I'm a Real Doctor (just not the kind you need?)

Is it tacky to write a post about the same book twice?

My editor says, “no,” so I guess it is ok.

I finally finished Jeffrey Bishop’s work The Anticipatory Corpse: Medicine, Power, and the Care of the Dying, and I have to say it was very good. I’m not going to write a review because that has already been done and I don’t really want to go through and summarize his arguments chapter by chapter. I’m not paid enough to do that… at least not yet.

I will say that his use of Foucault and his analysis of the medical ethos and philosophical approach to healing is fantastic. Like I said, it is a good book.

What I want to reflect on are his concluding thoughts. Bishop reflects on what it means to be a person, what it means to live (rather than what it means to die). He then considers the “call” of medicine, i.e. what is it that drives one to enter into the vocation of medicine. For Bishop, a great deal of that call is based on relationship between the medical professional and the person who is suffering and sharing to one degree or another that suffering. This is a corrective that Bishop feels is important for all doctors to have when caring for the dying.

So far so good.

He questions in his concluding paragraphs what medicine might look like if it considered the purpose of life over the function of life and admits such a question moves into the philosophical areas of thought. “In other words, these questions open into an arena of uncertainty, where meaning cannot be limited to what is true and transferable to all other bodies” (313).

In response to such a push a medical professional may say something like:

“Damnit Jim, I’m a doctor not a philosopher!”

Bishop also states, “It just might be that the practices of religious communities marginalized in modernity and laughed at as unscientific are the source of human medicine…. Might it not be that only theology can save medicine?”

Now imagine me, reading this at 5am, in my pajamas, drinking my tea, J.S. Bach playing in the background – serene, isn’t it – and I yell out loud,

“Damnit Jim, I’m a theologian not a doctor!”

(Actually I am a doctor, but not that kind of doctor, so again I say Damnit!)

Is Bishop asking me (not me personally) to enter into the fray of what it means to live and to actually offer some thoughts? And is Bishop suggesting that other doctors (MDs not PhDs) actually listen to what I have to say? Yes he is.

Granted, this is a leap that Bishop is making that not all in the medical profession can make. It hinges on a sense of faith of one kind or another. I don’t think one has to profess a faith in a god of one kind or another, but has to have an awareness of a “greater-than.” Thus a humanist theologian <> could offer something to this conversation.

The premise that Bishop seems to be pushing is that life means something. Life has purpose and that purpose/meaning is best discerned through a community with a sense of the “other.” Let’s be honest, doctors cannot study this as well as everything else that they have to study and need the input of others, like theologians. My worry is about those who either do not ascribe to the values/narrative of a particular community or do not have any sense of “other” at all. Then what does the theologian have to say?

I am speaking from a specific context, culture, and community. There are certain, basic values and ideals that are held in that community (even though many theologian’s bread and butter is earned by arguing about those values and ideals). If there is someone who is a part of my community who is struggling with questions of life and death and dying, then I am ready to jump in and help.

What about those who are outside?

How do I help someone who comes from a different faith tradition or community? How do I help someone who is not from any faith tradition or community? Do those people need “help?”

One of the challenges of medicine is doing away with the multiple differences so a problem can be treated regardless of the context of the person with the problem. There is a pragmatic necessity to this. To a degree chaplains have done this with assessment forms and the like which Bishop addresses in his work. There needs to be some uniformity, but only within the consistency of the narrative of the community of the individual. Beyond that, the theologian must be open, sensitive, and listening to the individual. The theologian becomes more of a philosopher in such cases.

I could go on, but then this would no longer be a blog entry and would become an article and then I would have to spend a lot of time really working on the details of the piece.

Bishop is right that religion has been, for the most part, pushed to the side in the medical arena. It is the role of the religious community to be clear about what it means to live and to die. It is the role of the theologian of that community to articulate different ways of understanding such questions. Then it is up to the individuals to voice their own embraced beliefs and the doctors to respect such beliefs. There the theologian does have a role.

