Searching for God # 84

 Throughout these pieces, the words “imagination” or “creative imagination” have been appearing as central to the search for God. The presence and prevalence of the word imagination comes out of a visceral, intuitive and experiential footing that the church has turned a blind eye to the theological/psychological/spiritual (dare I include political?) significance of the imagination, as perceived and conceived of as ‘subverter, critique, exposer and non-compliant with the ‘establishment’ both literally and metaphorically. Subsequently, I stumbled upon a kind of minor synchronicity, also coming from an intuitive, subjective, and ‘imaginative’ place: taken together that synchronicity embraces  the writing of James Hillman, William Blake, John Keats and Leo Tolstoy, Jay Alison in an obviously amateur, non-professional, non-academic, and non-born-again perspective. Transformative experiences are, undoubtedly the sine qua non of human existence. And, each ‘metanoia’ is considered or not, by each individual, as another episode in one’s faith and spiritual growth.

(Personal anecdote: I was certainly not aware, at sixteen, when I formally, publicly and somewhat brazenly characterized a homily as ‘”BS” because it unequivocally, and I might add self-righteously and hubristically, declared a list of those condemned to Hell including; Roman Catholics, wine-drinkers, movie-goers, dancers, make-up users, and Sunday meal-preparers that I was expressing more than critique of the church’s ‘establishment views as expressed by a Northern Irish protestant bigot. Today, I can acknowledge that there might have been some intuitive, naïve, and green-broke theological perspective that today I might consider “liberation.”)

Seeking truths behind public, conventional, politically correct (and I deemed repressed) small talk, official talk, homiletic deployments and the convergence of minimalist emotions especially and guarded opinions about the ‘state of affairs in the public arena’, lest ‘we,’ the church deter many of the donors from our doors and investment accounts, I kept pressing for others who might have felt, thought, imagined, or even intuited something analogous to my own perceptions. As another tepid step in that journey, I would like to borrow, honour and quote from the writing of Leonardo Boff, specifically from his ‘Jesus Christ Liberator’ published in 1986:

It may seem strange to speak of the creative imagination of Jesus. The church and theologians are not accustomed to express themselves in this manner. Nevertheless, we ought to say that, as the New Testament itself shows us, there are many ways of speaking about Jesus. Is it not possible that for us this category ‘imagination’ may not reveal the originality and mystery of Christ? Many understand little about the imagination and think that it is synonymous with dreams, a daydreamer’s flight from reality, a passing illusion. In truth, however, imagination signifies something much more profound. Imagination is a form of liberty. It is born in confrontation with reality and established order; it emerges from nonconformity in the face of completed and established situations; it is the capacity to see human beings as greater and richer than the cultural and concrete environment than surrounds them; it is having the courage to think and say something new and to take hitherto untreaded paths that are full of meaning for human beings. We can say that imagination, understood in this manner, was one of the fundamental qualities of Jesus. Perhaps in the whole of human history there has not been a single person who had a richer imagination than Jesus…..

He walks among forbidden people and accepts doubtful persons in his company, such as two or three guerillas (Simon, the Canannite, Judas Iscariot, Peter bar Jonah); he gives a complete turnabout to the social and religious framework, saying that the last shall be first (Mark 10:31), the humble shall be masters Matt. 5:5), and tax officials and prostitutes will find it easier to enter the kingdom of heaven than the pious scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 21:33). He does not discriminate against anyone, neither heretics nor schismatic Samaritans (Luke 10:29-37; Jon 4:4-42), nor people of ill repute like the prostitute (Luke 7:36-40), nor the marginalized (sick, leprous, and poor), nor the rich whose houses he frequents even while saying to them, ‘Alas for you who are rich: you have your consolation now’(Luke 6:24). Nor does he refuse the invitation of his indefatigable opposition, the Pharisees, though seven times he takes the liberty of saying to them: ‘Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites and blind guides’ (Matt.23:13-39). (Boff, op. cit. pps. 91-92)

And then, Boff continues:

The great  difficulty encountered by Jesus in his disputes with theologians and masters of his time consisted precisely in this: We cannot resolve the question concerning what God wants form us by merely having recourse to the Scriptures. We must consult the signs of the times and the unforeseen in a situation (cf. Luke 12:54-57) This is a clear appeal to spontaneity, liberty, and the use of our creative imagination. Obedience is a question of having our eyes open to the situation; it consists of deciding for and risking ourselves in the adventure of responding to God who speaks here and now. The Sermon on the Mount, which is not a law, is addressed to everyone, inviting us to have extremely clear consciences and an unlimited capacity for understanding people, sympathizing with them, being tuned into them, and loving them with all their limitations and realizations.(Ibid, pps. 92-93)

Under a heading, Was Jesus a Liberal? Boff answers in this manner:

He was a ‘liberal’ because in the name of God and in the power of the Holy Spirit he interpreted and appraised Moses, the Scriptures, and dogmatics from the point of view of love, and thereby allowed devout people to remain human and even reasonable…..There is a sin that is radically mortal: the sin against the humanitarian spirit. According to the parable concerning anonymous Christians in Matt, 25:31-46 the eternal judge will not ask people about the canons of dogma, nor whether they made any explicit reference to the mystery of Christ while they lived. He will ask if we have done anything to help those in need. Here all is decided. “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, a stranger or naked, sick or in prison, and did not come to your help? He will answer them: ‘I tell you solemnly, insofar as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me’ (Matt.25-44-45). The sacrament of brotherhood is absolutely necessary for salvation…Imagination postulates creativity, spontaneity, and liberty. It is precisely this that Christ demands when he proposes an ideal like the Sermon on the Mount. Here one can no longer speak of laws, but of love that surpasses all laws. (Boff, Ibid, 94-95)

We hear pronouncements out of Washington that the MAGA cult is determined to ‘bring about the kingdom of God on earth’ presumably, from their perspective, during the reign of their fascist king, Donald Trump. It is not only ironic and tragic that the very people they are ‘cleansing’ through arrest, incarceration, and deprivation of human rights are the very people for whom Christ’s message is intended to love and to help. The perspective here is that the precise abusive deployment of power currently at the core of the American governmental administration’s purpose and definition, in a completely, blatantly and unapologetic manner, with immunity and impunity, is targeting the very persons whose needs, concerns and aspirations lie at the heart of the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount, whether from Boff’s or Tolstoy’s written perspective.

The time has come, in solidarity with various Christian clerics, Bishops and prophets, to put our bodies on the line in opposition, not merely of voices crying the frozen wilderness, nor in the heated confines of the nation’s courts, nor in the pages and screens of the national and local and regional media, but in the asphalt jungles of city streets, the tree-lined malls of city beautification projects, in the bars and pubs, the cafeterias and dining halls, and in the classrooms, the lecture halls, and the sanctuaries of cathedrals, synagogues, mosques and mission churches. This fight ‘to non-violently confront evil with force’ goes far beyond the political language and perspective of so many articulate essayists, television hosts, podcast hosts, editorialists and even scholars whose life-long research has focused on tyranny, tyrants, fascism and the purpose and goals of all things imitating the Third Reich.

The contest also exceeds the limits of what is currently a favourite benchmark in geopolitical circles, ‘an existential threat’….applicable to Ukraine, to Gaza and the Palestinians, and perhaps to places like Sudan, and the Central African Republic of Congo. It also exceeds the ‘existential threat’ of global warming and climate change, and the need to protect and preserve the bounties of the environment that make existence possible.

Boff’s faith supplemented by his imagination in service of his faith extends the potential deployment and recognition of its need and spirit far beyond those who declare themselves, Christian. In a subsection entitled, ‘The Presence of Christ in Anonymous Christians,’ Boff writes:

The resurrected Jesus is present and active in a special way in those who in the vast ambit of history and life carry forward his cause. This is independent of their ideological colorings or adhesion to some religion or Christian belief. Wherever people seek the good, justice, humanitarian love, solidarity, communion, and understanding between people, wherever they dedicate themselves to overcoming their own egoism, making this world more human and fraternal, and opening themselves to the normative Transcendent for their lives, there we can say, with all certainty, that the resurrected one is present because the cause for which he lived, suffered, was tried, and executed is being carried forward. (Boff, ibid, p. 219)

We need to shed the trappings, the vestments of ideology, identity, geography, ethnicity, religion (as defined by sect or denomination) and political affiliation in an aspirational movement in order to ‘confront, non-violently, evil with force’ following in the lens and spirit of Tolstoy, Boff, Gandhi, Mandela, King and many others in a historic and transparent movement in solidarity.

