Happy but not felicitous

Crazy lady. Walking back from a sulky breakfast at a yuppie-cafe (take your pick), a consumerism-ridden location that somehow soothes the soul. I escape to these luxurious little holes in the wall to escape my own luxurious little hole in the wall, viz. my office. An important difference between these holes seems to be that where I work I could drink good coffee for free, alone, and surrounded by extraordinarily expensive wood carpentry, and while at the cafes, I can pay for expensive coffee while surrounded by cheap facades designed to look expensive, but share that space with other yuppies. Why going there feels like a small and satisfying act of rebellion is a bit of a mystery. It seems like the cure for the disease is finding out that others are sick as well.

So, I was walking back, keeping low, avoiding the sun, running from gutter to gutter, because exposure to too much light is dangerous. And as I was walking to the a corner, I accidentally made eye contact with a rather overweight, poorly dressed in pink and purple sweatpants/t-shirt, lady in her 40s with some acne. One had to look, something just didn't look right... she didn't look down and out, but something was off... leaning new-age, I'll say that her "energy was a little weird."

Now, I've never seen this woman in my life, and she says to me, "How are you?" or "Have a nice day" or something like that, to which I respond, "Fine, thank you. How are you?" or something similar. She says, "very well. If I don't see you again, have a nice Labor Day."

"You too."

Not felicitous speech, but what a pleasant encounter. Except for the "If I don't see you again", it was perfectly nice, and civilized, result of random eye contact. After the eye contact, my polite choices were limited, as were hers: (1) either look away with zero facial expression, zero communication; (2) do that weird closed mouth smile thing; or (3) exchange empty pleasantries and then think warm thoughts about it while walking away.

But she broke some rule, and thus, pulled us both into crazy land. She violated, I would think, H.P. Grice's maxim "be relevant" in conversation. "If I don't see you again"?

Why, whatever are you talking about? Even a "Since I won't see you again" would have violated some rule about intimacy.

So who's really crazy? Both our scripts in our little drama were written before we got there. That much seems obvious to me. Assuming that she's a little "off" or "touched", maybe she can compensate for certain accompanying feelings of insecurity by engaging someone like me with a convenient learned behavior that elicits a polite response and an immediate gratifying feeling of community, and probably a lapse in the stress of living in an inscrutable world. I responded without thinking and gave myself a quick smile, but after that initial moment felt weird. Neither of engaged in any conscious thought until it was all over.

It just went by so quickly; I had no time to yell, "freeze," to stop everything for just a moment, and figure out what the hell was going on. The world just kept spinning, and like a trained monkey, I headed back to work.

You know, the problem is: I really don't enjoy talking to crazy people, they make me a little nervous. Maybe I could just sit quietly with one. That seems like it would be nice.

Today's rule: spend some time sitting quietly with myself.

Paul, Peter, Power and Politics

Yesterday's sermon at Bethesda Presbyterian (sorry about the weird formatting and typeface...they help with the delivery).

_____________________________

That passage from Ephesians…That is lectionary that a Preacher can get excited about.

And in Mississippi, when I was a kid, I attended services, of a rather enthusiastic nature….And these types of passages were favorites…

The sermon writes itself…all I would have to do is give it some life, throwing in a little showmanship, some enthusiasm….

I’ll give it a try. So, here’s a little Mississippi on hot August Sunday morning…

“Be STRONG in the Lord - says Paul…

Put on the Full ARMor of GOD…Take your stand against the Devil’s mighty schemes……

For effect, you might add the occasional question:

“Do you realize that Paul is NOT saying to struggle against your neighbor, No not Flesh and Blood, but stand against the RULERS, Against the Authorities, Against the Cosmic Powers of this present darkness.” Sniff….

For a preacher, passages like the one from Ephesians are, well……

Essentially, it’s God giving you a freebie…

_______________________________________

But wouldn’t you know it,


somehow that reading got paired with that enigmatic reading from John.

And Jesus said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him…the One who feeds on me will live because of me…”

Most Christians have heard that passage a million times, and probably don’t think about it much.

But imagine hearing it for the first time, from a man as literal as Jesus often was. When Jesus said he would feed a multitude with a couple of fish…he meant it, not symbolically, but really, everyone would eat.

Again, Jesus says, “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood…The one who feeds on me…”

John tells us that upon hearing this, many of Jesus’ Disciples said, “This is a hard teaching.” No kidding, they were probably thinking “How are we ever going to preach on Cannibalism?”

And Jesus’ explanation of his words is not exactly straightforward. Many of the disciples abandoned Jesus as a result.

I’m not sure how Christ felt at that moment, John points out that he had known from the beginning which disciples would leave and would not believe.

But the human part of him, had to be somewhat confused and threatened.

