• Facebook
  • Twitter

Anita Mathias: Dreaming Beneath the Spires

Anita Mathias's Blog on Faith and Art

  • Home
  • My Books
  • Meditations
  • Essays
  • Contact
  • About Me

To whom do words belong? Plagiarism and the Creative Process.

By Anita Mathias

SOMETHING BORROWED
Should a charge of plagiarism ruin your life?
by Malcolm GladwellNOVEMBER 22, 2004
LARGE TEXT

One day this spring, a psychiatrist named Dorothy Lewis got a call from her friend Betty, who works in New York City. Betty had just seen a Broadway play called “Frozen,” written by the British playwright Bryony Lavery. “She said, ‘Somehow it reminded me of you. You really ought to see it,’ ” Lewis recalled. Lewis asked Betty what the play was about, and Betty said that one of the characters was a psychiatrist who studied serial killers. “And I told her, ‘I need to see that as much as I need to go to the moon.’ ”
Lewis has studied serial killers for the past twenty-five years. With her collaborator, the neurologist Jonathan Pincus, she has published a great many research papers, showing that serial killers tend to suffer from predictable patterns of psychological, physical, and neurological dysfunction: that they were almost all the victims of harrowing physical and sexual abuse as children, and that almost all of them have suffered some kind of brain injury or mental illness. In 1998, she published a memoir of her life and work entitled “Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” She was the last person to visit Ted Bundy before he went to the electric chair. Few people in the world have spent as much time thinking about serial killers as Dorothy Lewis, so when her friend Betty told her that she needed to see “Frozen” it struck her as a busman’s holiday.
But the calls kept coming. “Frozen” was winning raves on Broadway, and it had been nominated for a Tony. Whenever someone who knew Dorothy Lewis saw it, they would tell her that she really ought to see it, too. In June, she got a call from a woman at the theatre where “Frozen” was playing. “She said she’d heard that I work in this field, and that I see murderers, and she was wondering if I would do a talk-back after the show,” Lewis said. “I had done that once before, and it was a delight, so I said sure. And I said, would you please send me the script, because I wanted to read the play.”
The script came, and Lewis sat down to read it. Early in the play, something caught her eye, a phrase: “it was one of those days.” One of the murderers Lewis had written about in her book had used that same expression. But she thought it was just a coincidence. “Then, there’s a scene of a woman on an airplane, typing away to her friend. Her name is Agnetha Gottmundsdottir. I read that she’s writing to her colleague, a neurologist called David Nabkus. And with that I realized that more was going on, and I realized as well why all these people had been telling me to see the play.”
Lewis began underlining line after line. She had worked at New York University School of Medicine. The psychiatrist in “Frozen” worked at New York School of Medicine. Lewis and Pincus did a study of brain injuries among fifteen death-row inmates. Gottmundsdottir and Nabkus did a study of brain injuries among fifteen death-row inmates. Once, while Lewis was examining the serial killer Joseph Franklin, he sniffed her, in a grotesque, sexual way. Gottmundsdottir is sniffed by the play’s serial killer, Ralph. Once, while Lewis was examining Ted Bundy, she kissed him on the cheek. Gottmundsdottir, in some productions of “Frozen,” kisses Ralph. “The whole thing was right there,” Lewis went on. “I was sitting at home reading the play, and I realized that it was I. I felt robbed and violated in some peculiar way. It was as if someone had stolen—I don’t believe in the soul, but, if there was such a thing, it was as if someone had stolen my essence.”

Lewis never did the talk-back. She hired a lawyer. And she came down from New Haven to see “Frozen.” “In my book,” she said, “I talk about where I rush out of the house with my black carry-on, and I have two black pocketbooks, and the play opens with her”—Agnetha—“with one big black bag and a carry-on, rushing out to do a lecture.” Lewis had written about biting her sister on the stomach as a child. Onstage, Agnetha fantasized out loud about attacking a stewardess on an airplane and “biting out her throat.” After the play was over, the cast came onstage and took questions from the audience. “Somebody in the audience said, ‘Where did Bryony Lavery get the idea for the psychiatrist?’ ” Lewis recounted. “And one of the cast members, the male lead, said, ‘Oh, she said that she read it in an English medical magazine.’ ” Lewis is a tiny woman, with enormous, childlike eyes, and they were wide open now with the memory. “I wouldn’t have cared if she did a play about a shrink who’s interested in the frontal lobe and the limbic system. That’s out there to do. I see things week after week on television, on ‘Law & Order’ or ‘C.S.I.,’ and I see that they are using material that Jonathan and I brought to light. And it’s wonderful. That would have been acceptable. But she did more than that. She took things about my own life, and that is the part that made me feel violated.”
At the request of her lawyer, Lewis sat down and made up a chart detailing what she felt were the questionable parts of Lavery’s play. The chart was fifteen pages long. The first part was devoted to thematic similarities between “Frozen” and Lewis’s book “Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” The other, more damning section listed twelve instances of almost verbatim similarities—totalling perhaps six hundred and seventy-five words—between passages from “Frozen” and passages from a 1997 magazine profile of Lewis. The profile was called “Damaged.” It appeared in the February 24, 1997, issue of The New Yorker. It was written by me.

