Function Precedes Form

I shared with a friend this concept that function precedes form – that before you form something you need to first know its operations (function). My friend responded: Yes, John this is true but what people are drawn to is form – often sad but true. As a Christian and reader of the New Testament the Biblical narratives that often perplex me the most are the ones where people keep asking Jesus: Where do you come from­ even though they knew his hometown was Nazareth. What they wanted to know I suppose was who sent him into their midst. It seems Jesus was just as perplexed because he would always respond with you see my works don’t you? The people wanted form and what they got was function and it appears they were not convinced.

We seek form over function in most of our lives – the sexy car that performs not too well, the designer purse that lasts but a few months, the … fill in the blanks. Even in our politics we seek form. We have a woman, a black male, and white male. And, we seek to differentiate by form as well – I’ve seen the arguments, you know, the but one example that says: Look at what the world will see if America elects this or that person! Again, form is at the forefront when in the end it will be function that matters.

Right now the political debate is all about the issue of race – again, form. We can see the difference and so we divide by skin color (racism) or by the differences in our bodies (gender / sexism), and even the color of our money (class-ism). A black man and a white woman running against one another on one side with the hopes of defeating a white male running for the other party – form!

“Ism(s)’” are a disease. Once they infect our society we begin to divide a separate and eventually find ourselves able to justify horrible ways we can treat one another. Ism/s poison our collective soul. Take racism for example: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race to distinguish it one from another race – usually as being inferior or superior to that other race — sounds like form doesn’t it with the result that form then prescribes the behavior or functioning of the other person of race and / or gender.

I believe that much of what is happening in the presidential hopeful political debates (audacity of hope?) has to do with the conversation above and if the audacity of hope is ever to be realized then we need to be awakened to how much of the “ism” disease has infested our societies; for one, this country was founded on the backs both slave labor (African and other) as well as impoverished immigrant labor, and of course there are other skeletons in our national closet as well. Secondly, if the audacity of hope is to be realized then our collective memories need the healing hands of the doctor.

It ill serves the healing process to deflect our need of healing onto another person, say for example The Reverend Wright who in the past made a few very strong accusations against this nation we call The United States. I for one am very tired of God Bless America on red, white, and blue ribbons stuck all over the backs of cars. Why, because I hold the view that to bless another is lay upon that other the mandate to be a blessing to others. Biblically (and blessings have a lot to do with Biblical faith) God blesses so that those blessed can and will be a blessing to others. I assume the Reverend was responding to this in his condemnation of America in one of his sermons. But, let us understand that he was responding out of the call of the prophet who must first say some very strong words to awaken the people. It is only after “we” are awake that “we” can then listen to the alternative vision the prophet is called to pronounce.

This initiates the healing of our memories – to be awakened and then to be filled with the hope of a new vision. It becomes problematic however, when we grouse over the sound of the alarm clock in our refusal to come awake, and we need to understand that more often than not, our passing of judgments are made as we sleepwalk through life. Well, Reverend Wright, in his sermons, tells the story from his side. Is it not elitist to say his story is not the truth, especially since the truth must be understood only after a hearing from all sides?

The healing of memories begins with the telling of the truth. This is a very important first step in planning for peace. It is about function first and foremost. 

 

 

 

Prayer Informs Our Work / A Reflection

The work we are called to perform is not supposed to be impossible, and it is to be done for the good of the community. Thus, the community must ensure those performing the work receive the blessing of the community else the work is not to be done. But, the insanity in the world refuses to acknowledge this, providing unsustainable living wages to some and unlivable wages to others. “Work your way up” is the message, while offering little or no pathway of hope to realize potential.

 Why is it the engines of our communities run on the burdening of so many – justifying consuming others for the “good” of community? What needs to be done to make quality work available for more people thus realizing joy within the community? How do we go about taking our work “off our altars of success” that it may become sanctifying work for community life as a whole? It begins with prayer, I think. 

A Reflection on Justice: Give According to Other’s Need

When violence is used to adjudicate the law, the law has become the one served and we the ones who serve it. In this regard, then, social benefits of law become something to be earned rather than a valued right. I submit, however, that what is actually served is vengeance and not the law after all. What we end up with is a commodity-based process of law enforcement whereby everyone gets what they deserve rather than what they need, and the original vision behind law is lost.

