintended consequences.

But it does matter who gets elected. Ask the living. Ask the dead.

Take Care – John Mann

Current Lingo for Scapegoating

Sen Ted Stevens of Alaska has been found guilty.  I found this when reading npr.org ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96212237 ):

"Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, himself in a tight re-election race in Kentucky, similarly abandoned any loyalty to Stevens. 'Sen. Stevens will be held accountable so the public trust can be restored,' McConnell said.

And Nevada Sen. John Ensign, the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee said, 'This is a reminder that no one is above the law.'"

Two things struck me.  First is the comment by Sen. McConnell.  Legal accountability restores the public trust; this is judicial language for 'the scapegoat restores social harmony.'  Our scapegoats are however, not innocent, not blameless, upon whom we can transfer our mimetic hostility, thus they cannot be divinized.  We still, however, will use our justly prosecuted victims as potential scapegoats.  But will Sen Stevens 'doing time' suffice to bring about a demonstrated social harmony?  Will all Americans blame Stevens for all the corruption in government?  Hardly.  Yet Sen McConnell would have us believe that the scapegoat mechanism is alive and well.  It isn't, it has broken down and the sign of that breakdown is our inability to mythologize either victims or victimage. 

Second, Sen Ensign points up what is arguably Paul's problem with 'the law', namely it accusatory (= satanic) function and role in our lives.  If 'no one is above the law', then everyone will be judged by the standard of the law equally.  Since we claim to be a country under the rule of law, this makes sense.  But if this is the case how can we say we are a Christian nation? How come Paul is not heard in the churches?

For me this is the ultimate failure of American Christianity. We, as followers of Jesus are only under one law, the law of love, the law of loving God, neighbor and self.  If we would truly live this way there we be the rule of gospel instead.  Then, maybe, with great humility, American Christians could call the United States a Christian nation.  Until we do so, however, we are just another religious mythologized empire and there is nothing Christian about us.

Michael

Satan Dancing With Delight

With all due honor to Don McLean and his hit song "American Pie", I'm borrowing the line in which he claims to have seen "Satan dancing with delight the day the music died." It pretty much describes how I feel this morning after perusing the NY Times and reading the article about Proposition 8 in California. Up here in Massachusetts we haven't heard too much about the same-sex marriage struggles in CA- we're living pretty peaceably with it as an established fact. Not that those opposing it don't have hopes and dreams for it's demise, but it isn't local headline news anymore. The article in todays Times (A Line in the Sand for Same-Sex Marriage Foes) describes the efforts the opposition to the recently legalized marriage of same-sex couples in CA have gone to. I know that this is a volatile social and theological issue.  I don't want to debate the issue itself, but I do want to focus our attention on the process that we are engaged in around the issue.

Reading the article felt like a crash course in mimetic theory. Conservative Christian leaders have declared that the outcome of the upcoming vote in CA is critical for the nation, and indeed, the world. California is identified as a trend setter both at home and abroad, making this larger than a single state issue. Chuck Colson is quoted as saying, "This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” clearly casting it in apocalyptic terms. Biblically speaking, apocalyptic is all about the victory of the lamb slain and the kingdom of God being fulfilled on earth.  Colson has distorted that by focusing on the battle of Armageddon as the definitive image, a cultural equivalent for the end of the world. The campaign for Prop 8 has imported a clergyman from Sweden who was jailed for denouncing homosexuality under Sweden's law that bans hate speech. I have no idea what Pastor Green's sermon contained by way of denouncement, but if it qualified as hate speech it sounds pretty inflammatory. The accusations and dire predictions are growing larger and louder and those prophecies of doom are beginning to look like they may be self-fulfilling.

It appears to me that Satan is trying to cast out Satan with a vengeance.  The crowd is growing larger and larger- some 2,000 members of the Chinese Christian community showed up at Los Angeles rallies with T shirts supporting Prop 8, with Rev. David Chi saying, "normally we don’t speak too much. But it’s such a moment that it’s so important to give our voice out."  Satan himself comes in for an oblique honorable mention when Lou Engle declares that there is an unseen spiritual battle taking place.  He is encouraging people to fast and pray...which sound like very biblical Christian pursuits until one considers that the same group of people who are following his directions and giving up shopping or TV viewing in an effort to persuade God to move on their behalf would also be among those to dismiss other Christians similar Lenten traditions as unbiblical and unnecessary. 