Searching for God # 83

Small confidential safe and secure circles dedicated to searching for God…..does that picture have to be utopian? Can it not be a reasonable, legitimate and attainable proposition among those who are really interested in such a pilgrimage?

The church year, calendar, festivals, Holy Days, and Lectionary can offer a beginning of some structure. And then, and then…..rather than ‘telling or showing’ what ordinary people might want to take away from the readings, the prayers and whatever music might be compatible with the interests, talents and degree of investment of individuals, what about starting with the proposition innate to ‘adult education’….that the learner makes choices about what s/he needs and wants to learn. And there are other starting propositions that might, at first, sound rebellious from a traditional, ecclesial perspective.

That trust between and among men, women and children who agree to participate is both essential as a working  value, and is also suspect as being one of the more elusive, rare, and ephemeral and ineffable and ‘sacred’ aspects of any attempt to search for, anticipate and expect God. And that the generating, sustaining and nurturing of trust, while each person commits to and remains open to his or her own growth as a whole person, offers a unique ‘setting’ for this pilgrimage. Never taken for granted, assumed or even pretended, trust, like love, has to be consistently, deliberately and authentically checked, reinforced and renewed., until, in the reverse of the boiling frog, it is no longer in question.

As a general proposition, with each meeting session a creative balance and blend of both ‘thought and action’ in and around the basic ideas, themes, actions, poetry, and film (if available) from  the lectionary, the Holy Days, the Seasons and the Gospels is envisaged. We can see, for starters, a casual and light-touch deference acknowledged and paid honourably and generously and without restraint, already to two approaches to theology, the Jewish midrash and the Jesuit, action-reflection model of process. Similar deference, respect, application and probing of indigenous spirituality, both in content as well as praxis, of the profound spiritual gifts of all of the world faiths, especially where there are synchronous intersections in language, liturgy and perceptions and attitudes.

These words in this space now are all hypothetical, imaginative and tentative, and not intended to eliminate or even to reduce the active participation of all, to the degree that each finds ‘acceptable’ and ‘comfortable.’ These gestational thoughts are intended as invitations, not to form a ‘church’ organization or institution, at this time, but rather as reflections that might be considered cogent for any shared reflection of like-minded persons, similarly-spirited, and intellectually and emotionally interested in having their own discussions in this ‘light’ and darkness.

In any proposed ‘project’ one of the first tasks of anyone/group offering such a proposal, is to set forth clearly the aims, objectives, goals and aspirations of the group. In this case, there is really only one articulated here:

To live into, to wrestle with, and to steep oneself in a deep and personal and provocative and profound relationship with God, as sketched in and through scripture, tradition and personal insight, imagination and aspiration. And such a search at both personal and group levels needs to remain open to and receptive of and engaged with hope and new life, as it constantly emerges from our dark corners, our imagination, our fears and our deepest anxieties. This seems, at first, to be a tangent from the manner in which ‘evil’ and darkness is perceived, by traditional Christian churches and their worship, as well as an invitation to begin from an openness to all of our shared hopes and dreams, on the one hand, as well as, and dependent on and contiguous with, our crippling and in some cases life-threatening darknesses. In supportive moving toward our unique form and face and voice of discipleship, keeping in mind that while God is and always will be  beyond the specific definition, scope and imagination of each of us, the disciple’s relation to wrong, and evil, and abuse, at the personal as well as at the macro, institutional, and even societal level, (structural evil) is more discernible, recognizable and amenable to ‘non-violence confrontation with force (Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You). It is as a force for such confrontation with evil that serves as a magnet, not an idol, to which we can be focused and determined to incarnate as an essential component of our personal as well as the world’s ‘salvation’.

 Keeping personal journals, or diaries would be highly recommended. Partnering and mentoring, too, would be highly desirable. None of our personal journeys is considered ‘superior to or inferior to another’s. The ‘rubbing’ up against another, metaphorically, with another who has committed to the shared and interdependent process envisioned, is an integral and essential aspect of each of our pilgrimages. Group expectations regarding aspects like pastoral care within the group and within the wider community, meeting preparation and delivery, child and adolescent mentorship and integration into the group, fiscal minima, discourse and relational guidelines, conflict resolution, between and among participants,…..these all require  consensus agreement, with opportunities for amendment, appeal and reconciliation.

Questions of previous, especially negative experiences within Christian or other ecclesial groups, and how they are to be ‘framed’ in this context, warrant a specific detailed discussion, as mirrors and guidelines to both replicate and reject going forward.

Essentially, a pedagogical, interactive, participatory structure, method, and atmosphere of engaged and committed men, women and children is envisioned as a primary model of organizational self-regeneration, rather than a sanctuary-top-down, hierarchical, and ultimately secret, private and silent foundation. There is always a place in a pilgrimage in search of God for silence, even concentrated silence, guided retreats, private reflections both in writing and in shared private conversation. The changes incurred and experienced by each, (spiritual, cognitive, emotional, relational, on a human level as well as with God) when shared, first with a mentor always without pressure or persuasion, and only and always under full consent, shared with the larger group, offer the pulse and rhythm of the ‘flow’ of both ideas and experiences that serve as guides for both new implementations and the excising of obsolete, or sabotaging aspects of our shared journey.

Metaphorically, ‘we’ can write a shared manuscript of our journey, freely and with full participation and consent, in parallel to our personal, private and introspective journeys.

The traditional modus operandi of the church, top-down, can be reversed, without abandoning the shared search. I had the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of early pilgrims who, when the tides are ‘out’ walk the  3-mile, 90-120-minute  Pilgrim’s Way across the floor of the North Sea to the Island of Lindisfarne, where skeletons of monasteries of St. Anselm and  St. Cuthbert still remain. While participants in our hypothetical ‘circle’ may not be able to make such a physical walk, they/we can explore the influence of men like St Anselm and St. Cuthbert and their profession of faith. As a model of mentorship across-the-centuries, (and there are a plethora of other examples) proximity through study, reflection and dialogue such pilgrims can be brought into a renewed focus, with diligent and creative preparation in which clergy, if available, and laity can all participate.

And while these words are all hypothetical, imaginative and tentative, and not intended to eliminate or even to reduce active participation of all, to the degree that each finds ‘acceptable’ and ‘comfortable.’

In an essay entitled, From radical engraver to canonical poet: how did William Blake’s reputation change?, written by Clemency Fleming, December 4, 2014, found on www.ox.ac.uk, we read:

Blake’s political and religious views were radical, in some respects even by 21^st century standards, and these may have  barred him from mainstream popularity, particularly at a time when Britain and France were still at war. Blake has a sense of a poet as visionary or prophetic figure, said professor Halmi. Someone who had insight into society from the outside, and insight into the spiritual nature of man. He was strongly opposed to slavery and mental tyranny-which for him included organized religion. He considered himself a Christian, and Christian themes are apparent in his works, but he hated what he referred to as the ‘mind-forged manacles’ of the Church. He believed that they were not grounded in truth, and in fact kept people from perceiving the truth as he understood it, whereby a spark of divinity was present in all of humanity…..Northrop Frye, a Canadian critic who tried to demystify Blake, believed that the work can be read as a coherent whole, with the engraved works at its centre. His study, Fearful Symmetry, published in `947, was largely responsible for bringing Blake into the canon. He said quite explicitly that we should think not of Blake as mad, but of the times we live in as mad. For Frye, Blake could offer some sanity to the post-war world.’

 

  

Searching for God # 82

 In the last post, a montage of scenarios, from real life, scratched the surface displaying some of the resistances to ‘politics’ and social diagnoses that breached political politeness within the church ethos. And while most parishioners are not comfortable with acknowledging and identifying their ‘faith’ with their ‘politics’ and also while the church itself proclaims it is ‘above’ politics, in the specific and narrow sense of being non-partisan and non-ideological, nevertheless, whatever messages the church attempts to embody and to deliver have, if we are being totally honest, a political import.

Even the platinum concept of ‘agape’ the word from the New Testament to describe God’s love (John 3:16) and the love Christians are exhorted to emulate, approximates the concept of altruism, unconditional, sacrificial, brotherly and universal love. Political rhetoric, on the other hand, is saturated with policies that are designed, crafted and implemented to ‘protect, serve and preserve’ the people. And public service is depicted as a sacrificial act, along with military service, again to ‘protect, serve and preserve’ the people.

