Monday, November 6, 2023

On leave, continued

  On leave, continued 

So many writers and so few readers. - André Gide, The Vatican Cellars

I tried to write this, about the Western Christian Church, in capital letters, but they were too big for me. When you are ill then continue to be ill after everyone thinks you should be better (because the doctor assures them you are; she assures them that she has assured you that you are) —  it is a time to think about matters of religion. But not in caps. You are not a bishop, a doctor of theology, or a popular philosopher or historian; you don’t belong to any of the public intellectual or opinion-making classes.
     You can think that the church is in its last days, even here in one of its last strongholds. But it’s hardly an original thought, it’s not your thought, you know that. But, you can see with your own eyes that if it is declining, it is still a place for funerals, actually more and more of them as those that came of age or into their thirties in the church’s 1950s heyday succumb. Its bells are tolling, you can hear with your own ears.
     It is decreasingly a place for baptisms, even with grandparents wanting to insist
they find they cannot. Then, do they look into their hearts and ask themselves how important it is, baptism, and do they ask themselves then, “What do I believe finally?”

One of the bells tolling
To that question, my friend, John Woodstain, says that he doesn’t know anymore. There was a time he could say; but that time has passed: he’s become both more addled and less certain. Still, he’s in his damn (his word) — his damn — Presbyterian church practically every Sunday.
     He says “damn,” but he doesn’t regret going — or if he sometimes regrets the going, he doesn’t, he insists, regret the having gone. He leaves with a “satisfied” sense of having been part of the church in its last days, part of a story that, after a long and adventurous life, is coming to a relatively peaceable end. Someone has to enjoy, even treasure, the old as it’s being run over by the new. At least, the old knows what it is, John believes,  even if he can no longer say. The new, whatever it believes, is only becoming.

                                                                         
10.29.23

Sunday, October 29, 2023

On leave

‘ankles crossed’
phone drawing by m ball

 On leave 

Yes. I have been absent, but not without leave, which I granted myself after plans gang agley.
     The surgery, I was assured, was minor: that which was to be removed was small — a toenail, a tooth, a testicular something-or-other — it doesn’t matter which. Fade to dusk under light anesthesia and swim back into the light of day soon enough, though: “You’ll need someone to drive you home.”
     Be driven home. Take your antibiotics (
amoxicillin — pot clavul 875) until you run out and your small oxy (oxycodone hcl 5 mg) until it does. Rest, but don’t skip any meals. Plenty of liquids. And: All will be well, and all manner of thing will be soon well. Come back in two weeks; you can drive yourself.
     Nothing can go agley but what will: We live in the air, not in a lab; we live through unrecoverable time, not in repeatable experiments.
     Still, that we can measure them (the air and time) does not mean they can’t expand and contract — and multiply and divide — and, even asleep, blow raspberries at our barometers, and our clocks and calendars.
     “Selah,” Roz says. “Yes,” I agree.
                                                                           10.29.23

Sunday, October 15, 2023

Shaggy-dog story

 Shaggy-dog story 

My brother-in-law, Ike, declares there is no such thing as bad pizza. There is great pizza, very good pizza, good pizza; there can be mediocre pizza. But there is no bad pizza. My sister, Hannah, adheres to a similar stance with regard to costume melodramas: the worst are not bad at all if they have the primary ingredients, their crust and toppings: that is, a plot of some sort though it may meander (crust), and costumes and sizzle; villains, rogues, and heroines that overcome, cinderellas, or at least younger sisters, that emerge from the ashes, or the embers, to wear the best dresses of all the dresses and off camera, and sometimes even on, will pee in the pure-goldest of golden pots (toppings). In her most recent, set in 18th-century Spain, the King is going mad and the Queen is going mad and everyone is sleeping with everyone else except for the chaste wife of Don Diego. In bedrooms the size of the Great Salt Lake in castles the size of Utah with grounds swallowing up Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico, everyone, everyone is sleeping with and blackmailing everyone else, upstairs and downstairs, male and female, the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, and the beasts of the field and the forest. This is the way she talks about her shows, like an Evangelical priest on color TV; it always amazes me. But ...

