What will happen if...

Picking up where we left off -- regarding How We Learn to Be Brave by Mariann Budde -- there were two things that I really liked and where I want to spend more time. 

This week is going to be about what she wrote on the parable of the Good Samaritan.

It is generally agreed upon that when the priest and the Levite did not assist, that may not have been merely callous indifference but fear. Maybe they were seeing someone set upon by thieves, or maybe they were looking at bait, responding to which would get them set upon by thieves.

In Budde's description, they were thinking "What will happen to me if I help?"

The Samaritan's question was "What will happen to him if I don't help?"

I'm not saying that's the only way to evaluate the situation, but I found the idea powerful. We can be concerned for others. It does not even mean that we are not aware of our own needs, but having a genuine and urgent concern for others can powerfully change behavior.

It is a mindset where the test is not only to refrain from doing bad, but where there can also be responsibility in the failure to act.

Before I wrote last week's post, it felt like my dissatisfaction with the book was more a matter of small disagreements on technicalities.

During the process of writing it, that changed to a feeling that it was more of a matter of believing the gospel to be good versus believing it is true. Then it is not so much that we disagree about doctrine, but that for some people the doctrine wouldn't matter so much.

Something that originally surprised me was that in addition to Budde's own change in her late teens from being an Evangelical to an Episcopalian, an Episcopalian colleague of hers switched to heading a Lutheran church and it didn't seem to be a big deal. Maybe from that point of view, it isn't.

I have feelings about that, and that will be explored more in next week's post. 

I also realize that it is not at all uncommon for people to differ doctrinally from the church they attend. Many churches teach that God is intangible but many churchgoers have expressed a desire to hug Him first thing after they die. 

I want to take a moment to appreciate that it is possible -- even without a concrete belief -- to choose love and caring.

That is a comforting change from many who profess belief and yet become skilled haters.

We believe in something we call the light of Christ where people can feel things and be influenced for good even in the absence of teaching, but again, there are people who know better and do not feel it.

I appreciate caring where I find it. 

I appreciate being able to look at someone not obviously connected to yourself and care about what happens to them. 

Dogmatic

I recently finished How We Learn to Be Brave by Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopalian Bishop of Washington. I wanted to show support, as she has drawn wrath for a very mild rebuke of Trump. (She could say much harsher things and still be right).

I didn't enjoy the book as much as I hoped; I kept getting irritated with differences of scriptural interpretation.

That feels a little unfair; clearly the Bible means a great deal to her and she takes it seriously. I should also not be surprised that we have differences, but it bugged me.

Therefore, I am going to go over the top disagreements, as well as the things that I agreed with most.

The first one was a minor annoyance that Jesus came out of John the Baptist's followers.

No, John was preparing the way for Jesus. Jesus and John both knew it. Prophecy foretold it.

I suspect she is basing that on Jesus going to John for baptism, but that was a way of showing obedience, example, and with John's priestly lineage it would seem to me that it also fits in with fulfilling the law of Moses.

Secondly, she refers to the second Isaiah. 

Generally the reason I see given for the belief in two Isaiahs is that there are things written about in the later chapters that happened later, where the original author could not have known, except that future events can be known by prophecy.

I am not sure that she believes in prophecy. She references passages of Messianic scripture as if they are not prophecies of Christ. Those two things might go together.

In addition, she kept calling Jacob a cheat and conman, because of him disguising himself as Esau but apparently also for his animal husbandry practices with Laban, who did far more conning. (Remember, Laban is the one whom Perchik was talking about when he said the Bible told us to never trust an employer.)

I have my own problems with Jacob as someone who played favorites with wives and children and causing pain that way, though for an Old Testament patriarch he could have been worse. 

With Esau, Rebekah was the instigator, though clearly Jacob went along with it.

One thing that bothered me was that Budde said this was a blessing that Isaac could only give once. 

I take my position largely from Jerrie Hurd in Our Sisters in the Bible. She points out that the blessing that Isaac gives to Jacob when he thinks that Jacob is Esau and that he actually gives to Esau is pretty similar. Later, when Jacob is leaving to go to Laban, Isaac blesses Jacob with the blessings of Abraham, the birthright that Esau had already sold for a mess of pottage.