The political side of this dichotomy is envisioned, however, as ‘people as a collective’ a society, and population, and in recent times, a gestalt of demographics. The religious, ecclesial side of the dichotomy, on the other hand, is envisioned from the perspective of ‘people’ as individual man, woman and child. Individual epiphanies or conversions to the Christian faith, along with letters from individuals (think Paul) to congregations, along with the several biographies of Jesus, including his Death and Resurrection, comprise the bulk of scripture in support of the Christian faith and theology. And salvation of individuals from their personal ‘sin’ (the state in which they are born) predominates over the salvation of the whole world.

If, as we have been considering, the Christian faith can, or will, give consideration to both personal/individual salvation and ‘whole world’ salvation, (clearly they are not and ought not to be considered mutually exclusive), then and only then can or will anything resembling Liberation Theology be permitted into the vision. And given that the political vernacular, especially the obsession with ‘ideology’ and ‘identity’ two concepts that both serve as reductions of each person, Liberation Theology (used here as a starting point, not as an ‘end goal or result) has to contend with the amelioration of the influence of both, ideology and identity, as determinants of a person’s psyche and/or soul.

It is from the outside, outside each and every individual, that these terms are deployed, and never from the perspective of the individual human. Similarly, it is from the outside that even religious terms like ‘saved’ or ‘unsaved’ are deployed, primarily by those seeking either to justify their own salvation or demean the ‘incomplete’ state of their colleagues or both. Similarly, terms that describe one’s preference for a kind of liturgy, ‘high church’ or ‘low church’ or ‘red book’ or ‘green book’ or even Protestant or Roman Catholic, Pentecostal or Baptist, while depicting a group, are titles to creeds and attitudes, perception and even beliefs that can never encompass or deliver on the inner nature of one’s psyche or soul.

And while there is a degree of ‘affiliation’ and ‘belonging’ to those who choose to remain loyal to their respective ‘grouping’ there is and always will be a dividing line between any ‘group expectation’ and ‘belief’ and a person’s inner life, psyche and soul. The incompatibility of the inner, unconscious life, with any attempt to ‘group’ a religious experience is neither a flaw in the individual nor in the group ‘identification.’ Indeed, the attempt to fence in the inner, unconscious life, into any corral of a faith denomination, or sect is fraught with indeterminacy.

Thank God!

And the beginning of the focus on the inner, unconscious, hidden psyche/soul, which could and might be the focus of any attempt to mount a learning curve that actually listened to, drew from the unconscious into the conscious, respected and acknowledged that radioactive ‘gold’ of the unconscious as intimately significant and essential to the full religious and faith experience, has a potential of unlocking so many layers of potential insight, and ‘full liberation’ of men, women and children.

And this form of liberation is and can never be connected to, related to or measured by any GNP, GDP, ideology, or sexual or ethnic identity, or also any membership card or history of loyalty to a faith community. Church attendance, dollars collected, size of building, magnitude of pipe organ, number and range of artistic stained-glass windows, and the cognitive and intellectual might of any clergy, while interesting and even profound in some instances, can and never will capture the unconscious even of those clergy attempting to share their inner life.

We have to listen to the specific narratives of each and every individual, not from the perspective of attempting to pigeon-hole their ‘personality’ or their expectations into a menu or a template for the purposes of the institution’s glory and success. We must not categorize individuals, either, by their ‘talents’ or ‘gifts’ (from God that then can be deployed as gifts to God in the liturgy), again for the purpose of the institutional artistic, performance reputation and magnetizing new recruits. No one can be the means to another’s end! reminds Kant, not that we do not ‘use’ individuals for purposes that are not their’s but that such an approach is not exclusive. Given the preponderance of ‘function’ utility’ and ‘task’ in our culture, primarily for profit, either directly or indirectly, returning to Kant’s moral imperative will necessitate a deep and profound shift in our personal and collegial expectations. Indeed, one’s identity is also often reduced to one’s career, vocation, profession or enterprise.

Essentially attempting to eliminate, to the degree possible, the various forms of objectification of each other, and especially of ourselves, will do much to aid in the refocusing of our psyche/soul on matters that, themselves, are not reducible to the literal, the empirical, the scientific. Just as God is non-compliant to being a being reduced to a means to our end, as envisioned in the prayers of barter that humans continue to offer, and as we are also more than another’s means, so too are we not reducible to any one or even a collection of epithets, externally applied ‘nouns, adjectives or diagnoses.

These meanderings bring into focus the question of what is humanism and what is humanity?

Britsnnica.com says this about humanism:

A system of education and mode of inquiry that originated in northern Italy during the 13^th and 14^th centuries and later spread through continental Europe and England. The term is alternatively applied to a variety of Western beliefs, methods and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm.

Britannica.com says this about humanity:

The quality or state of being human; the quality or state of being kind to other people or to animals. The plural, humanities: areas of study (such as history, language, and literature) that relate to human life and ideas.

Everything we inject into these spaces is obviously ‘about’ humans;  however, it is not intended as a system of education. We are not engaged in the process of reducing the individual psyche/soul to being addressed or even accessed in and through a process of humanism.

And here is a distilled statement in the definition of theology, from Britannica.com:

In spite of all the contradictions and nuances that were to emerge in the  understanding of this concept in various Christian confessions and schools of thought, a formal criterion remains constant: theology is the attempt of adherents of a faith to represent their statements of belief consistently, to explicate them out of the basis (or fundamentals) of their faith, and to assign to such statements their  specific place within the context of all other worldly relations (e.g., nature and history) and spiritual processes (e.g. reason and logic)….to which we might legitimately insert, ‘the imagination.’

How can one conceive of the interjection, purpose, impact and envisioned goal of the human imagination into the process of searching for God?

Without have the benefit of the past half-century, in a Lenten study session, to which I was invited to propose an answer to the question, ‘Is the Christian faith relevant?’ I attempted to make the case that the faith remained relevant, although the process, the delivery, the liturgy needed to change. My proferred suggestion: shift from a lecture modality to a seminar modality. That naïve and green-broke utterance came from one who had experienced abuse of God, theology and even scripture from the pulpit of a mainline Presbyterian church…without the opportunity to challenge such bigotry, and hypocrisy.

Nearly 60 years on, after actually attending, and also preparing and delivering hundreds of homilies, based on the specific Biblical readings for the Sunday in question (the lectionary), I can say that I have learned more about God from those in the pews than they ever did from my side of the pulpit. Moments of clarity, insight, mask-removal, acknowledgements of hurting others, quiet whispers of ‘how I can do better,’ visions of how things might be ‘better’ and more hopeful….these are all inherent to conversations everywhere, among those with degrees and equally among those without formal training. And these ‘aha’ moments were not restricted to, and certainly not exclusive to therapy.

Moments of being seen and known, between individuals who have established trust, confidence and safety and security between and among them, irrespective of the colour of skin, the ethnic heritage, the language differences, the faith tradition, or even the age or gender or vocation or education…..indeed such ‘labels’ were and will continue to remain inconspicuous, irrelevant and non-starters among such places between the I of one and the Thou of another.

Of course, in order for such a ‘place’ (space, mood, ethos, reverence, and trust) to be created, considered psychically, and mutually shared in full and voluntary commitment, recognition of the dependence we all share on the objective characterizations of God, each other, our family members and ourselves. After recognition, the shift to getting down to narrative detailing of personal, significant, memorable moments in each person’s life, without any judgements, might be feasible.

The opportunity to share such moments, in a safe circle, is a first step in levelling the playing field between and among the circle members. (This is not intended as a replica of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, although the confidentiality of those meetings is a presumed and agreed and committed requisite.) Parallels, from other personal stories, including the pains and the dreams and the demons we have all encountered, offer a context of mutuality, equality and deep and profound respect and dignity to each person. If and when such respect and dignity is broken, the opportunity for the circle to reckon with how such a breach occurred, and the options of beginning the healing are immediate, including the resort to prayer, to access the words of reconciliation from any number of sources, and the opportunity for everyone present to begin to ‘see things’ including themselves and others in a new and supportive even challenging light.

Rather than deconstructing public institutions, political ideologies, national hubris, or geopolitical competitions, for the benefit of the powerful, such base communities as these words are beginning to envision, (literally beginning….and seeking any input from readers who wish to contribute) the purpose of personal, safe and trusting encounters under God, in a safe circle is, different from the purpose of sobriety among AA members. The purpose is to come closer to the truth, the unconditional love, and the forgiveness of respected others, and through such a process to glimpse first, the previous blindness we have all been operating under.

