The Science of Evil, Privatio Boni, and Hell

In "The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty", Professor Simon Baron-Cohen explores an idea I found very interesting - the idea that what we call "evil" is caused by a lack of empathy.  He believes that because of this lack of empathy, people who do evil things objectify the people they do evil to - they do not see them as persons, and this protects them from the guilt they would otherwise feel as a result of the cruel things they do to these objectified persons. 

Professor Baron-Cohen defines empathy in this manner:

Empathy is our ability to identify what someone else is thinking or feeling and to respond to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion. This suggests there are at least two stages in empathy: recognition and response.  Both are needed, since if you have the former without the latter you haven’t empathized at all. If I can see in your face that you are struggling to lift your suitcase onto the overhead rack on the train and I just sit there and watch, then I have failed to respond to your feelings (of frustration).

The Empathy Circuit

In the second chapter of his book, he explores the various parts of the brain that are involved in "the empathy circuit" - and it is interesting to note how there are 10 regions of the brain that he names as playing a part in this "empathy circuit".  Baron-Cohen explains how each part contributes, or how our empathy can be damaged if these parts do not function correctly.  For example, Professor Baron-Cohen explains the part played by the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) - the hub for social information processing (where we think about how others might think or feel, as well as where we develop self-awareness).  

Baron-Cohen goes on to note that the famous case of Phineas Gage - a railroad construction foreman who survived an accident where a metal rod impaled his brain - demonstrates how this part of the brain contributes to empathy.  Gage's MPFC was damaged, and whereas before the accident he was said to be a very polite individual, after his accident he was reported to be childish, rude, and prone to profanity and a lack of social inhibition (all signs of a lack of empathy towards others). 

Understanding how his brain damage caused his lack of empathy makes it harder to directly blame him for his "evil" - doesn't it?

Phineas Gage

Professor Baron-Cohen goes on to explore three types of personalities which exhibit a lack of empathy - or more specifically, three types which have a negative form of this lack of empathy.  Interestingly enough, he goes on later in the book to explore a positive form of lack of empathy - Asperger's - where the tendency to systematize seems to balance out the lack of empathy and, rather than causing immorality, the overactive systematizing mechanism causes a form of super-morality (characterized by a lack of ability to understand nuance - rules have no exceptions).  The positive benefits of this combination of lack of empathy and high tendency to systematize is that people with Asperger's are often Savants who tend to discover patterns that most people overlook - reaping huge scientific benefit.  Note that calling this a positive form of a lack of empathy doesn't mean that it never causes harm - a person with Asperger's can be brutally honest, for example, and will see nothing wrong with telling you that your haircut is ugly (they simply do not understand how this is wrong, and in fact, their high standards of truth seem to make it right in their mind).  It simply means that a positive form of lack of empathy is one where there is not a tendency to cause physical harm, and where there seem to be side benefits.

This positive form of lack of empathy is very interesting to note and has its own nuances, but exploring the concept in more detail is outside of the purposes of this post, so I will leave the topic as it stands and return to exploring the negative forms.

Type B
The first personality type with negative lack of empathy is referred to in psychology as borderline personality disorder - Type B.  Baron-Cohen explains this disorder in this way:

The hallmark of borderlines is a constant fear of abandonment, emotional pain and loneliness, hatred (of others and of themselves), impulsivity, and self-destructive, highly inconsistent behavior.

The first thing one might note is what a miserable existence people with borderline personality disorder seem to have - they are constantly in a world of conflicting emotions, where they cannot be alone, and yet they oscillate between either pushing people who get close away or desperately clinging to them in a way that becomes off-putting.  But more importantly, Baron-Cohen explores the causes of this disorder.  Borderlines almost always have a history of parental dysfunction - one or both of the parents was either abusive or neglectful (abandoning the child and withholding affection).  And when scientists have studied the brains of people with borderline personality disorder, they have discovered abnormalities in many of the areas of the brain that Baron-Cohen writes about in chapter 2 of his book.  He states:

One interpretation of all this evidence is that early negative experiences of abuse and neglect change how the brain turns out. But the key point is that the zero degrees of empathy in borderlines arises from abnormalities in the empathy circuit of the brain.

