Building on this, humor ought not be reduced to funniness or simply that which elicits laughter. True humor is a phenomenon of greater depth. True humor is founded upon profound joy, but this does not make light of it. True humor points to the authentic, to the real, to the true by highlighting that which is truly silly, ridiculous and, therefore, comical. When a skilled humorist engages in her or his art, the world is revealed as it truly exists. Sometimes this is done through exaggeration, sometimes through parody, sometimes through satire, or some other manifestation of the art of humor. These are all forms of humor. They are not synecdoches of humor and humor should be not be reduced to them. To say that humor is simply that which is funny or laughable is akin to claiming that love is merely that which is desirable or enjoyable. Laughter is, at most, a common, involuntary response to having truth novelly presented. However, the absence or presence of laughter does not make something less or more humorous. The most profound humorists are rarely thought of in primarily funny ways. The key is found in the etymology: humor is the art of joyfully discerning the disposition of the world as it truly is through calling its illusions and falsities to account.

[The obstinate children] say to the seers, “See no more visions!” and to the prophets, “Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!” (Isaiah 30: 10-11)

This is precisely what fascinates about humor: it allows the humorist to remain outside of something while providing keen insights into it. There is a beauty in the ability of a good humorist to critique, comment upon, and call to account anybody or anything. There’s a level of impunity afforded the humorist that the dynamic of humor creates. Even in situations grave and dire do we need a humorist to lift up our situation and point out the silly, ridiculous, or comical. This allows us to face what may otherwise be overwhelming. If someone or something threatens to overwhelm, one of the most powerful responses is to laugh. It simultaneously empowers the laugher while disempowering the laughed at. Not because of the laughter itself, but because the dominant paradigm has not managed to completely lay claim on the laugher; the laughter is indicative one is able to see the truth of the situation. If you can humorously respond to someone or something, it indicates the power dynamics.

Sarah said, “God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me.” And she added, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.” (Genesis 21: 6-7)

It is critical to note that true humor is founded upon joy. While on the Congressional Civil Rights Pilgrimage to Alabama with The Faith & Politics Institute, I heard story after story from folks who helped foment profound social transformation through their nonviolent resistance to injustice. Incredibly did each story pivot on the joy experienced by participants: those who were jailed sang songs and willingly gave up amenities, those who boycotted buses walked with dignity and pride, and those who faced hoses and dogs did so with courage and love. These were terribly serious times, but this was not a somber movement. It was, to be explicit, a humorous movement. These women and men envisioned a truth not seen in the world, which made the world ridiculous in their eyes. In true humorist fashion, they highlighted the ridiculousness for all to see and experience. Doing so is a deeply joyful task. The profound truth that a black person is as valuable in God’s eyes as a white person, a truth we ostensibly regard as self-evident today, was once considered absurd by many. However, the Civil Rights Movement not only articulated, but lived into the alternative reality they could see. This echoes the words of Paul:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where are the wise? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. (1 Corinthians 1: 18-25)

Or even the words of other humorists:

“The most profound joy has more of gravity than of gaiety in it.” (Michel de Montaigne)

“Humor is not a mood but a way of looking at the world. So if it is correct to say that humor was stamped out in Nazi Germany, that does not mean that people were not in good spirits, or anything of that sort, but something much deeper and more important.” (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

“The church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

The Church must recognize its role as that of a Divine Humorist: Being a constant source of an Other reality through which God’s children are called to joyfully Live. The Church must be a place that by its very existence subverts and converts the world into something deeply humorous, something spontaneously, thoroughly joyous. This is God’s work and it is difficult.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5: 3-12)

Christianity need not look beyond its founder to see a humorist par excellence. What better way to point out the silly, ridiculous, and comical of this world than to embrace its darkness, sin, and death and hold them up for all to see. “This world,” Jesus’ life and death says to us, “is ridiculous. You are not beholden to this. So take up your cross — take up the silly, the ridiculous, the comical — and follow me.” To confuse humor with hilarity is analogous to confusing the Church with mere charity: one is often associated with the other, but to reduce the former to the latter is an unjust caricature. Christ very much gave out free bread, fishes, healings, and teachings, but these were not mere acts of charity. They were profound acts born out of a power and vision not found in Satan’s temptations, Caesar’s coffers, or Pharisaic piety. Similarly, the Church cannot engage in God’s work for superficial reasons: economic viability, congregational size, doctrinal purity, etc. As laughter is to humor, these may be natural byproducts of the Church’s work, but they are not the same. Should they become so, the Church’s role as humorist is reduced to that of the court jester: playing the fool for the powers that be.

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for you to gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul? Or what can you give in exchange for your soul? (Matthew 16: 21-26)

Though the Church needs to be able to stand apart from the world to a certain extent to be a resource for Christlike ways forward, the Church must be wholly of this world if it is to effect substantive change. Christ in the Gospels is fully human, very much of this world, while still being fully God and very much of a wholly Other world. The Church must also exist in this tension. To separate the Church from the world is to set it against the very world God created and still actively works to renew and recreate. To equate the Church with the world, however, is to bury the Body of Christ within the fallen, contingent order. Thus, again, we return to the analogy of humor: the humorist provides penetrating insight which requires not only a thoroughgoing knowledge of the world’s operation, but an ability to come at the world from another perspective. The Church has an irreplaceable capacity to offer up that Other perspective.

I [Paul] became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power. Although I am less than the least of all the Lord’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the boundless riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. God’s intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to the Divine’s eternal purpose accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. (Ephesians 3: 7-12)

The Church has a unique capacity to be in this world and yet offer the world Other ways forward. An avenue for this hitting home for me has been in my independent study of nonviolence as well as the aforementioned Pilgrimage to Alabama. The former has given much cause for intellectual, spiritual, and dialogical pause while the latter gave me an experiential glimpse into the Civil Rights Movement. Through the Pilgrimage, I had the privilege of sitting in the pews of historic churches that were the bases of operation for major movements of social change. I had the honor of hearing luminaries from the Movement share their stories, their songs, their lives with our delegation. I witnessed Members of Congress reflect on the impact such a journey has on their public service. All of this kept reinforcing for me the powerful realization that the Civil Rights Movement was a transformative movement born primarily of Christians and based out of Christian churches. The vision and courage exemplified by those involved in the Movement had its genesis in the power and wisdom of the Church. The Movement’s ability to uphold principles of nonviolence in the face of atrocious acts of violence can, in a very real sense, only be attributed to the role of the Church. Certainly Mohandas Gandhi’s satyagraha was the means of enacting the principle of nonviolence, but leaders of the Civil Rights Movement attribute their core principles to Jesus Christ. And what better way to point out the silly, ridiculous, and comical of oppression than to resist with love? In so doing, the marchers held up a mirror so the oppressors could see the humor of the situation, so the oppressors could see and feel how the Other was thinking and feeling, so the oppressors could joyfully enter into God’s Beloved Community unfolding before their very eyes.

Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you endured in a great conflict full of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You suffered along with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions. So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. (Hebrews 10: 32-35)

While I struggle with whether parish ministry is where God can best use me, I cannot deny the beauty of the Church’s place in the world. I furthermore recognize that the analogy I draw here, like all analogies, is incomplete and does not fully characterize the Church’s role. I am simply reflecting on an aspect of its role that I find to be compelling unto the point of redoubling my interest in working within the Church. More specifically, in parish ministry as a viable way of effecting change. There is still an element of smallness I associate with parish ministry on which I have more reflection to do. I do not mean smallness pejoratively; it best describes the primary association I have at this point.

Again [Jesus] said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade.” (Mark 4: 30-32)

Thus, I am left to consider what my role in the Church will be. How do I best fit into the Body of Christ with the passions, skills, and experiences God has granted me? What does working in a church offer that working elsewhere does not? How can I best humor God? Where can God use me to point out the most silly, ridiculous, and comical of our human condition? How can I best embody God’s sense of humor in such a way that draws us together and forward, rather than drives us apart and back? It must be a place that helps me laugh as deep as I do often, for that would be one indicator of true humor’s presence. It must be a place that helps the world recognize when it is being silly, ridiculous, and comical for that would be another indicator. And it must be a place that constantly allows me to engage new perspectives so that I see my own ridiculousness and can laugh at myself. To appropriate Frederick Buechner: it must be a place where the world’s deep hunger meets my deep humor.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not think you are superior.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if she is thirsty, give her something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on their head.”

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12: 9-21)

This is unacceptable. I am writing this to not only vent, but to also reach out to my fellow men in an effort to raise awareness because, like sexual violence (concomitant with it really), the objectification of women is a problem of men; yet all too often women are left to do the problem-solving. So my particular audience here is my own gender. I am not looking to cut women out of the conversation or discourse by any means, but I want to make it abundantly clear that it is men who need to recognize their privilege and ought not be the burden of women to fight this fight; they’ve just been forced to do so in order to survive and receive their due recognition as children of God.

Men are entrenched in a position of power. It is too often taken for granted that by and large throughout history it is men who have always been in power (minor cultural exceptions notwithstanding for now). Using the US as a prime example, women had to fight for a 19th amendment to be made (19th!) to be able to vote and even that was less than a century ago. And there’s no need to go into how gender inequality remains strong to this day, even in the land of the free. A fundamental problem with this inequality is that it is deviously innocuous. It is truly difficult for a fish to difficult to describe itself as “wet.” And without that self-awareness being present in us men, it becomes nigh impossible to recognize when our privileged place in relationships is manifesting (hint: it’s by default).

Since I’ve been consciously working with it for a few days, and having recognized more and more layers of how I operate out of that privilege by loved ones with whom I’ve processed this topic a bit, I want to use the process of objectification as a means to scrutinize what all too often enjoys inscrutability. As was highlighted for me by a confidant, it is positively maddening that the kinds of questions I was asking aloud are not only necessary, but that they so rarely, if ever, present themselves as questions for men.

I think I can boil all of the questions I was asking down to one fundamental question that men fail to ask: “How do you feel about this?” where “you” is, in this case, a woman, and “this” is about everything really, but particularly about the way in which men think about/interact with women. Critical to this question being asked is being able to experience the woman’s authentic response. How do we know this has been achieved? When a woman feels completely able to respond with a “No” without fear of repercussion, of not being heard, or that response not being honored. It is a subject that can say both “Yes” and “No”. It is an object that is reduced to degrees of acquiescence.

The male gaze, in its form I so saliently noticed during my walk home, is a pervasive cultural practice wherein a man can project onto a woman any thoughts, all fantasies, as well as the sexual desires he may have. In that very act of gazing, the woman is objectified because she is never asked “How do you feel about this?” but instead accepts all of the things passing through the man’s presumptuous mind. In fact, the stereotypical cat calls and the lewd suggestions are all made, presumably, with the expectation that she is the type of woman who wants (or should want) all of those things. But even the less explicit thoughts and actions on the part of the man accomplish the same thing. Do not misunderstand me, there may be women out there who do enjoy such attentions (though perhaps that would exemplify self-objectification); I am not attempting to prescribe women’s conduct/responses here. That would be playing right into the paradigm I’m attempting to highlight and distance us from. The fundamental issue is that the man assumes the woman is one who likes such things because he has failed to ask. In Laura Mulvey’s words:

“Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his phantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning.”

The male gaze is an arrogant act. It arrogates the woman to the man. She is not allowed to be a subject with whom he relates as a child of God; she is merely an object to be possessed through the man’s look. This is furthermore a male act due to men’s entrenchment in privilege. From what I’m more and more fully coming to understand, men, by society’s valuation of their sex, are by default the active subject while women are the passive object. Even if a woman gazes upon a man and objectifies him in her mind, the man still will retain his subjective status. He thinks himself the actor, society recognizes him as a subject, the man cannot be reduced to an object (I wager this is why men are understood as the ones able to be “objective” while women cannot; men have the ability to set aside their subjective self, not because of some superior ability but simply because women have no subject to set aside). However, when a woman is objectified, because that objectification is far more total and global due to socialization, acculturation, etc., she is not only viewed as an object, but she perceives herself as an object. This is the ultimate danger of this process of objectification. It not only realizes the sin of pride in men, it also realizes the sin of self-abnegation in women. Truly, we need to liberate ourselves from this paradigm because it dehumanizes each of us, which is antithetical to the purposes of God.

The process of objectification of women is a subtle one. Our culture does it so ubiquitously that it is hard to identify when it is occurring. Because of this, I cannot enumerate particulars of it, though I hope my example of how men look at women provides a concrete example. The critical component to honoring the humanity and divinity of each child of God is to be authentically present with them. This does not mean men cannot be sexual. It does not mean they cannot think sexually about a woman. It does not mean men cannot fantasize about a woman, cannot admire a woman’s beauty, cannot desire a woman. It means that men must recognize a woman can do all of those things as well. More to the point, it means that men must recognize women can NOT do those things; not only can they can say “No”, but there must be an authentic opportunity for that consent or dissent to be expressed. And that recognition of a woman’s subjectivity must be honored by men in their thoughts as well as actions.

