On Death (II)

 It's worth me typing it again:

"It seems to me that one ought to rejoice in the fact of death--ought to decide, indeed, to earn one's death by confronting with passion the conundrum of life. One is responsible to life: It is the small beacon in that terrifying darkness from which we come and to which we shall return. One must negotiate this passage as nobly as possible, for the sake of those who are coming after us."

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time 

Preachers have a popular trope in sermons in which they dwell on the bible's comparison of God's people to sheep. (Full disclosure: I am a preacher and have used the trope.) The Hebrew Scriptures refer to the Israelites as the sheep of God's pasture; Jesus describes himself as the good shepherd with us as the flock of his pasture. Many a time have I heard the preacher launch into the offense of being called sheep. Sheep, after all, are stupid creatures--so the trope goes--who follow mindlessly and get their heads stuck in fences.

Or it's the opposite. I have also listened to preachers and teachers who have spent time with real sheep declare that they are quite smart animals who have admirable, or at least serviceable, instincts. Having not done research on the intelligence of sheep relative to cows, ducks, or goats, I do not know whether these testimonies offer a condemning corrective to the "sheep are stupid" narrative or simply a warning to judge sheep on their individual merits.

But I do know that, in the context of the Ancient Near Eastern realm from which the bible arose the sheep had but one destiny: death.

Though the wool of sheep can be harvested without harm to the animal, it is clear from many references in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures that when it comes time for ritual sacrifice, feeding your festival, or serving honored guests in your home, the sheep is going to give up its life. This is the end of sheep: to provide for worship and for food. And the sacrifice of an animal for religious rites ended in consumption of most of the meat, so we can simplify that end to "food." (Thanks are due right here to Allen Presby, for bringing the stark reality of this before us in the Tuesday morning group.)

Those who keep flocks are, of course, interested in the health and contentedness of those flocks (factory farms notwithstanding) so they will do what they can to ensure the health of the sheep. This should be read into the scriptural narratives of the people of God as sheep. However, the reason that herders keep sheep is in order one day, swiftly and respectfully, to kill them. When sheep have gone to the altar or the table they have fulfilled their destiny.

I think that when we consider the trajectory of our own lives we ought to reflect on the fact that we have been born in order to die. (And to pay taxes. We mustn't forget that other necessity. Pay your taxes. Especially if you plan to run for president.) As followers of Jesus, who went to death as a protester against a power-hungry temple cult and a practitioner of love and justice, we ought to consider to whose table we go when the world slaughters us. When we have surrendered our last breath to this hungry world, whom will our lives feed?

Here I find James Baldwin's concept of "earning one's death" intersects with the call of Jesus to take up one's cross and follow him. This following is precisely on the road to death: There is no cross that does not kill. But in Jesus' crucified body is life, broken and offered to feed the world just as the Church does in the Lord's Supper (the Eucharist, Communion, the Mass) every time she celebrates it. Jesus' continued feeding of the Church--and the world through the Church--made possible by the Resurrection functions both as a denial of the finality of death and a defiance of the powers that do the slaughtering. We give ourselves to the banquet table in order to feed those who need the strength to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. When it is time, they must give themselves to the banquet table in order to feed more folks who need the strength . . . and on.

I am less concerned about the sheep metaphor referring to my intellect. I am more concerned about embracing a life which, through the shearing, serves the needs of others and at last, through the slaughter, feeds the lives of those who come after me. I have but one destiny, one door through which I will pass on the way to eternity: death. I do not want to be a sickly sheep who dies in the paddock, to be picked apart by the ravens. I do not want to be a rebellious sheep who breaks through the fence only to be eaten by wolves. I want to be a sheep who, when Christ's family gathers at the table, commits the singular greatest act of provision and hospitality.

Perhaps by keeping an awareness of this final purpose I can make my decisions more wisely, serve more humbly, and love more earnestly. And when the time comes for a life to be poured out on the altar of the world, perhaps I will earn the privilege of being chosen.

~ emrys

On Death (I)

 "It seems to me that one ought to rejoice in the fact of death--ought to decide, indeed, to earn one's death by confronting with passion the conundrum of life. One is responsible to life: It is the small beacon in that terrifying darkness from which we come and to which we shall return. One must negotiate this passage as nobly as possible, for the sake of those who are coming after us."