The opposition (to Prop 8) has not couched their rhetoric in the same terms. The rational statement of Presbyterian pastor Karen Sapio pales in comparison to her opponents predictions that churches will be legally forced to adopt practices they abhor or pay legal consequences. She points out that Roman Catholic priests are not prosecuted for refusing to wed divorced people, nor are Orthodox rabbis coerced into performing interfaith marriages. But reason makes little impact on mob violence. The furor continues to grow through muliti-media venues and at great financial cost.

One might think that any time we see this process in play, we'd recognize it for the scapegoating, fear based process that it is. One might even think that ESPECIALLY Bible reading Christians would be able to see that- seeing as how it's all right there in the story of Jesus. Float a few lies, embroider a few facts, whip people into a frenzy, and voila'- instant Armageddon and the power to control others through fear.  The sad thing is that devoutly determined Christians are using the very dynamics that Jesus exposed as what we need to be saved from.  Instead of practicing what Jesus preached, we're still falling back on the lines that we know by heart will work- at least for now, at least for our side. Looking beyond the present moment and investing in the kingdom of God is beyond us.  

Regardless of our personal views on any of a wide variety of issues, we need to learn to recognize and avoid the tactics employed to support Prop 8. Any time they're in play, Satan is calling the moves.  As Don McLean recognized, when the music dies, all that's left is a dirge of grief. And Satan dancing.

nancy hitt.

The Wolf at the Door

One day just beyond the front gates of my church I witnessed a tableau on the dangers of debt. A couple of loan sharks had cornered a guy who owed them money. His back was against the wall, literally. What I gathered from the conversation was that a payment plan was being agreed upon. The terms of the plan involved what would happen to the debtor if the repayment schedule was not met. Sometimes the wolf at the door bears actual fangs.

I’ve been in debt before and it is a decidedly unpleasant way to live. The debt was due in its entirety to not living with my means. There were justifications for it. Some of them seemed reasonable in the prior to stage but they were all just plain foolish. I need - I want – I can pay this off in this much time. But the time frame stretches out because it is added to the existing debt, the repayment of which has already mortgaged the future beyond the foreseeable.

It made me wonder if something was out of balance. It hadn’t always been that way. In school I worked to get through without debt. At one three week juncture between spring term and summer break, in addition to a full load of classes I held down a full time job and two part time jobs. The only thing I didn’t have time for was sleep. But there was no debt.

Ten years and three children later buying a house seemed like a good idea at the time. A few years later still we went from the small town with its small town prices to the big city with its big city prices. The increase in salary was not quite on the same scale. But where there’s a will there’s a way and we’ll somehow make it work.

Only it didn’t. When my oldest child went off to college I signed up for a weekend paper route. There was me with a doctorate slinging papers in the wee hours. The plan was to put all that extra money into paying down the mountain of debt. Throw the wolf some meat and maybe it will stop growling.  

There were a lot of sermons preached on texts such as the ten lepers, only one of whom came back to thank Jesus; give to Caesar and give to God; put your talents to good use; the camel trying to get through the eye of a needle; the rich man in hell begging Lazarus for a drop of water.

The one that got me to the core of my soul was the one about a woman pouring out expensive perfume on Jesus. Where Judas complained and Jesus shut him down, saying, “You’ll always have the poor around, but you won’t always have me.” Yeah, that’s me, I thought, always poor and where is Jesus when I need him?

But on another level, it was the contrast between views of God. Is God stingy like Judas, with the concurrent world view of not enough to go around? Or is God generous like Mary, pouring it all out, wastefully even, because in God’s realm of possibility there’s always more where that came from? I had to think, to believe that it was the latter.

In the meantime, the wolf got through the door. My marriage ended and I ended up with all the debt. But there was a light at the end of the tunnel. It was a very long tunnel, but I knew that the light at the end was this time not an oncoming train. Lots of papers got tossed in those days. But hey, it was great exercise. I looked at it like going to college. Four years of austerity and I would be debt-free. It was doable; God was indeed good and generous.

Just how generous I could not have imagined. Suffice it to say, things turned out okay. The debts got paid off. The credit cards got cut up and cancelled. I fell in love with and married someone who saw the world, God and money the same way I did. That goodness of God will never fade as far as I’m concerned. There’s still more where that came from.

