Saying thanks for profound, multiracial, multiethnic, medical care!

 I have no idea what the news headlines on May 2 were; and 11 days later, on the 13^th, I have to acknowledge that I have turned eyes, ears, conversation and all specific thoughts about the state of the world, excepting for Canada, off.

As a news junkie for eight decades, it must be analogous to the ‘withdrawal’ period expressed by those whose previous lives depended on some addictive substance. There is a sense that whatever the political winds, droughts, fires, lies, bombs, braggadocio, and even really hopeful publicly uttered words by prominent and familiar voices, I have remained distant, detached, removed and even willfully self-preservative.

Does that sound self-indulgent? Of course. Do I need to apologize? Even if I did, I refuse. Does that sound insouciant, arrogant, presumptuous and almost disembodied? Most likely. Who cares? Likely no one. So, why does it matter?

The ‘normalcy’ of busy lives, productive lives, concentrated and focused and ambitious lives, while evident in every organization, corporation, and street corner, eclipses the ‘other normalcy’ of lives that seem to be sauntering, stumbling, cowering under bridges, slouched against convenience store walls, and plodding along city streets with the last belongings, rags mostly, of the evidence of their existence, lies burrowed under some canoply in the hold of a supermarket shopping buggy. Do these two ‘normals’ collide? Perhaps, from the perspective of the ‘busy’ and ‘productive’ lives, as they pass by a storm-sewer grate when and where they witness the ‘other normalcy’ just waking from a cold and wet sleep under a rug of some sort.

Sometimes, the two lives intersect at a traffic light when one, carrying a busted cardboard with scrawled letters ‘need food..please help’….or some such prayer. The other might even roll down a driver’s side window, and profer a little change. Sometimes the two ‘normalcies’ meet on a town or city bus, where eyes rarely meet, voices rarely interact, and ‘attention’ that could be paid isn’t.

It is not as if these two ‘normalcies’ exist in exclusion in today’s urban environment. Indeed, there are likely several layers of different stages of ‘normalcy’ some stretching toward the productive and busily organized, others verging on the slide into what metaphorically we might call darkness.

It is the depth and characterization of ‘public consciousness’ about the relationships between the various ‘normalcies’ that interests me here.

All participants in all normalcies are unique individuals; and, there are even times when their respective uniqueness actually matters. When a doctor sticks an ultrasound wand onto the chest of a patient, looking for a dysfunctional heart or lungs, that moment matters, albeit differently, but significantly to both doctor and patient. And the economic, social, political, academic and even religious ‘aspects’ of that individual, are, to the extent possible, irrelevant. If that patient and that doctor were to encounter each other in a mall, for example, even after such a ‘probe’ it is highly unlikely that there were be even a glancing recognition. And, yet at that moment of the ‘probe’ two people, strangers from whatever different backgrounds, are intimately engaged in administering or receiving a specific ‘intervention.’

And for that moment, only the ‘resuts on the screen,’ are the immediate focus of the one, the doctor. The patient might be imagining him or herself miles away, on a sunny beach, while the procedure is conducted.

Social distance, a word I have never heard prior to my forty-fifth year, nevertheless, is more than a matter of etiquette. Of course, we all know that six feet of separation, between individuals engaged in conversation, whether professional or social, is reasonable and expected. And for specific procedural protocols, the distance depends on the purpose of the encounter.

What interests me here is the ‘mental ‘social’ distance’ that we all observe, outside of professional and personal contacts and contexts.

What kinds of things are going on in our heads, about ‘distance’ (physical, emotional, intellectual, professional, personal and the ‘gut-sense’ of comfort)  the moment another comes into our ‘space,’ and we into theirs? Of course, their physical appearance, the angle of their lips, the smile of their eyes, the steadfastness of their glance are all significant, And it is not that their glance penetrates and pushes back, but the degree to which it welcomes, opens, or closes to the other. It has been said that 90% of all communication is physical, not verbal.

If that is the case, how conscious, as ordinary citizens, are we about the ‘body language’ we are emitting, especially when we are totally unconscious of what it even might be? It the body of the ‘oncoming other’ slouched, erect, relaxed, floppy, and does it move in a relaxed, rhythmical gait, or does it take many, small, careful mini-steps of considerable speed and the appearance of certainty. Are these others asking themselves similar questions as they pass us, and do we even think about such questions, especially while in the midst of a somewhat unfamiliar situation?

Do we dare make specific ‘eye contact’? Or, what do the experts on public etiquette advise on whether or not to make eye contact in a public space?

From americanexpress.com, under eye contact with a business associate, international etiquette expert, Jacqueline Whitmore, counsels, ‘When you’re in a business situation, the area that you look at is the triangle that connects the forehead and the eyes….that’s what they call the business gaze. In a social setting according to Whitmore, you are able to look at the entire face. ‘That’s the social gaze’ she says. From the same entry, ‘The reason why we give good eye contact is because it lets the other person know that we’re interested,’ Whitmore says. Try to communicate that interest right away-even before you start speaking….According Sharon Sayler, in her book, What Your Body Says/And How to Master the Message, the appropriate amount of eye contact should be a series of long glances instead of intense stares. To hold appropriate eye contact without staring, the 50/70 rule states that you should maintain eye contact 50% of the time while you are speaking and 70% of the time while you are listening.

The above piece was published in 2013, and no doubt there have been many refinements in this sphere of social interaction in the last decade-plus. What might astound some readers, is that such an even minimal tutorial was neither contemplated, designed nor delivered in my youth. Nor was it a part of the formal education of our generation’s children. However, it is a definite and highly relevant component for contemporary business and professional development.

Talking invariably accompanies ‘eye contact’ and voice tonality, timbre, velocity, and even accent are all significant aspects of one’s ‘voice presentation’ in professional contexts. Imaging millions of teachers trained and deployed in the 60’s, 70’s and possibly even into the 80’s none of whom had the ‘benefits’ of either body language or voice presentation prior to, or even after years, their first day in their classroom. None of these niceties, however, are likely to register or even to be a matter of any concern among those other ‘normalcies’ where people are barely struggling to make it from one day to the next.

In several previous lives, I used to think that the band of vocabulary, geographic visits, musical, film and entertainment exposure, team associations and, of course, libraries one was exposed to and familiar with were all essential for ‘growing up’ even growing up ‘absurd’ as Paul Goodman once wrote.

There is a lot more to a social divide that those resulting from family income differentials. And, although this is going to sound downright ‘elitist,’ we have paid far too little attention to the various elements of experience, exposure, familiarity and comfort levels with different cultures, heritages, peoples, community traditions and ceremonies to which we are each embedded, and from those we are separated from, as well as how we might begin, authentically and respectfully, to bridge such divides.

As the world population, like an ever-moving flock of Canada Geese, on their way north in Spring or south in Fall, continues to roam, some of it based on personal and family aspirations, and yet much of it resulting from forced conditions over which millions of migrants and refugees have no control, the complex issue not only of integration, assimilation and welcoming new people into our personal, organizational, urban, rural and national lives is one for which many of us have been either ill-prepared, or not prepared at all.

Courtesy, kindness, respect, dignity, of course!

But how are such ‘expressions’ conveyed? How are such expectations to be met both by the ‘newcomer’ and by the original population? Are we having a national dialogue about these matters? And if so are such conversations taking place primarily at the level of policy and program, and may or may not integrate themselves into the fabric of our towns and cities?