He was being abandoned by his followers, just immediately after feeding the thousands with a couple of sardines and five loaves bread

and then he walked on water.

So, a couple of serious miracles. He’s become famous, and then he says something confusing…Everybody leaves.

_____________________________

The Twelve remained. But Jesus, as a human, looked at them and asked, “What? You’re not leaving too?”

Simon Peter then says, in my mind, the most profound, amazing thing…

“Lord, to whom shall we go?”

This is an amazing statement…It is not…”Oh Lord, we understand you, you share such wisdom and put our hearts at peace,

we are showered with spiritual riches. Oh Great Benefactor, we will follow you till the ends of the earth!”

No, the disciple says, “What are our alternatives? You’re the best we’ve got.”

You know, we don’t typically think of the Gospel as a political document.

Oh, I think we draw lessons and admonitions from it to use in our political lives. · We use it as justification that poverty should be first our list of political priorities. · We pray for peace, we beseech Jesus to guide our leaders…But for us, politics and religion are separate.

But as Dan Christian pointed out a few weeks back in the world of Israel, no such distinction existed. Politics and religion were one and the same.

Jesus would not have taught that we should merely use religion to “inform” our political discourse.

I don’t disagree with that, but I think there is a difference between spirituality and politics.

And this story that John tells us. It is about politics.

There is a famous Buddhist scholar named Walpola Rahula, a man that many of us have probably read. His introductory text, “What the Buddha taught,” has been used by introductory college courses on world religions for decades, since the 60s.

As he tells it, doubt impedes the Buddhists’ progress towards eradicating - ignorance and false views which are the root of all evil. But nonetheless, there must be doubt as long as one does not understand or see clearly. But after the doubt has served its purpose, you must shed it in order to move forward.

Spiritually speaking, one cannot “believe” without having experienced the truth in some fashion or another. To have a spiritual interaction with God, you must do more than simply believe what your preacher tells you, you must feel something, you must know something, you must understand something about your relationship to the Divine, whether it came by way of intellectual reason, through answered prayer or a vision or some other mystical experience.

He says, “To force oneself to believe and to accept a thing without understanding is political, and not spiritual.”

“To force oneself to believe and to accept without understanding…” In other words, you simply choose to accept something as true because you choose to trust the person that told you.

Essentially, when you just believe, you are towing the party line.

· Some examples might be, “I’m not a scientist, I don’t understand global warming, but my political party, or candidate, says it’s a problem, or it’s not a problem, and I trust my party.”

· Or I know very little about the Middle East, but my president, or my Senator or Congressman says this, and I trust them.”


These are not intellectual choices that we make, not spiritual ones, but political decisions to choose one side over the other, without fully understanding the consequences of one choice or the other.

When Peter chooses Jesus as his leader, he says, “Lord to whom shall we go?…We believe that you are the Holy One of God..”

________________________________________

You could read this interaction between Peter and Jesus as a story about faith. The story could focus on Peter as the perfect example of the faithful, that we should emulate him, that he was the first good faithful Christian.

But I’m not sure that’s the most fruitful reading. Because Peter admits that he doesn’t understand, that he really doesn’t know, when he asks “To whom shall we turn?” But he’s not blindly choosing, just because he believes.

Peter thinks that Jesus is the best alternative out there. The best leadership available.

This story, I think, is about leadership, about politics. We are to look in our leaders for qualities displayed by Jesus, the human, in these passages.

_____________________________________
A quick review of John Chapter 6 will help us understand why Peter put his trust, cast his ballot, for Jesus.

(1) Jesus’ focus was on those less fortunate; he fed those hungry in body and those hungry in spirit.

(2) After performing the miracle with the fish and loaves of bread, Jesus learned that the thousands present intended to “make him king by force.” Jesus immediately withdrew to a mountain alone. He resisted the type of power that relies on physical might.

(3) When the disciples were crossing to Capernaum afterwards, and the waters grew rough, Jesus walked out to them and led them to shore and safety.

(4) When all of his new followers asked him to explain his miracles, to explain what good works God requires, and asked him to provide them with bread from now on, Jesus responded by telling them the truth, no matter how difficult it was to hear and understand. And he told the truth, understanding the consequences, understanding that most of them would abandon him.

To sum up, Jesus focused on the needs of those less fortunate, first and foremost. · He did not succumb to the temptation of power for power’s sake or the use of force to further his power. Jesus provided leadership and vision when it was needed. And he was honest with his constituents.

[····These qualities and actions must be important, after all in the Bible and in the Western world all good ideas must come in groups of three. And here we have four….Clearly, God is trying to get our attention.

John give us four attributes of a political leader, and by way of those attributes, certain questions to ask of our political leaders.