Hard times are coming though. I wonder about all the churches where ministers, good people toiling away in the fields of the Lord, are being told even now, “Sorry pastor, but there’s no money in the budget for a raise this year. In fact, we’re going to have to make some cuts.”

It’s difficult, but as hard as it is not to, don’t take it personally. Especially when people need to look for someone to blame, just remember, in most cases it’s not about you. As difficult as it is to get folks to consider it (though maybe not where you are: hallelujah!) try to get the people to ask the questions such as, “How do we deal with this crisis as people of faith?”

Shun the easy solutions that arise from fear. The shaming and the blaming. Remember that woman who poured out the costly oil. What good was that on a guy who was slated to die? Just think of how that could have been used if it were sold and the money given to the poor!? Is there more where that came from?

Take Care – John Mann

Buying In

Yesterday we explored the impact of the images we live through via Matt 22 and the famous/infamous "render unto Caesar" passage. Drawing a connection between the image of Caesar on the coin under inspection in the passage and our trademarked, brand-named, designer line world of today, we began to recognize just how many systems we participate in and to examine what the values they were espousing were really all about.

It was fun, and easy to do. Everybody knows the logo's and the jingles that accompany advertising, from products to services to education and job opportunities. What we hadn't thought of too much before now was the value system being offered to us with each product. Or, we hadn't thought of it as anything other than decent and good. Some things, like retail advertising, were easy to see as self-serving; creating a need and then demanding that it be filled with their product. Others, like scouting and our national flag, were harder to see as separate from the gospel- until we explored what happens if the rules/values each object stands for are flouted.

Two things stood out in the course of the sermon and follow-up discussion. First, it was impossible to live without interacting in some way with the systems of the world, and, second, what was that one-liner about Jesus not being swayed by the opinions of men?

Living in a world of increasing specialization and identification brings amazing challenges. While Caesar's image on the denarius identified who was in charge of the system the coin belonged to, we are bombarded with ever more finely detailed information about groups and systems that divide us based on more criteria than we are even aware of. A recent article in AARP magazine contained an article about DNA and genetic research in which people with no visible ties to each other were shown to be genetically related in unexpected, and even inconceivable, ways.  A whole new tribe was formed by examining DNA, a tribe that supersedes any sort of social networking. In and of itself, it's largely neutral; what human beings do with that information may be anything but.  How does one make sense of the discovery that one's "family" is larger than one ever thought was even imaginable? Does this work for inclusion or become a tool for exclusion? Just what kind of values are expressed and/or affected by this knowledge?

In the end, it seemed to come down to the helpful quip "Don't Use It for Evil". Knowledge is a tool; it can be used to facilitate love or to destroy it. The people who have discovered their new genetic family connections will need to choose how they will use this information. Similarly, all of us are faced with choices about which systems we will participate in and how we will use them. Will we use them for good or buy into the ever popular evil that more is better- more toys, more joys- for us? No system on earth is completely good except the one in which we love God, self, and other, so how do we do that within the world we're living in?

One of the possible responses that folks identified had to do with the words of Jesus' enemies, in which he was described as being "swayed by no man". What would life be like if we replicated that aspect of Jesus in our lives? If we really weren't swayed by the impressive images that fill our horizons, and kept our focus on God? We'd still be living and participating in a trademarked, values laden culture, but what if we didn't buy into it? Is that even possible?

I came home to read the Sunday paper and found an article by a fashion editor in the Boston Globe in which she took clothing designers to task for designing garments that only look good on a hanger. She had recently had the experience of returning to her favorite dress shop after two pregnancies and being told that she was once again "fun to dress". She had finally lost her pregnancy weight and regained her slender self. Instead of being delighted, she was perplexed. She had gained a total of only 15 pounds while pregnant- an amount below that recommended for the birth of a healthy baby- and was never "heavy" at a size 8.  Had her size really dropped her out of the pool of those who could wear fashionable clothes? Apparently so. She had fallen from grace, and it was only upon restoration that she recognized it. It was painful and non-sensical. Most women are not a size 4 for more than 20 minutes of their lives; why does the entire fashion industry insist that it's art hang on that framework?  She went on to insist that any fashion designer worth the name should be able to design clothing for women of many sizes and shapes- in essence, designing only for the size 2 mini-crowd is to be a one hit wonder, not a complex artist. Given that she has a great deal of expertise in the industry, her critique was surprising. She was not coming from a position of bitterness; she had been redeemed from those larger numbers and readmitted into the corp of the stylish. What she was doing was exposing a destructive value and the behavior based on it because it didn't facilitate life for many women.

