Jewish culture may have adopted some of their more puzzling laws (for example. not wearing mixed linen-and-wool clothing) based on an attempt to distinguish themselves from neighboring tribes. Choosing to wear distinctive clothing is fairly harmless, as cultural boundaries go. That requirement was a small part of a bigger picture, and even that requirement was presented as part of a moral code. In that context, how many people would come to wonder if the differences enhanced their own moral status, and how does that work out in the cultural mind, as time goes by? By the time of Jesus, Jewish prayers seem to have included thanking God for being born a Jew. By the around end of the first century -- with challenges to Jewish identity from Jewish monotheism going global under the banner of Jesus -- some Jews wanted to distinguish Judaism-without-Jesus from Judaism-with-Jesus, and added to their daily prayers a call for God to curse heretics (by which they meant followers of Jesus), calling on G-d for their destruction and damnation. And while the worship leader would be excused a verbal stumble at any point in the prayer, they came to insist that the prayer against heretics be said properly and without stumbling -- lest they find that their leader was in fact one of the heretics. So in some times and places it became a job requirement to use a prayer for cursing and/or verbal abuse. To be clear, my point is not that particular prayer so much as that particular mind-set. Christians are not immune to that kind of thinking, with some denominations requiring that their ministerial candidates must identify certain symbolic enemies of the faith (e.g. the anti-Christ) with either the teaching or leadership of another Christian group.
A boundary marker's purpose is to recognize a division or separation. In their most innocent form it's simply functional, something like a property line that keeps each side's place safe from the other. But not all markers are so friendly. They can institutionalize more than a boundary; they can institutionalize a sense of superiority or grievance, or they can be used to teach hatred. They can draw a line between "good people" and "bad people" -- or whether someone is eligible for a job -- by whether they are willing to participate in a hate-marker. In some groups, it is expected that someone should participate in standard verbal-abuse formulas of another group, or their own identity is suspect: their own acceptance or rejection is on the line.
The same thing happens outside of religious circles, too. Ever notice how former child stars so commonly do a nude photo-shoot or nude role before they have access to adult acting jobs? There seems to be a quiet job expectation that the actor should take an action that rejects ethical limits to sexuality and nudity. Hollywood somehow doesn't get called to account for its pedophilia problem, which seems closely related to the expectation that a former child star should join in violating the ethical norms meant to protect them. Participating in bashing others -- or in bashing certain social norms -- is sometimes a passport-stamp not only to certain social circles, but to the better jobs.
Every group has its boundary. The question on my mind today is: How many boundaries are maintained at someone else's expense?
Sunday, July 26, 2020
Sunday, July 19, 2020
George Floyd - Things that need saying
I know politics isn't my usual topic, but I've had these things on my mind, and wanted to say them now that we've all had a moment to think.
To some extent, the U.S. is still grappling with the murderous actions of a police officer who killed an unarmed man back in May. Many people have already said worthwhile things; I'll limit myself to a few points where I might add to the conversation by reinforcing points that haven't gained as much traction as they merit.
Good cop, bad cop
One of the more disturbing things that came to light is that it was no surprise that this particular officer (now ex-officer) was a bad actor. He had a long list of complaints against him. If he hadn't had a badge, I wonder whether he might have already been behind bars. The fact that he was still on the streets with a badge is disturbing. Because the officer was a known problem, it does in fact mean that the surrounding institutions (police leadership, possibly also police union leadership) share responsibility for what happened. (I'm not convinced that the police chief actually belongs in the cell next to ex-officer Chauvin -- but given that Chauvin was a repeat offender, the chief should at least answer to the public for how that happened, and what is being done to make sure that never happens again.) I do not want to hear the politicians or even the police chief give a hand-wringing speech -- though I do want to hear them take responsibility for fixing the problem. I want to see the police departments and leaders make a policy change that will get known troublemakers off the streets. I also need to hear the police unions say that, while of course they need to protect cops from malicious revenge-complaints, that they have also become willing to acknowledge there are bad actors and see them taken off the streets. I would also like to see an immediate review of repeat-offender cops so that they can be pulled off the streets now.
