The last 24 hours at St. Joe’s have been particularly interesting ones for JR, Colin, and I; more on that below. In the meantime, however, I must say that having had the great privilege of being able to bring an out-of-town family member to Evening Prayer the last couple nights has unwittingly forced the return of my frequently forgotten sense of the incredibly oddity that is …well, whatever it is that we do at St. Joe’s. For given the general consistency of those participating in the Daily Office there, it is easy for me to go through each day with a relative sense of normalcy in terms of all that goes along with that practice and the location of its particular enactment. More specifically, I guess rarely having to explain ourselves and our relationship with our neighbors on “the hill”, allows for a certain unconscious experience of the day’s events paralleling something akin to a routine banality. I’ve simply been habituated into what doing the Daily Office at St. Joe’s means, and rarely think much about it, at least by way of explanation. The questions that would and did inevitably come from the above-mentioned family member’s recent exposure to that routine, however, left (and still leaves) me stricken with a sense of the utter strangeness that is our life there. Just what is it, after all, that we are doing, exactly?
To illustrate by way of example, last night’s conclusion of Evening Prayer involved our being graced with the opportunity of meeting R. What quickly became apparent from our interactions with R, however, was that he presented a textbook case of Schizophrenia of the Disorganized Type (sometimes referred to as “hebephrenia”). After a rather confusing and lengthy bit of conversation, JR and I convinced him to stay the night at St. Joe’s with the promise of breakfast and whatever continued assistance we might be able to provide in the morning. Now, having worked in the mental health field, I have a sense of what would traditionally be done to help folks with psychological conditions similar to R's, but given our promise of aid in the morning (and perhaps sinfully feeling a perceived lack in requisite resources), I had to ask myself about what it is that we, as church, are to do exactly for such a one?
Jumping forward a little, somehow or other it seems I have been so privileged as to be typecast among our neighbors on “the hill” as the go to guy when it comes to meeting their ongoing need for cigarettes. And under the tutelage of my more pious and faithful brothers, I’ve begun (though only begun) to better learn just what it might mean to follow Jesus’ instructions to “give to him who asks.” (Matt 5:42) At any rate, this evening replayed Concrete’s increasingly common (and certainly not undeserved) request for Marlboros for he and the guys. When observed by O and the above-mentioned family member in handing over the boxes of smokes, however, and later confronted by O on my “rationale” for so doing, again, I was taken aback at the ambiguity and utter strangeness that life at St. Joe’s entails. For how does one negotiate the fulfilling of a request that one knows will bring eventual physical disruption as well as the immediacy of the desired comfort? Just what exactly are we doing in buying cigarettes for these friends, after all?
Perhaps here, in our final paragraph, you might expect the attempt at profundity by way of some sort of concluding and salutary answer to the questions posed above. But I must confess that both in the case of R’s disorder (that term being meant Thomistically) and in that of Concrete’s communal cigarette requests, I have nothing of substantive value to offer. Indeed, I have virtually no idea how to respond to such queries (leaving little to assuage my family member of her puzzled concerns). I suppose various answers could be proposed but I strongly suspect that these might mutually contradict each other and, at any rate, fail to capture, let alone explicate, the oddity of it all in its fullness. I’ll leave the telling of the rest of our story with R to JR or Colin, but I guess all of the above is simply an expression of my newly discovered gratitude, both to the inciting family member (and O) for her questions and to our Savior, our neighbors on “the hill”, and my partners-in-crime for the opportunity of their being asked. These, it seems, are questions in which we are meant to dwell. And I’m thankful for the chance to have entered that space, strange and difficult though it is.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
On Living Within the Questions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Wahoo! Adam's our first real catechumen! It's nice to think that someone could be drawn in to the office and unwittingly begin to find Crete "normal".
I mean, I don't find it "normal" because I'm way too aware of the tension we bear with the rest of the world. It's normatively normal for me.
Couple questions for y'all...
(1) what is (or what things are) stumbling blocks for sin?
(2) at times I sense a genuine love you three have for the poor and I really appreciate that. At other times I sense that you are taking part in some experiment and gathering observations on data from that experiment and I really don't know if I like that or not (haven't decided, but something about it makes me unnerved)
So... two fairly unrelated questions, but I'm curious how any or all of you would respond
REV
Hey Rev,
I'm not sure I know what you're asking in #1. Is this in reference to the cigarettes?
Re: # 2, that's an interesting observation. I don't think we're coming at this as scientific researchers, at least not in any conscious way. It's just that, in a lot of ways, we're not entirely sure what it is that we're doing. We have the Gospels as a model but, in terms of proximate concrete examples of their application in our context, we're kind of discovering how to live this way as we (stutteringly) go. That, and we tend to be fairly reflective types and so try to think through this whole thing as it daily unfolds. Nevertheless, I think that your comment is interesting and well worth our taking into account. (Geez, that last sentence sounded like a researcher!)
I echo what Adam says. We do "experiment" in the sense that we do what our guts tell us in the moment and later come back to evaluate those actions. Adam's uncertainty under questioning reflects how different is the culture among the three of us and the guys on the hill versus how other people see it. There are a few tendrils of understanding connecting us with the outside world, but the fact is that most (white) people just plain fear homeless (black) people.