Words belong to the person who wrote them. There are few simpler ethical notions than this one, particularly as society directs more and more energy and resources toward the creation of intellectual property. In the past thirty years, copyright laws have been strengthened. Courts have become more willing to grant intellectual-property protections. Fighting piracy has become an obsession with Hollywood and the recording industry, and, in the worlds of academia and publishing, plagiarism has gone from being bad literary manners to something much closer to a crime. When, two years ago, Doris Kearns Goodwin was found to have lifted passages from several other historians, she was asked to resign from the board of the Pulitzer Prize committee. And why not? If she had robbed a bank, she would have been fired the next day.
I’d worked on “Damaged” through the fall of 1996. I would visit Dorothy Lewis in her office at Bellevue Hospital, and watch the videotapes of her interviews with serial killers. At one point, I met up with her in Missouri. Lewis was testifying at the trial of Joseph Franklin, who claims responsibility for shooting, among others, the civil-rights leader Vernon Jordan and the pornographer Larry Flynt. In the trial, a videotape was shown of an interview that Franklin once gave to a television station. He was asked whether he felt any remorse. I wrote:

“I can’t say that I do,” he said. He paused again, then added, “The only thing I’m sorry about is that it’s not legal.” 
“What’s not legal?” 
Franklin answered as if he’d been asked the time of day: “Killing Jews.” 


That exchange, almost to the word, was reproduced in “Frozen.”
Lewis, the article continued, didn’t feel that Franklin was fully responsible for his actions. She viewed him as a victim of neurological dysfunction and childhood physical abuse. “The difference between a crime of evil and a crime of illness,” I wrote, “is the difference between a sin and a symptom.” That line was in “Frozen,” too—not once but twice. I faxed Bryony Lavery a letter:

I am happy to be the source of inspiration for other writers, and had you asked for my permission to quote—even liberally—from my piece, I would have been delighted to oblige. But to lift material, without my approval, is theft. 


Almost as soon as I’d sent the letter, though, I began to have second thoughts. The truth was that, although I said I’d been robbed, I didn’t feel that way. Nor did I feel particularly angry. One of the first things I had said to a friend after hearing about the echoes of my article in “Frozen” was that this was the only way I was ever going to get to Broadway—and I was only half joking. On some level, I considered Lavery’s borrowing to be a compliment. A savvier writer would have changed all those references to Lewis, and rewritten the quotes from me, so that their origin was no longer recognizable. But how would I have been better off if Lavery had disguised the source of her inspiration?
Dorothy Lewis, for her part, was understandably upset. She was considering a lawsuit. And, to increase her odds of success, she asked me to assign her the copyright to my article. I agreed, but then I changed my mind. Lewis had told me that she “wanted her life back.” Yet in order to get her life back, it appeared, she first had to acquire it from me. That seemed a little strange.
Then I got a copy of the script for “Frozen.” I found it breathtaking. I realize that this isn’t supposed to be a relevant consideration. And yet it was: instead of feeling that my words had been taken from me, I felt that they had become part of some grander cause. In late September, the story broke. The Times, theObserver in England, and the Associated Press all ran stories about Lavery’s alleged plagiarism, and the articles were picked up by newspapers around the world. Bryony Lavery had seen one of my articles, responded to what she read, and used it as she constructed a work of art. And now her reputation was in tatters. Something about that didn’t seem right.

