Theology and Literature Journal 2 (Bee Season): Miriam's (and Saul's) Breakdown and the Doctrine of Grace

[From my last post: Saul's achievement based doctrine of election, where you have to have the right type of achievement, the right kind of intellect, or, in my case, the ideal physical type seems rather conditional. How can God love an all good creation if humans must earn the attention of a parental Creator? An overextension of the doctrine of election seems to violate the doctrine of grace. ]

It's not as though Saul doesn't have any unconditional love (he's the one bottle-feeding his children) but he doesn't seem to be able to show it when they're consciously aware of it. Infants can't assimilate or reciprocate unconditional love that they don't intellectually understand. They may need and react to it, but it doesn't stay in their conscious understanding (of their parents) as older children, unless it's continuously reinforced. Also, is it really about grace and unconditional love if providing for one's family is a part of Torah Law, just as is true of proper observance of Shabbat? Does it count? One would hope grace will be better demonstrated later, before the family reaches a breaking point. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen:

"I'm so sorry," he whispers, moving to take them both in his arms, but Aaron is all motion, his palm slicing through the air to slap his father across the face before his long legs propel him from the table and into the hallway. Eliza can feel her father's arms crushing the dry shell of her body, can feel herself disintegrating in his grasp. He holds her so tightly she can feel the pulse of his veins, can hear the tide of air feeding his lungs. Somehow, when he asks her if she is alright, Aaron's hand outlined in red against his cheek, she manages to find the strength to tell him what he wants to hear.

Page 265

By this time, Miriam's illness has been exposed, and her children know that something is wrong, even if only in passing. Their mother has come home dirty and disheveled, clearly "not herself", as much as everyone has been trying to ignore it. As her world unravels, she has pushed her husband further and further away, first out of the bedroom, and then finally by pushing him physically.

When his home life starts heating up, when even the children are becoming something other than his fantasy, (indeed, the prospect of either of them becoming their own person scares him, think of his use of the words "cult" [which has heavy connotations, personally and otherwise], and perhaps even more terrifying "just like your mother"), Saul breaks down completely. Although he promised himself he would not repeat his father's mistakes, would not force his children to think the way he does, in practice he has. Aaron warns his sister to really think about spelling, and whether it actually what she wants. This is important to discern because "Daddy" (her plea) can be quite (in his words) "convincing".

For Saul's part, he wants his son to "know the truth" even the painful truth about his mother. He is so adamant about the truth being told, both about Miriam (although he can only refer to her as "your mother") and about spirituality, that he does so quite ungracefully, without pausing to consider Aaron's reaction. He seems to forget that Elly is in the room as well.

I find it ironic and incredibly telling that the moment the characters are at their most angry, broken, and vulnerable, that the most amount of grace is apparent. Saul is finally able to express his love and anxiety for his children. He is finally able to express the enormous truth that even though he may have "no idea when or if..." normal is going to happen, or what life is going to throw at them, he is still going to try to be there (for them), standing among the "... shattered glass [and] the dripping of water...", loving them anyway. Spelling bee champion, or not. Aspiring rabbi, or not. Sane, or not. Kabbalah or Hare Krishna. He is going to love them.

Aaron immediately seems to know that Saul will fail to live up to his dream, and squirms out of this mirage of familial unity with a slap. Elly, too, seems to know that much like her Hallmark commercial visions of father/daughter kite-making, this is more about Saul's romantic version of things working out, than it is about her actual emotional state. Therefore, this is not only about Saul's attempt to finally show grace to his children, but about Eliza ministering actual grace to her father by "[managing] to find the strength to tell him what he [needs] to hear"
________________________________________________________________________________________
Final thoughts based on Tuesday's discussion: I think it's possible to be insane and insightful, to yearn, be driven AND be totally wrong. Even be borderline (or not so borderline, depending on how you look at it) abusive. Does that mean that everything they experience and contribute is discounted? Discarded? Okay? Does having a condition like mental illness (Miriam) or an addictive personality (Saul) exempt a person from grace or election? What does that mean in terms of our doctrines? Where does it stop? More importantly, what does it mean for those of us who have been informed and formed by those on the edges of sanity? How much of the woman who " has always been a stranger" is in Elly, and how much second guessing should she be doing about recognizing Miriam in her reflection? How much of her formative experience (especially spirituality) should we question or render invalid?? How much of her personhood (as a child of or image of God) do we de-value, dishonor, and destroy in doing so? Speaking from experience, if we confront Elly (or Aaron, for that matter) about mentors' relationship and interactions with the divine being WRONG, we are very likely to elicit a reaction more like the one Saul receives during the argument about Chali. Acceptance (of grace) will be a difficult process; perhaps even cyclical.

