Where are the other nine?
There is a scripture that tells of a story in which Jesus encountered ten lepers who cried out to be healed. Jesus tells them to go and show themselves to the priests and, the story shares, the people were healed along the way. One of these people who was healed along the way returns back to Jesus and thanks him. Jesus asks where the other nine? I do not know, but one could conjecture a few ideas on why these people did not thank Jesus.
Perhaps one person ran and told all the people she could.
Perhaps one person just plain forgot.
Perhaps one person could not find Jesus who was traveling across the land.
Perhaps one person one ran home to connect with his family.
Perhaps one person discovered a way to make money off the miracle.
Perhaps one person became a priest who felt a call after their mountain top experience.
Perhaps one person was just shocked and immobilized.
Perhaps one person just did not know how to thank Jesus.
Perhaps one person was so self-involved that he believed that he deserved to be healed and did not see a need to thank Jesus.
This text is often used to discuss that we ought to have an "attitude of gratitude" or how we ought to give thanks for our blessings.
And this is not a bad or wrong interpretation.
What I was considering the other day about this text is how the ones who did not return were all still convinced of the purity codes of their day. That is to say, they go to their priests who are symbols of the religious authorities and ones who could declare people "clean" or not. As such when those who went to the priests were ones who still affirmed the religious order of their day.
They still believed that there could be unclean people who ought to be separated from the clean people. While they were now clean, they themselves still bought into the idea that society could declare some people inferior. Perhaps they would even encounter another "unclean" person and stay away from them.
However, the one who returned to Jesus was the one who did may not have said thank you (the text says he only prostrated himself before Jesus). We can be certain though, that the one who returned rejected the system of declaring people clean and unclean. This one, did show himself to the Great Priest, and in doing so made a statement that he understands what Jesus understands - no one can declare another person subhuman. No one is unclean in the sight of God. No one is allowed to lord himself over others in such a way to perpetuate a discriminatory system.
Perhaps this is why Jesus asks where the other nine are? Perhaps Jesus is disappointed to see that only one in ten got his message and rejected the powers that be.
All ten were healed, but only one was set free. Only one broke away from the system that creates more unclean people.
Only one.
Perhaps one person ran and told all the people she could.
Perhaps one person just plain forgot.
Perhaps one person could not find Jesus who was traveling across the land.
Perhaps one person one ran home to connect with his family.
Perhaps one person discovered a way to make money off the miracle.
Perhaps one person became a priest who felt a call after their mountain top experience.
Perhaps one person was just shocked and immobilized.
Perhaps one person just did not know how to thank Jesus.
Perhaps one person was so self-involved that he believed that he deserved to be healed and did not see a need to thank Jesus.
This text is often used to discuss that we ought to have an "attitude of gratitude" or how we ought to give thanks for our blessings.
And this is not a bad or wrong interpretation.
What I was considering the other day about this text is how the ones who did not return were all still convinced of the purity codes of their day. That is to say, they go to their priests who are symbols of the religious authorities and ones who could declare people "clean" or not. As such when those who went to the priests were ones who still affirmed the religious order of their day.
They still believed that there could be unclean people who ought to be separated from the clean people. While they were now clean, they themselves still bought into the idea that society could declare some people inferior. Perhaps they would even encounter another "unclean" person and stay away from them.
However, the one who returned to Jesus was the one who did may not have said thank you (the text says he only prostrated himself before Jesus). We can be certain though, that the one who returned rejected the system of declaring people clean and unclean. This one, did show himself to the Great Priest, and in doing so made a statement that he understands what Jesus understands - no one can declare another person subhuman. No one is unclean in the sight of God. No one is allowed to lord himself over others in such a way to perpetuate a discriminatory system.
Perhaps this is why Jesus asks where the other nine are? Perhaps Jesus is disappointed to see that only one in ten got his message and rejected the powers that be.
All ten were healed, but only one was set free. Only one broke away from the system that creates more unclean people.
Only one.
1in 3 Americans either poor or near poor
According to a NY Times over 50 million people are just above the poverty line.
We are talking 50 million in poverty and 50 million just above that line, and if the math is right, that is 100 million people in or dangerously near poverty.
1 in 3 people in the "land of plenty" are not in a land of plenty.
To put this into a different lens, the richest 400 Americans have the collective wealth of the bottom 50% of Americans.
We are talking 50 million in poverty and 50 million just above that line, and if the math is right, that is 100 million people in or dangerously near poverty.
1 in 3 people in the "land of plenty" are not in a land of plenty.
To put this into a different lens, the richest 400 Americans have the collective wealth of the bottom 50% of Americans.
Science supporting Jesus?
There is this idea in our culture that if you are angry then you need to pop off or let of steam. This idea excuses a number of behaviors of people in relationships. I cannot express how many people I hear (myself included) say, "I just needed to get this off my chest" or "I just need to yell and get this anger out." If you have ever thought that popping off in order to release steam then you too have, at least one time, bought into the idea that letting off steam alleviates anger.