 

Others often challenge me when I say that much of our world’s violent conflict occurs around the boundaries of law and regulations. Croatian Christian theologian Miroslav Volf wrote: Law and regulations do limit abuses; however, they only mark the space in which war [violence] is waged. They do not eliminate war [violence]. Neither he in his book nor I in this writing deny the importance of law and regulations. These are very important boundary markers for the needed security of any ordered society. However, when we execute the law based on an arbitrary commodity-based / market concept, miss-justice is served. Indeed, our history continues to reveal the ways that law can be bought and sold – loopholes, plea bargaining…

 

I have come to observe that this distinct form of justice (retributive) is set up to ensure everyone gets what they deserve, and the more one can pay it seems the more one gets. Even so, I am aware of a second form of justice that remains but a vision even if I have seen it manifest only in fleeting moments of grace – that being a form of justice where everyone gets what they need. This later form of justice is a vision for healthy and growing communities seeking to continually repair the fractures in community (restorative) even though the other form of justice continues to prevail.

 

I know I am playing somewhat with the language. Please understand, I do believe that those who violate the law need to be held accountable. It is the form of accountability that I question. For example, take the language of justice and apply it to the themes we see developed in our literature and movies. One that comes to mind is the recent remake of the movie King Arthur. Here is a story that demonstrates the trumping of justice when Arthur ruthlessly defeats his enemies in horrible violent battle, as if the violence was the only way to restore justice when in actuality, all of creation gasps with fatal  “sucking chest” wounds – I name this form of justice retributive justice or, restorative violence as if violence can ever restore anything, when the true nature of violence is to tear down and take life away, never to restore it.

 

When justice becomes something that can be bought and sold then it is always those who cannot afford it that lose. In other words, justice stops being a gift given to the community for its security and survival. It is instead something to be earned through certain behaviors and / or cash investments. It becomes a utilitarian form of ethic resulting in the sacrifice of justice for some immediate greater good.

 

Consider the Biblical law Thou Shall Not Kill. This law is given to community to ensure its safety and security. Our streets become safe havens of joy where people can walk and not fear for their lives.  However, place this in context with the last Biblical law Thou Shall Not Covet, given to protect one from the other over the matter of property. The imperative then is that all in community receive according to their need so that they are not tempted to covet and hence kill to obtain what they need to survive. This process of law enforcement reaches for the higher ground of justice and preserves the sanctity of community.

 

 

Giving Life to One Another

This blog receives a fair amount of traffic – about 3 or 4 hits per day on average this past month but seems to not generate responses such as is expected of a social media product. Therefore, I thought I would share with you every once in a while some of my more personal journal reflections to help you look into some of the processes that have been shaping my thoughts. In case you are interested, the text that has been very helpful to me over the years is the Rule of Benedict: Insights for the Ages interpreted by Joan Chittister. Here is one of my entries from today:

 

Giving Life to One Another

We must learn how to give life to one another if we are to become true community, lest we continue to risk being a collection of people or parochial groups living in isolation of one another even though living among each other.

Community is something that one and / or whole groups of people do, not something that is only thought about. When the idea of community is not acted on, thinking alone perpetuates abstracting the idea of community. Abstract thought must be acted on if the idea is to become tangible and real. But action only in the material aspect of community is not sufficient, for our actions are the real measures of our spiritual depth. The true measure of our spirit is accounted for in our actions; hence “accountability” is but one key aspect where the capacity to “love” (the reason for our actions) is the other. Thinking about it is easier than doing it.

Peacemaking happens when folks take the responsibility for their thoughts and act. The kind of peace acted on is the true measure of the spirit of the community. 

P2 Conversation with Taos Peace House

March 7th I presented the P2: Planning For Peace briefing to members of The Taos Peace House and opened up time in the briefing for conversation around the vision of P2. I needed to ensure that they understood that P2 was not yet a reality so I emphasized that what P2 had to offer at this time was only a vision for peace planning – I did not want to over sell a capability not yet available – that to date, no one was planning for sustainable peace through the lens that the P2 vision offered. I then informed them that this P2 vision is a real capability that can be created but that it was going to cost a lot of dollars and that if we as tax payers are willing to spend billions on spiffy computer models and war planning / gaming technology and processes then we need to understand that Peace will not come on the cheap either.

I was impressed by the context of the group that gathered ranging from professional mathematicians who had some experience in military operations as well as peace activities, economists, a few self-professed hippies, and several others from different peace activists groups. I welcomed their input and valued their contribution to peace operations and to communicate this to them, I opened the briefing with the words of the prophet Jeremiah (6:14). I then reminded them that the role of the prophet was essentially twofold: 1) Speak the truth to Power, and 2) Provide an alternative vision. I told them that they carry on the prophetic tradition but that they were only carrying half of the burden of the prophet. Although they were good at speaking the truth to power, they did not offer an alternative vision.

