Transparent Lives

Forty years ago, I found myself distracted. I was living 20 miles northeast of Baltimore in a small town that was fast becoming a suburb. Assigned there by my denomination to start a new congregation, I started out with a fair amount of confidence and energy and with strong personal, organizational and financial support. But as time went on, I found myself increasingly at odds with my advisers on the means and methods used for ensuring the numerical and financial viability of the congregation.

It wasn’t long before I was in crisis. A deep chasm had opened up between what I was preaching and the way I was leading our congregational development. My attitude toward the men and women I was gathering in the congregation was silently shaped by how I was planning to use them to succeed, with little thought to feeding their souls with the bread of life. I found myself thinking competitively about the other churches in town; about how I could beat them at the numbers game.

I never wavered in my theological convictions, but I had to get a church up and running, and I was ready to use any means to do it: appeal to people’s consumer instincts, use abstract principles to unify enthusiasm, shape goals through catchy slogans, create publicity images to provide ego enhancement.

Then one day my wife and I attended a lecture by Paul Tournier, who showed me another way of being. Given my distracted condition, the timing was just right. The lecture provided a fine image, shaping my life personally as a follower of Jesus, and vocationally as a companion to other followers of Jesus, in the role of pastor and writer.

Tournier was a Swiss physician who at midlife shifted his medical practice from examining rooms and surgeries to his living room. He left a medical practice that was focused entirely on the body and embraced a healing vocation that dealt with the whole person -- body, mind and spirit. He wrote many books, and I have read them all. They were not great books -- anecdotal in style, personal in story -- but an appealing spirit of discerning grace permeated everything he wrote.

Driving the 20 miles home my wife and I were commenting appreciatively on the lecture, when she added, "Wasn’t that translator great?" I said, "What translator? There wasn’t any translator." She said, "You’re kidding me. He was lecturing in French, and you don’t know 20 words of French. Of course there was a translator." And then I remembered her as she stood just behind Tournier’s shoulder, unobtrusive, and translating his French into my English. She was so modest that I forgot she was there.

And there was something about Tournier himself. During the lecture I had a growing feeling that what he was saying and who he was were completely congruent: his long life in Switzerland and his lecture in Baltimore were the same. Just as the translator was "assimilated" to the lecturer, her English words carrying the meaning and spirit of his French words, so his words were at one with his life -- not just what he knew and what he had done, but who he was.

The transparency of the man was a memorable experience. There was no dissonance between word and spirit, no pretense. Later on I remembered what T. S. Eliot had said about Charles Williams. Some people are less than their works, some are more. Charles Williams cannot be placed in either class. To have known the man would have been enough, to know his books is enough. He was the same man in his life and in his writings. That’s the sense I had that day with Tournier. He wrote what he lived. He lived what he wrote. He was the same man in his books as he was in person.

This was the day that the word contemplative entered my vocabulary giving shape to the way I wanted to live my life. I use the word contemplative with considerable apprehension, fearing that you will associate it with the kind of living that’s done best in monasteries or in mountain retreats or in desert caves. I’m apprehensive that you’ll disqualify yourselves on the grounds that you work in a noisy office or live in a dysfunctional family or don’t have much interest in that kind of life.

Although many connect the word with a quiet life of withdrawal, I need a word to designate those times when we sense that a life is being lived well, that a conviction is held honestly without contrivance. My concern is spiritual theology, and I need a word to identify what is distinctive in the Christian life in contrast to much of what is muddying the word "spirituality" in America. I’m looking for a word that defines the way Christians -- every butcher, baker, candlestick-maker Christian -- can live to the glory of God. I want to free the word contemplative from its captivity in Buddhist and Trappist monasteries and reclaim it for people like ourselves.

Last summer, our ten-year-old granddaughter, Lindsey, was staying with us for a couple of weeks. Two Carmelite nuns were planning to visit us after she left. The nuns were spending a few days in the mountains of Salt Lake, and the forest fires were really bad just then. So they called and asked if they could come a few days early. I said certainly they could. When Lindsey heard that the nuns might overlap with her visit, she said she didn’t want them to come. "All the nuns do is go ‘Hmmm . . . hmmm . . . hmmm."’ So much for stereotypes.

As it happened, they didn’t come, and when we told them what Lindsey had said, they laughed and said they should have come early and given her a good, healthy dose of the utter and relentless earthiness of nuns.

If there’s a single word that identifies the contemplative life, it is congruence -- congruence between ends and means, congruence between what we do and the way we do it. So we admire an athlete whose body is accurately and gracefully responsive and totally submissive to the conditions of the event. When Michael Jordan played basketball, he was one with the court, the game, the basketball and his fellow players. Or take a musical performance in which Mozart, a Stradivarius and Yitzak Perlman all fuse indistinguishably in the music.

Congruence also occurs often enough in more modest settings: a child unconsciously at play; a conversation in which the exchange of words becomes a ballet revealing all manner of truth and beauty and goodness; a meal with friends in a quiet awareness of affection and celebration, a mingling of senses and spirit that adds a eucharistic dimension to the evening. Tournier provided a living image to me that evening, a model for Christian living in the uncongenial conditions of contemporary American culture.

Gerard Manley Hopkins’s sonnet "As kingfishers catch fire" is as fine an evocation of the contemplative life as any I know.

As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;

As tumbled over rim in roundy wells

Stones ring like each tucked string tells, each hung bell’s

Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;

Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:

Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;

Selves -- goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,

Crying What I do is me: for that I came.

I say more: the just man justices;

Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces;

Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is –

Christ -- for Christ plays in ten thousand places,

Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his

To the Father through the features of men’s faces.

Hopkins piles up a dazzling assemblage of images to fix our attention on this sense of rightness, of wholeness that comes together when we realize the utter congruence between what a thing is and what it does: kingfisher, dragonfly, a stone tumbling into a well, a plucked violin string, the clapper of a bell sounding -- what happens and the way it happens are seamless. He then goes on to us men and women -- "each mortal thing" -- bodying forth who and what we are.

But what kingfishers and falling stones and chiming bells do without effort requires development in humans, formation into who we truly are becoming, in which the means by which we live are congruent with the ends for which we live.

Hopkins doesn’t talk about achieving this congruence. He talks about Its being achieved in us. What the plucked string and the dragonfly and the kingfisher do as determined by biology, or physics happens with us when Christ lives in us, Christ living the Christ way in us, in the truth of our lives, playing through our limbs and eyes to the Father. I love that final image: Christ plays in ten thousand places, lovely in limbs -- your limbs, my limbs -- lovely in eyes -- your eyes, my eyes: the contemplative life, living the Christ life in the Christ way.

The words of Jesus that keep this in focus are "I am the way, the truth and the life"(John14:6). Only when we do the Jesus truth in the Jesus way do we get the Jesus life. But this isn’t easy. It is easier to talk about what Christians believe, the truth of the gospel formulated in creeds and doctrines. We have accumulated a magnificent roster of eloquent and learned theologians who have taught us to think carefully and well about the revelation of God In Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is easier to talk about what Christians do, life as performance, the behavior appropriate to followers of Jesus codified in moral commandments and formulated in vision statements and mission strategies. We never lack for teachers and preachers and parents who instruct us in the mores and manners of the kingdom of God. None of us here are likely to pretend perfection in these matters, but most of us are pretty well agreed on what’s involved.

But what counts on my agenda right now is the Christian life as lived, lived in this sense of congruence between who Christ is and who I am – being in Chicago right now at this busy heavily trafficked intersection of the kingdom of God, Christ playing in my limbs and my eyes.

It has always been more difficult to come to terms with Jesus as the way than with Jesus as the truth, more difficult to realize the ways our thinking and behavior get fused into a life of relational love and adoration with neighbor and God, God and neighbor.

Right now there is a happy resurgence of interest in spiritual matters both in and outside the Christian community. Why just now? The reasons are complex, but this seen is obvious to me: people are fed up with leaders and friends who talk learnedly and officiously about God but show little evidence of being interested in God. People are fed up with leaders and friends who tell them what to do, talk at them about what to do but show very little interest in who they are. The ideas about the truth of God don’t seem to be connected to a relationship with God. Maybe this depersonalization of God and us has achieved a critical mass, and more people are not liking what they are noticing -- that there are a lot of people talking about God but seldom to God, that there are a lot of people who are talking at us but seldom to us.

Suddenly there’s this stampede of interest in what is popularly called spirituality. For those of us who are involved vocationally in the Jesus way and the Jesus truth, it’s encouraging to observe this resurgence of interest in what is at the heart of the gospel, this gospel that we teach and preach and give witness to: a life made whole, healed from the inside out like the paraplegic. (Mark 2); a life newborn from above like Nicodemus’s (John 3); a life like the Samaritan woman’s with "a stream of water gushing up to eternal life" (John 4) -- women and men from all walks of life wanting to have life and have it abundantly (John 10). Some of us have been at this business a long time, working with men and women to bring "every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5), to present our minds and bodies as a living sacrifice to Christ (Rom. 12:1,6:13).

I just mentioned this stampede of interest in spirituality. But Baron von Hügel, a great writer on these subjects a century ago, held firmly that nothing significant is ever accomplished In a stampede. Von Hügel was right. We can’t do anything during the stampede. So what responsibilities do we pastors and teachers have to people in the stampede, responsibilities to give witness and guidance to living the life of Christ, not just thinking about it, not just reading the rules pertaining to it?

I propose that each of us take the opportunity to rope a few steers, pull them out of the general mayhem, get them into a corral and quiet them down. And after the stampede adrenaline is drained out of their bloodstream, we can go to work. I don’t know what your corrals look like -- classrooms, sanctuaries, writing desks, kitchens, board rooms, whatever. Any one of them is a suitable context for getting a hearing and demonstration regarding the contemplative life, the Christian life maturely lived, a life in which Jesus is taken seriously as the way to live and the truth to be lived (John 14:6).

Two things that are basic to the Christian life are unfortunately counter to most things American. First, Christian spirituality, the contemplative life, is not about us. It is about God. The great weakness of American spirituality is that it is all about us: fulfilling our potential, getting the blessings of God, expanding our influence, finding our gifts, getting a handle on principles by which we can get an edge over the competition. The more there is of us, the less there is of God.

Christian spirituality is not a life-project for becoming a better person. It is not about developing a so-called deeper life. We are in on it, to be sure, but we are not the subject. Nor are we the action. We get included by means of a few prepositions: God with us (Matt. 1:23), Christ in me (Gal. 2:20), God for us (Rom. 8:31). With, in, for: They are powerful, connecting, relation-forming words, but none of them makes us either the subject or the predicate. We are the tag-end of a prepositional phrase.

Sooner or later in this life we get invited or commanded to do something. But in that doing, we never become the subject of the Christian life nor do we perform the action of the Christian life. We are invited or commanded into what I call prepositional participation. The prepositions that join us to God and God’s action in us within the world -- the with, the in, the for -- are very important but they are essentially a matter of the ways and means of being in on and participating in what God is doing.

These ways and means are the second basic in the Christian life that are also counter to most things American. Ways and means must be appropriate to ends. We cannot participate in God’s work but then insist on doing it in our own way. We cannot participate in the building of God’s kingdom but then use the devil’s tools and nails. Christ is the way as well as the truth and the life, When we don’t do it his way, we mess up the truth and we miss out on the life.

Philosopher Albert Borgmann, a Montana neighbor of mine, is our most eloquent and important spokesman in exposing the dangers of letting technology determine the way we live, dictating the means by which we, in his phrase, "take up with the world."

Borgmann is not antitechnology. In fact, he’s very respectful of it. He just doesn’t want it to ruin us, and it is ruining us. In great and thoughtful detail, he brilliantly answers the question Walker Percy raised in several novels: "How does it happen that we know so much and can do so much and live so badly?" This is the concern motivating the contemplative life, and it is a concern of spiritual theology: to focus attention on the way we live, the means that we employ to embody the reality and carry out the demands of Jesus who became flesh among us.

Two areas are conspicuously in need of attention these days regarding ways and means, areas in which we’re doing the right thing the wrong way. And because we’re doing it the wrong way, the wheels are coming off the wagon. The two areas are our approaches to congregational life and to scripture.

The congregation is not about us. It is about God. God calls a people. Jesus named 12 disciples to be with him. The Spirit descends upon 120 praying men and women filling them with itself. The people we gather with for worship each Sunday and work with as salt and light are not of our choosing. God calls and forms this people, whom the Hebrew prophets are bold to designate "the people of God," and St. Paul was unembarrassed to call "saints."

