Guest Post: On Disability & Education

I was asked to "think aloud for the common good" from my area of expertise, which happens to be special education. This is the first of what will be a semi-regular blog posts over at A Blog of Bears.

Check it out: http://ablogofbears.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/on-disabilities-education/

NY::2013::Resolutions

I don't generally do resolutions, but that doesn't mean that I don't set goals. This year, though, I'm going to put myself out there. So, here are a 25 resolutions for 2013.

1. Save up enough to finally take our long-delayed honeymoon. We just celebrated 10 years of marriage. It's time. (*Note: See below for the long story.)
2. Pay off our car note. Early. It's scheduled for 2014 and we're on pace to pay it off a few months early already, but I want to make it happen sooner.
3. Take the kids camping.
4. Take my son to his first Grizzlies game. And to his first Tiger basketball game. And to his first Tiger football game. He's old enough now.
5. And take both kids to Redbirds games. At least once per month during the season. It's just $5.
6. Ride the trolley. Once per month. The kids love it.
7. Take family strolls. VECA Greenline, Mississippi River, Patriot Lake at Shelby Farms, etc. Once per week, weather pending.
8. Have regular date nights. Could we afford once per month?
9. Shave. Keep my neck and cheeks shaved, and my beard trimmed.
10. Eat breakfast. More than once or twice per week.
11. Bring lunch to work from home.
12. Cook more, entertain more, eat out less.
13. Exercise. I'm so out of shape. And my belly is getting too big.
14. Laugh.
15. Listen.
16. Have a good attitude. And complain less.
17. Email less. Have conversations instead.
18. Read a book to the kids each day.
19. Read a book for myself each month.
20. Write regularly. Once per week. And submit proposals for conferences.
21. Do the dishes more often. Three times per week.
22. Watch more movies with my wife. (We sit next to each other in bed, with his and hers laptops, watching separate shows and films on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon.) Is once per week doable? Can we agree on what to watch?
23. Give away some money. Give365, maybe?
24. Give away some time and energy. It's hard to do with a busy schedule and kids, but it's possible.
25. Apply for the New Memphis Institute (formerly Leadership Academy) Fellows program.

_________________________________________________________________________________

*Note from #1: I worked at FedEx when we were married, which meant two things. One, I didn't have much money, and I paid a large portion of the rehearsal dinner myself, so how to afford a big honeymoon was a problem. Two, we got married during peak holiday time, which at FedEx means you don't get days off; we were doing well for me to get Friday night off for the rehearsal dinner, so I definitely had to be back on Monday night. But we did stay downtown at the Talbot Heirs Guesthouse and have a great couple days. We've been broke ever since, then had kids, and are only now starting to get in a position to save up for a long-delayed trip.

Trinity: God as Community

Trinity Sunday: God as Community

Lutheran pastor Nadia Bolz-Weber has this apt description of Trinity Sunday: “God is three persons and one being. God is one and yet three. The father is not the son or the Spirit, the son is not the father or the Spirit, the spirit is not the Father or the Son. But the Father Son and Spirit all are God and God is one. … So to review. 1+1+1=1. “

And then she goes on to ask, “Where’s the good news in that? God as bad at Math?”

I’m afraid that’s how a lot of us feel.

Frankly, I was not a trinitarian for a long time, but the work of the German theologian Jurgen Moltmann made me rethink my position. I’m not quite sure where I stand, but Moltmann certainly makes me want to believe. He makes a compelling case for the Trinity.

(1) Can We Experience the Trinity?

Moltmann asks: “Must not trust be something we can experience?...Is it possible to talk about the triune God out of personal experience?” This is generally a way to argue against the Trinity, but not for Moltmann. The normal argument here is from the relationship with God from the human side -- We are dependent on God for our existence, and the one-ness of God is what is central to that, with the three persons as secondary. In other words, the common understanding is that God is primarily One -- and only then can we talk about the Three.

But Moltmann takes the interesting position that there are two sides to every relationship, so we can’t just consider our experience of God; we have to also consider God’s experience with us. And this is where he finds the Trinity as primary for the nature of God. God cannot -- or should not -- says Moltmann, be forced into the narrow confines of finite human existence; rather than discovering God in the self, we must find our self and our existence within God. Look to Scripture, he says: “The Bible is the testimony of God’s history with men and women, and also the the testimony of God’s experiences with men and women.”

So, what does Scripture say about God’s experience of us? Moltmann argues that the narrative of Scripture is that “the history of the world is the history of God’s suffering.” He points back to the oppression in Egypt, to the cry of Jesus on the cross, to the groaning of all creation waiting. And he says that this is the key to understanding the Trinity: “God suffers with us -- God suffers from us -- God suffers for us. And so he says that conversations on the doctrine of the Trinity must take place in the context of the question about God’s capacity or incapacity for suffering.

What say you? Can God suffer? We’ll come back to this and discuss why this is so crucial to Moltmann’s understanding of the Trinity.

(2) How do we apply the Trinity?