Type P
The second type of personality which exhibits a lack of empathy is the psychopath - Type P (this is often referred to as antisocial personality disorder).  Psyhchopaths exhibit a total preoccupation with self very similar to borderlines, but in their case it is characterized by a willingness to do whatever it takes to satisfy their desires - Baron-Cohen writes:

This might take the form of a hair-trigger violent reaction to the smallest thing that thwarts the person. Or it might take the form of cold, calculated cruelty. Sometimes the mindless aggression is not triggered by a perceived threat but by a need to dominate, to get what one wants, a complete detachment from another person’s feelings, and possibly even some pleasure at seeing someone else suffer.

Later on, Baron-Cohen gives this list of characteristics that are indicative of psychopathic personality disorder:

• superficial charm
• lack of anxiety or guilt
• undependability and dishonesty
• egocentricity
• inability to form lasting intimate relationships
• failure to learn from punishment
• poverty of emotions
• lack of insight into the impact of their behavior
• failure to plan ahead

Many of these are easy to spot as signs of - or a result of - a lack of empathy.  For example, the second characteristic - a lack of anxiety or guilt - is a key feature, as a person without empathy will not feel guilt when they hurt others.  Additionally, a lack of insight and egocentricity are easy to spot as coming from a lack of empathy.

Much like the case of borderline personality disorder, an important factor in the development of psychopathic personality disorder seems to be parental rejection.  During their development, a child that develops psychopathic personality disorder silently rages inside at the parental alienation, and this develops into full blown hate.  Eventually, these feelings build up (like steam in a pressure cooker) until they cannot be contained, and they are released as violent acts (see the story of Matthew Murray).  

Doctors who have studied psychopaths have found that because of an insecure parental relationship, these children go on to be unable to form anything but superficial relationships with anyone else as well.  Secure relationships are needed for both social and language development, and so these children end up developing abnormally without them.  Even more disturbing is the fact that often, these individuals grow up to be parents who are harsh and abusive, and the cycle continues across generations. 

On the opposite side of this, parents who give affection and security to their children fill them with good feelings - sort of like an inner pot of gold - which seems to immunize them against falling into negativity when bad circumstances come into their lives later on.  Baron-Cohen mentions a friend of his - Peter Fonagy, who is a professor of psychoanalysis at University College London and director of the Anna Freud Centre in Hampstead in London - who theorizes that during the attachment phase of a child's development, they try to "mentalize" the caregiver's mind, imagining what the caregiver thinks and feels, which is especially important in relation to the child as far as the development of self-image goes.  If the relationship is not safe - that is, if the child has reason to think that their caregiver hates them or wishes they didn't exist - they are unable to develop good empathy because they shut down their attempts to mentalize the minds of others, and the areas of the brain involved in this type of thought do not develop normally.

Along with a parental rejection, another cause of psychopathy seems to be prolonged stress - which eventually damages the hippocampus.  This results is a reactive aggression - rather than "fight or flight", flight is never an option and even the slightest provocation is handled with aggression.  When this mechanism is triggered, because of an under-developed frontal cortex - which would otherwise regulate the response - the reaction is uninhibited and an attack is launched.

Perhaps one of the more interesting features of the list of characteristics above is the characteristic of failure to learn from punishment - those with psychopathic personality disorder seem to have developed a defense mechanism as a result of their dysfunctional parental relationships that prevents them from fearing the repercussions of their actions. 

Additionally, when scanning the brains of psychopaths, researchers have found brain abnormalities in some of the 10 brain regions I mentioned earlier - once again, psychopaths were not able to develop the capability to empathize during their childhood.

Type N
The third, and final, type of personality which exhibits a lack of empathy is the narcissist - Type N (referred to in psychology as narcissistic personality disorder).  Narcissists exhibit a tendency to entitlement - they feel that they have an automatic right to be treated well, regardless of how they've treated others.  Additionally, they have a tendency to overstate their own strengths and achievements.  Other people's opinions do not factor in to this equation, but it is as if the sole purpose of others is to exist as an audience that agrees with and admires the narcissist.  But narcissists live in a very fragile world - their mood often plummets into depression, because of their need for constant affirmation.  People who develop relationships with narcissists often feel that they can never give enough, and will often withdraw - this withdrawal does not go unnoticed, and a narcissist often responds with negativity, which only drives their friends and loved ones further away.