Finally, I can feel like I have something to offer!

I Like You, Do You Like Me?

Some good thoughts recently shared by my friend and parishioner Gordon Pierce:

A Pondering – Expectations

I believe one of the major causes for relational disconnection is probably one person’s expectation of another. The expectations held by a husband are not met by his wife, a wife’s are not met by her husband, parent’s are not met by their children, a child’s by the parents, a church’s congregation are not met by their pastor, on and on it goes. 

There are several way by which I came to the conclusions I have reached is by listening for sound bytes on the subject of Christian Concealing, and web sermons addressing family relationships. Reading my Bible and a book on the subject of prayer by a saint in the 19th century named E. M. Bounds I gained insight on relationship issues. 

One problem I have discovered about expectations is some people believe that happiness and security rests on another person’s performance. They fail to realize that the other person is busily walking through their life, not realizing they are expected to meet any wants or needs. The person who is failing to meet the other’s expectations is probably overwhelmed by what they have to do in the course of a day. Social media is not helping them in this regard. 

I can add a typical Sunday school teacher thought at this point which is; a person can only find true happiness and security in God. However let me add this to that thought. The Bible and the E. M. Bounds book state “God chastens those He loves.” He may be using the expectation failing person’s performance in chastening the person who has had an expectation. 

Unfortunately many people who are being chastened drift away from God instead of towards Him. 

Another expectation issue is simply this. One person’s expectation of the other is unrealistic. I believe we are all guilty of this misjudgment. Lets pray that our Lord will give us the grace to become realistic with our expectations, or to not have expectations at all. 

I have a short story to share on unrealized expectation. An elderly man was helping A fourth grade student. The student had a homework assignment that directed him to correct a miss used adverb in each of seven sentences listed. The student expected the elderly man to quickly identify and express which word in each sentence was the incorrect one. Much to the student’s dismay the elderly man struggled to help the student quickly. It had been sixty years since the man had to concern himself about incorrect adverbs. 

The Cold-Blooded Story of Us

“What is the book about?”

Anytime you tell someone that you are reading and they are even slightly polite they will ask this question. Usually I mumble something about eschatology or epistemology, or an inside look at the nuances of freestyle pew-sitting. Yet with Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, the answer has not been so easy.

The easy, quick, pat answer is that it is about a family in Kansa who were murdered in 1959 and how the police found, tried, and convicted the killers. It is portrayed by many as a modern murder novel breaking into a new genre of writing, but I do not think that really is what the book is about.

Yes, the murder of the four members of the Clutter family is a significant plot turning point. It is what the story circulates around and if this event never happened then this book would probably have never been written. Yet the story would still have existed even if it was never told.

To cover my backside and avoid the snobbery of English Lit. majors I will say that there are many different levels of stories in this work and there is not one correct way to read it. Ah the postmodern escape from the culpability of ultra-criticism. I love it! With that said:

On one level the story is about the life of Perry Smith, one of the murders. Yes, other characters have important parts to play, but Perry seems to be the tragic hero of the story. He carries that Shakespearian flaw that, like the pain in his legs, will not allow him any peace. It is a rage and a sorrow that will not leave him alone. He is someone that we are led to view with an eye of sympathy as we learn about his torrid relationship with his father, the death of his siblings, and the brokenness of his relationship with his sister. We see in Perry a sense of humanity and sympathy as he is concerned for his partner Dick Hickock’s family, as he cares for a squirrel, and builds a relationship with Mrs. Meier. He is someone that we begin to feel sorry for, and yet Capote does not lead us down a path of unadulterated sympathy. Perry Smith is dangerous. He murdered and we are led to believe that would have done it again and again. Here is where the tension of the title is so apt. As we learn about Perry, as we journey with him, feel for him, grow to know him, always in the background is the murder of the four Clutters and terror of that crime. It was in cold blood, it was without any real provocation, without real meaning that these four people gave their lives. In this book he is just as much a monster as he is a man.

