The other night I had a dream.
I'm in a large hall. It's some sort of melding of a convention center meeting room with the dining room at Camp Quinipet (the Methodist Church camp that did so much good for me in my younger years). The room is set up with tables, and I'm walking around with a plastic tub picking up people's dirty dishes. The people here are an odd mix of parishioners and convention attendees. I know that I am here as one of the presenters at this conference/event (although upon awaking I'd be hard pressed to tell you any details about what the event was).
Someone asks, "Since you're a Unitarian Universalist, explain why Communion is so important."
I continue bussing the tables, and I say:
"As I understand it, Communion isn't some kind of magical act. In and of itself it isn't really all that big a deal. Communion is a commemoration, more than anything else, and that's what makes it important.
It commemorates the last meal the Rabbi Yeshua had with his friends before he was arrested in Jerusalem, convicted, and crucified. In some tellings of the story is was the night of the Passover meal, although not all accounts seem to agree on this. What they do agree on, though, is that Yeshua sat with his friends at this meal and talked about what they'd done together and what might very well happen next. Given the religious and political climate of the time, Yeshua's single-minded commitment to the preaching of "The Empire of God," as opposed to the Empire of Caesar, could really only end in one way. And so these friends ate and they talked. (In the apocryphal book The Acts of John, there is a lovely detail that after the meal the group went outside and danced together.) And what we're told is that at some point during the meal Yeshua -- Jesus -- asked his friends to remember him whenever they ate together.
The earliest Communion meals were apparently just that -- meals. Not just a symbolic wafer and a sip of grape juice, but a full-fledged meal. Among friends. Remembering this man who had been so in love with God that it seemed as though they were the same. (As the 2nd Letter to the Corinthians put it, Jesus was someone who was experienced as, "all God's promises find their 'yes' in him.") So Communion is not some empty, dry and dusty ritual -- it's an opportunity for people today to gather in community to remember people then gathering in community -- and all those in between who've done so -- to center their lives on Love."
"And this," I say, by this point with tears running down my cheeks and real emotion in my voice, "is why I think Communion is important."
I put down the tub with the dirty dishes, wipe my hands on the apron I'm wearing, and go to get a loaf of rugged home-made bread and a beautiful pottery chalice of wine I initiate a Communion service then and there. We sing together. We eat together. Love is in the room.
Sometimes dreams really resist interpretation, don't they? And, of course, sometimes they don't.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
"We are one human family, on one fragile planet, in one miraculous universe, bound by love."
Friday, November 21, 2014
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
The Challenge of Good People Doing Bad Things
This past Sunday I preached one of the most difficult sermons I've ever had to preach in my nearly two decades of doing this job. I don't think I've ever worked so carefully on my word choice and my phrasing. I don't think I ever more carefully considered as many possible types of listeners, and how it might be heard by different people with different perspectives and experiences. The topic was clergy sexual misconduct.
More specifically, it was about sexual misconduct decades ago by a clergy person who retired to the congregation I serve. He had become a beloved member of this community, and while here had been a powerful preacher and pastoral presence. He had been open with church leaders about the broad outlines of his history so I'd known about it, as had many others. By all accounts he had done a tremendous amount of work to try to understand and overcome his addiction (which is what it certainly seems to have been). He carried the memory of what he'd done 'till his dying day.
The challenge, as I saw it, was to someone explore "how to balance a belief in redemption with a belief in accountability." Does a person's past misdeeds automatically and necessarily undo any good they've done and any growth they've had since? Is redemption possible? Can people change?
Bill Cosby is currently in the news with thirteen women accusing him of having drugged and raped them. That's abuse, pure and simple. That's criminal. But he's Dr. Huxtable! He's the jello guy! Do we wipe away all the laughter and joy he gave to so many? The philanthropic good he did? The inspiration he gave?
Martin Luther King, Jr. is known to have had multiple affairs. In fact, I recently read that on the night before he was assassinated on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel he'd been with "a woman who was not his wife." Should we tear down the monuments that honor his leadership? Should we stop quoting the "I Have a Dream" speech?
The 2010 book Gandhi: naked ambition details a rather sordid side of the Mahatma that has rarely been discussed. Is stayagraha meaningless because of this? Do his accomplishments disappear in the light of these revelations (although like the aforementioned cases it has been known for quite some time)?
The filmmakers Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and, most recently, Bryan Singer have all been accused of sexual abuse, and as each incident has come to light the same question has been raised -- should we stop watching their movies? Is their oeuvre overshadowed by their crimes?
Here at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church - Unitarian Universalist we wrestle with a similar conundrum. Jefferson has a great many tremendous accomplishments to his credit -- not the least of which are the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and, of course, the Declaration of Independence. Yet we wonder if we should continue to honor this man who also has a very different legacy. He was, after all, the owner of slaves, the author of some extremely racist ideas, and the illegitimate father of children he continued to hold in bondage.
Marie Fortune, founder of the FaithTrust Institute ("working together to end sexual & domestic violence") is also, arguably, the foremost authority on clergy sexual misconduct. She recently wrote on her blog a piece titled, "The Message or the Messenger: a question of legacy" in which she explores this very question. Her answer is essentially, yes, a person who preaches that "all men are created equal" yet who also believes it possible to own other men and rape at least one woman has lost his credibility. Someone who preaches "the inherent worth and dignity" of every person, yet in their personal life degrades the worth and dignity of others, is not someone to honor.
She begins by looking at the case of Joshu Sasaki Roshi was a Rinzai Zen Buddhist teacher who was accused of multiple counts of sexual abuse. She quotes Bob Mammoser, a resident monk at Rinzai-ji, as saying, “What’s important and is overlooked, is that, besides this aspect, Roshi was a commanding and inspiring figure using Buddhist practice to help thousands find more peace, clarity, and happiness in their own lives.” Fortune goes on to ask, "What about the hundreds of Sasaki’s students who found chaos, confusion and suffering in their lives because of his sexual abuse?"
It's a good question. And a hard one. As I said in my sermon on Sunday, "If there is an answer I don't think it is a simple one." In words William Shakespeare put into the mouth of Marc Antony in Julius Caesar, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." This is the way it no doubt often is, and there are many who would say that this is as it should be. I'm not so sure.
I'm nearly always a both/and thinker. And I think a challenge in this life -- perhaps the biggest challenge -- is to remain open to the reality of paradox. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously wrote,
Pax tecum,
RevWik
More specifically, it was about sexual misconduct decades ago by a clergy person who retired to the congregation I serve. He had become a beloved member of this community, and while here had been a powerful preacher and pastoral presence. He had been open with church leaders about the broad outlines of his history so I'd known about it, as had many others. By all accounts he had done a tremendous amount of work to try to understand and overcome his addiction (which is what it certainly seems to have been). He carried the memory of what he'd done 'till his dying day.
The challenge, as I saw it, was to someone explore "how to balance a belief in redemption with a belief in accountability." Does a person's past misdeeds automatically and necessarily undo any good they've done and any growth they've had since? Is redemption possible? Can people change?
