goodness and godness
Linked to the previous post is the idea of goodness inherent in holy acts. It is goodness that makes the holy deed vibrate. I have always loved the haunting power of Elie Wiesel’s work. Listen to him here from his somehat autobiographical novel, Twilight
If you could have seen yourself, framed in the doorway [Pedro once said to Michael], you would have believed in the richness of existence–as I do–in the possibility of having it and sharing it. Its so simple! You see a musician in the street; you give him a thousand francs instead of ten; he’ll believe in God. You see a woman weeping, smile at her tenderly, even if you don’t know her; she’ll believe in you. You see a forsaken old man; open your heart to him, and he’ll believe in himself. You will have surprised them. Thanks to you, they will have trembled, and everything around them will vibrate. Blessed is he capable of surprising and of being surprised. (69)
Comments
19 Responses to “goodness and godness”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance...
- preacherman said: Wonderful post. I... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
- Andrew said: Matt, I don't understand...
Related, Wiesel says that in Hasidism, “Everything becomes possible by the mere presence of someone who knows how to listen, to love and to give of himself.”
Wow Len, don’t you love the guy? I read Night when I was thirteen and was never the same again! It still haunts me.
Now that I have my daughter reading Chaim Potok Wiesel is next
btw, on my bookshelf Wiesel lives beside Bernard of Clairvaux.. too bad they can’t meet in real life..
“On day Rebbe Barukh was surprised by Reb Moshe of Ludomir while he was arguing with his wife. “Don’t worry,” he said to his visitor, “It is just like the Almighty disagreeing with the Shekhina, His Divine Presence — it is all for the sake of Tikkun, is is all meant to correct creation and shorten exile.”
Wiesel, “Somewhere a Master”
Len, I hate to tell you, but I don’t think Wiesel and Bernard would have got on. Old Bernie was a thorough anti-semite.
Resonance is a very important concept to me. I have been talking with my young sons about their actions being like magnets. Kindness attracts kindness and anger attracts anger. I am hoping that they will begin to realize that the “vibes” they send out impact others, like a pebble making ripples on a pond…I’ll keep at it until they get it and they find a way to love each other
peggy - sounds like a lot of our conversations with our 5 year old lately, esp. now that she’s entering kindie.
Alan - that is stunningly beautiful, I need to read more of that
That’s the stuff that grows in the soul
I don’t know… i don’t get it. i find that piece of writing to be a little bit simplistic and kind of cliche. i mean give a busker 100 bucks instead of 10 cents and he will believe in God?? smile at a woman and blah blah blah. Strangers smiling at women tenderly and they believe in them??? Sounds pretty lame… but i kind of like some odd stuff, so maybe it’s just a matter of taste.
i’ve read some interesting stuff on here, but when i read that i was actually groaning out loud. It sounded a bit like, “wow, if we are all just nice to each other and spread the love bug then everything will be just peachy!” I think if I smiled at a weeping woman, her thoughts would more likely be “ewww, leave me alone creepy bearded heavyset man, can’t you see I’m weeping!” Or maybe she would “believe in me.” I don’t think I want any one to believe in me, my life is a continual process of trying not to belive in myself.
This is a criticism of the text, not the comments. If I’m missing the subtext or an underlying them please feel free to enlighten me.
then consider yourself enlightened you creepy bearded man!
You are missing the point of it all. Radical, deep seated goodness, is a means of grace. It gives validity to what we say. And God knows we need some credibility.
James, read the post just before this one to give more meaning to it. And my comment above is said in jest. I am sure you are not creepy even if you are bearded.
And can I suggest that you study the life of Francis of Assisi.
James,
Perhaps it would help if you thought of the other options of responding…the giving extravagantly is as opposed to giving nothing–not even the token amount–which is tantamount to ignoring the person. What was given was what was needful. To some it was the $$, to another it was acknowledging their circumstance, whether it was pain and grief or isolation and loneliness.
The ignoring of humanity is the most inhuman thing we do. Consequently, the acknowledging of another and being moved toward them in grace and mercy and love is the most powerful of things–because we bring Christ with us in the moment.
And in the heart of the musician and the woman and the man there might have been a receptiveness to the things of God in the midst of their circumstance. In these moments we are “Jesus with skin on,” to use another terrible cliche. We are “present” in the “present” and that is an amazing thing.