God means to do something with us and means to do it in community. We are in on what God is doing, in on it together. We become present to what God intends to do with and for us through worship. In worship, we become present to the God who is present to us.

The operating biblical metaphor regarding worship is sacrifice. We bring ourselves to the altar and let God do to us what God will. We bring ourselves to the eucharistic table, entering into that grand fourfold shape of the liturgy that shapes us: taking, blessing, breaking, giving -- the life of Jesus taken and blessed, broken and distributed; and that eucharistic life now shapes our lives as we give ourselves, Christ in us, to be taken, blessed, broken and distributed in lives of witness and service, justice and healing.

But this is not the American way. The major American innovation in the congregation is to turn it into a consumer enterprise. Americans have developed a culture of acquisition, an economy that is dependent on wanting and requiring more. We have a huge advertising industry designed to stir up appetites we didn’t even know we had. We are insatiable. It didn’t take long for some of our colleagues to develop consumer congregations. If we have a nation of consumers, obviously the quickest and most effective way to get them into our churches is to identify what they want and offer it to them. Satisfy their fantasies, promise them the moon, recast the gospel into consumer terms -- entertainment, satisfaction, excitement and adventure, problem-solving, whatever. We are the world’s champion consumers, so why shouldn’t we have state-of-the-art consumer churches?

Given the conditions prevailing in our culture, we have the best and most effective way ever devised for gathering large and prosperous congregations. Americans lead the world in showing how to do it. There’s only one thing wrong. This is not the way that God brings us into conformity with the life of Christ. This is not the way that we become less and Jesus becomes more. This is not the way in which our lives become available to others in justice and service. The cultivation of consumer spirituality is the antithesis of a sacrificial. "denying yourself" congregation. A consumer church is an anti-Christ church. It’s doing the right thing -- gathering a congregation -- but doing it in the wrong way. This is not the way to develop a contemplative life, a life in which the Jesus way and the Jesus truth are congruent, where "kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame."

Scripture is not about us, either. It is about God. God has revealed God’s self to us in scripture so that we might know and respond to God, understand where we are in God’s creation, what it means to be called into a life of God’s salvation. We do not primarily read scripture in order to develop a better self-image, or to discover the hidden treasures in our lives. Scripture is not about us. Basically we are listening to God revealing God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

We do, in fact, find ourselves included. We are addressed, we are invited, we are commanded, we are promised, we are immersed in a world where God rules and saves and blesses -- us. But there are no secrets here on how we can rule and save and bless. We are not the subject and we do not supply the action.

So what is the way in regard to scripture? How do we receive this text? Here’s how: by listening and responding and submitting. "Let it be to me according to your word" is the way I read this text. Our reading of this text is a personal listening to a personal God. We listen to God speak our lives into being. We listen to the story that provides a narrative shape and meaning to a life of following Jesus in the conditions of the world. It is a prayerful, relational, obedient listening. But that’s not the American way of reading. Too many of us read only for information, for know-how to better ourselves, to prepare for a job, for a profession. When we need a break from that, we read for diversion, for entertainment.

American spirituality has an indiscriminating love of technology. We like getting things done, no matter how. Use the fastest and most efficient means at hand, but get it done. Fastest and most efficient almost always means impersonal. People ask questions, act stubborn, make mistakes and get in the way -- so bypass the personal. Under the influence of technology, we have acquired the habit of reading the scriptures technologically, scripture depersonalized into information used to get things done more quickly.

But we don’t get a say in how God runs this world, this grand creation, this globe-circling salvation, this heart-stopping beauty. We don’t get a vote in the work that’s set for us each day, the work of witness, compassion and justice -- healing the sick, working for peace, welcoming a stranger, having babies, burying the dead.

And we don’t get a say in how we do it. Our scriptures train us in this how; skill and attentiveness are required in order to read scripture the way it is written, which is personal and submissive. This entire area of ways and means requires far more attention and practice than we are used to giving it. How we say and do whatever it is we are saying or doing is on par with what God does and the work we do at his command.

Until we care as much about and are as careful with the means as we are the ends, virtually anything we do makes matters worse. Spiritual theology is primarily about means. Life is contemplative when the means become congruent with the ends.

So here it is again, doing the right thing (reading scripture) but doing it in the wrong way (reading it impersonally for information or for principles that I can use to get ahead). Using impersonal ways and means will never bring about any congruence between the text and our lives and, of course, nothing remotely contemplative.

The contemplative life, growing toward congruence, is slow work. It cannot be hurried. It is also urgent work and cannot be put off. Life is deteriorating around us at a rapid pace, and the life at the center, the gospel life -- with the elements of congregation and scripture as major pieces -- is being compromised, distorted, degraded at an alarming rate. In the American way, slow and urgent are not compatible. They cancel one another out.

But in the Christian way, they are joined together. Urgent as this is, there is no hurry. Impatience cancels out contemplation. Patience is prerequisite. Formation of spirit, cultivation of soul, developing a contemplative life, realizing congruence between the way and truth -- all this is slow, slow work requiring endless patience. Human life is endlessly complex, intricate and serious. There are no shortcuts to becoming the persons we’re created to be. We can’t pump contemplation on steroids.

Unfortunately, patience is not held in high regard in American society. We get faster and faster and we become less and less; our speed diminishes us.

Talking at length about the contemplative life under American conditions seems just absurd. It seems such a fragile way of life in this culture of massive technology, arrogant leadership, pushing and shoving, insatiable consumerism. Contemplation? Kingfishers and dragonflies? Stones . . . tumbled over roundy wells? It’s so inefficient, so ineffective. Yet Jesus tells us to do it this way.

Rick Bass, a very good writer, is another Montana neighbor of mine. Besides being an excellent writer, Bass is a fervent environmentalist. Environmentalists care deeply about this creation, which is a good thing, but a lot of them are also pretty mean-spirited, angry, even violent -- verbally if not physically. Bass is small of stature, elf-like, energetic, and laughing, it seems, most of the time. There’s not a polemical bone in his body. He hosts parties for the loggers and the miners, working for common ground, developing a language of courtesy and understanding.

Bass wrote an essay recently that I consider required reading for anyone who cares about the contemplative life, immersed as we are in this impatient, shortcut addictive culture. He writes that when confronted with a complex and difficult task, he used to imagine himself laying down one brick after another, brick by brick by brick, to eventually accomplish his aims. But he’s recently changed his metaphor from bricks to glaciers. A glacier is the most powerful force the world has ever seen. Literally nothing can stop a glacier.

A glacier is formed by the falling of snow that collects over a period of time. As the snow deepens, the weight compresses, ice forms, then more snow, then more ice, year after year -- and nothing happens. Nothing happens until that glacier is 64-feet thick. Then it starts to move and nothing can stop it.

Bass notes that one theory about the origin of glaciers is that they are "the result of a wobble, a hitch, in the earth’s rotation. . . . Glaciers get built or not built, simply, miraculously, because the earth is canting a single one-trillionth of a degree in this direction for a long period of time; rather than in that direction." And then this comment "When I am alone in the woods, and the struggle seems insignificant or futile, or when I am in a public meeting and am being kicked all over the place, I tell myself that little things matter -- and I believe that they do. I believe that even if your heart leans just a few degrees to the left or the right of center, that with enough resolve, which can substitute for mass, and enough time, a wobble will one day begin, and the ice will begin to form, where for a long time previous there might have been none. Keep it up for a lifetime or two or three, and then one day -- it must -- the ice will begin to slide" (The Roadless Yak, Lyons Press).

Or, to replace his metaphor with ours: we’ll see Christ playing in ten thousand places, lovely in limbs, lovely in eyes not his, to the Father through the features of men’s and women’s faces.

Wise Teachers, Sound Teaching

In Ephesus, Timothy walked into a congregational mess with the mandate to straighten it out. He inherited both the legacy (left by Paul) and the problems for which others (among whom were Hymanaeus and Alexander) were responsible. Like the tohu wabohu of Genesis 1:2, pastoral vocation doesn't begin with a clean slate.

A congregational mess provides a particularly perilous condition for leaders, for it convinces us that our pastoral presence is vital and necessary. Others have messed up, done badly, behaved irresponsibly, and we are called in to make a difference. The very fact that we are called in must mean that we are competent, that we are capable.

We are flattered, of course. We've been noticed. "We need you," they say. "Get us out of this. We've read your résumé, called your references, heard you preach -- rescue us."

We respond to their plea, and become involved in a rescue mission. But eventually we become chained to the agenda set before us, slaves to the conditions we've entered. The dimensions of our world shift from God's large and free salvation to the cramped conditions of what others need. There's a neurotic aspect to this. It's like a person who gets caught up in a flood and, while being swept along by a torrent, grabs on to a branch and holds on for dear life. It takes days for the flood to recede. Meanwhile, the person holds on to the branch -- saved, rescued, alive. Eventually, the flood waters are gone and the poor soul is still holding on to the branch. People come by and say, "Come on down." But the person replies, "No way. I'm saved. This is where I found salvation; this is what saved me. I'm not going to leave this saved place."

This way of life accepts the conditions of sin as the conditions in which we work. Of course, we always work in those conditions, but they don't define our world. They just provide the material for our world, for our gospel. We do not have to become constricted by those conditions. Timothy wasn't.

Ephesus might seem to be the showcase church of the New Testament. It was a missionary church established by the eloquent and learned Jewish preacher Apollos (Acts 1:24). Paul stopped to visit this fledgling Christian community on his second missionary journey. He met with the tiny congregation (it had only 12 members), and guided them into receiving the Holy Spirit. He then stayed on for three months, using the synagogue as his center for preaching and teaching on "the kingdom of God." That visit, following the dramatic encounters with the seven sons of Sceva and the mob scene incited by Demetrius over the goddess Artemis, extended to three years The other Pauline letters were provoked by something that went wrong -- wrong thinking or bad behavior. But the dominant concern of the Letter to the Ephesians isn't human problems. It's God's glory. The Letter to the Ephesians represents the best of what we are capable of in the Christian life, calling us to a mature wholeness.

But by the time Timothy was sent to Ephesus, it was a mess. Good churches can go bad. Surprisingly, sinners show up. Wonderful beginnings end up in terrible catastrophes.

We don't know exactly what went wrong with the Ephesian church; nothing is spelled out. What is clear is that the religion of the culture had overturned the gospel. the gospel. Paul's two letters to Timothy give us glimpses of what was happening.

Paul tells Timothy to deal with "certain persons" who are obsessed with "religion" but apparently want nothing to do with God. Here is a sampling of phrases that describe the "religious" activities of these people:

• putting high value on myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations

• giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons

• being guided by the hypocrisy of liars

• forbidding marriage and enjoining abstinence from certain foods

• imagining that godliness is a means of gain

• participating in godless chatter

• starting stupid, senseless controversies

We don't know what the "godless chatter" was in Ephesus. It was no doubt a form of gnosticism, which creates and elite body of insiders who cultivate a higher form of religion that despises common people, common things and anything that has to do with a commitment to a moral life. Jesus would be far too common for people like this. The "godless chatter," whatever its actual content, would by shaped by the culture and not by the cross of Jesus.

What is most apparent about these phrases is that they refer to a lot of talk -- speculations, controversies and chatter. There is some reference to behavior (about marriage and diet) and to an item of doctrine (resurrection), but mostly we are dealing with religious talk. These people loved to talk about religion. T. H. White's description of the older Guinevere, who became a nun after the death of Arthur, could easily describe these Ephesian teachers: "She became a wonderful theologian, but cared nothing about God."

Churches are faced with this problem continuously. The culture seeps into the church, bringing with it a religion without commitment; spirituality without content; aspiration and talk and longing, fulfillment and needs, but not much concern about God.

In 1997 we had a remarkable encounter with this old Ephesian stuff. For weeks the attention of the world was captured by the death of Princess Diana. I knew next to nothing about Diana at the time. But in three weeks I got a crash course in Diana religion -- for this was a religious event. Diana was treated with the veneration and adoration of a goddess. At her death, the world fell down and worshiped.