On a deeper level what this book seems to be about is the complexity of humanity and looks at the question of redemption. As a Christian I believe that God’s forgiveness and grace is available to all, but after reading this book could I hold to such a belief? Perry Smith was not repentant, he was not contrite even saying that “someone had to pay,” for the pain and suffering of his life. Is there hope for Perry Smith? If he never committed the murders, if the Clutter family was still alive, would Perry Smith still be considered a monster? Would he have committed other crimes? We see the compassion and the brutality of Perry Smith in this work and are left holding that mess. The mess of Perry is the mess of humanity. Humans are capable of committing vicious atrocities and at the same time of doing amazing, wonderful things. Can I believe in the complete goodness of humanity or in the utter depravity?

Or, can I stay in that mess and hope that God can guide us to a place of goodness (because we do not seem capable of doing it ourselves).

What is In True Blood about? It is about us, in all of our glory and all of our horror.

Don't Judge Yet

You can’t judge a book by its cover. There is nothing like the classic, trite sayings that roll off the tongue so easily. It allows us to break into a depth of wisdom without having to do any real work. We can even say, “you can’t judge a book…” and not even finish the phrase and still look smug as if we have just tapped into a profound well of knowledge. This is good because after all, “A stich in time…”

I have been thinking about the book judging industry as I have been reading Truman Capote’s happy, fun book In Cold Blood. This is my first time reading it; I have not yet finished the book but I am struck with the detail that Capote puts into the work. He has gotten to know the people, the Clutter family, the detectives involved with the case, the town, and perhaps most notably, the murders. I have been pleasantly surprised at the depth and listening that clearly went into this work.

It seems that Capote is trying to offer a picture of everyone involved, trying to tell the story at great depth and trying to avoid large brush strokes. As a reader I am pulled to have a kind of affinity towards the killers learning their story and at the same time horror at their crime. Capote is not asking the reader to forgive the murders (at least I don’t think so… I have not yet finished the book), but is asking the readers to understand.

This morning, lying in Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the young man suspected, along with his now deceased brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev, of perpetrating the bombings of the Boston Marathon. Already a number of theories are flying about. Already people are jumping to conclusions, judging, speculating, and assuming things about them. Some believe that the Tsarnaev brothers have had contact with a radical Islamic group. Others believe that the Chechen roots of the family have something to do with it. I am sure that there are even those who look at the Tsarnaev brothers and do not see them as Caucasian, but rather as a darker skin ethnicity and play the race card.

A lot of people are seeing what they want to see, believing what they want to believe, and are judging the book by the cover.

I am not suggesting that acts of terrorism should be explained away and forgiven. I am suggesting that we hold off our judgments because (1) the brothers are suspects and thus presumed innocent until proven guilty and (2) we cannot read minds (at least most of us can’t read minds… heh, heh)

I would love it if each person could sit down with Dzhokhar and have a good conversation without judgment, but that is unrealistic. I hope a journalist will have the opportunity to tell Dzhokhar’s story  so the rest of the world will have an opportunity to understand and to have some kind of relationship with him.

This is what we need to do; we need to enter into a relationship, listen, ask questions, learn, and share. Unfortunately that is not possible to on such a massive scale. Again, I look to the world of journalism and hope and pray the New York Post has nothing to do with this individual. Regardless, we cannot judge the book by the cover. We do not know the whys. Before calling for gruesome executions, condemning someone to hell, cursing a presumed faith tradition, attacking the family, attacking the ethnicity, or doing anything else that is a part of the mob mentality code of ethics (there is a oxymoron), we need to try to understand. If Dzhokhar is guilty Justice still needs to happen, but there is a difference between justice and blind rage. Compassion is essential and compassion comes out of relationships and understanding. That is a part of what makes us human and helps us to rise above such events of tragedy.

There Must Be Another Way

I received these two quotes from my Dad yesterday (do you see where my brilliance comes from?). Close followers of my blog know that I have an affinity towards Wink and Girard. In light of the violence in Bosten yesterday these are good things to read. Wish I thought of finding them.

