October

October has always been my favorite month, except for the last day. I don’t like Halloween. I never have. I think it’s creepy and spooky and weird and the colors are orange and black, which are yucky.  October has the coolest name of all the months because it's so round.

 

I have always loved October because in New England the leaves begin to turn and it is beautiful; reds and yellows and oranges that make the landscape glow. The air becomes crisp and cool and sweaters offer comfort and softness against the skin. Apples are in season. I told a friend a few months ago that I don’t like apples. I discovered this week that this isn’t exactly true. I don’t like apples unless they’re Mackintoshes and I haven’t had a good Mackintosh since I moved to South Carolina; that is, until this week. I bought two and ate one. I went back to the store today and bought six more. They’re from New York. And they’re wonderful.

 

When I was little my mother would make stuffed pumpkin for dinner and it was one of my favorites. She’d make Indian Pudding too. My grandmother would once again make pots of oatmeal in the morning that would bubble on the back of the stove. 

 

The World Series is in October.

 

And my birthday is in October.

 

My favorite birthday cake is yellow cake with chocolate frosting, with those yellow, blue and pink candles that have white stripes spiraling down the side. I pluck the candles out and suck the frosting from the end. Everyone sings “Happy Birthday,” and after making a wish and blowing out the candles, everyone applauds, as if blowing out little candles is the best thing anyone has ever done in the world. But they’re not really clapping because you have blown out a few candles. They are clapping because they love you and they are celebrating you.

 

I’ve learned a few things through all the birthdays I have celebrated.

I’ve learned that having children does not make me a mother, but that loving them does.

I’ve learned that I am not afraid of death. (I learned this one Halloween Day when I was working part-time at a bank and found myself looking at the end of an armed robber’s handgun).

I’ve learned that the best friends are not the friends who share your sorrows but the ones who genuinely share your joys.

I’ve learned that doing the work that you love brings happiness no matter what else is going on in your life.

That one’s past may be inescapable, but it is not irredeemable.

That there is no such thing as “unconditional love,” because my love is conditional. It is conditioned upon the requirements that you don’t abuse me or intentionally injure me or those I love.

That high heels are stupid.

That there really is nothing quite like a little black dress.

That cowboy boots are “me.”

That pineapple on pizza is just wrong.

That the only way to eat ice cream is in a cone.

That surrounding oneself with beauty is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.

That neglecting to add oil to a car for a whole year will blow out the engine.

That saying, “the moon is beautiful,” is a prayer of praise.

That I am responsible for only about half the things I feel guilty about.

That there really is, “No place like home.”

 

I share my birthday with Gandhi. And this year it also falls on Yom Kippur.

Jews will fast. The people of India will give candy away in the streets.

And I will eat cake.  

The Problem of Evil-Part IV

2). The Greater Good Defense: The Greater Good Defense operates on the assumption that God allows evil and suffering (and with an omnipotent God, ultimately this can be the only conclusion) because a consequent greater good results from the evil and therefore outweighs the evil OR a greater evil has been averted by the lesser evil. In the case of the latter, how would we know? In the case of the former there are several questions that arise. The first problem seems evident; that God needs evil to bring about good. One would suppose that an omniscient, omnipotent God could bring about good without evil; or at the very least, without so much. Doire tangent #1: I wrote earlier that for centuries some of these theodicies seemed sufficient and were virtually accepted without question. But then, in the 20th century an event occurred that had theologians of the Western traditions scrambling to re-examine the old responses. In the wake of the Holocaust all traditional theodicies became absurd. The question changed and so the responses needed to change. No longer was the question, “Why is there suffering?” Now the question became, “Why is there so much?” Complicating the project of theodicy was the fact that the Holocaust was “allowed” to happen to the very people with whom God had made the Covenant. These were the people to whom God had promised, “You will be my people. I will be your God.” Whatever then, does it mean to “be God?” What does it mean “to be God’s people” if their near total annihilation from the face of Europe was the answer to their faithfulness? What possible greater good resulted from the deaths of 11 million people including six million Jews? If there was one, I dare say with others, the price was too high. And if there was one, could not the same good have been achieved by an omnipotent God with say, the deaths of 8 million people? Or 4 million? Could not an All-Powerful, Absolute Intelligence have come up with a freakin’ better plan than that?