Diana was the perfect goddess for a religion that didn't want anything to do with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but was desperate to worship someone or something that would provide a sense of beauty and transcendence. I noticed the parallels to the ancient Canaanite sex/fertility goddesses Astarte and Asherah. Diana was a perfect fit for the role: the fragile beauty, tinged with sadness; the poignant innocence, with suggestive hints of slightly corrupt sexuality. Her identification with the poor and the oppressed, her compassion for people with AIDS, her campaign against landmines and the rejection by her husband made her sympathetic to us. She summed up the spiritual aspirations of a sexually indulgent culture that was also filled with misunderstanding and loss and hurt and rejection.

In Edinburgh I watched long lines of men and women carrying bouquets of flowers to place on appointed shrines throughout the city. They were silent and weeping, unutterably moved by the death of their goddess. I read the meditations on Diana in the daily newspapers. I remembered that the Roman name for Artemis was Diana, Diana of the Ephesians. Diana, the sex goddess who provided mythology and set the moral tone to the city, was back--the fertility goddess of the ancient world had seized the imagination of the modern world.

I'm not suggesting that the Diana cult of Ephesus and the Diana cult of 1997 have the same content, but the effect is the same. The Ephesian Diana cult, a pastiche of stories, superstitions and systems of thought endemic to the ancient East, served the city's religious needs. The recent Diana cult is also a pastiche of stories and longings and public relations efforts that serves the religious needs of an astounding number of people. Her death brought into the open just how wide her influence extended. Diana evoked the best of people -- but only the best of what they want for themselves, not of what God wants. She offered "good" without morality, transcendence without God.

Timothy was sent to Ephesus to counter the effects of the Artemis/Diana religious culture. The gospel that Jesus brought and that Paul and Timothy preached is not first of all about us; it is about God, the God who created us and wills to save us; the Jesus who gave himself for us and wants us to deny ourselves and follow him wherever he leads us, including the cross; and the Holy Spirit who descends upon us in order to reproduce the resurrection in our ordinary lives. None of this involves fulfilling our needs as we define them. Our needs are sin needs -- the need to get our own way, to be self-important, to be in control of our own lives.

The wonderful Ephesian church that had begun so robustly, with such a sense of new life -- this Christ-centered church was dissipating in a religious stewpot of hyped-up feelings, discussion groups and interest gatherings.

When the church finds its overwhelmed by the culture, what is it to do? What was Timothy to do? Conventional wisdom tells us that when the problem is large, the strategy must be large. We need to acquire a vision that is adequate to the dimensions of the trouble. But that isn't what happens here. If we look for it, we're disappointed. Timothy isn't charged to refute or expose the Diana spirituality of Ephesus. Paul simply tells him to avoid it. He has bigger fish to fry: he is to teach and to pray.

The overriding concern in the pastoral epistles is for healthy" or "sound" teaching. Eight times in these three letters to Timothy and Titus we find concern for he "health" of teaching or words.

Sometimes "teaching" is translated as "doctrine" and so we get the impression that orthodoxy is at issue. But this isn't quite right, for Timothy is' giver the mandate to teach in a way that brings health to people. Words in Ephesus have gotten sick; the "godless chatter" in Ephesus is infecting souls. It is important not to see Timothy as a defender of orthodoxy, as someone who argues for the truth of the gospel. He is a teacher.

The vocation of pastor is the best of all contexts n which to teach. But it is a particular kind of teaching, the kind referred to here as sound teaching." Frances Young trans1ates the phrase as "healthy teaching" or "healthy words." In Timothy, "sound" and "healthy" define the kind of teaching and speaking that is going to be at the center of the work of reforming the Ephesian church.

Paul's phrase "sound words" or "sound doctrine," as J. N. D. Kelly puts it, "expresses his conviction that a morally disordered life is, as it were, diseased and stands in need of treatment.. whereas a life based on the teaching of the gospel is clean and healthy."

The Greek word for "sound" is hygien, from which we get hygiene. The main thing that Timothy is to do in Ephesus in order to clean up the mess is to teach sound words, sound truth, healthy thinking and believing. Verbal hygiene. Healthy gospel. Words matter. The way we speak and use words matters. Nothing a pastor does is more important than the way she or he uses words.

In The Cloister Walk, Kathleen Norris tells the story of the time she heard the poet Diane Glancy astound a group of pastors, mostly Protestant:

She began her poetry reading by saying that she loved Christianity because it was a blood religion. People gasped in shock; I was overjoyed, thinking, Hit 'em, Diane; hit 'em where they live. One man later told me that Diane's language had led him to believe that she was some kind of fundamentalist, an impression that was rudely shattered when she read a marvelous poem about angels speaking to her through the carburetor of an old car as she drove down a rural highway at night. Diane told the clergy that she appreciated the relationship of the Christian religion to words. "The creation came into being when God spoke," she said, reminding us of Paul's belief that "faith comes through hearing." Diane saw this regard for words as connected not only to writing but to living. "You build a world in what you say," she said. "Words -- as I speak or write them -- make a path on which I walk."

But not all people use words that way. There is a great chasm in our Western world in the way words are used. It is the split between words that describe the world and reality from as much distance as possible through generalities and abstractions, and words that express the world and reality by entering it, participating in it by metaphor and command. Describing words can be set under the Latin term scientia, expressing words under the term sapientia -- or in English, science and wisdom. Science is information stored in the head that can be used impersonally; wisdom is intelligence that comes from the heart, which can only be lived personally in relationships.

If we don't discern the distinction between these two ways of knowing, we will treat matters of the gospel wrongly and therefore lead people wrongly. All knowledge has content to it. But science depersonalizes knowledge in order to make it more exact, precise, objective, manageable. Wisdom personalizes knowledge in order to live intensely, faithfully, healthily.

For science, an item of knowledge is the same in any place or time for any kind of person. For wisdom, an item of knowledge is custom-made. "Two plus two equals four" means exactly the same thing for a five-year-old kindergartner and a 55-year-old Nobel Prize-winning economist. "I love you" means something different every time it is said, depending on who says it, the tone in which it is used, the circumstances surrounding the statement, and the person to whom the statement is addressed.

Paul writes about sapientia, or wisdom-lived words, while the Ephesians were engaged in scientia, "godless chatter." This is an important distinction because we are taught in school to speak in scientia but not in sapientia.

I frequently have conversations with pastors who tell me that they would like to go into teaching. What they mean by that is they want to get a graduate degree and get a position as a professor in a school. Being a professor is honorable and can be Christ-honoring work. The work of research, separating error from' truth, getting things straight, training minds to think accurately -- all this is terribly important. But it also takes place in conditions that treat knowledge as information, as something to be constantly used. If you want to teach wisdom, you find yourself going against the stream. Educational organizations and bureaucracies have no interest in how you live, or even if you do live.

I am not putting down schools. But I know I was a much better teacher as a pastor in a congregation than I have been as a professor in a school. Virtually everything I have taught in the classroom I taught first and probably better to my congregation.

In preparing to teach a course, I looked through a folder of accumulated notes and realized that I first taught the course to an adult class consisting of three women: Jennifer, a widow of about 60 years of age with an eighth-grade schooling, whose primary occupations were keeping a brood of chickens and a goat and watching the soaps on television; Penny, 55, an army wife who treated her retired military husband and her teenage son and daughter as items of furniture in her antiseptic house, dusting them off and placing them in positions that would show them off to her best advantage, and then getting upset when they didn't stay where she put them -- she was, as you can imagine, in a perpetual state of upset; and Brenda, married, mother of two teenage sons, a timid, shy, introverted hypochondriac who read her frequently updated diagnoses and prescriptions from about a dozen doctors as horoscopes -- the scriptures by which she lived. (Ironically, she lived the longest of the three.)

Looking back, I could not have picked a more ideal student body for my teaching. As I taught my fledging course in spiritual formation, using Ephesians as my text, I learned the difference between information and wisdom, and that wisdom was all that mattered to these three women. It was slow work, but gospel words have power in them. These women learned with their lives. The three women are now dead. I sometimes wonder if they are amused as they see me teach bright and gifted students from all over the world who pay high fees to be in the class. They paid by putting a dollar or two in the Sunday offering.

All wisdom is acquired relationally, in the context of family and friends, work and neighborhood, under the conditions of sin and forgiveness, within the complex stories that the Holy Spirit has been writing and continues to write of our lives.

Paul tells Timothy: "Continue in what you have earned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it. . ." (2 Tim. 3:14). From whom -- that is the only way to get wisdom -- from whom, a person. And so what better place to teach persons personally than in a congregation where you have access to everything that makes up their personhood -- their families, their work, the weather, their neighborhood, their sins, their stories -- and over a period of years, sometimes decades. In a church, you get people in the setting where their main business is living, up to their armpits in life.

I can't think of a better or more important place to be a teacher, a wisdom teacher, than in a church. As Paul put it: "If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and the good doctrine which you have followed."

Jesus and History, the Believer and the Historian

Book Review:

The Elusive Messiah: A Philosophical Overview of the Quest for the Historical Jesus

By Raymond Martin. (Westview)

Elusive Messiah indeed! At the end of the 19th century Jesus was Adolph von Harnack’s teacher of "the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of mankind"; in the early years of the 20th century Albert Schweitzer’s despairing Messiah; in the ‘30s, Rudolf Bultmann’s preacher of obedience. Now, after another generation of New Testament scholars has produced its portraits, Jesus has become many things -- eschatological prophet, "marginal Jew," magician, secular sage.

No portrait is more radical and disturbing to traditional Christian belief than that put forth by the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars who regularly meet to sort out the historically valid from the invalid in the New Testament narratives. Their picture of Jesus is disturbing not only because the supernatural elements have been stripped away but because it is utterly unlike that of the Gospels. These scholars claim not just that the early church expressed its response to Jesus by ascribing supernatural status to him, but that the church has preserved an utterly false picture of him.

Unfortunately, there are very few books to which laypeople can turn for aid in confronting this issue of the historical Jesus, since most books on the subject have axes to grind. On the one hand, some evangelical philosophers argue that the Holy Spirit "caused" them to believe that the New Testament narratives are true. They counsel their readers to disregard secular biblical scholars because such scholars approach the materials with skepticism and, moreover, differ among themselves. On the other hand, some New Testament historians believe that the church has completely obscured the real Jesus and that those who cling to the New Testament picture are either ignorant or practicing bad faith.

It is with hopeful expectation, then, that one turns to a book written by an author who claims to have no religious or antireligious beliefs and wants to investigate this issue only because it throws light on the way a scholar’s methods determine her results. Raymond Martin’s book also seems promising because Martin is a philosopher who says he just wants to help the ordinary reader and the ordinary Christian understand the challenge of life-of-Jesus research.

On one level, the book is indeed very useful for laypeople. The author summarizes the agreements among scholars about the New Testament texts and the problems they face in trying to recover the historical Jesus -- the lack of eyewitnesses and the fact that the Gospels were not written individually and probably not by the authors to which they were traditionally ascribed. Martin also discusses and criticizes the work of important contemporary New Testament scholars -- E. P. Sanders, John Meier, Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and John Dominic Crossan -- as well as some of the critical responses to their work.

But Martin is primarily interested in what, for lack of a better formula, I shall call the problem of faith and history. What should Christians make of New Testament scholarship and the challenges it poses to traditional Christian belief about Jesus? In the book’s final pages Martin delineates what he regards as the only three possible solutions: "Only Faith," in which the believer is dismissive of the expert opinions of the historians; "Only Reason," in which the believer is "totally submissive to the historians"; and "Faith Seeking Understanding," in which some sort of compromise is worked out between the historian and faith. The author then proposes his own solution, to which I will return below.

Two main theses govern Martin’s criticism of the various New Testament historians he discusses. The first is relatively uncontroversial to most believers except, perhaps, to evangelical philosophers and fundamentalists of various types -- namely, that laypeople are in no position to adjudicate disputes among experts in New Testament scholarship because the scholars have an expertise in languages and ancient history that laypeople lack.

The second, more debatable thesis has three parts. It is what I call the "presuppositions gambit" and is most often employed by evangelical apologists. It begins with the indisputable assumption that every historian has his or her presuppositions and hence is not neutral. But it then proceeds to equate these presuppositions with "faith" so that it can move to the conclusion that even secular historians who reject appeals to supernatural intervention in history are no less acting "in faith" than are those believing historians who accept them. Thus Martin concludes, for example, that N. T. Wright’s approach to Jesus, which mixes supernaturalism and ordinary biography, is just as historically valid as Sanders’s method, which does not deal with miracles or the resurrection -- although, paradoxically Martin finds Wright’s arguments about the resurrection very unconvincing.