Violence is the ethos of our times. It is the spirituality of the modern world. It has been accorded the status of a religion, demanding from its devotees an absolute obedience to death. Its followers are not aware, however, that the devotion they pay to violence is a form of religious piety. Violence is so successful as a myth precisely because it does not seem to be mythic in the least. Violence simply appears to be the nature of things. It is what works. It is inevitable, the last and, often, the first resort in conflicts. It is embraced with equal alacrity by people on the left and on the right, by religious liberals as well as religious conservatives. The threat of violence, it is believed, is alone able to deter aggressors. It secured us years of a balance of terror. We learned to trust the Bomb to grant us peace ... It, and not Christianity, is the real religion of America. .....Walter Wink

from  http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/hemer/violence.htm

John Hemer MHM commentary on Girard:   People do not simply desire what others have, they desire what others desire.

Almost all human conflict is the result of people modelling themselves, (albeit unconsciously) on others and then entering into rivalry with others. All human conflict is about wanting what someone else has and desires – money, land, prestige, a spouse, a friend, power etc. every human society is threatened by this desire which becomes rivalry which leads to conflict.

The Bible is in fact the story of the slow, painstaking and sometimes faltering escape from the idea of a God who is violent to a God who is love and has absolutely nothing to do with violence.

The Bible comes to birth in a society where this scapegoating mechanism is fully operational, but it is the genius of Biblical revelation that it slowly unmasks this process and shows it up for what it is and offers an alternative. Societies use one sort of violence to expel another sort. The violence expelled is deemed ‘bad’, the violence used to expel it is deemed ‘good’. This is basically what we mean by myth. Not fiction, nor the product of a primitive imagination. Myth tells of a violent event, but tells it from the point of view of the society which benefited from that event, and therefore veils and vindicates the violence. No one in a society where myth holds sway is aware that the facts have been tampered with or coloured, so people in such societies are not hypocrites. But the more biblical influence works on a society, the less myth is likely to work. The OT, slowly at first, tells of these events, but tells them from the point of view of the victim. This is not universally clear in the OT, but is dazzlingly clear in the Gospels. The central event in world history is the Son of God becoming the victim of this process, and then rising 

His is the voice of everyone, every individual, every society which has tried to solve its problems by scapegoating; the voice of reason, the voice of political common sense, the voice which speaks up for the ‘common good’. It is the voice of pogroms, ethnic cleansings and final solutions, and has been heard countless times in history and has resulted in untold human suffering. But it is not the voice of the gospel. The gospel speaks with another voice, with the voice of the victim. That’s why the Gospel as well as being a unique piece of theology is a unique piece of anthropology.

It's Only a Flesh Wound

Once again I got out of the routine of my usual weekly posts. I’m going to blame the Easter madness that tends to consume a pastor’s life. Now that we are past that time I can get back to the important things, like this blog.

I’m currently reading, TheAnticipatory Corpse, by Jeffery Bishop. So far it is a very good book that is taking a deep and careful look at the treatment of death in the medical field. I haven’t gotten to the end yet, but I am presuming that everyone is dead by the last chapter. I’ll let you know.

One of the areas Bishop looks at is when a person is declared “dead.” I don’t want to get into the details of that argument right now, instead I would like to consider the idea of when a person stops “living.”

The idea of “living” is a moving target. One could use a simple physiological approach and say that as long as the heart is beating and the brain is working than the individual is alive. Others, like me, may claim that there is more to “living” than pumping blood and sending electrical singles around one’s body. I prefer to take a more philosophical view asking what the purpose of life might be.