Most situations boil down, or are reduced to, a bottom line or minimal set of expectations, articulated primarily by those ‘in charge’ and for those people, whether or not they are conscious of this tendency or not, they will place an emphasis and preference on ‘keeping what we already have’ and YOU, the newcomer, are expected to fit in. Some would call this normal, pragmatic, and smooth integration, especially if it is designed to promote and sustain efficiency for the organization. Does the newcomer have an opportunity to participate in its design? Does the newcomer even consider that some of the traditions which are embedded in his consciousness are even more effective integrative and applicable than those being politely, respectfully and even kindly ‘imposed’ in the new homeland? Does the welcoming nation or organization consider the potential for new ideas, not only on such basics as communication, but also on organizational structure, communication strategies and tactics that are imported daily right before our eyes, without our giving a thought to its potential, for our own enhancement?

It is no longer adequate  to say, as we once did in Canada, that we are a multicultural nation, of a kind of mosaic. That presupposes that native Canadians are the ‘grout’ that stabilizes the mosaic, and holds the different tiles in place. As the numbers of immigrants, refugees, and highly skilled and trained professionals climbs exponentially, Canada, like the United States and many other ‘northern nations’ will envelop populations that can and in many cases likely will exceed the numbers and the traditional ratios and proportions that were all based on some form of unconscious ‘superiority’ simply by legacy.

Those of us, in my case, Caucasian, middle class, albeit educated to a significant degree, especially when compared with the opportunities of our parents and grandparents, all have a social, cultural, political, and especially professional opportunity to invigorate, digest, learn and find new ways of being introduced to men and women and children whose background, education, language, social and cultural traditions and personal family expectations are very different from our own.

While some of my generation and background may harbour resentments, fears and anxieties about ‘loss of control’ and the racial and ethnic ratios shift, such a perspective is another easily adopted and yet uneasily recognized form of personal, family, community and even national sabotage. Racism, in the form of social superiority (mostly implicit and silent), is a risk to which we are all subject, like a virus whose identity and whereabouts are silent until they are not. There are not medical interventions for this kind of racial animus (call it a hidden virus to which we are all potentially carriers). There are only private personal reflections, conversations, experiences and adaptations to which we can all become open to entering.

Failing to do so is a peril to which none of us can afford to fail. The riches, bounty and desire to be productive, self-fulfilling and highly integrated men, women and children, like their broad and authentic smiles, enter the nation every day at every airport and sea and rail terminal.

We are blessed and grateful and somewhat chagrined at our collective resistance, in a world  in which we each of us deeply, authentically and uniquely are desperate to contribute to the welfare and well-being of us all.

Searching for God # 112

 The Anglican Communion Office works to promote Christian unity, fostering visible communion both within the Anglican family and with other world communions.

This work deals with questions of Christian belief (faith) and church structure (order) that have historically divided denominations. The ACO facilitates theological dialogues among Anglican churches, and ecumenically, with Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and other Christian traditions.
It provides the theological foundation that makes deeper unity possible—helping churches move from mere cooperation to actual reconciliation and potentially full communion. (from anglicancommunion.org. website)

Volumes have been written, councils held, creeds written, memorized and memorialized, seminaries have been generated and both inter-church and ecumenical dialogue continues. Even last month, the newly installed Archbishop of Canterbury met with Pope Leo XVI in Rome where both agreed to continue to work together to foster the path toward unity of the Christian church.

On an important level of both cognition and theology, not to mention the politics of operating in a universe where conflict seems to dominate, ‘unity’ connotes harmony, credibility, trustworthiness, consensus. From multiple gods, as comprised the galaxy of sacred entities in Greek and Roman culture, there was a thrust of energized opinion that fought for and, to a degree won various commitments to a single God, with Three various ‘metaphorically-contained entities. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The tension between the concepts of immanence and transcendence, human/God (Jesus as man, Father as God with Holy Spirit as ‘neither-and-both’)  is a tension from which many theologians, evoking a physics concept, would like to have generated energy, new ideas, new life and a both-and rather than an ‘either-or’ kind of theology. For them, (an example might be William Blake who equated God and imagination as one) such a theology will, they believed and proposed, would continue to generate new interpretations of what is essentially beyond ‘cognition, reason, imagination, time, space and human ‘grasp’.

The declaration of Peter as the ‘rock’ upon which Jesus would build His church, the date of Easter, the deployment of icons, Bishops, archbishops, the ordination of women, the generation of clergy at all, especially the question of how to read and interpret scripture, (The Bible, in this case, yet the Torah and the Koran as well), the nature of sin and forgiveness, the process of application of those theological notions and concepts, the relationship between church and state (Henry VIII’s vengeful generation of the Church of England, separated from Rome over an un-granted yet demanded divorce, and the subsequent British monarch’s dual role as Head of State and Heat of the Church of England, are just part of this divide), the welcome or exclusion of the LGBTQ+ community first as parishioners, then as approved clients for church marriage and/or union, and later, ordination as clergy…the Biblical (Old Testament) injunctions that women remain silent and subsidiary to their male partners…..even the Eucharist, its design, its delivery, the question  of whether and  how sinning clergy could continue to administer it….these are only a brief list of some of the theological, traditional, exegetical and cultural divides that render ‘the church’ (even considering only the Christian umbrella) deeply, seemingly permanently and increasingly divided.

There is currently a growing branch of Anglicanism, The Global Anglican Future Conference, (Gafcon) who have restructured their organization, signalling a break from the traditions of the historic Anglican communion, and replaced their Gafcon Primate Council with the Global Anglican Council. They oppose liberal trends like same-sex marriage and the ordination of openly LGBTQ+ clergy.

At the core of many of the ‘divides’ lies a perception, conception and belief in what might be termed ‘fixed’ interpretations of specific phrases in scripture, and an evolving, ‘intent’ of the scribes given the time and place of their entries and the various contexts in which translations, revisions and evolutions in both words and meaning have become part of the lectionary. Conservatism, the preservation of the past, as it has been ‘handed down’ by church fathers (not the gender of that last word), continues to erupt as the social, political, moral and ethical landscape continues to evolve (they would likely prefer ‘unwind’)

Homosexuality remains taboo in many African countries, in some cases criminalized under colonial-era laws or newer legislation. Uganda enacted legislation in 2023 prescribing the death penalty for some homosexual offense.

The Anglican Communion is moving toward a decentralization plan of its own, making it ‘less Canterbury centric,’ according to a summary of the proposals, recognizing that a majority of Anglicans now live in the Global South, far from England. (apnews.com, in a piece by Peer Smith, March 2, 2026, entitled, ‘Conservative Anglican leaders meet in Nigeria, facing debate on a possible breakaway’)

Church organization, political structure and decision-making centralizing will, however, do nothing to change the LGBTQ+ community to becoming ‘straight’ as the conservative group would have it, whether they acknowledge their adamantine stance or not. This is not about ‘political structure’ (although many in Gafcon do not accept the primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in part because she is a woman).

There is a global divide, albeit epitomized by and within the Anglican Communion itself, that, to this observer, seems eminently intractable. Old Testament words are unlikely to be revised. Deeply entrenched gender attitudes, beliefs and laws are unlikely to be remanded, revised or non-prosecuted.