Theology and Literature Journal 1(Bee Season): TAG and the Doctrine of Election

The day has become an interminable Duck Duck Goose game in which she has only one chance to be picked.  She senses it is very important that this happen, has felt this certainty in her stomach since Ludowski started on K.  Eliza assures herself that as soon as she gets called out her stomach will stop churning, she will stop sweating, and the cursive capital Q will start looking like a letter instead of like the number 2.

Page 13

Eliza goes through the trauma of not being selected for TAG testing.  This had me squirming before I got to the "tricky" parts of Bee Season.  We all remember it... that week of school where we all wondered whether we have made the cut, are we in or out?  Are we to be judged for being "on level" or let's just say it, normal?  Maybe we're one of the judges, the ones who think "the rest of them" will never be really one of our peers.  We begrudgingly make our way back to "regular" class, because they can't teach us and test them (perhaps they are in the middle of Summer of the Monkeys) where we are nonchalant and pretentious to cover our confusion.  This is because the teachers are testing our potential set of new peers, and we have to return from Narnia, secretly hoping that a few of them will be a proverbial Cousin Eustace.  (The spoiled, obstinate cousin whom we might permit, amidst grumbling, to come with us, if he will learn to understand Aslan's world.  In the story, when he does, he makes an even more radical transformation than the Pevensies, during and after his time as a dragon.) 

That wasn't the only thing that had me squirming, a few lines down (page 15) they mention "special needs". Granted, the principal has a rather solid perspective on the whole idea: he doesn't like the 'R' word any more than I do, and he seems to genuinely value his daughter's unique qualities. I do find it interesting that the two topics are juxtaposed here. As a person who qualified for both TAG and Special Ed (which, in either, or both cases, I know for school-age kids means they've handed you weird on a platter!) , I often found myself with my wheels in two camps. Many professionals did not know how to serve me, they weren't used to dealing with a body that did not match its head. Teachers did not believe I belonged in their classroom, and would sometimes quiz me to catch me in the act.  My peers would enjoy the short reprieve from answering questions, but by the second week, some were balking at the competition. 

On the other side, having the label of "I was in TAG" carries a lot of baggage.  It does away with a lot of explanations and a lot of the burden of proof that comes with the question (spoken or unspoken): "What are you doing here?"  The response soon transforms into something like "Amy, distinguished scholar (future Nobel prize winner)"[I'm not kidding, that has actually been stated in a roast of seniors; talk about pedestal-building, unwieldy expectations just because I happen to be different] My mother is fond of saying "The more letters you have behind your name, the less explaining you have to do!".  The first time, she meant honors societies, TAG, AP/IB, and a BA... but I may have taken her a bit too literally, because I'm not stopping until I get the letters P-H-D! I recognize the same ticket punch raising of expectations in phrases like "Aaron, the cantor's son (future Rabbi)" or "Elly, the regional spelling bee champ (future direct link to God)". Ideas like this give all the characters a certain level of clearance and credence, but it also creates an unreasonable gap between the elect and not elect; and builds up these characters as flawless heroes who must live up to the narratives imposed by the public, including those they place on each other.

