Our Brothers Who Art in Bethlehem

I never did write my "Why the Palestinians are Angry" post. I'll do it soon: I found the disk of political maps I was looking for. Think of this post as a preview: the following email is regarding a Christian Palestinian family who live in the West Bank, our back yard while we were staying at Tantur in Israel. The Zoughbis have a 7 floor guest house in Bethlehem, which also acts as the base of their small house church, House of Bread.

Greetings, all.

I was forwarded the following information
about the Zoughbis yesterday.  Charles
and I wanted to forward it to you to
request your prayers on their behalf.
Since all of you are intimately connected
to them and familiar with their living
situation, you will be able to identify
with this frightening experience. Issa and 
Diana faithfully present the love of Christ
to their community and I know how 
devastated they would be that their church 
sanctuary would be violated by violence.
Please be prayerful for them and their 
children, for all in their community and 
country in these difficult days.  Be
discerning in what you write if you should
email them  -security is always a concern
and communications may be monitored.
I am sure your prayers and encouragement,
however, would be received with gratitude.

I think of you all with fondness and
sweet memories of our journey together!

G. N.

On Nov 20, 2006, at 6:31 PM, C.
R. wrote:

At midday today L. and I left the Zoughbies
house to go and help Odette 'spring clean'.
At 12.30 we heard alot of shooting about 200
metres from Odettes house.  Diana Zoughbie
rang and told us not to return to the house.
The Israelis were surrounding the house opposite
Isa and Diana and the whole area was blocked
off.  During the afternoon, much shooting
continued with four explosions.  At 7pm we
rang Diana to find out what was happening.
She answered the phone in a quiet voice and
did not say alot, apart from not to return at
the moment.  A little later one of Odettes
friends called and advised that it may be
safe for us to go back to the Zoughbies.
We went as far as Manger Square and saw that
we could go no further.  We spoke to some
local Muslim shop keepers we have got to
know, and they said that one man is dead,
10 more injured and the man the Israelis
were searching for had given himself up.
After waiting half an hour, the Israelis left
the area and we were allowed to proceed the
50m downhill walk to our flat.  The road was
in complete darkness, and covered with rubble
from the explosions.  Cars had been hit with
windshields broken.  When we got to Isa and
Diana we were so pleased to see that they
were ok.  We then realised why Diana had been
so quiet when she answered the phone.  The 
soldiers had forced the front door of their 
house and used two of the levels for the 
duration of the 7 hour siege to overlook the
house opposite.  There were many bullets on
the floor.  They had used the Sunday school
and the church.  Diana and Isa had to remain
in the bedroom for 7 hours and hid in the
bedroom in darkness, some of the time under
the beds.  None of the children could get
home from school and so Isa and Diana were
separated from their son, Rajaee who is 14.
Isa and Diana are visibly shaken by the 
whole thing, as their house of God has been 
used as a hideout for the Israeli soldiers...
they were given no choice in the matter.
As we returned to the house there were many
hundreds of people outside and a TV crew.
People come to survey the damage.

This is now the second time in less than 
three weeks, that the Israeli soldiers 
have entered Bethlehem to take whom they beleive
to be terrorists. We are not in a position to
comment. What we can comment on is what we
see.... the destruction, chaos, disruption,
loss of life.

L. and I are both shellshocked, and
question the methods the soldiers use. An 
already thoroughly damaged economy and society 
is punished even further.  As Christians it is 
hard to live here, see these things and not 
feel a sorrow for the ordinary people here.

C. & L.

Cruella Devil is Back

Karl Marx, in his 1844 Alienated Labor, stated: "Nature is the inorganic body of a man, that is, insofar as it is not itself a human body. That man lives from nature means that nature is his body with which he must maintain a constant interchange so as not to die. That man's physical and intellectual life depends on nature merely means that nature depends on itself, for man is a part of nature. "When alienated labour alienates (1) nature from man, and (2) man from himself, his own function, his vital activity, it also alienates the species from man; it turns his species-life into a means to towards his individual life...work, vital activity, and productive life itself appear to man only as a means to the satisfaction of a need, the need to preserve his physical existence. But productive life is species life." Marx believed that every species is defined as much by its physical characteristics as by its function (work) in the ecosystem; accordingly, Marx' assumed that humans' defining feature is our drive to work, to create, for more reasons than mere survival. We create according to the rules of beauty, aesthetics, humour, mood, as much as we create according to pure usefulness. Therefore, the problem with global industry, or industrialization in general, is that it creates the illusion of there being no connection between the materials and labour used in production and the products you buy, and no connection between your work and your life or your identity (what Marx calls species life). That social theory lesson done, let me show you a good example of how this disconnect between raw materials and finished product, and between identity and job, can become disturbingly dehumanizing.

