Men Without Fingers
I’ll never forget the first time it happened. One of my tasks at the jail is to connect with inmates seeking one-on-one meetings. Sometimes these are people who won’t (or can’t) come to the regular chapels, so I’ve never met them before. When I introduce myself, I always try to very deliberately make eye contact, refer to them by name, and shake their hands. So much of life in jail is impersonal and dehumanizing. Any little gesture to counter this feels worth it to me. And so, I was very consciously looking this man in the eye when we shook hands. But something felt off. I looked down and was shocked to discover that he only had two out of ten fingers. I was shaking a palm and a few stumps.
I immediately suspected what the story was, and my suspicions were borne out during our subsequent conversation. Too many prairie winters living rough on the streets. Frostbite. His face also bore the telltale signs of blisters and discolouration. My heart broke for this poor man. His smile was wide, and his lips were loose (I could hardly keep up with the conversation!). But dear God what a story, what a life. Like so many of the men (and women) I talk to in jail, there was great suffering endured and (likely) great suffering inflicted or at least participated in. It was a story of almost unfathomable depravity and pain.
What does one do with the reality of men without fingers?
My professional and social circles are populated by very conservative people and very liberal people (and, of course, plenty in between). My very conservative friends have a ready explanation for the men without fingers. They’ve made bad decisions and these decisions have come home to roost. Yes, of course it’s very sad—nobody likes to see men without fingers—but this is among the unfortunate consequences of a life spent swimming around in drugs, violence, cheap sex, bad influences, reckless living, and crime to support it all. The men without fingers, like all of us, are responsible agents with the freedom to choose what we will give ourselves to. These men should get into recovery, get sober, get jobs, and start contributing to society in positive ways. They made their bed, now they can get out of it! My conservative friends would unapologetically emphasize the personal and volitional causes of and responses to the reality of men without fingers.
My very liberal friends also have a ready explanation for the men without fingers. They are victims, plain and simple. They have very often had to endure toxic (or absent) family systems filled with addiction and abuse. They’ve often been forced to navigate unjust systems of racial prejudice and discrimination (this was clearly the case with the first guy I met). They have been criminalized and marginalized from a very early age and this often brings a stigma that is virtually impossible to escape (one cannot just “get a job” with a criminal record!). They couldn’t help themselves! We would have ended up in the same place with those kinds of obstacles in our way! My liberal friends would unapologetically emphasize the systemic and structural causes of and responses to the men without fingers.
One of the things that regularly frustrates me about our cultural moment is that these two sides seem utterly unable or unwilling to acknowledge that they both tell an important part of the story. The men without fingers are neither pure villains nor pure victims. Construing them as such often says far more about we who are doing the construing than about the men without fingers themselves. We are so often transparently desperate to preserve and defend and justify our moral categories, our ways of explaining hard things, our unwillingness to enter into painful and gritty realities, our methods of propping up our own identities (“honest, dignity-affirming conservatives” or “compassionate, enlightened liberals”). The men without fingers become, like so many other things in our world, pawns in the increasingly depressing and pathetic culture wars.
Jesus, of course, refused the easy, self-congratulatory options we so easily and naturally gravitate towards when it came to stories analogous to the men without fingers. Lepers, paralytics, demoniacs, a hemorrhaging woman—always, his response was to pay attention to both the personal and the social. The paradigmatic example, for me, is his encounter with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). After the woman’s religious accusers have been shamed and sent packing, Jesus says two things. “I don’t condemn you” and “Go, leave your life of sin.” I don’t condemn you—I know what you’ve endured, I know that you are a victim of patriarchal systems far beyond your control, I know you’ve been kicked around and mistreated in countless ways. Leave your life of sin—you are a child of God, gifted with the possibility and responsibility to make choices from within the structures you must make your way in. Yes, every choice takes place within constraints, and no, all constraints are not created equal. But there is always the possibility to choose, even if only in some small way.
You know who else tends to refuse the easy, self-congratulatory options we so easily and naturally gravitate towards? The men without fingers themselves. Not always, of course. There are exceptions. But in my experience, the guys I talk to have no problem talking about their predicament in ways that don’t veer off into either the very conservative or very liberal responses. Yeah, I’ve had a hard road. Nobody ever taught me how to live well. I’ve endured things that nobody should. But I’ve done things that I shouldn’t have, that I feel ashamed of, that I’m sorry for. I am regularly amazed by how they are inclined to take at least some personal responsibility where I would be desperately latching on to an excuse.
Two hard things can both be true at the same time. How desperately we need to acknowledge this.
