CROSSING THRESHOLDS

For the last couple of years, I’ve been mulling over something off and on. It’s about what we do when we visit someone. What’s been sticking in my head is a charge that Jesus gave his disciples when he sent them out to minister to the people.

Whatever house you enter, first say, "Peace be to this house." If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him, but if not, it will return to you. (Luke 10: 5-6)

It’s such a simple thing, and yet we’ve fallen out of the habit of doing it. I keep wondering why, just as I wonder why it is so hard for me to get into the habit of saying it.

After all, the charge is to bless "Peace" to the house, not "of the Lord", or "of Jesus", or "God". Just "peace". When these days we are so cautious about not intruding something that might be offensive to our hosts, it’s quite a lesson to look back at the actual charge. It’s simply "peace." What could possibly offend in that? Who would refuse it? Other than one who is not a "man of peace", in which case we get the blessing back.

So, what is it that keeps us from crossing the threshold with these words? Maybe we just feel odd bestowing blessings on others. I know I do myself a little bit. Yet it hides in our language. "Goodbye" started life meaning "God be with you." The Spanish "adios" commits the one you are parting from to God, as does the French "adieu". And it’s odd that in disguise or not, we find it easier to bless in parting than in greeting. Even in church, the benediction (the "good word") comes at the end.

Of course, at church, services usually open with an invocation. That’s where we ask God to be present with us, to attend to our worship. Not quite the same thing as blessing those in the house.

I did give it a try recently. I happened to be going to a friend’s house for a picnic with our writers group. She and her husband were in the middle of a very tough time, and I knew they needed all the prayers and blessings they could get. I actually did manage to say "Blessings on all within this house" as I came in the door. Not exactly what Jesus recommended saying, but close. My friend was grateful for it, to be sure.

The thing is, I haven’t managed to repeat it. At least not yet. And this in spite of twice monthly gatherings of my writers group, a leadership team I’m a part of, and a couple of Christmas parties in recent weeks, all of which took place in the homes of friends.

I’m going to try and get in the habit of speaking the blessing in the coming year. After all, what is there in it to offend anyone? "Peace be to this house." Five little words. Shouldn’t be hard to say. And it’s not like I’m giving up anything of myself in saying it: I don’t have to part with a drop of blood, or a penny, or anything of substance. Just some breath, a few shaped sounds, and an intention in my heart.

And maybe it is the intention that is the hardest thing for us all. This has become a rather self-centered, self-absorbed age. We move about in our little bubbles, interacting with each other, letting certain select people get close to us, but not particularly open to those met in passing. We enter each others homes knowing we are intruding on someone’s personal space. I suppose we don’t want to feel like we’re interfering in each other’s lives.

But in the end, what is the interference? What is the intrusion? Why do we hold back from this simple thing? I don’t know. But I am becoming curious about what might happen if I start doing it. What might happen if many people started doing it? An interesting idea.

"Peace be to this house and all within."

OPEN RESPONSE TO DAN HEDLEMAN

Recently, Dan posted some responses to my "Tested by Fire" blog, and our exchanges ran rather long. So instead of trying to respond in the comments windows (which tend to cut one off if one runs long), I thought I'd do it in a separate blog entry. The disagreements between believers and non-believers can be interesting, or frustrating, depending on communication skills.

Anyway, this blog is directly addressed to Dan and the comments he had made (as of December 19th). He is the "you" (for the most part), and my own approach here is conversational.

****
Dan....

Dear me, how quickly you are offended, sending me rocketing from "cool" down to the condescending "little girl" and "my dear". I'm not sure just why you used "little girl" - what is it that you imagine my background to be, nevermind my age? Unless, of course, it was just to be condescending and suppressive. But anyway, let me first just address this matter of your resentment.

I said, with amiable diffidence, "I think your beliefs are not so in-line with the reality of the universe as you think they are." Note that: it's my opinion. I did not say that you were wrong. I gave you my opinion, based on -- well, based on my beliefs, of course. But I did it politely. You returned the favor by sneering and attacking. Just as a reflection of values and actions based on a standard of behavior, do tell me how yours is better than mine? I would like to know.

Anyway, you say I didn't address a single one of your points.

There were points?

There were a lot of rambling generalities which seemed to have tangled and vague assumptions at their roots. Which made it difficult to figure out what to address. (Oh, and surely my addressing your "point" about exclusivity was at least one point I did address!)

But on to your so-called points --

Let's address your opinion of how Christians regard non-Christians. Since "being Christian" ipso facto means that one believes one has a particular type of relationship with the Ultimate Divinity, yes, it is undeniable that Christians therefore believe that non-Christians do not have that same realtionship. That does not mean that all Christians therefore believe that all non-Christians do not or cannot come near to God. We just think that you can't cover that last intimate distance without coming to accept that Jesus himself was God.

You say, "The church DOES have proactive and oppressive political ambitions."

What "church"? Are you a disaffected Catholic, or what? I happen to have grown up in the Methodist denomination, and am currently attending a Presbyterian congregation. The instituational variety is rather great.