In his profoundly provocative book, Honest to Jesus, founder of the Jesus Seminar, Robert Funk writes sensitively, cogently and prophetically of an opportunity to revisit and to set Jesus free:

The quester should think of how it must have been in those first, tentative decades, in the thirties and forties of the common era, when the Jesus movement was young, amorphous, a fledging struggling to find its wings. That is the correct perspective from which to view the present challenge. At such moments in history, then and now, (book published in 1996), anything less than complete openness to the claims being laid on the future by the past will not serve the cause of truth. There is nothing in the creed, in the gospels, in Christian tradition, and in the historical and scientific methodologies with which we study them that is immune to critical assessment and reformulation. We cannot put a protective shield around any part of the Christian heritage if we aspire to set Jesus free. Everything is on the table….

In the ‘new age,’ all theology is post-Auschwitz, as a German theologian recently remarked. Theology conducted in the aftermath of Auschwitz means, among other things, that we can no longer trust the authority structure of an ecclesiastical tradition that learned, at several crucial junctures in its history, it was unable to resist the ultimate compromise. We should already have learned that from the lessons of the Spanish Inquisition. Or we might have the Nazi horror to look back on as well. In view of the compromises ‘Christian’ leaders made in those and similar contexts, it is a wonder that anyone would want to claim the authority of this or that church council for the ultimate truth. From now on we musts always ask whether the Christian tradition has something to teach us and, if it does, what that something is. We can no longer give Christianity prior consent without determining what we are embracing as a part of the bargain. (Funk op. cit. p. 298-299)

Funk continues in a “Quest Designed for a New Age’’ using these words in part:

Jesus is also a secular sage. His parables and aphorisms all but obliterate the boundaries separating the sacred from the secular. He can teach us something that has nothing directly to do with what we know as Christianity, or indeed, with organized religion as such…..When the name of Jesus is mentioned, ‘religion’ is assumed to be the subject. But in fact, the Jesus of whom we catch glimpses in the gospels may be said to have been irreligious, irreverent. and impious. The first word he said, as Paul Tillich once remarked, was a word against religion in its habituated form: because he was indifferent to the formal practice of religion, he is said to have profaned the temple, the sabbath, and breached the purity regulations of his own legacy; most important of all, he spoke of the kingdom of God in profane terms—that is, nonreligiously. For these reasons alone, his significance deserves to be detached from any exclusive religious context and considered in a broader, cultural frame of reference. (Funk ibid, p. 302)

Positing the notion that Jesus is not the proper object of the Christian faith, but God the Father is, Funk writes:

Jesus called on his followers to trust the Father, to believe in God’s domain or reign. The proper object of faith inspired by Jesus is to trust what Jesus trusted….Jesus pointed to something he called God’s domain, something he did not create, something he did not control….Jesus himself should not be, must not be, the object of faith. That would be to repeat the idolatry of the first believers…

Jesus quite deliberately articulated an open-ended, nonexplicit vision in his parables and aphorisms. He did not prescribe behavior or endorse specific religious practices. He was never programmatic in his pronouncements. His followers had and have the obligation to transmit his tradition in the same key. It is perfectly acceptable to specify what his pronouncements may mean for our time and place, but it is not commensurate with his vision to chisel them in stone. Our interpretation of parables should be more parables—polyvalent, enigmatic, humorous and nonprescriptive…..Just as Jesus challenged the immense solidity of his everyday world, we, too, must discover for ourselves in what respects our  habituated sense of reality is illusory. (Funk, ibid, p.304-305)

To be continued…….

Searching for God # 111

 “You are far and away too intense for me!”

That quote comes from a female supervisor to this then assigned intern to a rural Ontario parish, a few months after arriving, immediately following the departure of a previous clergy. The diocesan leadership told me nothing of the circumstances, the profile of the parish, nor the background for the clergy’s leaving. A recent graduate from Trinity College, University of Toronto, I had served an internship in a small metro parish that had, prior to my arrival, undergone considerable trauma.

I reference the quote for multiple reasons about the kind of perceptions, attitudes and judgements that fly around in parishes with both impunity and immunity. It is the ‘ethos’ within a parish that has received very little attention, both in seminary formation as well as in professional development programs for clergy. And, from only a dozen years of engagement inside the Canadian and American churches, I have noted a series of similar, if not identical, patterns of lay leadership, as well as clergy-parish relations.

Previous evaluations had included words like ‘impatient’ and ‘verbose’ and ‘energetic’…..intensity had not emerged until the above quote.

In the homily delivered by my former Faculty Advisor, Rev. Dr. Romney Moseley, a line uttered in 1992 continues to echo in my memory these 34 years later: “They will turn on you and utterly destroy you!” was his depiction of the potential of a parish congregation’s power and influence over a clergy with whom they come into conflict. Having been ‘through’ such encounters, and having intermittently yet frequently pondered, mused and reflected on the circumstances of many of such broken relationships, not only of my own but also of others, I am tentatively dancing with the option of letting some of those reflections free from my finger tips.

It is not that either my experience or my reflections have anything new to tell about parish ministry. Nor that anyone either in seminary curriculum planning or ecclesial hierarchy might read or reflect on anything they might read in this space. And, perhaps there is an element of ‘letting go’ of some of the frustrations and fulminations that have charged various moments in those dozen years.

The way that sanctity, sacredness and church piety seems to have found their way into the latter part of the twentieth century in North America, at least, seems to have been carried in on the tongues, throats and larynxes of whisperers. Small, slow steps, in liturgy, heavy and ornate robes, and what one assumes others consider to be ‘reverence’ is evidence in the degree of scrupulosity and careful monitoring of any person, usually a woman, who consents to serve on the Altar Guild where one of the roles is the folding of linen for use in the Eucharist. Newcomers frequently run afoul of ‘tradition’ if they omit a step, fold in a different order from the ‘established’ and learn quickly that this activity warrants special discipline.

Pursuit of perfection, is evident also in the often-rehearsed scriptural readings by lay men and women, as another of the symbols of a conventionally supported ‘sanctuarial ethos’ that is, one guesses, intended to ‘please God’. I was once openly and publicly criticized by a warden for placing a water bottle, not on the altar, but on the table behind the altar. I was apparently deviating from what was considered ‘proper protocol’ in liturgical manuals I had never read or even heard about. Indeed, I believe the criticism was less about proper protocol than about that warden’s total need for absolute control of the situation. And whether that warden had already felt the heat of the anger of criticism from others about other matters or not, I am not aware.

Early on, in those dozen years, while on the phone with a diocesan officer, I casually, yet pointedly commented, “Rod, I am becoming convinced that the church is operating on a mandated ‘politically correct’ modus operandi! And that that also sums up both politics and its theology! His response, “I completely agree with that!”

Public performances, whether by clergy, laity, choir, organist or care-taker, however, that put ‘show’ before substance seem to contradict the essence of the Christian faith. In street talk, what kind of God is or ever would be, impressed, or need to be impressed by ‘His’ people demonstrating  inauthenticity, ‘showing-off’ if you like, as an integral part of their relationship with God. Of course, one thinks of ‘hosting’ and ‘putting on a best face’ of the family when entertaining guests or family. Perhaps my ‘take’ is about the degree to which many go ,,,,while at the same time, the other side of this ‘extreme’ behaviour is silent, surreptitious whispering, and often malicious, gossip.

Churches, by their very nature, attempt to be welcoming, for a variety of reasons. Of course, they welcome others who might be genuinely interested in learning more about what goes on there, learning more about God and perhaps even seeking to connect with a community of people they might trust in a new city or town. All very relevant, significant and realistic possibilities. Lay training for those interested in ‘welcoming’ people upon their entry into narthex or porch of the building is often offered as a way to enhance the experience of someone’s first visit. Occasionally, too, others will extend a hand of welcome to a new face. All well and good.

