Relevance to Resonance

I feel kind of sneaky posting anything on the blog these days because of my extended absence, hah!  But, alas, I have to share this.  It truly is an amazing blessing to be able to share space closely with brilliant minds all thinking about ways to know, love, worship, and follow God.  Sometimes, a question might lead one of these minds to expand on a topic helpfully.  I recently asked a question of Brian Walsh while eating lunch and his response turned into this post:  http://empireremixed.com/2010/11/26/orange-sky/ .  It's a great reflection.

Feel free to join in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHvJE1XU7E.

The Question

The question is not how I or anyone else will be saved but rather,

     How

            shall

                   God

                          and his amazing grace

                                      be glorified and adored?

... thinking that rises from reading Newbigin all day.

Go Away!

but please ... for, by and through the love of God come back. come back to me and to others and demonstrate, live, and teach what you have learned.

        go away though.  seriously.

find a separated room, a closet of sorts; a lone park bench; a long open stretch of road; maybe a large stack of dishes.

Imagine if in a romantic relationship a couple only were able to express and then understand and learn about the other's love in the context of being together with the partner AND other friends and community?  God wants to be able to show her love on the level of personal separated intimacy you would expect in that relationship.

Eighth Letter

So, the next evolving church conference is called Eighth Letter.  The point being another letter (on top of the 7 in Revelation) written to the North American church.  The organizers challenged possible attendees as well as speakers to write a letter to the church in North America.  I thought for about 10 minutes, and after that felt I was pretty sure about what I wanted to say:


A letter to the North American Church: 

The Scripture scholar Ernst Kaseman is noted with saying that what is wrong in the world and in the churches is that the pious aren’t liberal and the liberals aren’t pious. The theologian Ronald Rolheiser notes that this sentiment is paralleled in the Western culture’s divorce of private and social morality. My question for the North American church is exactly that:

Are you equally satisfied with both your personal morality; the ethics of self, and your social morality; justice for all? Do you pour through Scripture with the same aching, searching desire to find truths about how to live personally as Jesus did as you do to find truths about building the Kingdom as he did? Conversely, do you judge the systems-of-power, political and commercial institutions with the same ferocity as you do the sins you find in that person you love so dearly? 

The Kingdom lies in the balance in more ways than one. It lies in our ability to balance an every-day-search to abide in God by keeping his commands, and an every-day-search for ways in which to bring about God’s loving justice for all. My prayer for you, the North American church, is that the divorce would be undone. A revolution is a community committed to both private and social morality. A revolution is a church evaluating how they live in relation to one another as often as how they live in relation to those around them.

“If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love… This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.” 

John 15 

Thank the Lord that we often find his power working in existing communities in North America that try to live in the balance. Let the ache and the desire for both unite us and not the vision for one separate us.

Live Together, Live Alive

I've been struggling.  Truth is I'm trying to figure out what to write about my trip to Rwanda.  Usually when I write a blog post it hits me hard in a way that I see mostly all of what I am going to say.  With regard to this experience I have not yet had that feeling.  I neither know where to start nor have I finished catalyzing my thoughts and reactions to what I saw and experienced.  I will say it was a fantastic, blessing-filled and thought provoking time.  As for what those thoughts are, you might need to wait just a bit longer.  However, I do have some beautiful stories of people of unimaginable strength and love to share with you.  The stories are important because these experiences are what triggers thoughts, ideas and opinions, so you will be able to process alongside me.

Kotutu

I never did get the Kinyarwanda spelling on that, but thats as best I could pick out form the scribbles in my notebook.  It is the name of one of the most inspiring co-operatives we visited (and we visited a lot).  It means, as the title of this post betrays; Live Together, Live Alive.  It began in 2007 as a number of associations of people infected by HIV/AIDS coming together to create a new co-operative where each individual member could work to contribute his and her gifts and share in the positive outcomes.   This co-operative has 176 members. They lead us on to a row of chairs and stools at the front of a large room filled with benches and about 75 people. Sitting down, we begin the familiar process of introducing our group, telling our names, our ages, and our marital status.  Already one can tell that this is a spirited group.  They have energy, they have passion and drive, sometimes they even have arguments with one another as to what the correct answer is (eg. how exactly did this all get started?).  It doesn't seem like a group of people who are living on borrowed time, or with an internal clock which constantly counts down.  Iriakim translates their fascinating and inspiring story of community support and hardwork.  He lays out how they wrote proposals to World Vision for many different income generating activities, including the keeping of bees to harvest and then sell fresh honey.

The people then explain how the training about HIV/AIDS provided by WV has helped them understand better how to live; the fact that the part of the national health insurance that they need to pay is covered by WV doesn't hurt either.  When we come to the topic of the building we are sitting in, they cannot contain their pride.  This building, this beautiful large meeting area was built by them for weekly meetings.   All the members contributed large amounts of money to fund its construction.  CIDA and WV provided the remaining needed funds (and some materials), but the people in the co-operatives built it with their own hands.  I have seen Rwandans work on construction - and I can imagine they were there everyday working much harder than you or I could.  Before the conversation devolves (as it so often does) into a minefield of questions like 'Why is Canada so well-off?' or cultural exchange about birth control methods and how to maintain marital fidelity, they also explain that they grow crops together for food for themselves, as well as to store and sell at lucrative times.  Furthermore, they have their own cows and goats (I believe the first of which were provided by WV), another valuable income source.

But after all this group discussion, people are asked to share their own stories; how has the co-op affected your life?  A lady who was loud-spoken, excited, funny, and thoroughly charming throughout our previous discussion is the first to pop up.  Lets call her Veridien.  She has children.  In 2004, she discovered that she was infected with AIDS.  She recalls the traumatizing effect on her and her family.  She expressed that there was great sadness in this time.  Another lady, in the telling of her story claimed she 'felt it was better to die.'  Eventually she was visited by the co-operative.  She was accepted into that tight-knit community and encouraged by counsellours and friends alike.  'Life began to change,' she said.  She received the training mentioned above, and even as her funds went to the co-op she received the benefits of food security and a supporting community for her family.  Her children, with WV support are now able to return to attending school.  Mom, with the help of the co-op, can run the house herself.  The truth is, she can do much more than that.  She is also the vice-president of the co-operative running a fruit tree orchard, which has been fundamental in creating further income generation and providing support for 100s of other people.  Veridien moves, speaks, laughs, and hugs with confidence.  She is living alive (the one in the yellow with the smile, in case you hadn't already picked her out).

Trans-Atlantic Toys

Finally the excuse I have been waiting for for why I am not blogging!  I will be gone for 17.5 days as of tomorrow and sit (almost) fully packed at this point.  Matt was very kind to lend me an awesome 85 litre bag which is full to the brim of seemingly primarily toys, notebooks, bics and soccer balls given by awesome friends and family.  Sometimes I think about how these are odd things to travel across the Atlantic with.  Sometimes I think about how the idea of spending long days of travel in order to sit with, learn from, relate to, and try to help people across the world is an odd idea.  But yet it seems like the right one, and, alas, I am anxcited - a new-to-me word coined exactly for you know what!