In closing, I’ll highlight another concrete example. It is no coincidence that pornography is made predominantly by men for men. Think of the ease with which one can access images of women doing everything a man could imagine (and further consider the angles, the editing, the actors’ blocking, etc.). In the very act of accessing those images, those videos, those literotica stories, the man has forsaken the all-important step of asking the woman “How do you feel about this?”. There is an arrogation of a “Yes” response that maintains the man’s power, perpetuates the notion that men can project onto women their desires without the woman’s input, and this dynamic will translate from mediated objectification to in-person objectification. “But she has made her sexuality public and has consented to being viewed in this manner” you say? That same justification could be used by the guy on the street corner, gazing at the backside of a woman who has long since walked by. Did you honor a subject? Or have you arrogated an object?

(Note: I recognize I speak of gender in binary terms above, as well as heteronormatively. I do this because of the structural nature of culture’s dominant perception of gender. There is the additional element that the process of objectification eliminates the gender spectrum because it operates categorically. I also recognize there’s far more to this subject [e.g. the question of whether men can self-objectify for example]. I freely admit that I still have much to learn, so please, if you feel able and willing, build upon what I write, provide feedback, share, etc. so that the conversation can continue and be enriched)

(I recommend, as a seminal work [irony of word choice is noted] to see how this dynamic occurs in film, Laura Mulvey’s Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Try not to get too distracted by the dated film references or psychoanalysis)

First, I got some basic gun-safety instruction, which struck me as just a good thing to have.  I also can very easily see why shooting at a range is a hobby for many.  It’s got “sport” written all over it.  I apparently am not a bad shot with the rifle.  I had much more trouble with the pistol.  Sometimes I would be looking right at the bullseye and yet somehow manage to miss the target entirely.  Lot more subtlety in pistol work.

I also grew closer with friends in a realm I otherwise would have no point of contact with.  It also helped humanize the “pro-gun” crowd.  And I got some pictures, some stories, and I kept my first shell I fired.

However, there was something that I left with that felt most seminal: I found it remarkable how easy it was to pull the trigger.

This sounds odd, I’m sure, but for some reason, the great ease with which I could not only aim and fire, but do so multiple times without any more effort than flexing my index finger, struck me.  The simple stroke of my finger blasted a small piece of metal at immense speed that then buried itself into, hopefully, the target.  So easy.  So simple.  Point.  Shoot.  Re-center.  Shoot.  It genuinely felt like there ought to be far more to the task to get it to work.  Some extra mechanisms in place that would make the trigger pull a much more conscious endeavor.  It was not a earth-shattering experience or insight, but it stuck with me.

And then Saturday happened.  Another one of what is quickly becoming an iconic American tragedy: a madman opens fire on unsuspecting people.  6 dead, 14 others wounded, and countless more affected in other ways.  It was only when the 22-year-old man went to reload that someone tackled him to stop the carnage from continuing.  And now we are left to sort through the aftermath, with plenty of people ready to throw blame  at whomever seems remotely responsible.

When I heard about this, I was curiously enough in the middle of playing some games with two of the friends I had gone to the shooting range with.  It didn’t totally register until now, but I feel there is a connection between the insight I gleaned from my time firing guns at a range and the terrible tragedy that took place in Arizona.  I do not, by any means, want to suggest or imply that gun-owners are the problem, or even that guns themselves are the problem.  It is, instead, the insight I gained that is the problem.

And that is the problem of rapidity.  The amount of effort it takes to decide to pull a trigger and then do so is negligible.  Therefore, should I be in a state of mind where I make a decision to harm someone, the ease with which I can pull a trigger can make this an irrevocably simple task.  There is nothing substantively preventing me from going from thought to consequence; in fact the consequence can blossom before a shooter before the thought has fully registered.  The rapidity with which the consequence confronts the actor is only magnified by the sheer lethality of the instrument being used.  And thus, the instrument itself is merely a means to increase the potency of the actor’s decision.  Which means we cannot hold the instrument responsible, but must instead look to the actor.

And this is the problem of rapidity.  We see it in other realms as well.  The virtual social cocoon that Facebook can provide gives people illusions of expediency and superficiality of relationships that make the decisions within them victim to the same problems illustrated above with weaponry.  Indeed, it is not farfetched to look at Facebook as easily weaponized in the hands of someone who wishes to use it violently.  But often times, the violence done in such settings is not so much out of malice or malcontent, but instead out of a lack of anything slowing down the decision-making process.  The rapidity with which we operate in this day and age (which is only increasing) removes former barriers to rash decisions.  Being connected to each other 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, has become the norm of communication and relationship for many.  However, if this is indeed the norm we wish to continue, then we must also look at its effects on how we interact with one another because we are rapidly losing our abilities to withdraw, to be alone (which is different than being lonely), to reflect, to think.  Instead of pausing for input, our culture has rapidly become one of pure output.  Tweets, status updates, and the blogosphere make words cheap and thoughts cheaper.  In the midst of an economic meltdown we’re still reeling from, there is no poverty of verbiage and no consideration of verbal economy.

The world is setting constantly new records for the time between inception of a thought to its manifestation that impacts others.  The instruments that provide the means for this disappearance of time and space are not inherently the problem.  The ends that are achieved or sought via these instruments are where the true violence and danger reside.  With the vast majority of thought being confined within language, it is no wonder there is a high correlation between the devaluation of words and the devaluation of thought.  And with the erosion, corrosion, corruption of our ability to process thoughts fully, carefully, and holistically comes the inevitable, which we saw evidenced in Arizona most recently.

Genesis 19 opens with two “angels” (according to the NRSV) entering Sodom in the evening.  The Hebrew (ha-mal’akim) is used in various contexts meaning something more akin to “messenger” (in this case, messengers of God).  Brown, Driver, and Briggs point to this usage as contextually the same usage as Genesis 28:21 and 32:2 where these are theophanic messengers or even avatars of Yahweh (521).  This is differentiated from mere human messengers or prophetic characters who bear messages of or for God, but the narrative still refers to them as men.  Thus they are men of God in a metaphysically different way, which emphasizes the NRSV’s use of the term “angel” (from the Greek equivalent angelos) as opposed to simply “messenger” or “herald.”