Melodrama Pizza, delivery
Since they live in a small town on the Upper Peninsula, where the truly poor get enough casino money to live in houses with modern appliances, maybe even pizza ovens, with security cameras, and with flat-screens the size of one wall — at least so Ike and Hannah see it — they think, “Such is life.” It can be anywhere from grand to mediocre, but if you don’t eff up, it will never be bad. Even if you do eff up, county and/or tribal mental health will catch you, and the one or the other will wrap you in a blanket until you are ready to come home again.
     It may not be a sophisticated social philosophy, but it arises the way social philosophies arise even for the “more sophisticated,” out of observation and temperament. It doesn’t matter how widely you read, Uncle Albert says, it doesn’t whether you graduated from Harvard or Muskrat High, you end up thinking what you think based on what you think you see and what you think you are feeling. And you are also likely to think that whoever disagrees with you is either an uninformed cretin or an ivory-tower snob.
     “Who said this,” Uncle Albert says, “because I don’t remember: ‘Everyone has his prejudices, but thanks be to God, mine are the right ones’?”
     “Or hers,” Roz adds, “her prejudices.”
     “I don’t know,” I say.
     Roz: “You don’t know what?”
     “Who said it,” I say.
                                                                           10.14.23


Thursday, October 5, 2023

VA-effin'-R

 VA-effin’-R 

“Are you still writing about forgiveness?” Nils asked me from the other end of the phone. “I read what you wrote about the parable.”
     “Yes, I am,” I said. “Even today when I am writing about Premier League soccer.”
     “Well, that should be good!” Nils said.

“If it is, it’s because I am getting help.”
     “From?”
     “Rory Smith.”*
     “I’m impressed,” Nils said. I could have said, “Don’t be,” but I didn’t. But it’s not as if Rory called me, or I could call him. But he was writing about soccer as “entertainment.” And I was reading it, with interest. He was saying that it’s “an existential tension within soccer — in all sports — . . . . Is it, primarily, a form of entertainment? Or is that more accurately depicted as a byproduct of the activity? Is its actual aim to establish which team is better and which worse, and the fact that people seem to find it compelling just a happy accident?” I can answer that, “It’s entertainment. Not only primarily but secondarily as well. All of it: soccer, tennis, basketball, water polo, beach volleyball. Especially beach volleyball.” Or, it’s all entertainment except baseball.

     But Rory goes on to frame it in what he calls “less theoretical terms. This season, the all-knowing, all-seeing referees of the Premier League have decided that there is no greater threat to the well-being of the most popular leisure pastime the world has ever known than time-wasting.” So, “referees have shown a blizzard of yellow cards to players deemed guilty of time-wasting.” They agree with me that “players are entertainers, and therefore have a duty to provide as much entertainment as possible . . . . [And not] being sufficiently entertaining has now been turned into an offense.”
     What they haven’t cottoned onto: that they and their use of effing VAR are the guiltiest of all time-wasters; by far the least entertaining moments in any match are when it is stopped to consult someone watching a bank of cameras miles away from where anything we are interested in is happening. We can’t get rid of the referees — I don’t want to — but can’t we show the all-time red card to the damnedest time-waster of all-time time-wasting time? VA-effin’ R, if that wasn’t clear! Please.
     It’s a game. It’s imperfect. Don’t waste my time with a pursuit of perfection, when it can’t take you any closer to it than 15 to 18 takes you closer to infinity. *#//@&%*! I’d say if I said that sort of thing.
                                                                           10.05.23

_______________
* Tomorrow, Rory will write more cogently if less pungently about VAR here.

Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Excursus: Matthew 20:1-16

 Excursus: Matthew 20:1-16 

Uncle Albert mentioned this passage in last week’s post. Later, Roz asked me what the parable really meant, as if I could say. So, “I couldn’t say,” I said.
     “Well, think about it then,” Roz said. “Then say.” She was serious, I could tell. So, I did; and I read about it, and I talked to Axel about it, and I talked to Uncle Albert about it, and I even talked to Nils about it. I called our rector, Susan, the former Miss Virginia, to see if she had anything to say about it she hadn’t said the Sunday before, but I couldn’t reach her.
     Then, I wrote this, which I gave to Roz, who said, “What does it say?” — handing it back to me. And I read this (below), until she said, “Don’t read it to me. Tell me.” Then, I read it anyway mostly but in a telling voice: “One of the more difficult of Jesus’ parables, often called ‘The Workers in the Vineyard,’” I started.

It’s easier to think about what a story might mean if we know the circumstances in which the story is being told. You know that. It’s one thing to read a story in the newspaper; it’s another to hear it over the telephone from a friend. 
     Jesus is in four different, but related, conversations in chapter 19. The first, with the Pharisees about divorce, need not concern us here. In the second, he is telling his disciples to let the children come to him. “Do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he lays his hands on the children that come.
     The third is with the so-called “rich young ruler.” He wants to know what he needs to do to inherit eternal life. He should keep the commandments, Jesus suggests. “Which?” the young man asks. “You know: You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal or bear false witness. You shall honor your father and your mother. Finally, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” He has, the young man answers, all of them. He keeps the commandments. But he senses that isn’t all that’s involved, so he asks one more question, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” “If you would be perfect,” Jesus answers: “Go sell all that you have. Give it to the poor. Then, come follow me.” But the young man can’t accept Jesus’ invitation; he has too much to leave it behind. Unlike the children, who do come to Jesus, who have nothing to leave behind, just something to look forward to, meeting the rabbi, sitting on his lap, feeling his hand on their heads.
     In the last conversation, Jesus tells the disciples how difficult it will be for the rich to enter the kingdom. “Who will enter, then?” they want to know. Who knows? Jesus suggests. But we do know that with God nothing is impossible. “Will we?” the disciples ask. Yes, they will, for they have accepted Jesus’ invitation and left their homes to follow him.