 

In my former home back in Rhode Island there is a portion of our yard that sits elevated from the lower section of property. The elevation is an approximate twenty foot drop to cement. Imagine for a moment that I have care of a three-year old child, my daughter perhaps when she was that age. As I sit reading or basking in the sun, she moves precariously close to the edge of the wall. And then, I think, "I will allow her to fall. I will allow her so that she will learn not to go near the wall again. Or, she will cry out to me, turn to me in supplication. Then, I will care for her, bring her back to health and she will be so grateful." Reader, what would you think of me? You would think me a monster. You would have me locked up for abuse and neglect. And yet, I would voice my reasons; I would offer as justification, the greater good. Would you accept my defense? No. But what you would condemn in me, an imperfect parent, is the same kind of behavior for which God is praised on a daily basis.

 

It is incredible to me sometimes to hear with what surety people will identify the greater good of someone else’s suffering and to arrogantly announce that they know what it is. They see a resultant good that has arisen out of the suffering and then conclude that this good was the reason why it happened in the first place.  Unfortunately, although they seem quite good at identifying the reasons for suffering, they miss one very important detail; they have confused a consequence with a reason. I would be the last to deny that good sometimes comes from evil. The human capacity for hope, re-creation, courage and strength can be remarkable in the face of immense grief and tragedy. But, that good may result from suffering does not mean that this good was the reason. The cause/effect formula is reversed. If good appears to be an effect of the suffering then that effect is surmised as the cause. Further, if greater good results from a human being's suffering, isn’t the realization of that good ultimately a product of that person’s free will, or the free will of those around the afflicted, if they too benefit? If the greater good is predetermined by God and must result from the suffering, then once again God has violated the boundaries implicit in free will.  

 

Another problem with the Greater Good Defense particularly in Christianity is the belief in the existence of hell. According to the tradition, the final judgment will result in some of us experiencing eternal residence there. If God allows suffering in order to bring about a Greater Good, how can a good be accomplished if the suffering is eternal? How can suffering be redeemed if it doesn’t end? I would dare add that even I am hard pressed to come up with a sin or crime that deserves eternal punishment. True, I can think of a few for which I would wish some time in hell for those who commit them, but eternity? The whole concept certainly begs the question of the mercy of God.

 

The last issue I’ll mention regarding the Greater Good Defense is not a logical or theological problem, but a human one. And it is here that I get to the heart of the matter of why it matters to me so much; of why I teach this course and of why I am consumed with eliminating theodicy all together. The Greater Good Defense and all other theodicies allow us to become too complacent with suffering. If suffering is understood as necessary for some higher cause then the sufferer is sacrificed to it. Suffering ceases to be suffering but becomes identified with the higher good rather than the very real experience of pain and affliction. “O felix culpa!” O Happy Fault! Suffering becomes trivial in the face of the noble cause for which it is presumably endured. In a nutshell, the Greater Good Defense makes suffering good. Suffering is justified because God is allowing it; if God is allowing it, it must be “good.” And if it is good, one should not seek to change it or to challenge it.

 

No matter what explanation, justification, reason or application one can construct to deal with suffering the most damaging and dangerous are those that elevate suffering to the level of utility and value; those that perpetuate an illusion that suffering is good. Suffering for suffering’s sake becomes noble for always there will be some greater good that may arise. And even if it is not readily apparent, there are those who would point to the sky and tell us that the Good waits there. So, in the meantime, we are boldly told to pick up our suffering, bear it in silence and walk with it joyfully. In believing that suffering exists because God permits it, we permit it. And in the attempt to justify God we commit an ultimate betrayal against humanity and human suffering. We fail to alleviate it.

The Problem of Evil-Part III

For centuries certain theodicies have been accepted as valid explanations for the co-existence of God with evil and suffering. Two of these have been particularly popular and continue to be a part of the everyday “language of suffering.” Both find their most formal expressions in Augustine with a little help eight centuries later by Thomas Aquinas.