I would love it if you would pray for me; for openness, energy and strength.

Contributors

So.  There is this section on the side of the blog called 'contributors.'  This is a regular blogger feature when you have a blog with more than one administrator.  This harkens back to the beginning of the blog, which I dreamt up while sitting in The Pancake House, of all places, with a group of fantastic friends.  I had a big vision, as I often do, about a team blog, a communal space.  This was a place where we would all be able to post thoughts, and in fact carry on a sort of creative conversation.  Kindly, my friends said they would join and I set them all up with full administrator rights on the blog, a tiny bit of guilt, and set off for San Diego.  Initially, we all had a few posts, and I felt connected in a way that I couldn't have been otherwise.  It was pretty great.  So great I raved about it to a telecommunications brainstorming session I was invited to be part of at work.  The ability to have this kind of a private/public shared community space on the internet would be important I thought, not that it was unprecedented.

Alas, the posts began to wear thin.  I felt as though I had to wait for someone else to say something before I could weigh in again because I was trying not to dominate the conversation.  In fact, I think for a while there I learned how to think of an idea to write about and then squash the thought immediately.  Time went by, and I posted here and there, and eventually this blog became what it is now, my own individual creative outlet.

All that to say I really like having that list of contributors there.  They stand as a public reminder that what goes on here is fundamentally dependent upon so much more than me.  And in fact, all my close friends, even those who weren't listed at the time (whom i'd love to set up with the same privileges), contribute so much to my life and character.  Some of them have great blogs of their own.  I can and do learn a lot about writing, expression and creativity from these people.  Still more friends of mine have musical, artistic, athletic and intellectual creative drive and ability that I learn more from every day.

So yeah.  There are a lot of contributors here.  Many more than are listed.  And i'm thankful.

Lessons from a World Cup Coach Potatoe

Well, if you are willing to take in a thought from a guy who starts his mornings by eating breakfast, watching soccer, drinking coffee, eating more breakfast and getting stuck in wikipedia loops about Christian existentialism then read on, otherwise, I'm not sure I have much to offer you at this point!

For those that might still be with me, I will say this, only because it seems to have been proved to me time and time again.  First I will attempt to describe a situation which could be felt by different people in vastly different ways but which fundamentally revolves around restlessness.  It may be a time or day in which you feel like you must change your schedule, you must get out and do something different, or you must be at an event or something socially acceptable as fun.  Maybe you just must see some friend of yours, any of them.  It could be loneliness, dissatisfaction, boredom, or an suffocating familiarity.  I think universally it involves the urge to just do something, which I am not saying is altogether unhealthy or inappropriate, but I think it can be a hint at something larger.  All that to say, the action that I would recommend is to not frantically pursue the urges.  In the rare times when I am able to, against all intuition, use these moments to take a step back and away, I can gain some perspective.  Again, at even rarer times, I can use this retreat to try and focus on God, to plead God to show me his person, to implore him for greater understanding of his love, and to ask for peace.  Often after much (sometimes seemingly fruitless) effort put in this direction, returning to the day's activities, it is later when I begin to notice a change.  Almost always it involves a heightened sense of creativity, a feeling of peace, contentment, and joy at experiencing some of the mysteries of Christ.  And thats that.  God reveals his heart and his peace to people in different ways I am sure.  I speak to this because I feel like I've experienced the correlation.  So try it sometime, the next instance you have where you feel along the lines of which described above.  But I can't just say do what I do, because its possible that a simple act of service or contemplation-in-activity causes you to feel closer to God, but then I'd say try that too.

Good News

Beware the broaching of a somewhat/sometimes controversial topic.  But, alas, I have yet again decided to outlet into the blog more instead of just being concerned over production and perception.

So, as usual, I quote:

Evangelism  should be less of a duty and more of a desire.  It  is the natural and normal outpouring of a  Christ-centred, God-impacted, kingdom-enjoying life.  We ARE the light of the world and the salt of the earth.  It’s significant that Paul never has to instruct any of the churches to whom he writes to evangelize.  That much they were already doing quite naturally.  The commission passages in Scripture are less commands to be awkwardly and artificially obeyed and more promises of the presence of Christ in partnership with  us  as  we  naturally and unavoidably  manifest  our faith  to  others.  If you are not showing and sharing your faith regularly, you may be  artificially holding back  from doing what would come naturally if you stopped worrying and cultivated some gelassenheit (let-go-ness). - Bruxy Cavey

Hmmmphh.  Call me way behind the ball, but I was thinking about this kind of a thrust today, about the church as Christ continuing on the role of Jesus, the Gospel, or the Good News, in the world now.  It actually makes sense, how can the church be the body of Christ, entwined in a loving (and growing) relationship with creator God Almighty and not share the message of the Good News.  I'm not talking about the evangelism that gets tonnes of press and creates the odd names and reputations that evangelicals have developed (see tele-anything or right wing republicans).  I'm talking about living as Jesus Christ and his disciples did in that life as an active way of sharing the idea that there is something different, another possibility, and Jesus is right at the centre of it.  I liked how Bruxy noted that the unity of the church (hopefully) , across racial, status, age, and political boundaries is one of the first ways in which 'a different way' can be demonstrated.  This point may seem so simple to you readers and you've run with it all along.  But bear with me, because I think previously I avoided the discussion of 'evangelism' given the negative connotations and reputation.  In reality, its about figuring out how and what one is sharing in one's life.  If I consider the understanding of love that I have through relationship with God and others to be what defines my life, then I should be able to share what I believe to be the power of Jesus Christ that enables it.  Even this could be slightly controversial I guess because it might bring some down the track of the problem of determining that other people's systems of belief are wrong, and this might be territory you might not want to be in - but I think that that is to be thought out and discussed more another time!

A Saviour

If there is one way to think of God that I don't really actively dwell on that much it is as a saviour. It's not that I don't think I am in need of saving - much to the contrary.  It is, for some reason, that I don't naturally use that part of the language of God. Why not?  It's possible it is because it has strong connotations of imperialistic evangelism or something like that.  Truth is, thinking about God in that way need not involve thinking about actions of the church.

If I asked you whether you sometimes (appropriately or not) looked at friends of yours as saviours for you of your loneliness, or 'lostness' - would that resonate?  Your relationships with these people may drive you, or help maintain your balance, prevent you from despair.  Now that's a way to think of God as a saviour eh?  In fact, our relationship with God is the only one that could save us from a lonely and bitter despair.

Humility?

... it had made her realize that any good thing we do has its source, not in ourselves but rather in that spring where this tree, which is the soul, is planted, and in that sun which sheds its radiance on our works.  She says that she saw this so clearly that, whenever she did any good thing, or saw such a thing done, she betook herself straightway to its Source, realizing that without His help we are powerless.  She then went on at once to praise God; and, as a rule, when she did any good action, she never gave a thought to herself at all.   - St Teresa of Avila

I had this quote written down a while ago and was dwelling on it today.  I feel like I wish I knew more what humility was and this, I think, might be a good place to start.  My sister-in-law, quoting her pastor I believe, once said "humility is the shyest of virtues."  I like that thought too - but then I don't really know much about it if I am writing and talking in the search to learn no?  Well, it is what it is.  I think the good thing about going straightway to the Source is that it reinforces that in some way we are known by God in what we do, in our efforts to love and live right and hopefully we get to the place where that is enough (most likely through repetition).  Or at least we try to get to that place, which is a struggle enough sometimes...