And then to begin to dream, envision, and to stretch to reach out to that Blakean vision, ‘to see the universe in a grain of sand’ in the metaphorically sustained manner of the poet.

Blake’s  adopted Christian mantle is not that of the evangelist but the prophet. His is a prophetic universe where apocalypse always beckons, precisely because the conventional world—what Blake spat out as the Ratio—works very hard to convince us that our present state of civilization is axiomatically preferable to our natural state…..Blake saw a close relation between the words ‘revelation’ and ‘revolution.’ To be serious about Christianity meant for Blake that you were suspicious of any and all authority. Those authorities not incidentally included the Church, or what Blake termed, with decided disparagement, ‘religion’…..Blake wanted to stir things up because he thought the Christian revelation was meant to stir things up. Thie first step in doing so (after reading Blake from stem to stern) was to liberate Imagination from the shackles of Reason.                                   (from divinity.uchicage.edu, from a piece by  Richard A Rosengarten, entitled,  The Christian Who Was a Church of One, February 17, 2022)

The paradox of Blake’s ‘church of one’ invoked in a piece endeavoring to advocate for circles of faith is not incidental to this piece. It is the deeply embedded paradoxical that seems to be inherent to the story of the Christian faith, historically, scripturally and prophetically….just another of the paths away from the literal, the empirical and the scientific and towards an application of Blake’s imagination in our shared search for God.

Searching for God # 81

 The issue of humanity as seen from the perspective of an ideology continues to haunt. Any ideology is another form and name that ‘fails to capture’ who I am or who anyone else is. Similarly, with psychic diagnoses, always only a partial discernment, assessment, and forever a labelling, and a concomitant reduction.

I recall, from a past life, a high school guidance counsellor commenting on a troubled and failing junior and dismissing him with these words, “He is one of those (insert family name) and what can we expect?” She had been at the school for decades and obviously had previous encounters with another member of the same family. The conflation amounted to professional negligence, and yet, under the teachers’ ‘union’ rules, unless I was prepared to write a document describing the incident, and present it to her and follow up with the predictable and inevitable ‘hearing,’ I bit my lip, tongue and turned away from the moment of the encounter.

I also recall, (and have recorded the moment previously in this space) a supervisor who, in a first or very early meeting, exclaimed, “You are just far too intense for me!” And my cheeky, somewhat risky and completely unbridled retort, “Well, I am also far too bald so deal with it!”

Another similar incident came from a supervising bishop while I attended theology school. In a book-lined parlor, alone with him, after asking if I would like a coffee, ( I declined), “You know, John, people can’t stand too much reality!”  Recalling T.S. Eliot’s identical warning, I thought then, and have wondered multiple times since, both what I had said that prompted the remark, and what implications he was intending me to consider. Whatever his intent, I recoiled with surprise and dismay, especially in the context of what I was then engaged in, the process of preparation for active ministry in the church. Why, especially in that context, would such a cautionary statement be either necessary or appropriate.

As for its necessity, I had a previous trail of public editorial comments that both opposed and occasionally supported various political actors, and the bishop might have been envisioning a similar and critical approach within the church. On that score, his wisdom and insight, on that day, were both lost on me. Thirty years later, however, there is no doubt about his wisdom, especially given the degree of political correctness that prevails over the ecclesial culture. Criticism of a political decision, and the politician who made it, from my experience, is highly disavowed and disapproved of among at least one congregation of upper-middle class Anglicans in Ontario. The merits of the criticism, criticizing the defunding of transportation for the disadvantaged, were of no interest in their disdain for the observation, considered either or both from a political or theological perspective. “We can’t have the clergy criticizing the premier we just elected!” was the form of the disavowal and the disdain. Their political allegiance essentially took precedence over their perspective of the harm the decision was going to cause among the seriously disadvantaged. Looked at from their perspective, were they concerned that the criticism might (and likely would) generate negative criticism among their friends and neighbours and political allies? Were they shocked to hear any specific criticism of a provincial politician in the context of a Sunday morning homily?  Had they, as might readily be inferred, cognitively and emotionally and psychically ‘filed’ their politics and their theology in different files, and preferred to keep them separate? Identifying as a member of a specific denomination, of a specific faith community is one public ‘face’ of one’s identity. And in a world where one’s politics and one’s religious affiliation could impact one’s business, social and even career opportunities, keeping them locked in separate, and private vaults, might seem like a reasonable and self-caring option.

Clearly, that congregation’s support for the disadvantaged paled in the face of their determination to keep their hands out of provincial politics. “Not part of my responsibility” might well have been the silent and yet determined position of the majority of that congregation..and not part of the homilies I prefer to listen to in this congregation. ‘I am comfortable having abstract, and peripherally challenging discussions, behind closed doors about whether the church might ‘welcome’ gays and lesbians’ (this was in the mid-90’s) where my opinion will never see the light of day outside the church hall,’ might well describe their comfort level with church ‘issues’ and how they are to be addressed.

Another scenario, in another church in another country, (also previously addressed in this space)….in a Bible study small group, I asked the question, “What would you do if, at a party, you had listened to a joke that showed disdain for blacks?” Surprisingly immediately, I heard this response, “Well, I would leave the group without saying anything about what I had heard and go on with the party!” To which I almost instantly responded, “So, then, your protection of your reputation was more important to you than the reputation of those blacks who were being racially put down, is that about right?”…Long pause of silence, after which I heard a sheepish, ‘Gee, when you put it that way, I guess I did put my own reputation in that social group ahead of the opportunity to come to the defense of those being abused.”

Another scenario, after recently arriving in a new assignment, I was invited to dinner by a church warden, a female lawyer, who cautioned, ‘I will provide dinner, if you agree to do the dishes afterwards.’ As I found myself in a new situation, and considered this ‘bargain’ to be part of how things operated in that small town culture, I agreed. Instantly upon my arrival, I heard these words, ‘Well, don’t get comfortable in the chair; the dishes are waiting for you in the kitchen sink!’ Surprised, to say the least, (the dishes were there from the previous week,) I removed my jacket, rolled up my sleeves, and began to run the water, wash the dishes and dry them for putting away. The host continued over the stove. When I recounted my first experience with this warden to another member of the church, I heard these words, ‘Oh, she really has no social graces!’ to which I retorted, emphatically and somewhat derisively, ‘It is not social graces she lacks; she is determined to have and maintain total and absolute control. Let’s call a spade a shovel and not sugar-coat her control needs.’

Truth-telling, whether in diplomatic-speak, or in what might be termed, ‘street-speak’ is a matter of many layers of human relationships. And the discernment of when and where various levels of language is highly charged. It is charged even in family situations when a spouse says to another spouse, ‘You have no idea how to do small talk, and you embarrass me with the way you talk with others!’ When I first heard those words, I was both shocked and embarrassed. I was unconscious of my ‘failure to engage in ‘small-talk’ and had no idea that my failure to ‘perform’ in an acceptable manner, with my conversational speech, was or even could be such a significant matter in my marriage.

All of these various scenarios bear directly and indirectly upon the question of whether, how, when and why to interject a concept of ‘Liberation Theology’ into the current, turbulent and highly charged political ethos of the West, and certainly of North America. Recognizing the degree and prevalence of political abuse that is being meted out by official government ‘gestapo-type’ police, based as it clearly is on racism, bigotry and outright contempt for black and brown faces, irrespective of their age, legal status or economic conditions, it seems words that ‘describe the abuse’ do little to bring it to an end.

 Indeed, there is a legitimate case to be made that criticism of the specific lies, misrepresentations, and distortions by the government on the public media only emboldens those forces of hate and racism and their abusive tactics and strategies. They ‘double-down’ on their hatred. And, even the protests that fill the streets of many urban centres, while they make great television and screen-shots, merely jack-up the motivation of hate that drives the government forces. Considering the cauldron in which we are living to be an exclusively political, oligarchy-versus-democracy issue, is both myopic and ineffectual. Essentially, the approach is self-emasculating of the traditional institutional agencies and of democracy itself. The political cliché, applied often to discussions about Republican ‘warfare’ and Democratic warfare, ‘the democrats bring a knife to a political fight while the Republicans bring AR-15 rifles.’ While the David and Goliath archetype holds, it depends on a highly creative and insightful and courageous David’s out-thinking his opponent, and strategically striking from a distance, rather than in close hand-to-hand combat.