 

1) The Free Will Defense: The free will defense maintains that God is not responsible for evil and suffering but rather, humanity is. It is based on the idea that God created human beings and bestowed them with the “gift” of free will and through pride and disobedience humanity turned away from God thereby destroying the harmony that God had created. By doing so human beings brought about the emergence of evil, suffering and death. The mythical representation of this ideology is of course, the creation story in Genesis. It “explains and describes,” in narrative form, how first millennia Israelites understood themselves, their God and their place in the cosmos. Doire tangent #1: It is important to understand that in the Biblical traditions, as reflected in Genesis, the God of the Bible is Creator, and what this God creates is “good.” Since the story reflects why evil and suffering exist, it must end up badly for humanity. If Adam and Eve lived out eternity in perfect harmony and joy, the story would fail because it would not be reflective of human reality. Myths “work” and they are accepted because they succeed and gain approval as reflective of collective experience. And so, since it is a fact that human beings suffer and die (and bring about moral evil), the story has to have a bad ending. In the Christian tradition, God cannot “create” evil, so Adam and Eve are said not to turn towards evil (which cannot exist until they do!) but rather, away from God; in the act of turning away, death results. Of course, this begs the question of the presence of an evil temptation (the snake) in the Garden even before evil makes its appearance. Doire tangent #2: The creation story in Genesis is a reflection of the culture out of which it emerged. It tells us more about the Israelites of the 9th-6th centuries BCE, than it does about the universe, God or anything else. Abraham is dated at c. 1800 BCE, Moses in the 13th century BCE; the creation story was written (in its many parts) between the 9th-6th centuries BCE. This makes perfect sense. The people had to be a people before they could create a story. So, the Israelites became a self-identifying group first and then they created and told the stories that describe who they are. By way of analogy, I have to be a person before I can tell the stories of my childhood and adolescence. I have to be born before I can tell the story of my birth. I have to forge an identity before I can tell the stories of my life that I judge as defining moments in that life. There can be no creation story until there is a people to construct it and to tell it. Doire tangent #3: One must also remember that scholars estimate human religious history as extending as far back as 50,000-60,000 years ago. Human beings have been “religious” far longer than is contained within Biblical history. There was religion before the God of the Bible appeared on the religious historical scene less than 4,000 years ago. Indeed, there is NO evidence of the emergence of even a male image of God in human religious history before the 6th millennium BCE! Each of these “tangents” could occupy the space of this blog for many, many pages.

 

But, back to the Free Will Defense. So, the Free Will Defense maintains that human beings are responsible for evil, not God. There are many problems with this popular “resolution.”

1). It does not account for “natural evil,” i.e., the suffering that occurs as a result of natural disaster; earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, etc. Though some have argued that human interaction with the earth has resulted in a corruption of nature, realistically human beings cannot be held responsible for all the natural disasters that have occurred throughout time. Though humanity, through the Industrial Revolution is said to be responsible for global warming, acid rain, deforestation, etc., surely Neolithic peoples, Iron Age and Bronze Age cultures cannot be held responsible for flood, pestilence and sand storms in their time periods. Human beings cannot be held accountable for arbitrary meteorites that fall from the sky. Surely we have no effect on the movement or collision of astronomical bodies and their subsequent plummeting. And even still, we must echo the objections of Voltaire that surely the God who could part a sea and send the Plagues could also stem the tide of flood, change the course of mighty rivers and prevent the shifting of tectonic plates beneath the earth’s surface. We don’t call them “acts of God” for nothing.