Through a Glass Darkly

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.  But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. - 1 Corinthians 14:37  (emphasis definitely mine)

Isn't it exciting!?  *face* to  *face*.  That is how intimately we will know God.  And I love how Paul puts this in 'the love chapter'  as if to begin by describing the best we know of love - and then imply - this is only our understanding as through a glass darkly, or a mirror dimly; we will know deeply and intimately a greater love than this.  In fact we will 'know fully' as we are 'fully known.'  What more can we ask for indeed!  I pray that in the meantime I will abide fully in the faith, hope and love that I do know and that this grows evermore.

Empire State of Mind

I think i might know one reason people like New York City.  In New York City you are important, its like you're witnessing 500 tv show narratives at the same time as you are writing/acting/directing your own.  I learned today that Charles Addams (of Addams' Family and New Yorker fame) would often draw up his little cartoons for the New Yorker from stories and scenes witnessed and overheard on the streets, in the buildings, and in the parks of the city.  While walking around after I began thinking about this because I just could NOT concentrate on praying nor reading.  Anyway, i witnessed my own little hilarious scene in which 2 young sisters walking home from school were having a difference of opinion over speed of travel.

... "this is the speed in which I am going to walk at!"  declared the younger, pronouncing the syllables as slow as she took her steps, her knapsack rolling behind her.

         .... The older sister slows down to wait for the younger so that it would be impossible to avoid noticing the frustration painted across her face ...

I laughed to myself.  That's funny.  Because its life.  We have all had those moments.  The thing with New York is everything is played out for everyone else.  First of all, there is so many people everywhere.  Second, the scenes are set perfectly - 1/2 the films out there try to reproduce these backgrounds.  Third, everyone looks great and is dressed perfectly (I mean just browse through a few pages of The Sartorialist), or they are dressed authentically and with purpose, and lastly everyone is LOUD.  Walking in New York you witness little snippets of everyone else's life narrative - their anger, their love, their best and their worst.  So this is the first reason people like New York - because lets be honest, who doesn't want to be able to glimpse so many other people's lives; absorb, compare, laugh and judge.

But more importantly,  one (or is it just me?) feels as though his narrative for his time in New York is also being observed and judged.  It is as though, the setting creates importance, which gives our actions and decisions, even just our appearance - value?  Take for example, this morning after a long time eating breakfast in bed watching soccer I strolled out to get a coffee and read for a bit at M. Rohrs: a great little cafe right near my brother's apartment.  One of those New York cafe's that is a quaint little thing sunken down from the sidewalk with tables, pastries, and *things* everywhere.  While reading my book, and drinking my fantastically smooth latte, I find myself looking up when people walk in the door to judge whether they belong in my scene - and to observe whether they take notice of my importance in the headline role.  Really?  yes really.  I'm not saying its healthy or correct.  But it is what it is.

It makes me think of value.  And our search for it.  It makes me think with a bit of sadness about humility.  The thing is, at the risk of sounding cheesy, I already a live a pretty damn important narrative.  It's not important because I'm in New York.  It's important because God is there - loving me to a fault - loving me in action - with care, kindness, responsibility, respect, trust, knowledge - to an infinite degree.  Mind you - its almost easier just to travel to New York to try and feel that way.  Because understanding this value is. hard. work.  Often it requires situations much the opposite of the streets of NYC - unless of course - the depths of your soul are organized in a grid pattern with a great big park in the middle!

Paralyzed

"A short time ago I was told by a very learned man that souls without prayer are like people whose bodies or limbs are paralysed [sic]: they possess feet and hands but they cannot control them." - St. Teresa of Avila

On Violence, Shame and Love

Introduction

‘After these tearings with the pincers, Damiens, who cried out profusely, though without swearing, raised his head and looked at himself; the same executioner dipped an iron spoon in the pot containing the boiling potion, which he poured liberally over each wound’ Quoted in Foucault (1995, p. 4)

Violence can be gut-wrenching. Violence is always devastating and can be highly emotional. Violence is not always a tragedy in the works of Shakespeare, but his tragedies employ violence without fail. In the consideration of the most violent act committed towards oneself or loved ones an individual begins to understand her own definition of what violence is. Does this exercise bring memories of the abuse of power? Most likely; violence is inextricably related to power. In the situation considered was violence used as a ‘last resort’? How many creative alternatives to the use of violence in the situation can be imagined? Did the violent offender achieve the desired end? What was it that was desired? Is there respect now for the offender because of what they did?

There are countless questions that are raised during and after an experience of violence. Attempting to answer these questions, not just from the victim’s point of view, but also from that of the offender is crucial to understanding violence. Understanding what people desire from violence and why it is undertaken is fundamental to determining appropriate and effective ways of preventing and dealing with it. But what is it that most people want? Respect? Love? Theories of violence attempt to establish this psychological, even spiritual, connection between individuals and their violent actions. With the motivational understanding provided primarily by the Germ Theory of Violence, it can be seen that the Restorative Justice framework of practices is exceptionally valuable for providing a process where the causes behind violence are addressed and included in the attempt to make the situation as right as possible. It is this effort that could also lead to a reduction in future violence.

What is Violence?

Hannah Arendt (1999) claimed that “there exists a consensus among political theorists from Left to Right to the effect that violence is nothing more than the most flagrant manifestation of power” (p. 3). This power is used for abusive and one-sided ends. Voltaire noted that “Power consists in making others act as I choose” (as cited in Arendt, 1999, p. 3), and Arendt (1999) quotes Max Weber as saying that this power is present “wherever I have the chance ‘to assert my own will against the resistance’ of others” (p. 3). Violence exists in the space created by the unequal distribution of power, for if one is able to assert his will ‘against the resistance of others’ then usually one possesses greater power.

Arendt (1999) goes on, however, to strictly differentiate violence from power by noting that it is instrumental; it is not the “essence of anything,” because “it always stands in need of guidance and justification through the end it pursues” (p. 9). Robert Paul Wolff (1999) qualifies the above discussion by saying, “violence is the illegitimate or unauthorized use of force to effect decisions against the will or desire of others” (p. 15). He uses this definition to contrast murder with capital punishment; one is an act of violence where the other, by “a legitimate state,” is not (Wolff, 1999, p. 15). However, the question of whether a legitimate authority making use of violent acts is different from that of a renegade should bear no influence on the discussion within this paper. That is because an effective theory of violence should address the use by any and all individuals and groups. As such, we will limit the definition of violence to the instrumentation through which power is leveraged in order to assert the will of one party against and through the resistance of another.

