Esther 9:5 So the Jews finished off all their enemies with the sword, slaughtering them right and left, and did as they pleased to those who hated them.
Revenge. It's a common human response to hatred, injustice and violence, even in this case where the violence was not actually carried out. A preemptive strike: the best defense being a good offense. It's only common sense; if you get them first, then you'll be safer, right? Here's the problem: it's impossible to slaughter everyone who is an enemy, or might become an enemy, or who knows or cares about someone who's an enemy. Where do you draw the line? Wherever you draw it, you will probably exclude some who are potentially dangerous, and include those who are not, thereby perpetrating more injustice. And then your enemies feel entirely justified in slaughtering you the first chance they get. And the hatred and enmity which exists between you gets magnified with each new event, until continual slaughter is the result. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth results in a country of the blind and toothless.
The interesting thing about this eye for an eye idea is that it was originally intended as a restraint on revengeful slaughter, meant as a mercy. It meant that if someone killed a family member, you were constrained from slaughtering his whole family; all you were allowed was to kill the person who had killed. This idea of mercy is firmly embedded in the Hebrew scriptures, juxtaposed against episodes like this one. Jesus takes it one step further. Not only does he say don't hate your enemies, but he says love them. (Incidentally, I believe one of the psalms says the same thing, and adds "it'll pour hot coals upon his head", meaning, I think, that he'll be shamed and humiliated by your mercy. I'm not sure that's exactly the point Jesus is trying to make). This is a radical concept, and the only way to break the cycle of violence in our world. I remember a story about Desmond Tutu, who was at dinner in conversation about the evils of apartheid, long before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. After dinner, he went to his room for several hours, and when the host inquired, Tutu said that he had felt the hatred and anger burning in his heart, so he went to pray until he was free of it again. I also think of the Amish whose children were slaughtered by a madman. They insisted on sharing money that was sent them with the family of the murderer, whom they saw equally as victims, and refused to view him with hatred, choosing instead compassion and pity.
This is the radical nature of the walk Jesus calls us to. To love those who harm us and those we love. To return compassion for hatred. Here's another story about the transforming power of this kind of radical love that I heard on the radio. A rabbi moved into a new town which had an active white supremacist movement. One of the members of this group began calling the rabbi's house and leaving vicious, hate-filled messages on his answering machine. Asking around about the man, the rabbi found out that he lived alone, had no support system, and was very ill. The next time the man called, the rabbi picked up the phone and offered to bring him some groceries. It took time and persistence, but eventually the rabbi actually took this man into his home and cared for him. Now the man was traveling the country, talking to these hate groups and others about how his heart had been changed by this expression of love. It's pretty simple: love your enemies. But anyone who thinks it is easy probably hasn't tried it.
Prayer: Dear God, This kind of radical love is not easy to grow, but it is my longing to be filled with Your heart of compassion. Teach me to love those right near by that may frustrate, annoy or even injure me, that through my actions they may know Your all consuming love. Amen.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Who don't fit in
Esther 3:8 Haman then spoke with King Xerxes: "There is an odd set of people scattered through the provinces of your kingdom who don't fit in. Their customs and ways are different from everybody else."
I have been gone a long time! I was away for two weeks, and somehow since my return, I have been running around like a crazy person! Creating some more space in my life is a priority.
Here we are in the book of Esther, about a young woman who because of her beauty is elevated to be Queen of the empire, and from that position is able to intervene and save her people. Haman is the King's second in command, and this verse is a prologue to his suggestion that the King issue a decree that will set off a genocide. Hitler began his assault on the Jews similarly, by talking about their difference, and planting the idea of their opposition to the state, and the larger German nation. The genocide that Haman has planned, however, is more like what happened in Rwanda: the decree will give permission and encouragement for the people to rise up and kill the Jews in their midst, in hand to hand combat: mob violence. And he begins with this idea of difference, of a people that "don't fit in", that have customs and practices that are "different from everybody else".