(I also don't like that Jacob did that, though I have to believe that Esau was not really starving and on the point of death at the time.)

Hurd's theory, if I recall, was that Isaac wanted to give Esau a blessing before Jacob as a way of providing some comfort to him (I guess Jacob came by his favoritism honestly) -- even though it was not going to be the birthright -- and that Rebekah was trying to prevent the confusion that would cause.

Is there room for criticism? Yes, but Budde is so hung on up Jacob being a con man. Part of that insistence is that God will still deal with him and bless him. That is a point, but which imperfections you have might indeed affect how God relates to and with you. That can be a thing.

Then there may be a disagreement about the significance of the Transfiguration, but more there is kind of a underplaying of the Atonement. That one totally makes sense; most of what we know about that does not come from the Bible.

It feels more like believing Jesus was a good man, but not the Christ.  

Maybe in some ways it is more admirable that she takes inspiration from these things with less knowledge, but it feels like missing so much, and less like living faith.

It bugged me.

But there were also some insights -- even amidst the frustration -- and that's where I will pick up next week. 

Misery

Last Sunday I made a bold claim.

In talking about how Jesus was so consistently kind and caring of others that it is ridiculous to claim religious justification for trying to dominate other people -- and I could spend a lot more time on that, but I already have in other posts -- I said that I only saw misery in rejecting that caring.

That may have been a slight overstatement; some people really seem to be enjoying themselves.

This is my acknowledgement that on the path of dominator culture, it is possible to get some satisfaction.

I believe my point still stands for three reasons.

1. As it can be very hard to succeed at dominator culture, there are going to be a lot of people failing. While they may be pretty consistent in blaming others, I am sure there is still an emotional toll to the failures. 

I have periodically pointed to Ask Aubrey, who collects examples of misogyny:

https://www.instagram.com/ask_aubry/ 

I see so many posts from men who are complaining about women only caring about money or looks or only wanting "high-value" men, so they are miserable because women are so shallow, or stupid, or hypocritical.

It seems a lot more common now, but I remember at least twenty years ago guys in the singles ward complaining about how being "nice" wasn't good enough, except that they also weren't that nice. You seem angry and resentful all the time, and even your hair is fascist! (And this was years before the started talking about the "fashy".)

I never said that because I didn't think it would be well-received. Maybe I should have.

We all know men who aren't that handsome or that rich or various other factors -- they are not "alphas" -- but they are in rewarding relationships that are helped their acknowledgement of their wives and girlfriends being full human beings that they appreciate as individuals.

If you are in the mindset where this is settling, okay, maybe it doesn't sound good to you, but what you are doing instead does not look appealing. 

If you are going to be single, it's easier if you like yourself. Ironically, liking yourself may also make it easier to find a partner, though it is no guarantee. 

Regardless, buying into some toxic version of masculinity where you can only be alone and hating women for not fixing you sounds pretty miserable to me.

2. Even when you are "succeeding" at dominator culture, while there may be moments of satisfaction it seems lacking.

Elon Musk seems pretty miserable, getting his feelings hurt and requiring lots of drugs. The president may enjoy the cruelty, but does it bring him joy?

Even Joni Ernst strolling through a graveyard resenting that people aren't cheering her comfort with mass die-offs... she doesn't exactly seem happy. 

So when we might refer to someone as a miserable human being -- not because of their general mood, but because of how intensely we dislike them -- even if they do not perceive themselves to be suffering in the moment, it's not what I think of as happiness.

3. They can't take it with them.

For all of Senator Ernst's flaws (and I don't see her as a particularly truthful person), she is correct; we will all die.

Maybe they don't actually have any faith at all, because they should expect that they would suffer for the suffering that they have caused. 

If their satisfaction comes from being able to inflict damage on others, they are going to lose that.

I do think there is some misery now, but I believe more is coming.

I would not change places with them. 

My life definitely has things that are hard, but I ultimately can live with myself, I have good relationships, and those are things that I can take with me. 

I am on Medicaid, so I may die sooner than is necessary, but I would still rather be me than any of these miserable beings. 