Protests and riots
After George Floyd's death, the outrage was more than understandable, it was right. Giving voice to that outrage was a simple act of decency, respect for the dead, and protest against injustice. In the places where there were peaceful public protests, they gave a visible form to the unanimous American sentiment that we will not tolerate this. It may be true that the number of unarmed people dying in police custody is down, that the trend is downward and has been for some years; it's still too high. As a nation, we insist on the day when the number of unarmed people who die from being arrested is zero.
And yet the protests were marred by riots. I can hear it now, "Don't call them riots, call them peaceful protests!" Nope; when there's a death toll, it's a riot. When there are even a series of violent injuries or deliberate arson I will say right back, "Don't call them peaceful protests, call them riots." When people are bringing backpacks full of concrete rubble so that they can attack police, or are pre-placing pallets of bricks for ready weapons, they are not even spontaneous outbursts of frustration, but intended and planned attacks. Too many people were killed; that doesn't happen in a peaceful protest. Neither is this the first time in recent years that political riots have killed people, have multiplied the death toll and, with blood on their own hands, undermine their own cause.
Black lives matter because all lives matter
From what I know at this point it looks clear to me that the cop belongs behind bars, and there's no telling whether his actions were racially motivated but they may have been, and that does add an extra layer of sickness to the events of that day. It is clear that many people perceive it as racially motivated. As a statement of fact, "Black lives matter" is true and it looks to me as though its truth is universally accepted, in that I have never heard anyone say that black lives do not matter. Still, there are legitimate reasons that I have heard people cite for distancing themselves from that particular way of phrasing things. Besides being a moral fact, unfortunately the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is also the name of a political organization that seems to have professional anarchists on speed-dial. Some peaceful people hesitate to use that phrase in order not to endorse an organization generally seen keeping close company with a terrorist/anarchist group, and that has a noticeable amount of blood on their hands over the years. Also, because there are a variety of races in this world, singling out one race that matters can send the wrong message, and eventually will send the wrong message. Considering the number of killings during the riots or in their wake, it has become increasingly necessary to affirm that all lives matter. Consider the recent report of the murder of a young woman for saying "All lives matter," or several people who are known to have lost their jobs for saying what is also a statement of fact, "All lives matter" -- which includes blacks along with all the other races as equals. Your life matters, my life matters, and nobody's safety or job should be in jeopardy for saying that their own life matters. There are people who are quick to shout down people for saying that their own life matters, who work to silence them, who falsely accuse them -- who even cite the alleged dog-whistle, the perennial excuse to justify doubling down on an unfounded accusation rather than issuing an apology, when looking into the facts turns up a complete lack of evidence for the original accusation. We live in a country where people have been retaliated against for saying that their own life matters. That is dangerous ground. Think twice.
Too broad a brush
The death of George Floyd has made it abundantly clear that there are bad cops out there. And yet I would bet that there are more good cops, and that it is unfair to judge them based on the bad ones in the group. In the same way, when it comes to group judgment, I would bet that most males are not sexual predators. We can think of other examples of group prejudice; but it's odd which ones are considered wrong and which ones are accepted. The court of public opinion has a long track record of over-generalizing, of going to all-or-nothing thinking, of making group accusations and assigning collective guilt.
While we're on the topic of painting with too broad a brush, I have reason to believe that most white people aren't racists. Yet there have been some very vocal white people saying that all white people are racists. I have no idea what's inside these peoples' heads, but I suspect that not only are they badly wrong, but I think they are actively doing harm. If I were a member of the black community, what would be more useful to me: hearing a white person send the message "Really we're all racists", or hearing the message "Really we're all horrified by what that cop did. That guy is going down. We're not standing for that, and we're with you"?
To wrap it up
As I said at the start, much has been said, and I haven't covered all that could be said. But for today I have gone on long enough, and want to close with my main point:
Really we're all horrified by what that cop did. That guy is going down. We're not standing for that, and we're with you.
To some extent, the U.S. is still grappling with the murderous actions of a police officer who killed an unarmed man back in May. Many people have already said worthwhile things; I'll limit myself to a few points where I might add to the conversation by reinforcing points that haven't gained as much traction as they merit.