 I have no idea if the fashion editor was motivated by the gospel or not. I don't live in the world of high fashion, but I am affected by it and by the values it espouses, even if only to reject them.  I appreciated the fashion editors values and her concern for other women who were being excluded from an aspect of beauty in the world and judged as "less than" because of it.  It was helpful to have her identify beauty as a value that was worth pursuing from an inclusive rather than exclusive perspective. In the end, her concern was that the fashion industry was selling a very narrow definition of beauty and she didn't want to see women buying into it; to do so was a false and destructive pursuit. 

In general, we're surrounded by similar destructive systems of culture. Few among us can responsibly withdraw from the world and live without any interaction with the Caesar's of our day. The challenge remains one of being focused on God and loving as Jesus calls us to-even when buying our clothes.  Now, if we can only do that without being swayed by the opinion of others and buying into the system....

nancy hitt

Men's Prayer Breakfast

While on holiday recently in the U.S.A. I took the opportunity to sit in on a “Men’s Prayer Breakfast,” sponsored by a friend’s church. I was a bit reluctant because we had to get up at 6:00 A.M. but I owed him. When he was visiting me in Scotland I dragged him to a Celidh at which most of the storytellers were from Latvia and telling tales in their native tongue. “It has to be better than that,” he reminded me. No doubt it would be.

The format was simple. It was held in a neighbourhood café. One guy read a bible passage and then the rest of us shared our thoughts. In the meantime the wait staff were filling orders for breakfast.

The passage at hand was from Exodus where Moses strikes the rock and water flows out. The obvious interpretation is, “God will provide.” As a guest and especially as a minister (from Scotland!) I just wanted to keep quiet and enjoy my ham and eggs whilst others did the talking. Alas it was not to be. Like good Americans they wanted everyone to feel at home and so an occasional, “What do you think, John?” was tossed my way.

“The bacon here is especially good. They just don’t do bacon like this in Scotland.”

“No, about the passage?”

I mentioned a few things about the idea of the prosperity gospel being a bit of a fallacy. And that a question raised in the story is maybe the point of it, where the people are asking, “Is this Lord among us or not?” (Exodus 17:7) I said it’s a good question to ask ourselves, especially when the specter of hard times becomes a tangible reality. In other words, how do we determine God’s presence in our lives?

The discussion veered onto the topic of responsibility and the importance of taking responsibility. Again, “What do you think, John?” I suggested that a group of men sitting around a table at a neighbourhood café at (by this time) 7:00 A.M. discussing the meaning of Scripture is a uniquely American activity. Though I might not be in tune with particular interpretations of the story, I thought the context of the discussion was fairly marvelous.

Afterward as we were taking our leave, more than one fellow described to me his Scottish heritage. Another uniquely American thing to do. Since the majority of us are from somewhere else, we parse the heritage even so far as to say things like, “I’m one quarter German on my mother’s side.” Being the foreigner, even though my ancestry goes back to Scotland, I’ve learned how to say to people, “I’m an American.”

On the sidewalk in front of the café (which in Glasgow we would pronounce Kaffy) a guy pondered the mystery of why God had blessed America with so much ingenuity and responsibility, but with not much oil. He then offered the opinion that maybe it is our responsibility to put our ingenuity to use in order to obtain the oil under the ground in other countries. Rather like Moses striking the rock.

There are times when I will engage in an argument, but this was not one of them. As my friend and I walked back to his house I said, “See what you put me through? Now we’re even.” As the saying goes, God bless America.

Take Care – John Mann

 

So What Will This Do For Your Ministry?