I find it helpful to say that the prophet’s role of speaking the truth to power is done so to help those in power remain humble ensuring their rule remains efficacious. This was Jeremiah’s words of truth telling – that the power of his day had turned peace into an abstract idea and lost sight of the concrete reasons they were chosen to rule – to make peace among the nations so that their peoples could thrive.

I am glad that my good friend and former military colleague was able to attend the gathering. He added a little different spin that complemented the P2 language. He was also helpful in advising me on his observations of the reactions / responses of those receiving this information. He asserted that the group became empowered as they entered into the discovery process of receiving  our message.

One important discovery is the lack of a coherent peacemaking language and what we heard from the group was that P2 seemed to offer a vehicle to develop said needed language as well as processes that mirror the language of war planning and war fighting.

Recall my comments above on the role of the prophet; lacking among peacemakers is an alternative language and vision for peace and peacemaking. Embedded in any vision is the lexicon needed to realize the vision. Now, I am not talking about a vision statement but am speaking about the unpacking of the vision wherein lies the dictionary of terms.

Peacemakers in the room that night and unfortunately many others around the world do not have a coherent language to communicate their vocation. They are excellent in their first prophetic mandate of telling truth to power (protesting as but one example or the important work of binding up wounds — acts of compassion) but these are not fully relevant because they are not leading to an alternative vision clearly communicated that connects them to the “other side.”

Finally, I feel very good about the reception of the presentation and the enthusiasm that was generated. I was also surprised by this group’s ability to realize that their stand on peace was every bit as absolute as the other side’s stand on war, and that for communication to take root they needed to move away from the protection of their position if they were to be empowered to hear and understand … to do this they discovered they needed to understand the language of the warrior first if they were to locate the intersections of language resulting in a more cooperative spirit…

Speaking of spirit — everyone agreed that lacking as well, is the absence of an understanding of the spiritual dimension of this important work… after all, the core of our vision is the spiritual disciplined approach to peacemaking.

Understanding Spectrum of Conflict and Context

Preparing myself to hold a conversation with members of The Taos Peace House I once again ponder the nature of the spectrum of conflict. It came to me to consider that this spectrum is bounded by peacekeeping on the one end and peacemaking on the other end. In this regard I understand peacekeeping as the use of force (not of war making) inserted between parties in conflict and peacemaking as the process of taking advantage of the opening up of space developing sanctuaries for healing and reconciliation.

I fear this is an over simplification yet do find that reflecting in this way is helpful in developing a new language for understanding wholesome peace operations along the spectrum of conflict. The type of peace realized then, will depend upon the amount of energy expended in leveraging the two ends of the spectrum. In either case, however, accountability is demanded – that is by both peace operators as well as those “being operated on.” What differs is how one achieves accountability.

My life experience teaches me that the each end of the spectrum offers two different modes of accountability. For example, peacekeeping operations are fear based relying on the use of force to enforce accountability and to control conflict. In this way, peace is imposed upon those who would otherwise not wish to pursue peace. Peacekeeping results in a peace forced upon others as a way to control conflict from a position of strength. I understand this use of force as a form of retributive justice where groups get what they deserve. In other words, retribution is the yardstick for resolving conflict. Peacemaking, on the other hand, seeks to resolve conflict through practices of shared grass-roots practices of reconciliation in conversation with governing authority.

The world that I was born into is and remains a world where the role of peacekeeper is viewed as honorable above all others and to question this is to have one’s patriotism called into question. This world remains a world where “only might can make right.” This form of operation finds its justification in the living reality that says: “Violence and coercion is ultimately redemptive,” and that vengeance in the end will bring peace – if for no other reason than the offending party has been paid back in full if not double measure.

I often have to remind myself that who we are today very much depends upon at least two things: the world environment we have been born into, and our personal and collective level of awareness of this and what we do with the questions our lives together asks of us. Another way of understanding this is to know that we are born into a world environment created by our grandparents and great grand parents (ancestors) and their solutions to the issues confronting them often become our problems confronting us today.

For example, today we continue to perpetuate a system of justice created for us. As noted already, it is a system grounded in fear and champions adjudication processes to ensure that everyone gets what they deserve (turning justice into a commodity). This is miss-justice.

True justice (Justice that restores) is the result of all parties receiving what they need — that is social empowerment for self-actualization, equal access to resources and ability to experience hope. Restoring justice seeks to sustain a balance of these through both law of society as well as law of the soul. As crucial as is law to the security of a society, it remains perfectly imperfect in operating in the many shades of grey where every human being lives his or her life. So, under the thumb of miss-justice, the world continues to cry out for justice and it becomes the role of the peacemaker to sort questions and resolve the answers generated by the conflict of miss-justice – to include measures of accountability as well.