~ James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time

The State of Colorado just added a new level to its Covid-19 "dial." Until last week, the highest level of danger in a county from Covid was Level Red. This level put in place the most restrictions and the tightest recommended changes to travel, gatherings, and so on. Now the worst is Level Purple.

What does Level Purple mean? The principle trigger for Level Purple is that a county's hospital capacity is close to being exceeded.

Since March, hospital capacity has been the real looming specter of Covid-19. It's one thing if my community has a lot of people who are being treated for the disease. It's an entirely different thing--and existential problem--if my community's medical system cannot treat all of those with symptoms that require treatment.

What if five new patients with life-threatening (or potentially life-threatening) symptoms appear, and the local hospital only has one bed left with treatment capacity? Which patient do the physicians, nurses, and administrators choose? We have now crossed from the libertarian prattle about rights not to wear masks to the stuff of graduate-level ethics courses.

I am in my mid-40s. I have a job. I am white and male. I am married with two children. I have good quality health insurance and reasonable life insurance. I am fairly healthy. I have a family member who is immunologically high-risk. If our county were in Level Purple and I manifested life-threatening or potentially life-threatening symptoms--it need not be Covid-19 to blame--and our local hospital had neither adequate bed space or sufficient staff to transport me (to . . . where?) then would I be told, "Sorry, friend. You'll just have to tough it out at home"? Or would someone else be kicked out of the hospital so that I could have a bed?

I suspect that communities faced with insufficient medical care for a spike in Covid-19 cases (on top of the usual load of heart attacks, pneumonias, traumas, and so on) would have a sudden and startling wake-up call. The call would direct our attention not only to the nature of our medical system, but also to our relationship with death.

When James Baldwin wrote the words above he was meditating on the problem of racism in America. (The entire book, The Fire Next Time, deserves your attention. Read it.) But this concept of "earning one's death" would come jarringly to the fore in the case of health care capacities collapsing under the weight of Covid-19. If five of us lay on gurneys outside the Emergency Department, and only one bed was open inside, how would we earn our deaths?

Would I have the capacity to say, "No, don't take me in. Take her"? Without trying to imagine "reasonable" justification (she's 7 months pregnant; he's 18 years old with "his whole life ahead of him"; I made a mistake and didn't wear my mask to a party; and so on--this is a rabbit-hole) I am left with the bare question: How would I "negotiate this passage nobly"?

Most of the behaviors of American life either assume that death is not a factor or spend considerable energy running away from the specter of death. These behaviors include what we expect of our medical systems. We may be in a situation, unique in our generation, of having to stare that "terrifying darkness" in the face and "confronting it with passion." How shall I prepare myself such that any decisions I make will be done out of virtue rather than fear?

I find language and passion in the knowledge of Jesus Christ's resurrection. While the thought of leaving behind loved ones--especially the young ones--gives me sadness, I take comfort and courage in the conviction that my death will usher me into glory and perhaps offer someone else an opportunity for fuller life. To lay hold of this comfort and courage, however, I find I must practice saying, "Yes, I know that I'm going to die," and "Yes, I am willing to put my life on the line for this--for you."

Just saying these two phrases seems to put the rest of life into perspective. Not the syrupy perspective that serves only to make me appreciate more the things that I have, but the perspective that forces me to evaluate whether I want the things that I have or am told I ought to pursue.

It is a strange intersection that Level Purple should appear in our common language at the same time that the liturgical Church enters into the Advent season, whose liturgical color is usually purple. Advent recalls that Jesus Christ will return to get the twin works of judgment and glory done. In this season the Church meditates on the question, "How do I want this life to end?"

I think that, should someone go to the cost of etching something on my headstone, I should like to see both "He lived well" and "He died well." I would like to "negotiate this passage nobly," and in love. Anything less would be unworthy of the Prince of Peace.

~ emrys

Just a Game

I have a dirty little secret. Well, actually I've got a lot of them, probably on account of being human. But I have one in particular that I'd like to get off my chest today. (Thanks for hearing my confession.)

I hate the game of Monopoly.

I know: You can't believe it. How could any freeborn American hate a game that so beautifully encapsulates the American dream and its pristine dynamo of capitalism?