At last months Board meeting I reminded the folks that I would be attending the last of my "pre-approved" conferences over Columbus Day weekend.  Having just returned from San Fransisco and the Compassionate Eschatology conference, they were startled to be reminded that I was leaving again, and wanted more information about the upcoming conference: Transforming Our Minds. I explained that John Carmody, neurophysiologist and theologian, was going to talk about brain anatomy and mirror neurons and the imitation of Christ. After a brief but pointed silence, I was asked to explain, "Just how will that help your ministry?" At the time, the analogy I offered was one that bridged the gap between science and religion in a simpler way than an explanation of neuroanatomy might entail. I reminded them that from my nursing career, I was aware that words are processed primarily in the left brain, while music is more of a right brain phenomenon. Putting words to music and singing them thus engages the whole brain in a way that "either/or" does not. Seeing that they were with me this far, I then explained that this knowledge contributed to my choice of hymns on any given Sunday. I am less concerned about singing personal favorites than I am in engaging the whole of ourselves in worship; I know that I literally "put words in their mouths" with every hymn, and I want those words to engage their whole brain in the context of that mornings worship. They were amused, but intrigued, and relaxed their anxiety about why I needed to go to this weird sounding conference. Although I couldn't specify in advance what new dimension of ministry would be enhanced, we could all see the basic principle at work among us. Mostly, I think they just decided to humor me, but that works too.

So here's what the conference has offered me in regard to my ministry thus far. I should say now that I never for a moment thought that this might be a possible outcome, but the Holy Spirit is amazing. I also never expected many of the other insights I received, but I'm starting with this one because one mans life depends on it.

"Nathan"  began attending our church a few months ago. He is self employed to a moderate degree and lives in a neighboring town. He arrived unexpectedly- no one had met him before- and introduced himself as a born-again Christian who was extremely proud to be in a life-saving relationship with Jesus. He was outgoing and enthusiastic in his self-introduction to the church. Eager to join in everything the church had to offer, he requested offering envelopes and membership on the first Sunday.  While everyone loves to be loved, his immediate desire to be part of the church was a bit suspect; we didn't know him, he didn't know us, and what was the rush here? On the whole, we weren't sure how to respond to him. He certainly seemed genuine, and no one wanted to douse the Spirit's fire in him, but we also wanted to make sure that he understood who we were and how we worshiped together over time, not just on a single Sunday. While the congregation was polite and gracious and encouraging, it was also clear that most people were uncomfortable with him, although no one could find a particular reason for their discomfort beyond feeling rushed by the speed with which he wanted to join the church. Over the next few weeks, Nathan continued to show up for worship. He also left his business cards on every conceivable surface (table tops, window sills, doorways and bulletin boards), spontaneously phoned a number of people to discuss his life issues and ask for prayer, and approached several of the young women (25 years his junior) to ask if they were in need of a prayer partner. He also phoned me, leaving me extended messages about the preaching and it's impact on him. Several things were very clear: Nathan was sincere in his efforts to base his life on Jesus, and we weren't the least bit comfortable with the way he went about most of it. Some of us wondered if he was a sex-offender on the run (his interest in the younger women aroused that concern), some wondered if he was an ex-con, some wondered aloud if he was mentally retarded. What was evident to all of us was that Nathan had special needs that we were scrambling to respond constructively to. It was hard to predict what he'd come up with next that we'd need to address. To his credit, Nathan absorbed information and used it, although not always in the way we intended it.  With no sense of background for him, we had difficulty responding to the present in what felt like appropriate ways, and the future was a mystery that made us laugh out loud- what would he come up with next?

I met individually with Nathan about 3 weeks into his presence with us. Always polite and a little formal despite his overly enthusiastic approach to things, Nathan was delighted to sit with me and explain his spiritual journey. He shared many things, but the one that helped the most in understanding who he is and how to minister to him was the fact that he has been diagnosed with a mild form of autism, Aspergers Disease.  He was very willing to have this shared with the church at large; in fact, he wanted people to understand that he had difficulty with social cues and interpersonal relationships based on this.  He also knew better than to have it be the first thing he said to people; his experience had been that often people didn't understand and were frightened of him. We agreed that people are often frightened of what they don't understand, and I suggested that it must be frightening for him to navigate a new church. He agreed that it was, but stated that he felt God had led him to us, so here he was and here he intended to stay. I affirmed that and outlined several ways I thought we could make that easier for him. I shared some concrete facts about church life with him (we are NOT a church that refers to each other as brother/sister, middle aged men are NEVER prayer partners with younger single women, for example) and offered to find a mentor for him who could work with him on a 1-1 basis to answer his questions and direct his energies. He was eager to do that, and a male social worker with skills that enable him to engage with Nathan meaningfully agreed to provide that ministry to him.  I remain available as his pastor to address spiritual concerns and counsel him about church membership.