Be blessed.
Peggy nails it again. One of the most profoundly dehumanizing things that beggars experience is that they are effectively invisible people–no-one ever ’sees’ them. they have no names, and no-one ever looks them in the eyes. Tell me that if you do all three at once, the person will not be moved??
Yeah I think Francis was pretty cool. I don’t think it is possible for someone to love unlovable people so much without denying their own ego and letting Jesus to move through them. The concept of being “Jesus with skin on” is not cliche - even if the phrasing is. It’s radical, absurd and extremely strange, and it puts a visual in my head that is pretty disturbing.
I don’t think i missed the point. It’s simply the articulation of the idea i find a little simplistic and cliche. He kind of delivers the statement as an absolute, some kind of mathematical equation for happiness. I find it exagerated, overstated and a little bit insulting towards musicians, weeping women and forsaken old men.
The last time I offered a homeless person coffee I was ignored. The time before that I spoke to a forsaken old man who stank of urine and faeces. He refuse to let me buy him a slice of pizza but enjoyed the conversation (i think). He didn’t seem changed, overly thankfull or more inclined to believe in himself. In fact, I kind of got the picture that he was fairly content and believed in himself just fine.
I guess personal experience is a defining factor of how we view art and maybe life as well. (If Weisels work is art?)
I was abundantly blessed today, thanks Peggy.
James,
Didn’t mean to sound simplistic or condescenting.
I think the most difficult part of the whole incarnational-missional paradigm is bringing Jesus to people where they are in their context. It is not about us reaching out and doing what we think they need. We must approach them to learn what they need and then respond as the Holy Spirit leads.
On another thread I have been talking about God restraining his sovereignty for the sake of relationship by requiring receptivity and responsiveness on our part. This is what I saw: receptivity and responsiveness to generosity of spirit.
When we are incarnational, we must restrain ourselves in the same way. We must approach and make ourselves (and Jesus, in us) known as those offering love and grace and mercy for the benefit of others. Those who are receptive to our initiative will make some kind of response that cues us in as to where they are.
Just as street evangelism is less effective than lifestyle evangelism, drop-in grace and mercy is less effective than becoming neighbors and really getting to know people. Most church folks want to “do” something to “fix” people’s circumstances.
But it is very condescending to presume to know what someone “needs” without getting to know them first. No one wants to be a “project” for someone’s need to show mercy, thank you very much. They want to be known and loved and valued. And when incarnational folks enter this kind of missional work, the Holy Spirit is able to touch the untouchables and begin to transform them from the inside out, not the outside in.
Jesus said that the pharisees looked great on the outside, but were rotten corpses on the inside….well folks can be messed up on the outside while God is working on them inside.
It seems to me that the quote above showed an intersection between those whose need for human interaction was met and received with mercy and grace. There is no need to go to extremes to make it seem exaggerated and simplistic–when it is simplex: start with the simple urge of mercy and move to embrace the complex incarnation of love that gives up one’s life for another.
You didn’t sound simplistic or condescending - my criticism was of the passage and my comment regarding blessings sincere.
I don’t think I’ve gone to extremes to make it seem exagerated, it just is. Read it. I mean seriously. “You see a musician in the street; you give him a thousand francs instead of ten; he’ll believe in God.” Does that honestly sound like a realistic scenario?
If he was being sarcastic, I might have been inspired to develop “radical, deep seated goodness, [as] a means of grace” as a response to embarrassment for my own attempts to buy people into christianity with good deeds.
Thanks for the clarification…let me try one more time to say that I read it (without knowing the larger context of the entire work, of course, which is a great disadvantage) as a challenge to outrageous mercy and grace–the kind that is based on sharing what God has freely given to us with others as a way of speaking grace and mercy into the life of another. There is always a bit of hyperbole in this kind of artistic “what if” scenario.
This whole things reminds me of the “Pay It Forward” mentality, where we set reciprocity behind us and embrace selflessness. It is the move from seeing people as “object” (of generosity or of evangelism or anything else we might want offer as part of a works-based deal) to being “subject” of God’s deep and true love for them…which he delivers to them through his covenant partners (we, as “Jesus with skin on”).
In this light, I see these images as powerful inspiration.