Narcissists do not usually display cruelty, however - Baron-Cohen writes:

Rather, in the absence of any humility, narcissists think they are much better than other people, as if they have special gifts that others lack. Indeed, the continuous boastfulness and self-promotion are partly what others find offensive, not because they are jealous, but because they see these as indicators of the narcissist’s total self-preoccupation. Narcissists, like the other Zero-Negative forms, fail to recognize the importance of relationships being two way. For those who have zero degrees of empathy, relationships are not really relationships because they are one way. This is even evident in how much narcissists talk. There is no attempt to make space in the conversation for the other person or to find out about the other person. Narcissists simply lecture, holding forth about him or herself, and they decide when to end the conversation. They have monologues, not dialogues.

As to the causes of narcissism, Professor Baron-Cohen writes:

Like Types P and B, early emotional abuse has been suggested as a possible cause of Type N, again reminding us of the importance of that internal pot of gold. But unlike the other Zero-Negative types, it is speculated that Type N may also derive from excessive admiration, excessive praise for their good looks or talents, overindulgence, and being over-valued in the absence of realistic feedback (by parents).

He notes that, unfortunately, there has not been very much research into Type N - unlike the other two types - and this may perhaps be explained by the fact that narcissists do not tend to be violent like the other two types.  But despite the differences between these three types of personality disorders, he notes, the glaringly obvious connection between them all is a lack of empathy.  In fact, the research indicates that these types of people are not capable of experiencing empathy in the way most people are, because of abnormalities in the areas of the brain outlined in chapter 2 of Baron-Cohen's book.  And it seems that in most cases, these abnormalities can be traced to an impoverished childhood rearing - an environment where the child was not supplied with the experiences necessary to develop empathy.

Up until now, I've discussed the environmental factors which contribute to low empathy.  But Professor Baron-Cohen also discusses the fact that genes contribute as well, to complicate things.  Professor Baron-Cohen gives the example of a friend of his who grew up in an environment with an unusually high percentage of criminals - but this friend grew up to be a noteworthy and talented psychologist against all odds.  Additionally, studies have shown that there is a higher chance of Type P and Type B amongst brothers, sisters, children, and parents (there is, yet again, not enough research into Type N to form conclusions in this area).  To summarize his conclusions at this point, Baron-Cohen states:

While it is tempting to blame zero degrees of empathy on either genes or environment, a mix of factors is clearly causal.

My Conclusions
So why did I find this book so interesting?  First off, I felt affirmed by the fact that the conclusions presented in this book harmonize quite well with the concept of privatio boni, which I explored in one of my posts in my series on Satan.  This theory that the cause of what we call "evil" is a lack of empathy - and thus is a "nothing" rather than a "something" - aligns well with my own thoughts on evil as an absence of good.  And I think it draws out an interesting connotation on a quote by Karl Barth I had used in my series:

That which God renounces and abandons in virtue of his decision [i.e., to freely elect what he will] is not merely nothing. It is nothingness. . . . Nothingness is that which God does not will. It lives only by the fact that it is that which God does not will. But it does live by this fact. For not only what God wills, but what he does not will, is potent, and must have a real correspondence. What really corresponds to that which God does not will is nothingness.

But along with this, the knowledge that genes and environment produce what we call evil must lead one to wonder how much we can blame people for their own sin?  I don't know about you, but for me, knowing that some people simply can't help their lack of empathy makes me want to extend empathy and mercy towards them all the more.

This also ties into the concept of hell (see my series, Checkmate For Hell).  In "God's Final Victory", authors John Kronen and Eric Reitan made an interesting argument related to this, which Reitan summarized on his blog like so:

Here is, for me, the big problem: God’s preordaining some sinners for reprobation is supposed to reflect God’s justice, which tempers His mercy and love (or the other way around?). The idea is that sin is such an intolerable affront to God’s holiness and majesty that divine justice demands that it be repudiated. And so God casts some sinners away forever as a display of His just wrath against sin, even as he elects others for salvation to display His mercy and benevolence.