Good cop, bad cop
One of the more disturbing things that came to light is that it was no surprise that this particular officer (now ex-officer) was a bad actor. He had a long list of complaints against him. If he hadn't had a badge, I wonder whether he might have already been behind bars. The fact that he was still on the streets with a badge is disturbing. Because the officer was a known problem, it does in fact mean that the surrounding institutions (police leadership, possibly also police union leadership) share responsibility for what happened. (I'm not convinced that the police chief actually belongs in the cell next to ex-officer Chauvin -- but given that Chauvin was a repeat offender, the chief should at least answer to the public for how that happened, and what is being done to make sure that never happens again.) I do not want to hear the politicians or even the police chief give a hand-wringing speech -- though I do want to hear them take responsibility for fixing the problem. I want to see the police departments and leaders make a policy change that will get known troublemakers off the streets. I also need to hear the police unions say that, while of course they need to protect cops from malicious revenge-complaints, that they have also become willing to acknowledge there are bad actors and see them taken off the streets. I would also like to see an immediate review of repeat-offender cops so that they can be pulled off the streets now.
Protests and riots
After George Floyd's death, the outrage was more than understandable, it was right. Giving voice to that outrage was a simple act of decency, respect for the dead, and protest against injustice. In the places where there were peaceful public protests, they gave a visible form to the unanimous American sentiment that we will not tolerate this. It may be true that the number of unarmed people dying in police custody is down, that the trend is downward and has been for some years; it's still too high. As a nation, we insist on the day when the number of unarmed people who die from being arrested is zero.
And yet the protests were marred by riots. I can hear it now, "Don't call them riots, call them peaceful protests!" Nope; when there's a death toll, it's a riot. When there are even a series of violent injuries or deliberate arson I will say right back, "Don't call them peaceful protests, call them riots." When people are bringing backpacks full of concrete rubble so that they can attack police, or are pre-placing pallets of bricks for ready weapons, they are not even spontaneous outbursts of frustration, but intended and planned attacks. Too many people were killed; that doesn't happen in a peaceful protest. Neither is this the first time in recent years that political riots have killed people, have multiplied the death toll and, with blood on their own hands, undermine their own cause.
Black lives matter because all lives matter
From what I know at this point it looks clear to me that the cop belongs behind bars, and there's no telling whether his actions were racially motivated but they may have been, and that does add an extra layer of sickness to the events of that day. It is clear that many people perceive it as racially motivated. As a statement of fact, "Black lives matter" is true and it looks to me as though its truth is universally accepted, in that I have never heard anyone say that black lives do not matter. Still, there are legitimate reasons that I have heard people cite for distancing themselves from that particular way of phrasing things. Besides being a moral fact, unfortunately the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is also the name of a political organization that seems to have professional anarchists on speed-dial. Some peaceful people hesitate to use that phrase in order not to endorse an organization generally seen keeping close company with a terrorist/anarchist group, and that has a noticeable amount of blood on their hands over the years. Also, because there are a variety of races in this world, singling out one race that matters can send the wrong message, and eventually will send the wrong message. Considering the number of killings during the riots or in their wake, it has become increasingly necessary to affirm that all lives matter. Consider the recent report of the murder of a young woman for saying "All lives matter," or several people who are known to have lost their jobs for saying what is also a statement of fact, "All lives matter" -- which includes blacks along with all the other races as equals. Your life matters, my life matters, and nobody's safety or job should be in jeopardy for saying that their own life matters. There are people who are quick to shout down people for saying that their own life matters, who work to silence them, who falsely accuse them -- who even cite the alleged dog-whistle, the perennial excuse to justify doubling down on an unfounded accusation rather than issuing an apology, when looking into the facts turns up a complete lack of evidence for the original accusation. We live in a country where people have been retaliated against for saying that their own life matters. That is dangerous ground. Think twice.
Too broad a brush
The death of George Floyd has made it abundantly clear that there are bad cops out there. And yet I would bet that there are more good cops, and that it is unfair to judge them based on the bad ones in the group. In the same way, when it comes to group judgment, I would bet that most males are not sexual predators. We can think of other examples of group prejudice; but it's odd which ones are considered wrong and which ones are accepted. The court of public opinion has a long track record of over-generalizing, of going to all-or-nothing thinking, of making group accusations and assigning collective guilt.