 

2). The Free Will Defense operates upon the premise that when God “bestowed” free will to humankind, God then exempted Godself from intervening in the results of free will. One would assume that human choice would be allowed to run its course and to reach the consequent conclusion; otherwise the “will” would not really be free.  People pretty much walk around with this assumption. The Biblical tradition however does not support this self-imposed exemption by God. The traditions of the Bible affirm that the God of the Bible is a God who acts in history. Indeed, the Bible is resplendent with stories of events in which God most assuredly intervened and did NOT allow the course of human actions to develop on their own. According to the stories he parted the aforementioned Red Sea, sent manna from heaven to the hungry Israelites, created a pillar of fire to lead them out of Egypt, opened and closed women’s wombs all over the place, murdered the first born sons of the Egyptians and “hardened Pharaoh’s heart” against the Israelites. One just has to ask, upon what basis does God choose when to intervene in the consequences of human free will and when not? Surely, if God could harden Pharaoh’s heart it would not have taken much for an omnipotent God to soften Hitler’s. In the former instance God engaged in an act of commission in setting Pharaoh’s heart against the people with whom He [sic] had made the Covenant and in the latter, an act of omission by not acting at all (in defense of the very same people, I might add).

 

3). To propose the Free Will Defense as a resolution to The Problem of Evil is unjust in and of itself. It would be a just resolution if human beings reaped the consequences of their own actions, but this is not the case. The just suffer and the unjust prosper. Human beings are allowed to torture the innocent, abuse the powerless and inflict suffering upon children who are too young to exercise free wills of their own. The cosmic, eschatological announcement of justice in the afterlife is too late. The children have already suffered. I would echo the question asked by Ivan to his Christian brother Alyosha in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov; if YOU, my reader, were charged with constructing the edifice of the universe, the heavens and the earth, would you consent to your blissful reward on the foundation that this reward was won through the tears of even one tortured, suffering child? For myself, I repeat with Alyosha, “No, I would not consent.”

 

To be continued…

 

The Problem of Evil- Part II

One of the reasons why I use the word “justify” here is because the word theodicy comes from the Greek for “God” and “Justice.” So, “theodicy” can refer to 1) a formal explanation for the co-existence of God with evil, or 2) the entire project of studying the nature of God’s role in evil and suffering. It is the case then, from this academic perspective that God must be “justified.” There are some responses to the entire project of theodicy that should be addressed before diving into the classical theodicies themselves. These objections are raised sometimes in an effort to discourage even posing the questions or treating the Problem of Evil at all. I reject them, of course.

 

Obj. 1.  It is impious and presumptuous of humanity to insist that God be justified.

 

Reply Obj.1.  I reply that neither Abraham, Moses, Job, nor Jesus considered it impious to demand that God explain “Himself.”  Neither did they consider it impious to challenge (Moses), to question (Job), to expect and demand justice for others (Abraham), or to accuse God of abandonment in the face of suffering (Jesus). The Biblical traditions, following the lead of the Greek philosophers, affirm the capacity for human beings to know right from wrong. In the Christian tradition this is also called natural law; by virtue of being human we can know justice from injustice. Why is it considered impudent to exercise that ability in relation to God? Elie Wiesel has related the words of his Master and Teacher, “Only the Jew knows that he may oppose Godas long as he does so in defense of His creation.” Though I am not a Jew, yet I insist that the Biblical traditions justify God in the face of suffering and I do so in defense of the Biblical God’s wailing creation.

 

Obj. 2. Human beings cannot know the mind or heart of God or, in popular language, “God works in mysterious ways.” The Mind and works of God are beyond our capacity to understand. We must “have faith” that God knows what God is doing. In a nutshell, this objection falls under the charge that the business of God is none of our business.

 

Reply Obj.2.  I reply that this response serves nothing more than to shut down the theological endeavor all together. It renders us silent on any and all questions, statements or claims about God. If we cannot know (or inquire into) the mind of God with relation to suffering, then we cannot know the mind or heart of God at all. All statements about God must stop, completely. If we cannot know God, we cannot say that “God is Love,” or “God is All-Mighty,” or anything else. In addition, the claim that we cannot know God runs counter to the Biblical tradition, which insists that God is self-revealing and as such, knowable. But if God is not knowable, all theology is reduced to fantasy.

 

Obj. 3.  There is no solution.