And it does. Which is why we do it.
The issue is that letting off steam in this way may make us feel better but it never stops us from having to let of more steam in the future.
Take this little bit from You are Not so Smart. Please note that it takes a bit of set up to get to the interesting stuff, but we have to see the set up before we can get into it. So first the set up:
"In the 1990s, psychologist Brad Bushman at Iowa State decided to study whether or not venting actually worked. He divided 180 students into 3 groups. One group read a neutral article. One group read an article about a fake study that said venting anger was effective. The third group read about a fake study that said venting was pointless. He then had students write essays for or against abortion, a subject about which they probably had strong feelings. He told them the essays would be graded by fellow students, but they weren't. When the students got their essays back, half were told their essays were superb. The other half had this scrawled across the paper: "This is one of the worst essays I have ever read!" Bushman then asked the subjects to pick an activity like playing a game, watching some comedy, reading a story, or punching a bag. The results? The people who read the article that said venting worked, and who later got angry, were far more likely to ask to punch the bag than those who got angry in the other groups. In all the groups., the people who got praised tended to pick non-aggressive activities."
No big shocker there. When we are told by an authority that some behavior is good/not good for us then we tend to heed that advice. While this is no surprise, it might be worth taking note that this also creates feedback loops. If we are told "venting" is good then we will more likely seek out opportunities to do it, and if we are told "venting" is not good then we will seek out other ways to deal with anger.
Now onto the interesting part in which another experiment is created like the first but with a twist, in which the group that was told their essay was the worst essay the grader ever read was then divided in half and and were told they were going to have to compete against the person who graded their essay. "One group first had to punch a bag, and the other group had to sit and wait for two minutes. After punching and waiting, the competition began. The game was simple: Press a button as fast as you can. If you lose, you get blasted with a horrible noise. When you win, your opponent gets blasts. The students could set the volume the other person had to endure, a setting between zero and ten, with ten being 105 decibels. Can you predict what they discovered? On average, the punching bag group set the volume as high as 8.5. The time-out group set it to 2.47. The people who got angry didn't release their anger on the punching bag-their anger was sustained by it."
This may be common sense to you. It may not be. For generations Christianity has taught about loving the neighbor who is sometimes also your enemy. Forgiveness is critical to the life of the Christian. Jesus is said to have spoken words of forgiveness while on the cross.
It is good to see that science is catching up :)
And it does. Which is why we do it.
The issue is that letting off steam in this way may make us feel better but it never stops us from having to let of more steam in the future.
Take this little bit from You are Not so Smart. Please note that it takes a bit of set up to get to the interesting stuff, but we have to see the set up before we can get into it. So first the set up:
"In the 1990s, psychologist Brad Bushman at Iowa State decided to study whether or not venting actually worked. He divided 180 students into 3 groups. One group read a neutral article. One group read an article about a fake study that said venting anger was effective. The third group read about a fake study that said venting was pointless. He then had students write essays for or against abortion, a subject about which they probably had strong feelings. He told them the essays would be graded by fellow students, but they weren't. When the students got their essays back, half were told their essays were superb. The other half had this scrawled across the paper: "This is one of the worst essays I have ever read!" Bushman then asked the subjects to pick an activity like playing a game, watching some comedy, reading a story, or punching a bag. The results? The people who read the article that said venting worked, and who later got angry, were far more likely to ask to punch the bag than those who got angry in the other groups. In all the groups., the people who got praised tended to pick non-aggressive activities."
No big shocker there. When we are told by an authority that some behavior is good/not good for us then we tend to heed that advice. While this is no surprise, it might be worth taking note that this also creates feedback loops. If we are told "venting" is good then we will more likely seek out opportunities to do it, and if we are told "venting" is not good then we will seek out other ways to deal with anger.
Now onto the interesting part in which another experiment is created like the first but with a twist, in which the group that was told their essay was the worst essay the grader ever read was then divided in half and and were told they were going to have to compete against the person who graded their essay. "One group first had to punch a bag, and the other group had to sit and wait for two minutes. After punching and waiting, the competition began. The game was simple: Press a button as fast as you can. If you lose, you get blasted with a horrible noise. When you win, your opponent gets blasts. The students could set the volume the other person had to endure, a setting between zero and ten, with ten being 105 decibels. Can you predict what they discovered? On average, the punching bag group set the volume as high as 8.5. The time-out group set it to 2.47. The people who got angry didn't release their anger on the punching bag-their anger was sustained by it."
This may be common sense to you. It may not be. For generations Christianity has taught about loving the neighbor who is sometimes also your enemy. Forgiveness is critical to the life of the Christian. Jesus is said to have spoken words of forgiveness while on the cross.
It is good to see that science is catching up :)
Be the change by Jason Valendy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.