Workers in the field.
Photo by Justin Russell

 So, to the parable of the workers in the vineyard. 
     If it is difficult, it is because it doesn’t go as we might expect or hope or want, because it isn’t complicated.
     This is what the kingdom of heaven is like: A landowner goes out early in the morning to hire workers to work in his vineyard. He finds some; they agree on an amount for their work, a denarius. (However much that is: we’re not entirely sure, incidentally.) And the landowner says, “Come, then”; and they do. The landowner goes out again—we don’t know why; interestingly, we don’t even know what season it is, whether he is planting or reaping or tending or what he is doing besides hiring workers. But the landowner goes out again—three times. He goes out at mid-morning and at noon and in the early afternoon, and he hires more workers each time. But, these don’t make an agreement with regard to an amount they will be paid. Instead, when the landowner says he will pay them whatever is right and says, “Come, then,” and they do.
     The landowner goes out yet again, in the late afternoon. The day is almost over. Still, he is hiring workers. Again, we don’t know why. But of these, he wants to know, “Why are they idle? Don’t they want to work?” They answer, “No one has hired us.” Again, we don’t know why, though it is often assumed that they haven’t been hired because they’re not hirable. But our landowner is still hiring. “You come into the vineyard as well,” he says. And they do. Nothing is said about payment. Nothing at all.

Not too long after the last-hired workers arrive, it is time to “reckon up.” The landowner instructs his steward to pay the workers, beginning with the last. He pays those (who have just arrived) first; and he pays them the denarius the first workers had agreed to. So, when the first workers come to be paid, they clearly expect more. And they are paid a denarius as well. They gripe. As we would. Fair is fair. If you pay someone who works an hour a denarius, then someone who works eight . . . ?
     But here is our problem. We have certain expectations about how work works: there is to be a clear connection between worker, work accomplished, and wages. If there isn’t, well, there ought to be. But not in our story. The connection becomes more and more tenuous, more and more questionable, as the story goes on. It begins with workers working for a specific wage, but their employer hires more and more and more and more workers, some at an indeterminate wage, some without talking about payment at all.
     So, maybe the story isn’t about wages after all, though you’ll never convince those who are convinced they worked the hardest. Because hard work ought to pay.
     It is worth noting that Jesus does not denigrate “work.” When the rich young ruler asks him what he should do, Jesus tells him. He tells the disciples that they will enter the kingdom because they have done this: they have come to follow him. But that isn’t work exactly, is it? Following Jesus. It isn’t always easy, but it isn’t exactly work, is it?
     But, again, the parable isn’t about work. It’s about following; it’s about accepting an invitation. That’s what the disciples have done—“Come, follow me,” Jesus has offered; and they have accepted the offer. “Come to me,” Jesus tells the children. (“Don’t stop them,” he tells the disciples.) The children, too, accept his offer. The rich man, sadly, declines. 

Come into the vineyard. Come into the kingdom, the landowner says, again and again and again, and again at the end of the day. The kingdom of heaven isn’t like where the early bird gets the worm and the later gets nothing at all. The kingdom of heaven isn’t like where the best and the brightest get the best and the brightest spots and the duller get the lower and the duller. But the kingdom is like a landowner who keeps going out and going out and going out and forever inviting in.
     It is like the father in the parable of the prodigal son. We get so focused on the spendthrift son and the angry older brother that we forget to watch the father. But, what does he do when he sees his younger son is coming home? He goes out to meet him and invites him in. What does he do when he hears his older son is outside sulking? He goes out to invite him in.
     This is what the kingdom is like, then. This is the nature of it in Jesus’ stories. God is always inviting us in. Morning, noon, and night. “Come,” Jesus says. “Come in. Follow me. All of you. Please.”

“I know you were reading that,” Roz said. “But thanks for trying.”

                                                                           10.03.23

Wednesday, September 27, 2023

Forgiveness, part 2

 Forgiveness, part 2 

“So,” Roz said. “How many learned about forgiveness this morning?”
     I had been delegated to church while she and Uncle Albert stayed home to tune in the (what would be massively disappointing) Arsenal-Tottenham fixture. (The match ended in a draw after a certain amount of luck on Tottenham’s behalf and the usual fussy shillyshallying from Arsenal: sixteen passes, advance an inch and a half, retreat.)
     “7,” I said. “I’ve had some grief about that post, incidentally,” meaning last week’s on forgiveness. “Apparently, at least according to many, forgiveness is not a virtue belonging to Christians as if no other could possess or exercise it.”
     “Oh!” Roz said, drawing it out, making the long-o as long as she could.