 

Reply Obj. 3. From the Theist’s point of view of course, there appears to be no solution. For the atheist the solution is clear; God does not exist. To the claim from the Theist that there is no solution, I reply that in my study of theodicy is seems clear there are some solutions to the Problem of Evil that are more dangerous and damaging than others. The intellectual inquiry into theodicy produces arguments that result in the rejection of those solutions. If for no other reason, the project of theodicy is worthwhile because it eliminates those justifications for suffering, which in fact actually serve to prolong or dismiss as meaningful the very suffering they intend to explain.

 

Obj. 4.  The counter-argument from the evidential existence of Good.

This objection is phrased in the Latin this way:

Si Deus est, unde malum?

Si non est, unde bonum?

 

If God exists, from whence evil?

If God does not exist, from whence good?

 

Reply Obj. 4. This objection does not recognize the fact that the atheist is not obliged to explain the universe at all. Evil, good, justice, injustice simply are. It is the Theist who claims that the situation is other than it appears by positing the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator. The burden of proof rests not with the atheist to identify the source of good, but rather with the Theist to identify the source of evil.

 

Obj. 5.  The problem lies not in the claim for the existence of God, but for the existence of evil. This objection would not deal with the Problem of Evil at all. There have been those who would suggest that evil does not exist but only appears to exist because of our skewed perception of it; we only think evil is evil and suffering is suffering because we understand it wrongly.

 

Reply Obj.5. I reply: To say that evil is nothing more than an illusion of the mind is inconsistent with the experience of the people of the Bible and humanity at large. The Bible affirms the reality of sorrow, suffering, lamentation, grief and tragedy.

To deny the existence of evil and suffering is insulting to human history and human experience.

 

Obj. 6. God does not cause evil, Satan does.

 

Reply Obj. 6  There are those who would posit the existence of a malevolent Being whose work in the world is to bring about suffering, wreak havoc and chaos, dangle temptation before us and upset the harmony of creation. To do so does nothing to advance resolution of the Problem of Evil. All one need do is substitute the word “Satan” for “evil” in the Problem of Evil’s formula.

God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and Creator and yet, “Satan” exists. Since Satan cannot be more powerful than God, if God is omnipotent God could eliminate Satan; if God is All-Loving, God would. Since Satan exists (if ya wanna go that route) either God does not want to eliminate Satan in which case God would not be All-Loving or God cannot eliminate Satan in which case God would not be All-Powerful. The Problem of Evil remains.

 

To be continued... 

The Problem of Evil-Part I

I am teaching my Evil and Suffering course again this semester. When people ask what kinds of things I teach at the college and I tell them that one of the courses I teach is a course on evil and suffering, invariably they will say, “That’s sounds so interesting.” Or fascinating. Or weird.

 

I have been studying religious responses to evil and suffering for about 20 years and my family has accepted it, strange though it may be. I have been known to lose sleep thinking about it. I have received books about it as Christmas presents. One summer when I was in graduate school and I received my catalog of fall courses, I scanned it quickly for a course on evil or suffering and when one was offered I actually said, “Oh Goody. There’s a course called ’Suffering, Understanding and the Politics of Pain.’” My children rolled their eyes and said, “Oh Gee, yeah. That’s good Mom.” 

 

My interest began 20 years ago when two tragedies struck the parish in which I was working as Director of Religious Education. These events happened to families I knew well. I listened to the responses and explanations around me and found them to be so inadequate, so trite and so weak that I set about studying the history of theodicy in Christianity. I also found them to be scandalous and libelous towards the God in whom I believed. To say that the tragic death of a six year old child was “God’s will,” expressed a sentiment that didn’t quite fit my belief in a God whose principle characteristic was Love.

 

The Evidential Argument from Evil or, The Problem of Evil is really the atheist argument against the existence of the God of the Bible. It sets itself up in a Theist tradition when God is said to possess the following attributes:

 

Omnipotence (All-Powerful)

Omniscience (All-Knowing)

Omnibenevolence (All-Loving)

Omnipresence (All-Present and Eternal)

Creator

 

The evidence of the existence of evil in the world sets up a contradiction, an illogical and seemingly impossible co-existence with God. Presumably, if God were omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate evil and suffering; if God were omnipotent, God could. But, since evil exists, either God does not want to eliminate evil, in which case God would not be All-Loving. Or, God cannot eliminate suffering in which case God would not be All-Powerful. Since God is either NOT All-Powerful or NOT All-Loving, the God of the Bible as described does not exist.