And how ironic, that we who are so eager to explain and categorize (and—God help us!—weaponize) terrible things like men without fingers could stand to learn a thing or two from the men without fingers themselves.
Image source.
Discover more from Rumblings
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rumblings 
Growing up MB, I could for much of my early life relate to the Conservative explanation outlined in your blog… but after30 years working in Children’s Services, I now recognize that some people experience incredible abuse and pain in their lives and that an incredibly dysfunctional upbringing often will impact your decision making as you get older. I hope that both Conservative and Liberal Christians could agree that we are here to help those who have suffered, and that we are here to try to lessen suffering in the world… I am hopeful that this could be common ground for both ideologies….
I hope for the same, Jimmy.
Thanks Ryan for such a thoughtful post.
Thanks, Paul.
I don’t think the stereotyping helps. Traditional views are not devoid of empathy or the understanding that people are often victims of unfair circumstance. Many of us can relate.
What differentiates us is that we believe, in spite of the injustice, that the best way forward is for the individual to take responsibility for their circumstances and with self, God and where possible, family and community, work towards solutions and improvement.
Sitting around complaining about the unfairness of it all, waiting for society to remedy your situation, doesn’t help. It only fosters contempt of self and others and leads to inertia.
It’s not stereotyping, it’s observation based on numerous interactions with friends and professional acquaintances over the years. I think it fits broader cultural trends and dispositions, as well. I’ve had many conversations with people that pretty much exactly mirror what I describe in the post.
As I said in the post, the proper perspective (often modelled by the people we are describing themselves) acknowledges both individual responsibility and the reality of victimhood and unfair circumstances. This is the only way to avoid the twin errors of victim-shaming/blaming and inertia.
Fair enough, we all have our experiences and draw opinions from them.
Hopefully you can acknowledge that many so called conservatives are both empathetic, recognize injustice and affirm personal responsibility. These are not mutually exclusive propositions.
Well, yes. That’s kinda the point I’m arguing for in the post.
Arguing for but not acknowledging the presence of, in your convenient ( to the point your making) stereotyping.
Until the majority wake up to the reality of the 2030 agenda and the emerging one world order they, like you, will continue to work, think and write about dated paradigms that no longer exist.
Just so I’m sure I have your argument right.
1. The two broad approaches I describe in the post are “dated” and “no longer exist.”
2. Arguing that they do exist is a “convenient” kind of “stereotyping” to advance an argument peculiar to me and my interests.
3. I should instead be arguing that personal responsibility and the pursuit of justice are not mutually exclusive propositions.
In response to #1 and #2, I guess we live in very different worlds. I see and hear and observe evidence of this dichotomy almost literally every day of my life. One can hardly open a paper or news site without encountering some article lamenting our polarized world and the ever-widening chasm between left and right. It also remains a mystery to me how acknowledging this pretty basic fact of twenty-first century political life and discourse could possibly represent a form of stereotyping or could in any way be “convenient” for me, particularly when I am advocating the acknowledgement that they both tell an important part of the story.
In response to #3. Well, see above. I don’t really know what to say when someone tells me that I should have done what I have in fact already done.
I appreciate the evenhanded approach, as always. And yet… I will still lean toward the personal over the political since it’s easier to change self than to change society.
CS Lewis said that if we applied New Testament ethics to the social order then public life would look liberal and private life would look conservative.
Well said, Chris. I also like the Lewis quote. It rings true to me.
Always the right first move, Chris….”first take the log out of your own eye”….that being said, true evangelzation, by those who have been called, is a politic.
It has an ideology, a set of laws, a leader and a social agenda. True Christianity, is a way of life and a collective way if living is a politic.
…a collective way of living, is a politic.
1. You have always had the habit of detaching my observations from their context.
Given the impending reset, I’m suggesting you are dealing with trivialities that are dated and to put it more succinctly, irrelevant. I do agree with your observation that they still occur. You are right to correct me.
2. Yes the controlled mainstream propaganda/media networks continually parrot these irreconcilable stereotypes so as to sow discord and entrench societal divisions. Starting and keeping alive a fire only their controllers can put out. Actually I’m somewhat surprised that a pastor would divide people so readily into these caricatures. I ‘ve debated and discussed issues with many people, left and right, traditional or progressive over the years. Hell I’ve taken all these different positions over the years and I ‘ve learned this much to be true. Our shared humanity unites us more than any politic divides us. At our core, we are one. We all seek love, purpose, peace and prosperity. We all want to be valued and appreciated.