The problem is this: In casting sinners away from His presence, He casts them away from the only thing that (according to the very theology underlying this theory) can overcome sin. Thus, God guarantees that this intolerable affront to His majesty continues eternally in the souls of the damned. In short, the view essentially amounts to this: sin is so terrible that God decisively acts to guarantee that this intolerable thing continue in all its intolerability forever and ever. “What you’re doing is so inconceivably unacceptable that I am going to make absolutely sure that there is no way for you to ever stop doing it!”

And making sure that this intolerable affront to His holiness never stops is supposed to be God’s justifying reason for not electing all, and so for truncating the scope of his benevolence? Is that a coherent understanding of divine justice?

The Bible says in I John 4:8 and 16 that God is love - the original Greek word used here connotes a selfless form of love, very similar to empathy.  So if we accept that sin or evil comes from a lack of empathy - as the scientific evidence suggests - then Reitan's argument states the problem with eternal hell very well.  

This causes problems for Calvinists and Arminians alike - because for Calvinists, God withholds the only thing that could fix the problem of evil simply for His own glory (which doesn't sound very empathetic to me - sounds more like the description of a psychopath). 

And for the Arminian side, if God gives up and stops trying to extend His empathy to the lost, we have the same problem - God has withdrawn the only thing that could fix the problem because He gives up on them, and this doesn't sound very empathetic either.  It would essentially require God to shut off of the very characteristic that is supposed to define Himeself, and this is a very strange idea when you think about it: God has to stop acting like God in order for there to be Hell.  

Additionally, there is a strange irony to this - God acts un-empathetic towards the un-empathetic in order to punish them for their lack of empathy.  In other words, God does the very thing the evil were doing in order to "make things right".  One might also wonder about the irony of the State when it commands executioners to shut off their empathy towards those who have committed crimes that were a result of a lack of empathy - in essence, turning the executioner into a mirror image of the executee in the moment of the execution.

I'd also like to echo something Professor Simon Baron-Cohen said in the final chapter of his book:

[E]mpathy itself is the most valuable resource in our world. Given this assertion, it is puzzling that in school or parenting curricula empathy figures hardly at all, and in politics, business, the courts, or policing it is rarely, if ever, on the agenda.

Along with this, I wonder (sorrowfully) why our churches do not expend more efforts in methods of empathy training?  Why is it that our theology is so centered around conceptualizing ideas about the afterlife, invisible personalities, and the eschaton, rather than centering around the practice of empathy?

And finally, it should be noted that quite often, the acts of history that we would qualify as evil are performed by men and women whom are quite empathetic at home, with their own group of loved ones.  But the difference here is that these individuals harbored beliefs that encouraged them not to extend that empathy to other groups, or to shut off their empathy circuit when it came to these outsiders.  So I have to ask - are our doctrinal systems sacralizing beliefs that encourage a lack of empathy towards certain types or groups of people?  I think some are, and so I have to ask: why is it so hard to get people to challenge these beliefs?  Shouldn't the job of the church of Christ include challenging people to extend empathy to people they have a hard time empathizing with?  Shouldn't the whole point of faith be to cultivate empathy?

Matthew 5:43-48 NRSV
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?  Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others?  Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

The Idolatry of Our Age - Part IV: Leave the Shire

I have been writing on the subject of how the concept of idolatry applies in our modern age.  This post is a continuation on this theme - if you have not done so already, you might want to read the beginning of the series:

• Part I explores the idea that God is not like an idol which can be manipulated to fulfill our desires
• Part II explores how our limitations prevent us from understanding infinite reality
• Part III explores how the Bible is worshiped over the person of Christ
  

Leave the Shire
In my last post, I wrote about a phrase that was used by ancient Jews to describe the relationship between a disciple and his/her Rabbi: the dust of the Rabbi.  This phrase described how a disciple would follow their Rabbi so closely that the dust from the feet of the Rabbi that was kicked up would cover the disciple.

I believe that this picture adds clearer meaning to a strange story in Matthew 14:22-33.  In this strange and miraculous tale, Jesus has instructed his disciples to part ways with him for a while, and sent them in a boat to cross to “the other side” - Decapolis, on the other side of the sea of Galilee.  As they are crossing this body of water, Jesus decides to catch up with them and, according to the story, walks right out on top of the water.  When the disciples see him they react with terror, but Jesus assures them that there’s no need to be afraid.
 