Finally, Social Work practice has discovered that violence by its nature does not exist in isolated incidents. It is noted by Gilbert et al. (2009) that the experience of maltreatment and violence (especially in childhood) often leads to the perpetration of violence later in life (p. 173). This is often referred to as ‘cycles of violence.’ Understanding these cycles, and how they can be broken, is a crucial element of understanding violence and the appropriate responses to it.

The Germ Theory of Violence

“I never got so much respect before in my life as I did when I first pointed a gun at somebody.” Quoted in Gilligan (1996, p. 109)

We return now to the question of why individuals commit acts of violence. The theory of violence on which much of the American and Canadian Justice Systems are built is that of the rational self-interest theory. This theory says that people engage in violence because it is rational or ‘common-sense’ for them to do so in their situation. Furthermore, they, like others, do not desire any physical harm, prison terms or death. As such, the state needs only to provide punishments for violence in exactly these forms in order to prevent it (Gilligan, 1996, p. 94). One can note, however, that the focus on punishment as prevention of violence has not succeeded. The murder rate in the United States in 1996 was almost 10 times as high as in 1900 and grows continually (Gilligan, 1996, p. 95). Furthermore, anyone who has experienced a serious act of violence understands the offense of referring to it as rational. Others, such as Meadows (2010), believe that there are “[identifiable] biological and personal traits that increase the likelihood of becoming a perpetrator of violence.” (p.16) James Gilligan (1996) spent years in prisons interviewing and talking with male offenders who had committed violent crime in order to determine why it would happen and began to draw some conclusions:

“I am convinced that violent behavior, even at its most apparently senseless, incomprehensible, and psychotic, is an understandable response to an identifiable, specifiable set of conditions; and that even when it seems motivated by “rational” self-interest, it is the end product of a series of irrational, self-destructive, and unconscious motives that can be studied, identified, and understood.” (p. 102)

He identifies the “pathogens” which carry “the most lethal form of pathology of our time” (Gilligan, 1996, p.104). These germs begin with shame. In a situation in which an individual is experiencing great shame and a lack of respect, violence is seen as the only alternative through which respect from others (for oneself) can be restored. He developed this hypothesis as a response to the answers he received from individuals asked bluntly why they had murdered. Initially believing the thought was original, he began to discover it everywhere he looked. Gilligan (2001) notes that Hegel identified “the desire for recognition as the central motive force behind all human history,” and that recognition is a synonym for respect; literally meaning to be re-spectare or re-cognized (p. 31). Other clues can be found in language itself, for Gilligan (2001) says “People become indignant (and may become violent) when they suffer an indignity” (p. 30). Gilligan (2001) notes that psychological studies have shown that the “most potent stimulus of aggression … [the] most reliable in eliciting this response is not frustration per se …, but rather, insult and humiliation” (p. 32). It is not only Gilligan who supports this theory of violence. Terry Aladjem (2008) discusses similar themes in saying:

“That dubious enterprise – to be restored in the esteem of an enemy – then, must seem to register in the fellow’s eyes, and is best achieved if he perceives or appears to perceive that one has been the cause of his own loss of esteem or destruction.” (p.113)

Aladjem is demonstrating the same thought from the perspective of what is gained by an individual in committing violence: pride, or relief from shame. He says, “My pride swells in proportion to my enemy’s humiliation” (2008, p. 133).

But what is the source of this shame? Gilligan (2001) feels that it is shame “over being valued so little by the other person, and for being too weak to make him treat one fairly” (p. 33). It is the “Violence towards others, such as homicide, [that] is an attempt to replace shame with pride” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 111). This prevents the offending individual from being overwhelmed with the shame (Gilligan, 1996, p. 111). Gilligan (1996) identifies three pre-conditions which need to be met in order for those individuals who feel intense shame to act out violently. The pre-conditions are as follows (1996):

1. The matters over which they feel shame are in fact so trivial that it is of greater shame to them that these are the cause of their shame. This is why many murders are in response to a trivial slight – the individual involved is “fighting to save himself, his own self” from being overwhelmed with shame (p. 112).
2. Potential violent offenders must see themselves as having no other non-violent means available to them in order to reduce the amount of shame they feel (p. 112).
3. Finally “the person [must lack] the emotional capacities or the feelings that normally inhibit the violent impulses that are stimulated by shame” (p. 113). The most important of these being love, guilt towards others, and fear for the self (p. 113).

With regard to cycles of violence, this theory continues to hold water. For, as Gilligan (1996) is clear to point out, most violent men (for it is men on whom his research is based) experience shame as a bottomless pit because of the intense and horrible experiences of abuse they have been subjected to (p. 105). He says “the pathogen is psychological, not biological, and it is spread primarily by means of social, economic, and cultural vectors, not biological ones” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 105). Namely, the conditions under which individuals are raised and the experiences of their life contribute to the bacterial infection which creates violence. This continues even after the acts of violence are perpetrated as, the “more violent people are, the more harshly the prison authorities punish them; and, the more harshly they are punished, the more violent they become” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 106). It should be noted that this is just a summary of Gilligan’s theory which is important for conclusions drawn in this report.

Finally, it should be noted that the above theory originated in a context of studying “behavioural” violence and not “structural” violence. Gilligan (1996) defines “structural violence” as “the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society” (p. 192). This contrast is made in order to recognize that the violence of poverty and systemic abuse results in 14 to 18 million deaths per year whereas armed conflict results in 100,000 deaths per year (Gilligan, 1996, p. 196). Gilligan (1996) claims the determination of which form of violence is more important or dangerous is moot given that they are “inextricably related to each other as cause and effect” (p. 196). This paper’s discussion will focus primarily on “behavioural” violence with the hope that progress made in preventing and resolving this form of violence will lead to reductions in “structural” violence as well.
Two Mutations to the Germ Theory

“Perhaps love (is anything more dangerous?) is the mother of tragedy, love in an unloving world of pain, loneliness and confusion.” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 2)

There are two further points I would like to make in discussing a theory of violence. The first is an explicit recognition of the role that culture plays in establishing violence as the only alternative of last resort. One of the reasons for the establishment of violence as the only viable alternative when faced with the experience of intense shame is our own culture’s glorification of violence as a solution. Bushman et al. (2001) note that in 2000, six major professional societies within the United States signed a joint statement “on the hazards of exposing children to media violence” (p. 480). That is to say that the old intuition that repeated exposure to media violence is harmful holds true. When it is continually demonstrated to an individual in their community, family, and entertainment that violence is the primary means of maintaining power and creating respect, then it is of little surprise that individuals believe that there are no other non-violent means available to them. This media effect in conjunction with the violent offender’s own experience of violence and dis-empowerment in other cultural interactions limits creativity. Furthermore, aside from limiting alternative recourses, society does a poor job at providing struggling individuals with respect. Henri Nouwen (1992) notes that the message one most often seems to receive from society is: “Prove that you are worth something; do something relevant, spectacular, or powerful, and then you will earn the love you so desire” (p. 34).

Robert Meadows (2010) discusses a model of the influences on violent behaviour as “the interplay between individual, familial, and community influences experienced by a person” (p. 14). It should be noted here that individual influences may include pre-existing debilitating mental or other conditions which facilitate Gilligan’s third pre-condition, namely an inability to generate guilt towards others or fear for self.