Moltmann asks a second question: “Is the doctrine of the Trinity a practical truth?” This too is a common critique of trinitarian thinking. The argument is that action is primary, ethics is what is important, with reflection and theory secondary. And the Trinity clearly falls within the latter category. Thus, the important thing is relieving suffering, loving our neighbor, etc. And what does the Trinity have to do with this?

But Moltmann argues that action and meditation can’t be so easily separated, that the merely pragmatic is activism and not the gospel. He says that the modern way of thinking is to say that “Knowledge is power.” What this does is make knowledge a tool for domination. On the other hand, the ancient church Fathers (and, yes, they were men) understood knowledge as wonder. Knowing the other did not mean conquest, but rather fellowship.

So, how do you understand knowledge? Is knowledge about possession of something or someone? Is knowledge about power? Or is knowledge about wonder, about community, about fellowship?

(3) Which comes first, the One or the Three?

Moltmann says that it is a fundamental mistake to start with the One-ness of God, the unity of God, and then proceed to talk about the Trinity. He says that you have to start with the Trinity and only then talk about the unity of the Three. It’s not unity exactly, but tri-unity -- and that assumes there is something to be united. He calls his approach the social doctrine of the Trinity, arguing that the fellowship, the community, the relationships within the Godhead are primary.

In community, we do not have a single fixed role. Let’s think of some of the different roles we play. For example, I am father, but I am also son; I am teacher, but I am also student; etc.

So we see that our roles change. Moltmann argues that the same thing happens within the Godhead. At different times, a different Person takes the lead, but the basic structure is always present. So, he speaks of the “creation of the Father,” the “incarnation of the Son,” and the “transfiguration of the Spirit.” And yet, because creation is not solely an act of the Father, he argues for a “trinitarian creation;” likewise, he argues for a “trinitarian incarnation” and a “trinitarian glorification.”

To explain this, he goes back to the ancient Greek church, the Orthodox tradition, and the concept of “perichoresis.” The meaning is interpenetration. It means a flow, a continuous cycle, a mutual indwelling, an intimacy -- not merely an embrace, but a penetration into the other so that the different Persons are actually interconnected.

A big part of this is that the Three Persons become truly equal. The way we usually think of the Trinity is that God the Father is the head and Jesus is of course important, but it’s questionable whether he is really God. And then the the Holy Spirit is just a third wheel. But, if different Persons take the lead at different times, if the Godhead is a community of equals, then you avoid subordination in the doctrine of the Trinity.

If God exists as community, if God exists as fellowship, then the outcome of that is that the structure of the universe is one of community and fellowship. And this is where we come back to why God has to have the capacity to suffer. To be a community means to suffer when another suffers, to suffer with and for one another, to be moved by and affected by each other. But also the community that is God is not a closed union; rather, it is a community that is open and inviting to creation. In other words, the Godhead isn’t just a community unto itself, but rather the community that is God seeks to form community with us. In that case, just as God delights in and for and with us, God also suffers.

And then here’s the payoff. Hollow, feel-good, bleeding-heart activism is given a depth of meaning. The reason we look to end all forms of oppression and form a community is because that’s what God is like, that’s how the fabric of the universe has been woven from the very beginning.

It is generally true that your understanding of God will determine your preferred political structures. The traditional understanding of a Lord God gets you a human lord subjugating the rest of us. Monotheism leads to monarchy. But a trinitarian God, a relationship of equal importance and equal value, leads to a democratic structure, to a participatory and communal way of life.


The same can be said of the church: Instead of a hierarchical church polity, you get a congregational church polity and the priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church. (This is why I wrote a paper once on why Moltmann should be a Baptist!)

And so the Trinity actually is very practical. The Trinity is why we fight against injustice and oppression, the Trinity is what drives us to build community, the Trinity is at the root of the call to love our neighbor. It is the Trinity that gives meaning to such pursuits.

The social doctrine of the Trinity in a nutshell. Thanks be to God.

Personhood and Abortion (and Mississippi)

In case you haven't heard, legislators in the great state of Mississippi want to define "personhood" so that abortion is deemed illegal. I'm not particularly interested in discussing abortion - not today at least. What I want to discuss is the merits, or lack thereof, concerning this amendment.

The problem is that the legislators equate "person" and "life" and "human." Philosophically, I do not.

A strong case can be made that human life begins at the time of conception. Indeed, that is one of the strongest arguments made in support of the amendment. But so what? This doesn't mean that a fertilized egg is a person.

At that point, at conception, there is nothing near what we would call a human being. There is life. There is something that will - or at least has the potential to - develop into a human being. But there just is not a person.

To help clarify the issue, I propose that we distinguish between three terms. One, obviously, is "person." The other two are "human being" and "human life."

So, how will this help? Well, for a Mississippi legislature, it probably won't, because they'd have to start over. But for those of us who truly want to define the issue, it really will help.

Okay, so what are we talking about?

Let's start with "human life." As stated above, I actually think these Mississippians have a strong case when they argue that life begins at conception. Thus, I don't have a problem calling an embryo a "human life." But it doesn't make sense to me to call an embryo either a "human being" or a "person."