Well, since you asked, there are a few reasons. First, while I appreciate games that have a randomness factor established by dice (see this great Uncle George gift: Unearth), Monopoly relegates all motion on the board to the roll of the dice. That's too much for me. Second, it just takes so blooming long for the whole course of the game to play itself out (i.e. "the winner" to be realized). I have played my share of Risk in my younger years, and I'm spent on that bleary-eyed "but we have to finish it" experience. Adding to this downside, the "first loser" is going to be ejected from the game table for so long, and I like to have game sessions in which losers can come back into play sooner rather than later. Third, the Parker Brothers version of Monopoly, which is the one that we still play today, emerged in the midst of The Great Depression (specifically 1935), when American society struggled with economic collapse. I am struck by the cruel historical irony that a game in which the one who bankrupts opponents first and fastest became so popular when so many had been bankrupted. It's naive to blame Parker Brothers for this, but the game symbolizes for me a bitter cancer in our system.

(By the way, for a fascinating dive into the original, original version of the game by Lizzie Magie, check out the wikipedia article on Early Monopoly.)

However . . .

My kids like Monopoly. They like the full version, they like the Junior Version (a much faster, but even more boring version meant for elementary-age kids), and they like their own home-made "Stuffie Monopoly" that they produced by reclaiming my old French version and adapting it with paper, crayons, and glue sticks. They come by it honestly--I thought Monopoly would be a good format for an semi-educational game that I invented called "Ecclesiopoly: Profiting from Church History." (It has not taken off.)

So we play Monopoly with some frequency. And therefore in spite of my antipathy for the game. I try to be patient and joyful . . . and try at least to find some helpful teachable lessons in it. In the spirit of appreciating the lessons that come even from difficult experiences, it occurs to me to share some important pieces of wisdom that Monopoly puts into sharp relief.

1. Going into debt costs more money than the debt itself. I have had to point out to my kids several times that the cost to get a property out of mortgage costs significantly more than the cash received from mortgaging it. It's like the $300,000 we would have paid to the bank for our old house that was "valued" at $187,000, or like the 10-20% (compound) interest that we pay on credit card expenditures after the first month.

2. The baked-in goal of the game is to get more while others get less. It's zero-sum. Within the written rules of Monopoly, my getting Park Place means that no one else can benefit from it. It gives us the chance to reflect: Is this the way property ownership is best viewed in our life together?

3. Money accumulates in a snowball effect. That is to say, aside from the admittedly powerful effect of a series of "lucky" dice rolls, the player who gets ahead in possession of property and money will continue to get further ahead faster. No matter how wise the later decisions of players with less money, they are fairly well doomed after a certain point of inequality. (But it's so tempting to keep playing, because maybe the dice rolls will change that . . .) Though we often don't see it starkly, America's economics works in similar fashion, especially where land acquisition is involved (see #2). Do I want acquisition at others' cost to be central to my life and achievements?

4. We must be ready to lose. This is, of course, a lesson for all games, but I find in Monopoly both because of the gradual, scraping decline of the losers and because of the massive discrepancy apparent when we're about to go bankrupt (witness my pile of mortgaged properties and three $1 bills and my opponents' rainbow of property groups and stack of $500 bills). Seeing that loss is coming (very different from, say, Spoons, in which winning and losing are 0.5 seconds apart) from a distance and its crushing inevitability can be tough. But maybe this trains us up for times in life when it's clear that we must depart from a road of long-held hopes. We might be faced with the question: If I'm clearly going to lose this game, why am I sitting here at this table?

5. I can watch on my kids' faces--and still feel in my own soul--the anxiety that rises when I realize I'm about to land on someone's Boardwalk With A Hotel. This observation is the emotional flip-side of the intellectualized #4. If I want the positive emotions of winning, how will I deal with the negative emotions of losing? Whence do those arise, and what do they reveal about my sense of success and value?

6. I watched my kids discover that they could make extra-legal deals. For instance, one agreed to a property trade that was less advantageous on condition that s/he be given rent-free passage on those properties. A few turns later, the one who had guaranteed rent-free passage got walloped by rent on the other's well-developed property. The cry was immediate: "But I give you free passage over here!" It turns out that offering grace does not guarantee reciprocal grace. In Monopoly grace doesn't trickle down or spread around. (There's a more specific lesson here, I suppose, on the boundaries of contractual relationships, too . . . for another time.) We had to take a time-out from this game and talk (again) about how Monopoly is designed specifically for the emerging winner to financially drain the other players.