An ordinary reader might think that Martin’s argument for openness to supernaturalism is intended to give aid to conservative Christians who reject secular scholarship because, they argue, the believing historian is just as justified in bringing her faith in supernatural intervention to life-of-Jesus research as the secular historian is in rejecting it. But surprisingly, Martin is very harsh in his criticisms of those evangelicals who, like C. Stephen Evans, argue in this fashion. These evangelical philosophers do not tell us what rules of historical inquiry and reasoning will apply if the events of the New Testament are exempted from the standards governing ordinary historical reasoning. They only offer us a "game without rules." Martin points out, for example, how Evans argues "on faith" that Jesus possessed foreknowledge, but then endorses an interpretation of a New Testament story in which Jesus expected something that did not happen.

Indeed, none of the supernaturalist historians discussed in this book survive Martin’s criticisms in this regard. He considers Wright’s arguments for the historical facticity of Jesus’s resurrection to be unconvincing and Paul Johnson’s work to be contradictory. All these super-naturalists, he charges, engage in a history in which anything goes. Still, Martin believes that, in principle, it is not impossible to write a history in which the supernatural intervenes. He suggests a type of evangelical history that is a middle way between skepticism and faith alone: the supernaturalist should first specify the circumstances that are to be considered exceptions to ordinary historical reason and then specify what rules would apply to these exceptions.

As anyone familiar with my own work will expect, I have many serious reservations about this book, the most inclusive being that I do not think the author helps either the nonbeliever or the believer to understand the problem of faith and New Testament criticism. He does not help the unbeliever because his discussion of the presuppositions of history-writing is faulty. He assumes that it is just as legitimate to approach history with the assumption that supernatural intervention occurs as it is to reject it as a mode of explanation. In addition, the three alternative solutions he delineates are not the only possible ones. He does not help the believer both for these reasons and because the solution he proposes is both lame and inconsistent with any sort of Christian faith, evangelical, liberal or Roman Catholic.

First, consider Martin’s view that being open to supernatural intervention in history is as reasonable as not being open to it. This may appear to be an admirable expression of an undogmatic attitude, but it depends upon characterizing as "practical atheists" historians who, like Sanders, reject supernatural intervention. This is misleading because it suggests that these historians lack faith, and it is a nonstarter because it implies that supernaturalism is a live option for academic historians. The issue is far more complex than Martin’s simple division between super-naturalists and nonsupernaturalists implies. First of all, an historian can be a Christian without being a Supernaturalist, as M. J. Borg, an historian Martin discusses, demonstrates. Without engaging in supernaturalism, Borg believes that Jesus’ grounding in the Spirit was the "source of everything that he was," and that it was on this basis that the Fourth Gospel ascribes to him the words, "I am the bread of life."

Second, the discipline of critical history, as Martin himself acknowledges, depends upon bringing forth publicly accessible evidence and employing modes of reasoning that are commonly accepted in everyday life: in newspapers, law courts and inquiries of many different sorts. Although there are undoubtedly dogmatic historians who reject miracles out of hand, an intellectually sophisticated historian would never claim that miracles cannot happen but only that the historian, as historian, is never able to claim that a given event is supernaturally caused. For an historian to argue that a given event was a miracle, he would have to have some public grounds for claiming that only a supernatural power could have caused it. But historians cannot know this; far less can they know that this power was the Christian God.

Indeed, if a witness were to report a miracle -- say, that Muhammad flew from Mecca to Jerusalem in seconds and then ascended to heaven, or, as it written in Matthew 27:52, that when Jesus died the tombs were opened and many of the saints were also resurrected and came into the city and appeared to many -- all the historian can do is to judge that these events are so uncommon that compelling evidence would be required before he could conclude that they had occurred. Even if there were such evidence, all he could do would be to regard these events as extremely mysterious, even astonishing. But he could not conclude that the only possible explanation is that they resulted from supernatural intervention.

To argue that historians might judge such and such to be a miracle because they believe antecedently in the religion that regards such miracles as signs of the intervention of its deity is to open the floodgates for all religious claims to miracles and, indeed, even to nonreligious "miracles" such as the widespread reports that people have seen Elvis Presley. This is the problem with Martin’s "middle way." If believing historians can simply declare some event to be an exception to the usual modes of historical reasoning and then make up rules that apply only to that alleged exception, how can this strategy be limited to Christians? Many other religions are replete with miracle stories and require of their adherents the suspension of ordinary historical reasoning. Why are the New Testament stories approached any differently than these stories? To argue for supernaturalism as an alternative to critical history would be to reopen a Pandora’s box. As Marc Bloch once observed, before the rise of critical history, three-fourths of all reports of alleged eyewitnesses were accepted as fact.

It does not follow that because every historian has presuppositions, all presuppositions are equally valid. One might as well argue that since all medical science has presuppositions, it is still legitimate to believe that diseases are caused by demons rather than by viruses and germs. Do Christian medical colleges teach that this theory is a live alternative? Martin seems to be aware of this troublesome implication. He asks evangelical apologists whether the history of Socrates, Buddha, Muhammad and other historical figures are also amenable to supernatural history. And if not, why not?

Martin fails to help both believers and unbelievers understand what the alternatives are for dealing with this issue of faith and history because, in a fashion now considered politically correct, he advocates what he calls "multiperspectivism." This view claims that since there can be no one true interpretation of anything, including an historical interpretation of Jesus, and since laypeople are in no position to argue with the experts, "they should suspend belief among all kinds of expert interpretations, including religiously inspired ones."

Martin seems vaguely uncomfortable about the adequacy of this recommendation. He senses that it will not satisfy Christians, since it "requires one to suspend judgment about some truth that one thinks one knows, such as that Jesus rose from the dead." That is, it requires Christians to suspend judgment about that which is central to their faith and which raises the problem of faith and history in the first place, the problem which Martin proposes to solve. But he thinks he has a compensation for those who give up this faith. He offers them "a more relaxed kind of methodological, multiperspectival faith" which does not engage in "epistemological imperialism." But this more relaxed, multiperspectival faith is not Christian faith at all; it is just another name for historical skepticism.

Martin might respond that my criticism is unfair because he is not asking for skepticism about those points on which historians agree; he is only asking that Christians suspend judgment about the resurrection taken as a physical, historical fact. But therein lies the problem. Martin tends to equate Christian faith with the acceptance of the supernatural elements in the New Testament picture of Jesus. In the option he favors -- faith seeking understanding -- what he means by "faith" is really belief. Thus, to have faith in the resurrection means to believe in a physical resurrection and an empty tomb.

But it is not at all clear that "faith" can be identified with "belief" or that faith in the resurrection means belief in physical resurrection and an empty tomb. As many New Testament scholars such as Willi Marxsen have shown, what it means to have faith in the resurrection must be derived from the texts themselves. Paul, who gives us the earliest tradition, explicitly rejects the notion of a physical resurrection and says nothing about an empty tomb, but still speaks of faith in the resurrection. As a historian, Marxsen rejects the physical resurrection not because he does not believe in miracles, but because the earliest tradition simply doesn’t identify resurrection with a resuscitated body. Martin never seems to consider that a person might be both a Christian who believes in the resurrection and one who fully accepts the presuppositions and the work of what he calls the "practical atheistic historians."

Just as the definition of philosophy is a philosophical question, so the definition of faith is a theological issue. And during the past half century a whole generation of impressive theologians has argued that Christian faith is not to be equated with assenting to the supernatural elements in the New Testament narratives. Faith, they argue, means being brought to self-examination in the present and accepting God’s acceptance. This self-examination is brought about by the proclamation that the life and death of Jesus are a revelation of God’s righteousness. Because Jesus’ death seems to call into question that God is righteous, the hearer of this proclamation must make a decision. To have faith is to take this particular life and death as decisive for one’s relationship to God. It is to confess with Paul and others that "Jesus is Lord" and that "Jesus lives."

Martin is free to criticize this solution, but surely he is obligated to consider it as one alternative to the problem of faith and history. He does not discuss a single major Protestant or Catholic theologian who has systematically discussed this issue of faith and history -- not Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Hans Conzelmann, Gerhard Ebeling, Hans Frei, Friedrich Gogarten, Hans Küng, Schubert Ogden, Karl Rahner, James M. Robinson or Paul Tillich (who, incidentally, is dismissed in a footnote as "too mystical for most Christians, including most Christian intellectuals").

The Last Things

The Apostles Creed ends with a statement of Christian belief in "the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." The second article of the Nicene Creed states that Jesus Christ "will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." Eschatology, from the Greek word eschata, meaning "last things," is the technical word for the Christian vision of the future end and fulfillment of history and the cosmos.

Christianity began as an eschatological faith, but it didn't start from scratch. Eschatology was also a constitutive part of the story of salvation in the Old Testament. The prophets announced the day of Yahweh, the coming of the Messiah, and the new Jerusalem, looking forward to a new and different future in history. In the Book of Daniel and in the period between the two testaments Jewish eschatology became apocalyptic. In apocalyptic writings we find visions of a wholly new future of history, a new age above and beyond this one.

Jesus' message of the kingdom can best be understood within the milieu of late Jewish apocalypticism. In the world of apocalyptic literature we read about Satan, angels, demons, dragons, aeons, signs of the times, the millennium, cosmic catastrophes, resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, the end of history and the final restitution of all things in God. All these together add up to what the tradition has called "the last things." Who can understand what they mean?

Jesus said, "Let anyone with ears to hear, listen!" In the Apocalypse of John we read, "Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches." Apocalypse means revelation, hence the unveiling of hidden mysteries and meanings. It takes something like apocalyptic imagination to grasp "the things which are above."

There are three unsatisfactory approaches to the "last things": 1) to construct a travelogue or literal timetable of events that will happen soon or in the distant future; 2) to interpret the images as metaphorical expressions of religious experiences and inner states of mind unrelated to real history and the future; 3) to read apocalyptic literature as social commentary or subversive rhetoric of an oppressed community in times of persecution.

Though there may be some truth in all these approaches, the great tradition of church teaching has controlled eschatology by keeping Christ at the center. The central motif of Jesus' message was the kingdom of God. This was a favorite theme of the social gospel movement; it symbolized social values and political ideals worthy of human striving. Eschatology was reduced to ethics. In that era, Albert Schweitzer gained theological fame by recovering the full eschatological meaning of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God. The kingdom is the power of God breaking in upon the present world, not the crowning fulfillment of its progress. It comes on God's own terms, not as a result of human cooperation and calculation.

Jesus began his ministry announcing that the day had come for God to begin his reign, that his kingdom was about to be realized in history. For his Jewish audience this could only mean that the eschaton was at hand. The hope of Israel was that when God comes in the power of his rule, the world will really change. The arrival of God's kingdom will bring a turnabout of all things, putting an end to misery, poverty and even death.

Jesus did not merely announce the coming of a future kingdom, like one of the Jewish prophets. For Jesus the kingdom of God was at once a present reality, functioning in his very person and ministry, and a promise of fulfillment still to come. Then suddenly something surprising happened: Jesus was crushed by the ruling powers of his day. The fulfillment he expected was shattered on the cross. But soon after the crucifixion there arose a core of friends and followers witnessing to the reappearance of the crucified Jesus. This was good news -- God had raised Jesus from the grave, a kind of event that Jews expected to happen only at the end of time. Surely, this must be an eschatological occurrence, the beginning of the end. Henceforth, for Christians resurrection hope will be forever founded on the person of Jesus, the Messiah of God, the bringer of the new age. "Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ" (1 Cor. 15:23).

The paradox for Christians is that if the kingdom has already arrived in Jesus, why do things look pretty much the same A.D. as B.C.? The hope of Israel was that when the Messiah came, God would at last destroy all resistance to a permanent establishment of peace, justice and freedom. That would spell an apocalyptic transformation of the world. So why, since the Messiah has come, has the world not changed in a fundamental way?

The answer is that it has; world history has been changed by the missionary proclamation of the church. the good news of the kingdom has been preached throughout the world, the Bible has been translated into very tongue, and churches have been planted among the nations. Somewhat cynically, Alfred Loisy said: "Jesus preached the kingdom of God; but what came was the church." The church was founded at Pentecost as the community of the endtime. The community of believers lives between the times, between the first coming of the Messiah Jesus in the flesh and his final advent in glory. The future eschatological kingdom is already present for those who are in Christ. In worship believers sing of a "foretaste of the feast to come."