· When we making our political choices, we can ask ourselves whether those vying for power put the needs of others, those less fortunate, as foremost in the development of their policy.

Are the needs of the poor addressed? Are the needs of the broken of spirit considered? Are the weakest, and even those most despised, the criminals, the deviants, are they treated with compassion and healed?

· Is a candidate wary of his or her own power? Do they acknowledge its corrupting influence? Do they seek to be accountable and transparent?

· Will a potential leader provide leadership when it is most needed? Not just in fair weather, but in foul as well?

And,

· Can we trust a potential leader? Does he or she speak the truth naturally?

These attributes might be summed up as the following virtues: compassion, humility, courage, and honesty.

__________________________________________

These attributes may be the armor of God that Paul prescribes in Ephesians. Using the words that Paul gives us:

· How many of our leaders today are wearing the armor of God?

· How many of our leaders are rooted and grounded in love?

· How many make as their foundation, shod themselves in the shoes of, the gospel of peace, instead of anger, violence, and war? Armoring themselves with God’s armor, and not armor of their own making?

· How many provide us with vision in the struggle against evil in the world, not against enemies of flesh and blood, but against poverty, violence, hatred, disease, greed, and ignorance?

· How many of our leaders today have fastened the belt of truth around their waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness?

Paul implores us to ask these kinds of questions. In Ephesians 5, he says “Let no one deceive you with empty words…Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.. It is Shameful to mention evil in secret, because everything exposed by the light becomes visible, and everything that becomes visible is light.”

(I guess this makes Paul the patron Saint of good journalism…)

These words have special import for citizens of a democracy.…not just because democracies work better when transparent, when we are given accurate information about and by our leaders.

No, even more fundamentally than that, in a democracy, we must not be deceived, because if we, as a nation, perform an evil act, then we as individuals are responsible. When we, as a Nation, take part in unfruitful works of darkness, then we as individuals support those barren works.

As Christians, we must demand Christ-like compassion, humility, courage, and truth from our would-be kings.

We must know how our poorer compatriots live, we must know how our enemies die, we must know how God’s creation suffers or benefits from our presence, we must know how our riches are produced, [how our gold is mined,] how our energy is drawn from the earth, how our food is grown, nurtured, harvested and slaughtered...

You cannot be a Christian in Darkness. To be a Christian, you “Live as children of Light” And the “fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true.”

So, when a would-be leader, whether president or school board, wants your support. Ask yourself,

“When I need compassion, is this to whom I shall go?”

“When the world or my community needs a humble leader, is this to whom we shall go?

“When the easy decisions are the wrong ones, to whom shall we go and find courage?

And finally, “when I want to know the truth, to know if my community is engaged in Godly and fruitful works, is this to whom I shall go?”

Blessed be the words of the Lord…

Regular stress.

Talking to health. I was chatting with a colleague, we'll call him "Reid", and he asked me, "are you stressed?" He didn't ask me because I looked particularly stressed; instead, he was looking to see if I was sharing the stress that he was feeling.

So, looking calm and disinterested, I blurted, "yes, I'm really stressed." It was true, although really unknown to me until that moment. There was no immediate therapeutic benefit felt from the telling.

We discussed our stress, and the hints of stress that our bodies (minds included) had given us over the last couple of weeks. (I more than suspect that the stress was not just from the workload, but from the nature of the work. )

Anyway, as I was walking down the stairs heading home, I was debriefing the encounter alone and mumbled as I got to that point in the story, "I'm really stressed." Immediately, my impulse was, "yes, I'm really stressed!" And I felt relief at the telling. Some bad humor vented.

"Reid" and I dispassionately (while overtly and hyper conscious of our dispassionateness) discussed the therapeutic incident the next day, trying to figure to whom we could admit that we were stressed and feel relief. How much vulnerability is necessary? And to whom could you be so vulnerable without creating other stress?

Ridiculous. Why is saying "I'm stressed" taboo like saying "I have bowel movements"? Both should be obvious. In fact, the more remarkable thing to say would be "I am not having bowel movements." But that, in fact, we would be more comfortable admitting.

Rule of the day: To admit the existence of regular...ehhemm...regularity.

Rampant Despair

What are the signs of absolute and utter despair? My inclination, as I would think would be one shared with most, is that physical symptoms would manifest. A certain obvious ennui, listlessness, frowns, lack of enthusiasm, an impassive expression. You expect the despairing to proclaim, "Anguish! Woe!" and then to emotionally collapse with "Who cares?" But these are the symptoms I would look for in other people, if encouraged to make a diagnosis. What would I look for in myself?

The thing about despair, as it has been said, is that it is often quietly suffered. And most seem to be suffering.