The other mutation to germ theory I would like to discuss began, for me, as a thought I was dwelling upon after digesting Gilligan’s theory. It seemed to me that to claim shame as the driving cause of violence was a misnomer. To me, shame is nothing more than a way of expressing how one feels when he is unable to understand his worth or value, or in other words: lacks self-love. I protested the use of shame as a descriptor because it seemed to imply that a solution to violence would involve getting people to feel less shame. This feels to me like applying a band-aid to a severed leg. It is a syntactic difference, but I believe that it would be more accurate to identify the fundamental motivating cause of violence as an inability to understand one’s innate worth and value. This statement is built upon my own conclusion that individuals are of infinite and unique value, which will be discussed more fully later. Unfortunately, we most often gain an understanding of our own value through the mirror of our relationships: the people with whom we interact and the love and respect they demonstrate to us (and we are able to process). As individuals, the conclusion of this love and respect of others builds our own self-love, and when we feel as though we are not loved and respected, we begin to feel the shame Gilligan’s theory hinges on. However, in using the language of love, respect, and meaning we situate the theory in a place where a deeper understanding of the causes of violence can be seen. As a small example, for the child who is repeatedly sexually or physically abused, the parent who needs to be the earliest and most fundamental source of love is instead deeply wounding the individual by ascribing to them no worth or value. Furthermore, the language of possible solutions sits naturally within the context of a discussion of an understanding of love. Effective preventions of violence or strategies to break the cycles must include the introduction of a new understanding of love on the part of the individual perpetrating the violence (which in turn reduces their shame).

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to realize that Gilligan, in fact, shared much the same views as those expressed above. After all, he notes at the beginning of his description of the theory that “The word I use in this book to refer to the absence or deficiency of self-love is shame” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 47). The following summarizes his conclusions with relation to the above mutation of his germ theory (Gilligan, 1996):

“violence … is the ultimate means of communicating the absence of love by the person inflicting the violence… The self starved of love dies… The two possible sources of love for the self are love from others and one’s own love for oneself. Children who fail to receive sufficient love from others fail to build those reserves of self-love, and the capacity for self-love, which enable them to survive the inevitable rejections and humiliations which even the most fortunate of people cannot avoid. Without feelings of love, the self feels numb, empty, and dead.” (p. 47)

This, for me, generates the question of why Gilligan chose to express the theory in terms of shame and not the inability for self-love. Due to limited space, I can only speculate that he believed it would be more easily understood?

A Personal Note

“And I so long … to cry! I feel as if I am going to burst, and I know that it would get better with crying; but I can’t, I’m restless, I go from room to room, breathe through the crack of a closed window, feel my heart beating, as if it is saying, “can’t you satisfy my longing at last?” Anne Frank Quoted in (Rolheiser, 2004, p.1)

I would like to make one final comment regarding the theory of violence now that we have expressed the causation as a lack of understanding of love or value. I believe that all people are longing for a true understanding of love and value. It is my faith that causes me to believe that fundamentally we will be unable to fully understand true love and meaning until we experience the source and strength of all love: God. In fact, I believe that each and every individual has innate value strictly because of the way in which they are loved by God, their creator. Nouwen (1992) expresses the idea of fundamental longing in this way, “Aren’t you, like me, hoping that some person, thing, or event will come along to give you that final feeling of inner well-being you desire?” (p.35) I mention this belief not because I feel that it gives credence to Gilligan’s Germ Theory of Violence. Rather, I mention it firstly because it is the reason I made a personal connection with the above theory. Secondly, I mention it because I believe this is the idea that gives a spiritual basis from which one can set the idea behind the theory; in my opinion, all individuals are attempting to learn to understand their own value through the love found in relationships with others, and ultimately from God, and it is because of our difficulty with understanding and claiming this value that we act out in violence (not the least of which in cases of religious violence).

The Goals of Restorative Justice

“…putting right requires that we address harms [and] address causes” (Zehr, 2002, p. 30)

The purpose of this paper is to address the above theory of violence from the perspective of Restorative Justice. It is valuable here to take time to review the goals of Restorative Justice as they relate to violence in terms of prevention and response. When relevant, I will contrast the goals, principles and practices of Restorative Justice with those of the traditional Criminal Justice Systems and other approaches to dealing with and preventing violence. This discussion is similar to one contrasting the Criminal Justice System and Restorative Justice approaches to crime, but will focus specifically on incidents of violent crime.

Susan Sharpe summarizes the goals as follows (cited in Zehr, 2002, p.37):

• put key decisions into the hands of those most affected by crime,
• make justice more healing and, ideally, more transformative, and
• reduce the likelihood of future offenses

The goals outlined above are accomplished in a variety of tasks and programs which attempt to put right a situation of crime (or violence) as best as possible. As noted in the opening quote, Howard Zehr (2002), the grandfather of Restorative Justice, claims that in doing so both the actual harm and the cause behind it need to be addressed. One can already see how the goals of Restorative Justice can speak volumes to how the practices are able to prevent violence according to the above theory. The violent harm must be acknowledged and the underlying cause must be addressed in order to prevent re-offense or a continuation of the cycle of violence in future generations. Zehr (2002) notes that rather than specifically a violation of the law (against the state), crime (and violence) “is a violation of people and relationships” (p.21). According to him, these violations create obligations and a process of justice needs to “[involve] victims, offenders, and community members in an effort to put things right” as opposed to the state determining guilt and imposing punishment (Zehr, 2002, p. 21).

It is clear that the founders of Restorative Justice believe that in an incident of behavioural violence, as with a crime, there are offenders and victims, as well as other parties involved. Any approach to dealing with or preventing violence must be sensitive and aware of the needs of these groups. Restorative Justice was originally motivated as an approach that took into account the needs of all the individuals involved in the crime and one of its goals is to address both victim and offender needs. In fact it is a key pillar of Restorative Justice to focus on engagement of all parties involved (Zehr, 2002, p. 24). We will see later how crucial this is in terms of preventing and dealing with violence considering the theory presented in this paper.

With respect to the victim’s involvement, Zehr (2002) claims “Victims often feel ignored, neglected, or even abused by the justice process” (p. 14). Given that the violent incident itself already causes abuse and demonstrates a lack of love for the victim, it is undesirable for this abuse to continue in the process that deals with the violence. As such it is a goal in Restorative Justice that victims are given information, a voice, an aspect of control, an opportunity to be heard in a safe space, and as best a feeling of restitution as possible (Zehr, 2002, pp. 14-15). Zehr (2002) outlines offender needs as accountability, encouragement to experience personal transformation, encouragement and support for integration into the community, and at least temporary restraint (p. 17). We will see how it is exactly the goal to meet these needs of the offender that is crucial for limiting the effects of violence as well as preventing it.

