DOUBT

 In theatre and often in literature, we’re obsessed with the human condition. It resonates deep within us. Its explanatory power is beyond words. It drives and gives arc to the stories we tell. It connects us.

I thought about this recently as a new religious historian was doing a lot of interviews about his new book on Jesus. More specifically than the broad category of history-writing, I’m fascinated by biography writing because it requires nothing less than empathy.

The act of writing a biography or of putting yourself in the shoes of another is a powerful, powerful exercise. This same act is something that helped to re-awaken Karen Armstrong who left her faith for years. If you ever encounter anyone you dislike or hate, simply begin to write his biography. Try to understand what motivated and motivates him, and the humanity--the very thing that runs in your veins--begins to fill the face of the other with colour . . .

As Lesley Hazleton, an award-winning, British-American writer, did just this while working on a biography of the life of Muhammad, she was amazed that, in Muhammad’s own words, at the moment of his revelatory vision, his first emotions were doubt. He didn’t believe what had happened and thought it was either a hallucination or a possession by an evil spirit that was trying to kill him. Afterwards, upon finding himself still alive, his first impulse was to finish the evil spirit’s job and kill himself and leap off the cliff. He came down that mountain in fear and doubt. And it was precisely this doubt that allowed Hazleton to afford him the integrity of the experience specifically because doubt is essential to faith. Strip doubt, and you’re possibly left with heartless conviction.

Hazleton has given a beautiful TED talk on doubt and her experience writing The First Muslim. You should watch it.

CORRECTIONS

I normally like to take a moment to correct anything from the last update. Usually these corrections come from readers who point out how silly I am trying to write about so many things (but these are really just thoughts in my head). So here are the updates or corrections from last time.

First, my intelligent friend Alex mentioned that he also noticed that British television shows don’t last as long as U.S. American shows. He believes part of that is due to the fact that we pay for a TV license here in order to have television service. I never knew to whom it goes. Alex explained that this annual fee goes to broadcasters and may give them much more financial protection to try out new shows and series. Good point.

The second correction was related to the section called The Town. I worded the section on "The Town" poorly. What my friend, Praj told me is absolutely true and much more nuanced: people have good parts and bad parts (as opposed to Hitler being all bad). I think what I was referring to in that section was contradictory messages. Does Hitler love and care about humanity? In one context, you might say yes (in the magazine article); in another you might say no. Hitler himself would say yes and tried to construct an image of what he wanted the world to see or know (he did the exact same thing at the concentration camp at Theresien in which he invited the world to see what was going on, showing himself as a really great guy who was treating the people there well). So I was (poorly) pointing to the fact that the truth of us in not in our constructed image of ourselves (which does involve actions in order to construct the image) but in our actions outside of the construct.

I am focusing on the phenomenon when your words differ from your deeds. Are you the deeds or the words? Some people would say it’s possible to believe one thing and your actions show another. Instead of being able to believe one thing and do another, I was simply talking about the fact that what you do is not separate from what you believe but what you do is the very thing you believe (the truth lying in your actions). So instead of Hitler’s hate-filled, genocidal actions being different than his love of humanity, I would argue that he did not have a love of humanity which is borne out in his deeds regardless of the image he portrays or the beliefs he says he has (his true beliefs being his actions).

Again, Praj brought up an excellent point saying that he wasn’t sure if some groups pursuing profit is a bad thing (if there are other groups helping people). I tried to be careful with my wording about the job (and at work). I actually wasn't commenting on profit-driven organisations (though I could comment on it). I think my main point, poorly conveyed, was that the role given to me is not what was advertised to me and not what I wanted to do. So if people want to go to India and create a certification programme and call it an educational programme and help upwardly mobile people get jobs when they would be competitive without the presence of the programme, that's fine. And people can make money doing that. What I've tried to communicate at work is that picture/vision is not what I wanted to create/do. It's ok if someone else wants to do that, and I don't begrudge him or her. However, I didn't go to London to only teach Company products (and wasn't told that) or to do the kind of work where we're jumping on moving trains or work that helps grow the GDP and inequality together. It's just not what I wanted, and as other people get to choose what they would like to do, I think I'd like to do something else. I also thought I would be working partly in the philanthropic arm of the company, so it was sad that didn't work out. :-)