Furthermore, why is it okay for Saul to shut either of his children behind or out of the study door? Especially given his feelings as Miriam shuts him out increasingly often. Is it possible for Saul to accept more than one person, more specifically more than one child, into his study (metaphorical and literal) at a time? Is it a mutually exclusive election? Does he think it is? Do Elly and Aaron believe that the only expression of love from Saul is in the study (both)? Do they know for sure that they are loved by their father whether or not they are inside the study? That is unclear. Sometimes it is unclear even when they're in the study (literal)! When we apply Karl Barth's logic, the reality that Saul loves the children may be undermined by the fact that they cannot recognize it outside of the study or outside of achievement. This skews their perception of their value as members of the family, congregation, and the community of intellectuals. The ability to be smart, and to access the scholarly view of spirituality becomes a (somewhat unachievable) rubric for election in the family. This weighs particularly heavy on Elly in the beginning, shifts to Aaron, and then to both more equally. This view of their father's system of election seems to foster a vision of God that is less than expansive, while hampering a healthy relationship with the divine as well as  with parental figures.

This achievement based at the doctrine of election, where you have to have the right type of achievement, the right kind of intellect, or the ideal physical type seems rather conditional.  How can God love an all good creation if humans must earn the attention of a parental Creator?  An overextension of the doctrine of election seems to violate the doctrine of grace. 

In these sorts of situations, it is hard to tell who is the elect.  Is it the seemingly broken one with a smart head and a sharp tongue, or is it the straight A speller who is never chosen (for TAG) at all (yet)?  Who chooses?  The second grade teacher?  [The neurologist?]  The pronouncer? Who's in charge of the laying on of hands?  Aaron?  Saul?  Miriam? God? [Spiritual leaders/healers?] Are we in charge of our own destiny?  Do we decide when we get "dinged out"?   By this I mean that we have been told that we are not elect, but we have not won, that we are not acceptable.  Do we decide, to use Wesleyan terminology, when we stop striving for perfection?  Who's in control of the bell?  Who is in control of the dictionary?  Can words be added?  Do we each have our own language, our own comfort zone?  Is there such a thing as an individual doctrine of election?

Theology and Literature Journal intro: Can We Harness Religion?

I'm not really sure where I fall in these spiritual categories.  I think I'm more of an ethical person, with glimpses of the religious.  Is it possible to be ethical for selfish reasons?  I tend to be ethical and just when it suits me.  When it makes me feel good, or I see that something's in it for me, then of course justice is the answer.  However, I'm much more likely to be self-serving and want instant gratification.  It may be primitive, and anti-altruistic, but I think it has a lot to do with self-preservation.  When you think about it the whole idea of ethics and politics is about making sure you don't get the wrong end of the stick in a compromise.  No one wants to end up on the bottom of the ladder all the time but I have to be at their ethical best at least most of the time and hope that everyone else will be too.  We try to kid ourselves that we are like Kierkegaard or Levinas in our view of ourselves or others.  Sometimes I think I might actually be grasping what Kierkegaard calls religious, but very much like what Aaron experiences on the plane in Bee Season, it is transitory: it cannot be sought, and is gone too quickly; it is deeply felt, rather than processed intellectually; it is often too complex to understand, and even more difficult to describe to others verbally.  I've had various experiences which fit this definition.  I have been religious, but I will fail if I try to be religious, even if I try to humbly attempt to re-create religious experiences of which I have already been a part.  I have been a stumbling child, an accidental but willing participant, blinking in the light of a sun (or Son) which I can never effectively force to rise.  All in all, I think the best argument as to why I haven't fallen into hedonism completely, is that most examples I've seen of reckless abandon require physical accessibility and lack of consideration and/or dependence on others which is almost impossible with quadriplegia.  I suppose I should consider myself reasonably lucky in this particular instance, that I've been disallowed in some ways, from experiencing this "lower stage".