Bill Cosby is currently in the news with thirteen women accusing him of having drugged and raped them. That's abuse, pure and simple. That's criminal. But he's Dr. Huxtable! He's the jello guy! Do we wipe away all the laughter and joy he gave to so many? The philanthropic good he did? The inspiration he gave?
Martin Luther King, Jr. is known to have had multiple affairs. In fact, I recently read that on the night before he was assassinated on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel he'd been with "a woman who was not his wife." Should we tear down the monuments that honor his leadership? Should we stop quoting the "I Have a Dream" speech?
The 2010 book Gandhi: naked ambition details a rather sordid side of the Mahatma that has rarely been discussed. Is stayagraha meaningless because of this? Do his accomplishments disappear in the light of these revelations (although like the aforementioned cases it has been known for quite some time)?
The filmmakers Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and, most recently, Bryan Singer have all been accused of sexual abuse, and as each incident has come to light the same question has been raised -- should we stop watching their movies? Is their oeuvre overshadowed by their crimes?
Here at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church - Unitarian Universalist we wrestle with a similar conundrum. Jefferson has a great many tremendous accomplishments to his credit -- not the least of which are the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and, of course, the Declaration of Independence. Yet we wonder if we should continue to honor this man who also has a very different legacy. He was, after all, the owner of slaves, the author of some extremely racist ideas, and the illegitimate father of children he continued to hold in bondage.
Marie Fortune, founder of the FaithTrust Institute ("working together to end sexual & domestic violence") is also, arguably, the foremost authority on clergy sexual misconduct. She recently wrote on her blog a piece titled, "The Message or the Messenger: a question of legacy" in which she explores this very question. Her answer is essentially, yes, a person who preaches that "all men are created equal" yet who also believes it possible to own other men and rape at least one woman has lost his credibility. Someone who preaches "the inherent worth and dignity" of every person, yet in their personal life degrades the worth and dignity of others, is not someone to honor.
She begins by looking at the case of Joshu Sasaki Roshi was a Rinzai Zen Buddhist teacher who was accused of multiple counts of sexual abuse. She quotes Bob Mammoser, a resident monk at Rinzai-ji, as saying, “What’s important and is overlooked, is that, besides this aspect, Roshi was a commanding and inspiring figure using Buddhist practice to help thousands find more peace, clarity, and happiness in their own lives.” Fortune goes on to ask, "What about the hundreds of Sasaki’s students who found chaos, confusion and suffering in their lives because of his sexual abuse?"
It's a good question. And a hard one. As I said in my sermon on Sunday, "If there is an answer I don't think it is a simple one." In words William Shakespeare put into the mouth of Marc Antony in Julius Caesar, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." This is the way it no doubt often is, and there are many who would say that this is as it should be. I'm not so sure.
I'm nearly always a both/and thinker. And I think a challenge in this life -- perhaps the biggest challenge -- is to remain open to the reality of paradox. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn famously wrote,
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”Who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? Can we have compassion for the survivors of abuse and the perpetrators of abuse? In his book Peace is Every Step, the Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh includes a poem titled, "Call Me By My True Names," in which he identifies both with the injured and the one who causes the injury, both the abuser and the abused. It sounds like the spiritually mature thing to do. But is it the right thing to do? Even with all the wrestling I've done of late, I honestly don't know. Perhaps the answer is to be found in the living into the tension of the paradox.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
Labels:
abuse,
abuser,
both/and,
pardox,
sexual misconduct
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
"Dog" is "God" Spelled Backward
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic with insomnia? He spent his nights lying in bed wondering if there is a dog.
I was reminded of this old joke this morning.
I'd gone to bed last night in a seriously grumpy mood. Seriously grumpy.
At 3:00 am our dog started barking, needing to go out. This is not a common occurrence; usually he sleeps through the night. Suffice it to say, I was not at all happy with this change of routine, so I woke up even grumpier than I'd gone to bed. "God damn it," was, in fact, the phrase that jumped to mind (and came out of my lips). So I got up, threw on a sweatshirt, got the dog, and went outside.
And it was glorious! It was cold -- bracing -- the kind of temperature I really love. And the sky ... So many stars and so incredibly clear and sharp. The words of Psalm 19 replaced my curses:
I was reminded of this old joke this morning.
I'd gone to bed last night in a seriously grumpy mood. Seriously grumpy.
At 3:00 am our dog started barking, needing to go out. This is not a common occurrence; usually he sleeps through the night. Suffice it to say, I was not at all happy with this change of routine, so I woke up even grumpier than I'd gone to bed. "God damn it," was, in fact, the phrase that jumped to mind (and came out of my lips). So I got up, threw on a sweatshirt, got the dog, and went outside.
And it was glorious! It was cold -- bracing -- the kind of temperature I really love. And the sky ... So many stars and so incredibly clear and sharp. The words of Psalm 19 replaced my curses:
"The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display God's craftsmanship."
And in an instant grumpiness turned to an awareness of grace. And gratitude. So much gratitude.
Several years ago I had what felt like a revelation -- that a perfect image of God is that of a puppy: always wanting to play, always ready to lick your face, always ready for adventure, the embodiment of unconditional love, and greeting whatever happens with unbridled enthusiasm. Last night I was reminded of this, and grateful that I have a dog in my life. And God.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
![]() |
| Thanks to the owner of the Waiting for ION blog at https://waitingforison.wordpress.com/about/ Image used under Creative Commons License |
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Egy Az Isten
435 years ago, Ferenc Dávid died in the prison in Déva, Transylvania, convicted of the crime of "innovation." The anniversary of his death is marked as a holy day within the Unitarian tradition in Transylvania.
Dávid Ferenc — or, as he is known in the west, Francis Dávid — was born into a world of religious conflict. The 16th century was a time of great religious upheaval. The Protestant Reformation was shaking the very foundations of western civilization. Religion and politics were so heavily intermingled that theological disputes often had as much to do with temporal power as they did with transcendent realities. The unity of the Christian church was torn apart: now there were Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists. New sects sprang up everyday and with more or less vehemence defended new ideas; old traditions fought back.
The concept of a separation of church and state did not yet exist and, so, these different religious traditions were often also backed by the power of the state. It was a dangerous time for religious seekers. In 1531, when Dávid was in his early 20s, the Spanish theologian Michael Servetus was burned at the stake in Calvin’s Geneva with a copy of his book On the Errors of the Trinity tied to his leg (so that if he accidentally got to heaven there'd be no mistaking that he belonged in hell).
Dávid began life as a Catholic, eventually becoming a priest. As he encountered the ideas and ideals of the Reformation he embraced them converting, first, to the Lutheran movement, then, to the Swiss Reformed movement (which followed Calvin), and, finally, to Unitarianism. It tells you a lot about this man that he rose to the rank of bishop in each of these reformist traditions.