   
Bryony Lavery came to see me in early October. It was a beautiful Saturday afternoon, and we met at my apartment. She is in her fifties, with short tousled blond hair and pale-blue eyes, and was wearing jeans and a loose green shirt and clogs. There was something rugged and raw about her. In the Times the previous day, the theatre critic Ben Brantley had not been kind to her new play, “Last Easter.” This was supposed to be her moment of triumph. “Frozen” had been nominated for a Tony. “Last Easter” had opened Off Broadway. And now? She sat down heavily at my kitchen table. “I’ve had the absolute gamut of emotions,” she said, playing nervously with her hands as she spoke, as if she needed a cigarette. “I think when one’s working, one works between absolute confidence and absolute doubt, and I got a huge dollop of each. I was terribly confident that I could write well after ‘Frozen,’ and then this opened a chasm of doubt.” She looked up at me. “I’m terribly sorry,” she said.
Lavery began to explain: “What happens when I write is that I find that I’m somehow zoning on a number of things. I find that I’ve cut things out of newspapers because the story or something in them is interesting to me, and seems to me to have a place onstage. Then it starts coagulating. It’s like the soup starts thickening. And then a story, which is also a structure, starts emerging. I’d been reading thrillers like ‘The Silence of the Lambs,’ about fiendishly clever serial killers. I’d also seen a documentary of the victims of the Yorkshire killers, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, who were called the Moors Murderers. They spirited away several children. It seemed to me that killing somehow wasn’t fiendishly clever. It was the opposite of clever. It was as banal and stupid and destructive as it could be. There are these interviews with the survivors, and what struck me was that they appeared to be frozen in time. And one of them said, ‘If that man was out now, I’m a forgiving man but I couldn’t forgive him. I’d kill him.’ That’s in ‘Frozen.’ I was thinking about that. Then my mother went into hospital for a very simple operation, and the surgeon punctured her womb, and therefore her intestine, and she got peritonitis and died.”
When Lavery started talking about her mother, she stopped, and had to collect herself. “She was seventy-four, and what occurred to me is that I utterly forgave him. I thought it was an honest mistake. I’m very sorry it happened to my mother, but it’s an honest mistake.” Lavery’s feelings confused her, though, because she could think of people in her own life whom she had held grudges against for years, for the most trivial of reasons. “In a lot of ways, ‘Frozen’ was an attempt to understand the nature of forgiveness,” she said.
Lavery settled, in the end, on a play with three characters. The first is a serial killer named Ralph, who kidnaps and murders a young girl. The second is the murdered girl’s mother, Nancy. The third is a psychiatrist from New York, Agnetha, who goes to England to examine Ralph. In the course of the play, the three lives slowly intersect—and the characters gradually change and become “unfrozen” as they come to terms with the idea of forgiveness. For the character of Ralph, Lavery says that she drew on a book about a serial killer titled “The Murder of Childhood,” by Ray Wyre and Tim Tate. For the character of Nancy, she drew on an article written in the Guardian by a woman named Marian Partington, whose sister had been murdered by the serial killers Frederick and Rosemary West. And, for the character of Agnetha, Lavery drew on a reprint of my article that she had read in a British publication. “I wanted a scientist who would understand,” Lavery said—a scientist who could explain how it was possible to forgive a man who had killed your daughter, who could explain that a serial killing was not a crime of evil but a crime of illness. “I wanted it to be accurate,” she added.
So why didn’t she credit me and Lewis? How could she have been so meticulous about accuracy but not about attribution? Lavery didn’t have an answer. “I thought it was O.K. to use it,” she said with an embarrassed shrug. “It never occurred to me to ask you. I thought it was news.”
She was aware of how hopelessly inadequate that sounded, and when she went on to say that my article had been in a big folder of source material that she had used in the writing of the play, and that the folder had got lost during the play’s initial run, in Birmingham, she was aware of how inadequate that sounded, too.
But then Lavery began to talk about Marian Partington, her other important inspiration, and her story became more complicated. While she was writing “Frozen,” Lavery said, she wrote to Partington to inform her of how much she was relying on Partington’s experiences. And when “Frozen” opened in London she and Partington met and talked. In reading through articles on Lavery in the British press, I found this, from the Guardian two years ago, long before the accusations of plagiarism surfaced:

Lavery is aware of the debt she owes to Partington’s writing and is eager to acknowledge it. 

“I always mention it, because I am aware of the enormous debt that I owe to the generosity of Marian Partington’s piece … . You have to be hugely careful when writing something like this, because it touches on people’s shattered lives and you wouldn’t want them to come across it unawares.” 