Big and hard power will not always or inevitably win the day. And right now, the political forces of the republic need all of the support they can muster. And while increasingly clerics, pastors, priest and bishops are lining the streets in public protest, and letters of support for the people of Minnesota are emerging from, for example, all Episcopal Bishops in the United States, this level of support, while significant and relevant, pales in comparison to the guile, bile, determination and hatred that drives the government forces.

Abuse, without conscience, lies displayed on the streets, and in the prisons of many U.S. cities, while public threats to take over election machinery rain on the screens like a silent tornado of political bravado, and tariff threats impale the inboxes of government officials in many previously allied nations of America. And this deluge of lies, betrayals and armed threats by the terrorist-inspired American government is shaking not only individual families within the U.S. borders; it is also shaking the sense of security and stability and safety and trust in every nation on earth. Sugar-coating this evil is a risk of such proportion as to be beyond consideration for engaged, sentient and especially committed Christian men and women.

As the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire reminds his priests, ‘statements may no longer be enough, we may have to put our bodies on the line’….and when, where, how and for how long his injunction may be relevant, cogent and compelling remains unknown.

It seems that we have to go backward into the interior pathways of the minds and hearts of men and women whose convictions run deeper than activism in street protests with whistles and cell phone/cameras.

The depth and range of these coagulated and combustible threats demand an elevation of the engagement of the opposition from ‘words’ and statements to actions beyond how to organize street protests, letters to the editor and neighbourhood watches.

Learning about hate, propaganda, and the converse of hope and liberation, not only at the political level but also on the spiritual level, seems more appropriate to the degree of the danger, the risk and the long-term devastation this regime will leave.

It is not the establishment of a Christian form of Sharia law that is needed. Nor is is it an ideological face to Christianity (as some would and have considered Marxism, when critiquing Liberation Theology in the past). The enemies we face far outweigh political ideology. They also outweigh nationalism, and Christian nationalism, itself another face of the threat we all face. Nihilism, incarnate evil, is both monstrous and cancerous to a degree that only infrequently have we encountered anything nearing its venality.

The face, voices, determination and perversity of EVIL, all caps, requires a considered, determined, creative, non-violent and ‘bodies-on-the-line’ as well as minds-committed to learning about the theological/spiritual/psychic potential in this moment. I was once asked, back in the late 1960’s by a grade ten male student, ‘Would you go to Vietnan to fight?” to which I responded, ‘I would only go to engage  in teaching, as I am doing here.’

The question resurfaces today, only I ask myself a different question, “If I were an American cleric, what would I do to engage in this battle for the minds, hearts and souls of America?’

And, while my answer has to be considered hypothetical, and thereby less then ‘incarnating’ my own convictions, I would begin to explore the writing of Gustavo, Boff, Sobrino, as well as Ghandi, Mandela, Tolstoy, King, and I would begin to organize in small discussion groups in living rooms, and in kitchens. And I would also declare, up front, that I was following in the footsteps of giants, named above, whose religious faith, conviction, and determination, under God, was what both inspired and motivated these men, some to write, and some to become highly active politically, in a cause equal to, if not less compelling than the cause of the freedom of not only immigrants and refugees, blacks and Latinos, the poor and homeless, the starving and the diseased who have no health care.

The capacity to divide ‘enemy targets’ has to be removed from the current government. There is no single ‘target’ now, as we can all witness. We are all potentially in the cross-hairs of their machinery of hate.

And, we have to summon every fibre of our being in response. One of the little voices in my head about my own theology is that, if it is to have any relevance and significance in my life, my faith does and will support and encourage and sustain both creative thought and physical engagement beyond what I would do if I were not acting from that faith premise and perspective. Faith enhances whatever potential I might have to emulate T.S. Eliot’s injunction:

Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.

Searching for God # 80

I feel a little ‘cheeky’ this morning….as I have reflected on the information that Vatican sources considered Liberation Theology too ‘Marxist’ and therefore too ‘political’ to be fully respected and supported.

Has the embeddedness with capitalism and the money ‘interests’ also been too  political? Or, has the association with the political, economic, corporate and academic ‘elites’ been just a natural affiliation with all ‘sorts’ and ‘degrees’ of men and women? Is the prohibition of abortion, from the church’s theological position, a political or ideological interference, or merely a strict adherence to the notion of refusing to insult or sully God’s sacred gift of life? And, if that is so, what about the life of the circle of the infant? Just as war implicates both the deciders and those who carry out the orders, whose life matters, the Ukrainians, or the Russians, or both? The Palestinians or the Israelis or both? Formerly in Northern Ireland, the Roman Catholics or the Protestants, or both?    Language, after all, is how we paint, erase and re-paint the epistemological landscape as well as the place in the landscape for our theology.

Just as it is no longer acceptable to consider the voiceless, homeless, poverty-stricken, illiterate, unemployed, and mentally disadvantaged as an ideological issue, it is also important to refuse to link any legitimate attempt, including the theological, to lift up those millions as an exclusively political, economic, or ideological issue. It is the human condition we are talking about and we must bring the whole of the human being, and our shared capacity to integrate, respect and deploy various ‘academic’ and ideological theories and practices (praxis), to the table. And that smorgasbord of talent and experience is and always will be necessary if we are to carry out our shared responsibilities.

Given the blatant disregard and contempt for any ideology, except their own self-aggrandizement, of the oligarchs, tyrants, and despots, perhaps the rest of us can bring ourselves ‘out of the closet’ of our own myopia. Mass media, saturated as it is with the vocabulary and the principles of politics and political ideology, and pitting democracy against oligarchy, despotism and tyranny, has locked the public discourse into another binary, black-white, zero-sum oscillation.

Either-or, whether in political or even ethical or moral questions, begs and inevitably results in ‘reductionisms’….there is no other legitimate or reasonable or conventional position, and for both sides, the presumption that ‘God is on our side’ is part of the script. Combatants in wars have for centuries invoked the support of the, or more than one, deity. However, invoking God as a lawyer/advocate/leader/hero of a political ideology, is nothing short of a reduction of God, for human satisfaction and glorification.

Theology, belief in and discipleship with God is not reducible to such a cognitive, psychological, philosophical, sociological, scientific and certainly not political ‘equation.’ Just as human life cannot be reduced to any one or any combination of these modes of thought, also modes of operating, so too, neither is God. One of the implications of this premise is that the church too has to ward against falling prey to the many and various charlatans who would attempt to marry their personal political agenda to and with God. And the challenge of such a temptation, given how unconscious one’s (everyone’s) vulnerability to such a ready invocation of God as political ally, is no mean matter. Indeed, resistance to such a temptation will inevitably require the questioning of all forms and iterations of authority, power and public acclaim. While the church and Christian theology generally has taken the position and view that its adherents can and do see and separate the secular from the sacred, at least in one’s personal and private existence. The larger question of salvation for the whole world, and its interpretation, application and expectations and demands remains freighted with many questions especially those of a theological nature.

The conventional vernacular, and its proliferation among the masses, premised as it is on the dominance and absolute authority of the literal, the empirical, the scientific perception and mind-set, leaves the imagination out of the cognitive, perceptual and psychological as well as the theological equation. What also escapes any and all of the classifications of human thought and cognition is something humans have, it seems from the beginning, considered ‘evil,’ harmful,’ ‘abusive,’  ‘intolerable,’ inexcusable,’  ‘constricting,’  ‘imprisoning,’  ‘dehumanizing,’ and ‘excessive,’ and ‘worth fighting to limit, erase, minimize or even eliminate.’

Given that the concept of God is and always will be fraught with the limits of human imagination, it seems more likely, if not predictable, that most of us humans can more likely agree with what constitutes, comprises and demonstrates itself as ‘evil’. So the both philosophic and pragmatic question for each of us, irrespective of our denominational adherence, or our religious tradition, but certainly for those espousing Christianity, is to summon the courage, and the faith and the humility to seek to find, and then to reflect and to imagine how best to non-violently, creatively and unequivocally to confront the evil we see, experience, and even anticipate with force (borrowing a simple, yet profound, epithet from Tolstoy.

For most of us, we can and do see and react to what we consider ‘evil’ from another human being, especially if and when their behaviour impacts us directly. As we learn about being disregarded, as one of the more prevalent iterations of being ‘hurt,’ we also attempt to discern whatever we can about the reasons, motivations, or even the lack of awareness of the perpetrator, and then decide whether or not to confront, and how and when. When a mother or father abuses his or her child, we now know that such abuse says more about the parent than it does about the behaviour of the child. Similarly, in schools, some teachers have such an overriding need for classroom control that, while they may have constructed a military boot-camp, students will eventually ‘quit and stay’ which happens to be another of the more passive-aggressive approaches to what we consider ‘unacceptable,’ or in our view ‘evil.’

