the intimacy of empathy

in my last post i laid the foundation for the subject of this post, communion.

communion, in the christian tradition, has gone by many different names: the eucharist, the lord's supper, the sacrament of the table, sharing the table, the blessed sacrament, but they all point to the same theological undergirding: empathy.

no matter your theology of communion (and it can range from transubstantiation to purely symbolic), the basis of continuing in the practice of communion is empathic. the idea that you might share in an experience that is timeless and significant, at once transformative and communal, is what guides this practice.

there are different ways to receive communion, each typically emphasizing the theology at work in the particular practice that one experiences. i have been privileged to receive communion in many of the different ways, and one thing that stands true, for me, in all of the different ways is the way in which those whom i receive the elements of bread and wine with experience something as a community that provides the catalyst for greater transformation communally.

the idea that we can experience things together, through the basic elements of the earth transformed into food, should be thought of as revolutionary. there is a high level of intimacy involved in sharing food with others, and we probably take that for granted too much and miss its potential. in order to really get to know you, i will probably ask that we share a meal at some point in order to do so. it seems logical then to suggest that we might effect more change, develop deeper relationships, or know those points of view that differ from our own more completely if we are willing to include activities that allow us a level of comfort and experience from which we can draw on later.

the intimacy of empathy is what can provide for communion with others and transformative change to occur in our own lives. and then we can set ourselves to the work of communal action for which are prepared by our empathic sharing.

the vast chasm between sympathy and empathy

the last several posts about food have been built on a foundation of the shared experience. there is a power in an experience shared that doesn't exist in something that is experienced in solitude. when you are alone you cannot ask someone else if they just noticed this or that, if they felt that, or if they experienced something the same way as you.

i can hear some of the more astute readers protesting right now, that this is technically, if not categorically, incorrect. i was a philosophy minor after all in college. but i am not talking about the universal. i am pointing to the particular. i am making the subtle difference between sympathy and empathy stand out in the vast chasm which separates them.

i want you to think of empathy. those feelings and emotions, reactions and memories that are called up by having been practically speaking in the same place as another, not just similarly placed.

it is in these moments that we can probe the deeper things at work when we share with one another a beer brewed to perfection, a steak grilled without flaw, and vegetables seasoned from the earth, and yet, have something profoundly pass between us in our togetherness.

our small group experiences this at least once a year. we share the seder meal together. it is a traditionally jewish meal. it is derived from the jewish experience of passover that is passed down from one generation to the next in a narrative that shapes an entire culture. something special happens for us once a year when we share the tastes, the words, and feelings of the seder. we try to give voice to that afterward, but are not always successful at describing the ineffable.

i have found that as i have become more of an "adult" and "grown up," it becomes increasingly difficult to have these experiences. they must be scheduled. there are interruptions, excuses, reasons to not go and do. our culture seems to like it that way. i hope we can slowly change our culture, together.

why food matters

something a lot of people don't know about me is that i have a secret passion for food. i love to cook. i love to go to the grocery store. i love to indulge in the beauty and depth of flavor that is a well cooked and fashioned meal. mostly i love the chemical and visual transformation that comes with cooking your own food.

last week i posted about jamie oliver's crusade to change the way public schools, specifically, and the general population eat. i would still encourage you to take the 20 mins. to watch the TED talk he gave. he has seen proven results through his initiatives. he brings an unmistakable passion and excitement to the issue.

indulge me in an aside for a moment. when my wife and i spent the week of easter in wales and england two years ago we stayed with some of her relatives who were living in wales at the time. while we were there, we decided to have a meal that featured a recipe by jamie oliver. the centerpiece of deliciousness was a leg of lamb. being in wales, we went down to the local butcher shop in the town, pictured below, and asked said butcher for a leg of spring lamb. this is an important distinction because you can get meat from different kinds of lambs by asking for a specific type of lamb.

in any event the conversation turned to our obviously non-welsh/english accents and the third generation butcher had some, well let's say strong opinions. he first told us how much he loved the united states. in fact, he told us, he would move there given the opportunity and financial assurance that he would be o.k. once he hopped the pond. in course of conversation he asked what we were doing with said leg of lamb and he was told that jamie oliver had a great recipe for leg of lamb...MISTAKE. so started the 5 min. rant on the cooking misery that is jamie oliver to this fine welsh butcher. the zenith of his argument was the statement, "jamie oliver's a bloody englishman. all you are going to do is ruin this leg of lamb." this was then followed with the explanation of how the welsh disdain the english like americans do canadians. imagine a bloodied and gruff welsh butcher showing his highest level of exasperation and you have the complete picture. we cheerfully accepted his two cents and set off to cook. for the record, the lamb was magnificent. and i don't think jamie oliver is all that bad.