7. Sometimes you might just decide not to play in the first place. There's no way really to play Monopoly in any meaningful way (as with all games) without buying into the assumptions and structure of the rules as written. There's no "community development Monopoly." (That would be "The Game of Polypoly"? But do try cooperative games like Pandemic or Forbidden Island!) I try to opt out when my kids clamor for Monopoly, but my reasons for being at the table don't generally involve winning--they involve refereeing and trying to squeeze learning opportunities out of these situations. And being a cheerleader when they make good choices and show good player ethics. So whether I want to be a part of the game per se is usually irrelevant. However, games being what they are, I usually need to remind myself of the pitfalls of Monopoly and take lots of deep breaths.

It's not about winning or losing this board game. It's about whether I can help my kids win in the larger game of following Jesus. And whether I can convince them to choose Spot It! instead.

~ emrys

Witnessing Ruby Bridges

 Today my family watched Disney's Ruby Bridges, a 1998 episode of "Wonderful World of Disney" that tells the story of Ruby Bridges, a 6-year-old girl in New Orleans who, in 1960, was the sole black student in a school resisting desegregation.

Though the movie has all the characteristics of a Disney family-friendly live film--a comical musical score, pedantic and moralistic lines, and characters that border on stereotypical--it packs quite a wallop for a family with young children. (IMDB advises not showing it to children under 10; our family has an 8-year-old.) Although it avoids the curse-words that would earn it an "R" rating, it does employ "nigger" in an honest historical way, as well as other racial slurs. And given the happy-go-lucky vibe of most Disney films, the emotional strength with which segregationist sentiment appears struck me deeply.

What struck me even more powerfully was the way in which the film portrays the complexity of blacks' struggles in the fight for desegregation. Though a 90-minute Disney film can only get so nuanced, as an adult I saw clearly the themes of blacks' desire to avoid additional suffering, the cracking of relationships with mutually oppressed groups (like Jews), and the divides between working class blacks and those more financially secure. I was left with the clear image of a richly layered history and society represented by, but also standing behind, Ruby Bridges.

All of these features in one film made it an excellent choice for watching with my family. My children could ask questions about what the characters said and why; I could add commentary on what we saw in order to clarify or emphasize what I thought was important. And the focus on schoolchildren seemed to hold the interest of my kids better than an all-adult cast would do.

Kudos to Disney for producing such an honest, enlightening, and accessible depiction of the desegregation crisis of 1960. Kudos for encouraging Americans to watch it on this day, November 14th 2020, the 60th anniversary of Ruby Bridges' (and her mother's, and the black community's) bold grasp of the promise of desegregation. I hope that by watching it we may gain new resolve to change America into a better place, especially for children of color.

~ emrys

Sanctioned Gossip

 "We took her out skiing for the first time, and she yard-saled on a green run!"

It's the most natural thing in the world for a parent. We talk about our kids' lives. Especially with other parents, it's a prerequisite to any other significant conversation. And we have a certain proclivity to talk about the bad things.

"I really don't approve of this new girlfriend. The family she comes from . . . well, let's just say . . ."

And then we say it: the attention-getting thing, the thing that sets our judgment nerves a-twitching, the thing that the other parents should receive with an "Oh, yeah!" before sharing their own stories of children running afoul.

"She just spends so much time on her screen! She says she's doing her schoolwork, but when I come in the room I hear something from TikTok!"

The parental tendency to talk about their kids brings credibility in the parent community. It is almost socially necessary to be able to complain about the strange, difficult, or negative events which children inevitably bring upon themselves and about which parents rightfully stress and worry. Airing our kids' misdeeds might even serve as a pressure-release valve. There is, after all, comfort in knowing that we're not the only ones suffering mishaps and malfeasance from our offspring.

Looking at the bare facts of this behavior, though, reveals that what parents do is simply sanctioned gossiping. The long, distinguished pedigree of this behavior does not remove its essential character: We air the dirty laundry of someone else in front of third parties in order to cause our bond with those third parties to strengthen in the mutual embrace of humor, disappointment, shock, and scorn. All from credit drawn on someone else's reputation.