There are two assumptions here that Haman builds on to make his case for the need to kill these people off. The first is that "we" are all alike, or at least more alike than we are to "them". But all you have to do is look at a family to see that people are very different from one another, even when they claim the same religion, follow the same customs, rely on the same traditions. Look at Cain and Abel: one was a shepherd, one was a farmer, and those differences led to murder, despite the fact that they were in the same family. Our differences reflect our uniqueness, and they can't be eliminated. And the differences between individuals, the variability of individual expression within groups is probably greater than the differences that exist between groups, when you look at them as a whole. This is true whether you look at religious groups, ethnic and cultural groups, or even men and women.
The second assumption which is vital to Haman's plan is the idea that "difference" is a problem, that difference is the reason we "can't all get along", as Rodney King so famously intoned. People often think that couples should have a lot in common, that the less difference there is between them, the better they will get along and the more successful they will be. Let's just ignore the fact that historically, men and women had completely different spheres of work and that didn't necessarily mean a bad partnership, if we look back at the time when marriage was primarily for economic reasons. Even today, with marriages built primarily on ideas of love and emotional connection, research tells us that it is not what couples have in common that makes for long-lasting partnerships; rather it is how they deal with their differences, how they talk across those differences that determine their success. Do they respect each other, treat these differences with courtesy, acceptance and understanding? Are they curious about what makes them different from one another, willing to see the other's differences as something that expands their life -- a "both-and" position -- or are they caught up in an "either-or" stance, a competition where one of them has to win? Acceptance and courtesy can sustain a couple with enormous "differences"; even small differences, if treated with contempt and scorn, will likely lead to the end of the relationship.
So this idea of difference doesn't have to be threatening, but it is still often used to stir up hatred and fear of "the other", those whose external differences may be more pronounced and visible. It's easy to forget, when someone dresses very differently, or has different customs, or just looks physically different, that we still share our human experience. As Shylock said, "If you cut me, do I not bleed?" (I paraphrase). We all share the human experiences of joy and suffering, pleasure and pain, of love for our children and families, and fear of the unknown. These common challenges of living are far more powerful, if we can tap into them, than the differences of culture and behavior that sometimes seem so insurmountable.
Prayer: Dear God, You taught us to pray, "Our Father". Help me see that all people are your children, and thus my brothers and sisters, no matter how different from me they may appear. Help me to see that common human connection, even when I may be turned off or frightened, so that I can honor it and open my heart to those who have been pushed aside because they don't "fit in". Amen.
I have been gone a long time! I was away for two weeks, and somehow since my return, I have been running around like a crazy person! Creating some more space in my life is a priority.
Here we are in the book of Esther, about a young woman who because of her beauty is elevated to be Queen of the empire, and from that position is able to intervene and save her people. Haman is the King's second in command, and this verse is a prologue to his suggestion that the King issue a decree that will set off a genocide. Hitler began his assault on the Jews similarly, by talking about their difference, and planting the idea of their opposition to the state, and the larger German nation. The genocide that Haman has planned, however, is more like what happened in Rwanda: the decree will give permission and encouragement for the people to rise up and kill the Jews in their midst, in hand to hand combat: mob violence. And he begins with this idea of difference, of a people that "don't fit in", that have customs and practices that are "different from everybody else".
There are two assumptions here that Haman builds on to make his case for the need to kill these people off. The first is that "we" are all alike, or at least more alike than we are to "them". But all you have to do is look at a family to see that people are very different from one another, even when they claim the same religion, follow the same customs, rely on the same traditions. Look at Cain and Abel: one was a shepherd, one was a farmer, and those differences led to murder, despite the fact that they were in the same family. Our differences reflect our uniqueness, and they can't be eliminated. And the differences between individuals, the variability of individual expression within groups is probably greater than the differences that exist between groups, when you look at them as a whole. This is true whether you look at religious groups, ethnic and cultural groups, or even men and women.