Barth Journal Entry #10: On Prayer

Karl Barth looked at theology through a Christocentric lens, meaning that Christ is at the center of everything, not humans.  This would mean that communication with Christ, i.e. prayer, would be a central tenet of theological practice, because one cannot study the practices of the Church, or study Christ, without faith and clear communication with Christ himself.  Barth would say also that one can't study theology as an educational discipline only.  Faith is necessary in order to truly study, and vice versa.  It is part of the Christian vocation to have faith, to study, and therefore also to pray.  He addresses this specifically starting on page 882:

As is perhaps fitting, we begin (7) with prayer.  The community works, but it also prays.  More precisely, it prays as it works.  And in praying, it works.  Prayer is not just an occasional breathing of the soul, nor is it merely an individual elevation of the heart.  It is a movement in which Christians jointly and persistently engage.  It is absolutely indispensable in the accomplishment of the action required of the community.  It cannot possibly be separated from this action.
Prayer is a basic element in the whole action of the world community.  "Pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17).  Hence prayer- we are reminded of the first person plural in Lord's prayer- is a work of the community.  In and with the community all the members can and should also pray individually.
Prayer includes in inseparable union both thanksgiving and intercession: the one in relation to the past for the free grace of God already received in it; the other in relation to the future for the same grace which will be needed in it.  Prayer is, therefore, the acknowledgment that the community which exists in time, as it has performed and does and will perform its ministry, has lived and does and will live by the free grace of God addressed to it rather than by the inner meaningfulness and power of its own action.  If God had not freed it for this action, and were He not to do so again, what freedom or ability would it have?  In praying, it acknowledges that its whole action can only be a ministry of witness which as such is totally referred to its confirmation by the One whom it has to attest, to His good-pleasure to which it has no claim, which it has not deserved and cannot deserve, which in past, present and future can only be His free gift.  Yet both as thanksgiving and as intercession prayer is offered in the certainty of being heard, and therefore in a humble but bold bid for divine good-pleasure which will give meaning and power to its action.  Hence in prayer as its confession of God's free grace we do not have a purely subjective exercise of piety with only subjective significance.  Such an exercise might well lead into the void.  In prayer of the community keeps God to His Word, which is the promise of His faithfulness as the Word which call, gathers, upbuilds and commissions it.  It keeps Him to the fact that its cause is His.  Appealing to His free grace, it expects quite simply that He will let Himself be kept to His Word and therefore that its cause which was His yesterday will be His again to-morrow.  In its thanksgiving and intercession it thus enters without doubt or hesitation, not hypothetically but confidently, into the dealings with which God has initiated between it and Him on a becoming an active partner in the covenant which He has established.  Hence prayer is no mere gesture of elevation.  It creates in the world a fact which has this significance and which speaks for itself, whether it is heard and accepted by the world or not.

Prayer has a big place in the world.  According to this passage, the Church does not acknowledge that its power comes from Jesus without praying.  We have no power without prayer.  We are to be humble but bold we ask for God's good pleasure and assistance.  It is through prayer that we hold God accountable to us; that we claim that God is how God acts, that we claim that it is God's work and God's world, and that it will be forever.  It is through prayer that we claim that we are incorporated as partners and as agents in God's work.  Prayers are significant, and they stand alone as ritual, whether we choose to acknowledge that or not.

This is very important for ministry, both inside the church and for seeking Christians.  First of all, we need to acknowledge the importance of prayer as a discipline.  It is not cultivated in congregations as much as it should be.  Furthermore, most seeking Christians I know, whether they claim to actually be Christians or not, do pray in times of stress and tribulation.  This is important for two reasons: God can work on them through their prayers, and lead them to Himself, and Christians can open a conversation about what prayer means in relationship to being a Christian, for the purposes of showing them Christ's love.  Also, we should remember the importance of praying for each other, and praying for those who are not yet Christian, especially those who are actively seeking God and have not yet met Him. 

Barth Journal Entry #9: Recognizing Our Limitations

Before my math abilities are questioned, let me assure you I can count.  However, as I meant to skip journal entry #7, but misread the page numbers for journal entry #8, a blog post over that section will be coming later.  Onwards and upwards.