Uncle Albert has the good for-
tune to nap while Arsenal pass
the ball around going nowhere.
“Oh, indeed!” Uncle Albert shortened it considerably. “But did any of those many others read today’s lessons?” Which he had apparently, because he went on to enumerate, “the warnings against elevating fairness above . . . well, unfairness. How Jonah can’t stand it that God forgives the Ninevites, who don’t even believe in him, not to mention all the wickedness they — and their animals — are always up to. And how the diligent workers from morning to night can’t stand it that the dozy late-comers are paid as much as they are: generosity should have its limits, to be fair.”
     “So,” Roz said, picking up where she left off, ignoring Uncle Albert. “Only seven heard the lessons. Are the rest, however many billions, unable to forgive because they didn’t hear them?”
     “8.1,” Uncle Albert said. “8.1 billions minus 7 . . . individuals. And no, they aren’t unless they are willing to give up fairness for . . . .” He hesitated.
     “Unfairness?” Roz asked.
     “Yes,” Uncle Albert said. “Exactly. As I said.”

Later, before the half but after Roz had disappeared, he said to me, “Unless they can embrace unfairness. Be as unfair as God is unfair both to the Ninevites and to Jonah.”
     Later still, as the match was drawing to its untidy close: “After Christianity — even now — the obsession is with Justice. Capital-J. And It — capital-I — can’t let anything go because It has to take Everything into account.”
     (The capital E is mine though it is what I heard.)

At the close of the match, he blew a raspberry. Then he said, “What’s for lunch, do you think? And when?”
                                                                           09.26.23


Thursday, September 21, 2023

Forgiveness

 Forgiveness 

Roz didn’t intend to go to church with Uncle Albert and me; she was only going to help us up the stairs, then she was going to get a cup of coffee and come back to help us back down. But when she realized how little time she was going to have for her coffee, and then when she ran into our rector, the former Miss Virginia, at the top of the stairs, she decided to stay: to help us down the aisle to our seats and to help us to the communion rail for the body and blood. And in the interim to listen to the Bible and the message.
     The Bible was about the story in Genesis (50),* where Joseph forgives his brothers because even though they intended him harm, God intended it for good, in order to save many, including them, the ill-intending brothers, and their little ones. And about Psalm 103 and the God that forgives all our iniquities and heals all our diseases because he doesn't deal with us according to our sins; rather as far as the east is from the west, so far he removes them from us. And it was about The Apostle’s letter to the Romans (14) where he asks them shy they pass judgment on one another? why do they despise one another? Don’t we all stand before “the judgment seat of God”? — which, haven't we just heard, is all-forgiving? And finally, the Bible was about the story in Matthew 18, where Peter comes to Jesus to ask how often he should forgive, and Jesus tells him 77 times. That is, if he doesn’t want to stand before God’s judgment, which.
     And the sermon was about forgiveness, the vocation above all other vocations for the follower of Jesus.

St. Jude’s
The rest followed: the creed and the peace and the pages and pages of prayers and the kneeling at the rail then trying to get up again after the priest, the former Miss Virginia, said the eucharist has ended, go home. (Except, I think, she said the Eucharist.)
     And we did get up and we got down the aisle and we got out the door and we got down the stairs, with Roz’s help. And into the car, and on the way home, Roz looked at Uncle Albert sitting beside her and over her shoulder at me in the backseat behind him and said, “Why do you think, since all over the world today the message must be about forgiveness, no one is very forgiving, if at all?” And after a minute, Uncle Albert asked her how many people she guessed were in worship that morning at St. Jude’s? And she shrugged. He said, “8.”

“She is right, you know,” Uncle Albert said at the half of the extremely boring, indeed unrelievedly tedious, Everton-Arsenal match. He looked over at me. I muted Rebecca Lowe and the one Robbie and Lee Dixon. I looked vacantly back, meaning she who? “Miss Virginia,” he said. “Not that the other she, Roz, is wrong. But when the last Christian dies, probably not too long from now, forgiveness will disappear from the planet, for we are the only people that have a true vocation for it.”
     “Oh?” I said, meaning “You really think so?”
     “I mean true forgiveness,” Uncle Albert said. “Everyone else wants justice though some will pay lip service to mercy. But mercy is not the same as forgiveness. Actually, you have to have that vocation for forgiveness to know how far away it is,” Uncle Albert said.

                                                                           09.21.23
_______________
 * The passages, from the common lectionary for the sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost (September 17, 2023) are here.