In the face of such a long and permeating history you might feel driven (like me) to shrug and move past this 1,600-pound cultural gorilla. But this beast has given birth to another which does not sit in the corner so quietly.

I was recently reminded of the debate about whether to post pictures of one's baby(ies) online. It's not just babies of course. As our children grow up there grows an endless litany of events to report to the wider world. But as our children get older they become responsive to their own digital presence--a shout-out to Gwyneth Paltrow's daughter for calling this to mind so beautifully. While her example was not one involving negative behavior, I'm quite sure most of us can think of times we've seen embarrassing or strange footage in social media about someone's children.

Technology, or media, does not invent content. It simply conveys, and amplifies, content that already exists. Parents have been relaying the foolish choices of their children to other people (via in-person speech, telephone, and letter) for aeons. Our current digital media allow that same communication to go farther, faster, and in more directions than ever before. And the reports have the capacity to stay in cyberspace--available to be searched--for a long time. The gossip is the same as it has been--and always will be? But the speed and reach of that bad news gets faster and farther with every new technological advance.

As a parent who has the ability to affect my children in so many ways, far into the future, I want to recognize the root of the tendency to gossip about my kids. I want to recognize that parents seem to have been given the right to gossip about their children, and the habit becomes ingrained very early, from the time I told that story about how my infant son chose an electric cord as a teething toy. And I want to recognize that, especially with ever-advancing technologies, the impact of that gossip will become greater and greater. What may have begun as the formation of a small-town social reputation that could easily be escaped will become a 5,000-pound beast that follows my child around--around the globe--for the rest of her life.

The amplifying power of social media brings to light a convicting thought that applies even to the human beings that I helped bring into the world, for whom I have sacrificed so much, and in whom I have invested so much: There is no good gossip.

Even if it seems that it must cost me social capital as a parent, I want to publish to the world only encouragement and blessing for my kids, no matter the technology, no matter the medium.

~ emrys

Two Strange Discoveries (Two Days Before Election Day)

One.

This morning I listened to a radio broadcast of one of my favorite political commentators, Mara Liasson. The content of the show revolved around all the political drama of this election week. But one assertion Ms. Liasson made struck me especially: She summarized a Trump and Republican party position that greater voter turnout hurts the Republican party. She indicated that there exists some wide agreement in the GOP that taking actions to limit voter turnout serves as an important party strategy.

Perhaps I have heard this before, but just this morning--maybe because of this election sharpening my political senses--it really sunk in. What a strange thing! In order to assert that limiting voter turnout is better for one's party, it seems that one must necessarily believe something else about the citizenry. For instance, that a majority of citizens cannot--are truly unable to--see what's best for the country (which, if one is Republican, one must believe about Republicanism). Or, as another possibility--closely aligned with the first--that a minority of citizens have the de facto right or privilege to determine governance (because they're Republican). And thus, in either case, the proper thing to do is to limit the right (to vote) of a significant portion of the population.

What an odd thing, to believe that in order to best safeguard the country founded upon basic freedoms like voting is to limit voting.

* * *

Two.

In another interview during the same show, Shelley Moore Capito (Republican Senator from West Virginia) declared that it would be important for a Democratic president and Democratic House to have a Republican Senate as a "firewall"--because government needs "checks and balances."

Color me naive, but I learned (in middle school) that in American governance the phrase "checks and balances" refers to the checking and balancing functions of the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judiciary. Regardless of the party composition of each, their task is to test each other's work against the Constitution. Internally, their tasks are done as a whole: the legislature makes laws, the president executes administrative tasks, and the judiciary judges. Together. But Capito's statement reveals something radically different.

Rather than working together to devise laws that will serve the majority or totality of the American people, the legislature's task, according to Capito's "checks and balances," is to serve as an arena in which Democrats check Republicans, and vice versa. By logical extension, the task of an individual Supreme Court justice is not to collaborate with her fellows to produce a unified decision for a case, but to "check and balance" the opinions of the other justices who have different political leanings.

Take it one step further, and we might say that these neologized "checks and balances" indicate that we don't elect representatives, senators, and presidents to represent our communities at the federal level; instead we send them up to oppose the other party. So instead of governance by reason, cooperation, and compromise we get governance by opposition, conflict, and martyrdom (or filibuster).