The Revelation of John identifies Christ as the One who is and who was and who is to come" (Rev. 1:4,8). It is noteworthy that the present tense comes first. The risen Christ is really present in the community of believers according to the Spirit. However, the risen Christ in none other than Jesus of Nazareth whose story the Gospels tell. And the crucified Jesus who is the risen Christ will come again in glory to judge the world. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and end of all things, the Lord of history and the cosmos.

The "last things" are not like a runaway train that takes off on its own. Everything must be tethered to Christ. He is the basis of resurrection hope. His is the promise of eternal life. All things will be subject to his judgment in the end. There is no way to the Father's heart except through the Son. All the so-called "last things" cohere in Christ. Faith generates hope that in the end the power that God displayed in raising Jesus from the dead will transform the world and triumph over the forces of sin, death and the devil.

Meanwhile, before the "last things" come to pass, Christ is present in his church as the head of the body. Christ indwells the church by virtue of his Spirit. Under his authority the renewal of the world is under way through the missionary witness of his people. But a struggle is going on between divine and antidivine forces. Even though their days are numbered, Satan and his servants are on the loose, making martyrs of those who witness to the victory of Christ. That is why the church lives in anticipation of the parousia of its Lord, who cries out: "Surely I am coming soon." And the church responds in its eucharistic prayer, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!" (Rev. 22:20).

For many today, the images of biblical hope seem to have lost their magnetic pull. The sense of transcendence remains strong enough perhaps to say no to the way things are, but too weak to construct a positive scenario of the future. In modern existentialism only a sense of crisis prevails; nothing but nothingness looms in the future. Marx does offer a revolutionary model of utopian hope -- the oppressive system can be changed -- but this ideology too has failed. Theologians have looked to biblical eschatology for a hopeful alternative. In doing so they have also worried about whether or how it is still possible and relevant to believe in the eschatology of the Bible.

Can we who live in a secular age governed by a scientific mind-set still share the hopes of the first believers, using their language and idioms? All sorts of interpretive schemes have been tried to purge the Bible of its supposedly naive images of the future. We cannot go into them here, but they have one thing in common -- all references o the future are converted to the present. The parousia, the end of the world, the final judgment, the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and everlasting life -- all these are understood not as pointing to real events or a real future. Instead they serve merely as signals of transcendence, symbols of existential experience or roads to ethical seriousness.

There is a better way. The time-dimension of the future rot only belongs to biblical eschatology, it is also deeply rooted in the structure of human being. Not only are hopes the genes of biblical faith, but hope is essential to meaningful existence. It is to the lasting credit of the "theology of hope" (as developed by Wolfhart Pannenberg and Juergen Moltmann) that it discovered the profound connections between biblical eschatology and the phenomenon of hope. Perhaps now is a good time to dust off the old books of the 1960s that reclaimed what the Bible says about the history of promise, resurrection hope, the future of Christ and the end of the world. .

 

Reckoning with the Apocalypse

A hundred years ago many Christians envisioned Christianity winning acceptance among every country and people of the world. As it turned out, this century has seen a drastic erosion of Christianity in the very centers from which it launched its missionary activity -- namely, in Europe and North America. That erosion has been hastened by -- among other things -- two world wars and the unleashing of the atomic bomb.

Since mid-century, some Christians have foreseen not global conversion but global destruction, hastened perhaps by a nuclear catastrophe. Many of the scenarios of the end predict a rescue or rapture of Christians out of suffering, in anticipation of Christ's millennial reign.

Both the expectation of Christian triumph and the expectation of judgment have contained an idolatrous element. Neither has reckoned with the meaning of apocalypse. Some people have dismissed the revealing of God's word in the apocalypse, preferring instead a future that humans can manage. Others have privatized the apocalypse, dismissing its call for an obedient church that is prepared to suffer with the poor and oppressed and is made up of disciples who hopefully anticipate the fulfillment of God's revelation in Jesus Christ. Still others resign themselves to the fear of computer-generated chaos.

Believers may legitimately reckon with "a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire" (Heb. 10:27), the cataclysmic harvest of human evil -- individual and corporate. But such a prospect often takes on the false solidity of an inescapable truth and obscures what should be paramount: hope in God, who is incomparably gracious.

In the Exodus narrative, Pharaoh persistently rejected God's declared message from Moses and Aaron. Similarly, in the times of the prophets the people repeatedly refused to heed God's call to turn back toward God from imminent catastrophe. Jesus foresaw that the populace in Jerusalem would persist in rejecting God's call, with awesome judgment as the result. "How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matt. 23:37). That "and you would not" remains archetypal for all collective rejection of Jesus that leads to doom.

It may be that the current world situation is similar and that God, who sees the hearts of all, knows that in the period ahead humanity will not turn back from folly and world cataclysm. But if God knows that, humans do not -- and cannot -- know it. Since Christians dare not presume to know the timing of the End, they need also to keep in view that impending judgment can be averted if people turn to God. God can deliver us from any seeming fate, but the urgency of turning around presses upon us all.

When Christians think in these terms, the awesomeness of the present is constituted not primarily by threats to a sustainable future, but rather by the word of the eternal, almighty God. The central danger is not perishing in some computer-generated nuclear inferno or in clouds of chemical or biological destruction, nor by militia or terrorist attacks. The Y2K problem is not ultimately pivotal. The primary problem lies in our relation--or lack of relation--to God. In these times as in every other, the central jeopardy is separation from God.

God's word through the prophets often centered on the verb shuv, to turn--to turn from disobedience and rebellion and return to Yahweh. A turning of one's existence is conversion, actualized in obedience to God's will, and it involves unconditional trust in God and renunciation of all competing sources of help.

In the evangelical tradition, such a turning happens when individuals see the magnitude of their sin and recognize their extreme need for repentance and forgiveness. They deplore the enormities of private or underworld sinning -- the breakdown of the family, sexual promiscuity, pornography, drug abuse, crime, indiscriminate youth violence. Many churchfolk focus on the pressing need for winning sinful individuals to "a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" before the inevitable cataclysm hits us.

Yet many of these people have little sense of the collective sinning done in and by society. Many of them do not understand that the threat of catastrophic judgment is brought on by their nation as nation and by its vested interests: neglect of the least privileged in this country and beyond, economic exploitation, popular media saturated in violence, the support of repressive client regimes, military buildup and the corporate destruction of the environment. By contrast, many people in "peace and justice" movements often see only the latter types of wrongdoing, not the more private type.

Biblically, sin and judgment are both individual and collective. The turning toward God, then, is partially manifested in individual conversion, but also in a collective reorientation. Christians can neglect neither the individual nor the collective turning and returning to God. The alternatives laid out in Deuteronomy 30 summarize God's message proclaimed by all the prophets: "I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. . . . Therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live." Two awesome, contrary possibilities stand before us: Trust in God, cleave to God and be greatly blessed; or defy God and move into catastrophe.

Churchfolk contradict Deuteronomy 30 and the whole message of the Bible when they suppose that an imminent cataclysm is inevitable, and that efforts to address collective evils are a waste of time. This outlook assumes that God is not giving humanity the choice between life and doom. They also contradict Deuteronomy 30 when they dismiss the prospect of God's judgment, presuming to create their own future. Seen biblically, however, God does offer this choice. If there is not the turning back, then the catastrophe will come -- maybe sooner, maybe later. But for the moment, God is still giving time, and strives to lead humankind back from total destruction.

This shuv, individual and corporate, is therefore not something simply within human power to decide and effect. Ultimately God alone can rescue human beings, individually and collectively, from "the evil one." Even disciples do not have it within their power to bring about this turnaround.

Some activists tend to see themselves as constrained to become saviors and guarantors of the future through these strategies and efforts. God's word, however, demands a difficult turning to desist from self-help, to leave room for God's sovereign action.

In peace and justice movements, that turning is very much needed. Disciples recognize that within their human capabilities they cannot turn the world around. They cannot overcome. But God in Jesus has overcome and is turning the world around. Jesus, undeserving, took our deserved suffering and stood -- and stands -- with each and all in undeserved suffering. Jesus gave himself over to the preponderance of oppressive and lethal power (not as a fate but in trust and obedience to God) and overcame it. Disciples on the brink of a new millennium, like their counterparts in the first century, no longer set their hope on human capabilities and political possibilities, but only on God's power to act and save.

What then is the Christian alternative to seeking a part in humanly managing the future? How can disciples work toward a turning, without losing sight of the fact that we can hope only in God? All Christian hope has as its source and grounding the resurrection of Jesus. There the living God overwhelmed death and its power to commandeer societal structures. Because of this hope, grounded in the risen Christ, disciples can stand against all defeated structures.

Disciples work toward the individual and collective turning from death toward life. They aim for nonhierarchical leadership, for societal dynamics centered in servanthood (not power-seeking), for organizing political and economic power into units small enough to depend mainly on face-to-face interaction. They use no weapons, no violence to counter violence, but rather rely on acts of loving resistance and noncooperation. Disciples intercede and enter into prayer combat against the powers of destruction and stand with those who supper. Such guidelines are not utopian. They are simply Christian and evangelical.

Jesus warned, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish" (Luke 14:3-5). When some of those encompassed by the collective choice of death choose life, in active ways, then the realm of life is a little enlarged and the realm of death a little diminished. Even if most do not turn back and global disaster comes, any human being can turn back and not perish in it.

As disciples speak and live their faith and hope grounded solely in Jesus Christ, they become for others signs of hope, pointing not to the future secured by human hands, but the one intended by God. They point to God's actions that are bringing that future into reality, in this millennium and the next. The story in Jonah 3 of the repentance of the Ninevites and their rescue from destruction can be set against the intimations that an inevitable apocalypse is upon us. In our present Ninevah as well, the incredible could come to pass.

Suffering and Doctrine



Embracing Travail: Retrieving the Cross Today, by Cynthia S. W. Crysdale. Continuum, 208 pp. $24.95

"In midlife I found myself lost in a dark wood." This, the opening sentence of Dante's Divine Comedy, marks out a journey many of us know well. The suffering we must endure and see others endure is a mystery at once terrible and familiar. Cynthia Crysdale, professor of faith development and ethics at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., considers this problem of suffering" -- as it is so blandly called -- the centerpiece of contemporary theology. Crysdale offers a meditation on the problem, not solution to it. She explores how the long shadow cast by suffering touches all aspects of Christian life and doctrine.

The task Crysdale sets for herself is familiar to many feminists: to reinterpret or retrieve from traditional dogma elements that are consonant with and instructive to feminism. The relentless fact of suffering looms large in much feminist theology, and Crysdale both reviews and contributes to that literature. How should modern Christians understand Christ's suffering, and their own suffering in light of his?

Crysdale draws a stark portrait:

women and those on the underside of history have been burdened by traditional doctrines of sin and redemption. Those without a voice or proper sense of self have been taught to see their humiliation as the virtue of humility. Those who have been asked to live for others have been instructed to see their subordination as noble sacrifice or, worse, as merited punishment for sin. For these reasons, Crysdale argues, feminists are justly leery of the doctrine of vicarious, suffering atonement. They are suspicious of the exaltation of suffering as the imitation of Christ.

Crysdale proposes an alternative doctrine of sin and redemption, fashioned largely with tools supplied by Bernard Lonergan. She presents Christ as a whole and holy self, who undergoes suffering not as an end but as the price of following the call of love and leading others there. Suffering is accepted, she writes, but not sought.

So how should Christians view their own and others' suffering? Should we fight suffering as the foe "not of flesh and blood"? Should we welcome it as imposed by our just Judge? Should we receive it as beloved but wayward children receive parental chastisement? Should we regard it as the pathway into the mystery of our suffering Lord? Putting on the death of Christ is the great mysterium of the Christian life. It has never been a simple or straightforward act of either piety or doctrine.

Crysdale shows great pastoral sensitivity to the indirectness and mystery of human suffering. Through case studies and autobiographical stories, she underscores how suffering will enter each of our lives at different points, to different ends. But this "travail," as she calls it, remains within the embrace of God. It is not our purpose to suffer, but to suffer is the risk inherent in living authentically.