With the picture of “the dust of the Rabbi”, Peter’s next move comes as no surprise - as a disciple, you would see every action of your Rabbi as part of a lesson of some sort, and you were to learn through mimesis.  So Peter says “if it’s you, tell me to come out on the water!”  Jesus simply says “come”, and Peter jumps out of the boat.  You see, in Peter’s understanding, Jesus wouldn’t do anything in view of his disciples that he didn’t believe his disciples could also do - the whole point of the Rabbi/disciple relationship is to transform the disciples into the character of the Rabbi.
 
So, with this understanding in mind, the next part of the story is illuminated further.  Peter is out of the boat, and he starts walking on the water towards Jesus.  But then his focus is diverted, and he notices the wind and becomes afraid.  As a result of this loss of focus and fear, Peter begins to sink.  In verse 31 of the passage, Jesus explains this reaction as a result of a lack of faith.  But it’s not Peter’s lack of faith in Jesus that is the problem - Peter sees Jesus walking on the water and believes he can do this!  The problem is Peter’s lack of faith in himself!  Peter didn’t believe that he could do these great things that he saw Jesus doing!
 

You see, much of modern Christianity has made Jesus into an ancient superhero - we read his comics and say “oh, how cool is that?”, and that’s the whole point of it all: to read about Jesus and profess our belief in and affection for these stories. 

As Robert Capon puts it, in "Hunting the Divine Fox":

The true paradigm of the ordinary American view of Jesus is Superman: "Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.  It’s Superman!  Strange visitor from another planet, who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle from truth, justice, and the American Way."  If that isn’t popular Christology, I’ll eat my hat.  Jesus – gentle, meek and mild, but with secret, souped-up, more-than-human insides – bumbles around for thirty-three years, nearly gets himself done in for good by the Kryptonite Kross, but at the last minute, struggles into the phone booth of the Empty Tomb, changes into his Easter suit and with a single bound, leaps back up to the planet Heaven.  It’s got it all – including, just so you shouldn’t miss the lesson, kiddies: He never once touches Lois Lane.

But Jesus cuts right into this idea in John 14:12:

Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Did you catch that?  The followers of Jesus will do greater things than what Jesus has been doing?
 
Later on in the passage, Jesus drives the point that belief plays out in action home in verse 23 when he says: 

Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching.

There’s a simple analogy that can be made to clear this up a bit.  Jesus’ story is an embodiment of the truth within the common themes in every hero myth in literature.  This is something that the author J.R.R. Tolkien picked up on, and which was alluded to in various ways throughout his most famous fantasy series, “The Lord of the Rings”.  The story of Frodo in this series follows a very common pattern - the pattern of the hero’s journey.

The hero’s journey starts out with the hero - who at this point is a very plain and ordinary person - being called to go on an adventure by a mentor who often has a supernatural appearance.  Often in these tales, the call is resisted or refused at first and various excuses are given - the hero has important things at home to attend to, the journey is too dangerous, the hero feels that there’s no way he could possibly make any difference, etc.  But in every hero’s journey tale, these excuses eventually fade away in light of the importance of the quest, and the hero makes the decision to commit.  Often, in return for this commitment, the hero receives some sort of talisman that gives him supernatural aid - in Frodo’s case, the ring of power.

But once the hero makes this commitment and sets out, he or she is immediately beset by a challenge of some sort - this is called the Threshold Guardian.  The Threshold Guardian’s goal is to prevent the hero from leaving the safety of his or her home, and in Frodo’s story this Threshold Guardian comes in the form of the fearful Ringwraiths, whom Frodo faces again and again throughout the story, which is part of the temptations and sufferings that every hero experiences.

At some point in every hero’s journey, the hero experiences a sort of death of his old self, which always occurs when the hero faces his deepest, darkest fear.  But the hero overcomes this great fear and emerges through a type of resurrection, where their true nature - much greater than what they were before - is then revealed.  They return to their home a much different person and often find that the darkness outside - which the people of their home were ignorant of and even in denial of at the beginning of the story - has invaded their home.  And it is only because of the hero’s journey and resulting change that they are then able to help the people of their old home overcome difficulty and conflict.  