Breaking Cycles of Violence with Restorative Justice

“If I had to put restorative justice into one word, I would choose respect: respect for all, even those who are different from us, even those who seem to be our enemies… Respect insists that we balance concern for all parties.” (Zehr, 2002, p. 36)

We can see in the above quote that Restorative Justice seeks to restore respect in all individuals involved in crime. We know that Restorative Justice is diametrically opposed to promoting shame, opting instead to provide as much respect to all individuals involved as possible. Given the theory of violence developed above we can see the kind of impact RJ practice has on situations of violence. If respect is attributed to the violent offender, then even after the act she may begin to regain a sense of self-respect, to feel less overwhelmed, and ultimately be able to move towards a state where violence does not seem necessary. If respect is attributed to the victim than she may be less affected by the horrific loss of respect and value felt through the experience of violence. Hopefully, this new respect will be able to foster development of empathy, or prevent a de-valuing of self such that she will not end up feeling as though she too has the need to perpetrate violence in order to regain respect. As such, if respect is the focus of Restorative Justice practice it could have a profound effect on situations of violence. To see more evidence of this we can look closely at some of the needs that Restorative Justice tries to meet, specifically those of the offender. Howard Zehr (2002) describes the accountability and transformation needs as follows (p.17):

• Accountability that:

o Addresses the resulting harms,

o Encourages empathy and responsibility

o And transforms shame

• Encouragement to experience personal transformation, including

o Healing for the harms that contributed to their offending behaviour,

o Opportunities for treatment for addictions and/or other problems,

o Enhancement of personal competencies

Barb Toews (2006), in her own handbook about Restorative Justice for people in prison describes accountability which includes “Understanding how the crime hurt others and owning up to one’s responsibility for those damages; [and] Taking steps to repair those harms” (p. 46). If the above forms of accountability and accommodation for transformation can actually be achieved by Restorative Justice practices then offenders will definitely be in a position to break the cycle of violence in their own lives. This has large ramifications for offenders released from prison back into society. In order to prevent further violence, they must have developed some forms of empathy, transformed their shame, and created other alternatives according to Gilligan’s theory of violence.

But how do the practices of Restorative Justice achieve the goals of meeting the above needs and providing that transformation? The one element that all of the core practices of Restorative Justice share is an encounter. Victim offender conferences, family group conferences, and circle approaches all can and do involve opportunities for violent offenders to come face to face with their victims (Zehr, 2002, p. 44). It is most often these encounters which, through the desires and guidance of the participants themselves, lead to the attempt at ‘resolution’ of the violent wrongdoing. This may simply be a form of making things as right as is possible. Ron Claassen notes that to resolve wrongdoing (cited in Zehr, 2002, p.45):

1. The wrong or injustice must be acknowledged.
2. Equity needs to be restored.
3. Future intentions need to be addressed.

The most effective acknowledgement of wrongdoing is an encounter in which the offender has the opportunity to sincerely express their regret and apology. It is the engagement with each other and understanding of pain and suffering (which comes from the opportunity for expression) which allows both parties to possibly choose to develop the empathy desired in transformation. We know from behavioural studies, such as that conducted by McCollough (2008) that “when you feel empathic toward someone, our willingness to retaliate goes way down” (p 148). Clearly this is a concrete step towards a reduction of violence.

Toews (2006) discusses that when offending individuals choose to experience growth through the preparation for and participation in these Restorative Justice (and other) practices they can meet certain key needs. These include dealing with their own victimization experiences, creating healthy values and living by them, and acquiring the “skills and education necessary to lead a full life in the community” (Toews, 2006, p. 49). The importance here, she notes, is that fulfilling these needs results in “personal meaning. Meaning places the individual back into the web of relationships” (p. 49). This again has profound implications on the individual’s propensity to commit violence according to the Germ Theory of Violence. Understanding it in terms of an individual recognizing his own value – Toews claims that it is meeting these needs which reconnects him with his meaning and value. Furthermore, being within the web of relationships again allows the offender to continue growing in feelings of empathy and guilt toward others. That is exactly the place where the offender is able to transform shame!

The effects of the practices and encounters are not limited just to the offender. Pyschiatrist Sandra Bloom makes the point that “If it is not adequately dealt with, trauma is reenacted in the lives of those who experience the trauma, in their families, even in future generations” (cited in Zehr, 20002, p. 31). Victims of violence choose incredibly unique ways in which to deal with the trauma they have experienced, and all need to be respected and valued. If a victim does choose to be involved in Restorative Justice practices (including preparation and encounters) I believe they are provided with extended and empowering opportunities to deal with the trauma they have experienced. With the chance to express the harm that has been done to them and the recurring difficulties and problems it has caused they receive recognition and respect for what they have experienced. Hearing the offender’s admission of guilt and apology may reinforce or make clear to them that they did not act wrongly, but instead were abused and attacked. Finally, being provided with information of what is happening in the process, as well as control over how it unfolds, reinforces their legitimacy and power. It is possible that this leveling of power may in fact make it more difficult for violence to occur at all, as the abuse of power often requires an imbalance. All of the above may aid in restoring their own sense of pride and value, not as something to be used, but as something to be valued.

Finally, we can note that the Criminal Justice System often reinforces the notion that both the offender and the victim in the violent situation did not deserve respect and that they may have no other alternatives available to them to save themselves from shame than violence. This is because the offender may have experienced pride in the reaction solicited from the violent act itself, but is not given the opportunity to reduce shame by sharing his stories of victimization in the ensuing court process. He also is not truly given the opportunity to take responsibility for the action because of the understanding that he is to plead not guilty and work with the attorney to demonstrate innocence. Likewise, the victim certainly does not discover any alternatives to violence within the criminal justice proceedings as he may have experienced as much trauma from the court process as from the original incident! In contrast, Restorative Justice demonstrates through the discussion and consensus based practices that alternatives to violence are possible. Understanding cultural influence as a large reason why offenders believe violence is the only option, we can again see how Restorative Justice, by taking time to recognize the negative impact violence has on all parties, slowly works to educate against its idolization.

We have seen how the practice of Restorative Justice works to transform shame through meaningful interaction, develops feelings of empathy and understanding of guilt towards others and provides clear examples of alternative practices to violence. As such it addresses all of the pre-conditions for violence raised by Gilligan’s germ theory for each of the parties involved. What has not been demonstrated is how Restorative Justice aims to prevent and respond to structural violence such as poverty. This discussion is beyond the scope of this paper, but it suffices to say that even though the focus of the Restorative Justice practices studied is on behavioural violence, this does not rule out the principles being applied in large scale.

Conclusion

Violence is not rational or to be expected. People act out using violence due to a combination of factors revolving around their experience of shame or understanding of their own intrinsic value (expressed as self-love). Furthermore, violence usually requires a set of preconditions which include the ‘overwhelmingness’ of shame, the inability to feel fear and guilt towards others, and the lack of possible alternatives. It has been shown that the principles and practices of Restorative Justice are fundamentally opposed to these conditions which create and facilitate violence in relationships and communities. It is because of multiple reasons that Restorative Justice practices can break down the conditions of violence. First, they are based in the idea that all parties need to be respected, which transforms the experience of shame for all individuals. Second, they are encounter-based and can provide opportunities, through meaningful interaction, that allow involved parties to develop empathy and understanding towards each other. Third, the practices themselves demonstrate that there are alternatives to gain respect and value other than violence.