How each of these early encounters impacts us, (and we have all had some of them) can and often does generate a counter-response, whether that response is contained in thought, feeling and attitude, or expressed openly in conflict with others. And, just as in a car accident, it is the second-impact that is the most ‘telling’.

If we can approach a man or woman who has, willingly and overtly, or unconsciously and imperceptibly, hurt us, and begin a conversation about our experience, depends on an assessment or discernment of both of the person’s adaptability to listen, reflect, remain open to criticism and also to conciliation or reconciliation.

Given the churches’ preference for defining and implementing sanctions on sin, considered as a private and personal act, the matter of institutional ‘evil’, including the feasibility and likelihood of the church’s own culpability, has been left primarily to opposing politicians, the law and the media. Here comes the monster of such public approbrium, something today that is called ‘structural evil’….meaning that it is baked into the cake of the culture, institutions, and traditional and conventional perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes.

Of course, at this point we are envisioning the intersection of what we call politics with the perceived systemic ‘evil’…and the often disregarded prospect of whether and if this specific abuse can or will be ameliorated by those political actors and structures whose purview includes the ‘evil.’

From Britannica.com, we read, under the definition of Liberation Theology:

Liberation Theology, a religious movement that arose in late 20^th century roman Catholicism and was centered in Latin America. It seeks to apply religious faith by aiding the poor and oppressed through involvement in political and civic affairs. It stresses both heightened awareness of the ‘sinful’ socioeconomic structures that cause social inequities and active participation in changing those structures.

Liberation theologians believe that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor. They perceived that the Roman Catholic church in Latin America was fundamentally different from the church in Europe—i.e.. that the church in Latin America should be actively engaged in improving the lives of the poor. In order to  build this church, they established communidades de base (base communities), which were local Christian groups, composed of 10 to 30 members each,  that studied the Bible and attempted to meet their parishioners’ immediate needs for food, water, sewage disposal and electricity. A great number of base communities, led mostly by laypersons, sprang into being throughout Latin America.

The birth of the Liberation Theology movement is usually dated to the second Latin American Bishop’s Conference, which was held in Medellin, Columbia in 1968. At this conference that attending bishops issued a document affirming the rights of the poor and asserting that industrialized nations enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries. The movement’s seminal text, (Teologia de la liberacion) A Theology of Liberation, was written by Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian priest and theologian. Other leaders of the movement included the Belgian-born Brazilian priest, Jose Comblin, Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, Brazilian theologian Leonardo Boff, Jesuit scholar Jon Sobrino,  and Archbishop Helder Camara of Brazil.

Now 58 years later, who can argue persuasively and convincingly that the industrialized nations have not enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries? Who can argue persuasively that the poor have not been categorically and deliberately ignored, demeaned, left homeless, and hopeless in our streets, and social policy and social philosophy has neither improved or even given prominence to their individual and collective lot? And ‘the poor’ cannot be limited to those failing to meet the poverty line of socioeconomic statistical determination. It must include the indigenous, the migrants, the refugees, the victims of war, the victims of either or both a failed health care system or the complete absence of such a system, the victims of refused education, the victims of racial conflicts and effectively those considered ‘non-persons’ in our affluent and insouciant elite culture.

Of course, the Canadian Blood Services commercials proudly declare that ‘giving helps both the giver and the recipient’…and philanthropics are hourly begging, pleading and praying for checks. And the Good Samaritan continues as the image of the Christ, when, as we have been reminded by John Klopeborg and the Jesus Seminar, the Jew taken for dead in the ditch is more emblematic and representative of the Christ, in their shared, collective view.

There is no ideology in any nation, developed or developing, that does not consider and perhaps even enacting policies that might lift some of the burden of the dispossessed. And yet tokenism, political dilettantism, posturing, and in the words of a local politician who considers advocating for nuclear disarmament ‘virtual signalling,’ the world, especially among the oak board rooms of the rich, and the political backrooms of the political operatives, continues to pay lip-service to the dispossessed.

They suffer most the ravages of climate change and global warming; they suffer most when social programs are eliminated; they suffer most, as does everyone, when an ethical and moral moron such as Elon Musk declares the single trouble with contemporary culture is its embrace of empathy.

Please help this scribe be even more convincing and effective in making the case that it is time for radical, prophetic Christian discipleship! Time for mere statements has to give way to time for putting bodies on the line. 

Searching for God # 79

Hillman’s phrase ‘salvation ideology’ prompts one to pause. The deliberate evisceration of democracy by the current world powers, especially the U.S. and Russia and China, with supporting roles for Netanyahu and Kim Jong Un, Orban and perhaps others, leaves the world facing existential threats from political and environmental forces. And, prior to those two, for the past three-quarters of a century, humanity has faced the spectre of annihilation from atomic and nuclear weapons.

On one level, it might seem less than surprising if, under such circumstances,   individuals might retreat into a kind of ‘personal, narcissistic, somewhat narrow and certainly (in the immediate) more ‘accessible’ kind of salvation. Such a perspective is likely to pursue their personal ‘salvation’ through therapy, spas, pharmaceuticals, travel, as well as hard work and competition for the highest rung on the ladder of success each can envision. With all of those extrinsic pathways, and an accompanying mind-set that politicizes and reinforces such personal, private, psychic ‘needs’ in a capitalist, advertising-swamped culture, where everything is morphed into a brand, selling what the public ‘needs’ is not only justified but idolized. And buying is measured in billions if not trillions of dollars.

Some certainly would have to get very rich where everyone is drowning in seductive advertising, as well as manipulative technology that seeks more and more ‘attention’ and predictable ‘addiction’. And such a scene is not restricted to pre-teens, or young adults, or even the largest segment of the ‘bell curve’ in market analysis, 25-45. Extrinsic, literal, empirical, scientific and measurable reality, like a giant magnet drawing millions into its orbit, normalizing itself with more and more spending and acquiring and competing and  more and more spending and acquiring and competing, renders itself in an obsessive-compulsive picture of swarming ant in the short story of Leningen and the Ants.  A plantation owner in the Brazilian forest attempts to ward off a plague of soldier ants, only to escape death, ‘somewhat streamlined’ through ant-inflicted injuries.

Herd immunity is a target for inoculations against various viruses to be effective among a target population. Such herd immunity is being threatened by anti-vaccine skeptics, while paradoxically, the unconscious rush to a different kind of ‘herd,’ one that silently and complicitly succumbs to the brash, highly sexualized, increasingly risky gambling opportunities of the advertising/propaganda machine fed by tabloid press and salacious news stories, explodes. Special effects, avatars, movies and television shows saturating the entertainment networks, which themselves have exponentially erupted, in another phase of the mogul-controlled, dominated and increasingly politicized (pro trump-cult) media imperialism, generate a media-image-message-mind-control blitzkrieg of war-like dimensions.

And while ‘creative artists’ find innovative and challenging opportunities to design, create and tell stories, the general public, not having been either prepared nor having developed a discerning media literacy, (having either forgotten or abandoned what little original literacy they may have picked up in secondary school, scramble both to find stories that ‘touch’ their lives in a meaningful way, without having to resort to more and more of various iterations of violence.

One furniture company has now taken to selling “laziness” as a way to link the social pressure their demographic is experiencing with their product line and company name.

While spas and retreat centres proliferate, around the world, (ads to purchase a share of a South Pacific island appear regularly on social media) church pews lie idle, or their sanctuaries have been transformed into some different use such as community centres, arts centres, literal sanctuaries for refugees and immigrants…and the traditional business of ‘theology’ clings to life-support in a social, political, corporatist, militarist-pharmaceutical-insurance Intensive Care Unit.

Create enough deep and profound misery, desperation, despair, loneliness, unemployment, hopelessness, spreading medical diseases once considered defeated by vaccination, political anarchy, and a completely recognizable and indisputable un-reality by those in power, and then ride the wave of ‘sloshing cash’ to the slot-machines, to the casinos, to the drug companies/cartels, both legitimate and illicit, internet ‘caves’ of finger-tip gaming, gambling and private and personal self-induced isolation (think Incels: (from https://plan-uk.org): Incels is short for involuntary celebates. They are individuals, mostly heterosexual men, who feel unable to form romantic or sexual relationships. What started as an online subculture has grown into a movement linked to misogyny, rising violence and gender inequality. Incels think they can’t form sexual or romantic relationships. They blame this on their looks, how they see social structures. Core elements include:

Ø Fatalism about dating (the view that it is predetermined they will never date

Ø Resentment toward women who are seen as shallow or manipulative

Ø Hostility toward men who are perceived as more attractive or successful with women

The 80/20 rule is a well-known theory also known as the Pareto principle. It was created by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto. He theorized that roughly 80% of consequences come from 10% of causes. In 1906, he observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by just 20% of the population. Incels distort this idea to claim that 80% of women are attracted to the top 29% of men. These are the men seen as the ‘best looking’ or who have classic masculine traits-the ‘Chads’ . This has no basis in reality or research.