 

When I present the Problem of Evil in class this way, I know that many of my students rush to their traditional explanations without even pausing to consider just what a problem this is (and has been) for the Biblical traditions. They do not take the time to see it and why it is such a good argument against the existence of God. So, make sure you take time to see it and to understand why the Biblical traditions must answer the charge.

 

On the first day of class, I ask my students what kinds of things they hear in response to tragedy, or death, or natural disaster and I can ask that question without doubt that they will respond in ways that reflect the classical theodicies. They never fail me. They have been raised as Augustinians and Thomists (if they are Christian) and so they know the traditional justifications for God in the face of evil. And yes, it is God that requires justification, not evil and yet, many of the responses do just that. They justify evil.

 

To be continued……

 

 

 

A Beautiful Pea Green Boat

I love words. I always have. When I was little my parents had a set of children’s books. I don’t remember the series’ name but I remember the books. I loved them too. There were 7 or 8 in the set. They were thick and heavy and covered in a hardback binding of red faux leather. My favorite volumes were “Things to Make and Do,” and the one that contained Fairy Tales and Poems. My favorite story when I was little was “Hansel and Gretel.” My favorite poem was “The Owl and the Pussycat.”

 

I told this recently to a psychologist friend of mine and he teased, “Freud was right. It’s always about aggression and sex.”

 

I shot back, “I refuse to be reduced to such simple terms! I insist on being complex. I loved ‘Hansel and Gretel' because I was terrified at the thought of being lost in the forest and separated from my parents. I loved it because in the end good triumphs over evil, the children outsmart the witch and without any grown-up help, they save themselves. It symbolizes the struggle of the powerless in the face of the powerful who would exploit them; it speaks to the reality of making a plan, of strategizing a contingency and of the damn birds that come and eat the crumbs and screw it all up.”

 

And then I said, “The Owl and the Pussycat? OK…I’ll give you that one.”

 

The Owl and the Pussycat sailed away in a beautiful pea green boat. The Owl and the Pussycat sailed away in a beautiful pea green boat. I thought it was the best sentence I’d ever heard. I didn’t know how an owl and a pussycat could fall in love, or how it could work out, but that they thought it could was romantic and optimistic.

 

I loved Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell because of their words. The music was secondary. The images that they conjured up, the stories and ballads, the sharpness of a few words to create a vision full and rich with color and movement:

 

“In the church they light the candles, and the wax rolls down like tears.” Joni

 

“With your mercury mouth in the missionary times. And your eyes like smoke and your prayers like rhymes.”  Bob

 

“It’s coming on Christmas, they’re cutting down the trees. And they’re puttin’ up reindeer, singing songs of joy and peace. Oh, I wish I had a river, I could skate away on.”  Joni

 

“Oh you’re in my blood like holy wine. You taste so bitter and so sweet. I could drink a case of you. And I would still be on my feet. O, I would still be on my feet.”  Joni

 

“She opened up a book of poems andhanded it to me, written by an Italian poet from the fifteenth century. And every one of them words rang true and burned like glowing coals, pouring off of every page like it was written in my soul from me to you.”  Bob

 

Doire tangent: More like an aside actually. I dreamed of Bob Dylan last night. Hardly a surprise. Since Modern Times' release, not a day has gone by in which I have not listened to him (well, this I do everyday anyway), read about him, and seen him on television. He's everywhere! As it should be. I dreamed I was living on Grove Street in Rhode Island with my daughter (who is almost always a child in my dreams). Dylan simply appeared on my doorstep one day and moved in. He was sweet and funny. He sang at night. In the dream, my son was away at school, but he came to visit often, when he found out Dylan was living with us.

 

Anyway....

 

When I am lecturing, the words pour out, sometimes in spite of me. Words come out in class that I have never used before in my life and yet, in that moment, it is exactly the right word. This week, it was “spurious,” and “epochal.” And I am as surprised as anyone in the room at their use.