In 1568 the King of Transylvania, King John Sigismund, called together proponents of the major religions being practiced at that time in his kingdom -- Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Unitarians. He gave each an opportunity to argue for the primacy of their tradition. Dávid argued persuasively not only for the specific doctrine of Unitarianism, but for the freedom, reason, and acceptance which were the underlying principles of the movement. After this public debate, Dávid became the court preacher to King Sigismund, and had much to do with the king’s issuance of the Edict of Toleration which says, in part:
Dávid's theological understandings and teachings continued to evolve, and that's where he got into trouble. After Sigismund's death, the tenor of Transylvania changed. While there could be no rolling back of the religious freedom that had flourished there, Sigismund's successors declared that there could be no new teachings. That things had to remain as they were. Dávid -- Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Unitarian Dávid -- could not more limit himself to his understandings of yesterday as he could stop breathing and, so, he was eventually arrested, tried, and convicted for "innovation."
As Unitarian Universalists today, we are heirs to this man's legacy. May we do it proud.
Egy as Isten ... God is one.
Paxt tecum,
RevWik
Dávid Ferenc — or, as he is known in the west, Francis Dávid — was born into a world of religious conflict. The 16th century was a time of great religious upheaval. The Protestant Reformation was shaking the very foundations of western civilization. Religion and politics were so heavily intermingled that theological disputes often had as much to do with temporal power as they did with transcendent realities. The unity of the Christian church was torn apart: now there were Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists. New sects sprang up everyday and with more or less vehemence defended new ideas; old traditions fought back.
The concept of a separation of church and state did not yet exist and, so, these different religious traditions were often also backed by the power of the state. It was a dangerous time for religious seekers. In 1531, when Dávid was in his early 20s, the Spanish theologian Michael Servetus was burned at the stake in Calvin’s Geneva with a copy of his book On the Errors of the Trinity tied to his leg (so that if he accidentally got to heaven there'd be no mistaking that he belonged in hell).
Dávid began life as a Catholic, eventually becoming a priest. As he encountered the ideas and ideals of the Reformation he embraced them converting, first, to the Lutheran movement, then, to the Swiss Reformed movement (which followed Calvin), and, finally, to Unitarianism. It tells you a lot about this man that he rose to the rank of bishop in each of these reformist traditions.
In 1568 the King of Transylvania, King John Sigismund, called together proponents of the major religions being practiced at that time in his kingdom -- Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Unitarians. He gave each an opportunity to argue for the primacy of their tradition. Dávid argued persuasively not only for the specific doctrine of Unitarianism, but for the freedom, reason, and acceptance which were the underlying principles of the movement. After this public debate, Dávid became the court preacher to King Sigismund, and had much to do with the king’s issuance of the Edict of Toleration which says, in part:
“. . . in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel, each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well; if not, no one shall compel them, for their souls would not be satisfied . . . but they should be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall annoy or abuse the preachers on account of their religion . . . [nor] allow any to be imprisoned or punished by removal from his post on account of his teaching, for faith is the gift of God.”Dávid was not the first to argue for Unitarian ideals, of course. During the period of the "Christological Controversy," great church debates at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople in 325 and 328 , the Unitarian, or Anti-Trinitarian, position was argued strongly, although it eventually lost out to the concept of the Trinity which became orthodox teaching. Yet this notion that “God is one” never completely went away, and throughout the centuries it resurfaced in various forms with such names as Ebionism, Sabellianism, Samosatenianism, Arianism, Photinianism, Socianism, and Unitarianism. Theologians such as Arius, Servitus, and Socinus argued its cause; communities like that founded in Raków, Poland in the mid-1500s sought to live by its principles. Yet it can be argued that it was in Transylvania that a Untarian church -- as an institution -- was born, and Dávid was its first bishop.
Dávid's theological understandings and teachings continued to evolve, and that's where he got into trouble. After Sigismund's death, the tenor of Transylvania changed. While there could be no rolling back of the religious freedom that had flourished there, Sigismund's successors declared that there could be no new teachings. That things had to remain as they were. Dávid -- Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Unitarian Dávid -- could not more limit himself to his understandings of yesterday as he could stop breathing and, so, he was eventually arrested, tried, and convicted for "innovation."
As Unitarian Universalists today, we are heirs to this man's legacy. May we do it proud.
Egy as Isten ... God is one.
Paxt tecum,
RevWik
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Piece by Piece
When I was a kid my dad gave me a hammer. I still have it. I had it twenty-five years ago when the Berlin Wall was opened, and I took it with me when a friend and I flew to Berlin to be a part of its destruction.
One of the first things I did when I arrived in Germany was to purchase a chisel -- a meißel, I learned -- and I took my new meißel and my old hammer and headed off to Berlin.
What I saw there absolutely amazed me, and I know that I comprehended only a fraction of its true import. All along the wall there were people chipping away at what was once an impenetrable barrier. Families had once been separated by this wall, and people who tried to cross over it -- in either direction -- risked being shot. Getting too close to the wall was to take ones life in ones hands.
Yet here were people as far as the eye could see, not only near the wall but actually breaking it apart with their own hands. One of my German friends said that she had never imagined she would ever see something like this.
One of the things that astonished her was the reaction of the guards who were still patrolling the wall. As they walked along people would back away from the wall and put their tools to their sides or under their coats. And the guards would walk past without a word. If someone didn't do this, if they kept on chipping at the wall -- which was technically illegal -- the guards would confiscate their tools and throw them over the wall. But if people made the slightest semblance of following the law, the guards did nothing. Even when people immediately began to strike at the wall again as soon as the guards had passed. It was clear that they didn't want this wall there either, and although it was their job to prevent people from doing just what it was that we were doing, it was also clear that they were going to let it happen.
At one point a man came up to me. If someone had been casting a cold war thriller and wanted to hire someone to play "typical East German man" they would have cast this guy. Long black coat. Black fur hat. Beard. Stiff, formal, and somewhat wary bearing. He came up to me and asked if I would be willing to chip off a piece of the wall for him. I proceeded to try to get him a good sized chunk. When I finally did he asked how much I wanted for it. When I looked confused he said, "Well ... you're American, aren't you?" To which I replied, "Well ... it's your wall, isn't it?" He then asked if he could borrow my tools so that he could do his part to break the wall down. The mixture of pride, delight, and awe that I saw in his face as he did so will always stay with me.
Not too long after that the heavy machinery came in and began to take the wall down in big sections. There are two here at the University of Virginia near where I'm writing this. Those in power took over the project of dismantling the wall, but for a while ... for a while it was something that dozens, hundreds of average citizens had taken upon themselves to do for themselves. Piece by piece.
Something to think about -- and remember.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
Labels:
Berlin Wall,
freedom,
lessons
Tuesday, November 04, 2014
There is nothing new under the sun ...
When I was a kid I was a fiend for Monty Python's Flying Circus. (Still am, actually.) It came on at 11:30, and I'd stay up to watch, howling in the otherwise quiet house. One night my dad came into the TV room just as Python was about to start and said that he wanted to see what I thought was so funny. He sat through the entire episode, as I remember it, without laughing even once. When the show was over I asked him how it could be possible that he thought none of what he'd seen had been funny. He said, "I thought it was funny when Ernie Kovacs did it in the 50s."