3. Leave the stereotypes for those who seek to divide and conquer. Let our conversations affirm what we share, what unites us and hiw we can work together for the betterment of all God’s children, before it is too late.
I have “always had the habit of detaching your observations” from their context, have I? Well, I to whatever extent that may be true, I have simply tried to take them at face value because they often seem so utterly bewildering to me. You so regularly go after arguments that I am not making or choose to go after topics that I do not address. The simplest way to try to say anything productive or useful is to take your statements as they come. I would welcome any third party to read any of our interactions over the years and come to their own conclusions about who tends to take whose statements out of context more frequently.
Speaking of bewildering. To the charge that I am “dividing people” with “caricatures” or trading in “stereotypes” that are “dated” and “trivial.” I hardly know where to begin with statements like this. Again, I would welcome any third party to come to their own conclusions about whether I seek to divide people through what I write. I wonder if you actually even read what I write. I suspect not. To repeat (for what feels like at least the third time now): the post was an attempt to affirm both personal and social dimensions to some of the hard things that we see in our world, to urge people to set aside the polarities that we human beings seem so easily and naturally drawn toward (which, sadly, are neither dated nor trivial), to move toward a more honest and more Christian anthropology which I think is the only way out of the social divisions that plague us.
You are, of course, welcome to claim whatever you like about me or about my motives. You’re welcome to read into what I write whatever you like. I’ve tried to engage you in good faith here. But I’m not particularly interested in continuing to respond to things I haven’t said or to statements that impugn my character (after reading me for this many years, you honestly are saying things like, “I’m somewhat surprised that a pastor would divide people so readily into these caricatures?”). These are such incredibly odd statements coming from someone who in the very same comment claims that conversations should not divide and should “affirm what we share” and “what unites us.”
Alright you literally encounter, on a daily basis, people who unapolegetically condemn men with no fingers and villanize them, without pity. I say bullshit. I say it is a rhetorical device to help make your point. Please speak more about these conservative friends of yours…friends I think you should ditch btw….I think more details are neccessary. I move in Conservative Christian circles and I’ve never encountered these kinds of, “friends”. And they wouldn’t be friends for long if I had.
I’ll raise the stakes and call it a slanderous stereotype that a pastor should avoid. Yes you are right stories like this populate our press daily. You shouldn’t pile on. You speak for God, you have to do better.
As for misrepresenting my words, ok, I’ll keep it specific. With regard to this post I never stated that personal responsibility and the persuit of justice were mutually exclusive or that you said that, rather I am saying now and have said along that it is wrong to suggest that your conservative friends are incapable of reconciling personal responsibility with any sense of compassion or justice. Again I here stereotyping and caricature that slanders.
As for engaging with your arguments, I always do. I confront what I disagree with, affirm what I agree with and often raise other persectives that your writings inspire. I’ll take your “bewildered” assessment as a compliment. Lol….to be fair to you I have tried to direct the conversation lately towards what I believe to be an impending societal collapse. I am not alone in Christian circles for thinking this is so.
Your voice could be a useful one but honestly you seem to be writing and rewriting the same post that mostly leaves you being congratulated for your thoughtful, balanced and even tempered approach….which you are…sometimes I feel like I’m hoofing a kitten when
I confront you lol but the world needs Christian warriors right now.
We are at war with the forces of evil. We need strength and encouragement from God’s word from those who know him.
I did not say this. Read the post.
It’s hard for me to take you seriously here. It’s “slanderous” to urge people to move beyond perspectives that are widely held in the broader culture? It’s “piling on” to urge us to take both the personal and the social seriously in our evaluation of people and perspectives? Again, read the post.
I did not say this. Read the post.
Christian warriors, eh? I thought we were supposed to “let our conversations affirm what we share, what unites us and how we can work together.” Ah, well, contradictions aside, as I’ve said countless times by now, you are welcome to go find the Christian warriors of the kind you seek elsewhere. The internet is a big place. I’m sure can find writers more to your taste somewhere. Honestly, the whole “your voice could be useful” thing is getting a bit old by now. I get it. Trust me.
A quick reread reveals the statement, ” They made their bed now they can get out of it!” and is attributed to your Conservative friends. If that isn’t a sentiment without pity, I don’t know what is. You also call them, “unapoligetic” and further speak of those who see men without fingers as purely villans. I would assume you are referencing your Conservative friends here also.
You need to do a better, less literal, less defensive, and less selective job of reading.