How can or does one even hope to ‘curtail, limit, discourage, or even dissuade’ the gossip that slithers from pew to pew, before, during and after formal worship services. If one calls it out, even privately, doubtless there will be a strong push-back.

Image this scenario: ‘Do you know what he said to me? as I shook his hand after the service this morning. He gently reminded me of my ‘tendency to gossip’ and I told him I was genuinely interested in some of the things others are going through; I thought that was part of being a member here.”

Or this scenario: “I left that church because I heard in that sermon words from a conversation that others in the parish had had earlier in the week, ….no name mentioned. I am not going to support even anonymous use of real conversations as part of a clergy’s sermon in any church I attend.”

The smaller the parish, the larger the degree of control and influence that a small group of people, families that have been attending and supporting during the most difficult times in the parish history, inject into the running of the church. New people to the community are deeply resented, if they usurp an ‘original’ family member’s conviction to serve in leadership. The ‘old’ (as an legacy membership) consider it their right to continue to decide who serves, and they almost act as if they have the first right of refusal when recommendations of appointments are made.

It is not that any of this ‘human behaviour’ is so exceptional; it is just that, if one (as clergy) attempts to confront it, as part of a ministry, one runs a serious risk of alienating, offending, and ultimately putting one’s job in jeopardy.

After conducting a service for a visiting ‘search committee for a new clergy’ and after being formally and informally interviewed by the committee for three or four hours on the Saturday evening prior to the service, and after the committee had reported favourably back to the rest of the church council on their recommendation of appointment, one prominent member of the wider council sought a private interview with the candidate at which he declared,

“I am a friend of the bishop and I am proud that I was highly instrumental in sending the last priest on his way out of our church because he was not spiritual enough, and you are not spiritual enough as well!” I felt the hairs on my neck bristle.

Instantly, I felt both competitive and aggressive….probably too intense for my own good. The words I recall uttering, almost as if I had neither heard nor taken seriously his ‘bishop-connection,’ were, as close as I can recall:

“And where would you like to be in your own spiritual life over the next three years?”….It was as if I had slapped his forehead with a fish. Instantly he changed the subject, as if he too had neither heard nor paid attention to my rejoinder.

Intensity of presentation has the obvious potential of putting people off, especially in an institution that prides itself on ‘calm, deliberate, mature, reasonable and moderate’ methodology and theology. Intensity also has the potential to cut through the hypocrisy, both of the individual variety and of the institutional variety. Indeed, as hypocrisy is a ubiquitous trait, brought into every single room where people meet, as one clergy colleague put it, “Church is the best place for hypocrits to be!” The inference is that in the church they might become conscious of their hypocrisy and begin to reflect on its toxicity.

The quasi-military, hierarchical, organizational structure lies at the foundation of at least some mainline protestant churches. One can only guess that such a hierarchy brings with it a degree of control and management ease that offers readily accessible opportunities to ‘depose’ those it considers ‘not spiritual enough’ for example, or nor compliant with the local, familial traditions and connections to a parish, or even those whose theology is considered ‘heretical’.

Hearing the phone message intone words like, “You are the anti-Christ and you must be driven out of the church immediately!” after barely a few months serving as recently ordained deacon, I wondered how to proceed. I knew that the warden and his legacy friends had scheduled the showing of a video produced by some fundamentalist group in Waco, Texas, and insisted on showing it ‘Tuesday of this week’ was the way I was accosted about it. I firmly rejected that proposition, at least until I had had an opportunity to view the video and make my own conclusions. The warden then informed me that my ‘sermons were heretical’ ( I had referred to writers like Scott Peck, Herb O’Driscoll and Romney Moseley)….and that I must leave the parish immediately. This conversation took place shortly after a Sunday service in which I had subverted the formal announcement of the video showing. I again firmly responded, “I am not going anywhere!”

In the week following that encounter, I wrote and delivered a letter to that warden’s place of business, that his services as warden were no longer needed.

Sadly, after another few months, I heard, from a fifteen-year-old while having lunch at McDonalds with him and his mother, who had slipped out to the washroom, this question, “Do you know why the last priest left?” To which I answered in the negative.

“Well, he shot a dog and turned the gun on the owner!” were the words that came from the young man. How true, even without context, those words were, has never been determined by me or communicated to me by anyone who would have known the full context.

Nevertheless, the level of sensitive attention paid to liturgical and fiscal matters, in my experience in the church far exceeds the attention paid to the ‘story’ of a parish, the details of conflicts that remain unresolved, and even unaddressed. As a parallel, two weeks of ‘holy hand-waving’ as to how to perform a eucharist were mandated as part of the formation for ministry, without a single word, lecture, workshop or seminar or certainly not a course in parish conflict resolution being uttered.

The deployment of authority, power, and hierarchical decision-making, without appeal, seems to have embedded itself into at least the Anglican/Episopalian churches, if not in others. And, any notion of the degree of difficulty that one might be having in the service of especially an already troubled parish or mission is, or at least has seemed to be, totally irrelevant to the persons whose title included responsibility for the operation of those troubled churches.

I have no idea how many clergy have faced similar gordion knots in parishes, without adequate support….doubtless there are others.

Like any human organization, churches have their dark side; a public presentation that ignores or denies the institutional Shadow seems also to avoid a critical and essential part of their own collective unconscious truth. 

Searching for God # 110

No matter its name, religion usually embraces three elements: faith in a divinity, rites and rituals honouring that faith, and an inviolable moral code.

Such things light the way for a lot of good in this dark world, most of it done quietly, away from the headlines. Marginalized people are fed and cared for, the distressed are comforted, souls searching for meaning are offered purpose and hope. And the gift of religious inspiration in the arts is available to everyone. You don’t have to believe in God to feel the yearning human spirit in Mozart’s “Ave Verum.”

And yet the soul of all this is abased and abused by con artists twisting religion to fit insufferable egos and despicable political ends. (Janice Kennedy, Toronto Star, April 29, 2026, in a piece entitled, ‘Religions all over the world are being blasphemed and perverted.’)

While it is obvious that much good-samaritan work is continuing to be carried out in the spirit of religions, Ms Kennedy rightly highlights the perversion and blasphemy that betray all religious faiths for a variety of nefarious human motives.

From a lay-Christian perspective, her ‘three elements: faith in a divinity, rites and rituals honouring that faith and an inviolable moral code’ make sense….except for that one word, inviolable.

Defined as ‘never to be broken, infringed, or dishonoured,’ the perspective and attitude, and even the conventional ubiquity of perfection that comes with ‘inviolable’ is both a rock and a whirlpool on which religion can be, and often is impaled.

Aspirational, inspirational, ideal and metaphorically stretching and even psychologically compelling, as one’s faith can be, one’s faith can also become one’s personal crutch, high-powered assault rifle, political and professional ‘alb’ of the appearance of piety, righteousness and social status and trust in a world consumed by literal, empirical perceptions, definitions and appreciations of reality.

Conventional conversations in all areas of human endeavour are dedicated to the sensate, literal, empirical ‘take’ on whatever is going on. This includes the highest and most honourable and ethical professions like law, medicine, science, the academie, and, to varying degrees many religious institutions. We are moved when we learn stories of various, deplorable and preventable human catastrophes, whether they are natural disasters, pandemics, economic drought or the multiple iterations of the abuse of power by some on others. Something ‘inside’ says ‘this is not right’ and sometimes we seek to make a difference. Philanthropics abound, thankfully, from such a deeply embedded instinct. And, whether those ‘helping’ and ‘rescuing’ initiatives have a religions base, formally, they do have one informally and almost unconsciously. There is also a highly impactful emotional, psychological, and even intellectual gratification from doing honourable, somewhat hidden and private, non-publicized ‘helping’ of others, again whether those engaged have a faith/religious connection, motivation and foundation or not.

