Eyes are amazing things. They are the only place (barring some invasive medical procedures) where you can actually look inside someone else’s body. Eyes are our bodies’ only transparent organ – they have to be, to let light in.

            You can’t see much in there, of course. Because it’s dark inside. But optometrists can, by shining a light through the lens to illuminate the retina at the back of the eye.

            And so can you, when your pet goes out for a pee at night. The beam of your flashlight reflects back as two bright beads glowing in the dark. That light does not reflect off the front of your cat or dog’s eyes, but off the back. You’re seeing inside your pet’s head.

            Lovers gaze longingly into each other’s eyes. I suspect that they mostly see their own reflection.

Communication customs

            In our social culture, we tend to use our eyes differently, depending on whether we’re speaking or listening. (Other cultures often have different, and therefore disquieting, customs.)

            I tend to watch someone else most closely while they’re speaking. That’s how I show I’m paying attention. I watch your eyes, your mouth, the crinkles on your forehead, to confirm visually what I think my ears are hearing. If I start looking somewhere else – at the TV set, for instance, at the dog, or, umm, at your cleavage – you can reasonably assume that I’m no longer paying as much attention as I should.

            But when I’m speaking, I’m more likely to glance away occasionally. Perhaps while I try to organize my thoughts. Also, perhaps, to keep track of the bigger picture. Potential distractions in the environment, for example. I also want to observe your body language. What you’re doing with your hands, your feet, your shoulders? Are you losing interest? Are you waiting to interrupt me? Are you feeling confused, bewildered by what I’m saying?

             I had a regional manager, years ago, who habitually closed his eyes while he talked to me. I always felt he was shutting me out of his thought processes.

Fixed gaze

            But I have a sense that television is changing the way we talk to each other. Speakers are trained, coached, to look directly into the camera lens. I can understand why. It’s supposed to give the impression that they’re making eye contact with you.

            They’re not, of course. They can’t see you at all. It’s a carefully fostered illusion. All they can see is the glassy eye of a television camera. Perhaps with a teleprompter in front.

            Teleprompters are an amazing invention, something like the heads-up displays some expensive cars project onto windshields. A script scrolls down with words for the speaker to read, while the camera shoots right through the display. By watching on the words, the speaker gives the impression of looking directly at you.

            But that’s not actually how we talk.

            If we were having a conversation, and I never took my eyes off yours, you’d get nervous. If I didn’t look away, you soon would.

            But in this video age, we tend to treat the talking head with the fixed gaze as our model.

            TV is changing the way we talk to each other. I’m not sure that it’s for the better.

*****************************************

Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups, and links from other blogs, welcomed; all other rights reserved.

                  To comment on this column, write jimt@quixotic.ca

*****************************************

YOUR TURN

Peter Scott and Isabel Gibson both suggested that churches don’t encourage members to imagine surpassing Jesus because it’s easier not to try.

            Peter wrote,  “Christian churches treat Jesus as an unattainable ideal (like a god) because it's easier than taking him seriously.  Attempting to do the kinds of things that he did is too scary, too painful, too costly, and too weird.  Who would join a club like that?

            “If we make him perfect then we're off the hook.  If we let him be human (flawed and fallible) then all our excuses for not trying to emulate him vanish and so would a large part of our membership.”

Similarly, Isabel wrote, “Why does anyone think or speak of Jesus as an unattainable ideal? Maybe to shirk the responsibility of following.”

On the other hand, Steve Roney disagreed: “The whole point of the Christian life is the imitatio christi. We are called on to emulate Jesus. It seems as though you are saying the opposite of the truth here.

            “I think what you really mean is that you object to the doctrine of the Trinity. You do not want to accept that Jesus is God incarnate. The idea that ‘mere humans cannot emulate him’ cannot be the real reason.”

Ruth Shaver thought that kids get it, even if adults don’t: “Many years ago, a group of 3rd and 4th grade Sunday school students made a ‘stole of miracles’ for me while they were studying Jesus' miracles. In addition to the Star of Bethlehem, the loaves and fishes, and the empty tomb, the children decorated the stole with pictures of
-- Thomas Edison, who harnessed electricity into the miracle of light in the darkness and changed the world forever;
-- Albert Einstein, who made space exploration possible when he figured oout ‘lots of cool stuff’;
-- pizza, the perfect food (because it has all the food groups if you put pineapple and green peppers on it with your ham and cheese);
-- a stethoscope, hypodermic needle, and blood pressure cuff, because medicine is a miracle;
-- and several different families in different configurations.
According to the children, all of these things were a fulfillment of God's promise that miracles would continue to happen. Out of the mouths of babes, indeed, comes our greatest wisdom at times.”

Frank Martens challenged Ted Spencer’s letter, last week. Ted had argued that water can indeed be destroyed. Frank wondered, “What happened to the old adage:  ‘Matter can neither be created nor destroyed’?” Then he answered his own question: “The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another).”

            The energy within in water molecules would continue, but in a different form.

*******************************************

PSALM PARAPHRASES

Psalm 130 starts off with the line, “Out of the depths I cry to you…” My other paraphrases started with that metaphor – looking up out of a black pit of depression, for example. But on one occasion, I wondered how a person in Somalia, or Yemen, might feel.

My baby just died, Lord of the Universe.

Is this your holy will?

That wars should rip us from our homes,

That drought should wither our crops,

That even my breasts should dry up?

Hear my cries, Holy One.

Are you doing this because we displeased you?

Did we fail to say our prayers often enough?

Were we too concerned with sheer survival?

If we have wronged you, forgive us.

We will honour you even more for your compassion.

I shrivel in the scorching heat.

I huddle under a tattered tarp in a refugee camp.

I cower in the rubble of an apartment building.

I have no water, no food, no hope.

I wait.

Yet still I believe that your power is the power of love,

And that it can change the world.

So I wait…

For paraphrases of most of the psalms used by the Revised Common Lectionary, you can order my book Everyday Psalms from Wood Lake Publishing, info@woodlake.com.

*******************************************

YOU SCRATCH MY BACK…

•        Ralph Milton most recent project, Sing Hallelujah -- the world’s first video hymnal -- consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.ca

•        Isabel Gibson's thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com

•        Wayne Irwin's "Churchweb Canada," an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>

•        Alva Wood's satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town are not particularly religious, but they are fun; write alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.

•        Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at twatson@sentex.net

*****************************************

TECHNICAL STUFF

If you want to comment on something, send a message directly to me, jimt@quixotic.ca.

            To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an e-mail message to jimt@quixotic.ca. Or you can subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message or subject line) to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at softedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.

            My webpage is up and running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and about five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca

            I write a second column each Sunday called Sharp Edges, which tends to be somewhat more cutting about social and justice issues. To sign up for Sharp Edges, write to me directly, jimt@quixotic.ca, or send a note to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca

********************************************