The larger concern was/is the congregation and their perception of Nathan and capacity to respond to him. Explaining that he had Asperger's Disease brought the reaction: "I knew there was SOMETHING wrong with him!" from many quarters. Few people had any idea how to understand what that meant, and even explaining that he would have regular difficulty with social cues and interpersonal relationships just resulted in a frustrated "but what do I SAY to him when he gets weird?" And the truth is, sometimes Nathan gets weird. His misinterpretation of social settings results in wildly inappropriate responses.  People really don't know how to respond to him; they feel as if they are treating him meanly or as if he, an adult person, is stupid, and they don't like to do that. Explaining what his difficulties are doesn't necessarily identify a healthy response to them. Since a diagnosis of autism is usually more descriptive than prescriptive, we're usually left winging it. Enter the "Transforming Our Minds" conference...

One of the things Dr. Carmody spoke about was the role of mirror neurons in the brain. These are cells that literally "mirror" inside our own heads the experienced reality we perceive in another person, and then duplicate that experience in us. They are what enable us to "feel one another's pain" and everything else as well. When we perceive that another person is anxious, we recognize that anxiety in a lesser degree in ourselves- almost as if it were bouncing off them into us where our mirror neurons pick it up and show us what it is. Dr. Carmody mentioned that autism seems to be a disorder of the mirror neurons; autistic people are unable to perceive the feelings others experience and relate meaningfully to them. He was very clear that autistic individuals have a complete range of emotions on their own; the difficulty lies in relating meaningfully to what is going on around them. Having identified where the deficit is, it then becomes possible to remedy it. It also becomes possible to explain it in a non-threatening way.  Most of us will open a door without thinking too much of it for someone with a cane. For someone with insufficient mirror neuron functioning, we may likewise supply a need by explaining concretely what is happening instead of expecting the person to just pick it up on their own.  My hope is that by being able to explain the mystery of social ineptitude, something that makes us very uncomfortable at least in part because it's largely unconscious in ourselves, we can develop a reasonable degree of ease in responding to Nathan. At the very least, it will give a credible reason for why he "just doesn't get it" and we have to tell him the same thing over and over. If he has no ability to perceive our social cues, it isn't that he's misreading them or insisting on doing things in some bizarre way on his own; it's that he genuinely can't see them at all; he's blind to them. That takes us off the hook too. We're not being mean when we tell him what's happening on an emotional level very concretely. We're not treating him as if he was stupid. We're providing him with the information he desperately needs in order to survive.

One of the points Dr. Carmody began with was the statement that human beings are hard-wired to love each other. Our brains are built for this. Nathan's brain is built for this. His brain also has a built-in challenge; his mirror neurons are not firing at the same rate as the "average adult". His desire to love others is evident in the joy he takes in doing concrete tasks that benefit others. He has explained that he loves to do "Card Ministry" because he has been with elderly people who received cards for their birthday etc. and were overjoyed by the card. They showed it to him and told him about it and who sent it, and he knew it meant a lot to them because they told him that it did. As a result, Nathan wants to be able to send cards to all the people in church on their birthday. This is an excellent example of how Nathan learns: concretely, by seeing and hearing the evidence of what people are feeling. Left to his own intuition, he'd be close to clueless. But because of this experience that he has had repeatedly, he now knows that there is something he can do to bring joy to others, and he is intent on doing it.  I've offered the mirror neuron explanation to one person who had previously described Nathan as "creepy" because "I never know what he'll do next".  Having a scientific explanation for the disconnect- he can't tell what you're thinking/feeling and doesn't know what you'll do next either- helped. The idea of receiving a birthday card from Nathan would have fallen into the "creepy" category before; Nathan is outside this persons social circle and it would have been perceived as odd, inappropriate, and intrusive. It would not have been clear what Nathan wanted from the recipient. In fact, Nathan wants nothing back, he just wants to share a little joy because that's what he understands Jesus wants him to do.  Understanding that made the prospect of a birthday card a relief instead of "creepy". It was a relief to have something simple and appropriate to seek him out and say thank-you for.

I have to say, despite the difficulty and the awkwardness ( and I know it will still be a lot of both!) I agree with Nathan that God sent him to us. I also think I was "sent" to this conference and I think the Holy Spirit is on overdrive here helping these connections to be made. This was only one tiny detail in a days worth of conference material, but I feel equipped to equip others to love this awkward autistic man in the name of Christ- and that's not small at all!