Lavery wasn’t indifferent to other people’s intellectual property, then; she was just indifferent to my intellectual property. That’s because, in her eyes, what she took from me was different. It was, as she put it, “news.” She copied my description of Dorothy Lewis’s collaborator, Jonathan Pincus, conducting a neurological examination. She copied the description of the disruptive neurological effects of prolonged periods of high stress. She copied my transcription of the television interview with Franklin. She reproduced a quote that I had taken from a study of abused children, and she copied a quotation from Lewis on the nature of evil. She didn’t copy my musings, or conclusions, or structure. She lifted sentences like “It is the function of the cortex—and, in particular, those parts of the cortex beneath the forehead, known as the frontal lobes—to modify the impulses that surge up from within the brain, to provide judgment, to organize behavior and decision-making, to learn and adhere to rules of everyday life.” It is difficult to have pride of authorship in a sentence like that. My guess is that it’s a reworked version of something I read in a textbook. Lavery knew that failing to credit Partington would have been wrong. Borrowing the personal story of a woman whose sister was murdered by a serial killer matters because that story has real emotional value to its owner. As Lavery put it, it touches on someone’s shattered life. Are boilerplate descriptions of physiological functions in the same league?
It also matters how Lavery chose to use my words. Borrowing crosses the line when it is used for a derivative work. It’s one thing if you’re writing a history of the Kennedys, like Doris Kearns Goodwin, and borrow, without attribution, from another history of the Kennedys. But Lavery wasn’t writing another profile of Dorothy Lewis. She was writing a play about something entirely new—about what would happen if a mother met the man who killed her daughter. And she used my descriptions of Lewis’s work and the outline of Lewis’s life as a building block in making that confrontation plausible. Isn’t that the way creativity is supposed to work? Old words in the service of a new idea aren’t the problem. What inhibits creativity is new words in the service of an old idea.
And this is the second problem with plagiarism. It is not merely extremist. It has also become disconnected from the broader question of what does and does not inhibit creativity. We accept the right of one writer to engage in a full-scale knockoff of another—think how many serial-killer novels have been cloned from “The Silence of the Lambs.” Yet, when Kathy Acker incorporated parts of a Harold Robbins sex scene verbatim in a satiric novel, she was denounced as a plagiarist (and threatened with a lawsuit). When I worked at a newspaper, we were routinely dispatched to “match” a story from the Times: to do a new version of someone else’s idea. But had we “matched” any of the Times’ words—even the most banal of phrases—it could have been a firing offense. The ethics of plagiarism have turned into the narcissism of small differences: because journalism cannot own up to its heavily derivative nature, it must enforce originality on the level of the sentence.
Dorothy Lewis says that one of the things that hurt her most about “Frozen” was that Agnetha turns out to have had an affair with her collaborator, David Nabkus. Lewis feared that people would think she had had an affair with her collaborator, Jonathan Pincus. “That’s slander,” Lewis told me. “I’m recognizable in that. Enough people have called me and said, ‘Dorothy, it’s about you,’ and if everything up to that point is true, then the affair becomes true in the mind. So that is another reason that I feel violated. If you are going to take the life of somebody, and make them absolutely identifiable, you don’t create an affair, and you certainly don’t have that as a climax of the play.”
It is easy to understand how shocking it must have been for Lewis to sit in the audience and see her “character” admit to that indiscretion. But the truth is that Lavery has every right to create an affair for Agnetha, because Agnetha is not Dorothy Lewis. She is a fictional character, drawn from Lewis’s life but endowed with a completely imaginary set of circumstances and actions. In real life, Lewis kissed Ted Bundy on the cheek, and in some versions of “Frozen” Agnetha kisses Ralph. But Lewis kissed Bundy only because he kissed her first, and there’s a big difference between responding to a kiss from a killer and initiating one. When we first see Agnetha, she’s rushing out of the house and thinking murderous thoughts on the airplane. Dorothy Lewis also charges out of her house and thinks murderous thoughts. But the dramatic function of that scene is to make us think, in that moment, that Agnetha is crazy. And the one inescapable fact about Lewis is that she is not crazy: she has helped get people to rethink their notions of criminality because of her unshakable command of herself and her work. Lewis is upset not just about how Lavery copied her life story, in other words, but about how Lavery changed her life story. She’s not merely upset about plagiarism. She’s upset about art—about the use of old words in the service of a new idea—and her feelings are perfectly understandable, because the alterations of art can be every bit as unsettling and hurtful as the thievery of plagiarism. It’s just that art is not a breach of ethics.
When I read the original reviews of “Frozen,” I noticed that time and again critics would use, without attribution, some version of the sentence “The difference between a crime of evil and a crime of illness is the difference between a sin and a symptom.” That’s my phrase, of course. I wrote it. Lavery borrowed it from me, and now the critics were borrowing it from her. The plagiarist was being plagiarized. In this case, there is no “art” defense: nothing new was being done with that line. And this was not “news.” Yet do I really own “sins and symptoms”? There is a quote by Gandhi, it turns out, using the same two words, and I’m sure that if I were to plow through the body of English literature I would find the path littered with crimes of evil and crimes of illness. The central fact about the “Phantom” case is that Ray Repp, if he was borrowing from Andrew Lloyd Webber, certainly didn’t realize it, and Andrew Lloyd Webber didn’t realize that he was borrowing from himself. Creative property, Lessig reminds us, has many lives—the newspaper arrives at our door, it becomes part of the archive of human knowledge, then it wraps fish. And, by the time ideas pass into their third and fourth lives, we lose track of where they came from, and we lose control of where they are going. The final dishonesty of the plagiarism fundamentalists is to encourage us to pretend that these chains of influence and evolution do not exist, and that a writer’s words have a virgin birth and an eternal life. I suppose that I could get upset about what happened to my words. I could also simply acknowledge that I had a good, long ride with that line—and let it go.
“It’s been absolutely bloody, really, because it attacks my own notion of my character,” Lavery said, sitting at my kitchen table. A bouquet of flowers she had brought were on the counter behind her. “It feels absolutely terrible. I’ve had to go through the pain for being careless. I’d like to repair what happened, and I don’t know how to do that. I just didn’t think I was doing the wrong thing … and then the article comes out in the New York Times and every continent in the world.” There was a long silence. She was heartbroken. But, more than that, she was confused, because she didn’t understand how six hundred and seventy-five rather ordinary words could bring the walls tumbling down. “It’s been horrible and bloody.” She began to cry. “I’m still composting what happened. It will be for a purpose … whatever that purpose is.” ♦

Read my new memoir: Rosaries, Reading, Secrets: A Catholic Childhood in India (US) or UK.
Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anitamathiaswriter/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/anita.mathias/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AnitaMathias1
My book of essays: Wandering Between Two Worlds (US) or UK

View our Privacy Policy.