The matter before us all then is this: “What kind of world were you born into (social and family)? And, where along the spectrum of conflict do you find that you are more prone to both respond to and / or find yourself confronted with in your personal and social life?”

Essay on the Nature of Conflict

It is conflict’s nature to bring chaos, and darkness, and confusion into what is otherwise the light trying to illuminate our paths (The Peacemaking Pastor, page 35). As such, conflict can easily make us blind guides afraid of the light we are called to lead our flock into. This light I call the presence of “an awakening” force seeking to offer us the truth – that without conflict we would never get out of our beds each morning. Conflict is an important force that can be harnessed to create wholesome life together. It is what we do with it in the context of our shared communities that makes the difference of life or death.

 

For me, what is key to conflict is its gift allowing me to discriminate and choose (or not to choose) the lighted path before me. This mirrors what Plato understood centuries ago: We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. What I am not sure of, however, is whether Plato understood the darkness as matter of the mind or of the heart, for I believe it is from the darkness in the heart that conflict is born. Is it any wonder then why so many believe that humanity can educate itself out of conflict? We can deny the heart by running into the false light of our minds. Conflict is waged successfully when heart and mind are held in conversation with one another.

 

I choose to use the working definition for conflict from the author of The Peacemaking Pastor. In attempts to grasp the abstractness of conflict it is defined in a more personal way as: a difference in opinion or purpose that frustrates someone’s goals or desires … with the results that conflict occurs when my desires, expectations, fears, or wants collide with your desires, expectations, fears, or wants (page 29). These are matters of the heart. Take this definition and lay out on a larger corporate or collective level and let us begin to understand the matters of the heart of a people called a nation – the heart of society.

 

Scholars of theology might call the darkness of the heart sin, defining sin as the result of our personal failures in dealing with conflict (original sin)[1], or our failures to deal with it on a collective (or corporate) level (the fruit of sin visiting generation upon generations).[2]

 

I believe sin destroys relationships and so exists only in the company of two or more. It makes no sense to speak of it in isolation of relationships with others. Thus theologians, first and foremost, see sin as the broken relationship between the human sinner and his / her relationship seeking God manifesting itself in broken human relationships.

 

Broken relationships call for justice and it is the role of justice to restore the boundaries broken.[3] Unfortunately, justice is all too often negotiated away as punishment without the necessary hoped for restoration. This is not justice but miss-justice – a justice delivered in the darkness of our hearts. The justice offered in the light is the actions of loving God (theologically speaking, the measure of justice), loving the other (upon whom our existence depends), and not doing harm (desire for the other what we desire for our self). This is difficult work.

 

By its very nature, conflict is filled with complexity. It is both good and necessary for both personal and societal advancement, and when waged poorly results in brokenness and wounding. But here is the rub after all. We are the broken and wounded ones waging conflict. Do we fear that the light we are called into will disclose this truth?

---

[1] The doctrine of original sin comes out of the Biblical fall of the first man and woman (Adam and Eve). Thus Adam’s basis of sin (hence ours) was his loss of faith and gratitude before the giver of his life (God) and the loss of knowledge of all that is true and good and beautiful – God’s gifts (Miroslav Volf Free of Charge, page 95). Thus we see, for us to eat of the forbidden fruit is for us to seek our independence from God – in essence to say: “God, you do not exist.”  We do and say the same to others when we seek our independence from them. This is at the core of sin’s nature. It is the fruit of conflict waged badly.

[2] I refer the reader to another perspective on the origin of sin. The Reverend Ben Campbell suggests we consider original sin in a way that more accurately describes the state of humanity into which every new human being is born. The light he wishes to shine on the darkness is that no place, no society, and no time is innocent. We have work to do.

[3] I believe that conflict arises when our individual boundaries collide. Boundaries provide safe sanctuaries in which to live and understand who we are as persons and as persons living in context one with the other. It is within these boundaries when issues such as divided allegiances, matters of authority, and personal / national preferences result in conflict. These are almost always identity related matters. 

How do we know if we have met our objectives?

Helping those know they are close to achieving their objectives is one of the hardest tasks in guiding the execution of any planning process. Of course, it is this very issue that results in the failure of the initiation of any planning efforts. The questions, “What is it that we want to do, why, and how will we know when we have achieved the desired outcome of our planning efforts?” are basic “show stoppers.” Poorly executed military operations often are a result of not knowing how to plan for an exit strategy based on the answers to similar questions.