Should we change our middle school curricula to redefine "checks and balances"? Shall we teach our children that the opposing party is our enemy? Or do we have another way?

~ emrys

Part of a Greater Community

 A thick strand of Christian theology begins with an assertion from Psalm 8: "O Lord . . . .what are human beings that you are mindful of them . . .? Yet you have made them a little lower than the heavenly ones, and crowned them with glory and honor . . ." When set next to the Genesis creation stories, this passage paints a picture of humanity as the pinnacle of the created world. Humanity is to have "dominion" (Psalm 8:6, Genesis 1:28) over creation, but also to "tend" it (Genesis 2:15). On this knife's edge between dominion and caretaking much Christian thought on creation care has bled. Sadly I think that the conviction that God will replace the present creation with a new one at the end of history has bent Christian ethics largely toward a view of "dominion" and "tending" that embraces maximum exploitation of natural resources.

As a Christian who does not believe in maximum exploitation, I think often of how Christians might rally to a less consumptive view of creation. In the United States at present there is much ado about Native American land ethics. I have encountered mostly oversimplified versions of First Nations ecological ethics, usually romanticized and told from a third-person perspective. Robin Wall Kimmerer's book Braiding Sweetgrass brings something deep, thoughtful, and challenging into view from the Native American perspective.

This part-memoir, part-science lesson, part-spiritual primer weaves together elements that produce a robust proposal for how to live responsibly in the world. Kimmerer reflects on her own experiences as a woman, a mother, and teacher in powerful and poignant vignettes. She also presents in a poetic and accessible way a scientific understanding of ecology and especially botany. And with the same poetry and gentle grace she lines out her Potowatomi spiritual inheritance and how it shapes her view of the Beings that surround humanity.

It is this last--the assertion that maple trees are Maples and bloodroot is Bloodroot--which has caught my attention most. How would my life be different, and how would our life together be different, if I viewed the rest of creation as Beings rather than objects? I mean (and Kimmerer means) something more than viewing cute pets as surrogate children. I mean, as Kimmerer displays, believing that a stand of Aspens has something to say about which or how many of its members may be cut down for fire mitigation or harvested for other human use. I mean believing that one needs to honor wild Leeks, to ask their permission before harvesting, and to be grateful to them for their presence in our meal.

As a consumer at the "top" of the food chain I have been taught to think of plants and many animals as, at best, producers of something that I consume. At worst, they are simply objects. I am the subject, with sole meaningful ethical input and agency, and the created world contains objects on which I act. To borrow Martin Buber's categories: I have an I-It relationship with the world. Kimmerer's challenge is to envision myself in an I-Thou relationship with the world. This challenge does not supplant the I-Thou relationship we have with God, the Creator. Rather, because God chooses and I-Thou relationship with me I choose an I-Thou relationship with all the beloved handiwork of God, down to Sparrow and Leek. Sustaining that relationship becomes more important than my desire to consume.

In Christian sacred writings, there are suggestions about the spiritual personhood of creation. Psalm 148 sings that mountains and hills, fruit trees and Cedars, creeping things and wild birds all give praise to God. How can one give praise to God unless one is a being capable of some sort of declaration? Jesus states that if people don't laud him, the stones will cry out (Luke 19:40). We could understand these as more than literary "devices" and as a way to view the world around us. We Homo sapiens are not a species that stands on top of a laboring pyramid of inferior species. We are members of a greater community for whose welfare we have a greater responsibility because we can think, adapt, and use wisdom.

Braiding Sweetgrass does a beautiful job of opening up to the reader both the complexity of the biological world and the interdependence between all species, including humanity. It also gives us a language for honoring that interdependence and making choices that will contribute to the flourishing of the whole. For this new language I am deeply grateful for Kimmerer's work.

I recommend this book to you in the hope that reading it will draw us all closer to a simpler and healthier life together. I think that our ability to love not only our fellow humans but all the Beings with whom God has surrounded us is part of our training for heaven. Love is an essential ingredient in Kimmerer's book, and it is the essential ingredient in the Christian life. Perhaps love ought to go further than our consumerist ethic tends to allow. After all, if we cannot do well in this creation, why would God want us in the new creation?

~ emrys