At the time I thought that that was kind of a weird response, but later I experienced my own version of it. When It's Gary Shandling's Show came on critics went wild. They especially heralded his unprecedented practice of breaking the so-called "fourth wall" and talking directly to the camera. And as I read reviewer after reviewer lifting up this cutting edge concept I kept thinking to myself, "but George Burns did that on the George Burns and Gracie Allen Show thirty years earlier"
This came to mind a couple of nights ago while watching the incredible fanfare surrounding Nik Wallenda's high wire walk in Chicago (brought to you with breathless hype by the Discovery Channel). I don't want to take anything away from his accomplishment. It was pretty cool, especially the second segment where he walked blindfolded. And, as he said, he'd strung his wire higher than it had ever been in his family's roughly two centuries of wire walking. None the less:
Our history matters, and our pioneers should not be forgotten.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
At the time I thought that that was kind of a weird response, but later I experienced my own version of it. When It's Gary Shandling's Show came on critics went wild. They especially heralded his unprecedented practice of breaking the so-called "fourth wall" and talking directly to the camera. And as I read reviewer after reviewer lifting up this cutting edge concept I kept thinking to myself, "but George Burns did that on the George Burns and Gracie Allen Show thirty years earlier"
This came to mind a couple of nights ago while watching the incredible fanfare surrounding Nik Wallenda's high wire walk in Chicago (brought to you with breathless hype by the Discovery Channel). I don't want to take anything away from his accomplishment. It was pretty cool, especially the second segment where he walked blindfolded. And, as he said, he'd strung his wire higher than it had ever been in his family's roughly two centuries of wire walking. None the less:
- While his wire was strung higher than ever in his family's history, it was still only about half as high as the wire Philippe Petit walked in 1974.
- We were told how his team -- of a dozen or so riggers -- only had two days (!) to rig the wire, which included guys lines that reached a thousand feet to the grounds and special hardware that was bolted into the buildings. Petit's team of four people (led by Jean Louis Blondeau), not only had just one night to rig his wire, but had to do so while dodging police, with the time pressure of beating sunrise, with the need to secretly get the wire from one building to the other (they used a bow and arrow ... seriously!), and without the ability to to attach cables to anything other than the roof of the towers themselves.
- After his first walk of about three or four minutes the hyper hosts and commentators wondered if Wallenda would have the stamina to do the second leg of the walk. Petit was on his wire for forty-five minutes, making about eight crossings.
- Both Wallenda and Petit performed their walks without any kind of safety gear but Petit, again at roughly twice the height, did not have trained rescue crews on the ready to rush out to him should he fall and catch himself to hang on the wire.
- Throughout his walk Wallenda was in constant contact with his family and his team. Petit was entirely alone up there, and those who had worked so hard to make le coup possible could only watch and hope.
- Wallenda walked two wires -- one with a 19° incline and the other he walked blindfolded. Petit, on the other hand made eight crossings, as I said, during which he knelt and saluted, sat down, and even lay down looking up, as he said, at a seagull flying overhead. (And did I mention that his wire was twice as high as Wallenda's?)
- A reported 65,000 people turned out to watch Wallenda's walk. It was hyped in the media as an event not to be missed. There were commentators, expert talking heads, and even a computer generated model of what the winds might be like. In James Marsh's haigiographic film Man on Wire there is a moving picture of some of Petit's friends and co-conspirators looking up at the speck that was Petit on the wire. There are a few people who have stopped to look up, too, but there are others who keep on walking, oblivious. Yes, Petit undoubtedly wanted an audience, but it does seem as though the experience itself was the driving force.
- And while I can not say this for certain, I cannot imagine that Wallenda's team had anywhere near the passion and devotion not just to the walk itself but to the adventure of doing something impossible (and getting away with it) and to the sheer artistry and beauty of this surprise gift to New York City.
Our history matters, and our pioneers should not be forgotten.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Ideas on Identity, part 1
Last night at the congregation I serve -- the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church - Unitarian Universalist -- there was a discussion as part of our Adult Faith Development program titled, "What's the 'T' in 'LGBT' and what does it have to do with our bathrooms?"
Several months ago we posted signs on our bathrooms that identified some as gender-specific and some as gender-neutral and which raise for anyone who uses any of our bathrooms issues of gender identity and gender expression and challenge us to consider what a truly welcoming environment might look like. (For more on the specific issue of gender-neutral bathrooms I encourage you to follow this link to all the additional links you'll find there.) South African Archbishop Desmund Tutu once wrote that "the church should be an audio visual aid" showing what the world should be like.
I envision a world in which each person was encouraged to live their lives authentically. I envision a world in which no one of us would be considered "normal" and another "abnormal" but, instead, the "norm" would be those whose self-expression and sense of identity were one in the same.
Let's stop there for a moment. The dominant culture teaches many things. One is that we live in a binary world -- good/bad, hot/cold, quiet/loud, hard/soft, female/male. And we are taught to make sense of the world by assigning everything we encounter into one or another category. Always one or the other. Either or.
Unfortunately, as with so many other things -- not everything but a great many things -- the dominant culture has this wrong. The reality is that there are gradations; things usually fall on a spectrum. Life is infinitely more complex than either/or thinking might allow. Consider, for a moment, what physicists have learned about light. Once the quest was to discover if light was a particle or a wave, two mutually exclusive states. Now we know that light is, actually, both. Either/or becomes both/and.
Some people, though, would say that all this relativistic thinking has to stop somewhere, right? After all, biology dictates that men are men and women are women, right? Well ...
It turns out that this certainty can only be maintained if you look at only one facet of a person's identity. A person's sex is the body they were born into. Biologically, a person is male or female. (Of course, throughout a variety of species, including humans, there have always been hermaphrodites who have biological traits of both male and female.) But that's really not enough, so we need to add the concept of gender expression. This is how a person shows themselves to the world. Typically this is either masculine or feminine, although there have always been people who found either of those labels too limiting. It's important to recognize that a person's gender expression is not necessarily the same as their sex. For any of a number of reasons a person who is biologically one sex may express themselves in the world in ways more consistent with the other.
Another essential component is gender identity. A person who is born into a male body can know themselves to be female, and vice versa. This person's gender identity is not in alignment with their sex. This person may have a gender expression that is the same as their biology, or the same as their identity, or, sometimes, either or both. (None of this has anything to do with a person's sexual orientation, which adds another color to this beautiful mosaic.)
If you want to explore all of this in more detail, I encourage you to visit a valuable website, "Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity 101 ." For the purposes of this post, though, I think that the most important idea I want to try and get across is that all of this is absolutely normal. This is, in fact, the way the world is and the way it always has been. (Despite what the dominant culture has taught us.) And if the church is supposed to be an "audio visual aid" showing what the world should be like, it seems to me that one facet of that is acknowledging honestly the way that it actually is.
In the next post I plan to write about the next step -- actively engaging this complex and diverse richness as a positive rather than something to fear and struggle with. 'Till then ...