But the hardest part of the story is always that first step - in “The Fellowship of the Ring”, Bilbo says:

The scariest thing on earth is stepping out of our front door, because we don't know what adventures we'll walk into.

We see so often this version of Christianity that protects its idolatrous ideas - its conceptual forms of stone - by withdrawing from the world.  Like the people of the Shire, they are completely unaware of the darkness of the world outside.  What so often happens when a person withdraws like this is that they construct their own false reality in their mind. 

But the funny thing about the story of the hero’s journey that Jesus presents is that Jesus is not the hero of the story.  Not if you believe John 14:12.  No, in light of this passage, we learn that Jesus is the mentor character - the “Gandalf” of the story!  He is the one calling us to go on a hero’s journey!  He is the one telling us to leave our comfortable world to face the death of our false selves and emerge in resurrection, refined to reveal the nature of our true selves!  We are not called as Christians to withdraw from the world - we are called to embrace it and through this embrace, we learn who God is, and thus who we are!
 
The Christianity that withdraws from the world is a religion of idolatry - it remains safe in its home in the Shire, ignorant of the troubles of the world around, even denying their existence when word from the outside arrives.  I see this so often in Christianity: an attitude that says that even the act of engaging with “outsiders” - people of differing cultures, political identities, theological ideas, scientific ideas, etc. - is a transgression.  Knowledge is dangerous to this form of Christianity, and it is treated with contempt.  And those who live in this environment build for themselves a reality that looks nothing like the world outside, and whenever anything from the outside world comes into their perspective, they immediately reject anything that does not match this construction of ideas.  This often results in a complete rejection of science - or to put it more precisely, Christians often seem to construct their own version of science by starting with the image they already had and building science around it.

But the Bible does not teach withdrawal from science as the way to understand God - the Bible teaches that it is the creation itself which teaches us about God!  Psalm 19:1-2 says that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that they “pour forth speech” day and night, revealing knowledge!  This Psalm declares that the skies are a love note from God Himself, and by reading it we learn His character!  

In the story of Job, when God answers Job, He continually asks Job to contemplate His greatness by...pointing to various acts of creation!  This section even starts out by saying the God spoke out of a storm!  (See Job chapters 38-41)  

Romans 1:20 continues this theme and says that God’s invisible qualities can be understood through what has been made!

When Christians withdraw from the world of science and treat it with contempt, what they are really doing is rejecting God in favor of an idol.  Christianity has a duty to engage creation to discern the glory of God.  Pope John Paul II once said:

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.

In one of my previous posts, I wrote about a view of God that perceives God through embracing all of creation in love.  Through this embrace, we experience the miracle in the mundane - as Albert Einstein wrote:

There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.

Not only can we challenge our idols through a continual contemplation of creation - embracing scientific methods of perceiving the logos - but we must also seek to find Christ in our neighbor.  In the parable of the sheep and the goats (see Matthew 25:31-46) Jesus implies that the way to experience God is through embracing our fellow man in love and caring for the needs of “the least of these”.  Jesus also said that “where two or three have gathered together in my name, I am there in their midst.” (Matthew 18:20).  This helps us to understand that in order to challenge our own filters of understanding, we must seek to understand our neighbor (and even our enemies are our neighbors, since Jesus commands us to love our enemies in Matthew 5:43-48) in order to experience Jesus. 
 
So often we make idols out of false realities - false images of ourselves based on what we own, what we profess to believe as true, or political identities.  These are the Threshold Guardians - the Ringwraiths - which prevent us from taking the first step out our front door and beginning our journey out of the Shire.  But when Jesus says that he is found when two or three gather in his name, I believe that this does not mean “two or three people who are exactly like me.”  Because all throughout Jesus’ life, we see him with people of all different kinds: fishermen, tax collectors, prostitutes, Roman centurions, and even Pharisees!  In order to find Jesus, we cannot huddle in the dark corner of safety - we must leave the Shire!  Through Jesus, we see that the love of our neighbor - who might even be our “enemy” - is the lens through which we will see the Truth in the scriptures!  To follow Jesus is to transcend tribalism and idealism - to cast off our false, ego-driven images of self - and to embrace those who are “different”.  

Through the love of our neighbor, we discover our true self.

In my next post, I will explore the meaning of resurrection in our daily lives.