If someone is in the ICU and is being kept alive (physiologically speaking) by machines I would argue that the individual is not “living.” This doesn’t mean the individual is dead – I think dead would mean the individual has no chance to live ever again. It means the person is not engaging with life at the potential with which he or she can. This also means that there are many people who are healthy but are not living (think the individual who spends a large percentage of time on a couch in front of a glowing box with a steady stream of drool dripping from his or her mouth). The fun part begins when we ask what it means to “live.” Does it mean interacting with people? Does it mean the individual is self-aware? Does it mean the individual has autonomy over his or her life (making the question of suicide interesting – perhaps it is a final act of living…)? Living is more complicated when taking more than a mechanical view of the body.

When looked at philosophically one may not be living when admitted to an ICU but continues to hold a potential to return to living and thus is not dead. Yet if the individual is being kept alive by machines and will die if unplugged then I would suggest that the individual stopped living for some time and now is waiting to die, or is actively dying. For many it would be much easier to stay with the physiological and claim that someone is no longer living if the heart stops working and/or if the brain stops doing its thing. Yet I think that is avoiding the bigger question of what it means to live in sickness and in health.

Look, we are all going to die in the end, sorry to spoil it for you. What will you do to live? Reading my blog is a good start.

Angry Bag Sold Separately

Right now, as I write this post, I am hundreds of miles above the earth in an airplane on my way to Chicago. I’m going to Chicago because I am on a leadership committee that is a part of my denomination (American Baptist Churches, USA). I am going to Chicago because I am very involved in my denomination.

My involvement in denominational life ironic for a number of reasons.

My age – 39 - I come from the generation of people who are naturally skeptical of institutions. I’m told that we do not trust institutions and I think there is a good amount of truth to that statement. We (Gen Xers) have seen governments lie, we have witnessed heroes fall, and churches fail. Why would I think there is any hope in an institution that had its heyday in the 1950s?

The current trends – In a recent podcast I have mentioned that denominations are, on the whole, actively dying. The institutions of the past are becoming the festering carcasses spread across Christendom that Francis Wayland predicted they would be (way back in the early 1800s). They are struggling, they are scared, and I am very much aware of it.

My frustrations – I’m not the smartest person involved in church life (I just like to tell myself that I am), but I know that we are going to have to do things differently, and when I say differently I mean at a theoretical not just methodological level. A methodological difference would be using a power-point screen instead of a hymnal during hymns (or songs depending on what you call them). The same end is reached, people sing. A theoretical difference would question the purpose of music in worship, how it helps and how it hinders. It would go deeper and ask what is the purpose of worship. I say all of this to point out that the rapid decay of denominations demands a theoretical level of analysis and change and the majority of pastors and lay people are only willing to consider the methodical analysis and changes. This is frustrating not because I have the answers (I don’t), but because the questions I hear people asking are often going the wrong direction. The conversation is mired in the technical. I often want to leave meetings with an angry bag.

Interlude – THE ANGRY BAG™

The angry bag™ is a state of the art device wherein one takes a bag, preferably paper (it is safer than plastic and better for the environment), carefully takes a big breath and then before exhaling places the bag over the mouth. With the bag placed over the mount the person then lets out all of the air in a loud, primal scream. This scream can be one long tone or can be released in short bursts of rage. The individual then quickly twists the top of the bag holding in all of the air and rage and then proceeds to smash it as hard as possible against one hand causing a loud popping sound. This is the angry bag™

So why am I going to this meeting and why am I involved with my denomination? Really for many of the same reasons that I am involved with a local church – as far as I can tell it is the best way to do the work of Christ in the world. Churches need to work together. Churches need to support each other. Churches need to take risks with each other. Just as individuals need to be a part of a church (again, see my recent podcast for more on this), churches need to be a part of something bigger then themselves to be better communities of Christ. I really do believe this. So I’m going to these meetings that will last about 25 hours, see no more than a hotel lobby and maybe a quick peak of Chicago in the ride from the airport to the hotel and back again, and then fly back home, tired and probably a little frustrated. Yet I am glad to do it because I really do believe it is a way for all of us to be better Christians, and until I come up with something better I am fully in.

Good thing I packed 2-dozen angry bags™.