Lot, who was residing in Sodom, invites the angels to stay the night with him.  After a meal, but just before going to bed, the text tells us that every man comes and surrounds the house.  The men demand Lot brings out the angels so that they “may know them” (v. 5, NRSV).  The cohortative of yada without euphemism here is the men of Sodom demanding Lot give up his visitors in order to gang-rape them.  Lot attempts to placate his fellow citizens by offering his virgin daughters, women who have not yet “known a man” (v. 8, NRSV).  This does not seem to interest the men who press in ever closer.  The angels strike the assailants blind and then urge Lot to take his family and escape.  After some negotiation, Lot finally takes his wife and daughters and escapes to Zoar (his wife not actually making it).  Yahweh then rains sulfur and fire down from heaven, destroying not just Sodom, but also Gomorrah, the Plain, and the inhabitants.

The alienness of the visitors in both narratives deserves structural attention.  The residents of the respective cities (Genesis 19: Sodom; Judges 19: Gibeah) surround a house wherein a foreigner is being housed.  The initial demand in both narratives is for the man/men within.  If only this much was read, it would seem that gender could very well be an important quality, but the narratives continue.  The critical component becomes how and why the respective hosts deny the demand (Genesis 19: Lot; Judges 19, the old farmer).  In Genesis 19, the NRSV has Lot saying, “Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please” (v. 8a).  Similarly, Judges 19’s host attempts a placation by saying, “Here are my virgin daughters and his [the visiting Levite’s] concubine….  Ravish them and do whatever you want to them” (NRSV, v. 24).  Both vocal placation attempts fail, although the Levite does abruptly puts his concubine outside, which allows for carnal satisfaction to succeed.  These could seem to suggest a dualism of gender wherein the men forsake sex with women for men.  However, these are attempts to divert the assailants’ attention from their primary target: the foreigner, not merely a man.  This dualism of resident and alien is the primary catalyst for both the assailants’ siege as well as the hosts’ protection.  If the concern were merely one of wrong gender desire, the men of Sodom could have turned to one another for satisfaction (this is further evidenced by the men of Gibeah being satisfied by gang-raping the female concubine).  Conversely, consider how verse 8 of Genesis 19 continues, “… only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof” (NRSV).  Similarly, Judges 19 has this preface for the host offering his daughters, “Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing [rape him]” (NRSV, v. 23b).  In both narratives, the structural focus is not upon the gender or sexual acts, but instead upon the status of one being a resident or a foreigner.  The sexual acts are merely vehicles for emphasizing how blatantly the residents disregard hospitality shown to visiting aliens.  In both narratives, the residents surround a fellow resident housing aliens.  In both narratives, the reason the hosts offer up women as distractions/deterrents is because the aliens residing within are guests and therefore should not be treated so (property of the host/visitors notwithstanding).  Structures of sexuality and gender being read into the texts are glossing the texts’ inherent focus of insider/outsider or, as aforementioned, supernatural/natural.

Although Sodom and Gomorrah play a prominent role in various contexts throughout the Scriptures (Jewish as well as Christian), the Genesis 19 story has managed to be appropriated for arguments against the GLBT community especially within the Church.  This rhetorical usage of the narrative found in Genesis 19 seems to run contrary to how the canon itself treats the conduct and subsequent destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  It is only in the letter to Jude that we find our closest-to-explicit association of the sister cities’ demise and sexual immorality.  In Deuteronomy, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is justified “because this people abandoned the covenant of the LORD… he made with them when he brought them out of Egypt.  They went off and worshiped other gods”  (29:25-26).  Ezekiel explains the sins of Sodom as, “She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49).  Jeremiah pronounces “They [prophets of Jerusalem] commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah” (23:14), which includes sexual immorality (adultery) as a remarkable sin, but this applied to prophets of Jerusalem and is one amongst many other offenses.  Jude’s unique association of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction with their sexual immorality demands a brief linguistic analysis. Jude accuses the sister cities of desiring “other” or “strange” flesh (sarkos heteras, v. 7).  Considering the above observations regarding the “anthropology” of Lot’s guests, it is no wonder that Yahweh would rise against humans threatening to rape his theophanies/avatars.  Understanding the “otherness” or “strangeness” of the flesh of Lot’s visitors as referring to supernatural beings is buttressed by 2 Peter 2: 6-11, verse 10 in particular.  These are the only etiological passages regarding Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction.  Jeremiah merely incorporates adultery as a generic offense and Jude is more concerned with the mixing of metaphysically different beings.  Readings that pull out gay sex as prominent, primary, or even pertinent in Genesis 19 are proof-texting heteronormativity.

Note that no adultery took place in the Genesis 19 account (making Jeremiah’s reference difficult to apply directly).  Despite the host offering his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom, no sexual act ever took place.  Contrarily, in Gibeah (Judges 19) there was a brutal act of adultery, but Gibeah is not conjured as a paradigmatic example of wrongdoing.  In Judges 19, sexual immorality is actualized whereas in Genesis 19 it is only threatened.  This is not to downplay the horror of what was taking place in Sodom, but in terms of narrative intensity, an actualized gang-rape leading to the death of the Levite’s concubine is far more demanding of justice than Lot’s visitors being threatened but escaping.  This contrast of intensity points to the likelihood that the parallel passage of Judges 19 is probably a redactional retelling of the Genesis 19 account.  Consider, too, the arguments used to give Markan priority amongst the Gospels (shorter, less embellishment, rougher around the edges) and it seems assured that Genesis 19 is a well-known tradition that is reused and exaggerated in Judges 19.

Judges 19 opens with a Levite man taking a concubine for himself.  While there are debates about what the tribe of Levi actually did (Holman, 1029), generally the Levites were the tribe without territory since they were designated as carriers of covenantal lore for Israel (cf. Deuteronomy 10:6-9).  They were wandering priests or transient men who carried God’s message.  Thus, while the Levite is a messenger of God, this is very clearly a human who is a part of the priestly tribe of Levi.  Instead of divine messengers beset by residents, Judges 19 has a disturbingly human Levite as the threatened alien.