Changing the world, making a difference, serving our fellow humans, the spirit of altruism, generosity, compassion, advocacy, healing, especially in a world that seems to be blind to that ‘spot’ on the compass of human ‘geography’ is and continues to save lives literally as well as metaphorically. Some of that work is indeed conducted under the auspices and aegis of religious faith-based institutions. And, as the ‘Canadian Blood Services’ advertising reminds us, those who give benefit as much or more from the giving as the intended recipients.

Social service clubs and agencies, learning centres, even free medical and legal clinics dedicated to a plethora of human needs, with the support of public dollars as well as private tax-deductible donations, attempt to address some of the human needs that continue to remain outside the purview of government. Many of those men and women have either a formal and continuing relationship a religious institution or have associates with that continuing relationship. God be with all of them! They are a blessing and they convey a level of care and commitment that, as John McCain used to remind us ‘commits them to a cause bigger than self.’

While some of those philanthropics can and frequently are sabotaged by the various human moral failings, generally they operate honourably, ethically, and both transparently and accountably.

The religious aspect of our lives, however, at least in theory and hopefully in praxis, is about something quite different, although not precisely disconnected from altruism, ethics, morality, compassion and care. The religious aspect, in its purist form seeks to awaken, to transform and to radically alter the conventional social, political, economic and legal aspects of our lives in and through what some call ‘transcendence’….a word that has gathered the imprimatur of psychedelic and mind-altering interventions.

In a universe defined, perceived, analyzed, dissected and philosophized over from a literal, empirical, rational perspective, for the most part, the ‘inner life’ of each human tends to attract attention in what James Hillman calls ‘in extremis’ moments. It is in such moments that we have all heard others, uttered ourselves and even imagined ourselves screaming, “Oh my God!” And yet, is that only when the matter of our relationship with God has any meaning or relevance? While crises naturally provoke and invoke a re-visiting, re-framing, re-structuring everything we have previously perceived, believed and held as important. These moments are ‘transformational’ and although we consider the ‘bottom of our world to have fallen away’ somehow, with the presence help and patience of others, including a God, never absent and never failing to uphold, we ‘begin again.’

The question of how our faith relates to our more ‘regular’ non-cataclysmic routine, however, generally, for most people, remains in the ‘literal, empirical and rational ‘frame’….we are after all highly practical, sensate and also potentially rational beings. At the centre of  that ‘ordinary’ life, for most, the ‘ego’ and its perceived needs, aspirations, dreams, and fears tends to dominate. We are, so we are consistently reminded, in a dog-eat-dog world, where competition, discipline, and also the ethic of compassion still warrant our attention.

The politics of religion, however, is a subject with which the church (all mainline Christian churches at least, and likely also the other Abrahamic faiths, Jewish and Muslim) have to reckon on a daily, hourly basis. And while everyone of us continues on a unique path toward whatever we consider, believe and imagine to be our ‘better angels’ (to borrow a Jon Meacham favourite), we might benefit from how we relate to others.

In this space, reference has been made to a piece of theological writing by James Alison, entitled, The Joy of Being Wrong, in which he articulates a highly sensitive, provocative and challenging perception and attitude to the parable of the ‘speck and the plank’ with which most are familiar.

Alison posits that if we come to each encounter with another human being bringing to the fore the truth that we all have a ‘plank’ in our eye, before we begin to criticize another for the ‘speck’ in his/her eye, we could and would begin on a note of mutual forgiveness. Such an individual, conscious, deliberate and disciplined approach, while challenging, and even at first appearing ‘idealistic,’ nevertheless has multiple benefits for all.

First, it humbles the one who is contemplating the issuance of a ‘judgement’ of another; second, it changes the ‘playing field’ to one of equality, equity and commonality; third, it releases the fears and anxieties of the ‘targeted other’ and finally, the process has the potential of ‘seeding’ what effectively amounts to a revolutionary tilt to a culture drowning in judgement, much of that judgement based on a kind of theology that, clearly, is the antithesis and the apostasy of any authentic and sustainable theology, of any and all major faith communities.

With respect to a critical judgement of a policy, or a shared, organizational, political, corporate decision or action that is unequivocably, indisputably ‘wrong,’ judged primarily by its capacity to abuse innocent, and voiceless others who are or are about to become victims of that injustice, it is the abuse that demands, in Tolstoy’s reminding, non-violent opposition with force. Personal attacks, serving merely as ad hominum attacks, have the impact of only further embedding those committing the injustice to commit even further to its execution.

All major mainline religions are being perverted, and blasphemes, especially by those whose need to manipulate for their own selfish, narcissistic and narrow purposes and ends, (and all faith communities have their share of such persons. The challenge for all the major mainline religions is to resist our desire, tendency and natural impulse for revenge, for withdrawal and for burrowing into some fortification that separates the faith communities from the rest of the world.

We, all mainline religious faith communities, have a legitimate, humane, thoughtful, spiritual and faith-inspired story to tell. And, while our story is important, it is never to be used as a weapon against another faith or another person who may have no faith at all. Competition among and between faith communities, whether openly acknowledged or more secretly and surreptitiously waged, will only redound on those initiating such a conflict. And such conflicts blatantly and naively display more of a religious neurosis on the part of the instigators.

At the centre of all talk of religion is the concept of ‘power’….personal power, institutional power, national power and international hegemony. God is not signed on to be manipulated by any who choose to hide behind Him in their own pursuit of power….….And those who practice an authentic and humble discipline in their faith life will resist the temptation to take up arms either in what they think is a legitimate defence, or a necessary counterattack, based on some perception of impending ‘loss of control.’ Religious communities, themselves, are not beyond their own blind fears, anxieties and neuroses.

Oh, and as for that phrase, inviolable moral code: as a guide, an inspiration and as aspiration, it holds water. As another weapon to use against another, (see the speck and the plank) above, it betrays a fundamental human truth, as well as a theology that, tragically and impoverishingly, relies on the manipulation of fear in order to attract adherents. Tolstoy’s ‘The Kingdom of God is Within You’ clearly articulates the difference between an absolute inviolable moral code to which none of us has or ever will completely adhere, while we continue to grow in conscious awareness of our own specks….and our own need to face them, as an integral aspect of the discipline of our faith in God. 

Re-visiting the King's visit to America

 From Steve Schmidt, ‘The optics were disgraceful, but the message was not’ Substack, April 29, 2026

The head of the Church of England shouldn’t have had tea with a man who has waged a political war against the Pope, threatened genocide, claimed to be Jesus Christ, stands accused by at least 28 women of sexual assault, and appears in the Epstein files that turned the Duke of York into Mr. Mountbatten Windsor over 38,000 times.

Not now. Not under these circumstances. Not when the means of the American presidency is being contested in ways unseen since the Civil War. Not when the United States’ alliances — the very architecture of Western stability — have been treated with disdain, contempt, and reckless indifference.

The British monarch shouldn’t have appeased the ego of a man who has threatened Canada and Denmark, while insulting the British army and navy, as well as the valor, sacrifice and legacy of British forces.

The King’s visit was an appalling decision, which rebuked his grandfather’s historic visit of 1939, during which the cornerstone of the “special relationship” was laid.