To know him

I recently finished a book about the political rise of the evangelical right, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez.

At one point it mentioned a different book, The Man Nobody Knew by Bruce Fairchild Barton.

I remembered someone reading a passage from it in a Sunday school class long ago. The book title had stuck with me and I thought about reading it, though I never got around to it.

It was only a short passage, the point of which was that in paintings Jesus is often shown looking very weak and sickly, but someone working as a carpenter would not be like that. 

What was not obvious from that brief passage was that Barton was an advertising executive and the book was about how Jesus was the ultimate businessman, building a world-class organization from the bottom up with a small group of handpicked men.

I feel like that may have been some projection.

Barton was not alone in projecting. White evangelicals had their own form of masculinity modeled on the one who came not to bring peace, but a sword. Clearing-out-the-temple Jesus is more their guy. The perfect embodiment is John Wayne as the rugged hero.

If that ideal included the patriotic military service and loyal protector that Wayne portrayed, but in real life he had multiple marriages and affairs and avoided military service so he would not have to risk his career... apparently it was the image that was important. 

It was also a bit weird to me that they focused on obedience under a hierarchy but idolized MacArthur. Truman outranked MacArthur; defying direct orders should have been bad.

At one point it would seem like the stunning hypocrisy now has been there all along. I could certainly take some time to go off on dominator culture again.

The thing that is most clear, though, is that they don't know him. How could they when they so strenuously avoid listening?

There is a level at which I think there is a good idea in there. If I am going to start a business, thinking about how Jesus would do it could be valuable. It would be important to me to be honest and ethical in my dealings and treat people well. If you are going to be a soldier or a husband or an architect, how would He do it?

If you find that there is a job that you don't think you can do or a role that you don't think you can take on and still do things in a Christ-like manner, that could be good reason to change directions.

To do that, you would still need to be listening instead of projecting.

When clearing out the temple he did apparently drive out the herd animals, who would be used to being driven. He did overturn tables. However, it is also important to note that when there are caged doves who would probably be injured under that kind of treatment, that instead of flipping or driving he told the people who had the doves to take them hence.

It is important to note that one who had power to destroy only demonstrated it on a fig tree that already had something wrong with it.

It is important to note that he washed the feet of those hand-picked men as sign to show them to serve each other.

It is important to note that he fed people without worrying if they deserved it.

There is so much care and consideration and love shown over and over again that only extreme ignorance could find anything else more important.

If in that understanding you cannot find that it works with being masculine, then there is either something wrong with masculinity or with your understanding of it. That is worth some pondering.

I would say that to know him is to love him, even if it seemed trite, but apparently there is room to know and reject as well.

I feel completely confident in saying that there is only misery in that.

Distribution of...

I have been thinking a lot about money; so what else is new?

Recently I have mentioned having some extra money. That is due to a small amount of life insurance that my father had.

Two of the really big purchases for me were a new utensil basket for the dishwasher and some pants.

I was at the point where I was running out of pants before it was time to do laundry. I was alternating skirts more and having to plan very carefully so that I would have the preferred attire for when I was going somewhere.

The previous dishwasher basket has gradually been getting holes in the bottom. We got it in 2017, so I am not complaining about that. (Otherwise, we did need to replace the heat coil pretty recently, but it runs great and we are glad to have it.)

The basket was built as a grid because water needs to be able to flow in and out. The downside to that is the lattice work is thin and eventually break down. That led to there being sections we could only use by putting tablespoons face-down. 

The new one is bigger, but also it is not at all worn down. Loading utensils is easier. One of my sisters said -- and it was only kind of joking -- "This is so luxurious!"

My point is that the 1% (maybe even as much as the 5%) don't get that level of satisfaction out of additional money. They already have more than they need or use, so it is just ego and the numbers can be pretty abstract.

We are doing so much better than so many people. We have the things we really need and we get to have fun pretty often. I could have asked my sisters to give me some pants, and we would have gotten the new basket eventually. 

At the same time, a little boost made a noticeable difference. 

I am thinking about it more because of some fundraisers that were going on.