More from my site

  • Zoe’s very long walk!Zoe’s very long walk!
  • What Scripture says about Exercise. Surprise: It’s Strangely Silent.What Scripture says about Exercise. Surprise: It’s Strangely Silent.
  • On the Surprising Physical and Mental Health Benefits of ForgivenessOn the Surprising Physical and Mental Health Benefits of Forgiveness
  • A Christian in Business, IIA Christian in Business, II
  • Never Believe the Pronouncements of Theologians if They Conflict with Your Intuitive Moral SenseNever Believe the Pronouncements of Theologians if They Conflict with Your Intuitive Moral Sense
Share this...
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter

Filed Under: books_blog

« Previous Post
Next Post »

Comments

  1. Anita Mathias says

    July 6, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Thanks, Lisa!

  2. Lisa Gertz says

    July 6, 2010 at 2:43 am

    That is so interesting, Anita. Great stuff to think about. I'd never pondered plagiarism to that extent, but now you've got me thinking… Thanks for posting this article!

Sign Up and Get a Free eBook!

Sign up to be emailed my blog posts (one a week) and get the ebook of "Holy Ground," my account of working with Mother Teresa.

Join 553 Other Readers

My Books

Rosaries, Reading, Secrets: A Catholic Childhood in India

Wandering Between Two Worlds - Amazon.com
Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

Wandering Between Two Worlds: Essays on Faith and Art

Wandering Between Two Worlds - Amazon.com
Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

Francesco, Artist of Florence: The Man Who Gave Too Much

Francesco, Artist of Florence - Amazom.com
Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

The Story of Dirk Willems

The Story of Dirk Willems - Amazon.com
Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

My Latest Meditation

Anita Mathias: About Me

Anita Mathias

Read my blog on Facebook

Follow me on Twitter

Follow @anitamathias1

Recent Posts

  • For Scoundrels, Scallywags, and Rascals—Christ Came
  • How to Lead an Extremely Significant Life
  • Don’t Walk Away From Jesus, but if You Do, He Still Looks at You and Loves You
  • How to Find the Freedom of Forgiveness
  • The Silver Coin in the Mouth of a Fish. Never Underestimate God!
  • Following Jesus Is Costly and the Very Best Thing We Can Do
  • Persistent Prayer Turns Christ’s Silence, His “No,” and “Absolutely Not” to “YES!”
  • Grab Christ’s Hand When You Are Sinking
  • How to Find Life-Changing Hidden Treasure
  • The Spirit Helps Us Speak Creative Words of Energy and Life
Premier Digital Awards 2015 - Finalist - Blogger of the year
Runner Up Christian Media Awards 2014 - Tweeter of the year

Categories

What I’m Reading

Country Girl
Edna O'Brien

Country Girl  - Amazon.com
Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

Gerard Manley Hopkins:
The Major Works

Hopkins-The Major Works --  Amazon.com
Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

All My Knotted-Up Life: A Memoir
Beth Moore

Beth Moore: Memoir --  Amazon.com
Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk

Archive by month

My Latest Five Podcast Meditations

INSTAGRAM

anita.mathias

Link to post with podcast link in Bio or https://a Link to post with podcast link in Bio or https://anitamathias.com/2023/09/22/dont-walk-away-from-jesus-but-if-you-do-he-still-looks-at-you-and-loves-you/
Jesus came from a Kingdom of voluntary gentleness, in which
Christ, the Lion of Judah, stands at the centre of the throne in the guise of a lamb, looking as if it had been slain. No wonder his disciples struggled with his counter-cultural values. Oh, and we too!
The mother of the Apostles James and John, asks Jesus for a favour—that once He became King, her sons got the most important, prestigious seats at court, on his right and left. And the other ten, who would have liked the fame, glory, power,limelight and honour themselves are indignant and threatened.
Oh-oh, Jesus says. Who gets five talents, who gets one,
who gets great wealth and success, who doesn’t–that the
Father controls. Don’t waste your one precious and fleeting
life seeking to lord it over others or boss them around.
But, in his wry kindness, he offers the ambitious twelve
and us something better than the second or third place.
He tells us how to actually be the most important person to
others at work, in our friend group, social circle, or church:Use your talents, gifts, and energy to bless others.
And we instinctively know Jesus is right. The greatest people in our lives are the kind people who invested in us, guided us and whose wise, radiant words are engraved on our hearts.
Wanting to sit with the cleverest, most successful, most famous people is the path of restlessness and discontent. The competition is vast. But seek to see people, to listen intently, to be kind, to empathise, and doors fling wide open for you, you rare thing!
The greatest person is the one who serves, Jesus says. Serves by using the one, two, or five talents God has given us to bless others, by finding a place where our deep gladness and the world’s deep hunger meet. By writing which is a blessing, hospitality, walking with a sad friend, tidying a house.
And that is the only greatness worth having. That you yourself,your life and your work are a blessing to others. That the love and wisdom God pours into you lives in people’s hearts and minds, a blessing
https://anitamathias.com/.../dont-walk-away-from-j https://anitamathias.com/.../dont-walk-away-from-jesus.../
Sharing this podcast I recorded last week. LINK IN BIO
So Jesus makes a beautiful offer to the earnest, moral young man who came to him, seeking a spiritual life. Remarkably, the young man claims that he has kept all the commandments from his youth, including the command to love one’s neighbour as oneself, a statement Jesus does not challenge.
The challenge Jesus does offers him, however, the man cannot accept—to sell his vast possessions, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus encumbered.
He leaves, grieving, and Jesus looks at him, loves him, and famously observes that it’s easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to live in the world of wonders which is living under Christ’s kingship, guidance and protection. 
He reassures his dismayed disciples, however, that with God even the treasure-burdened can squeeze into God’s kingdom, “for with God, all things are possible.”
Following him would quite literally mean walking into a world of daily wonders, and immensely rich conversation, walking through Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, quite impossible to do with suitcases and backpacks laden with treasure. 
For what would we reject God’s specific, internally heard whisper or directive, a micro-call? That is the idol which currently grips and possesses us. 
Not all of us have great riches, nor is money everyone’s greatest temptation—it can be success, fame, universal esteem, you name it…
But, since with God all things are possible, even those who waver in their pursuit of God can still experience him in fits and snatches, find our spirits singing on a walk or during worship in church, or find our hearts strangely warmed by Scripture, and, sometimes, even “see” Christ stand before us. 
For Christ looks at us, Christ loves us, and says, “With God, all things are possible,” even we, the flawed, entering his beautiful Kingdom.
https://anitamathias.com/2023/09/07/how-to-find-th https://anitamathias.com/2023/09/07/how-to-find-the-freedom-of-forgiveness/
How to Find the Freedom of Forgiveness
Letting go on anger and forgiving is both an emotional transaction & a decision of the will. We discover we cannot command our emotions to forgive and relinquish anger. So how do we find the space and clarity of forgiveness in our mind, spirit & emotions?
When tormenting memories surface, our cortisol, adrenaline, blood pressure, and heart rate all rise. It’s good to take a literally quick walk with Jesus, to calm this neurological and physiological storm. And then honestly name these emotions… for feelings buried alive never die.
Then, in a process called “the healing of memories,” mentally visualise the painful scene, seeing Christ himself there, his eyes brimming with compassion. Ask Christ to heal the sting, to draw the poison from these memories of experiences. We are caterpillars in a ring of fire, as Martin Luther wrote--unable to rescue ourselves. We need help from above.
Accept what happened. What happened, happened. Then, as the Apostle Paul advises, give thanks in everything, though not for everything. Give thanks because God can bring good out of the swindle and the injustice. Ask him to bring magic and beauty from the ashes.
If, like the persistent widow Jesus spoke of, you want to pray for justice--that the swindler and the abusers’ characters are revealed, so many are protected, then do so--but first, purify your own life.
And now, just forgive. Say aloud, I forgive you for … You are setting a captive free. Yourself. Come alive. Be free. 