Such a brief book with such an ambitious agenda is bound to leave some gaps. For example, white feminists (of which I am one) are often tempted to use the work of African-American writers, activists and theologians to illustrate their own points. To do so risks minimizing the nuance and range of African-American feminism. Neither can one short book convey the complexity of the doctrine of atonement or the centuries of debate about sin and grace. Nevertheless, Crysdale's thoughtful and revealing meditation is a fine pastoral companion as we ponder the place of suffering in Christian life.

Caste Off

 

A  Dalit  Goes  to  Court

When Bhanwari Devi’s 13 year-old daughter was raped in the bajra fields by an upper caste youth, she picked up a lathi and went after the rapist herself. She had no faith in police and courts.  Either way, she was prevented from seeking any redress by the upper castes of  Ahiron ka Rampura. “The village caste panchayat promised me justice,” she says. “Instead, they threw me and my family out of Rampura.”  Nearly a decade after the rape, no one in this village in Ajmer district has been punished.

It doesn’t mean much, though, in Rajasthan. On average in this state, one dalit woman is raped every sixty hours.

Data from reports of the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes show that nearly 900 cases of rape of SC women were registered with police between 1991 and 1996. That’s around 150 cases a year or one every sixty hours. (Barring a few months of President’s rule, the state was entirely in BJP control through this period.)  The numbers don’t measure the reality. In this state, the extent of under reporting of such crimes is perhaps worst in the country.

In Naksoda of Dholpur district, the victim of one of the most dramatic  atrocities has fled the village. In April 1998,  Rameshwar Jatav, a dalit, sought the return of Rs. 150 that he had loaned an upper casteGujjar. That was asking for trouble. Enraged by his arrogance, a band of Gujjars pierced his nose and put a ring of two threads of jute,  a metre long and 2 mm thick, through his nostrils. Then they paraded him around the village, leading him by the ring.

The incident hit the headlines and caused national outrage. It was widely reported overseas as well, both in print and on television. All that publicity however, had no impact in ensuring justice. Terror within the village and a hostile bureaucracy at the ground level saw to that. And with the sensational and spectacular out of the way, the press lost interest in the case. So, apparently, did the human rights groups. The victims faced the post-media music on their own. Rameshwar completely changed his line in court. Yes, the atrocity had happened. However, it was not the six people named in his complaint who had done it. He could not identify the guilty.

The senior medical officer, who had recorded the injuries in detail, now pleaded forgetfulness. Yes, Rameshwar had approached him with those wounds. He could not remember, though,  if the victim had told him how he had come by those unusual injuries.

 

Rameshwar’s father, Mangi Lal, has himself turned hostile as a witness. “What do you expect us to do?” he asked me in Naksoda. “We live here in terror. The authorities were totally against us. The Gujjars can finish us any time. Various powerful people, and some in the police, forced this on us.”  Rameshwar has left  the village.  Mangi Lal has sold one of the only three bighas of land the family owns to meet the costs of the case thus far.

For the world, it was a barbaric act. In Rajasthan, it just falls into one of thousands of  “Other IPC”  cases. Which means cases other than murder, rape, arson or grievous  hurt.

Between 1991-96, there was one such case registered every four hours.

In Sainthri in Bharatpur district, residents say there have been no marriages for seven years. Not of  the men, at least. That’s how its been since June 1992, when Sainthri was stormed by a rampaging upper caste mob. Six people were murdered and many houses destroyed. Some of those killed were burned alive when the  bittora (store of dung and fuelwood) they were hiding in was deliberately set alight.

“The women of Sainthri are able to get married because they leave the village when they do so,” says Bhagwan Devi. “But not the men. Some men have left this village to get married. People don’t want to send their daughters here. They know that if we are attacked again, no one, neither police nor courts, will help us.”

Her cynicism is grounded in reality. Seven years after the murders, charges are yet to be framed in the matter.

That too, doesn’t mean much. One dalit is murdered in this state a little over every nine days.

In the same village lives Tan Singh, a survivor of the bittora fire. The medical record shows he suffered 35 per cent burns in that event. His ears have been more or less destroyed. The little compensation he got  --  because his brother was one of those killed  --  has long ago disappeared in medical expenses. “I had to sell my tiny plot of land to meet the costs,” says the devastated young man. That includes several hundreds of rupees each time on repeated trips to Jaipur  --  on just travel alone.

Tan Singh is just a statistic.  Some dalit is the victim of grievous hurt every 65 hours in this state.

In Raholi in Tonk district,  an attack on dalits incited by local school teachers saw several cases of arson. “The losses were very bad,” says  Anju Phulwaria. She was the elected  --  dalit  -- sarpanch but “I was suspended from the post on false charges.”  She’s not surprised that no one’s been punished for the act.

On average, one dalit house or property suffers an arson attack every five days in Rajasthan.

In every category,  the chances of the guilty being punished are very few.

Arun Kumar, the soft-spoken chief secretary, government of Rajasthan, disagrees with the idea of a structured bias against dalits. He believes that the alarming numbers  reflect the commitment of the state in registering such cases.  “This is one of the few states where there is hardly any complaint about non-registration. Because we are diligent about it, there are more cases and thus high crime statistics.” He also believes the conviction rate in Rajasthan is better than in the rest of the country.

What do the figures say? Former Janata Dal MP  Than Singh was a member of a committee investigating crimes against dalits in the early nineties. “The conviction rate was around three per cent,” he told me at his Jaipur residence.

In Dholpur district, where I visited the courts, I found it to be even less. In all, 359 such cases were committed to Sessions between 1996 and 1998. Some had been transferred to other courts or were pending. But the conviction rate here was under 2.5 per cent.

A senior police officer in Dholpur told me: “My only regret is that the courts are burdened with so many false issues. Well over 50 per cent of SC /ST complaints are false. People are put to needless harassment by such cases.”

His is a widely held view among the largely upper caste police officers of Rajasthan.  (A senior government official refers to the force as the CRP  --  “The Charang-Rajput Police.”  These two powerful castes dominated the force right up to the nineties.)

The idea that ordinary people, particularly the poor and weak, are liars is deep rooted in the police. Take rape cases across all communities. The national average of  such cases found to be false after investigation is around five per cent of  the total. In Rajasthan, rape cases declared “false” average  around 27 per cent.

This is like saying that women in the state tend to lie five times more than women in the rest of the country. The more likely explanation?  A huge bias against women is deeply embedded in the system. The ‘false rape’  data covers all communities. But a detailed survey would likely establish that dalits and tribals are the worst victims of that bias. Simply: the level of atrocities they suffer is far higher than other communities.

I had been assured everywhere I went in Rajasthan that dalits were grossly misusing the the law in general and the provisions of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in particular. Above all, the much feared Section 3 of the Act under which those guilty of casteist offences against dalits and adivasis can be imprisoned for up to five years with fine.

In reality, I could not find a single case where such serious punishment had been meted out to offenders.

In Dholpur itself, the few punishments handed out in cases generally involving offences against dalits seemed unlikely to deter the guilty. They ranged from fines of Rs.100  or Rs. 250 or Rs. 500 to one month’s simple imprisonment. The most severe punishment I came across was six months simple imprisonment. In one case, the guilty had been put on “probation”  with bail. The concept of probation is one this reporter had never run into in such cases anywhere else.

Dholpur’s is not an isolated instance. At the SC / ST Special Court in Tonk district headquarters, we learned that the conviction rate was just under two per cent.

So much for the numbers. What are the steps and the barriers, the process and the perils facing a dalit going to court?

The High Court in Jaipur has a pleasant campus. There’s just one element in its garden that many in Rajasthan find jarring. This is perhaps the only Court complex in the country that boasts  a statue of  “Manu, the Law Giver”.

There being no evidence that an individual named Manu ever existed, the statue was shaped by the artist’s imagination.  It proved a limited imagination. Manu here fits celluloid stereotypes of  a “rishi”.

In legend, a person of this name authored the ‘Manusmriti’. The smritis are really about norms that brahmins sought to impose on society centuries ago. Norms that are fiercely casteist. There were many smritis, composed mostly between 200 BC and 1000 AD. They were compiled over a long period of time by several authors. The best known of these is the Manusmriti, extraordinary for the differing standards it applies to different castes  -- for the same crimes.

In this smriti, lower caste lives were worth little. Take the “penance for the murder of a Sudra.” It is  the same as what a person killing “a frog, a dog, an owl or a crow” would have to perform.  At best, the penance for the murder of  “a virtuous Sudra” is  one-sixteenth that to be made for the slaying of a brahmin.

Hardly what a system based on equality  before law needs to emulate. The presence in the court of  this symbol of their oppression angers dalits in Rajasthan. Even more galling, the architect of the Indian Constitution finds no place inside the complex. An Ambedkar statue stands at the street corner facing the traffic. Manu in his majesty faces all comers to the court.

Rajasthan has lived up to Manu’s ideals. On average in this state, a dalit woman is raped every sixty hours. One dalit is murdered a little over every nine days. Some dalit is the victim of grievous hurt every 65 hours.A dalit house or property suffers an arson attack every five days. And each four hours sees the registration of  a complaint falling into “Other IPC”  cases. Which means cases other than murder, rape, arson or grievous  hurt.

The guilty are rarely punished. Conviction rates range between two and three per cent. And many offences committed against dalits never even reach the courtroom stage.

Countless complaints end up closed and buried with “FRs” ( Final Reports). Genuine and serious cases are often scuttled.

“The problem begins right in the village itself,” says Bhanwari Devi, whose daughter was raped in a village in Ajmer district. “The villagers hold a caste panchayat. They pressurise the victims to patch up with their attackers. They say: ‘why go to the police? We’ll solve the problem ourselves’.”

The solution usually means the victim gives in to the oppressor. Bhanwari was held back from going to the police.

In any case, the very act of a dalit or adivasi  entering a police station brings its own risks. What happens when they do go? In Kumher village in Bharatpur district twenty voices answered at the same time: “Two hundred and twenty rupees entry fee,” they said.  “And many times that sum that if you want them to move on your complaint.”

Where an upper caste person has attacked a dalit, the police try to dissuade the victim from filing a complaint. “They’ll ask us,” said Hari Ram, “ ‘kya? Baap bete ko nahin marte hain, kya? Bhai bhai ko nahin marte hain kya? (Doesn’t a father strike his son? Doesn’t a brother hit his brother now and then?). So why not forget it and drop the charge’?”

“There’s another problem,” says Ram Khiladi, laughing. “The police take money from the other side as well. If they pay more, that’s the end for us. Our people are poorer and can’t afford it.”  So you can actually pay Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 5,000 and lose it.

Next, the policeman coming down to investigate can end up arresting the complainant. This is more likely to happen if the latter is a dalit complaining against  an upper caste person. Often the constable belongs to the dominant caste group.

“Once when the upper castes attacked me, the DIG posted a policeman outside my door,” says Bhanwari in Ajmer. “That havaldar spent all his time boozing and eating in the Yadav houses. He even advised them on ways of dealing with me. Another time, my husband was beaten up badly. I went to the station alone. They wouldn’t file an FIR and abused me: ‘How dare you come here on your own, you a woman (and a dalit at that)?’  They were outraged.”

 

Back in Kumher, Chunni Lal Jatav sums it up.  “All the judges of the Supreme Court do not have the power of a single police constable.”

That constable, he says,  “makes or breaks us. The judges can’t re-write the laws and have to listen to arguments from learned lawyers of both sides.  A constable here simply makes his own laws. He can do almost anything.”

If, after much effort, an FIR is actually lodged, fresh problems arise. That’s apart from the “entry fee” and other moneys paid. The police delay recording witnesses’ statements. And, says Bhanwari. “They also deliberately fail to arrest some of the accused.” These are just declared ‘absconders’. The police then plead inability to proceed without their capture.

In many villages, we came across instances of  “absconders”  actually moving about quite freely. This and the inertia in getting witnesses’ statements leads to fatal delays.

It also leaves the dalits at the mercy of their attackers in the village, often forcing them to compromise their own case. In Naksoda in Dholpur district, the upper castes inflicted a unique torture on Rameshwar Jatav. They pierced his nose and  put a ring of two threads of jute,  a metre long and 2 mm thick, through his nostrils. Then they paraded him around the village, leading him by the ring.

Despite the media attention the case got, all witnesses  --  including Rameshwar’s father, Mangi Ram  --  have turned hostile. And yes, the victim himself has absolved those charged with the crime.

