Repentance

It seems strange how sometimes my mental meanderings seem to preview the upcoming Gospel readings. Sunday 2/13 we will read from Matthew 5:21and on. Two weeks ago I was wondering about the difference between the commandments and rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy which resulted in the cult of cleanliness and expiation I read about in commentaries and the underlying wish for any parent for their child to be " a good kid." The difference between obeying rules out of fear of punishment and obeying rules because they describe the only way to live healthily. The difference between obeying God's commandments and Jesus fulfilling them?

I went back to my textbooks and looked up "metanoia," the Greek word that the translators make out to be  "repentance." To me being repentant means to be sorry for one's sins/crimes. It means to know what one did was wrong and to wish it undone and to vow never to re-commit it and if possible to atone for it. Metanoia means to become the person who cannot even conceive of doing the sin/crime again. In terms of the Parole Board, I believe we expect them to grant parole only to those who have metanoia, for how can we trust someone who merely repents? What happens if the triggers or bad choosing recur? We would then have a repentant recidivist.

I personally feel this doubt about myself and I transfer it to the prisoner. I am constantly struggling against the sinful desires of my heart: I want power; I am jealous; I desire things I do not need; I judge others and have no respect for them; I hold resentments. And in my arrogance, I believe that if I, who am saved and blessed must fight moment by moment these temptations, how can someone with a criminal history do any better?

I have witnessed what I thought to be conversions, people having a metanoia, but after months or even hours, when I talk to them, there is no difference in the basic person I am talking to. The man who answers an altar call on Saturday night, on Monday still resents the woman on Food stamps ahead of him in the grocery store line. The woman who approaches me on the street asking if I have been saved, snarling that "Jesus will be ashamed of you on Judgement Day" at me when I thank her for her concern and tell her I don't feel comfortable discussing the state of my soul with her.Public media are full of other examples. The pastor on TV caught messing with a teenager who came to him for guidance and the politician who campaigns on a Christian platform and then leaves his wife for another woman. And I look within and see shadows, too.

So how can I trust the claims for metanoia by prisoners? How do I become a Christin, not an Old Testament follower who has read the New? How does one hope for the best?

TESTIMONY

What is a miracle? It is God suspending natural law for God’s purposes. The Hebrew, Christian and Muslim faiths abound with miracle stories. Sarah bearing children in her old age, Elijah being taken up into heaven, Isaiah bringing a child back to life, the conception of Jesus, splitting the moon, the sun standing still, and of course for Christians, the Resurrection. The other world faiths also have miracle stories.

But what do we see as miracles now? Pope John Paul II has just had the healing of a French Nun of her Parkinson’s disease listed so he has been beatified. This is a medical miracle and can be measured, judged and verified. Many miracles pertaining to Christian saints pertain to medical cures. That spontaneous remission is considered a miracle is the source of many debates among us.

For me, in the hospital and nursing home and prison setting, I see miracles in how God changes individuals in their outlooks, their hopes, and their world views. God changes people much more often than God changes weather or microbes or cancer cells. It has become my honor, not to be the preacher who heals the lame on TV nor the prophet who touches a child and cures her cleft palate. I have been blessed to see an angry old woman, hurting those around her out of her own pain, realize that her daughter needs her love, and decide to send her a Christmas card apologizing for being spiteful. It is a holy moment when the dementia patient who has struck out in frustration and terror has a flash of peace, and looks for a chair to sit in and look out the window. It is beautiful when a son comes to sit by his mother’s ICU bed and feels safe and strong enough to tell her he is sorry and ask for her forgiveness.

These are what I call miracles of the soul; miracles where God has given us a moment of “the Peace that passes understanding.” These moments give us an awareness of God’s loving presence in our lives, in our distress and pain. I often pray that the person I am with can feel God’s arm around her shoulder, hear God’s whispered “I love you” in his ear.

When I am called to testify to God’s power and presence, that is where my heart goes. It goes to those little miracles of God overcoming pain, fearfulness, pride, resentment and anger to let us feel God’s love and let us love one another when we need it most.

What makes a criminal?