The Scandal of Death (or the Death of Scandal)

From Tony Bartlett's blog:

I recently got back from a theology conference in San Francisco organized by Michael Hardin and Preaching Peace. Kudos to Michael. Great papers, and the inspiring presence of René Girard! (But I’m also sorry I just got round to talking about this. Linda’s in England, attending to her very seriously ill father, so things are a bit out of kilter. Please pray for her Dad, Peter. He doesn’t have long.)

I’ve been thinking about the conference off and on ever since I got back. You fly across the continent to hear the condensed insights of outstanding scholars, and in areas that are of central interest for you. It’s impossible not to be processing so much of it. One of the papers was by a philosopher who also considers himself a bit of a theologian. I could say perhaps I’m the converse of that, a theologian who also considers himself a bit of a philosopher. So we have a lot in common, except coming at it from opposite directions! What this scholar was talking about was Resurrection, and I was reminded of how the philosophers in Athens reacted to Paul when he spoke on that topic, about the “resurrection of the dead:” some scoffed, others wanted to hear more. (In Acts, chap. 17).

My opposite-direction colleague’s argument was that you really can’t have resurrection and remain a creature of flesh because the character of flesh is just precisely its mortality, its corruptibility. The only other way is to talk about two worlds, a second world of “spirit” separate from this one where we can be “beamed up,” and this is a dualism which we’re all trying to get away from (certainly all those at the conference.) So the honest and truthful thing is to accept real death and forget fanciful notions of resurrection.

First off, the New Testament is already aware of this issue. Paul uses the word “flesh” to stand for a whole complex of reality, both bio-physical and relational. Flesh is the human (anthropological) system predicated on death, working through a desire that knows nothing else but death, and that’s why it produces continual mayhem (Gal. 5.19-21; note how relationships of violence outnumber traditional sexual sins “of the flesh” at least two to one). But Paul also has the concept of “body” and this in fact overlaps with flesh precisely where he’s talking about resurrection (e.g. 1 Cor.15. 39-41). So he expresses a radical continuity with embodied existence occurring in the resurrection. However, it is the Gospel of John which fixes the value of flesh in the New Testament: Jesus is the Word “made flesh” and he gives us his flesh to eat as communication of endless life. In other words, in John flesh is transformed through Jesus, not done away with.

The problem for philosophy is that it finds it extremely difficult to recognize the dramatically new thing that Jesus has brought into the world, and I mean into. For philosophy there is really nothing new under the sun. On the other hand actual philosophers do have some inkling of it, otherwise why would you have a philosopher speaking at a theological conference? Actual philosophers are smart enough to know that the game has been changed by Jesus, yet they’re always trying to say the change is not actual but in fact has been always and ever the same game. That way they have the final word!

Death, however, is the tripping point where things either are indeed as they have always been—death the absolute and universal leveler, or where, through Jesus, something genuinely, impossibly new makes itself known. In other words death is a scandal, which can overwhelm us or which, through Jesus, we can overcome. Now I have no idea what makes resurrection happen, how much it is a miracle of God in the cosmos, how much the product of human attitude and transformation. I feel likely it is both, mixed up so deeply, to a point where we can’t tell one from the other. What I do know is that the raw vibrancy of the Risen One has so permeated our world that philosophers are drawn to theological conferences, that movies feature the theme of Jesus’ nonretaliation on a regular basis, that a meal in the food court of a Mall can turn into a Eucharistic thanksgiving quicker than a heartbeat. And that forgiveness of our enemies has become a contemporary question and dangerous political possibility. If death had the final word with Jesus all of this would be unthinkable, literally beyond our anthropological ken.

Livin' in the Grass, It's a Gas, Baby Can you Dig It?

Being in San Francisco, the city by the bay, the city that rock and roll built this last week was a gas.  Nancy Hitt, Tony Bartlett and Dorthy Whiston were there as were a number of folks from the Akron PA area, notably John Stoner and Bryce Rich.  Brad Jersak my co-editor on Stricken and Sharon Baker, co-editor of The Church at Peace in a World at War, John Kleist all came. 

Rene and Martha Girard told me they had a wonderful time, as did we all.  The presentations were challenging, instructive and first rate.  Conversations were stimulating and the fellowship was joyous.

This month the Preaching Peace website will undergo some changes, have a new look, and generally be more user friendly.  We also have a team who will be bringing commentary on the Epistle texts for the next three years.

Look for our first annual report coming soon.

Peace,  Michael