The reason?  “We have to live in this village,” says Mangi Ram. “Who will protect us? We are dying of fear.”

“Any atrocity case,”  senior advocate Banwar Bagri, himself a dalit, told me at the Court in Jaipur, “has to be processed very quickly. If delayed beyond six months, there is hardly any chance of conviction. The witnesses can be terrorised in the village. They turn hostile.” 

There is no witness protection programme. Besides, delays mean that already biased evidence gets further rigged as the upper caste group in the village strikes a deal with local police.

If the case does get off the ground, there’s the problem of  lawyers. “All vakils are dangerous,” says Chunni Lal Jatav. “You could end up with someone who bargains with your enemy. If he gets paid off, you’re finished.”

And costs are a real problem. “There is a Legal Aid scheme, but it’s too complex,” says advocate Chetan Bairwa, among the few dalits at the high court in Jaipur. “The forms need details like your yearly income. For many  dalits on daily and seasonal wages, this is confusing. Also, awareness of their rights being low, many don’t even know about the aid fund.”

That dalits are poorly represented in the legal fraternity does not help. At the High Court in Jaipur, there are about 1, 200 advocates, of whom about eight are dalits. In Udaipur, that’s nine out of some 450. And in Ganganagar, six out of 435. At higher levels, under-representation is worse. There are no SC judges at the High Court.

There are dalit judicial officers or munsiffs in Rajasthan, but these, says Chunni Lal in Kumher, don’t matter. “They are too few and they don’t even want to be noticed, let alone draw attention to themselves.”

When a case reaches the court, there is the Peshkar to take care of. “If he isn’t paid off, you can have hell with your dates,”  I was told in several places. And anyway, “the whole system is so feudal,” says Chunni Lal. “That’s why the Peshkar, too, has to have his cut.  In several magistrates’ offices, all the judicial officers sit and have lunch that is paid for by the Peshkar. I recently exposed this to journalists who wrote about it.”

And lastly, there’s the abysmally low conviction rate itself. But that isn’t all.

“You can have a good judgement,” says Prem Krishna, senior advocate at the High Court in Jaipur. “And then find that the attitude of the implementing authorities is terrible.” Prem Krishna is also President of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, Rajasthan. “In the case of the scheduled castes there is both economic inability plus a lack of political organisation. Even dalit sarpanchas are trapped in a legal system they can’t fathom.”

In Raholi, Tonk district, suspended sarpanch Anju Phulwaria, having spent tens of thousands of rupees fighting her case, faces financial ruin. “We’ve taken our girls out of a good private school and put them in the government school.”  The very school where teachers were responsible for instigating students to deface dalit properties.

In Naksoda, Mangi Lal has spent over Rs. 30, 000 fighting the nose-piercing case  --  one on which he and his son, the victim, have thrown in the towel. The family has sold a third of its meagre land to meet the costs.

Rajasthan’s new Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot appears  keen to change some of this. He says his government  is willing to consider a random survey  of “FRs”  --  closed cases. If  deliberate cover-ups are found, “then those guilty of undermining the investigation will be punished,” he told me in Jaipur.  Gehlot intends to bring in “amendments to the panchayat laws to ensure that weaker sections are not wrongfully deposed”  from posts like sarpanch. 

Quite a few sarpanchas like Anju Phulwaria were, in fact, victimised during the BJP regime. By reversing that process, Gehlot can only gain politically. But he has a huge, hard task ahead. The system’s credibility has never been lower.

“We have not the slightest faith in the legal or judicial process,”  says Ram Khiladi. “We know the law is for the big people.”

This is, after all, Rajasthan, where Manu casts a long shadow inside the court. And where Ambedkar is an outsider.  

 

Ups and Downs of the Religious Right

It’s a puzzle: the Christian Coalition is fighting off extinction, but the Religious Right seems as powerful as ever. "Christian Coalition losing clout" headlined the (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot on February 19, the day of the pivotal South Carolina Republican presidential primary. The article quoted Furman University professor James Guth, a longtime chronicler of the coalition: "If there’s any organizational activity going on, it’s very low key." Yet religious conservatives turned out in record numbers that day -- they totaled about 30 percent of the vote -- and by an almost 3-1 margin supported George W. Bush, providing the Texas governor with a tidy victory over Senator John McCain.

In the Virginia Republican primary on February 29, religious conservatives represented 20 percent of the turnout, and they voted 8-1 for Bush. In the Republican primaries on Super Tuesday, March 7, 24 percent of Ohio voters identified themselves with the Religious Right, 20 percent in California, 16 percent in New York and 8 percent in Massachusetts. Bush was the choice in all the states except Massachusetts.

The Christian Coalition had done it again, exulted coalition president Pat Robertson and former executive director Ralph Reed, now a political consultant to Bush and others. Not so fast, said Guth. "What South Carolina showed," he told me, "was that there is no diminution in religious conservative participation in the Republican Party. But many of those groups have little to do with the coalition itself."

Guth pointed to Southern Baptists, the locally strong Presbyterian Church in America, and the supporters of Bob Jones University as examples of conservative religious groups that are distinct from the coalition but whose members vote Republican. The National Right to Life Committee also played a strong role in South Carolina in mobilizing voters against McCain (who was labeled soft on abortion, though he and Bush have virtually identical positions on the issue).

If the Religious Right is to make a significant contribution to a Bush victory in November, it may do so without strong leadership from the Christian Coalition. Founded in 1989 by Pat Robertson, the coalition says on its Web page that it represents a "growing group of over 2 million members and supporters" and that it has 2,000 local chapters. The site provides e-mail contacts for all 50 states.

But the reality is quite different. The coalition is about $2 million in debt, said Roberta Combs, its executive vice president, as reported by Liz Szabo of the Virginian-Pilot in December. At the time the coalition was being sued by Steven Winchell and Associates for $386,000 which the fund-raising firm said it was owed for the $7 million it had collected for the coalition.

Organizationally, it’s been tough-sledding for the coalition since Ralph Reed left as director in July 1997. Cause and effect are much debated. Reed combined charisma and organizing skills that gave the coalition focus and drive. He had a measured style more soothing than Robertson’s. But according to Combs, Reed left the coalition with a $3 million debt.

Public tax forms reveal that the coalition had income of $26 million in 1996, but only $18 million in 1997. The two people who succeeded Reed as director were both gone by the end of 1999, when Robertson assumed control again. About a dozen other key staff members have left or been fired, some because of budget shortfalls. More than one blame Combs (who headed the South Carolina chapter until last summer, when she was brought to headquarters as Robertson’s deputy) for dismissing anyone who disagreed with her.

Last June the coalition announced that it had given up its ten-year quest for tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS rejected the nonprofit bid in 1996, but the coalition did not admit this until March, when Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice (Robertson’s answer to the American Civil Liberties Union) filed a suit against the IRS to gain tax exemption for the coalition. The IRS by law is not permitted to comment on the case, but it is widely assumed that the coalition’s strong ties to the Republican Party and its all but formal endorsement of Republican candidates disqualified it from tax-exemption. One result of the IRS’s stance may be that individual congregations, fearing the loss of their own tax exemptions, will decline to pass out coalition voter guides.

The coalition has a strong presence only in about seven states, including South Carolina, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma, Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times reported last August. As for its membership and the vaunted voter guides, Goodstein wrote: "The Coalition, former leaders say, distorted the size of its base by keeping thousands of names of dead people, wrong addresses and duplicates on its list of supporters, printed millions of voter guides that [they] expected never would be distributed, and hired temporary workers to look busy in the mail room and phone banks to impress reporters and camera crews." An internal coalition document revealed that only 428,000 membership renewal notices were mailed out in 1998, USA Today reported. Fortune magazine, in its annual survey of the most powerful Washington lobbying groups, in 1999 ranked the coalition (ranked seventh in 1998)as 35th among the 114 it listed -- "a surprising fall from grace." The magazine continued: "The Coalition apparently was so eager to hide its decline that Randy Tate," former executive director, had filled out forms in such a way that Fortune disqualified two of them.

Among the casualties of the sharp budget cuts that began at the end of 1997 were two much-touted outreach programs that Reed had hoped would expand the definition of the Religious Right. One was the Samaritan Project to encourage minority, largely African-American, participation. The other was the Catholic Alliance. As recently as March, Charles Colson wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece that a Catholic-evangelical coalition could change politics dramatically in this country. But six years of effort on this front have ended with little organizational success.

When the coalition reorganized last summer after losing the tax battle, it borrowed its Texas affiliate’s nonprofit status to continue its work from Chesapeake, Virginia. (Whether that will entangle the coalition with the IRS again is an open question.) And it announced the creation of the Christian Coalition International (CCI), a for-profit group that might establish a political action committee (PAC) to support candidates and create chapters around the world. Szabo reported that in December CCI had one employee.

The coalition announced in November that it planned to move its headquarters from Chesapeake to a Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C., by the end of the year. The move hasn’t yet happened.

The coalition held a much-publicized "Women Changing America Conference" outside Washington in early March. In her invitation, Combs wrote that at this meeting "an army of dedicated workers, impassioned and prepared for battle, will be formed to lift up their voices in government again." No more than 200 turned up, and Robert Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said it was a "low-energy gathering."

The tale of unanswered phone calls is one small sign of the problems besetting the coalition. In the past when I have called its press office, I got immediate professional responses. Those press people are no longer employed. Now only Combs talks to the media. And she never returned multiple requests for information. I didn’t take it personally. State coalition directors also complain that the very busy Combs does not answer their calls either. Some things continue. Biweekly online newsletters alert recipients to hot subjects, legislation and events. The annual Road to Victory conference brought as many as 3,000 people to Washington in early October to hear all the Republican presidential candidates (except McCain) and Republican congressional leaders. The conferees also were told of ambitious plans for the 2000 elections: "Victory 21" would spend $21 million to mobilize tens of thousands of people to deliver 70 million voter guides and mobilize church members to vote. That seems highly unlikely now. Who will do the work? Whence will come the money? Could the controversy created by John McCain’s attack on Robertson and Jerry Falwell help the coalition? It’s possible, said John C. Green, University of Akron professor who has long analyzed the Religious Right. "They thrive on adversity." In any event, the Religious Right consists of much more than the Christian Coalition. The Religious Right is deeply rooted in American life. Many of its adherents have become politically active because they believe society does not reflect their core beliefs -- which include returning officially sanctioned prayer to schools, restoring traditional families and opposing abortion. They have energy, grievance, motive, opportunity. They will express their views, regardless of what happens to the Christian Coalition or the Moral Majority or Focus on the Family.

Robertson, Falwell and James Dobson continue to jockey for national leadership of the movement -- with Gary Bauer also part of the drama. Robertson himself is much more than the Christian Coalition and is not defined by it. He appears almost daily on The 700 Club, the most successful religious television show in history; he is chancellor of Regent University; and he heads the aggressive American Center for Law and Justice. On March 24, Robertson celebrated his 70th birthday with a party at the Washington Hilton and Towers. Apparently it took some effort to bring in the announced crowd of 3,000. The original ticket price was $100, but by mid-March that was reduced to $50. The day before the event, a friend of mine was offered several tickets for free. Robertson, who surrendered his Southern Baptist ordination in 1987 to run for president, was reordained March 27 not by a church but by an "ordination council" of six at Regent University.

Falwell has not been a major force in national politics lately. He devoted most of the 1990s to stanching the financial bleeding at his Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He got a reprieve when Art Williams, a retired insurance executive, made a $70 million donation to the school. He also received $3.5 million from a group related to the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. He made a couple of attempts to put together new national organizations, but they went nowhere. So it was something of a surprise that McCain linked him with Robertson as "evil influences" on the Republican Party. The attack had unexpected consequences. Falwell announced in late March the founding of The People of Faith 2000, an organization designed to distribute voter registration cards through churches and direct mail. His intention is to raise $10 million, register 10 million "pro-family, pro-life voters" and energize millions more. He will offer donors tax-exemption through Jerry Falwell Ministries.

It’s also a surprise (except that Bauer likely suggested it) that McCain cited James Dobson as a positive example of evangelical presence in the party. Dobson had harshly attacked McCain. McCain, he said, not only has waffled on opposing abortions, but "has a violent temper . . . can be extremely confrontational and profane when angry. . . was implicated in the so-called Keating scandal with four other senators," among other things.