Yet, I must be acknowledge that the King’s words hit their mark in the desecrated American Congress, the worst in our 250-year history. His Britannic majesty delivered a history lesson badly needed in an era of seething ignorance and moral cowardice.

“The head of the Church of England shouldn’t have had tea with a man…..

Prior to this visit, I was in full agreement with Mr. Schmidt that King Charles must not visit the United States under the current administration and circumstances. And yet…

For decades, as an Anglican, I have wondered about the meaning of the structure of the monarchy serving as Head of State and also Head of the Church of England. There is the participation of the monarch in the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as serving as advisor to the man or now woman who serves in that capacity, and, upon the coronation of the monarch, him or herself receiving, accepting and reflecting on the blessing and benediction from the Archbishop of Canterbury, the question of the meaning, application and incarnation of the Head of the Church of England, as a religious leader has always puzzled me. It seemed that ritual, performative words and gestures, for example in and through the monarch’s formal words delivered on Christmas Day, as well serving as patron to multiple ‘worthy causes’ were the extent of the public evidence of the Head of Church title and role.

Well…for me things have changed, and it was a rather sudden sort-of “aha” moment that struck me when I read the quoted line from Mr. Schmidt’s substack.

As one of the mainline Christian churches, the theology of the Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England is not the private preserve of  the clergy or the monarchy, the laity or the ecclesial hierarchy. And one of the core tenets of the Christian theology, one that Princess Diana exemplified in her parenting of William and Hency, was the ‘walk, talk, accompany’ model of Jesus with all of the very most unacceptable of his time and place.

From the point of view of politics, history and public morality, (disregarding the 250^th year of the republic) the royal visit seems inappropriate, and effectively an act of appeasement by the monarch of the multiple and growing malfeasances of the current occupant of the Oval Office. There were cries from many quarters that the monarch desist from any planning and from the ultimate decision to make the trip.

Nevertheless, surprisingly, to some shockingly, and to others shamedly, King Charles, both monarch as Head of State, and Head of the Church of England, demonstrated both personal courage and, it has to be noted, considerable Christian faith, not only in and through his presence, and in and through his choice of words, phrases and examples, but also in his ‘ministry’ to the president. Whether or not that ‘ministry’ is even heard and reflected upon by the chief executive remains in doubt.

It is, and will continue to be for forever, a living example of Christian discipleship for this monarch to permit himself and his spouse to enter into the ‘fray’ and the ‘fracas’ that is the United States under the current administration. Not only did the monarch reinforce common shared values, laws, history, and ethics, between the UK and the US; he also leaned into such controversial issues as the need for continuing support for Ukraine against her illegal invasive enemy, Russia. Referencing both Teddy Roosevelt on the need to protect and preserve the environment and Abraham Lincoln for his memorable quote about being remembered, not so much for ‘our words’ as for ‘what we do’….the speech to Congress served so many over-lapping goals, including both the diplomatic ones of reminding everyone of the multiple links, bridges, laws (even and especially the Magna Carta, 1215) between the UK and the US, that it will be impossible for American politicians, including the president, to either ignore or to escape the from the beam of truth and light that King Charles shone on the wider, global situation.

For those of us sceptics, who might have pooh-poohed the ‘head of church’ role as merely symbolic, and who had also considered much of the Christmas messages of years gone by to be somewhat boilerplate, in royal-speak, diplomacy, history, and social empathy, the King seemed to don the mantle of both the prophet and the pastor.

As prophet, he reminded the Congress (and can we hope that the president was watching and listening), that co-operating, collaboration, planetary protection and sharing cyber/digital projects are not undertaken merely as ‘sentiment’…but are all inherent aspects of national security as well as global security. As prophet, he also took the diplomatic wraps off what might have been a ‘forbidden file,’ the war with Iran. Inter-dependence, shared academic opportunities, (some 2300 American students enabled to study in the UK under the Marshall philanthropic program) illustrated his real-life-real-time grasp of the proof of the themes he articulated.

As pastor, and this is the part that caught my attention, given the apparent irony of a monarch adopting the mantle of parish priest, whose daily, hourly, minute-by-minute encounters walk beside those in the deepest pain, the most intractable distress, and the least-hopeful, least inspiring and seemingly dead-end-desperate situations. For many of us, the world seems to be slipping into similar, if not identically described, hopelessness.

Likely for many in the Senate, his words may have rolled off  ear-drums and minds as glossy and hollow and performative. And for those who choose that perception/reception/interpretation, that is all they are or will be. Nevertheless, for those whose faith reaches into those dark, dank, damp and unforgiving caves of hopelessness, we can see and hear and be grateful for the  glimpse of the light of faith in a God whose light will not be blocked no matter how hard we try to turn a blind eye and a dear ear to its hope.

This is not merely optimism, (although I could have and would have heard those words from my own poverty of perception previously). This monarch, we all know ever so well, is far from a perfect human being. Indeed, his biography has caused considerable angst among his own family. Nevertheless, his faith in God and his discipline from his service in the Royal Navy, his loyalty to his family’s traditions and expectations and his life-long authentic vision for a healthy, safe and secure planet for people everywhere were all palpably evident for the world to see, to hear and to digest.

And one of the most significant, of all of the intended audiences of his words, is the president of the United States.

There is a nugget of theology, Christian, from the founder of the Jesus Seminar, Robert Funk, from his book, Honest to Jesus, which seems to have relevance here.

Having intently studies the gospels from the perspectives of many academic disciplines, by men and women of strong faith themselves, as part of his summary of their work Funk writes:

Jesus makes it clear that all rewards and punishments are intrinsic. According to Jesus, reward for loving one’s neighbour is an unqualified relation to that neighbour. However, the church developed a doctrine of extrinsic rewards and sanctions to undergird its power and authority. (Funk, Honest to Jesus, p. 312)

The state and the culture have also adopted a system of extrinsic rewards and sanctions. It is clear, on the other hand, that King Charles, in expressing love for his neighbour, both the president and the United States of America, experienced the unqualified relation to that neighbour, as its own reward for his love. And even the foundational ethic challenges the ‘extrinsic-classical conditioning of the culture, just another way the monarch may well have been attempting to open some hearts, minds and eyes.

Not only has the monarch’s visit challenged some deeply held, if ‘old wine’ perceptions of statecraft, monarchy and politics. He has conveyed a theology that  challenges some of our most deeply embedded stereotypes.

Searching for God # 109

 Luke 6:39-42:

He also told them that parable: Can the blind lead the blind? Will they both not fall into the pit? The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher. ‘Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Central to each of our lives is the unscratable itch to correct and to accuse and to find fault and to demean another. Gallons of ink have been spilled attempting to find the ‘original culprit’ to blame in the Garden of Eden story of The Fall. And the template of that story, whose theme is a fall of some kind from grace, paradise and a utopic garden, is central to the West’s both psychology and theology, irrespective of sectarian or denominational identity. Disobedience and judgement lie at the heart of the myth. And, human fault, responsibility and sin lie at the heart of that dynamic….as millions have been taught and inculcated into believing in Sunday School, as children.

James Alison, in his provocative work, The Joy of Being Wrong, writes:

There is no shortage of ways of talking about Adam and Eve or the serpent that are ways of finding whom to blame for how things are.  To follow the pattern of search for an origin would be to try to understand sin within the framework of blaming someone for the present state of affairs and would be in contradiction with the approach I have been trying to set out, which is that original sin is to be understood only from the coming into being of forgiveness, as that which is being forgiven.

So, instead of this approach to causality, can mimetic theory throw light on the business of searching for an origin? I rather  think it can…….