Pax tecum,
RevWik
Several months ago we posted signs on our bathrooms that identified some as gender-specific and some as gender-neutral and which raise for anyone who uses any of our bathrooms issues of gender identity and gender expression and challenge us to consider what a truly welcoming environment might look like. (For more on the specific issue of gender-neutral bathrooms I encourage you to follow this link to all the additional links you'll find there.) South African Archbishop Desmund Tutu once wrote that "the church should be an audio visual aid" showing what the world should be like.
I envision a world in which each person was encouraged to live their lives authentically. I envision a world in which no one of us would be considered "normal" and another "abnormal" but, instead, the "norm" would be those whose self-expression and sense of identity were one in the same.
Let's stop there for a moment. The dominant culture teaches many things. One is that we live in a binary world -- good/bad, hot/cold, quiet/loud, hard/soft, female/male. And we are taught to make sense of the world by assigning everything we encounter into one or another category. Always one or the other. Either or.
Unfortunately, as with so many other things -- not everything but a great many things -- the dominant culture has this wrong. The reality is that there are gradations; things usually fall on a spectrum. Life is infinitely more complex than either/or thinking might allow. Consider, for a moment, what physicists have learned about light. Once the quest was to discover if light was a particle or a wave, two mutually exclusive states. Now we know that light is, actually, both. Either/or becomes both/and.
Some people, though, would say that all this relativistic thinking has to stop somewhere, right? After all, biology dictates that men are men and women are women, right? Well ...
It turns out that this certainty can only be maintained if you look at only one facet of a person's identity. A person's sex is the body they were born into. Biologically, a person is male or female. (Of course, throughout a variety of species, including humans, there have always been hermaphrodites who have biological traits of both male and female.) But that's really not enough, so we need to add the concept of gender expression. This is how a person shows themselves to the world. Typically this is either masculine or feminine, although there have always been people who found either of those labels too limiting. It's important to recognize that a person's gender expression is not necessarily the same as their sex. For any of a number of reasons a person who is biologically one sex may express themselves in the world in ways more consistent with the other.
Another essential component is gender identity. A person who is born into a male body can know themselves to be female, and vice versa. This person's gender identity is not in alignment with their sex. This person may have a gender expression that is the same as their biology, or the same as their identity, or, sometimes, either or both. (None of this has anything to do with a person's sexual orientation, which adds another color to this beautiful mosaic.)
If you want to explore all of this in more detail, I encourage you to visit a valuable website, "Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity 101 ." For the purposes of this post, though, I think that the most important idea I want to try and get across is that all of this is absolutely normal. This is, in fact, the way the world is and the way it always has been. (Despite what the dominant culture has taught us.) And if the church is supposed to be an "audio visual aid" showing what the world should be like, it seems to me that one facet of that is acknowledging honestly the way that it actually is.In the next post I plan to write about the next step -- actively engaging this complex and diverse richness as a positive rather than something to fear and struggle with. 'Till then ...
Pax tecum,
RevWik
Labels:
gender,
heterosexism,
identity,
sex,
TJMC,
transgender
Monday, August 18, 2014
Left Behind
This is the sermon preached on August 17, 2014 at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Church -- Unitarian Universalist in Charlottesville, VA. If you would like to hear it, click here.
The sermon this
morning was supposed to be about the Christian Book of Revelation, specifically
the concept of the "rapture."
Our jumping-off point was going to be the best-selling Christian book
series of all time -- Tim LaHaye's hexadecagology,
"Left Behind." (And yes, I
just made up that word. I figured that if
three books is a "trilogy," then sixteen books would be a hexadecagology.) Anyway, that's what Mike and I had been
planning to explore this morning, but sometimes events make preachers change
their plans.
There's an old
joke. A man goes to a doctor. He's obviously on the verge of tears. He says, "Doctor ... I am so depressed. I don't see any way I can keep on going. It's all just getting too hard. The world seems so cold and lonely. I don't know what to do."
The doctor says,
"I have an idea. The great clown
Paggliachi is in town this week. I
happen to have a ticket to tonight's show.
Take it. Go. He'll cheer you up, I'm sure of it."
The man finally succumbs
to his tears. "But doctor," he
says, "I am Paggliachi."
This
generation's Paggliachi died of suicide this week, and suddenly "left
behind" has a whole new connotation.
Robin Williams’ gifts touched so many lives so deeply that a lot of us
felt his death personally, and felt as if we’d been left behind. And his public death brought up for a lot of
us – here in this room as well as around the country and around the world – a
whole lot of memories and emotions for those who’ve experienced it in their own
lives. And it was only last month that
the Rev. Jennifer Slade, who was serving our congregation in Norfolk, died of
suicide. (Some of us might remember her
since she’d come here as a consultant on the church’s search process.)
But it was Robin
Williams who seems to have gotten people everywhere talking about depression,
and mental illness, and suicide. In the
past week people have shared their opinions, and counter opinions. And I've been somewhat amazed at all the
folks who’ve "come out of the closet," if you will; who have taken
public their own struggles with depression.
(I guess I was somewhat ahead of the curve on that, having done so a
while ago.)
Now I want to be
clear about something before going on here.
It’s true that everyone knows what it's like to be depressed; everyone
has been "down" and "blue" at some point in their
lives. But not everyone understands
depression. Maybe an analogy or two would
help:
Everyone knows
what it's like to feel run down, but some people actually have the flu -- a
true medical condition; an illness. And
everyone knows what it's like to have body aches, but some people actually have
fibromyalgia -- a true medical condition.
Again, a bonafide illness. And
everybody knows what it's like to be depressed, but some people actually have
depression. These things really are
similar in that way.
On the cover of
your Order of Service is a cartoon I first saw a couple of years ago with which
I and a lot of other people with depression resonate. "Why don't you just get over
it?" "If only you'd apply
yourself ..." "This lying around
obviously isn't helping you any."
"You just need some thing to cheer you up." ("Go see that clown,
Paggliachi.") We'd never think to
say such things to someone with cancer, for instance, or ALS, but virtually
everyone with depression has no doubt heard things like this countless
times.
And it's not
just depression. In our culture we seem
to treat most mental illnesses as if they were not, you know, actually
illnesses. They are. And they can be just as debilitating and just
as much beyond a person's conscious control as any other. Oh, sure, there are treatments that can
help. Sometimes. For some people. Yet just as with a whole host of other
medical conditions not every treatment works 100% of the time for every
patient.
Talk therapy is
good. It can be helpful. But for a lot of people it's nowhere near
enough. (And there are some therapists
out there who themselves really don't understand the illness -- and bad therapy
can be worse than no therapy at all.)
And there are
medications -- most of which have some pretty awful side effects and none of
which is guaranteed to work. Often a
variety of drugs have to be tried, and at a variety of different dosages, to
find something that works. And often
what works only works for a while and then something else needs to be tried.
There's also ECT
-- electro-convulsive therapy -- which has had really good outcomes for some
people. But not everyone. And it, too, even when it works, isn't so
much a cure as a combative. (Think of it
as helping someone to go into remission.)