 

I had a student once who sat in the back and just took pleasure in the words too. He’d laugh out loud every time I said one that was impossibly multi-syllabic, or one he’d never heard before. Like multi-syllabic, or perspectival, or fecundity, or hermeneutical. And I’d see his delight and try to outdo myself, just to get him to laugh.

 

It’s also one of the reasons why I lament, just a bit, that I am so busy right now, I have little time for writing everyday. But I’ll find my groove and make the time and once again peruse the precipice of provocative lexicon and make merry the linguistic locus of my inner being.

 

In the meantime, I’ll remember the Owl and the Pussycat and sail away with them in a beautiful pea green boat.

 

Sleepless Nights, Seinfeld Moments and Random Thoughts

I went to the doctor yesterday. Three and a half weeks ago I had two roots canals in two days and so my head was virtually upside down for a total of about 5 hours. Then I flew to Rhode Island. The result was a feeling of massive build-up, blockage in my left ear. It was beginning to be painful, but mostly quite annoying. I thought I’d have to see an Ear, Nose and Throat guy, but for insurance purposes, before one can visit a specialist, one must get a referral from a primary care physician. My doctor, (who looks strikingly like Richard Reich, former Clinton Secretary of Labor) checked my ear and pronounced the diagnosis. I was suffering from “diver’s ear,” or middle ear barotraumas. Those of you who know that I suffer from aguaphobia and begin to hyperventilate whenever I am immersed in water up to my neck, realize the irony in this. Diver’s ear occurs when the Eustachian tube is blocked and pressure inside the ear cannot be equalized. It can be quite painful. My doctor’s remedy? Hold my finger and thumb over my nose and pinch. Close my mouth so that I cannot breathe. Then from inside my head, try to force pressure towards my left ear to unblock the Eustachian tube. He went to medical school for this? To tell me that all I need to do to fix my ear is to pretend that I am Dizzy Gillespie playing a trumpet? You should have seen us in the office…as he demonstrated the procedure; the two of us sitting there trying to blow our brains out by forcing air from our lungs while closing off any means of its escape. Thing is, it actually worked.

 

** He also prescribed a killer decongestant. Both he and the pharmacist warned me not to take it “before bedtime” because it contained enormous amounts of Sudafed. I took it at five o’clock, hardly close to bedtime. And yet, last night I found myself awake, eyes wide open at 1:30AM, 2AM, 3AM, 3:30AM. At what time does one throw in the towel, and decide that thrashing about and racing thoughts will never get one to sleep again?I actually considered getting up at 3:30 to make the coffee and begin my morning. And it seems, just at that moment, I fell asleep, but not before those racing thoughts took me from the sublime to the ridiculous.

 

**I thought a lot about Bob Dylan and was just a little jealous of Alicia Keys whose name is now immortalized in a Dylan song. Dylan’s new cd “Modern Times” is a tour de force, a coup d’etat, an opus, a delight, a dream. I pre-ordered it through bobdylan.com and my reward was that I received a free gift; a cd recording of one of Dylan’s themed radio programs. The topic? Baseball. It seems that Dylan loves baseball. Who knew? On his radio show, he called it the greatest game ever played. In a footnote to this month’s Rolling Stone cover story and interview, Dylan responded to the question, “What is your favorite baseball team?” Dylan answered the question with typical profundity, “The problem with baseball teams is all the players get traded, and what your favorite team used to be—a couple of guys you really liked on the team, they’re not on the team now—and you can’t possibly make that team your favorite team.” Dylan eventually disclosed that he liked Detroit and then added, “And I don’t know how anybody can’t like Derek. I’d rather have him on my team than anybody.” I have to admit this is true. But the only reason why someone would single out Derek Jeter and reluctantly admit that you have to like him is because you hate the other Yankees. Whew. For Dylan to be a Yankees’ fan would be as disappointing as his Victoria’s Secret commercials.