Dividing men from other men, by men themselves, for example, on homophobia, and dividing women from other women, by women, on such bases as degrees of and commitment to feminism could be considered another symptom of the personal, private, ideological divide that pervades throughout this North American culture. Ideology has become personal identity….when, ideology is not and never will be identity.

This delusion, however subtle and inconspicuous, nevertheless operates in a highly and angrily divided culture, especially one in which devious, nefarious, heinous and despicable politics has become normalized. Isolation, alienation, abandonment and separation, along with the hopelessness taken together, these dynamics generate, is another way of describing a psychic identity, It is not a difficult task to connect the dots between an isolated individual grasping an ideology or some facsimile of an ideology, and conflict both identity and ideology.

Where is theology in this cauldron of identities and ideology? Starting with the premise and fact that immediacy has fully eclipsed eternity, and fear has eliminated hope, and anger has shoved compassion and empathy to the sidelines (of the weak), and the churches’ halting and intermittent interventions into the political and economic debate, there is an argument that the churches have withdrawn too far from the public square.

In Canada, years ago, when the economic conditions were quite cloudy and Catholic bishops, as a group with a single unified voice, put out a position paper that both pushed back on and made proposals for the government’s policies. And the line I recall in rebuttal ran something like, “You theologians know nothing about economics so stay in your own lane!” And this occurred in a nation which has an established “state” church, The Roman Catholic church, not in a legal or formal way but certainly in a general public perception.

There is a clear and inescapable time perception between the pace of change in the current cultural environment and the traditional, historic ‘pace’ to which the churches have subscribed. The culture is moving at warp speed, while the church is literally and metaphorically ‘out of breath’ just trying to stay abreast of the changes. Indeed, for centuries, one of the staples of Christian theology was based on the concept of a never-changing, totally dependable, ever-present and always-loving God. The scriptural stories about, around and foreshadowing  a future, are generally considered, taught and ritually remembered as stable, authentic and granite in both content and method. The rhythm and demonstrable evidence of change in nature, both in the wild and within the human sphere, is not a subject that attracts much attention theologically.

Political philosophy, as it applies to Christian theology is rarely if ever considered relevant and applicable to the work of the church in its teaching as well as in its pastoral care delivery. The Liberation Theologians of Latin America, however, witnessing extreme poverty, and reflecting on the theology that seemed more supportive of state policies that insured that poverty began taking their bibles into the fields where the women were harvesting various crops. Viewing God as liberator of the poor and oppressed, it focuses on changing the world rather than just understanding it. It has been criticized by some as being Marxist. Some key proponents include names like Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonardo Boff, and Jon Sobrino. Pope Francis was one who supported the spirit of Liberation Theology.

From the website, thenation.com, in a piece entitled, Pope Francis Upheld the Spirit of Liberation Theology, April 21, 2025, by Greg Grandin, we read:

More than torture and murder  contained liberation theology. The Vatican, headed by Pope John Paul II, refuted its core beliefs. To portray Christ as a ‘political figure, a political figure, z revolutionary,’ the pope said in 1979, violates Church catechism.

From InTheseTimes.com, we read:

In 1984, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office tasked against heresy—condemned liberation theology for its Marxist influences; two years later the office clarified that Christian theology of liberation was possible and necessary, but requires spiritual salvation. The late Pope Francis, the first Latin American pope, simply emphasized a ‘theology of the people’ in solidarity with the poor and oppressed.

In Pope Francis’ own words from same source:

Solidarity, this word that frightens the developed world. People try to avoid saying it. Solidarity to them is almost a bad word. But it is our word! Serving means recognizing and accepting requests for justice, and hope, and seeking roads tougher, real paths that lead to liberation. (Pope Francis)

The piece continues:

During his papal inauguration, Pope Leo XIV called for an end to global violence and hatred, indicating a continuation of Francis’ advocacy for social justice and the poor. He also connected a ‘lack of faith’ with ‘appalling violations of human dignity’.’ In today’s world, where far-right movements are gaining ground globally-often dressing up nationalism and authoritarianism in religious language—liberation theology offers a framework for reclaiming faith as a source for justice. It reminds us that faith isn’t just what we believe, but what we do, who we stand with and who we stand against.

Without the imprimatur of the Vatican, nor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Desmond Tutu (an Anglican) sounds similar notes, and worked diligently advocating for international sanctions and disinvestments to pressure the white apartheid government in South Africa to help being about the end of the oppression of Black South Africans. Was Tutu a revolutionary?  For some, probably yes. For others, a strong voice for liberation.

A letter signed by all 154 Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States, dated February 2, 2026, reads in part:

We, the undersigned bishops of The Episcopal Church, write today out of grief, righteous anger and steadfast hope.

What happened a week ago in Minnesota and is happening in communities across the country  runs counter to God’s vision of justice and peace. The crisis is about more than one city or state- it’s about who we are as a nation. The question before us is simple and urgent: Whose dignity matters?...

We call on Americans to trust their moral compass-and to question rhetoric that trades in fear rather than the truth. As Episcopalians, our moral compass is rooted firmly in the Gospel of Jesus Christ….We call on people of faith to stand by your values and act as your conscience demands. We urge the immediate suspension of ICE and Border Patrol operations in Minnesota and in any community where enforcement has eroded public trust. Because the rule of law is weakened, not strengthened, when power is exercised without restraint…..Safety built on fear is an illusion. True safety comes when we replace fear with compassion, violence with justice ad unchecked power with accountability. That’s the vision our faith calls us to live out-and the promise our country is meant to uphold.

Although our fingerprints may be all over this next statement, hinting broadly where we ‘come down,’ it is necessary to say it forthrightly:

It is not only ICE and Border Patrol that are out of control in the United States. Indeed, the gap between the have’s and the have-not’s is widening by the hour. Attacking alleged drug cartels in the Caribbean, rather than addressing the desperate conditions in which millions of Americans are being forced to live, is like lancing a boil when the patient has stage 4 cancer. Root causes, economic and political abuse of power and the decimation of the very concept of human dignity, not only in Minneapolis and other cities under siege, is evident in the rising numbers of homeless, of the rising numbers of people whose health care is unaffordable, the rising number of people who have given up hope for themselves and their families….these less visible and perhaps less troublesome, given that they have no voice, no public advocate, and the spectre of the miniscule social programs that once gave a little hand-up being decimated by a budgetary bill that robs those programs to pad the pockets and investment portfolios of the very wealthy. America is now clearly, obviously, blatantly and unabashedly copying the oligarchy of the Russia the president is fawning to emulate.

Liberation Theology, even in the space where the lives and fortunes of those Christian clerics and laity whose courage moves them in this direction is a  spiritual discipline for which the United States may will be pining unconsciously.

Liberation, with Jesus as liberator, and even as revolutionary, may be required for the profound levels of oppression, cynicism, skepticism and outright violence to be brought to heel. And, where would such an approach to Christian theology garner more public attention  than from the networks of the American mass media? 

Searching for God # 78

Therapy, as Hillman puts it, thus becomes yet another ideology—‘a salvation ideology’. (p.103 of We’ve had a hundred years of therapy etc.) But this flight into the unconscious has gone far beyond formal therapy into the general Western myth of what as individual is and –more importantly—what properly should interest an individual. The answer? Himself. Herself. Not society. Not civilization. The particular versus the whole. The narrowly examined life of the passive citizen versus that unexamined life of the twentieth century… (John Ralston Saul, The Unconscious Civilization, p. 49….from Searching for God # 76, January 29, 2026)

The intersection of the concept of religious, spiritual ‘salvation,’ whether as a ‘salvation ideology’ or a ‘theological conversion’ bears unpacking for several reasons.