So yes, there
are things that we can do -- and that does include things like trying to eat
well, and get enough exercise, and enough sleep; and keeping busy; and finding
meaningful things to do. (And, yes
watching funny movies can be good, too.)
But the bottom line is that it's a disease, but a disease that often
resists treatment and is rarely ever really cured.
And all of this
has been raised in our public consciousness because of Robin William's suicide.
Something else
that’s been raised is the effect death by suicide can have on those who are
“left behind.” I should say effects, because there’s no one
reaction. Survivors of suicide have
what’s called “complicated grief.” Studies
have shown that survivors seem to struggle more than others with trying to make
meaning of the death, asking questions like, “Why did they do it?”. Survivors often try to figure out the motives
and frame of mind of the deceased and look back over the days and weeks leading
up to the suicide looking for clues, things they might have missed. (That’s already started with Williams.)
This
leads pretty directly to one of the other difference with bereavement following
a suicide – survivors are more apt to feel guilt, blame, and responsibility for
the death than other mourners, asking questions like, “Why couldn’t I prevent it?” Some survivors feel that they may have directly
caused the death through some kind of mistreatment or perceived abandonment. More common, though, is to blame themselves
for not anticipating and preventing it.
Finally,
several studies indicate that survivors experience heightened feelings of
rejection or abandonment by the loved one, along with anger toward the deceased
– “How could they do this to me?” This is, I think, one of the reasons we’ve
heard people saying that the act of suicide is, ultimately, a “selfish” act, an
“uncaring” one, and even “cowardly.” I
have heard this said by people who have survived a loved one’s suicide, and I
have heard it said by people who have seen first-hand the devastation that can
follow. There can be a lifetime of devastation.
Yet
I want to return to the analogies we were using earlier. Would you ever think to say to someone who
died following a battle with cancer that they were “selfish,” or that they were
a “coward” for giving up? Taken the easy
way out? Of course not. No one would ever say anything like that
because cancer is a disease that is recognized as deadly. Not every kind of cancer, of course, and even
deadly forms of cancer can occasionally be beaten back, but we are not
surprised when a person dies of cancer, or advanced heart disease, or ALS, or,
for that matter, Ebola, because we know that these diseases kill.
Well
… depression is a disease. And it
kills. Not all the time, but that is its
natural progression. Don’t believe for a
minute otherwise. As was said this week,
depression is, “merciless. All it wants
is to get you alone in a room and kill you.”
As the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention puts it in its guide
for those who’ve survived a loved one’s suicide, “Just as people can die of
heart disease or cancer, people can die as a consequence of mental illness.”
One
of the first Worship Weavers I ever worked with would every so often listen to
the ideas I had for a sermon and say, “Well that’s interesting, Erik, but so
what?” So here’s the “so what” of this
morning:
If
you’re depressed – and I don’t just mean “blue,” or “sad,” or “heavy” – if
you’re struggling with depression … take it seriously. This is one tough disease we’ve got, and left
to its own devices it’s often fatal. Try
those treatments I mentioned earlier.
Keep trying them until you find something that works. Fight against the urge to isolate, to slap a
smile on and keep on keeping on as if nothing’s wrong, to think that the
problem is you rather than something in you.
And
yes, we can argue about that particular phrasing, but I think you all know what
I mean. It’s not generally your fault
when you get cancer. It’s not generally
your fault when you develop a neurological condition. It’s not generally your fault when you have
depression (or any other mental illness).
So try not to let shame, or guilt, or fear-of-others’-reactions stop you
from getting the help you need.
Try. There are a lot of us who
know what it’s like. We should talk to
each other.
To
those of you who know, live with, love someone who is battling depression – and
this, too, goes for just about any mental illness, or any chronic physical
illness, for that matter – I’m hoping that you’re hearing just how hard this
is. And by that I don’t mean just for
the person who has depression, but for you.
It is hard to watch someone you love, someone you care about, struggling
with a serious illness. And the natural
human inclination is to want to try to do something to help. It’s important to know that sometimes you
can’t help. Sometimes you can, and you
may be helping more than you could ever imagine just by being present. But it’s unlikely that there’s anything you
can do that will make everything okay.
If other people’s love, respect, admiration, desire-to-help could cure
anyone, then Robin Williams would be alive today. And last week Mary Rose talked about how the
Rev. Jennifer Slade was really beloved by the congregation in Norfolk where she
was serving. As with any chronic,
severe, life-threatening disease, there’s only so much anyone can do.
And
that’s hard. So you need to make sure
you take care of yourself. You need to
make sure that you have support. Because
you need to know that it’s not about anything you did or didn’t do. It’s not about any clues that you missed or
saw but misunderstood (or ignored). You
and that person you love are staring down a disease – an insidious and
too-often fatal disease.
There’s
a third group I want to speak to this morning, those who’ve survived the
struggle with depression when your friend, parent, sibling, child, co-worker,
whoever didn’t. I hope you’ve been
hearing everything I’ve said this morning.
I conclude ever memorial service I lead with words from a Mary Oliver
poem: “To live in this world you must be
able to do three things: to love what is
mortal; to hold it against your bones knowing that your own life depends upon
it; and when the time comes to let it go, to let it go.” That’s true no matter how your loved one
died.
There
is one thing more I want to say. I know
that not everyone will agree with me, but I believe it to be true.
This
week I watched again the movie WhatDreams May Come. It’s a Robin
Williams movie. A beautiful film – both visually
and in its message, too. If you’ve seen
it, if you remember it, then you’ll know what I mean, but if you haven’t let me
just warn you that it’s a little rough to watch right now. In part because it’s about depression, death,
grief, even suicide. Ultimately it’s
hopeful, but it’s a bit of a rough slog getting there.
Early
on, though, there’s a scene I want to call to your attention. Our attention. A character has died and we see this person
attending their own funeral. Walking
down the aisle to the front of the church.
Kneeling beside a loved one in the first pew. And this person tries to reach out across
that divide that separate life from death to say three little words. Just three little words – “I still
exist.” I still exist. A kind of angelic companion asks, “Are you
losing your fear?” “Fear?” “That you disappeared? You didn’t, you only died.” They didn’t disappear, they only died.
This
morning has been what one of my colleagues calls, “a rough one.” I mean, I assume it has for some of you. I know it has for me. But life is oftentimes “rough,” and that
roughness takes so many forms. In the end I believe that there’s really only
one thing we can offer one another. It
may not be able to do everything, but to the bottom of my soul I believe it’s
enough. That thing is love. Love someone today, my friends. And know that you, too, are loved.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
Labels:
depression,
Robin Williams,
sermon,
suicide,
TJMC
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Depression: It's Not What It Looks Like
A few weeks ago a colleague of mine in the professional ministry ended her life. Yesterday morning Robin Williams apparently committed suicide. Here are some things they have in common:
In the wake of William's death a lot of people are writing a lot of things about depression. Some are very helpful; some are not. The former are generally written by people who have (or have had) their own first-hand experience(s) with depression. It's hard for anyone who hasn't to really understand it. (It can be hard for those of us who have to understand it, too!)