After a scene where the Levite (unnamed) has to reconcile himself with his concubine (also unnamed) and the concubine’s father, the Levite and his concubine stop to rest in the city of Gibeah.  An old man invites them to stay with him.  Again, the men of the city surround the house.  They demand the host send out the alien so that they may “have intercourse with him” (v. 22, NRSV).  Curiously, the NRSV translates the same verb from Genesis 19:5 differently here, but the message is the same: the men of Gibeah seek to gang-rape the foreigner.  The host seeks to placate the besiegers by offering his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine.  In horrific fashion, the Levite abruptly gives up his concubine.  The men of the city proceed to rape her throughout the night.  Apparently this satiates them, for in the morning the Levite leaves via the front door, takes his concubine (the Greek text resolves the ambiguity of her condition by stating she is dead, the Hebrew leaves it uncertain), and goes home.  He proceeds to cut her into twelve pieces, sends them to the 12 tribes, and demands a consortium to determine what to do about Gibeah’s crime.  It is concluded that a military campaign is the proper recourse.  After a couple losses, the 11 tribes defeat the Benjaminites and destroy Gibeah, other towns, the animals, and the people.

While the crimes of Sodom and Gibeah are parallel in some ways, another difference to be noted is the rhetorical use of the two destructive events in the rest of the canon.  Gibeah, despite the more atrocious crimes committed, is rarely invoked as a warning or paradigmatic example of wrongdoing.  Only in Hosea 9:9 do we have a reference to the “corruption” (NRSV) of Gibeah, which God will remember.  In Hosea 10:9, Gibeah is referenced as the beginning of Israel’s sinfulness.  But these are the only two rhetorical references.  In contrast, Sodom (and Gomorrah) is rhetorically referenced many times as indicative of utter sin and subsequent utter destruction (cf. Genesis 18:20; Deuteronomy 29:23; 32:32; Isaiah 1:9; 13:19; Jeremiah 49:18; Matthew 10:15; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 1:7).  The canon elevates Sodom as a paradigmatic example of not sinfulness per se, but of destruction.  Most likely because, as argued above, Yahweh destroys Sodom and Gomorrah himself, which heightens the import of the destruction despite Gibeah’s crimes being more heinous.  The sin of desiring the “flesh” of an angel is, apparently, far more deserving of divine wrath than the sin of desiring a mere human foreigner’s flesh (or actually gang-raping one).  The Old Testament as well as the New attest to this by referring back to Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction far more often than Gibeah’s when rhetoric regarding destruction due to sin is used.

The Judges account is far more grotesque of a tale than its Genesis counterpart.  In Judges, the men of Gibeah not only rape the concubine all night, but the Levite then uses her carved up body to instigate civil war.  However, the manner of retributive destruction is far less grandiose.  While perhaps arguably comparable in its totality, the destruction recounted in Judges is by human hands sanctioned by Yahweh whereas the Genesis account has Yahweh himself destroying everything supernaturally.  Since the embellishments of the Judges account outweigh those of the Genesis account, what reason would Yahweh have for taking it upon himself to destroy Sodom, Gomorrah, the surrounding cities, and the Plain instead of using an opposing human force as done in Judges?  It would seem that the opening of each story speaks to its conclusion.  In Genesis, the visiting aliens are angels of God understood in this context to be superhuman.  Therefore the response to their being threatened is a superhuman one.  In contrast, the visiting Levite shows himself to be all-too-human, which explains why the destruction of Gibeah takes place in an all-too-human manner.  Furthermore, the themes of the narratives themselves, in conjunction with canonical silence on the issue of sexuality, indicate strongly that hospitality, violence, and pride are germane issues; not the usual concern over homosexuality or homosexual acts.  To read in commentary on homosexuality or gender issues in sex ignores the pervasive evidence within the narratives, the larger canon, and between the narratives that point us away from such heteronormative hermeneutics.

On Wednesday, I went to the Supreme Court of the United States to stand in the line to get in while court was in session.  There was a long line with tons of press roaming about with cameras, microphones, and notepads.  Normally there are two lines: one for people who wish to sit in on a case for its duration and another for those who only want to rotate through for 3-5 minutes at a time (i.e. those who got there first and those who got there later).  I was in the second line, despite showing up a good 45 minutes before the court opened.  Apparently people had camped out the night before even.  Why all the hoopla?

That’s right.  The Westboro Church folks were on trial.  A military family had been besieged by Westboro during a funeral and they sued in response.  The case has gone back and forth and up until now it is before the Supreme Court to determine whether a funeral is an event with a captive audience and thus free speech is not as free as “Pray For More Dead Soldiers” signs, for example.  It was fascinating to watch the 9 judges grill both sides of the case.  But as interesting as that was, I’m not so interested in that right now.

I’m more interested in advocating that Christians, both liberal and conservative, come together and acknowledge that this is a group of unabashed Christianists who do an utter disservice to Christ and Christianity.  While they may not be blowing up buildings, they are involved in what I consider a far more insidious form of terrorism.  It’s an invidious tactic designed to do nothing more than tear everyone down even when people are in the midst of grieving over the loss of a loved one.  Indeed, if we as a nation have blamed Islamists for putting our soldiers lives at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan, then it should not be difficult to decry these Christianists with equal conviction.  They do not deserve the dignity of being called Christians, though I have no doubt that God still loves them.  Nor do I doubt that they are acting out their faith as they feel they must.  But even just by overhearing conversations people tried to have with some of the adults, I can hear how perverted and twisted their doctrines are from mainstream Christianities.  They’ve made their faith so absolute and exclusivistic that it ceases to be relational.  Indeed, it ceases to be a religion in the etymological sense of the term.

It seems that in the eyes of this organization, they see the world as being utterly permissive with homosexuality being the epitome of that permissiveness.  Therefore, in a natural effort to balance that out, their theology epitomizes God’s wrath and absolute judgement.  This drives them to the periphery of rationality and into the depths of irrational behavior that can do little more than incite everyone but like-minded folk.  In my experience, there is no use trying to converse with these people.  Reason cannot penetrate the worldview that they have constructed because it is philosophically absolute.  I have no doubt that even if they lost this court case (assuming the damages they pay don’t bankrupt them), they will continue their demonstrations with different tactics and/or under a different guise.

Thankfully, in more and more instances, people are coming up with creative ways to respond to Westboro Church.  Often it involves making humorous signs that take the extremeness one step further.  Unfortunately, there are still many people who fall into their trap by getting angry and threatening them or arguing with them.  Truly, the only way to respond is to diffuse the ridiculousness.  Like in Judo.  You use the movements of your opponent so that it boils down to their own energy and momentum leading them to their own defeat.  These Christianists will eventually disappear, but Christainism will not.  There will always be extremists in any system.  The real question becomes: what do we do about them?  Do we hunt them down in caves in Afghanistan?  Do we argue with them in the highest court in the land?  Or do we join together and through our solidarity persevere through the ugliness that is hatred?  I, for one, feel that we must not let domestic or international terrorists unduly affect our national and personal psyche.  We are better than this.