So, of course we experiment, because we don't know a priori how to be faithful to Christ and the integrity of our relationships with the guys. The cigarettes are a good example (alluded to in a comment on the Handicapped above). We give most anything that the guys ask of us. We don't want them to destroy themselves, but neither are we in a place to tell them what they can and can't do, not if we hope to gain their trust. I'm sure there are no end of people that would condemn buying cigarettes for a guy on the street. But those same people are not likely to invite these guys into their homes. They are not likely to take off work when one of these guys is sick, or eat with these guys on a regular basis. It's a lot of distant paternalism, and has nothing to do with love in my opinion.
The biggest stumbling block for these guys is to allow them to be convinced that they don't matter. That's why many of them are in the state that they're in, and why the more deviant ones feel that there is no accountability. Smoking and drinking are incidental. I'm not convinced that Christ came to save us from cigarettes and beer. When we have convinced them that they matter to us, that there is the love of Christ in this world, then maybe they will believe that the habits that may be destroying them will hurt others besides just themselves.
That's effectively where we start. And there's no way to get the job done besides trying new things, stretching further into their lives, and occasionally making mistakes. That's how I see the pilgrim's journey in seeking Christ.
Thanks to both of you for those very thoughtful follow ups, those help A LOT. Thanks. I more fully appreciate the "experimental" journey you're on and again commend your genuineness and heart in so doing.
JR, I really appreciate what you're saying about focus with the stumbling block issue (Adam, to answer your question about #1, see JR's post, he understood what I was getting at). And that gives me great reason to pause and reflect,
Hmmm... perhaps yes, perhaps chemical addictions are the secondary matter... AND I am glad to see your concern for the destruction of themselves (which surely is "missing the mark" of what God desires). But I understand what you're saying. The cart and the horse have their proper places.
I'm reminded of the Jesus People movement in the '70s and how part of that movement used sex in brothels as a platform for sharing the gospel with the men that visited. I wrestle with that somehow being "worse" than giving a guy a cigarette or a beer. YET... another part of me...
Would you guys buy condoms for a prostitute? Would you guys buy a bong for a stoner? Would you guys buy a wi-fi equipped laptop for a porn addict? Just questions.
Thanks for addressing my questions, I really appreciate your responses.
REV
Thanks, Rev. I'm not sure there's much tread left on the tires of this particular discussion but, in response to your last set of questions, I thought I might offer a brief answer. In short, there is a world of difference between buying cigarettes or beer for the generic "homeless man" versus buying the same for the concrete Concrete (sorry for the pun). For I would venture that there is no such thing as "a prostitute"; only specific, individual people whose lives and needs extend in complexities far beyond what any simple and generic moniker could capture. Part of what we're doing at St. Joe's is learning to shed our lingering beliefs in such mythical beings (i.e., "the prostitute") in exchange for the reciprocal learning of names. Now, this is not indirectly to suggest some sort of qualifying limitation to Jesus' "Give to him who begs"(i.e., that one must know the one who asks as a precondition for gifting). Rather, it is to gesture toward our feeble attempt to give something far beyond the simple goods these men request/need. Indeed, to attempt the giving of something akin to our very lives (in all the multitudinous and uncertain fullness of what that might mean). And while that may sound far too self-congratulatory (as it surely is), I simply mean it to indicate that our provision of cigarettes to Concrete is never merely our provision of cigarettes to Concrete. Those cigarettes come within a complex web of relations that make generic provisions to generic persons impossible to realize. At any rate, that's how I might begin to respond to your concluding questions. Thanks for asking them. Peace.
Adam... interesting answer. Fine, if personalizing it makes all the difference we can do that.
Would I be justified in giving condoms to Sandra (who also happens to be a prostitute)? Would I be justified in giving a bong to Tony (who also happens to be a pot head)? Would I be justified in giving internet access to Nick (who also happens to a porn addict)?
There, I personalized it for you - that is the pastoral world I live in. But that doesn't help me in figuring out what you're doing with cigs. Still a little fuzzy for me. Does it go on a "case by case" basis... errr... there I go normalizing and blanketing again... does it go on a relationship by relationship basis?
REV
Yeah, I suspect that in most instances these things are relationship-specific matters. And like I said in my last comment, those relationships are much more complex than generic titles like "prostitute" or "pot head" can encapsulate (unless we think individual persons are simply reducible to such labels without remainder). And those very complexities mean that, while I appreciate the effort, simply tagging the previously ambiguous "prostitute" with the name "Sandra" doesn't really personalize anything for me. It's a start, of course, but there's obviously a certain reciprocity that's missing.
Hmm... Maybe what JR and I have been getting at is whatever sapiential acquisition it is that allows one to negotiate the proper application of Proverbs 26:4-5 in a specific, concrete instance (or maybe, by way of a perhaps more relevant coupling of scriptures, the proper simultaneous living into of Proverbs 31:6-7 and Ephesians 5:18 [though this might not work since the former is written in reference to one's treatment of others while the latter speaks to one's dealing with oneself]). None of that might be helpful but, for this evening anyway, it's the best I can offer presently. Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify. These exercises are always helpful for me. Peace.
Post a Comment