Existentialism

Dear friend, I'm sorry things aren't going right I know they never are 'Cause you're never up and you're always down and you're drunk from spinning around But you're never here and you're always there I don't know how to show you I care You say you need to run to New York State in January You liked it before: I'm sure it'll make you better But before you go thought I'd try to show you my theory in a letter: There's illusion in a place it's just conceiling the pace your soul runs when you're hiding When you're home At home where you're never up and you're always down and you're drunk from spinning around But you're never here and you're always there I don't know how to show you I care Right now when you're on my couch but you're at the mall four years ago with the guy and you're still asking why Why can't I reply? It's not my house where you stall Fierce Shae you're just not when you are I'm scared driving in your car I don't deny it's partly from your maithre I hear you cry And I feel my heart die 'cause I think I've got the answer And you're never up and you're always down and you're drunk from spinning around But you're never here and you're always there I don't know how to show you I care Where are you, where are you, where are you? When are you, when are you, when are you? Who are you, who are you, who are You? Truth is we both need to stop, just be silent: Let God speak I know it's ironic listening to me on my soapbox My actions show there's a leak from theology to vivo- iconic But I'm never up and you're always down and we're drunk from spinning around Well I'm never here and you're always there I don't know how to show you I care

I actually wrote this as a song for a friend but any knowledge of music composition I ever had from playing trombone in jr high band has long since dissapeared so the odds of my writing the music are low. In addition, perpetual presentation anxiety assures me there's no way I'm recording my voice. Thus, if anyone ever comes up with music to match my lyrics' mood let me know: I'd be very interested in knowing if it sounds the same as what is temporarily in my mind.

On Language

Brief interruption in the HTEWF series, which I shall one day finish when I'm not writing scholastic papers. I just wanted to say that language, words, are magical. Having no inherent meaning of their own, they only come to life when we paint our ideas onto them. That said, I will now share with you all the unreadable, I mean, increadible thrill and joy of research in theoretical psychological therapy. First, from Carl Whitaker, John Warkentin, and Nan Johnson's article, A Philosophical Basis for Brief Psychotherapy, I give you this excerpt: "The orientation of the therapist largely determines the depth to which the therapeutic relationship can be used by the patient. It is necessary to clarify the functional limits of the interview-situation to reduce the need for conscious techniques by the therapist. The unconscious of the therapist can thereby be released to relate more freely to the unconscious of the patient. Therapy limited in this way, to dealing only with the emotional and symbolic aspects of the relationship, can be adequate in itself to effect a successful therapeutic outcome. The criteria for this success are measured in terms of change in the patient's orientation and not by any overt change in behaviour or symptomatology. It becomes apparent that in this sense, any patient can be helped." Wow, that's great! Now I can totally see why therapy should be made brief. Now, the next gem is from Approaching the individual, approaching the system: A constructivist model for integrative psychotherapy by Guillem Feixas: "The role of premises in social systems (mainly families) was suggested by Bateson (1972, 1979) and has been a central tenet in constructivist family therapy. Cecchin (in Boscolo et al., 1987) asserts that 'the biggest shifts in family therapy come when you succeed in operating at the level of deep premises' (p. 89). Penn (1985) also considers premises as central issues for the system's change because it is an 'inclusive contextual idea in a system that seems to organize or contrain behaviours linked to a problem' (p. 302). This position is also congruent with Bogdan's (1984) elaboration of Bateson's (1972) 'ecology of ideas' in the sense of a system in which a reciprocal confirmation of ideas is given so that 'the ideas of each member lead him to behave in ways that confirm or support the ideas of every other family member' (p. 376)." Thanks, I'll stow that one away.