Luke 23: 34a

Jesus said “God, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

During my last shift of being on-call at the UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center, I received a page from a social worker. A patient was undergoing an operation to evacuate her fetus. And the patient and her family wanted the child to be baptized after the procedure was completed. I could have passed the task off to one of the Catholic priests who were present for Mass that day, but I decided that there was no need to do so. I was just as capable as they to perform this ritual and since I was the on-call chaplain, it was my job. It was an awkward service to arrange. None of the staff had ever had this done before. This was my first baptism ever, let alone in a hospital, so I certainly had no protocol suggestions. Finally we figured everything out, I got the child’s name from the mother in the recovery room and then entered the staff-only area to perform the baptism. The family would not be present. Although I made room for the staff to join me, they opted to not be present either. Understandable. A nurse placed the child on an instrument table in an operating room. She asked if I needed anything else and I requested some water for the baptism, which she quickly retrieved. Due to the type of abortion performed, there was no discernible human form. I never opened the translucent container. The nurse took her leave, and closed the door behind her.

I was very anxious up to this point. I felt that I could perform the ritual, but my anxiety was nearly tangible. I had to start by praying that the Holy Spirit fill me with peace and courage. I prayed this most earnestly for a time. I cannot describe to you how each moment seemed to stretch to infinity, yet melted away instantaneously. Indeed, even now I am tearing up as the stretches of time between now and then vanish. After feeling sufficiently emboldened, I finally truly beheld the child before me. My entire being became focused and I felt a terrible loneliness well-up inside me. It was not I who felt lonely; but inexplicably I felt the child of God before me was. I broke down and wept. After a time I collected myself and reached for the sterilized water that stood silently by, though more water seemed redundant at this point:

“Angel, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

At this moment, despite my rational eyes telling me that there is nothing human before me, I experienced the most profound humanity. It was a tragic beauty that the very core of my being recognized. In response to being so grievously touched, from the deepest parts of everything I am, manifested words that I cannot claim as my own because I did not think of them nor realize what I said until after the fact:

“You will never be forgotten, Angel.”

I was transported to the most authentic parts of myself, while also transcending every aspect of myself. I felt that I was absolutely nothing and yet positively everything. Time telescoped and took me back years to when I was on the brink of self-destruction because of how far into the utter abyss that is Doubt I had fallen. At that time, I was being swallowed up by the Infinite and felt there was no way out. As I hurtled deeper into that darkness and was dashed upon the conclusion that there was nothing left, I felt a voice assure me:

“David, you are not alone.”

And my life was saved. I was brought back from that precipice only by an ontological, experiential truth that I cannot deny, but also cannot adequately explain. And as I stood before Angel, that irrefutable Presence that kept me alive years ago was palpably present once more. I addressed that Presence, that Being, when I commended Angel’s spirit unto God for safekeeping. And though my tears before were due to the tragedy of our fallen existence as frail creatures, the tears I shed now were due to the beauty of our redeemed existence as beloved children. I did not feel any judgment. I did not feel any redemption of the tragedy to which I was bearing witness. There is no redemption or silver lining to be found. The loss of human life is terribly absurd. It is the work of the living to remember and honor that loss. And Angel, I assure you I will never forget.

For it was you who formed my inward parts;

you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.

My frame was not hidden from you,

when I was being made in secret,

intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes beheld my unformed substance.

In your book were written

all the days that were formed for me,

when none of them as yet existed.

How weighty to me are your thoughts, O God!

How vast is the sum of them!

I try to count them—they are more than the sand;

I come to the end—I am still with you.

Psalm 139: 13-28

But President Johnson’s statement struck me for another reason.  In the context in which he made this powerful declaration, it was moving and fitting.  But decontextualizing it one looks a bit more dubiously at the universal veracity of the former President’s words.  This “most powerful instrument” can also be utilized by the majority to uphold an unjust status quo.  There is undeniable beauty in the democratic value of the “One Man (sic), One Vote” slogan use in the 60′s (borrowed from an African independence movement), but there can be an undeniable ugliness to that value when a minority group is grossly outnumbered.  When a particular group is held outside the dominant paradigm of societal norms, their vote is easily consumed by the vast majority’s rule.  The vote becomes a most powerful instrument for erecting injustice and strengthening terrible walls which imprison those who are different.  Indeed, that is precisely why extending suffrage was so critical because whites could “legally” and “justifiably” vote blacks out of power and humanity.  However, what happens when suffrage is no longer the issue, but the issue becomes sheer majority vs. minority?  The utilization of the vote by the majority to dictate to the minority makes a mockery of President Johnson’s declaration.  It takes a right so fiercely fought for the world over and insidiously perverts it into a means to perpetuate injustice.

“The place God calls you to is where your deep gladness and the world’s deep hunger meet.”

This quote came to mind while I was in Boston and I wish to share that story and then speak about how it made me alter this quote thereby helping me make more sense of it.  Because when you read it, it makes sense.  You nod your head and think “Wow, deep.”  But how do you actually follow God’s call?  What does this actually look like?

I had the immense privilege of going to Boston to watch my best friend, Andrew, perform is senior recital as he obtains his degree at Berklee.  It was a joy to hang out with him for days on his turf, in his home, with his friends, amidst his dynamics.  And the city of Boston is just gorgeous.  Really, the East Coast folks make cities well.  But I digress.  It was during Andrew’s senior recital that I had this revelation.

You see, Andrew was playing a jazz piece (he’s a drummer) with his fellow performers when he then glanced at a clock in the back of the room while still playing.  I could barely register on his face some calculations being done, but he never stopped playing or missed a note the entire time.  Really, all in all, a very minor event.  Pretty much innocuous and forgettable.  But after that piece finished, he then cut out a song or two from his set due to time constraints.  This would mean that mid-song, Andrew was able to continue playing while mentally calculating the rest of his set and determining that they were likely to run over.  Then he picked which songs to cut.  Then he finished playing.

During the next song, I retreated into my own mind a bit.  I have seen Andrew play quite often in other settings, so I guiltily had trouble focusing on his playing instead of looking at the other people playing since they were novel or his playing became background music as I processed some things.

At this point, my mind went to basketball.