We have also seen how Restorative Justice practices are able to break cycles of violence given the possible transformation in the lives of the participants, including preventing future violence from offenders, and preventing the victim from continuing the pattern of violence. Finally, it is important to note that the limitations of the Restorative Justice practice are two-fold: they are limited in scope and thus in their ability to combat structural violence, and also they are limited by the choices and desires of the individuals involved, who only experience transformation if they choose to.

References

Aladjem, T. K. (2008). The culture of vengeance and the fate of american justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Arendt, M. (1999). Excerpt from On violence. In Steger M.B. & Lind, N.S. (Ed.) Violence and its alternatives. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bushman, B.J. & Anderson, C.A. (2001, June/July) Media Violence and the American Public. American Pyschologist, 477-489.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. (Alan Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.

Gilbert, R., Kemp, A., Thoburn, J., Sidebotham, P., Radford, L., Glaser, D. & MacMillan, H. L. (2009) Recognising and responding to child maltreatment. Lancet, 373, 167-180.

Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: Our deadly epidemic and its causes. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Gilligan, J. (2001). Preventing violence. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Meadows R. J. (2010). Understanding violence and victimization. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

McCullough, M. (2008). Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nouwen, H. J. M. (1992). Life of the beloved: Spiritual living in a secular world. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company.

Rolheiser, R. (2004). The restless heart: Finding our spiritual home in times of loneliness. New York: Doubleday.

Toews, B. (2006) The little book of restorative justice for people in prison. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Wolff, R. P. (1999). On violence. In Steger M.B. & Lind, N.S. (Ed.) Violence and its alternatives. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

To Wit

As if in perfect timing with my previous post on messiness, AKA 'tortured complexity.' My man Rolheiser offers this:

Life isn't simple: We want the right things, but we want the wrong things too. We are drawn towards generosity but drawn towards selfishness too. We like to be honest, but we find it easy to rationalize and not tell the truth. One part of us wants to be humble and not stand out, even as another part of us is prideful and wants to be recognized. We would like to pray but are drawn towards entertainment instead. We crave depth of soul but crave too the pleasure of sensuality. We want to give ourselves away in sacrifice, but we want too to experience the pleasures of life. A deep part of us wants to kneel in reverence even as another part of us is cynical and resistant. We crave both purity and promiscuity. We are drawn both towards the things of God and towards the things of earth. It is not easy, as Kierkegaard once said, to will the one thing. - Ronald Rolheiser , March 21, 2010

There is solace in mutual understanding.

Messy

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with someone about something you think is so fundamental and important for your meaning; for the perspective from which you see and understand the world, and you totally had no idea what they were talking about - and felt like they totally had no idea what you were talking about?

Isn't understanding life etc... very messy? How is it that we can all think of things so differently. And this is probably a good thing - but it also makes for so much confusion.

....or is it just me?

Secrecy

I've been thinking a lot about secrets lately, or more specifically: secrecy. The reason for this is that it has come up a lot in one of my courses. A big part of the discussion has been the role that secrecy plays in cycles of violence, especially domestic violence. After an individual 'acts-out' or commits the act of violence toward a child for example, it is secrecy that is fundamental for creating the space for rationalization and justification which pushes the individual back towards 'pretend normal' and restarts the cycle of violence.

I think this makes a lot of sense. Why rail against secrecy though? Well it is often very difficult to manipulate ourselves into justifying or rationalizing actions when we are not sitting on an island alone with those thoughts. Dwelling on the idea of secrecy brought to mind the Christian teachings of 'accountability' (for me that is, ultimately I think one would find this in many 'religious' teachings). And how even without discussing the idea of secrecy we stress accountability as a way of helping people deal with things they want to change. The thing is, while very beneficial, one might have a negative view of this because it seems all about finding out what people did wrong. The focus could be adjusted though. When we consider it is the secrecy, as we said, that creates the space for crazy rationalizations, accountability is basically just trying to remove this secrecy. Lets call it honesty, or lets call it "discussing odd stuff with trusted friends." My prof Judah was talking once about strategies in families to prevent abuses; one of the best being creating at atmosphere where there isn't secrets. I think often we tell ourselves, this person doesn't need to be troubled with that, or "some things are better left unsaid." Definitely some things are better left unsaid to everyone. But I don't think there is much of anything that is better left unsaid to anyone. It seems common sense - but don't you think communities could go a long way with just talking to each other about weird stuff.

The thing is, we need to go even further than just talking about it. I think sometimes in relationships of 'accountability' (or something resembling this idea) there can be a tendency sometimes to respond with contributions to the justification - this can even be the case in cycles of violence. In this case, it is possible that together the individuals in the relationship don't want to mess with whatever 'pretend normal' they have created, and are living under (possibly both 'benefiting' from). I ask that if I ever talk about things that seem out of the ordinary to readers of this that you would tell me that they are not normal! This is how one can break a cycle. One can continue to love and value the other even while bringing up the perspective that what is shared need not, or should not be the case.

Furthermore, this is a snowball. It only seems scary to share stuff when that isn't demonstrated by those around you. Communities which are honest with each other can be empowering.

Some kind of ecstasy!

Sun's up, uuh huh, looks okay
the world survives into another day
and i'm thinking about eternity
some kind of ecstasy got a hold on me.

I had another dream about lions at the door
they weren't half as frightening as they were before
but i'm thinking about eternity
some kind of ecstasy got a hold on me.

Walls windows trees, waves coming through
you be in me and i'll be in you
together in eternity
some kind of ecstasy got a hold on me

- Bruce Cockburn, "Wondering Where the Lions Are"

Bruce Cockburn knows the peace of the Lord. The story goes that in the heart of the cold war and at a particular tense 'nuclear-war-worrying' moment Cockburn went to bed and had a dream of lions coming to his door. But he woke up the next morning and felt great; an unexplained feeling of peace and joy. Where could the lions be that day? Morning after morning I know I am left wondering where the lions are! I could not be more blessed in this regard. I praise and thank the Lord for that.

Besides that small bit of background the lyrics above speak for themselves. Brilliant. Poetic, beautiful and true. Its as if I can shout it in challenge to the devil - "I am wondering where the lions are!?"

As a friend of mine is fond of saying, take a listen and let the words rush over you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Lpx6JIMmk&feature=related

grrrr

http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2010/01/imf-backtracks-debt-relief-haiti

the good news is that Canadians can sign this petition as well:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/863/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2106

and this one: http://www.newevangelicalpartnership.org/?q=node/20

Healing and Justice

“an experience of justice is so basic that without it, healing may be well impossible.” Howard Zehr, "The Victim" in Changing Lenses

I realize that he said may be, but as defeatist (or escapist) as this may sound, I would claim that in a strictly world-as-it-is sense a state of true justice is difficult (impossible?) for humans to achieve on their own (It is here where we run into interesting contrasts between ‘experience of’ and ‘state of’ but alas). I will be honest in saying that this belief comes from my faith and the fact that I believe restoration to a state of true justice, in the universal sense, will be seen only after another act of God. This does not mean that I don’t think we should do all that we can work to provide for victim’s needs and to build up or fix situations so as to create space for as much experience of justice as possible here and now in anticipation of (and participation in) what is to come. Somehow still, I think healing is separate from justice, and needs to be so. Again, it sounds harsh, but ‘justice’ even in an isolated situation is often a human construct it seems, and I think it is important for victims not to connect their own healing with the things that others do. I should acknowledge that I haven’t experienced anything of the sort of crime discussed by Zehr so the above is said with a grain of salt.