In its privatizing of sin, and thereby the pursuit of salvation, redemption, forgiveness, and the promise of an eternal life in a Heaven, the church has essentially defined what it considers the definition and meaning of the word. In the churches’ vocabulary and mind-set, as well as its cognition and even its dogma, the word soteriology is defined by merriam-webster.com as theology dealing with salvation especially as effected by Jesus Christ. From AI, we read, the theological study of the doctrine of salvation, derived from the Greek word soteria (salvation) and logos (study, word). It examines how, why, and from what humanity is saved, acting as a central theme in many religions, particularly Christianity, which focuses on redemption through Jesus Christ.

The question of the salvation of an individual ‘soul’ or the salvation of humanity as a collective, however, hangs like low-hanging fruit on at least one tree in the orchard where politics and religion/theology intersect. One premise and presumption is that humanity can and will be saved as each individual person is saved. Another premise and presumption is that ‘the community’ as in the whole of humanity is and can be saved both in and through individual conversions as well as a shared, unified and committed movement in solidarity to a new and life-giving consciousness as well as unconsciousness.

For those within the church, at least some churches, who advocate for the preservation of the churches’ exclusive purview of individual salvation, such questions as LGBTQ+ not their legal rights, but rather their access to the offices, sacraments, liturgies and full acceptance in and by the churches can be and is often seen as a distracting ‘political’ issue. One of the well-known and well-worn epithets within Christian thinking and perceptions is the Biblical injunction to render unto Caesar to Caesar those things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. (Matthew 22:21. Mark 12:17). The separation of civil obligations like taxes and civil authority from religious duties comes out of an attempt by the Pharisees to trap Jesus as either an enemy of Rome or a traitor to his own people. One interpretation is that the state can claim the money but not the ‘person’ born in God’s image. According to AI, In the context of the Jesus Seminar’s focus on a ‘social prophet’ rather than an apocalyptic one, this statement often highlights that Jesus kingdom is not one of political power, but one focused on the ‘poor the demonized and the afflicted victims of empire.

Hmmmmmm? Social prophet v. apocalyptic one, focused on the ‘poor, the demonized and the afflicted victims of empire. Therein lies a contrast of images of Jesus as perceived and ascertained by the Seminar, which brings into clear focus the different, competing? perceptions of His mission. And this is not to advocate for the option that each is unequivocally mutually exclusive. Doubtless, the two images are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive. Can the church (the institution generally, beyond denominational differences) see itself in the ‘both-and’ mission of ‘salving souls’ as well as ‘advocating for the poor, the demonized and the afflicted victims of empire’?

Are these two missions not in fact complementary, supportive of each other, and far from mutually exclusive? Indeed, one might, in a kind of sophomoric debate, wonder if the analogy of the ‘chicken-egg’ might be playfully relevant. Is one an a priori to the other? Is one a cause for the effect of the other? Are they to be considered more as synchronous, in that the work to advocate for those voiceless victims of empire is conducive to and dedicated to embodying the mission of salvation of both the victim and the advocate? Is there any inherent and integrous identity to the notion of salvation of both the Good Samaritan and the Jew taken for dead in the ditch in the parable of the Good Samaritan? Or have we once again, separated the Samaritan from the Jew in a paradoxical narrative of the enemy coming to the rescue of the hated Jew. Again, borrowing from the Jesus Seminar’s consideration of this parable, (from AI) the story acts as a critique of religious legalism, as represented by the priest and Levite who pass by the injured man, contrasting with compassion in action. And from me own experience in the lecture room with Joh Klopenborg, a member of the Jesus Seminar, ‘The dead Jew is an image of the Christ, rather than the Good Samaritan.’

The first time I heard those words was, and remains, an epiphany for me. I have watched, listened to and wondered about the culture of activism, rescuing and ‘salving’ of sinners, by those evangelists whose conviction and methods depict a degree of black-and-white absolutism both of the nature and definition of sin and evil and the assertion that each of us has a primary theological and spiritual obligation to seek salvation in and on their terms. Heroic, charismatic, highly persuasive and, for me, deeply disturbing are those mostly men who conduct their revival missions in such a dramatic, and even epic and melodramatic fashion as to, from my perspective, refuse to acknowledge their intimidation and fear-mongering of their audience. In fact, my little mind has, for decades conflated ‘political imperialism’ with fundamental evangelical revival meetings, in method, if not in content. As one Anglican Bishop put it, in reference to Reverend Iain Paisley after listening to him speak, ‘He was more frightening than the Fuhrer himself!’

Rousing, melodramatic rhetorical exhortations warning of the fires of Hell for sinners, (and we all know that we are all sinners in God’s eyes) and the promise of an eternal life in Heaven, especially for ears and psyches desperate for being understood, for being welcomed, and for being considered ‘healed’ has, maybe a peripheral and potential application for those living on the street, semi-conscious under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol, homelessness, or even wandering the streets of a new country seeking a home and refuge. Such an approach ‘gets the attention’ of anyone in the vicinity.

The protracted, reflective more often, occasionally and exceptionally spontaneous, process of discerning one’s own relationship to and with God will almost inevitably include opportunities to ‘rescue’ and to be ‘rescued’ from various kinds of snares, many of which already have taken up residence in the psyche. Immediately comes to mind the phrase:

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? (Matthew 7:3) And of course, we all respond, ‘Because that speck of sawdust is so much more visible and sinister and evil than any similar object in my own eye!’…when we are consciously and silently and surreptitiously ashamed even to be asked such a question. It is the fullness of the “hammer over the head” of some incident, some loss, some shameful action, some desperate and despicable decision, a moment lying in the wings of each of our lives, that brings such a metanoic moment to its own fullness. The question for each of us is not to live our lives cowering in fear and avoidance of such a moment but rather remaining both open to and accepting of its profound significance, psychically, spiritually, as well as ethically and morally. And for some of us, it may take more than a single ‘hammer’ to bring about the fullness of realization of who we really are, what we were meant to be here to do or for, and how we might shift both our priorities and values to better conform with the new consciousness.

It was Rainer Maria Rilke who is responsible for one of the more momentous of aphorisms: From The Economic Times, by ET Online, January 29, 2026, we read:

Life rarely moves in straight lines. It rises, falls, surprises us, and sometimes humbles us in ways we never expect. Few quotes capture this truth as beautifully as Rainer Maria Rilke’s powerful words:

The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things.

This perspective is not fatalistic nor seriously depressing, malignant or abusive. Indeed, it may well be a point of view that transcends most religious faiths, most ethnic and geographic cultures, as well as most leadership curricula. We in the West have so disparaged vulnerability as to render it almost one of the cardinal sins. Here the ego is “KING”! Even religious faith denominations appear, to the unsuspicious, unquestioning and unskeptical eye and ear, to champion the single act of redemption, whereas life continues to both prescribe and deliver repeated examples of ‘hammers’ or moments of crisis, (Hillman calls them ‘in extremis’ moments) as a part of the ‘natural menu’ of life’s drama. And while each ‘hammer’ has the potential of evoking and provoking a change in our attitude, belief, and approach to our relationships with ourselves, others and God, such a shift is not always attainable.

The Jesuit, John Powell, an intellectual, heavy smoker and proud deliverer of academic lectures to his Jesuit brothers, tried everything to stop smoking. Finally, as he tells the story, he knelt at his bed, desperately asking God to help him cease the killer habit. Next day, amazingly and surprisingly, his requirement for nicotine evaporated. That evening, again on his knees, he begged God, “Thank you for the grace you offered to help me stop smoking. Is there more grace that you have for me?” And in his inner voice, he heard God’s ‘voice,’ “When you get to the point where you were at with your attempt to quit smoking, then and only then will there be the grace you seek and are asking for!” (Words are approximate from memory)

Each of us is never separated either from ourselves and our inner, spiritual, psychic life, nor from the responsibility and accountability for the way the world is operating, especially as ‘it’ treats its most voiceless, powerless and indigent members. And, coming to the place where our convictions and our courage as well as our faith pilgrimage converge, it seems most probable that in such moments, we will find the ‘strength’ and the courage and the determination to ‘non-violently confront evil with force.’

With unreserved thanks to Leo Tolstoy, and John Powell, Reverend Messers. Tutu, Gogh, Andrews, Moseley, Dunn, Harries, Klopenborg, O’Driscoll, Scott, Winterrowd, Womack; Reverend Mothers Medcof, Burns-Lecra, Murphy, Hathaway, Toth; as well as Jung, Hillman, Woodman, Wiebe, Wearn, O’Toole, McKim, Parham, Mandela, Ghandi, and many others whose lives have touched mine in ways they will never know.