Fortunately, there are those out there that have no idea that they feel despair; this makes sense, after all, I was not taught introspection in school or church, and many others probably didn't take that class either. In fact, I was taught that judgment is what happens to you; Life is about guessing the right answer to someone else's question.

But where is the help for those that have come to the delusion that the only thing separating their mind from the rest of the universe is bad luck in the form of bone and skin? Should they rely on the diagnosis of their peers? You, sir, are suffering from despair: Take these pills, practice these breathing exercises, combine your food differently, pamper yourself, set aside some "me-time", exercise, get sexy, sleep with a beautiful woman/man, get noticed, do yoga, vacation!, shop, listen to music from a pod, money!, buy a car, express yourself!, eat, eat, eat, disapprove of others, condemn others, cheer as others get what they deserve, love another, love everyone, love yourself, love God, give it up to the Lord, despise yourself, starve yourself, take a bubble bath, get a massage, hate, get a designer dog, garden, be fair, do the right thing, stop abortionists, hate pro-life wingnuts, give up, keep fighting, do nothing, laugh with perfect teeth, be a patriot, support killing the other, justice, freedom, drugs, smoke, drink perfectly expensive martinis, and borrow or work to pay for it all, steal if you can, lock up the bad guys.

Certainly despair is the risk that the smart and sane run by being honest. The nuts lose themselves in dogma, in simple answers or complicated proofs that only someone smarter could dismantle. The enlightened, like Dewey suggested, just make a choice?

Are we fortunate enough that there are just some things that we will believe, regardless of proof to the contrary? We could focus on those and find fulfillment, whether based on untruths or not. But my question is: why is meaningless so frightening, so despairing?

I'm thinking it's all about community, biological. That our need/want for community is the thing we believe without a relationship to reason.

So, how would I diagnose despair in myself? Anger. Petulance. The resurgent conviction that "it" is all meaningless crud.

In my case, I crave to be a part of the discussion, any discussion, anywhere, anytime, at whatever level, whether between strangers, intimate friends, or of nations. Otherwise, I'm alone. And god only listens for so long. Soon, god moves on, and I'm really alone. Then, I pull of my glasses, give myself a concerned look, and say "you sir, are suffering from despair." Take these pills, practice these breathing exercises...

Rule of the day: to figure out where my anger would be without me?

The Value of Anthropology and Office Agitators

Anthropology. People often joke about the little value afforded by a college major in the Arts, especially English, philosophy, and anthropology. There seems to be no occupations, other than professorships, that demand such degrees to entry. As a result, excuses are made intimating that folks who devoted themselves to such fiscally irresponsible disciplines are at the very least probably very bright, able to learn quickly, or when all else fails, "well-rounded."

Nonetheless, though parents cringe at the thought of a child spending or borrowing thousands to complete these courses of study, there is some grudging admiration by the general public, sort of like the admiration awarded ascetics. "It's crazy....but, Cheers!" It's been said that the powerful and successful admire martyrs and saints because anyone sacrificing so much, or acting so crazy, must know something that the powerful and successful don't know, or at least, the sacrifice must display some extraordinary hidden power. And considering the force of the ambitious drive in the successful (not those born into success), I'm sure they are amazed at anyone who seems to be able to resist similar urges.

Value in today's world. Nonetheless, my anthropology major, and graduate work, would have saved this office from further slippage into the morass of retardacity (audacity met with breathtakingly retarded vision and development in the face of seemingly limitless promise) that is "the corporate world."

Here's the situation. I started this lifestyle (calling it a job probably doesn't do it justice) dressed to the nines in tailored suits, set off by charming ties chosen by my wife. I discovered very quickly (by observation and gentle ribbing by superiors) that I was overdressed. So, I duly moved in the direction of comfortable slovenliness. But I soon discovered that nice looking jeans paired with a dress shirt and topped with a blazer and dress shoes not only looked smart, but was very comfortable and hippish. Fortunately, there was absolutely no dress policy. Nonetheless, warily, I chose jeans for Fridays only, and looked bland and boring the rest of the week. My neighbor chided me, disapprovingly, but I refused to cower to his amorphous references to "office casual," whatever that is.

And then, as part of a larger program of codification, the firm loosed a dress-code-lite, full of exceptions. In it was the standard: don't look too hot (sexy/sensual) and don't wear jeans. But since there was absolutely no enforcement mechanism (enforcement is very much against our culture here), I made a strategic choice...cut back for a while, and then slowly bring back the jeans, always with the appropriate riders, viz. dress shirt, blazer, cuff links, etc.

But then my fellow associates made an error that no anthro major would have ever made: during a charity drive to raise money from the associates, they asked the partners if they could have a "jeans day" if a certain amount of money was raised. By begging the exception, they created the rule. Fools, us all.

Today's Rule: smile alone more often.