One of the men was explaining that he had gotten out and found a job and rented an apartment, and gotten credit cards, and bought a car, and had a new TV, and cell 'phone and video player, and then the floor fell out. He injured his shoulder at work, and the Worker's Comp Board gave him a hard time, and his employer did not have any other work to give him, so he quit; everything started being taken away. So he got frantic, and decided to rob a store to pay his bills, got caught convicted and sentenced. He turned to me and said, "I don't understand you, Bob. Why would you, when you were caught in just as much financial trouble as me, why would you NOT think of committing a crime?" It sort of knocked me back to be asked that. I thought about it before I answered. "I think I DO consider it, but just long enough to realize that it just isn't who I am. The difference between us is that you consider it as a real possibility. For you it is something that would not be life changing. You have accepted that you can do it under the right circumstances, I cannot."
       We then talked about what they can do to reduce the likelihood that they would choose to risk incarceration. They talked about not wanting to let their family down, not being willing to give up living with their kids/wife/parents, not being willing to come back to live in prison again, understanding that they could be considered persistent felons, and the risk of being shot or killed in the process. But they (and I ) avoided the question of morals, of just not doing something because it is wrong to do it.
      What is wrong with talking and teaching the difference between right and wrong? The men and I all know what acts are right and what are wrong. Why do we need deterrence to avoid criminal behavior? Why do we need to threaten and reward ourselves and each other to prevent crime? Both statistics and "talk studies" show that capital punishment doesn't effect the murder rate. The Rockefeller drug laws, which pushed drug possession into the same punishment level as murder did nothing to diminish or even slow the growth of the drug trade and consumption in New York. But we always fall back on punishment and loss as the way to convince ourselves not to commit  a crime. I turned the session into an attempt at answering that. We got lost in the effort.
     Back at home, I went to bed and dreamed about the movie where the artificial intelligence in charge of the US military system asks the men running it, "Shall we play a game?" and runs through all the Mutual Assured Destruction scenarios. The next few days, I tried to chew on it, and then fell into a Bible study group. What does "the fulfillment of the Law" mean? The purity laws of the Torah give people rules of behavior, and ways and means to atone and to clean themselves when they fail. The other parts of the Law prescribe punishments of various kinds, including execution. We humans are used to that. And we are pretty well accepting of the caste concept, the poor becoming criminally suspect, and punishments being unevenly meted out. But we stay with punishment and/ as deterrent.  How does someone live into the fulfillment of the Law not just the following of it?
     What can we do differently? I want to lead the group next time to explore not doing something because and ONLY because it is wrong. I want to talk about doing something because and ONLY because it is right. I want to talk about refusing to accept that having a car and credit cards and a cell phone is so important that someone, anyone might be pulled into doing wrong to get or keep them.
   I'll let you know how it goes......

Freedom

We discussed in the prison group the difference between inmates and "civilians." We compared impulses and behaviors. One inmate said solemnly, "The difference between us and a lot of people on the street is that we got convicted and sentenced." They also made comparisons between a policeman who speeds in his black and white without the lights or siren (denoting official business) and a CO who won't let inmates smoke in a non-smoking area, while he himself is smoking; or a CO who gives an inmate a ticket for taking a carton of milk from the mess to his dorm, but who throws a dozen carton in his duffel to take home. But after agreeing that the difference is in frequency and immediacy, not in degree, we then talked of behaviors on the inside versus the outside. I recounted a story of a confrontation I had with a police officer in which I acted the role of disgruntled and almost harassed citizen, risking arrest and continuing hostility. The inmates compared that with confronting a guard who refused to do one of his duties (inspecting a letter before it was sealed), thereby making the letter late.

The inmates' point was that I could weigh the options (arrest, fine, further harassment) and decide whether to continue standing up against a bully in uniform. Freedom for me was having the option to decide. They have no easy choice. Any and every incident can lead to a "ticket" or even being put in isolation, depending on the bully himself. In effect, an inmate must learn to maintain his own self-respect and the respect of any onlookers, without the choices I have as a civilian.

Then they talked about what will happen if they get parole. A parolee cannot afford to have any kind of dialogue with any police officer, or he will be violated. Any confrontation which might result in the police being called, he has to back down and get away. I can choose to speed on the highway. My choice is based on the knowledge that one ticket will only raise my insurance, two I might lose my license. A parolee, if he is allowed to drive at all, if he speeds, it is a violation. A rolling stop may result in a return to prison. His choices are much much harsher than mine.

Now I am not rendering this conversation well, but I think it is clear that they almost fear parole, as it is so restrictive and their choices are so damaging to the ego. We managed to talk some about "managing" the way people construct their ego. We didn't use the word, but I believe Macho plays a large part in the conflicts that they faced and still face inside and on parole. The idea of maintaining self respect from the inside instead of needing reinforcement or confirmation from outside is something I myself have trouble with, and I do not face the problems they will. I asked myself as I drove home, "What made you need to confront that officer? Why did you NEED to force the officer to comply with YOUR rules?" And worse, I wondered how long I would last on parole, dealing with a parole officer, unwelcoming neighbors and the hostility of a society which wants me locked away forever?

Struggle

At our last meeting, Jim made the statement, "as soon as I hear a man say he is struggling, I know he hasn't gotten to the point that AA calls accepting one can only survive with the help of one's higher power." That brings a light to bear on what I see as a conflict. We talk a lot about an inmate (or civilian) reaching a point where he sees that he cannot go on any longer in the self-centeredness that results in criminal behavior. Yes, he must surrender to the knowledge that he is helpless alone, but there still remains a lot of work to be done, a lot of deeply embedded mental process and attitude and behavior to un-habituate, to coin a word. And that is a struggle. So the man has to relax and surrender to that knowledge, but at the same time, he must be vigilant and ready to labor to change himself.
I don't think it wise to leave the AA statement as the statement for our group. So why did I?