Barth discusses something in this section which has fortuitously been on my mind as of late.
It has great consequences in a ministry which is deeply influenced by disability theology and disability advocacy as praxis.  Barth is quite clear about a topic which is the cornerstone of much disability theory, advocacy, and theology: that able-bodied people, particularly able-bodied Christians, should know the scope of their influence on the lives of people with disabilities, and by extension the effects of their ministries.  By this I mean that Christians should realize they do not have the power to shun people with disabilities as unchristian sinners based on their disability, they do not have the power to fix our problems simply by throwing the Bible at us, they cannot help us without being in solidarity with us, and they do not have the authority to heal us.  This last point is especially true, if there is a claim that this can happen under a "healer's" own power; or that this is directly related to the intensity of a person's faith.  I'm not saying that it can't happen, or that it shouldn't happen, but much like Calvin's theory of the elect, it is up to God to decide whom he chooses to heal and whom he doesn't.  When it happens, through what avenue, and in what form and extent the healing takes place is entirely up to God.  In fact, all of our ministry is ultimately up to God; we are just conduits and vessels.  This is what Barth is addressing in my hub text, from page 835:

Again, however, no more is demanded or expected than this definite witness. The reconciliation of the world to God, the divine covenant, the kingdom of God, the new reality of the world, cannot be its work.  Nor can the manifestation of these things.  It is not itself Jesus Christ either acting in the world or speaking to it.  It is only the particular people which on the basis of His gracious self-declaration may know about Him, believe in Him and hope in Him.  It has to confess Him, according to the knowledge granted to it.  It has to attest Him to the world as the work of God accomplished for it and the Word of God going out to it.  What is demanded and expected therewith is glorious enough to render superfluous any grasping at higher possibilities.  It is also serious and difficult enough to claim all its attention, fidelity, courage and resources.  But it is not commanded to represent, introduce, bring into play or even in a sense accomplish again in its being, or action either reconciliation, the covenant, the kingdom or the new world reality.  It is not commanded even in the earthly-historical sphere to take the place of Jesus Christ.  In so doing it would only aggregate to itself something which is absolutely beyond its capacity, in which it would achieve only spurious results, and which would finally involve it in failure.  In so doing it would do despite to Jesus Christ Himself as the one Doer of the work of God and the primary and true Witness of this work, becoming a hindrance to what He Himself wills to do and accomplish.

 This is important because Barth says that the Church and the community has its own specific purpose, and that our purpose is not to be Jesus Christ on the Earth.  Our calling is already enough for us, we should not try to take on the role of God.  We are not commanded to do so, and if we overstep our bounds, we are not only discouraging people from a real relationship with Jesus due to our arrogance, we are hindering the kingdom.  Perhaps it is even through our discouraging and hypocritical behavior that we are hindering the kingdom from coming.  We have to remember that even as we are Christians we are also sinners, and all the power we have comes through Jesus.  We should be welcoming others into the community as newcomers, and as fellow witnesses to the Gospel.  We should work with people, not as higher authorities of the Truth, or acting on their behalf, as if they know nothing, but instead as partners and fellow travelers on the journey of life.  This is similar to our partnership and journey of our Christian vocation with Christ.  During the Passover, Christ states that he treats us as "no longer servants, but friends".  I challenge all of my readers to treat the people they minister to, with disabilities and without, Christians and non-Christians alike, not as servants or as somehow spiritually or intellectually lower than you, but as equal friends to be invited to the Table, just as Jesus would have done.

Barth Journal Entry #7: Christians Are Invisible

I realize my title may be a bit misleading, so here's what I mean.  It is good that Barth is finally talking about the Holy Spirit because I can finally address a problem I see with Christians today, and with most discussions of the Holy Spirit in general.  We talk about it too much.  Now I know that as Western Protestants, we don't talk about it much in our liturgy.  But I'm talking about popularly, not in the ecclesia.  We talk about the Holy Spirit all the time.  And not in a good way!  "I'm filled with the Holy Spirit so I'm better than you", "The Holy Spirit has told me that everyone that disagrees with me is not a Christian", "My public display of overzealous prayer is approved, because I was led by the Holy Spirit", "I can attack people with my belief system, because I was led by the Holy Spirit", etc. Whatever happened to go to an inner room and pray?  Or "love your neighbor as yourself"?  Or "humbly submit to your God"?  When did we get so full of ourselves, that we call our sin of pride our greatest virtue?  Maybe we should start actually listening to where the Spirit leads.
Let's hear what Barth has to say, on page 727:

That which makes it, as one people, this incomparable people; that wherein it is totally from within, and therefore invisible, i.e. not visible to all eyes, is, however, the fact that it is the community of Jesus Christ and therefore as such the people of God in world-occurrence.  It may be granted that without His election and calling, without His will and work and Word, it would exist not even visibly, ad extra, in worldly form and to that extent in likeness with the various elements and factors of the world.  It exists at all, and therefore in this sense, only in the power of the divine decision, act and revelation accomplished and effective in Jesus Christ.  Yet in this power, and therefore as the community of Jesus Christ, it also exists from within, uniquely and therefore invisibly, i.e. in a way which is visible to some, though not all.  At this point we are brought up against the same limit as in our answering the first question concerning the new reality of world history created and revealed in Jesus Christ, namely, who can see, accept and affirm what the Christian community is on the basis of its election and calling, as the work of the divine decision, act and revelation, except by knowledge of this divine work, of the Lord who elects and calls His community, and therefore of Jesus Christ.  It is eyes are open for Him and by Him which see what His community is as grounded in Him.

We are one invisible people, because the Holy Spirit is in us, because we are grounded in Jesus Christ.  We are not special because of anything we have done, but because of Jesus.  Even the world would not exist without him.  The community of Jesus Christ exists within us because of him.  We can't say what the Christian community is without seeing God's work through Jesus.  When we are open to him then we can see the community.  This is important to ministry because it will keep us from getting too self-important, and the more open to new experiences with the world, and people seeking to find new faith. 

Journal #6 Why Does Evil Exist?: A Child of God's Temper Tantrum

Today I am thinking about the topic of theodicy, or "Why does evil exist?"  This is a question which people everywhere, Christians and non-Christians alike, have attempted to answer since the beginning of time.  Before I get accused of using natural theology, or of claiming to know all the answers, my usual response to this question is to say that evil should not exist, that discrimination and discord are not productive, that violence is wrong, the tragedy should not happen, and that we should honor our individual vocations, abilities, ideas, and contributions as creative creatures who were created good.  I don't have the answer, but I found a reasonably understandable start that Barth made, beginning on page 695:

On the one side there is the good creation of God, which is not in any sense robbed of its goodness, which does not lose it, which is not broken or defaced, which is just as glorious as it was on the very first day.  And this creation of God includes not only man himself, who in respect of all that makes and marks him as creature-whatever may have to be said of his action-is good and not bad.  It also includes the surrounding cosmos, created as the theatrum glorae Dei, in all its explored and unexplored dimensions, with all its known and as yet unknown or only suspected possibilities and powers, with the nature which God Himself has given no less than in the case of man, and which can neither shift nor change.  Creation does not cease to extol its Creator, and it is therefore far more sensible to extol creation itself in respect of its Creator than to deplore its puzzling and difficult features.... on the other side however-and it is here that we may seriously think of the devil-there is the reality and operation of the absurd, of nothingness , grounded in no possibility given by God, neither elected nor willed by the Creator... how can this be?

Barth has an answer for this, too.  That we have confused two parts of our nature which are incompatible, and therefore, we have brought evil, which is not created, and should not exist upon ourselves and the world.
This is confusing for ministry, because even this is not a simple answer, that I still have not fully comprehended.  How is it our fault, and how do we fix it?  One thing I do know is that we're not supposed to be okay with that answer.  If when the kingdom of God actually does come there's not going to be evil, we've got to work on it.  Because our ultimate vocation as Christians is to bring in the kingdom of God.  It is not our finitude that is the problem, it is the fact that we keep falling into our sins, when we should be falling for Him!  We were created good, and in Jesus we still are, we just have to get there.  But we have to get there without beating each other up for sinning.  We have to lift each other up, as we are lifted up by, in, and with Jesus.  We have to be for each other, not against.  We have to do the kinds of things he did, things that were people centered, not self-centered.  The kind of ministry that met people where they were, but encouraged them to be the best people they could be.  People that were in right relationship with each other and with him.  The people they were created to be.