Luke 6:39-42 teaches about the blind leading the blind, the disciple not being more than the master, and the impossibility of removing the mote in the brother’s eye while having a beam in one’s own. It entirely proposes a mimetic understanding of psychology. That is to say, all our knowledge of each other is projective and relational: our knowledge of someone else is inseparable from our relationality to that other person, and what we know of them depends on a real similarity between the other person and ourselves such that we can properly project from our own experience and begin to understand the other. There is no question here of any possible neutral, objective vantage point onto the other. Relational, projective knowledge of the other is taken for granted by Jesus. The question which Jesus raises is as to the mode of projection. With the teaching concerning the more and the beam, Jesus indicates that there are two ways of approaching a problem in someone else: the first is from the position of someone who is not aware of or maybe in denial of his own similarity to the other, in which case the result is an accusatory highlighting of the other’s problem. It is obvious where this approach leads: the one challenged reacts by not accepting the accusation, will not be led by the one proffering such ‘objective’ criticism, and will proffer criticism in return, and the two will enter into a process of mutual antagonism, which is the same as the two blind men falling into a pit: they have become a skandalon to the other.

The second mode of projection, which is the one which Jesus is recommending in insisting that the one proffering criticism first remove the beam from nis own eye, starts from the acceptance of similarity. It is when one recognizes that he is the same sort of beast as the person he wishes to correct and that he is driven by the same forces to do things which are at least analogous, when they are not identical, that he will be able to approach the other from a position of constructive complicity. That is to say the whole direction of his approach to the other springs from the creation of a relation between the two that is a spreading of forgiveness. The modes of projection are always relational; the question is whether they are accusatory or forgiving; there is no other approach, or ‘third way,’ to the problem of another human being. (Alison, op. cit. p. 241-242)

A little later, Alison elaborates:

The question is not so much how ‘Adam’s’ sin affects us, as how Christ’s forgiveness (which we are charged to make real) affects Adam. To put this another way: there is no properly theological approach to ‘our first parents’ that is not a discourse of love concerning the first people to need the sort of constructive forgiveness that we first discovered ourselves to need. There is no independent anthropological starting point in the approach to original sin. (Ibid, p. 243)

How revolutionary is this shift from ‘ accusatory causality’ to mimetic, relational complicity? Are two thousand years of history, pedagogy and theological theory and praxis able to accommodate such a dramatic and arresting interpretation? Are we, each of us, even willing to contemplate, open up to considering such a proposition? And what would it mean if we were?

To surrender the self-righteous, superior, frankly hubristic stance of ‘being right’ in the face of the other’s ‘wrong’ would seem, at first glance to be a surrender of one’s convictions, one’s character and one’s strength…It takes considerable ‘spine’ and courage to tell another about the speck in his eye, and clearly focuses attention away from the plank in my own. There may even be a substantial amount of ‘objective’ evidence that the ‘critique’ holds water, and the recipient may even come to be grateful, while humbled, in the process of being ‘corrected, accused, embarrassed and exposed.’

One of the hidden ironies about Alison’s approach and theory is that those very things that, like a magnet, attract the critical eye of the accuser, are those same things that are unacknowledged in and by the accuser. Whatever I find so intolerable, objectionable and irritating in the other, ironically and paradoxically, are the very same things that I do not accept or tolerate in myself. Identifying a similar complicity, prior to opening my mouth in judgement, however, is a piece of ‘self-talk’ and ‘self-critical-examination’ for which many of us are either ill-prepared or are simply unwilling to entertain.

Also ironically, the ‘feeling’ of administering a sound, evidence-based critical judgement of another is so ‘self-satisfying’ and fulfilling as to be its own internal motivator. The critique and the critic both, in Western society and culture, have an acknowledged level of both credibility and maturity, stature and enviability, that endears it to others and generates considerable income as well as social and political status. Sins of both omission and commission are so readily and easily observable that many become almost intoxicated in and by their magnetism. Forgiveness, on the other hand, seems restricted, constricted to the ‘confessional’ and to those private, confidential moments between intimate partners, when, after there is no other conceivable path to avoid, to deny, to lie to masquerade, or to wiggle one’s way out of some deeply shameful entanglement of ‘bad judgement’ or…..or…..??

In popular parlance, forgiveness, among many, is considered analogous to the snow-flake image of spineless, wimpish, character-less and justified dismissability. Identification, too, with the ‘sin’ of the other, even before one might consider something akin to forgiveness, is conventionally so ‘absurd’ as to be out of the question for most of us.

The accumulated and even solidified cultural blindness, each to our own Shadow, evokes an image of a giant blob of atmospheric blind unconsciousness in which each of us is enshrouded, as if in a cloud of our own making, only ‘making’ not by design and overt agency, but more through unconscious and unwilling and uncomfortable avoidance and/or denial. Few, if any, would be eager or perhaps even willing to acknowledge an active, conscious, willing and determined motivation to blindness however pressed we might find ourselves.

Alison extends his appreciation for forgiveness and our obligation to extend it in and through his quite sensitive, imaginative and provocative iteration of the Cross and Crucifixion itself. Jesus, in his view, surrenders himself willingly to the unjust, illegal, unwarranted  violence of the mob, as a way of exemplifying opposition to violence and a strong conviction to relationality.

Whether either or both protestants and catholics are open to and willing to begin to re-think both the beam-plank parable, and the Alison memetic, surrender to relationality, remains an open question. Both positions exemplify a creative, imaginative and, from the perspective of this scribe, a serious, challenging and sustainable Christian expectation.

The church’s and the ordinary people’s imitation of the accusatory model of amending immorality, amorality, along with what the church calls sins of both omission and commission, for thousands of years seems to have been an exercise in both futility and dismissal, with both immunity and impunity for the church . It seems more than high time for the church to open to a welcome embrace of some new and different, life-giving, and life-saving relationship-based and relationship-fostering applications and interpretations of the Christian story. It is more complicated, if still true, as POGO reminds us, “We have met the enemy, and he is us!

As in quantum physics, which is beginning to demonstrate how everything, everything, is connected, and humans have been ‘blind,’ while continuing to discern both how that proposition is actually true. Previous blindness is merely a testament to our own determination to rend the shades from our collective eyes, both from our conscious and from our unconscious.

And as Robert Funk espouses, new and creative interpretations of the Christian myth and theology will continue to emerge and provoke us to re-examine what we once held as ‘sacred truth’ that has never really been ‘fixed’ or fossilized, and permanent as many would have, and still do, prefer. Today, we are grateful to James Alison and his rigorous pursuit of his faith.

Aesop sheds light on contemporary conflicts...yes?

 The fundies, of the religious right, a vociferous, adamantine-willed, superfluously funded branch of quasi-Christianity, have, unconsciously perhaps, taken on the mantle of Aesop’s Oak Tree, in what has become an all-out, fight-to-the-death war against so many enemies, it is almost impossible to count.

Among their hated enemies are those ‘woke’ apostates, characterized by their commitment to a trinity of values, (another Christian symbolic tradition) D(iversity), E(quity), I(nclusion), high on the target list of the Oak’s resolute determination to outlast, outshine and to eclipse them into the dust of history.

Also, on their list of hated and evil opponents, are the immigrants, refugees, and desperate rapists, drug-lords and ‘shitty’ people seeking escape from terror, often starvation and incarceration. The sturdy, stately, imperial and regal OAK will stand to defend the nation from these hated infidels, through strong branches of law enforcement, guns, batons, gas cannisters,  and an army of heavily recruited, yet minimally trained goon-wannabe-warriors and, will continually promise to ‘make the nation safe from evil.