It went back to when I played basketball in high school.  I was good at basketball, but I would not categorize myself as great.  And I think I went back there because seeing Andrew mid-song gauge the clock and determine what he would play reminded me of basketball players taking stock of the game- or shot-clock and determining which play they would do.  Which then led me to think about that being an aspect of why I am not a great basketball player: I did not naturally utilize the time within the game’s structure.  Watching NCAA basketball, you can really see how the time influences decisions immensely, but it is done rather fluidly (timeouts notwithstanding).  Time is merely an aspect of the game which one must be aware of and even control.  It is a rule of the system which must be(come) so natural that one is unconsciously informed by it and focuses on other parts of the system or, as Andrew demonstrated, should time be the element focused on, the rest of the system is so natural it is unconsciously informed by it.

This made me step back a moment and come at Buechner’s definition differently.  Instead of a poetic and poignant definition, I mentally tweaked it and came up with perhaps a bit more mundane version:

“The place God calls you to is where you get the most joy working a system and where that system is most oppressive”

This idea struck me because I felt it captured an aspect about “calling” that I have found to be true, but not articulated often.  And that is that we will always find ourselves in a system, or systematizing something.  Whether that’s being a pastor in a church, a mother of a family, project manager of a construction company, drummer in a band, or point guard on a basketball team.  And existing within those systems is something we have to do and must recognize.  But merely surviving in a system is vastly different than thriving in one.  Merely keeping a basic rhythm for a band is necessary, but the truly great percussionists work the system of Music to transport the music to an otherwise inaccessible vista.  The Hall of Fame athletes are able to manipulate the systems of their respective Sport in order to achieve records, perform feats, and defeat opponents with aplomb and joy.  A pastor is able to navigate systems of the Divine and Human in order to efficaciously be present with people in their spiritual lives and lead them on in their spiritual journeys.  The element of not only being comfortable in a system you work in, but being creative within it is critical.  What that looks like and how that pans out will depend on you and your context.

Now, I must admit that in my mind, “working a system” precludes you leaving it how you found it.  There is an element here where by your very action upon the system, the system is improved, made better, or, in terms consistent with what is written here, the system is made less oppressive.  How this is done and what this would look like is not possible to prescribe really because it will be immensely contextual to you, the place, the time, etc.  But should one’s calling be true, the system will not remain the same and will instead be improved by your presence and work.  This is also difficult to quantify and may not be apparent for some time.  Trusting in God and in the process God sets you on will be necessary for systemic change is not easy, nor overnight.  If it is ever easy or done overnight, something is wrong.  Or the change was merely the tip of the iceberg and far more work is ahead.

Now, the aspect of the system being oppressive is more difficult to describe (just as difficult as Buechner’s “deepest hunger” really).  However, because of the shift in metaphor, I found some clarity which I hope is helpful for others.  With Buechner’s “deepest hunger” concept, I found it difficult to place something like American football in the same category as sex trade liberation.  If one feels called equally to both, it is difficult for me to consider the world having a deeper hunger for football than working to free people from sex trafficking.  However, that would be me creating an unfruitful qualitative differentiation and comparison.  Instead, it would be more beneficial to focus efforts on instilling into our future athletes, politicians, and celebrities (as high-status examples) that while they may receive the greatest joy from working those respective systems, they must never forget the concomitant need to work against how that very system is most oppressive.  This would mean cultural norms, economic inequalities, media attention, etc.  In contradistinction, we would have homeless assisters, sex trade liberators, and pastors (high-status people of a different kind) who need to be well aware that while that line of work may be within systems of greatest oppression, are they deriving joy from working said systems?

When these two elements, joy at working a system and oppression within said system, are in mutually-reinforcing harmony, rest assured you are right where God calls you to be.

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

(25 minutes long)

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/81-Words

(an hour long)

The TED talk by Sam Harris struck me as an interesting one because he never addressed any of the innumerable times throughout history where science has been used to uphold an unjust status quo.  He argues that science can embolden us to stand firm in our beliefs of right and wrong that are not dogmatically dictated by a religious system.  He does not, at least in this talk (I have not read any of his books) (yet), speak of science’s inevitable collusion with human prejudice to marginalize, oppress, and abuse.  I do not say this to absolutely demonize the scientific enterprise because, as Mr. Harris says, it has done much to open our eyes to how things “really are” in the empirical world that has so dominated our Western worldview.

But that’s just it, isn’t it?  Empiricism is just that: a worldview.  It is a perspective through which we view the world’s workings that gives us an element of control (illusion?).  And while I claim no originality in this insight, we can simply categorize science as a religion with the way Mr. Harris just articulated its role and abilities.  Thus, we have devotees of Science, apologists of Science, opponents of Science, prophets, priests, and an entire system of belief.  In fact, Science is such a diverse religion that it is full of denominations: biology, neurology, physics, chemistry, etc.  They all preach similar messages, but the way in which they go about their work is vastly different.  Sometimes it is beneficial and welcome (polio vaccine), but other times it is atrocious and abhorrent (Dr. Mengele).  Its dogmas claim to be timeless and facts of life.  Indeed, their Laws are nearly as absolute as the Torah.  And yet, gestalt switches have happened in Science, which gives rise to questions of authority when it comes to making morality claims.  Oh, you can build a weapon that destroys entire cities?  Wonderful.  That fits perfectly with our ideology.  And in terms of cold, hard numbers, it would be less lives lost dropping two bombs on two cities in Japan than drawing out a war.  Science has spoken.  So let it be written; so let it be done.

I am not advocating that Mr. Harris is flat-out wrong.  To Science’s credit, as evidenced by the podcast linked above, Science can come to realize its wrongs and change.  This is admirable and a reason why it has achieved success.  It is based on data, which inherently change nearly every day.  This requires a fluidity to its structure where more conventionally understood religions are based upon timeless axioms that do not change on a dime.  But change they do, as much as conservative proponents may wish do deny it.  When the entire world shifts, a religion must change as well for its purpose is to mediate between the world and the world as it “really is.”  Science does this very well, which is why it has skyrocketed in global importance.  However, it is not hegemonic and other global religions are loth to relinquish their claims to the true vision of the world’s workings.  But, just how Americans saw on 9/11, when huge institutions make claims to have the True Path, conflict will occur.  Mr. Harris, Richard Dawkins, and company have been attempting to assert their religion’s primacy and efficacy over and against the others.  While they may have experienced success against their foes, they have merely propped up their own religion to take their place.  Someday, if and when Science has become the supreme faith tradition, they will continue to self-perpetuate and attempt to measure their success empirically and objectively, but then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle will foil them.  And perhaps humble them.  Perhaps.