Dobson’s Focus on the Family is a colossus. It has a budget of about $130 million for 2000, according to the FOF press office -- more than seven times as large as the Christian Coalition’s. It claims 2.1 million members. FOF, with a staff of 1,300 at its Colorado Springs home, handles about 55,000 letters a week asking for advice. Millions hear Dobson dispense advice on child raising every day and his column appears in 550 newspapers, more than any save "Dear Abby" and "Ann Landers."

He and Bauer -- who left the Washington-based Family Research Council in January 1999 to launch his bid for president -- have worked closely together through the years. Their organizations were legally joined from 1988 to 1992. Dobson and Bauer coauthored Children at Risk in 1990. The two groups separated legally in 1992 but remained "soulmates," in Bauer’s phrase. Observers think the division occurred to protect Focus on the Family’s tax-exempt status and to allow Bauer to be more directly political.

Bauer and Ralph Reed had many differences as they competed for influence in Washington. Reed welcomed pro-choice Colin Powell into the presidential race in 1995, which appalled Bauer, who is staunchly opposed to abortion. Nor was he excited that Reed and the

Christian Coalition supported Robert Dole in 1996. Bauer criticized Reed’s pragmatism. "Nobody’s going to put on your tombstone, ‘He had a place at the table,"’ Bauer once jibed. "The thing you want on your tombstone is, ‘He liberated the slaves’ or ‘He stopped the slaughter of the innocents."’

Unlike others on the right, Bauer has made China’s human rights violations a campaign theme. He sounds like Ralph Nader on that topic, charged Robertson, who himself is involved in a joint venture in Chinese television with Indonesia’s Riady family (the family that was featured in the investigation of Clinton-Gore fund raising in 1996). Bauer also supports campaign finance reform -- something firmly resisted by the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee, which is why they have opposed McCain so vigorously.

So it was no surprise that when Bauer ended his campaign, he was attracted to McCain’s efforts to redefine the GOP This put him in direct conflict with Reed and Robertson. "I don’t know why Gary is doing this," said Robertson on The 700 Club. "He didn’t do well in the primaries. Maybe he’s looking for a job." Dobson and Falwell issued stinging public criticisms of Bauer for endorsing McCain.

Bauer stood with McCain at Virginia Beach during the attack on Robertson and Falwell. But two days later Bauer backtracked, calling McCain’s words "unwarranted, ill-advised and divisive." He campaigned no more for McCain.

What’s next for Bauer is not clear. He’s burned a lot of bridges. He is not going back to the Family Research Council. Last September Christianity Today reported on its Web site that more than 60 percent of FRC staff voted against his return. The primary reason: a desire not to have a highly partisan political figure at its helm.

Bauer could use as his base Campaign for Working Families, a PAC he founded in 1997 that raised a remarkable $7 million for the 1998 elections. He might employ that list and one from his campaign to follow Robertson’s model to build a new group. Yet he indicated that he was unlikely to return to the nonprofit world when he withdrew from the presidential campaign.

Has Dobson’s criticism of Bauer created distance between the two? When asked, Paul Detrich, longtime spokesperson for Focus on the Family, said that as an FOF employee he did not comment on political matters. But he could state that there was "no deliberate attempt by FOF to separate from Gary. His activities in running for president naturally separated him from us. Because he was engaged in a political campaign, we could no longer interview him on the radio or run his columns in our magazines. Now that he has resigned from the Family Research Council, it’s not clear what ties we would have."

The fortunes of the Religious Right are now closely tied to George W. Bush. The Religious Right expects that a Bush victory -- and a Republican Congress -- will allow it to fulfill a large part of its agenda. But the Religious Right couldn’t accomplish much under Reagan, and it’s possible that Bush will pay only lip service to the cause. What’s more certain is that a Bush defeat will lead to yet more division and recalculation.

Ending Hunger

Grace at the Table, by David Beckmann and Art Simon. (Paulist, 220 pp. $10.95).

Spencer Bachus, "a diehard Republican from Alabama’s most diehard Republican district," in the words of the Washington Post, has been spearheading an effort in the U.S. House of Representatives to offer debt relief to more than 40 impoverished nations. In Mozambique, for example, where a fourth of all children die before their fifth birthday, government expenditures for debt repayment are four times more than for public health.

Bachus has urged his colleagues to approve $970 million as the U.S. portion of a growing official response to the grass-roots Jubilee 2000 debt relief effort. The proposed legislation would mandate that countries instead use their debt-repayment funds for health and education.

Bachus, a strong fiscal conservative, has never visited a developing country and has only recently learned about the international debt crisis. A family friend who belongs to Bread for the World (BFW), the Christian citizens movement to combat hunger, asked him to look into the issue. Later, four BFW members from his Birmingham district flew to Washington to discuss the subject with him. An active Southern Baptist, Bachus viewed debt relief as an issue with religious dimensions. He turned into an unexpected crusader. Legislation offering serious debt relief has a fighting chance to emerge from this Congress, and Bachus is a key player.

Each year BFW, based in the nation’s capital with 44,000 members across the country, takes on a legislative target aimed at helping poor and hungry people. Each year it makes converts of 1egislators in both political parties. This year it helped shape the U.S. legislative expression of Jubilee 2000. Last year its key victory was legislation that redirected significant U.S. aid in Africa toward rural development. The year before BFW persuaded Congress to make food stamps available to 270,000 young, disabled and elderly immigrants who, for no good reason, were among almost 1 million legal immigrants who lost food stamps as a result of the dramatic ‘96 changes in the welfare laws. In ‘92 and ‘93 it helped gain an almost $2 billion -increase in funds for Head Start, the Job Corps and the remarkably effective WIC Special Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children.

Arthur Simon, who founded BFW, and David Beckmann, who succeeded him as president, have written this book to mark the organization’s 25th anniversary. Both ordained Lutheran pastors, they have worked with the poor— Simon in a parish in Manhattan’s Lower East Side and Beckmann in Bangladesh before working on poverty issues for the World Bank for 15 years.

Using a question-and-answer format, Simon and Beckmann have produced a crisp, honest and hopeful book. It challenges people of faith to act on the biblical imperatives to feed the hungry and do justice for the poor. In a world where one in five people— 1.3 billion—lives on less than a dollar a day, "Has there been progress in reducing world hunger?" the book asks. Part of the answer is that the "proportion of people going hungry in developing countries has fallen sharply from more than one in three in 1970 to one in five in the mid-1990s."

But, barring dramatic action, the actual number of hungry people will continue to increase as population grows. "Is there enough food to feed the world?" The answer is an emphatic yes. "The problem, right now, is primarily one of distribution. Families need enough money to purchase food or they will go hungry."

The authors commend those who practice charity, who staff food pantries, who cook for the hungry. But they argue that more must be done. But they argue that more must be done. The world possesses the food, the wealth and the know-how to end hunger. It lacks the will. "The key for each of us is to help change the politics of hunger. That in a nutshell is the message of this book." Are we likely to succeed? "If we are faithful, if we lend our lives to a cause that is near to the heart of God, we can leave the matter of success to God."

Using Private Lynch

Jessica Lynch resists America’s desire to call her a war hero. "They used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff," Lynch told Diane Sawyer during a television interview on Veteran’s Day. "It’s Wrong"

Lynch grew up in Palestine, West Virginia, a town of 330 people with only one place to shop: "The What-Not Store." She Joined the army because jobs were scarce, the recruiter told her she would be able to travel (she wanted to see an ocean), and the army promised to provide financial help or college. As a supply clerk at Fort Bliss, Texas, she thought she would soon be transferred to Hawaii. No such luck. She went to Iraq with the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company.

In the first week of the war, her unit got lost and was ambushed. Her Humvee ran into another vehicle, killing the four people with her and leaving Lynch badly hurt. She was captured by Iraqi forces, treated in an Iraqi military hospital, and then removed by U.S. forces from a civilian hospital. Now she is home, struggling to regain use of her broken body and heal her wounded psyche.

Seven months after the accident, according to Time, Lynch labors to walk 40 steps with the aid of a therapist. Otherwise she hobbles on two crutches or uses a wheelchair. Nerve damage does not allow her to control her bladder or bowels.

Her true story has come out in pieces. For one thing, the Iraqi military’s quick delivery of Lynch to the hospital probably saved her life. A night-vision film of her rescue shows that U.S. soldiers encountered only medical personnel.

All indications are that Lynch was well treated by doctors, even though they were swamped with wounded soldiers and civilians. She lay on the hospital’s only special bed designed to ease pressure on broken limbs. A nurse -- who said Lynch cried constantly -- rubbed her back with talcum powder and sang Arabic lullabies to her. Part of the blood Lynch received was donated by hospital staff. And -- speaking of heroics -- an Iraqi doctor tried to deliver her to an American compound two days before the rescue effort, only to be driven away by gunfire from U.S. soldiers who apparently feared an ambulance bomb.

This story wasn’t told. Instead, only nine days after she was removed from the hospital, a heroic tale was communicated. The Washington Post, citing "an official government source," reported that Lynch had gone down fighting, shooting several Iraqis and suffering bullet and stab wounds. "She was fighting to the death," the source said. "She did not want to be taken alive." None of that was true, but Americans ate it up.

The Jessica myth was the product of careful planning. The Guardian reported May 15 that in the early hours of the morning after Lynch’s return, reporters were called to the central command in Iraq and told that the president and secretary of defense had been briefed. The reporters were presented with a carefully edited five-minute video of the "rescue."

Six weeks later the BBC called the exercise "one of the most stunning pieces of news management yet conceived. It provides insight into the real influence of Hollywood producers on Pentagon media managers and has provided a template from which America hopes to present its future wars."

The hoopla around Lynch has been staggering. During Veteran’s Day week, the media scrapped over her. A radio ad urged us to see Jessica Lynch on television’s Entertainment Tonight. "They said Jessica Lynch did not remember her captivity. Well, they were wrong. Hear her story on Prime Time with Diane Sawyer," said another radio plug. Variety reported that the interview was a great "get" for Sawyer, with 16 million people watching the 90-minute interview, on ABC. Sawyer’s conversation with entertainer Britney Spears netted only 11.4 million. Lynch also appeared on NBC with Katie Couric and CBS with David Letterman ("The first late-night interview with Jessica Lynch.)

Parade magazine put her on its cover with the headline "The Pledge Will Never Be Just Words for Me." She was on the cover of Time, which devoted 22 pages to her story. Glamour handed out "Women of the Year" awards and Lynch stole the headlines, although she shared honors with, among others, Twyla Tharp, Ellen DeGeneres, Jessica Lange and Shoshana Johnson, the African-American woman POW shown as a captive by Iraqi television and held for two weeks longer than Lynch. Knopf released 500,000 copies of I Am a Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story, as written by Pulitzer Prize-winning Journalist Rick Bragg.

More than 15 million people watched the two-hour NBC docudrama Saving Private Lynch. It was straightforward and did not exaggerate, limiting itself to the ambush, the crash, the hospital and the hospital raid. The script was based on the story of Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, the Iraqi lawyer who played a role in freeing Lynch. In the absence of information from Lynch, his book -- Because Each Life Is Precious: Why an Iraqi Man Came to Risk Everything for Pvt. Jessica Lynch -- was the key document.

Al-Rehaief was given asylum in the U.S. for his efforts, but Lynch and others dispute many of his claims. Did he embroider his role, as a nurse from the Iraqi hospital has said? He writes that he told Lynch he would get her out, but Lynch said she never met him. Did he, as his book and the docudrama suggest, see a black-robed Fayedeen officer slap Lynch repeatedly in her hospital bed? Lynch and hospital doctors say that did not happen. Was his wife a nurse in Lynch’s hospital? Hospital authorities say no one with her name worked there. Surely it’s telling that when al-Rehaief and his family were feted in West Virginia by the citizens of Palestine in October, Lynch did not show up.

The media attention might have overwhelmed even a healthy, sophisticated person. It appeared to flatten Lynch. After her big week, she suddenly returned home, canceling a book-signing tour; a visit on CNN with Larry King and a one-hour interview with NPR.

"I am not a hero. I am a survivor," she told Sawyer. But Americans aren’t listening. They insist on calling Jessica Lynch a hero. Certainly the supply clerk deserves our sympathy. But in the search for heroes, we should focus on the people who feed hungry Iraqi civilians, heal the sick on both sides, and try to bring order and hope to Iraq. Some of those are soldiers. Some are not.