While we're on the topic of painting with too broad a brush, I have reason to believe that most white people aren't racists. Yet there have been some very vocal white people saying that all white people are racists. I have no idea what's inside these peoples' heads, but I suspect that not only are they badly wrong, but I think they are actively doing harm. If I were a member of the black community, what would be more useful to me: hearing a white person send the message "Really we're all racists", or hearing the message "Really we're all horrified by what that cop did. That guy is going down. We're not standing for that, and we're with you"?
To wrap it up
As I said at the start, much has been said, and I haven't covered all that could be said. But for today I have gone on long enough, and want to close with my main point:
Really we're all horrified by what that cop did. That guy is going down. We're not standing for that, and we're with you.
Sunday, July 12, 2020
Persecutor, Rescuer, Victim - Do the roles fit into redemption?
It's over fifty years ago now that Stephen Karpman described the drama triangle now often named after him as the Karpman drama triangle. He describes how in conflict there are generally three identifiable roles: persecutor, rescuer, and victim. In his psychological/drama analysis, some interesting things come to light: not only is there is a payoff for each role, there can also be a marked difference between which role people claim for themselves and how they are perceived by others. And people often change roles over time. For example, someone may psychologically embrace the role of victim which confers a status of innocence at the cost of giving away any power or agency. To gain heroic status, someone may understandably embrace the role of rescuer -- at the cost (or benefit) of painting someone else as the villain and implying someone else is helpless. And many persecutors see themselves as either victims or rescuers, either justifying or not noticing when they cross the line to being violent, controlling, or unreasonable themselves.
I find myself wondering today how those roles fit into the picture of redemption, or whether they fit at all. We'll start with an innocent role: the role of victim. To clarify, that's not the same as someone who has been harmed. We've all had the common human experience of being hurt; whether we continue as a victim is a different question. The dramatic role of victim requires a certain perpetual powerlessness and involves sticking to a certain limited script of responses. For someone defined by hurt or motivated by anger, forgiveness can mean losing identity or motivation -- or losing the default assumption of innocence that is part of the victim role. With redemption, the picture changes. There is justice tempered with mercy. Hurts are healed. There are no more victims, only those who have been redeemed and restored.
What about a rescuer? Clearly there can be legitimate instances of helping other people. Even so, the legitimacy of the starting point doesn't protect against the temptations along the way. This person generally pictures themselves as doing righteous work -- and may come to depend on the recognition and status that comes with the role. They may also grow their self-worth at the expense of the belief that someone else cannot get along without their help. They may enable the cycle to continue. On the darker side, rescuers may enjoy the opportunity to call other people the villains, and (like victims) may find their identity and self-worth caught up portraying someone else as irredeemable, and themselves as better-than. The angrier and more self-righteous the rescuer becomes, the higher the risk that they cross over that paradoxical line where history's most dangerous villains have seen themselves as champions of a good cause. For those who have not yet crossed that line, though, how do they relate to redemption? Of course the rescuers will be glad to see the hurts healed. But there is a temptation among rescuers to be merciless, even ruthless; that way lies no small danger to ourselves. Those who are on a quest for peace and justice will be glad to see justice -- and even be glad to see it tempered with mercy.
But when vindictiveness becomes a virtue, the victim or rescuer has lost themselves and has emerged as a persecutor. They may have started out in another role with innocence or good-will. But the longer the focus on hatred, the longer the hardening of heart, the longer the dehumanization of the opposition -- the longer the good-will becomes limited to certain people, the more the original innocence is lost and the original good-will becomes stained. Redemption is most powerful when it redeems even the evil, and makes them innocent again. And yet it rolls off of those who insist they are innocent already. Here is a danger in the "good cause" that hardens the heart and provokes to mercilessness. Still there is always hope for redemption. Forgiveness is always an open door. For the cruel and arrogant, it starts with humility. Contrite repentance will renew their fellowship with God and others. God will lift up the humble.
Whatever our starting point, whatever our current place on the drama triangle, there isn't a single place in the drama without its temptations. "Watch and pray", as they say; "watch and pray."