What I said was: “My conservative friends would unapologetically emphasize the personal and volitional causes of and responses to the reality of men without fingers.” This is a statement about their priorities, not them personally (i.e., it is not me calling them as people “unapologetic”). It is hardly a controversial statement to say that conservatives tend to emphasize the personal and the volitional as opposed to more systemic. Note well, to “emphasize” is not to exclude the latter from the conversation. It is simply to prioritize the former.
“They made their bed…” is a figure of speech. It is, again, to emphasize the role of choices made that can lead one into dark places.
The “villains” reference was a poetic turn of phrase, a bit of alliteration to go along with “victims.” It was meant to highlight the chasm between those who emphasize the personal at the expense of the social and those who emphasize the social at the expense of the personal.
None of this should be difficult to grasp. My suspicion is that you feel the article is unfair to conservatives because this is where you locate yourself. The irony, again, is rich, because, a) I am equally critical of the more liberal perspective in the post (“they couldn’t help themselves” is the parallel to “they made their beds”); and, b) My commendation of the inmates who seem more able to bridge this gap than the broader culture quite clearly represents an embrace of both the personal and the systemic. This, again, seems to be precisely what you are telling me that I should have said (and which I did in fact say, right from the beginning).
Your analysis aside, I correct you because the stereotypes you indulge in are a big part of the problem within the culture wars. It isn’t personal, I don’t take offense for me or my tribe. Your free to see that as you like.
Traditionalists, like myself don’t have all the answers, sometimes get it wrong and should always be open to duscussion, debate, changes of mind
and policy, and compromise. The truth of the matter however is that progressive politics, at it’s core is neo-fascist.
All it’s advocacies here in Ontario, gay, blm, ontario federation of labour and our teachers unions, (to mention a few) will not openly engage in good faith public discussions with those who disagree with them.
Rather, they poison the water with claims that any criticism is hate speech, all critics are dangerous far right insurrectionists, mysogynist, racist and homophobic. And grotesquely of all, because of these aforementioned traits, they are morally obliged to ignore (so as not to provide a platform for hate speech) and even try to reputationally and economically ruin their critics. All in the service of the good that only they and their allies can know and provide.
Their only tactics are ad hominem and slander.
They can also count on a partial mainstream media to affirm their policies and their prejudices.
You should’t help them by using their stereotypes.
As for your last comment, I sense some admission on your part that you did indeed use some of your stereotyping unintentially as literary device, in order to make your point. I do note that you rejected that observation by me, earlier in this exchange.
As for the rest of your claim, you are misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting that you called conservatives inherently unapologetic about all things. Rather I am saying that you are ascribing a stereotypical, unapologetic belief to them that is pityless and would villianize rather than empathize with those who suffer from their bad choices.
Lastly, I have never said that that their shouldn’t be a reconcilliation between the personal and the systemic. I believe I agreed with you but disagreed with how you got to your conclusion.
1. Your stereotyping is harmful.
2. Your stereotyping is inaccurate. All the thinking and engaged traditionalists I know, are already reconciled in the way you would hope.
You “correct” me, do you? I’m sorry, I simply do not agree with you. I think this entire tortuous thread is an example of you deliberately and persistently misreading me (for reasons I know not).
It remains utterly mystifying to me how you have managed to interpret a post commenting on (and critiquing) an easily observable reality in the world as an example of “stereotyping” (and, laughably, “harmful,” at that!). I am not inventing polarization. Indeed, your whole bit about “progressive politics” and previous comments about the need for “Christian warriors” ably illustrates it. And leaving all of this aside, the post was a plea to transcend or move beyond this polarization that comes so naturally to us. This is the crucial part that you seem utterly unwilling to acknowledge. It takes some effort to miss the entire point of a piece of writing, but you have done so consistently here.
Re: my “admission” about literary devices, etc. Again, no. As I said above, it was an attempt to help you read in a better, more honest, and perhaps even charitable way.
Re: your final comments about stereotyping, harm, etc… Well, again, I simply completely reject your assessment here. To repeat, yet again, I have simply pointed to an easily observable phenomenon (and one doing actual harm in the world), described what liberal and conservative perspectives tend to emphasize and what they tend to downplay, and then to urge both to see the truth of the other side.
I am grateful for the traditionalists that are already doing this, just as I am grateful for the more progressive folks who are already doing this. They are quite free to yawn at posts like this and move on (as are you!). Regrettably, the phenomenon persists.
I will not be commenting further on this thread. I have already spent far too much time on this, and it seems like my attempts to explain the post are having little effect. Now that I am back from a holiday, there are other things that require my time and attention.