Other malignant malefactors on their  list of hated enemies are those other nations whose greed, and narcissism and opportunism and trickery have defrauded the nation of billions of dollars in trade deficits, currency manipulation, and negotiating deceits over decades, perhaps even centuries, generating a situation so apocalyptic that only an all-out trade-war will awaken these minion nations to the unyielding towering timbre of the oak’s spine, its ethical and moral superiority and its historic status among the creatures of the forest.

And then, add to the growing list of hated enemies, the drug-lords and their political camouflages, the presidents and potentates who permit their illicit and lucrative trade to satiate the insatiable appetite of the OAK’s own nationals for more and more of the hated and illicit and lethal doses of chemicals into whose allure and somnambulant daze millions of nationals slump daily, hourly, while the drug-lords’ boats are bombed by the mighty power of the GREAT OAK—determined and steadfast as it is to block, defer, deter and defeat all perceived enemies, from its lofty perch as the GREAT OAK, towering over the forest.

From its towering, and all-knowing position, the Great OAK has also found a cluster of new and cancerous enemies, among them the universities which support those three detested initials, (DEI), the law firms many of which have succumbed to the turbulent and fiscally threatening winds of the GREAT OAK, and also, now the Vatican, supposedly the valiant, supremely ethical, moral, compassionate and spiritual guide and mentor of millions, (or is that billions?). Holding true to its bold steadfast, high-and-mighty self-conceived brilliance and superiority, the GREAT OAK is now warning the Vatican to ‘be careful’ whenever it speaks about theology, the heart-and-soul of its tradition, history, theology and spiritual inspiration for centuries.

There is also another ‘declared, venomous and dangerous enemy of the GREAT OAK, the hated and detested Persians, especially given their claimed right to ‘enrich uranium’ and their determination to eliminate the state of Israel, another of the great, steadfast, invincible and indestructible trees, the Hickory, known for its high density and durability and wind resistance. Given the intimate and some might say collusive and conspiratorial relationship between the Hickory and the OAK, this invincible, indomitable, and religious/historic symbiotic relationship, is determined to demonstrate, no prove beyond a doubt, that their collective, highly enriched, scientifically superior, surveillance and defensive dome, will win-the-day over all enemy combatants….and those promises fill the airwaves across the skies and oceans and continents every hour and every day.

Blind, however, to the imaginative creativity, and determined survivability of each and everyone of these enemies, each of which have openly, brazenly and proudly adopted the age-old mantra and model of Aesop, that of the Reed. As Aesop prophesied, long ago, apparently without the benefit of the eyes, ears, minds and speculations of the OAK and the HICKORY, especially when the winds blew at the behest of the OAK and the HICKORY, the initiators of all the conflicts, The OAK  stood proudly upright with their hundred arms uplifted to the sky,. But the Reeds bowed low in the wind and sang a sad and mournful song.

‘You have reason to  complain,’ said the Oak. ‘The slightest breeze that ruffles the surface of the water makes you bow your heads, while I, the mighty OAK (and my friend the Hickory) stand upright and firm before the howling tempest.’

‘Do not worry about us,’ replied the Reeds. The winds do not harm us. We bow before them and so we do not break. You in all your pride and strength, have so far resisted their blows. But the end is coming.’

As the Reeds spoke a great hurricane rushed out of the north. The OAK (and Hickory) stood proudly and fought against the storm, while the yielding Reeds bowed low. The wind redoubled in fury, and all at once the great tree(s) fell, torn up by the roots, and lay among the pitying Reeds. (From The Oak and the Reeds,  The Aesop for Children, from https://read.gov

The children know that it is the hubris and the deaf-ear, the closed mind and the adamantine will of the OAK (and the Hickory, for our purposes) that are their undoing. They also know that the Reeds will continue to bend, and sway, and bend and sway, in even the most turbulent and destructive of storms, given their ‘groundedness and their humility, and their adaptability, and their flexibility and their determination to out-last all of the many storms, especially those initiated at the hubristic and self-righteous and blinded-by-their-own invincibility OAKs (and Hickories).

And while the pundits parse the details of each of the various ‘encounters’ of the OAKs and the REEDs, as if they were all individual, separate and isolated narratives, the children will, if and when asked, raise their hands to mention that, just perhaps the pundits, and the scribes, the historians and the political philosophers consider each enemy and each encounter a matter of significance, the children will remind their mentors that, when all is said and done, it is and will always be the REEDs that survive.

Whether it is a social/cultural/racial/ethical/moral program for schools, colleges and universities, that is founded on principles of social justice, Christian theology and constitutional principles,

OR a flood of displaced, frightened, even terrified, starving and desperate men, women and children, including infants on their parents back or harnessed to their chests, all of them escaping forces of hate, greed, political oppression, war, drought, poverty, disease, homelessness, unemployment, access to clean water, air and land, and access to a legitimate education….again these ‘reeds’ will invariably continue to bend, and to flow in the ebb-and-flow of various environmental, political, military and illicit powers’ decisions and negligence. And no military, quasi-legal, paramilitary, or even electrified and barbed-wire fences will ever completely stop their marches to whatever their perception of a new life might be.

OR the drug-lords and their political cover and accomplices, who seek to peddle their illicit, lethal and highly demanded drugs into the nation with the insatiable appetite, need and even addiction to and for their products will never be stopped by a few bombs in the Caribbean, or even by the abduction of a nation’s leader, allegedly complicit in the conspiracy…and the Reeds of the desperate men, women and children, primarily victims of a society whose interest in and compassion for, and empathy for the bottom 1% of the people, whose numbers are growing daily, and whose desperation is only enhancing the hubris and the blindness of the OAKs in power….will far outlast whatever turbulent storms are invoked to ‘end the war on drugs.’

As for the universities, and the law firms, some of which have capitulated to the OAK already, while others remain as sycophantic eunuchs to their illicit demands, the strength of the REED-like organizations and firms will outlast the turbulence of the OAK’s venom.

As for the Vatican, itself perceived as an OAK by many religionists, as well as political actors, it too is more like the REED in its historic, theologically-founded, and liturgically enshrined resilience, humility and promise of the hope of the gospel can and will invariably remain as a shining beacon of hope, long after the thundering hubristic OAKs and Hickories have broken and fallen.

And then there is The Persians, who, after many protracted conflicts with the proud OAK of American hegemony, and after having survived and grown stronger in and through those conflicts, (even while allegedly disposing through scandalous murders of thousands of protestors to their own regime), will continue to bend and blow in the face of negotiating positions of the great OAK that say one thing one day and its opposite the next day, knowing that in the long run, their adaptability, flexibility and resilience bred into their bending and their grounding…..and they will outlast their OAK and Hickory enemies.

As a Post note:

Given Henry Kissinger’s knowledgeable perception of the Chinese, it would seem that, centuries ago, the Chinese adopted the REED position of out-waiting, bending, bowing, and offering tempting ‘dishes’ to their western counterparts if and when they came attempting to make deals….the patience, and the awareness of the resilience of bending, without breaking, of humility with hubris, of speaking softly without braggadocio,….the natural way of the REED, will in the end hold the final sway and the final say.

One has to wonder if and when the Americans will pick up a copy of Aesop’s Tales, read them and reflect!

There are certainly some political and philosophical and even theological and religious elements to these conflicts. And there is also an obvious literary, fable-lighted narrative that cannot be ignored or denied.