The toughest part in such situations is that your opinion is not valued or understood. People think because it’s a for-profit technology company we’re not doing development work. Unfortunately, many groups do development work besides just international and community development organisations. And if we enter into the education field, we’re doing development work. I’ve been told that you don’t sit and force teachers to sit through an entire year of schooling so they learn the material they are going to prepare. This was one of the strangest comments told to me to show why we didn’t need to teach the material to future trainers. What was not understood is that teachers (people who major in a specific academic field or education) [should] already know the material they are to teach; this is why they don’t sit through an entire year of the subject they will teach. When I have had to teach teachers new things like how to incorporate engineering into science curriculum, I have most definitely taught the teachers just as they will teach the students. This type of thing where I’m asked my opinion as the education person but whenever there is a disagreement, my opinion is disregarded or dropped or dismissed—this happens again and again and again. And it has an effect on you even though people expect it to have none.

The last correction or amendment I wanted to make was to the section called Women in the last update.

BELONGING, BEHAVIOR, & BELIEF

(Thoughts sparked by Peter Rollins)

I said that I currently don’t think the Way Jesus lived and about which he spoke is based on belief. I do not mean belief is absent. I’m just saying it’s not fundamental, the way we use it to divide ourselves in North American society. I was reminded this the other day when I was thinking about a baby.

A baby is born into a family. And instantly it is accepted. It is welcomed. It is loved. It is given a first name and immediately has a last name. It belongs to the family. It belongs.

Later, the baby grows up and begins to take part in the life of the family. The baby becomes a child and shares in regular practices or rituals with the family. They eat together, they play together, they shop together. They may go to church together, sing songs together, pray together, dance together, and watch movies together. This child now shares in communal behavior. She behaves a certain way.

Later, still, the child begins to question some of the beliefs she was taught. This self-examination period could last an uncertain amount of time. But the child, now a teenager, begins to reaffirm some of the beliefs of her parents and dissents with other beliefs of her parents. Some become her own and others are rejected and let go.

What is amazing about this is not that she believes some things her parents do or that she does things her parents do or that she belongs to her family. The amazing beauty is the order. She first belongs regardless of beliefs. She then hangs out and shares in common practices and rituals regardless of beliefs. Finally she learns to believe certain things (many will be shaped by that experience).

Why is that novel? Well, in the church we have done the opposite. We have said you cannot be a part of us (you’re not one of us) unless you believe, until you believe. Even more, you cannot participate in our common practices and rituals until you believe, without belief. So we have been taught, learned, and continue the practice of exclusion based on belief. It is many arenas---democrat versus republican, left versus right, etc. I see it all the time in D.C. and it makes my stomach churn. Why does it matter? Jesus, the person on whom Christianity is supposed to based, did the opposite.

He first accepted unconditionally 12 guys, mostly from the lower class of society. He didn’t ask them what they believed, he didn’t ask them to believe anything. He just said, “Come and follow me.” They were welcomed and loved, without doing or believing a thing. In fact Jesus did this with a lot of people. As I write in another section, he didn’t hang out with ex-tax collectors and ex-prostitutes, he hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors among others. He loved people unconditionally before any change in belief or action.

Once in his circle (and there more than just the inner circle of 12), people joined him in communal practices and rituals. They broke bread and ate together. They sat and listened to stories and parables together. They hung out with the poor and children together. They fed people. They healed people together. They spent time with those with no friends, no family. They loved people. They befriended the unfriendly; they loved enemies. They spoke with the occupiers. They healed the lame, the blind, the lepers (those with skin diseases). All this was done without a single plea or appeal to change their belief of God or who hey thought Jesus was.

In fact, it wasn’t until after joining Jesus and after already participating in shared practices that Jesus asked them who people thought Jesus was. They gave him answers like “Some say Elijah” and “Others say John the Baptist.” Jesus then asked them who they believed (key word) he was. Peter spoke up and for the first recorded time, we find that he believes that Jesus is the Messiah, the awaited one spoken of in the scriptures of the Jewish community. Belief came last. Belief came last. Not only did it come last, it wasn’t fundamental but a natural outworking of belonging to this community of Jesus and learning to do the things that Jesus did.

I believe in the power of change by behavior especially behavior of service. It’s the guiding principle I accidentally “discovered” and used while teaching and still use to this day especially in my own life. I never saw Jesus exclude people on the basis of belief. And I love churches and places where people are accepted even if they disagree with what is said, where people are allowed to ask questions when they don’t understand including questions without answers, where people are loved, forgiven, and welcomed unconditionally into a community that practices the Way.