Next is "human being." The beginning point for this category can lie at several different places; it's a bit subjective, depending on what you consider to be a "human being." At the very latest, it begins with birth. However, I would push strongly for beginning this category no later than that point where a fetus can survive outside the womb - somewhere in the range of weeks 23-28 of pregnancy, toward the end of the 2nd trimester or the beginning of the 3rd trimester. I can accept this as a "human being." Still, though, I can't really call this a "person" yet.

The last category, then, is "person." Where this category starts is not entirely clear either. Some would say that it begins with birth, and I am okay with that. But, really, I would prefer to attach "personhood" to a certain level consciousness. To me, it is our level of consciousness, our level of awareness - this is the human characteristic that sets us apart from other animals.

Clearly, these categories overlap. "Person" is always added to "human being," which is always added to "human life," although the reverse is not true. Thus, all persons are human beings, but not all human beings are persons. And, all human beings are human life, but not all human life is a human being. And, all persons are human life, but not all human life is a person.

Now, "human life" obviously ends with death. Likewise, death is also the end of a "human being." However, while death may be the end of a "person," it is not necessarily so. Since "personhood" is attached to a certain level of consciousness, "personhood" can leave when that level of consciousness leaves, which may actually be before death.

I hope it is clear why we would want to make these distinctions. I think these categories make sense. And there are several ways they can be applied. However, for our current discussion - the Mississippi "Personhood Amendment" - you can see that "personhood" is the wrong category for their purposes. You can't abort a "person," according to these categories.

More Human Than Human

Jesus is, to me, "more human than human," to quote Rob Zombie. Although I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about Jesus.

Our lesson this morning was on who Jesus is, using Mark 8.27-31 as the text. That's where Jesus asks his disciples who people say that he is - and then turns the question on them. So, today, we discussed who Jesus is to us. I have a fairly unorthodox view of Jesus, so get ready. (I'm warning you ahead of time, so it's not my fault if you get offended.)

I've mentioned before that I don't find a sinless, divine Christ very satisfying. I think Jesus is human, which is to say just like me and you. But it is pretty obvious that, actually, Jesus is not really like us. I think that's why we are so quick to assign divinity to him. Since I don't find that helpful, I have to figure out another way to explain why Jesus is so different from us.

And that's where Rob Zombie comes in. If we are human, Jesus is more human than human. But what I really mean is that Jesus is the most human person who has ever lived, whereas we are actually less than human. Let me state that another way: Jesus seems divine because he is human, which is more than we can say for ourselves.

So, now, let's flesh that out a little. What does it mean for Jesus to be the most human person to ever live? Well, to answer that, we first must address the question of what it means to be human. If you want to get all fancy, we have to do some theological anthropology. And that's where things get interesting to me.

I look to Genesis 1.27 to find out what it means to be human. "God created humankind in God's image," it reads. So, what does it mean to be human? It means to be the image of God. Now, when someone says that my son looks like the spit and image of me, what they mean is that he looks just like me. I think that's what it means to be human - to look just like God, to be so at one with God that God shines through you. That's what I think it means to be human, and that describes Jesus perfectly. And it also explains the tendency to ascribe divinity to Jesus.

But what about us? Aren't we human? Well, let's look back to the definition of human. Are we the image of God? At times, I would argue, yes. On the whole, however, absolutely not. Today, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, is the perfect day to reflect on that. Just look at the violence and death that cause us to remember this day - and look at the violence and death that is still ongoing ten years later in response.

So, are we human? No, we aren't worthy of the name. The image of God does not kill, does not accept such social stratification, does not turn a blind eye to exploitation, does not allow millions of children to die of starvation and curable diseases.

God is Love. And so the image of God must reflect the Love that is God. We don't do that.

And yet that image of God is still within us. You see it in every act of love. You see it in every act of hospitality. You see it when the Other is welcomed, when the stranger is invited in. You see it when forgiveness occurs. You see it when dialogue is chosen over violence, when the other cheek is turned rather than the fist raised. You see it when we raise up our voices instead of lounging around in apathy and complacency. You see it in the streets, when the people rise up in protest and demand to be treated as humans. You can see humanity, probably most of all, in children, which is why Jesus was so eager to welcome them.

Are we human? Yes and no. Already and not yet. Jesus shows us what is possible. In fact, Jesus said that we could not only do what he did, but that we could do even greater things. We should take that as a challenge. That's the way I operate - and that's the way I try to get my students to operate. If someone says that I can't do something, I want to prove them wrong. And if I can't do something right now, I will not rest until I figure out how.

That's is our goal, our purpose, our reason for being - to figure out a way to be human, to be the image of God, to be so transparent that the divine shines right through us.

Dr. King proclaimed, "I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land." Jesus allows us to look over, to see what is possible, to see what is promised

"I may not get there with you," Dr. King continued. And we may not reach the status of human, of image of God, in our lifetime.

"But I want you to know," Dr. King concluded, "that we as a people will get to the promised land." Yes, Lord, we will become human one day. We shall overcome, one day, the inhumanity, the less-than-human in us. We will grow into the humanity that is in us.

And here is where my French buddy, Jacques Derrida, may he rest in peace, starts getting antsy, excited, exclaiming, "Veins, Oui, Oui!"

Amen.