I do not wish to write as if I’m defending the religions Mr. Harris is criticizing.  His criticisms, to a degree, are warranted and welcome.  The major monotheistic religions are immensely problematic for each other and, therefore, for the world because they institutionally stake claims that existentially threaten one another and, therefore, the world.  This is naively speaking of them monolithically, but the same can be said for the religion of Science.  An interesting interplay between the TED talk and the podcast above is that the Bible contains various Scriptures (both the Hebrew and Christian versions) that condemn homosexuality.  Without getting into an in-depth discussion here, these Scriptures came out of and reinforced historically normative sexual behavior.  For thousands of years, there were permutations of this norm, but nothing that fundamentally challenged it in earnest until the last century.  Thus, why would Science, indeed how could Science, see beyond this norm until the last few decades?  How could Science, in all of its empirical wisdom, see beyond what was a purely normative aspect of life?  In short, Science was and is just as blind of a religion.  Again, as stated above, it is a more fluid institution that welcomes opportunities for better explanations of data, but it is still one limited by human fallibility and subjectivity as are religions that base their claims on transcendence, the divine, or something equally abstract as Empiricism.

The podcast above begins and ends with stories from within a family tradition.  The story it narrates is full of how people interacted as the APA came to recognize its own prejudice and change its definition.  But the impetus for the change?  It was not data.  The data was collected later.  And it was not intellectual debate.  There was no question to debate.  It was relationships.  It was people coming to know one another as more than their mere categories.  The Scientist came to know the Homosexual.  The Psychiatrist saw beyond the Patient.  The human began to grok the human.  This led to revisions of previous theories.  This led to new experiments.  This led to discovery of new data.  This relationality was the foundation and catalyst for Science.  And that is where, objectively and subjectively, we must come together, the Scientist and his/her co-Religionist, to work on the immense problems before us: from human rights to marry to human rights to clean drinking water.  We must build relationships that transcend categorical incompatibility.  We must embrace the uncertainties of our lives without sacrificing principles and find confidence in one another, emboldened by the commonality of each of our respective religions: relationship.

I went for a walk in the rain yesterday.  Put on a playlist befitting of such an endeavor, shrugged on a coat becoming for such an activity, and trudged off without any particular route in mind.

Rain.

Rain is a funny thing.  To facilitate my staying dry, I rarely looked up as I walked along various streets.  The rain combined with this ponderous stance aligned perfectly with where I found myself emotionally, mentally, and spiritually: down.  Rain was coming down. I was looking down.  I was feeling down.  At various points I had to look up to make sure I wasn’t going to get hit by cars as I crossed streets, but that just let the rain mix with tears.

Rain.

As the rain was vacillating between misting, ceasing, raining, and sprinkling, I found myself oscillating between intense Being in the moment, grinding the past into intelligible bits of narrative information (sometimes nostalgically), and facing the anxiety I feel about what lies ahead (sometimes successfully).  None of this was terribly productive; as in I did not return home with some course of action in mind.  I didn’t even return home feeling all that different than when I left, but the walk was good.  The rain was good.

Rain.

It’s interesting to note that rain falls without much more direction than Down until it begins to pool and funnel into various channels the earth or humans provide.  So long as there is no earth, no direction, the rain just falls.  Undirected.  Uncontrolled.  Free-fall.  The wind certainly buffets the rain, giving it a slant which seems to always be right into your face no matter which direction you walk.  But the direction is still down.  Down until it finds purchase in something other than itself, then it receives direction.  Then it can navigate the world we live in and give life where it flows.  But as it falls, from cloud to crust, it is lost and alone, surrounded by thousands of others just as lost and, often, just as alone.

Rain.

Upon the rain’s touchdown, however, it is then met with innumerable foreign substances.  If it falls on the road, it will meet oils, rubber, asphalt, dirt.   If it falls in the forest, it meets leaves, wood, mud, grass.  When the rain re-enters the world, when it re-engages the planet, it cannot do so without experiencing things other than itself.  Sometimes those things are life-inducing, such as when rain falls on plant-life.  Other times it is life-threatening, such as washing oil slick into the storm drain.  The rain, in its naive exuberance gathers and then carries along this health and/or unhealth into its future.  This is not necessarily the fault of the rain, for it fell and met what it met.  I am not so mindless as a rain drop.  But I certainly envy the ease with which the rain did its lifework: precipitate, irrigate, evaporate, condensate, move on.  The directionlessness of rain seems not to affect its efficacy, while that seems to have every bit of bearing on mine.

Rain.

While in the cloud, I imagine the rain feels very much a part of something.  It swirls about in its cumulonimbusonian manner, oblivious to its fate should the world around it get a bit colder.  As it gains weight, the rain drop finds itself unable to stay in such a lofty community, but instead must descend into some unknown thousands of feet below.  I imagine it feeling rather put-out when it realizes it used to have a channel for all of its energies, but now it seems to just be falling while being buffeted by gales and gusts.  It might think to reach out to things familiar in an effort to force this profound disquiet into something recognizable and manageable.  Maybe it merges with other rain drops hastily, forming bonds too superficial to be of any use when it finally reaches the ground.  Perhaps it rebuffs those around it as it tries to figure all of this out by itself.  I imagine it is feeling overwhelmed by how lost it feels, yet knowing it must go somewhere.  It cannot arrest its motion nor can it return to times passed.  And would it really want to?  The drop undoubtedly would reflect on its past, but realize that there are reasons for it to be behind.  And as it attempts to penetrate the dark future that, somewhat unbeknownst to the drop, is hurtling at it with reckless haste, the drop surely catches brief glimpses of things to come.  Perhaps it sees things in its periphery, perhaps straight ahead, but regardless, the picture is so chaotic given the drop’s current conditions that it can do naught but gather itself, prepare itself for whatever lies ahead.  This is difficult to manage because what constitutes “itself” is proving difficult to determine.  It feels like bits and pieces reside with other drops that our drop has come into contact with during its various journeys.  Also, the drop just left a place into which energies were channeled.  Now its lonesomely moving away from that place and is wholly unsure what stayed and what came with and thus cannot help but cast itself about in an effort to find something to refill it and receive it.  It is searching itself, working its way back into a place of calm and confidence.  It’s been in this place before, it knows that.  It has come out of these places before, it knows that.  It will find new outlets, new places, new drops, and it knows that.  But for right now, during this free-fall, the drop is scared and alone.

And the drop’s pain mixes with its fears as it collides with my face while I look up and make sure I don’t get hit by any cars as I crossed streets.

Rain.