One of the things I read today was this piece, "21 Things Nobody Tells You About Depression," by Alexis Nedd. (And as with any good blog post there are links within that are worth following.) I encourage people to read it, and anything else that attempts to tell it like it is.
It's funny, though. If you do a Google image search on the word "depression" what comes up is a whole lot of pictures of people with their head in their hands, sitting in near darkness, alone, knees up, or literally up against a wall (like this one to the right). Lots of black and white. Lots of use of shadow.
What you don't see too often is ... well ... someone like Robin Williams. You don't see someone full of energy, full of life. We don't depict depression with a picture of someone heartily laughing, or making others laugh. We don't show it with images of people going about their lives, being successful, doing meaningful things and doing them well.
And that can make it hard for folks to recognize -- even to believe -- that the people they know are "really" suffering. It can make it hard for people to acknowledge the real struggle depressed people may be having even when they're looking like everything's fine. This can also make it hard for people wrestling with depression to ask for help -- we don't want to disappoint people's positive perceptions of us, and we understand that it can be hard for people to believe. It can also deepen our negative feelings about ourselves and our sense of hopelessness -- "My God," we might say, "everybody else thinks I have a great life, everybody else thinks I'm a great person, there must be something really wrong with me that I feel so awful!"
Depression can be, of course, mind and body numbing. It can crush you deep into the couch with a blanket on top of you and a marathon of Law and Order: SVU in front of you. But it can also be the constant companion who is just underneath the surface of an otherwise normal-looking life.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
- Both were relatively young;
- Both were relatively healthy (physically speaking);
- They both had careers that were meaningful;
- They were both highly successful in their careers (meaning that others respected and appreciated their work and they knew this);
- They each had families and friends who loved them;
- They both presented themselves to the world as people who "had a lot to live for" and who genuinely appreciated life -- theirs in particular and "life" abstractly;
- They both struggled with depression but had help;
- They both committed suicide.
In the wake of William's death a lot of people are writing a lot of things about depression. Some are very helpful; some are not. The former are generally written by people who have (or have had) their own first-hand experience(s) with depression. It's hard for anyone who hasn't to really understand it. (It can be hard for those of us who have to understand it, too!)
One of the things I read today was this piece, "21 Things Nobody Tells You About Depression," by Alexis Nedd. (And as with any good blog post there are links within that are worth following.) I encourage people to read it, and anything else that attempts to tell it like it is.
It's funny, though. If you do a Google image search on the word "depression" what comes up is a whole lot of pictures of people with their head in their hands, sitting in near darkness, alone, knees up, or literally up against a wall (like this one to the right). Lots of black and white. Lots of use of shadow.What you don't see too often is ... well ... someone like Robin Williams. You don't see someone full of energy, full of life. We don't depict depression with a picture of someone heartily laughing, or making others laugh. We don't show it with images of people going about their lives, being successful, doing meaningful things and doing them well.
And that can make it hard for folks to recognize -- even to believe -- that the people they know are "really" suffering. It can make it hard for people to acknowledge the real struggle depressed people may be having even when they're looking like everything's fine. This can also make it hard for people wrestling with depression to ask for help -- we don't want to disappoint people's positive perceptions of us, and we understand that it can be hard for people to believe. It can also deepen our negative feelings about ourselves and our sense of hopelessness -- "My God," we might say, "everybody else thinks I have a great life, everybody else thinks I'm a great person, there must be something really wrong with me that I feel so awful!"
Depression can be, of course, mind and body numbing. It can crush you deep into the couch with a blanket on top of you and a marathon of Law and Order: SVU in front of you. But it can also be the constant companion who is just underneath the surface of an otherwise normal-looking life.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
Monday, August 11, 2014
Farewell, Robin Williams
When I was young, I wanted to become a performer. And I did, in more ways than not. I've got a somewhat serious and steady gig these days -- every Sunday morning -- but in my day I was a juggler, a magician, an escape artist, a fire eater. Truth is, though, each of those specialties was really an excuse to talk. I have been for most of my life, and still am, a professional talker.
When I was a kid, one of my friends and I memorized every word of Woody Allen's Standup Comic album. And, of course, I wore the grooves off my copy of Steve Martin's Let's Get Small. And if you could watch videos of my earliest performances you'd be able to hear the rhythms and pacing of Bill Murray, something I consciously tried to copy. But hands down, if I could have become a clone of anyone in those days, it'd have been Robin Williams.
I had never seen a comedic brain move more quickly. (And never did, until I discovered Eddie Izzard.) So fast. So smart. A master, a true master. Thanks to my parents I was already familiar with Williams' hero Jonathan Winter, and I admired him tremendously. But I loved Robin Williams.
This morning Robin Williams apparently committed suicide. If someone as loved, as respected, as admired, as appreciated as this could give in to the suicidal urge, it is proof positive that that act has nothing to do with those things. Looking in from the outside it can be so hard to see how someone who has "so much going for them" could find life unbearably painful or, perhaps worse, utterly meaningless. And yet, from this inside, those outside can seem to be speaking another language, or about someone else.
Williams' wife has said that she hopes people will not remember him for the way he died, but for the joy he gave others while he was alive. I want to remember both. Because the struggles he faced were real. His suffering was real. The depression, and the isolation, and the despair, and the meaningless, and the desperation, and the pain ... these were all real.
Yet so was the joy, and the wonder, and the child-like playfulness, and the intelligence, and the daring, and the compassion (and mischief) you could see in his eyes, and the appreciation of life that poured off of him ... these were real, too.
And, I suppose, the most important thing to remember is that the were both true. Those of us who know depression from the inside know it can be hard to see anything else about ourselves at times. And yet many of us know that there are people who see us and can't believe we're depressed. Both can be true in one and the same person, even at one in the same time.
So thank you, Robin Williams, for all the ways your life, your gifts, have impacted mine and the lives of millions of others. You will be missed. You will be remembered.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
When I was a kid, one of my friends and I memorized every word of Woody Allen's Standup Comic album. And, of course, I wore the grooves off my copy of Steve Martin's Let's Get Small. And if you could watch videos of my earliest performances you'd be able to hear the rhythms and pacing of Bill Murray, something I consciously tried to copy. But hands down, if I could have become a clone of anyone in those days, it'd have been Robin Williams.
I had never seen a comedic brain move more quickly. (And never did, until I discovered Eddie Izzard.) So fast. So smart. A master, a true master. Thanks to my parents I was already familiar with Williams' hero Jonathan Winter, and I admired him tremendously. But I loved Robin Williams.
This morning Robin Williams apparently committed suicide. If someone as loved, as respected, as admired, as appreciated as this could give in to the suicidal urge, it is proof positive that that act has nothing to do with those things. Looking in from the outside it can be so hard to see how someone who has "so much going for them" could find life unbearably painful or, perhaps worse, utterly meaningless. And yet, from this inside, those outside can seem to be speaking another language, or about someone else.
Williams' wife has said that she hopes people will not remember him for the way he died, but for the joy he gave others while he was alive. I want to remember both. Because the struggles he faced were real. His suffering was real. The depression, and the isolation, and the despair, and the meaningless, and the desperation, and the pain ... these were all real.