One friend's daughter was raising money for a seizure dog. Another's is raising money for a dance intensive:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/a-seizure-dog-for-gracie-ohair 

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-hazelle-attend-ruth-page-dance-intensive 

When I was first on Twitter there were a lot of crowdsourcing things going on. I gave to a lot and retweeted and got really invested in seeing people achieve their goals with help from others. Those were mainly artistic projects.

Over the years it changed. Now it is mainly people just needing to live: medical bills, car troubles, needs to relocate, and sometimes just a ride to the doctor. 

I've had times where I could give more and times when I could give less (I did give away some of that insurance money), but still I would re-post and at least sometimes people got what they needed.

Now so many people have abandoned the platform that I re-post but I am not sure it matters. For these two, since Gracie needed more and had the closer due date I have only given to her so I could share that and was posting it daily. Tomorrow I will start with Hazelle.

It is frustrating feeling that as needs grow we are more cut off from each other.

I will keep posting because I don't know what else to do. I also pray for them. It would be so much better if instead there were equity in pay and health coverage. 

As it is, we are at a time of gross economic inequality and safety nets are being slashed.

You can argue that a seizure dog is more important than a dance intensive, but both should be so possible.

So I pray and retweet and share. As long as I am at it I am going to add two more people that I worry about and pray for here, even though the one was most recently retweeting another person's need, because there are always more people.

https://x.com/wordglass/status/1914709627125539197

https://x.com/TheOperaFanThem/status/1923008953664852451 

I know there are many other people that can use help.

Learning that and helping is among the most important things we can do. 

Brief hiatus

I need to take a few days off from blogging. Back soon.

Mea culpa

I messed up. Several months ago.

The exact nature of that is open for debate.

I can't remember if it was October or November, but the occasion was a teacher development class at church.

It was a very small thing in the class, but the person leading it was making an analogy about how you learn from mistakes, making them important opportunities. 

I totally believe that.

On a bit more emotional note, he threw in this example of college students getting something wrong and then disputing their grade, arguing that they should not have been marked down rather than taking the opportunity to learn.

I can believe that happens, thought that mainly comes from stories I have heard about helicopter parents.

Where he lost me was referring to it as "the weaponization of Title IX"; that part did not seem right.

Title IX of the Education Amendment is the section that forbids discrimination on the basis of sex.

Based on when I was growing up and becoming aware of it, I mostly associated it with funding for sports teams, but of course it could also apply to admissions and school conditions.  

I could not quite see how that would be used for appeals on grades. The way he described it did not make it sound like it was only girls doing it. 

(I have a vague sense he mainly imagined non-white students doing it, but that could be me making assumptions. The helicopter parents tend to be pretty white.)

I didn't say anything at the time. That was partly that I have a preference for calling in versus calling out, but also by the time I was done processing that in my mind things had moved on. 

I can think quickly, but it still takes time to go over different angles. I kept looking for ways in which what he said might have made sense, but did not come up with any.

At that point, I decided to do some more looking when I got home; the moment had passed anyway.

I did find some references searching on the phrase "weaponization of Title IX". What came up then is that some schools use it to require a level of pursuit in reports of sexual assault that might seem like it is protective of women but actually discourages reporting because it is so invasive and unhelpful.

I don't think that's what he meant.

Searching now brings up more about keeping transgender people out of sports and not supporting transgender students, especially against their parents' wishes.

Still not what he meant, I am pretty sure.

I may have been wrong for not speaking up then, but at the time I was going to write him a nice letter briefly touching on what Title IX is, that it wouldn't apply in that situation, and that it is important to speak correctly. 

I was definitely not going to say that you sound stupid if you just parrot things that you hear on talk radio, because maybe it's really that his wife works with someone who listens to talk radio and it was like a third-hand parroting.

Then I just didn't get to it. There was always so much to do and I am always running behind. Months later it would just be weird.

I definitely shouldn't procrastinate, but also, maybe I should have said something then. Maybe it would have been important for the other people in the room. There could have been fourth and fifth hand parroting for all I know. 

I hope not, but I don't know. 

I can resolve to do better next time, but I am still not completely sure what would have been better this time.