And when memories of deep injuries arise, say: “No. No. Not going there.” Stop repeating the devastating story to yourself or anyone else. Don’t waste your time & emotional energy, nor let yourself be overwhelmed by anger at someone else’s evil actions. Don’t let the past poison today. Refuse to allow reinjury. Deliberately think instead of things noble, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy.
So keep trying, in obedience, to forgive, to let go of your anger until you suddenly realise that you have forgiven, and can remember past events without agitation. God be with us!
https://anitamathias.com/2023/08/16/the-silver-coi https://anitamathias.com/2023/08/16/the-silver-coin-in-the-mouth-of-a-fish-never-underestimate-god/
I've recorded a podcast on how Jesus guided Peter to find the necessary tax money in a fish.
The Silver Coin in the Mouth of a Fish. Never Underestimate God
So the taxman comes for Peter: Does Jesus pay the voluntary,
but expected tax for the upkeep of the grand temple and its
priests)? And, as he often does, Jesus asks Peter what he thinks because as a friend, he's interested,and as a brilliant teacher, he wants Peter to think for himself..
Sons do not pay tax to their fathers, they both agree. 
Then, Christ,who repeatedly referred to his powerful body
as God’s temple on earth, decides to pay temple tax anyway
to avoid a skandalon, offence.
And Jesus instructs Peter to cast a line and a hook–as amateur
fishermen did–insulting for a professional with boats and nets.
And Christ again demonstrates that he knows best even in Peter’s
one area of professional expertise. And Christ knows best in our
areas of giftedness. His call often involves working just outside
our zone of competence, forcing us to function with the magic of
God’s spirit and energy. The grain of pride must die for resurrection.
And Peter finds silver in a fish. When you lack the money to fulfil
the dream God has placed in your heart, do not rule out His
wonder-working power. Pray for God’s miraculous provision, or
for Christ’s surprising strategies to create wealth, rather than work
yourself to a breakdown, or manipulate or use others to get money.
Will God tell us, on request, which fish in the multitudinous seas
has swallowed silver? He sometimes might, for he hates waste. But
not always. Tim Keller writes, “People think if God has called
you to something, he’s promising you success. But He might be
calling you to fail to prepare you for something else through the failure.
To work all night and catch nothing, as Peter did, strengthens our
character and endurance so that we are capable of becoming fishers of
humans, and, if God pleases, sometimes, perhaps even fishers of money.
Hi, I've recorded a new podcast. Here's the link. Hi, I've recorded a new podcast. Here's the link. https://anitamathias.com/2023/08/06/following-jesus-is-costly-and-the-very-best-thing-we-can-do/
Jesus is blazingly honest about the cost of following him. It’s our most brilliant, golden choice, though it does mean we can no longer follow ourselves. We dance instead to his other-worldly, life-changing music, asking at each transition point of our day or life, “Jesus, what is your assignment? How do I do it your way?” 
For me (descriptive, not prescriptive), shouldering my cross includes eliminating sugar and starchy carbs (to lose excess weight!), not watching TV (extreme!), keep my house and garden organised and pretty enough. And, also, taming anger and outspokenness! And refusing to sing a song of worry, or linger in anger, training myself to sing instead a song of trust, praise, and gratitude. 
While following Jesus is electric, and joyful, following
ourselves could entail ruining our health with addictive foods, caffeine,overwork, or the siren-call of our phones. Following Jesus does not mean relinquishing our goals and ambitions, but surrendering them to Him. We do not own
our work; God does. And so, we must repent when we overwork, get too intense about success, or try to impress others with it. For competitive cravings for success, fame, money,
or popularity wreck relationships, and mental, spiritual, and physical health, and never satisfy, for the ladder of success has no end, and climbing it means exhausting ourselves for nothing. We’re still restless.
You have made us for yourself, Oh Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you, St. Augustine wrote. If we do not try to obey the Great Commandment: to love God, and Christ’s second commandment:  to love our neighbour as ourselves, we could, one day,open the treasure box of our lives and find only ashes. Nothing!
C.S. Lewis: “Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.”
https://anitamathias.com/2023/07/19/persistent-pra https://anitamathias.com/2023/07/19/persistent-prayer-turns-christs-silence-his-no-and-absolutely-not-to-yes/
So, a Syro-Phoenician woman comes to Jesus, crying out,
“Lord, have mercy on me. My daughter is suffering terribly.” But 
Jesus remains silent. Undeterred, she keeps crying out.
And Jesus snubs her: “I was sent only to the lost
sheep of Israel.” But she can’t believe “No” could be
his final word. “Lord, help me,” she says simply. And
then, a crushing rebuff. “It is not right to take
the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” But hitting
rock bottom makes your prayers strangely powerful. “Yes,
it is right, Lord,” she contradicts him, “Even dogs eat crumbs
that fall.” Dogs, hungry, humble, grateful, happy.
And Jesus praises her dogged faith 
which catalyses the miracle she longs for. 
He says, "Your request is granted.” 
Never passively accept any apparently intractable situations.
Reality is infinitely malleable in the hands of God. We pray,
and people change, circumstances change. We change. So
keep praying until little drops of the kindness of God
soften and change the impossible situation and your heart. 
Take your little mustard seed of mountain-moving faith,