back to the main point: our food culture in the united states is killing us. literally. we have traded in true beauty and the wonder of watching the hidden chemical reactions of cooking for fast food convenience and poor health effects. study after study has shown that our current food and eating habits have resulted in off-the-charts levels of diseases that are killing us at alarming and early rates. add to this that children are suffering astounding levels of diseases directly related to food consumption and epidemic is probably not too strong of a word to describe the situation.

so why care? i eat healthy most of the time. i exercise and i care for myself. i get 7+ hours of sleep a night.

i believe this is more than a compartmentalized issue. i believe this is in part a religious issue. we are mandated to care for our bodies as though they were temples. this is more than filling it with trash and allowing it to devolve into disrepair. caring for our neighbors and loving others is not shown is putting the small farmer out of business in the interest of big agriculture and genetically modified foods. ethically, the issues are deeper than most of us will ever grasp. but more than anything i have found that the more i care about where my food comes from, the more i find myself in relationship with the people and places my food comes from.

in the process of losing the magic of cooking we are sacrificing relationships that can prove transformative and significant, all the while killing ourselves. this seems more costly than even the smallest sacrifice of convenience, processed food, and wasteful stewardship. here's to reclaiming the magic of the culinary arts.

the united states of LeBron

apparently what LeBron James does on the basketball court matters, a lot. at the end of the series the Cleveland Cavaliers played against the Orlando Magic, LeBron walked off the court without shaking anyone's hand. he didn't stick around for the post-game press conference either. he quickly showered and made his way to the team bus, and he waited there to leave. in the next days a national furor went up from all kinds of media outlets. sports writers and commentators alike have excoriated LeBron for not sticking around and showing "good sportsmanship."

cue the dilemma. or maybe more appropriately, cue Charles Barkley. i remember when i was growing up and Charles Barkley was a hell of a basketball player. he was fierce under the basket and gave 100% effort 100% of the time. Charles Barkley was also a bit of a conversationalist, and his views weren't always politically correct. when called to task on one occasion for actions unbecoming of a role model he had this to say: "i am not a role model...just because i dunk a basketball doesn't mean i should raise your kids." that is sage advice if i have ever heard it. and i don't say that because i think Sir Charles would do a bad job raising kids. i think he simply understands the religion of sports.

you see sports are a religion in america. we worship athletes as though they will pass the money they make on down to us. we ritualize everything in sports from the celebrations to the way we become superstitious and especially if our team makes the playoffs (the playoff beard for example). there is a lot of good stuff out there by people who have studied this subject if you want a more in depth examination. that sports is a religion is not a problem for me in many cases. that we begin to construct athletes as role models on the other hand becomes idolatrous. and idolatry within any religion is inappropriate and destructive.

i say this because more often than not our idolatry of an individual makes them into something more than human. (although i might not argue that LeBron is more than human...but i would argue that he is a freak machine and not a god!) we forget that they are subject to the same laws as we are, that they are simply human, make mistakes, or are not morally impeccable whether or not we want them to be. our culture has set us up to expect the impossible from certain sports athlete individuals and when they fail to hold those standards we cry foul as though the moral fabric of america is at risk.

only in a voyeuristic culture where we value living vicariously through athletic superstars and holding them up as false role models higher than identifying with the humanity of them as individuals do we get ruffled that someone like LeBron James failed to shake hands with the other team and not show up to a post-game press conference. i ask why should we care whether or not he shakes hands with someone? i am willing to bet that a lot of other people didn't shake hands nor do we in the work place or in daily life when things don't go our way.

here is generally where people suggest that if kids are watching it sets a bad example. i am guessing that the argument here is predicated on the fact that sportsmanship is shown by shaking someone's hand after victory or defeat, some call this having grace in defeat. i wonder if we think the same thing as we see players trash talk others, disrespect stadiums and other teams in celebration dances, etc. it seems singularly selective to suggest that sportsmanship or graciousness is exemplified in a 20 second handshake after a game. as a person who played sports their entire life growing up, there is not a lot of authenticity in those events. you only line up because someone is telling you have to do so. i would suggest that if we want to examine sportsmanship we must look at the humanity of the player. and i would argue that if there is no intention of authenticity in a "congratulatory" handshake on LeBron James' part after a game, he exhibits more sportsmanship than others who falsely display "sportsmanship" by leaving the court. all we are doing is creating an idol akin to the superstar role model out of sportsmanship wherein we value the display of accepted sportsmanship ritual over the true humanity of an individual in a sporting event. in other words, we don't value sports athletes as humans, we only value them for the entertainment commodity we have made them.

perhaps Sir Charles was right so many years ago. true role models should be people who are actively participating in shaping the lives of our children. and as a culture we should recognize the idols we have set up for ourselves and identify the destructive nature of those idols.