Sitting with Scripture

I send out a 25 word prayer every Monday for church secretaries to use for the bulletin each prepares for Sunday. Today, I sat with the Gospel in which Jesus says not to divorce (Mark 10:11). I sat with that reading for quite a while. My discussion group had just this week discussed the progress of the Episcopal Church's attitude and canons toward divorce over the last 100 years.* In my own nuclear family, my baby sister is twice divorced (his infidelity for #1 and his drug use for #2) and my brother just told us that his wife of 35 years divorced him and he did not contest it. Divorce is, for me, a painful subject, as it marks the end of a blessing, officially recognizes a failure.

What can I say? Jesus says not to divorce. It is clear and concise. And yet I work with men who are abusive and who have been and should be removed from their wives' lives. I deal with men who are not recovering from their addictions; to me they seem incapable of being of one flesh with anyone else. Yet my church says they must be bound into one flesh with their wives for all of life. (Not all of these men of whom I speak are in prison.) Was Jesus wrong? How can I, a mere individual decide what is right? Why did the church's attitude toward divorce evolve with no big hullabaloo? How am I expected to behave towards these men? How does what I know about them inform my opinions about divorce? How would I preach on October 4?

I finally grew as I sat with this scripture to understand that I am not called to decide. After all, what difference does my opinion make when it comes to talking to the men about their own behaviors, their addictions, their own excuse making? Aren't I getting distracted from ministering to them by making judgments? Yesterday's Gospel was "If thy foot causes thee to stumble, cut it off ...better to enter heaven lame than go to hell."

My prayer was for the perpetrators as well as victims of domestic violence. I was able to write a prayer without judging. But it took a lot of work. And I have not decided whether to grasp the tiger's tail or to wuss out and preach about "Let the little children come unto me. (Mark 10:14). I guess I'll have to sit with that reading some more.




*(according to my memory of Episcopal Church USA history)Prior to 1808, followed the English Church Law; 1808 no remarriage after a divorce; 1877 exception for the 'innocent party' if divorce is for adultery or for any reason after the death of the divorced spouse; 1904 added civil annulment ; 1931 allowed bishops to make annulments; 1973 allowed remarriage after any divorce at the discretion of the priest with permission of the bishop. As recently as 1975, priests who got divorced were asked to leave parochial ministry.

ministry or mission?

I was challenged last week by an acquaintance who asked me how I was carrying the Word to those in prison. I was not very eloquent, stumbling as I tried to explain that I am moved to offer a presence, reflective listening and comradeship to those in prison; to talk about how the Spirit is working in my life to bring me to them as a friend, not as a preacher or prophet. I must have sounded judgmental as I replied, because he became dismissive of my reasons and efficacy.

It hurt, as I am still struggling with my own self-esteem issues. Jim wisely has reminded me that it is instructive and inspirational to allow the inmates to watch and participate in my journey, as long as the group sessions do not become therapy for me instead of them. We are trying to teach, show and model behavior so that they can leave the behaviors and attitudes and habits of thought that got them here and pick up less destructive and hurtful ways for use when they are released.

But am I also supposed to bring them to Christ? Am I different from the chaplain who sits with the sick and dying to bring God's comfort to them? No one has ever called me to task for not trying to convert souls in the hospital. No one challenges the "Doctors Without Borders" staff to count the souls they have saved. Why is the prison minister expected to do more? Be different?

I read C.S.Lewis' Mere Christianity again this weekend. He was a great explainer, avoiding the pitfalls of instruction and instead having a beneficial conversation. His opinions are strong, leaning far left at times, far right at others, but very persuasive. I am glad I referred the men to the first chapter, in which he talks about innate knowledge of right and wrong. (Later, he claims that innate knowledge is the only proof we have of God's existence.) But that awareness of right and wrong echoes throughout my relationship with the inmates. We joke that a lot of what got them into trouble, "seemed like a good idea at the time." But they all agree that a sane person (and there are some sociopaths in the general population) really does know right from wrong. It is the problem of painting oneself into a corner so that all the choices that seem available are wrong that they wrestle with. Or loss of self control. The prison system offers them anger management and Alcohol and Addiction therapy. That is part of the correctional process, I think. We seem to be alone in discussing choices and the habit of doing right. On a par, as equals in the discussion. It sometimes seems like the 'victim of circumstances' argument versus the 'sinners seeking redemption' that echoes through all of Lewis' work.

I pray "Holy Spirit, may the words from my mouth and the thoughts from my heart be acceptable to you. (GWT©)" And then I add, "and when they aren't please help me."