and pray, seeing the kind Jesus in your mind’s eye.
Continue praying, past God’s silence, his “No,” and “Absolutely Not,” 
until Christ, charmed, says, “Yes. It’s time! Go, girl, go. This way.”
Dream big and wide like childless Abraham stepping outside,
dazzled by an immensity of stars, and believing God’s power
could give him as many descendants. But don’t waste your
passion and dream-energy. Pray for things that will bring you
joy, yes, but will also bless myriad others, creating something,
in Milton’s phrase, that the world will not willingly let die.
Each of Jesus’s prayers were not answered affirmatively; neither
will each of our requests be granted. We are not wise enough
to know what best to pray for. But prayer, incredibly, does change
things. So keep praying for the shimmering dream which makes
your heart burn and quiver; pray past apparent impossibility until
the heavens open, the Spirit descends, and you live
and create with God’s spirit energising and filling you.
https://anitamathias.com/2023/07/08/grab-christs-h https://anitamathias.com/2023/07/08/grab-christs-hand-when-you-are-sinking/
LINK in profile
Hi friends, I’ve recorded a podcast meditation. Pls listen should you have time.
Sometimes, the little boat of your life is tossed in the darkness, in a storm-swept lake, far from shore,
And a dark figure looms, walking on water, and you cannot see his face, and you do not know his name, and you are terrified.
And in the encircling gloom, Christ always speaks the same magnificent words, “Take courage. It is I. Do not be afraid.”
He comes to us in the darkness, a future that looks bleak, with unsolvable relational difficulties or financial difficulties, or when intellect, energy, and organisation feel puny, matched with our dreams and calling. But it is Christ. Do not be afraid.
And Peter, the risk-taker, from an overabundance of love and impulsivity, says, “Lord, if it’s you, tell me to come to you on the water.” And Jesus speaks another of his great words, “Come.”
Jesus, the merciful, did not ask Peter to do something that transcended the humanly possible and Peter’s faith, but
since Peter wanted to get to Jesus as quickly as possible, and to do whatever Jesus did, he gives him permission to walk on water.
We sometimes yearn to do things for which we know we don’t have the money, time, abundant gifting, or even the character. Never begin them before you’ve prayed, “Lord, tell me to do it.” And if he says, “Come,” start tackling the impossibility, immediately.
And Peter walks on water, until he sees the almost visible wind, is afraid, and begins to sink. Fear paralyses, sinks, and destroys.
And Peter prays a powerful prayer, “Lord, save me.” And immediately, Jesus reaches out his hand and catches him, scolding, “Oligopistos. You of little faith. Why did you doubt?”
And the wind dies down, and Peter learns to keep his eyes on Jesus and his power when he attempts the impossible, and to cry out for Jesus’s help when he begins to sink.
Help us, Jesus, you who control the wind and waves, and all things, when we are sinking in the darkness, and all seems impossible. Tell the wind to be quiet.
Take my hand, precious Lord. Lead me on. Let me stand. Amen.
https://anitamathias.com/2023/07/01/how-to-find-li https://anitamathias.com/2023/07/01/how-to-find-life-changing-hidden-treasure/
Podcast link in profile
Hi Friends, I've recorded a new podcast meditation on Jesus's statement that following him is like discovering priceless treasure hidden in a field. The finder would joyfully sell everything to buy it, as should we!
Jesus speaks of living in the Kingdom of God, living with him as our High King and Lord, as a treasure, worth selling everything we have to gain.
He describes it as experiencing peace, joy, and operating in the power of the Holy Spirit.
As literally selling everything we have would take time, so too will adjusting our lives to living in Christ's invisible Kingdom.
It requires a slow, steady but definite adjustment of each area of our lives: relationships, what we read and watch, consumption and production of social media, travel, leisure, our spending and giving, time spent on food prep and exercise, on prayer and scripture, on reading and the news, on home and garden maintenance, on church activities and volunteering. Some of us will spend less time on these, others will spend more, for we each have a unique shape and calling.
Entering into the kingdom of God is a very individual pilgrim's progress; we each have a different starting point. Rick Warren of The Purpose Driven Life suggests that those seeking to change anything change their bodies first, by getting their exercise and diet under control... which is where I am starting!!
While following Christ is costly, for sure, it's costlier to follow what Tim Keller called Counterfeit Gods --“money, the seduction of success, the power and the glory,” climbing a cruel ladder which has no end, and never satisfies for long. 
In a remarkable account, Bill Bright, founder of Cru, describes his surrender to God as abandoning his puny little plans for God's magnificent plans. Once done, he said the future seemed brighter than ever before... And it undoubtedly was! Jesus's promise that the things the unbelieving world chases will added to those who seek his Kingdom first came true in Bright’s life, as it will in ours as we pursue Christ.
I’ve seen these Pre-Raphaelite paintings in Tate I’ve seen these Pre-Raphaelite paintings in Tate Britain several times, and they delight me each time. What a gorgeous museum!
And here is this week’s podcast meditation-- https://anitamathias.com/2023/06/18/the-spirit-helps-us-speak-creative-words-of-energy-and-life/ (link in Instagram bio)
On how we need the Spirit’s help to speak creative words of energy and life, not darkness and devastation.
Load More… Follow on Instagram

© 2023 Dreaming Beneath the Spires · All Rights Reserved. · Cookie Policy · Privacy Policy

»
«