The second assumption which is vital to Haman's plan is the idea that "difference" is a problem, that difference is the reason we "can't all get along", as Rodney King so famously intoned. People often think that couples should have a lot in common, that the less difference there is between them, the better they will get along and the more successful they will be. Let's just ignore the fact that historically, men and women had completely different spheres of work and that didn't necessarily mean a bad partnership, if we look back at the time when marriage was primarily for economic reasons. Even today, with marriages built primarily on ideas of love and emotional connection, research tells us that it is not what couples have in common that makes for long-lasting partnerships; rather it is how they deal with their differences, how they talk across those differences that determine their success. Do they respect each other, treat these differences with courtesy, acceptance and understanding? Are they curious about what makes them different from one another, willing to see the other's differences as something that expands their life -- a "both-and" position -- or are they caught up in an "either-or" stance, a competition where one of them has to win? Acceptance and courtesy can sustain a couple with enormous "differences"; even small differences, if treated with contempt and scorn, will likely lead to the end of the relationship.
So this idea of difference doesn't have to be threatening, but it is still often used to stir up hatred and fear of "the other", those whose external differences may be more pronounced and visible. It's easy to forget, when someone dresses very differently, or has different customs, or just looks physically different, that we still share our human experience. As Shylock said, "If you cut me, do I not bleed?" (I paraphrase). We all share the human experiences of joy and suffering, pleasure and pain, of love for our children and families, and fear of the unknown. These common challenges of living are far more powerful, if we can tap into them, than the differences of culture and behavior that sometimes seem so insurmountable.
Prayer: Dear God, You taught us to pray, "Our Father". Help me see that all people are your children, and thus my brothers and sisters, no matter how different from me they may appear. Help me to see that common human connection, even when I may be turned off or frightened, so that I can honor it and open my heart to those who have been pushed aside because they don't "fit in". Amen.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Their ways are different
Esther 3:8 Haman then spoke with King Xerxes. "There is an odd set of people scattered through the provinces of your kingdom who don't fit in. Their customs and ways are different from everybody else."
These are the words that introduce a plan for genocide. This is what Hitler told Germany, although the proposed genocide is more like Rwanda than Hitler's final solution: the plan is that on a particular day the whole country will rise up and murder all the Jews they can find. It's actually sent out as a proclamation! There are two assumptions buried here, which form the faulty logic that provides the foundation for actions such as these. The first assumption is that "we" are all alike, or at least more alike than we are different from "them." You only have to look at families to see the falsity of that assumption. Totally monocultural families still often have differences in them that tear them apart. Think of wealthy families who come apart at the seams when a key person dies as they fight over the spoils. Look at the very beginnings of the human family, as the Bible describes it: the story of Cain and Abel. There was difference enough here to provide the basis for murder. We get into the same problem when we talk about sex differences. When we say things about large groups, it tends to emphasize differences between groups, and minimizes differences within groups, but there are probably more differences between individual men then there are differences between the large group called "men" and the large group called "women", and you could say the same about the female half of the species. Each of us is unique. That necessitates differences between each one of us, and you can't eliminate that without making us all the same. Uniqueness is the gift of our personalities and the particular array of qualities and abilities that make us who we are; it is embodied in our ego-consciousness. My friend Ron likes to say that ego, in this sense, is a gift of the spirit, but that it tends to get out of hand.
The second assumption, though, is even more fallacious, yet it is a belief that is probably widely held. That assumption is that it is "difference" that is the problem, the reason that we "can't get along" as Rodney King so famously intoned. Take couples. It is often assumed that the more you have in common -- i.e. the less difference between you -- that the better and stronger a foundation you have for the marriage. Current research shows, however, that it is not the amount of difference that matters; it is how the couple deals with their differences, how they talk across those differences, that makes a difference in whether they succeed or fail at establishing their relationship. Are they respectful and courteous with one another, or are they judgmental and critical? Are they available to their partner, or do they stonewall and withdraw? Does each partner need the other to share their perspective in order to feel validated? Or can we view each other with honor and respect, recognize what is different and still feel grounded in our own point of view?