I find myself wondering today how those roles fit into the picture of redemption, or whether they fit at all. We'll start with an innocent role: the role of victim. To clarify, that's not the same as someone who has been harmed. We've all had the common human experience of being hurt; whether we continue as a victim is a different question. The dramatic role of victim requires a certain perpetual powerlessness and involves sticking to a certain limited script of responses. For someone defined by hurt or motivated by anger, forgiveness can mean losing identity or motivation -- or losing the default assumption of innocence that is part of the victim role. With redemption, the picture changes. There is justice tempered with mercy. Hurts are healed. There are no more victims, only those who have been redeemed and restored.
What about a rescuer? Clearly there can be legitimate instances of helping other people. Even so, the legitimacy of the starting point doesn't protect against the temptations along the way. This person generally pictures themselves as doing righteous work -- and may come to depend on the recognition and status that comes with the role. They may also grow their self-worth at the expense of the belief that someone else cannot get along without their help. They may enable the cycle to continue. On the darker side, rescuers may enjoy the opportunity to call other people the villains, and (like victims) may find their identity and self-worth caught up portraying someone else as irredeemable, and themselves as better-than. The angrier and more self-righteous the rescuer becomes, the higher the risk that they cross over that paradoxical line where history's most dangerous villains have seen themselves as champions of a good cause. For those who have not yet crossed that line, though, how do they relate to redemption? Of course the rescuers will be glad to see the hurts healed. But there is a temptation among rescuers to be merciless, even ruthless; that way lies no small danger to ourselves. Those who are on a quest for peace and justice will be glad to see justice -- and even be glad to see it tempered with mercy.
But when vindictiveness becomes a virtue, the victim or rescuer has lost themselves and has emerged as a persecutor. They may have started out in another role with innocence or good-will. But the longer the focus on hatred, the longer the hardening of heart, the longer the dehumanization of the opposition -- the longer the good-will becomes limited to certain people, the more the original innocence is lost and the original good-will becomes stained. Redemption is most powerful when it redeems even the evil, and makes them innocent again. And yet it rolls off of those who insist they are innocent already. Here is a danger in the "good cause" that hardens the heart and provokes to mercilessness. Still there is always hope for redemption. Forgiveness is always an open door. For the cruel and arrogant, it starts with humility. Contrite repentance will renew their fellowship with God and others. God will lift up the humble.
Whatever our starting point, whatever our current place on the drama triangle, there isn't a single place in the drama without its temptations. "Watch and pray", as they say; "watch and pray."
Sunday, July 05, 2020
Communicating the Nature of God
Every now and then I have asked my readers' patience with my side pursuits, such as poetry or humor; this time it is art.
The Bible contains many beautiful images, and describes many beautiful things. One that I find particularly striking is the image of the lamp and stand from the ancient tabernacle:
If you continue reading the description of the original, you will see that this drawing is much simplified and takes some artistic license to "complete" the image with the simplifications; the original design is well beyond my current skill. Still the basic idea -- a tree of gold with flowers of fire -- has enchanted me and captivated me for many years now, and I am pleased to have a first draft.
I have noticed how often the Bible associates holiness with beauty, with an incarnated touch of numinous beauty that communicates the splendor of God. It is my hope that any place where God's beauty is shown and God's name is invoked becomes an outpost of holiness in this world. They say that there are mysteries of God which cannot be put into words. In which case, we can only convey them through things that are not words. Beauty can communicate the presence of God better than so much talk.
The Bible contains many beautiful images, and describes many beautiful things. One that I find particularly striking is the image of the lamp and stand from the ancient tabernacle:
"Make a lampstand out of pure gold and hammer it out, base and shaft, its flower-like cups, buds and blossoms shall be of one piece with it. Six branches are to extend from the side of the lampstand -- three on one side and three on the other." (Exodus 25:31-32)
If you continue reading the description of the original, you will see that this drawing is much simplified and takes some artistic license to "complete" the image with the simplifications; the original design is well beyond my current skill. Still the basic idea -- a tree of gold with flowers of fire -- has enchanted me and captivated me for many years now, and I am pleased to have a first draft.
I have noticed how often the Bible associates holiness with beauty, with an incarnated touch of numinous beauty that communicates the splendor of God. It is my hope that any place where God's beauty is shown and God's name is invoked becomes an outpost of holiness in this world. They say that there are mysteries of God which cannot be put into words. In which case, we can only convey them through things that are not words. Beauty can communicate the presence of God better than so much talk.