On Me, On Us

Lord have mercy,

Christ have mercy,
Lord have mercy on me.

Lord have mercy,
Christ have mercy,
Lord have mercy on us.


I think this was written by Michael W. Smith

Ava-tarred

I loved this not just because he expressed effectively and concisely what many others have said but also because his writing made me laugh:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

Beloved

This is probably something that if you know me you have heard me talk about a thousand times ... but nonetheless, for a recent Grad School app I had to write about how a theologian's view on a particular passage of scripture had affected my understanding of it. I thought it would make sense to write about something that was quite important for me! I think the footnotes are lost in the blog transfer, but almost all quotes are the Nouwen book.

Beloved

“Prove that you are worth something; do something relevant, spectacular, or powerful, and then you will earn the love you so desire.”

Often, I believe, this statement is tacitly accepted as a fundamental motivation for success for any and all individuals no matter their beliefs about God or spirituality. In fact it sometimes seems that these few words are all that the world ever tells us. In the conversations in our churches, there are times that this belief seeps into our words to each other without us being conscious of it. We feel like ministry needs to succeed on our own terms. After all, if there are no visible outcomes then how can God be glorified? Outside of the arena of the church, this love equation dominates our every action. We have an insatiable desire for fulfillment through perceived love of everything created; we begin to forget the creator.
One begins to wonder how Jesus dealt with the above questions and issues as a human. The first answer, I believe is: very well. Why? Jesus was continually and firmly grounded in the reality of His Father’s love, as well as grounded in His Father. At the onset of his ministry, God the Father spoke plainly.
“Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, ‘You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.’” Luke 3:21-22

Henri Nouwen wrote an entire book to his dear friend based on those words. He believed that the phrase “’You are My Beloved’ revealed the most intimate truth about all human beings.” The writings and thoughts that surround this claim have formed much of my understanding not just about the passage detailing Jesus’ baptism, but also about life, love, and relationship to God. What Nouwen says has implications for our understanding of the biblical text, for communication with our soul, and for our existence within culture.
Firstly, I can speak to how Nouwen’s approach has influenced my own understanding and interpretation of the text of the Bible, including ways to read all of scripture as well as just simply this passage. In the book, Nouwen is writing to his friend who does not have a faith of his own. Immediately after the introduction of the passage above, he says plainly, “Fred, all I want to say to you is ‘You are the Beloved.’” For his friend, unfamiliar with the Bible and biblical interpretation – couldn’t this seem like an odd conclusion? God was clearly speaking to his Son Jesus, and told Him he was beloved but Nouwen seems to extend this to Fred as well. I believe this speaks to Nouwen’s understanding and interpretation of text here. He connects multiple truths. We, as humans, are in fact all God’s children (Romans 8:16). Furthermore, the entire story of continuing redemption presented both in the Old Testament and again in the New Testament and our current experience reflects God’s immeasurable love for us. This love is the reason Jesus was here with us (John 3:16). Nouwen uses these truths to extend what God the Father says to Jesus to what he says to Fred.
In this way he teaches me not only the truth of what he is saying, but also informs an understanding of interpretation of biblical text. We must be diligent, careful and prayerful in what we conclude that God is telling us in Scripture and we must make sure to connect the truth of words themselves with the larger truths that we see throughout the narrative of scripture and through the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Even more important than what Nouwen implies for the interpretation of text through his discussion of this passage, is what he tries to show us it means for our soul. Here Nouwen speaks to how easy it is to listen to the negative voices that tell us we are despicable and lead our soul into the trap of self-rejection rather than the life of the beloved. He goes so far as to postulate that arrogance is simply ‘the other side of self-rejection’. Both are connected in that in arrogance we lift ourselves up to avoid being seen as we believe we are. He says, “Both self-rejection and arrogance pull us out of the common reality of existence and make a gentle community of people extremely difficult, if not impossible, to attain.” The idea that I am beloved by love itself is in striking contrast to the words that opened this essay. The fact that I am the beloved has infected my soul with a knowledge that is beautiful and painful all at once. It is beautiful because in many ways it forms a milestone in my soul’s journey to learning how to rest in the heart of God. Reading this book helps to move along my understanding of what St. Augustine means when he says “My soul is restless until it rests in you, O God.” Furthermore, this has led me whole-souledly into the writings of Ronald Rolheiser who is explicit in articulating the needs that all human hearts have to find a solution to their restlessness; their reach outwards for fulfillment. What this means not only for my own soul, but also the souls of my friends and communities is one of the most important questions I am currently seeking to answer. This is exactly why the knowledge is also painful. Nouwen even notes that understanding that there is a voice which tells we are beloved, makes us long for a greater and fuller experience of it. It is, I believe, the right direction to be travelling and for that I am grateful.
The idea of what this means for our soul is also exactly why my relationship to Nouwen becomes valuable. Nouwen taught as a brilliant professor at Harvard, Yale, and Notre Dame. I would think this is a rather successful way to find the voices of others telling us we are worthwhile. But it didn’t sooth his soul. Ultimately he found himself embedded in the L’Arche Daybreak community for people with intellectual disabilities in Toronto (my home city). The understanding that it is a beautiful place such as this that he began to further understand his own soul’s fulfillment in the Lord gives my own soul hope for growth in all of my, less than prestigious, situations.

Finally, the question begs itself, of what Nouwen’s interpretation of Scripture means for my understanding of culture. First I think it is valuable to note that the words quoted at the outset of this essay are in essence what our culture speaks to us. Leading us to “[hope] that some person, thing, or event will come along to give you that final feeling of inner well-being you desire?” Instead we must look at the example of how Jesus reacted to God’s simple declaration of his beloved status. Jesus owned it daily, sought after God rather than life, and ended up incarnationally affecting his own culture, and truly the culture of the entire world in a way that no one has done or ever will do. We are indeed called to nothing less. We must learn to own more and more of this truth, living incarnationally through God’s power in the Holy Spirit working through us to show our culture and community that they are beloved, and that they need not listen to any lies. Thus, Nouwen’s words lead me to the prayer that my culture would be able to seek first after God and his love rather than simply and only his creation, even as Dorothy Day once commented,
“… how much man would be capable of if his soul were strong in the love of God, if he wanted God as much as he wanted to penetrate the power and glory of God’s creation.”

I pray that knowing that I am the Lord’s beloved would lead me every day right back into his heart.

Works Cited

Day, Dorothy, Patricia Mitchell ed. A Radical Love. Ijamsville, Maryland: The Word Among Us Press, 2000.

Nouwen, Henri. Life of the Beloved. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002.

The New American Standard Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.