Why? An investigation

It is the shortest question in the English language. This single three-letter word, why?, is fundamental to the way we learn and experience life, regardless of age or circumstance. We develop our understanding of how things and people work and relate to one another, through use of this infinitely profound question. Even conclusions which may seem neat, tidy, and complete (E=MC² for example) lead to still further questions. The accrual of knowledge mediated by experience, unfolding over time, is a human constant. To ask “why?” at least for humans, is to live, empowered by insight, accompanied by humility, with expectation.

In response to the question “why?’ there is really only one suitable response: “Why not?”—at least this is how my spouse Kathie answered my question a few days ago. Despite the lack of context, the poles of our debate are now set —a contemporary Scylla and Charybdis. What first emerged as a simple query now becomes an ethical dilemma. To what was once “why?” answered with “why not?” we can now add “what?” or “what next?” or even “how?”

Let’s stay however with “why?’ or in German warum?  As with the single word “love” in English, where a return to the original Greek offers up six separate words (Agápe, Éros, Philia, Storge, Philautia, Xenia), in German, the word for “why” is capable of different meanings. Warum asks for the reason, wieso for the cause, and weshalb for the purpose. Context will determine the correct usage.

Linguistic use aside, the German composer Robert Schuman included the piano piece Warum in his Fantasiestueck op. 12 n. 3. I used to open piano recitals with this gem many years ago. It was a perfect open-ended invitation into a musical journey. Why? Why music? Why life?” Join me, I told my audience. And they did.

Lest you think I am alone in pursuing this particular matter, I was delighted to discover two characters in a recent novel, The Librarianist by Patrick DeWitt. Bob is a volunteer visitor at a seniors home, and Linus is a resident with both attitude and a story to tell. Bob describes Linus in these words: “He was not an innocent, but to speak of fornication as winnable sport was to demean and be demeaned at once, and thee was always the question for him of, Why do this? When you could, as an alternative, not?” You nailed it Bob. Well done.

It must be admitted that once detail is added to “why” and “why not,” things get murky and complicated. If the “devil is in the details” so also lies the solution, or at least the design of a hopeful way forward. Following a recent service at my church, where we prayed for peace together—for peace everywhere, but especially in the Middle East—following the service, attendees continued to struggle with understanding the intensity of the violence and various responses to terrorism. We were all emotionally paralyzed; as Janice Stein (founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto, and a Middle-East political scientist and international relations expert) recently said in the days following the Hamas attack, “there is no good way forward here.”

So we all wait, and watch, and pray. How will balances of political and military power play out? How will the superpowers engage—the US, Russia, Iran? Is there wisdom available that has not been called upon before? Will God, the author of the peace the world cannot find, somehow lead or guide all players in the present conflict immediately and effectively. For us gathered in Summerland, we were left with the knowledge that to engage in such peace striving, is to invite fatigue, lament, even despair.

Obviously in such matters, it is not enough simply to ask “why?” except to note that many people never even ask that question. My personal, non-scientific study indicates that increasing numbers of people  gravitate towards communities, congregations, or social groups which provide not analysis, but propose anger as a response to violence against humans and creation. Such a practice is futile, and in such settings history repeats itself. Another Dresden or Coventry is bombed; Hiroshima and Nagasaki could easily repeat in Kyiv. We’ve been to these places before. Pray we never return, though the events in recent weeks in Gaza suggest otherwise.

Back to “why?” I sometimes hear of Christian congregations which  identify as “the place where answers are questioned.” I find such curiosity a way towards truth-telling and the discovery of Grace. My original intent in creating this blog was, admittedly, facetious. Upon further reflection, however, posing the question “why” is indeed the place from which all serious investigations and conversations should start. To avoid the question in matters of home, state, faith, and sustainability is to surrender to the forceful presence and influence of the status quo, itself a product of at times mischievous and self-serving interests.

And so it goes . . . So why? Because we must.