The approach to metrics (measuring outcomes) must be considered at the outset of any planning process. Therefore, we have come up with the following questions in sequence designed to help us evaluate our planning for sustainable peace rule sets:

1. What is each principle?
2. How do we define it?
3. How do we measure it?
4. How do we test it?
5. How do we see it?
6. How do we use it?
7. What are the results when it is applied or used?

To see how we are thinking about approaching these questions let’s look at the rule Mercy (I refer you to a previously written albeit abridged definition for Mercy in this blog). The desire for mercy is an act of courage – for it is fear that leads us into failed strategies. Theologians would attribute this to our human condition of sin.

The desire for mercy is the beginning of a journey with others. The journey begins when we enter into the life story of the one offered mercy – the one whose wounds are being bound – the one whose story is allowed to be told and is reflectively heard – the story that causes us to ask the questions concerning how the wounding came about in the first place and what actions can be taken to prevent further wounding? This takes courage.

Previously stated, compassion is but one aspect of mercy and justice the other. It is possible to offer compassion as well as render justice without mercy. Often we offer compassion with no regard to being merciful – e.g.; a doctor treating an illness with little regard for the human dignity for the patient, or the casting of a few coins to an impoverished person without stopping to connect with the one who is in need. It takes time to enter into the journey of mercy. It is not easy.  We will discover ourselves changed by the experience when we take the time to enter into a journey.

How do we measure acts of mercy in our planning actions? Well, one way might be to evaluate whether programs allow for people to feel safer and encouraged to offer themselves to others. Another might be to evaluate the way people are listening to one another – simply look at the opinion pages, observe our national political debates or attend a city council meeting to see the behavior offered. The bottom line test is whether or not the rate of wounding of persons and communities is rising, leveling off or decreasing.

This is how we are currently thinking about how to approach measuring the rule sets we have chosen in the process of planning for sustainable peace. The journey is just beginning and we need your input. How to measure our rule set is the major task before us. 

Justice

For conversation here, I want to speak to two forms of justice: retributive and restorative. The first form of justice is grounded in fear, whether personal / private or communal. The bottom line of retributive justice is to seek out the offender and remove him or her from society that “I may feel secure.”

 

The second form of justice seeks to restore to its rightful place the humanity (human dignity) of both the victim and the offender. This is not to get the offender of the hook. The offender has to acknowledge wrongdoing and make restitution towards the victim. Restorative justice is an act of love for every human person involved and works to over come the fear that turns into anger, which ultimately gives birth to hatred.

 

What if those involved do not desire to be restored, you may ask, or in the face of the facts and truth do not feel responsible? What if those with diminished humanity do not want to be restored? Then restorative justice ensures that parties are protected from themselves as well as the community. In either case, justice must pursue a path that restores and redeems the human person as well as the community. Restorative justice does not mean or demand a return to previous relationship as if nothing has happened.

 

Two examples of restorative justice:

 

1. Current analysts and policy makers in our American prison system base our nation’s future prison requirements on the level of illiteracy at the third grade level; for example, for every third grader today who are not able to read at the third grade level will likely end up in prison by age eighteen. Acts of restorative justice would focus on improving the literacy level for all third graders.
2. The end of Apartheid in South Africa without a civil war between black and white South Africans is a tribute to black South African leadership’s desire to embrace the human dignity of all. This did not preclude the need to hold persons who committed atrocities accountable for their actions. In all cases attempts where made to restore the human dignity of offenders and victims.

 

Bottom line: There are two forms of justice, one where people get what they deserve (retributive) and one where people get what they need (restorative). 

Mercy

Desire for others what you desire for yourself. Mercy is an action taken on behalf of another. In this way it is an operational and not a static affair. One has to act to be merciful. But, the prerequisite for mercy is humility or the capacity to set aside your own interests if at least momentarily. I will write more in depth about humility later, as it is also one our rules for planning for peace.

Think of Mercy is the container for compassion and justice(two of our rule set operations); whereas the act of humility is the key to unlocking the container. Inside this container are the acts of compassion and justice. Here is how it works. Begin first with compassion and then turn to matters of justice. Acts of compassion are basically bandaging the wounds of people. In this process of bandaging wounds the one acting asks the other how the wounding happened and listens to the story told.

In the hearing of the story, it becomes crucial to understand the context of the wounding so that you begin to ask the question: “What needs to be done to ensure we do not need to bandage others in the future?” This question is a systemic question in search of understanding either what social policy has been violated or what social policy needs to be updated and our created.

I hope you can see the potential for the interrelationship of compassion and justice when seen in this framework. Next I will unpack a bit more the acts of justice, as we understand it. 

Coming soon will be the questions we need to ask ourselves regarding how we can begin to understand how to measure success.