Yet so was the joy, and the wonder, and the child-like playfulness, and the intelligence, and the daring, and the compassion (and mischief) you could see in his eyes, and the appreciation of life that poured off of him ... these were real, too.
And, I suppose, the most important thing to remember is that the were both true. Those of us who know depression from the inside know it can be hard to see anything else about ourselves at times. And yet many of us know that there are people who see us and can't believe we're depressed. Both can be true in one and the same person, even at one in the same time.
So thank you, Robin Williams, for all the ways your life, your gifts, have impacted mine and the lives of millions of others. You will be missed. You will be remembered.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
![]() |
| R.I.P Robin McLaurin Williams (July 21, 1951 ~ August 11, 2014) |
Labels:
joy,
life,
Robin Williams,
suicide
Thursday, August 07, 2014
The 40th Anniversary of the Dance Between the Towers
Each year, on the anniversary of the day that the French wire-walker and street performer Phillipe Petit danced for forty-five minutes between the towers of the World Trade Center, I watch the wonderful documentary about le coup, Man on Wire. And each year I am once again inspired.
I am inspired by the raw courage and sheer lunacy of this feat. At one point in the film Petit says of his attitude on first actually seeing the towers, "It's impossible, that's sure. So let's start working." Petit's confidence in his own abilities is mindboggling -- that anyone could imagine that they could do such a thing!
But this was not a solitary venture. Although Petit was the one on that wire a quarter of a mile above the streets of New York City, in truth he was only there because of his friends. In the dedication of his own reminiscence of the event -- the book now also called Man on Wire but originally called To Reach The Clouds -- Petit names twenty-one individuals, and leaves at least a few unnamed. He says that it is to these that "this story belongs." It was not just Petit's faith in himself that's inspiring. He also had a seemingly innate, unquestioned faith in those who were working on this project with him, and they in him.
That's something that comes through if you watch the film closely enough, or read the book for the story within the story -- each of these people believed in this crazy idea as much as Petit did. Each of them thought it was worth doing. Each of them thought it was possible. Each of them thought that she or he was just the person to make it happen. They were not merely his assistants; they were his collaborators, his co-conspirators. It was not Petit's coup; the walk belonged to all of them.
Storytellers love a hero. Audiences want to see one woman or one man with the courage and the skills to overcome seemingly impossible obstacles and do what no one else can. (This is true, at least, of American storytellers and audiences brought up in the dominant culture of the United States.) We want there to be a pinnacle -- to inspire us, to give us something to aspire to. And so the images of Petit on that 3/4" wire, alone, touches something in our souls. It's nearly impossible for us to imagine anyone else out there with him.
But there were. Yes, only he had put his life on the line, but they had put the life of a dear friend on the line knowing that if something were to happen he would die a poet's death whereas they would have to live with if for the rest of their lives. It was the skill of his feet and that insane concentration that kept him aloft on that early Tuesday morning, but it was the skill of his friends and their insane dedication that got him there in the first place. There is another story -- a less mythic, perhaps, yet deeper and more true story -- about le coup.
It is also, I think, an ultimately more inspiring one. When I was younger it is quite possible that I aspired to be that solitary hero. (I don't know for sure, I'm old enough now not to really remember!) Now, though, I aspire to be part of a community that's doing daring things; to be one of a group that believes that, together, nothing can stop them.
I used to call this day "International Phillipe Petit Danced Between the Towers Day." I will call it now, the Anniversary of the Dance Between the Towers because those who were on those roofs with him, and those who'd been with him in the planning and were now down on the street, and even those of us who merely watched and wondered ... we all were dancing too.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
So this year -- the 40th anniversary -- I salute them.
I am inspired by the raw courage and sheer lunacy of this feat. At one point in the film Petit says of his attitude on first actually seeing the towers, "It's impossible, that's sure. So let's start working." Petit's confidence in his own abilities is mindboggling -- that anyone could imagine that they could do such a thing!
But this was not a solitary venture. Although Petit was the one on that wire a quarter of a mile above the streets of New York City, in truth he was only there because of his friends. In the dedication of his own reminiscence of the event -- the book now also called Man on Wire but originally called To Reach The Clouds -- Petit names twenty-one individuals, and leaves at least a few unnamed. He says that it is to these that "this story belongs." It was not just Petit's faith in himself that's inspiring. He also had a seemingly innate, unquestioned faith in those who were working on this project with him, and they in him.
That's something that comes through if you watch the film closely enough, or read the book for the story within the story -- each of these people believed in this crazy idea as much as Petit did. Each of them thought it was worth doing. Each of them thought it was possible. Each of them thought that she or he was just the person to make it happen. They were not merely his assistants; they were his collaborators, his co-conspirators. It was not Petit's coup; the walk belonged to all of them.
Storytellers love a hero. Audiences want to see one woman or one man with the courage and the skills to overcome seemingly impossible obstacles and do what no one else can. (This is true, at least, of American storytellers and audiences brought up in the dominant culture of the United States.) We want there to be a pinnacle -- to inspire us, to give us something to aspire to. And so the images of Petit on that 3/4" wire, alone, touches something in our souls. It's nearly impossible for us to imagine anyone else out there with him.
But there were. Yes, only he had put his life on the line, but they had put the life of a dear friend on the line knowing that if something were to happen he would die a poet's death whereas they would have to live with if for the rest of their lives. It was the skill of his feet and that insane concentration that kept him aloft on that early Tuesday morning, but it was the skill of his friends and their insane dedication that got him there in the first place. There is another story -- a less mythic, perhaps, yet deeper and more true story -- about le coup.
It is also, I think, an ultimately more inspiring one. When I was younger it is quite possible that I aspired to be that solitary hero. (I don't know for sure, I'm old enough now not to really remember!) Now, though, I aspire to be part of a community that's doing daring things; to be one of a group that believes that, together, nothing can stop them.
I used to call this day "International Phillipe Petit Danced Between the Towers Day." I will call it now, the Anniversary of the Dance Between the Towers because those who were on those roofs with him, and those who'd been with him in the planning and were now down on the street, and even those of us who merely watched and wondered ... we all were dancing too.
Pax tecum,
RevWik
UPDATE: When I first wrote this post I was able to find photos of three of the team that were involved that day -- Jean-Louis Blondeau (who planed and organized the whole adventure), Annie Allix, and Jean-François Heckel. I wrote to Jean-Louis, with whom I've previously been in touch, and he told me that there were three other people who really needed to be mentioned -- Jean-Pierre Dousseau (who is never even mentioned in the film yet who drove the van into the Towers' delivery area and who was an integral part of the feat), and both Jim Moore and Barry Greenhouse (who do feature in the film). He also sent me photos of these three so that I might honor them and their role as well.
| Jean-Louis Blondeau |
![]() |
| Annie Allix |
![]() |
|
Jean-François Heckel
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
| Jim Moore |
|
| Barry Greenhouse |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)