 

**I bought a new vacuum cleaner yesterday and it came “assembly required.” Good thing I have a Master’s degree. Instructions for assembly provide a) a list of parts complete with b) diagrams of said parts and c) corresponding arrows and lines linking the name of the part to the drawing of the part. Trouble is that when one begins to read the directions for assembling the parts, the names of the parts in the directions DO NOT correspond to the names of the parts in the list. So, one must not only be an engineer but one must also translate the names of the parts. The “Tool CaddyHolder”in the directions is the “Carrying Handle/Upper Cord Wrap” in the parts list; “Dirt Container Release Flap” is “Dirt Window Flap”; “Dirt Cup Lid” is “Dirt Container Lid.” I put it together, plugged it in, uttered a blessing and whrrrrrrrrrr...success!

 

** I wonder if conservative Evangelical Christians are allowed to buy “Dirt Devils.”

 

** When I was in Rhode Island I was transported smack dab in the middle of a Seinfeld episode. The first morning of my arrival I was supposed to pick up my rental car somewhere between 8:00 and 10:00. I was running late so I called my nephew to arrange a later time for my ride. I also called the rental agency to tell them I would be late and I was told, “We don’t have a car for you.” The rental agent told me that the car they expected to give to me had not been returned. I was offered a mini-van “at no extra cost.”  Great. Well, I had no choice so decided to take it. On the ride to Providence, my nephew and I launched into the classic Seinfeld car rental episode:

 

Agent: I'm sorry, we have no mid-size available at the moment.

Jerry: I don't understand, I made a reservation, do you have my reservation?

Agent: Yes, we do, unfortunately we ran out of cars.

Jerry: But the reservation keeps the car here. That's why you have the
reservation.

Agent: I know why we have reservations.

Jerry: I don't think you do. If you did, I'd have a car. See, you know how to
take the reservation, you just don't know how to *hold* the reservation and
that's really the most important part of the reservation, theholding. Anybody
can just take them.

 

When we arrived at the rental agency, someone had just returned a Ford Taurus GL station wagon…so I took that. Everyone who saw it commented on how long it was and wasn’t it hard to drive? No, not really. The front end was the same size as any other mid-size car and so, unless I was in reverse, the rear-end of the car was not really my problem.

 

** P.S.T.M.P.B.E. (Post Script To My Previous Blog Entry) I don't know how many of you know this, but "Exorcist" is one of the four official Minor Orders of the Church along with Porter, Reader and Acolyte. Minor Orders of the Church do not require ordination, so technically a woman can serve in these capacities. Hmmm... wouldn't that be cool. Doire, Master of Divinity,Exorcist. Are there Exorcist Schools? Is there one near me? Or is one apprenticed? What is the application process like? What kinds of questions would they ask on the EAT (Exorcist Aptitude Test)? I wonder if one would have to demonstrate tolerance for pea soup projectile regurgitation dribbling down one's shirt, or if one would have to watch the Movie and write a paper. The official Rite of Exorcism has been amended several times in the past few centuries. I can just imagine the International Association of Exorcists conducting their annual meeting at a Holiday Inn and discussing the success of this prayer or that prayer. Or, "I have found that Yankee Candles are more effective than Aromatherapy Candles." How ironic that in the article cited in my previous blog entry, the Vatican's Main-Man Exorcist denounced the Harry Potter series of books because he judged them as casting a favorable light on, uhhh..."magic."

 

** The new semester has begun and is well under way (with a brief interruption by tropical storm Ernesto, the Southern equivalent of a “snow day”). I love the beginning of a new semester. Even though I never really took a break from teaching this summer there’s something about a new full semester that is different. Students are back in Charleston en masse, there’s a lot of energy, everyone has made resolutions to read assignments, be on top of things, commit to schoolwork.

 

I love the classroom. There’s nothing like it. No two days are alike. Every class is an opportunity; an hour filled with promise and the unexpected. I love my students; their energy and curiosity; their sense of humor and their youth. I love the relationship we establish; the openness and the freedom of exchange; the safety and ease of discussion that sometimes results in surprising disclosures. I never tire of it.

 

I am my best self in the classroom, my truest self.

I teach because I breathe.

The books have been purchased, the syllabi distributed, the Kazoos handed out…

Let the games begin.