That said, let's start with "proactive" -- yes, Christians, as believers, are expected to be socially engaged. To help those in need, to care for those who need care. To not wait, but to move when need arises. Is this a bad thing?

However, "oppresive political ambitions" -- I have no idea what you think that means. Would you care to mention some specific instances? Maybe you mean abortion. But since for believers that touches on one's spiritual understanding of the sacredness of live and when life begins, it will always be a point of disagreement between Christians and non-Christians. My stance is that because one cannot legislate a spiritual understanding, abortion should be legal -- because if a woman is going to do it, it is better it be done in safe medical circumstances. But I'm not likely to advocate abortion.

Other "oppressive political ambitions"? You're going to have to be specific if you want me to address them.

I'm taking a guess here at what you meant in your comment about "having it both ways" -- did you mean the concept (yours, by the way) that only Christians are moral, and non-believers are not? I make no such presumption. You are thrusting upon me a stance I do not hold, nor am required to hold by any dictum of my faith that I know of.

You said "... my belief is equal to yours and therefore it must be and is condescending, dehumanizing and therefore dangerous of yours to act, parade or hint otherwise."

But, I have to ask you (aside from trying to work out the confused grammar there), "equal" in what way? What are we being asked to evaluate here for equality's sake?

Do you have an equal right to believe as you choose, just as I have a right to believe as I choose? Of course you do.

Or are you saying that what you believe to be true of reality in all its aspects is equal to my understanding of reality? In what way? Verifiability? Functional guidelines? What? I'm guessing here, since you don't specify.

Anyway... Leonardo (please, "da Vinci" is NOT his name! Just the first instance of Dan Brown's poor research foisted upon society and absorbed as if divine revelation) was hardly hounded by "the church". He was by personality a difficult man.

As for "what is real" in Brown's The Da Vinci Code -- oh yeah, it is by far less factual than many things in the Bible. Regarding the specific things you cite: Do I believe that the story of Jonah and the whale is factual? I don't know if it is. I do know that there was indeed an Israelite named Jonah who went to Ninevah and died serving and advising the Assyrian king there (his tomb has been discovered by archeologists). Had he been swallowed by a great fish? I don't know. What I do know is that that story has power as myth, in representing those dark, forsaken moments in life. I don't know what you consider to be "the cosmology of the Bible." I have, however taken geology courses, and know that physical descriptions of land given in the Bible are rather accurate. My professor for Historical Geology made the comment that the description of the destruction of the Dead Sea cities in Genesis is a fairly accurate one for the consequences of the limestone sedimentary rock being drop-faulted down and suddenly flooded by a heavily salinated body of water. Also, I do know that archeology has discovered wells in the exact locations that Scripture indicates that Jacob dug wells. That's a better track record of accuracy than Dan Brown achieved.

What do you mean, "Your experience with Christianity can not be compared to what you would be like without it. You don't know." ???

Excuse me? I am a reasonably rational, self-aware, self-reflective and analytical human being. And fairly honest about myself as well. And I know quite well what I am capable of being and doing if I were not a Christian. On top of that, as a writer and storyteller, I can imagine how Me-as-non-believer would act and what the consequences of those actions would be.

Good heavens, what a lack of imagination you impune to me!

"If Christianity had its way the world would still be flat." Well, you know what? It never was flat, and it is not a doctrine that anyone held. It was a belief of the culture of the time, and held by others than Christians. As for me not being able to vote -- oh, please! Christianity doesn't say anything like that at all. People may have used the Faith as an excuse for such attitudes, but it isn't there in the scripture. Your insistance on this misperception of history is... an insult, frankly. Learn some facts, please.

As for your "little girl" comment -- what do I know of the universe that you do not? I don't know the scope of your education, you haven't revealed that. Me, I have two degrees in English literature, a minor in Classical literature (Latin espeically), a minor in History, special focus on medieval studies, combined with native curiousity which has led me to read extensively in science matters, from biochemistry of the brain to the functions of geologic forces to astronomy studies and quantum physics. I don't claim to be an expert in any of those areas, but I am sufficiently educated to read in those fields and comprehend what they discuss.

By the way, the word "dogma" means "something held as established opinion." And I'm pretty sure that you do in fact have many things you belive because they are "held as established opinon." So your "Reason first - Dogma, never" statement is, by definition, silly.

Your comments about belief and the light bulb... Really, I don't get it. Is that how you perceive Christian believers? That their first option/action when a light bulb burns out is to pray for its resumption? I don't know anyone who approaches life that way. And if they did... I'd question their mental health. At most, I might pray that I could find a replacement bulb.

But "sentiment"? You make me laugh. There is little about the nature of my Christian standards that I find "sentimental".
******

Again, the clash between Christians and non-believers usually ends up a problem of communication. Mutual acts of definition can be helpful. Such as what one means by using a particular term, instead of slinging it around assuming it means the same to everyone. As a writer, I rarely make that assumption, and so try to define the parameters of meaning, especially when using words weighed down with powerful connotations.

So, from this "little girl" (in the cosmic scope of things), I still appreciate the discussion that the visiting "little boy" brought here. Even if he did end up condescending to me because I was a girl. :)