These two assumptions are still used to stir up fear and hatred. People who are "different" must be wrong, otherwise I would be wrong and that thought is intolerable. So we find at the base of this whole issue is some level of uncertainty with who I am. Am I okay if no one agrees with me, or I do things differently? We are social creatures, it is natural to look to our interpersonal context to get a reflection of who we are, but if we, as children, get the respect we need for our differences, we can grow up confident even in a very diverse world. And the very basis of that acceptance and respect is the fact that each of us is a loved child of God, whether we know it or not. The prayer that Jesus gave us starts, "Our father" not "My father". I heard of a very interesting exercise on those two words. The attendees at a retreat were invited to go out and notice the people who felt most different, those that make us say "Thank God I'm not like them!", those that give us the willies. They were to look at those people and say these two words, "Our father" and remember that that person, that really out there human being, is my brother or sister. Those two words, lived out in faith and love, can do away with the fear and hatred that makes the idea of "difference" such a lightning rod for violence.
Prayer: Dear God, I know there are many of your children that I reject in my heart. I also know that You love them. I pray that through Christ my heart may expand as He continues His work in me, until I see all human beings as your children, no matter what their estate, their background, their color, their qualities, their religion or ideologies. Amen.
These are the words that introduce a plan for genocide. This is what Hitler told Germany, although the proposed genocide is more like Rwanda than Hitler's final solution: the plan is that on a particular day the whole country will rise up and murder all the Jews they can find. It's actually sent out as a proclamation! There are two assumptions buried here, which form the faulty logic that provides the foundation for actions such as these. The first assumption is that "we" are all alike, or at least more alike than we are different from "them." You only have to look at families to see the falsity of that assumption. Totally monocultural families still often have differences in them that tear them apart. Think of wealthy families who come apart at the seams when a key person dies as they fight over the spoils. Look at the very beginnings of the human family, as the Bible describes it: the story of Cain and Abel. There was difference enough here to provide the basis for murder. We get into the same problem when we talk about sex differences. When we say things about large groups, it tends to emphasize differences between groups, and minimizes differences within groups, but there are probably more differences between individual men then there are differences between the large group called "men" and the large group called "women", and you could say the same about the female half of the species. Each of us is unique. That necessitates differences between each one of us, and you can't eliminate that without making us all the same. Uniqueness is the gift of our personalities and the particular array of qualities and abilities that make us who we are; it is embodied in our ego-consciousness. My friend Ron likes to say that ego, in this sense, is a gift of the spirit, but that it tends to get out of hand.
The second assumption, though, is even more fallacious, yet it is a belief that is probably widely held. That assumption is that it is "difference" that is the problem, the reason that we "can't get along" as Rodney King so famously intoned. Take couples. It is often assumed that the more you have in common -- i.e. the less difference between you -- that the better and stronger a foundation you have for the marriage. Current research shows, however, that it is not the amount of difference that matters; it is how the couple deals with their differences, how they talk across those differences, that makes a difference in whether they succeed or fail at establishing their relationship. Are they respectful and courteous with one another, or are they judgmental and critical? Are they available to their partner, or do they stonewall and withdraw? Does each partner need the other to share their perspective in order to feel validated? Or can we view each other with honor and respect, recognize what is different and still feel grounded in our own point of view?
These two assumptions are still used to stir up fear and hatred. People who are "different" must be wrong, otherwise I would be wrong and that thought is intolerable. So we find at the base of this whole issue is some level of uncertainty with who I am. Am I okay if no one agrees with me, or I do things differently? We are social creatures, it is natural to look to our interpersonal context to get a reflection of who we are, but if we, as children, get the respect we need for our differences, we can grow up confident even in a very diverse world. And the very basis of that acceptance and respect is the fact that each of us is a loved child of God, whether we know it or not. The prayer that Jesus gave us starts, "Our father" not "My father". I heard of a very interesting exercise on those two words. The attendees at a retreat were invited to go out and notice the people who felt most different, those that make us say "Thank God I'm not like them!", those that give us the willies. They were to look at those people and say these two words, "Our father" and remember that that person, that really out there human being, is my brother or sister. Those two words, lived out in faith and love, can do away with the fear and hatred that makes the idea of "difference" such a lightning rod for violence.
Prayer: Dear God, I know there are many of your children that I reject in my heart. I also know that You love them. I pray that through Christ my heart may expand as He continues His work in me, until I see all human beings as your children, no matter what their estate, their background, their color, their qualities, their religion or ideologies. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)