Honest Storytelling... But Not Too Honest

Just telling the facts, just giving the minimum details to an event does not always make for a good story. Actually is seldom makes for a good story. Case in point, Hester Rumberg’s non-fiction work, Ten Degrees of Reckoning: A True Story of Survival. In this work Rumberg retells the harrowing events of the Sleavin family, the tragedy that befell them while they were at sea, and the mother’s (Judith Sleavin) struggle to survive and reclaim a sense of life. It is a powerful and gripping story that begs to be told for many reasons. It tells of gross corporate negligence, of the frustration of the court system on the national and international level, of one woman’s strength and hope, and of the beauty that can be found in a family. There are many reasons to tell this story and many ways that it can be told. In each and every way the truth, the facts, the basics of the story can be maintained while holding up a nuance of the narrative. Sadly, I do not feel that Hester Rumberg does the story justice.

Rumberg, a physician by training and a sailor by hobby and passion does a good job gathering the details, learning as much as she can, sharing as much of the details and the back story as she can and does a fine job in this pursuit. Yet in spinning the web, in telling the story, Rumberg falls short. All the details are there, the facts are present, but the narrative core is missing making this a mediocre work.

It should be said that Rumberg is a friend of Judith Sleavin, and someone that Sleavin trusts to tell the story. Rumberg should be applauded for shouldering the mantel of telling her friend’s tragic story. This is not an easy task. Yet something is missing.

Rumberg is not a writer. She is not a journalist. She is not someone who has practiced the art of writing, of telling a tale, of finding and fleshing out the story. True to her training as a radiologist, she looks at the story and tells what happened, but that does not pull out the story.

One story has many facets. Think of the four different stories of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are in the later part of the Bible in case you weren’t sure). These are all working with many of the same facts, many of the same bits of information and yet all offer slightly different pictures of Jesus. One goes into great effort to connect the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Moses and the Prophets. Another shows how the person and ministry of Jesus is one that goes beyond the rules and expectations of Judaism to include outsiders. Another offers a more “spiritual/mystical” view of Jesus’ teachings and ideas but one that does not diminish Jesus’ humanity. In the Bible we have four stories of the same person. Overlapping facts. Overlapping details, yet each one offers a different nuance in the narrative.

This does not make one “true” and another “false,” but is honest and true to the subjectivity that is going to be present whenever one begins to tell a story. Even if the story is autobiographical, it will still have nuance and bias. This is a reality to journalism, to storytelling, and is important to realize and embrace. The trick, so often, is to decide what your "bias" is going to be, what the angle of the story will be, and then to fully embrace it. That is good storytelling and as long as one holds to the facts it is also "truth-telling."

There is a story to tell in this book, and it is a good and powerful story. Scratch that. There are many stories to tell, and they can be good and powerful. What one needs to do is to take a chance, embrace a story, and then, without apology, tell it.

Listen, Read, Play

In a recent episode of my podcast I am joined with the Rev. Tom Wiles to discuss using Jazz in reading and interpreting scripture. You can listen via this link or subscribe to the podcast on iTunes under "twelve enough"

Down With Original Sin!

I recently found an article on the Associated Baptist Press pointing to Albert Mohler’s use of Original Sin as an explanation for toddlers’ bad behavior. Mohler was responding to a Wall Street Journal article that discussed aggressive behavior in 2-3 year old boys and girls. Mohler’s response: it is the fault of original sin.

Great.

Very helpful.

That must be why many Southern Baptist are baptizing their children before the age of 5. The kids are brats, they are brats because of original sin, therefore if you “wash them of their sins” via baptism they will no longer be brats. But that doesn’t seem to work. Instead what you end up with is a 3-year-old who is now selfish and angry and wet and not fully understanding why they were forced underwater. That will make for great therapy sessions in the future (and when is that no different from infant baptism?).

What does it help to tell people that their kids are acting out because of original sin? Instead of helping it seems to take away any hope for the parents to teach their child the behaviors of sharing, empathy, fairness, etc. It is saying that no matter how much you try your child will always act out because they are born rotten. Unless, of course, you hit your child because “spare the rod” and all that crap, and a good beating will set the child straight. Mohler is quick to tell us that “time-outs” wont work but says spanking is. Based on what theology? This is an arcane kind of logic that leads to more therapy.

Let it be said, there is never a good reason to hurt, hit, beat, or use any kind of capital punishment on a child. It does not help or beat the sin out of them in any way at all. That is just stupid. Spanking is stupid (are you angry at me yet?).

What kind of message are we sending when we tell people that they are born bad, rotten, evil, broken people. Yes, we are all born with tendencies to be selfish, hurtful, prideful, envious, mean, and cruel. We are also born with tendencies to be gentle, compassionate, loving, merciful, and in general good. Often time children are a mixture of all of these things in a single moment. That is what makes them so much fun.

What kind of message are we sending that says we believe in a God who holds us responsible for someone’s misguided decisions based on the hissing of a serpent thousands of years ago (i.e. the Adam and Garden of Eden story)? This is a God who just cannot let it go. What does it further say that the only way this God will stop blaming us for what someone did thousands of years ago is to demand a human sacrifice, and that the sacrifice be his own son (who is also him, but not so much because atonement theory favors Jesus more as the son then as God incarnate… do I smell a heresy?).

Can we please move beyond the idea of original sin? Can we please excise it from our lexicon of Christian theology, tear it out of our Sunday School books, stop teaching it, pushing it, and basing our faith and commitment to Christ on it? Let the cruel, inhumane doctrine of original sin fester in the heap of theological ideas whose times have come to pass with: biblical literacy, patriarchy, the notion of the elect, damnation, and hell (and I am sure that there are others… are you angry at me yet?).

We are born searching, yearning, and desiring relationships. We are born with an original need to be in communion with others and with the divine. Part of being human is learning how to be in a relationship that gives and takes and grows together. Sometimes toddlers are just cranky, or mean, and are still learning how to be a good person. Sometimes grown people are still learning that as well. Maybe some day I’ll learn how to like and respect Mohler’s writings; while he keeps pushing his outdated, and dangerous and bad theology, respecting and liking Mohler will be difficult to achieve.

Who Is This Jesus? Listen In

Ever wonder what it means that Christ is fully God and fully human? I discuss it with Fr. Anthony Perkins in my most recent podcast episode. You can find the show-notes here, the episode here, or find it on iTunes under "twelve enough"