Searching for God # 126

 Writing in the National Post, on July 30, 2026, Terry Newman, columnist, in an editorial entitled, “Integration or Islamicization?” reported and commented on a Muslim youth conference in Montreal on July 26, 2026: 

‘On July 26, an Islamic convention called “LIT” was held at the Embassy Plaza in the Montral suburb of Laval. What was said there raises serious concerns about how some Muslim communities integrate into Canadian society. The conference’s website states that the target audience of ‘Montreal’s largest Islamic convention’ was youth aged 15 to 30, and its purpose was to ‘unify the Muslims.’ Yet based on the recordings of the talks reviewed by the National Post, the purpose of unifying Muslim youth appears to include encouraging them to detach themselves from Canadian society and its ‘immoral’ western law-based paradigm, in favour of a community-based Islamic one. Attendees were urged by one speaker to build a ‘circular economy’ by supporting Muslim businesses, where Canadian currency might be replaced with gold and where their wealth may be used to exert political influence. LI’s title sponsor was the Qibla Foundation, which recently received a grant of over $20,000 from the federal government. According to attendees and photos of the conference circulated on social media, the main hall was segregated, with women on one side and men on the other, separated by a curtain. (Of 11 speakers) of particular note were speeches made by Navid Aziz, Yasir Nadeem, and Daood Butt. Aziz’s bio at the Islamic Information Society of Calgary, where he serves as director of religious and social services, says he’s ‘focused on the education and integration of Muslim youth’ But his speech on July 26 raises serious questions, from my perspective, as to whether that include integrating them into Canadian society. Aziz began by telling attendees that he’s happy to now see Halal food everywhere, but finds Quebec’s new lactate law ‘very, very disheartening,’ and suggested that, despite their numbers, Quebec Muslims ‘are still unable to protect’ themselves. In an effort to explain why Muslim youth need to live for Allah and not just for material things, Aziz told a story about a Jew, A Muslim and a well in Medina. The well, he said, was owned by a Jewish man who ‘knew that he had a monopoly, that he could charge whatever he wanted because there was no competition for him.’ Long story short, the Muslim tricked the Jew into selling half the well and is then able to give Muslims the water for free on specific days, foiling the Jew’s plans to make money. The Muslim, in contrast, is presented as trying to make the world a better place. Aziz told the youth that it’s great to have political aspirations, but that ‘there’s a ceiling that Muslims will reach in the political sphere’ and ‘eventually you will have to compromise your beliefs.’ Because of this political ceiling, Aziz suggested that Muslims should amass wealth in order to influence politics, explaining that this is something that the Zionist lobby does this amazingly well.’ ‘They have no problem in lining the pockets of the politicians They don’t need the politicians to believe in their causes. They just need to line their pockets so the politicians will log and advocate for them. And that’s what I need you to think about. Aziz then argued that to create wealth, Muslims must build a ‘circular economy’ where they buy from their own community. Aziz said that he is trying to develop an infrastructure solution where Muslims can avoid using fiat currency, and instead back their wealth in gold. The solution is called ‘Phi Wallet.’ Aziz then told them that for every dollar that Jews spend, 92 to 97 cents stays within the Jewish community. 

Urged also to have ‘friends who remind them of Allah’ by another speaker, and not to date ‘others’ who are not Muslims, and to regard support for the LGBTQ+ community as sin, are some of the other warnings delivered at the conference, according to Ms Newman’s piece.  

How can one reflectively respond to such ‘red flags’ without expressing rage, anger and a reciprocal animus?  

Well, for starters, Aziz, for one, seems to have fallen into the binary trap, pitting Muslims against, and comparing Muslims with Jews...as if they were the sole ‘power-brokering source’ in Canadian (or any other nation’s politics). That trope has a long history, and just for a modest clarification, the Canadian economy and political system, while leaning in favour of Israel historically, seems to have developed a ‘crack’ through which we can only hope ‘the light can enter’ (thank you Leonard Cohen).  

Needless to say, also, the recent American-Israeli military debacle in Iran and in Gaza and Lebanon, and the mindless bellicosity of human depravity that continues on all sides, has helped to tilt world opinion against both the U.S. and Israel. In that process, antisemitism is rising globally. However, there is no justification for a Muslim speaker or speakers jumping on that ‘opportunity’ to pile on against Zionists and Jews in Canada. In a parallel situation, just because Iran has hundreds, if not thousands, of secret agents embedded around the world, ready at any moment to execute terrorist attacks is no reason for Christians or Muslims to attack all Iranians or all Muslims. 

Indeed, the specific and deplorable perspective that power is exclusively attained by ‘lining the pockets’ of politicians (while there is a considerable degree of legitimacy to the charge) is among the most cynical, and inhuman and also unethical starting place for any serious analysis of Canadian politics. As a faith that seeks to champion a rigid ethics, linked to a marriage of both state and religion, the Muslim faith, as does each and every faith community, continue to have much to examine within, critically, honestly, forthrightly and without blindness to their own paradoxes and absolute certainties. It is those absolute certainties that provide the fertile soil for most, if not all, of the profoundly disturbing, intractable and ungodly conflict that is obviously only continuing to grow and fester, right here is this innocent, naive and ultra-polite Canada. 

Le’t’s not forget that Jews, for decades, in some places centuries, have been excluded from even holding public office and owning land, and attending universities, and over those centuries, naturally, as would any other ethnic or religious group, developed profoundly nuanced and deployable skills and insights about how to make and earn money. In more recent decades, Jews have also used their individual and collective ambition and imagination to enter, and in many cases rise to the top of their chosen academic and/or professional field. Competence, diligence, exaggerated commitment to their own survival, (which of us would not have responded to the Third Reich?) including a determination to ‘prove their intrinsic worth and value to humanity, (something Netanyahu seems to have gone blind to!) have, as might have been expected, generated back-lash. Much of that animus (whatever it is called, jealousy, intimidation, revenge, or simply racism) continues to slosh around in world culture as if it were a permanent stain on the conscience of the human race. A similar racial, religious, ethnic and nationalistic pride/hubris/isolation/superiority/exclusivity/supremacy, while it may already have a ‘white, Christian nationalism and supremacy’ title,’ is a psychic, religious, ethnic, ideological, political virus seemingly residing and waiting for an opportunity to ‘erupt’ from many sources, many of them unexpected and unexplained.  

And for this virus, (obviously a metaphoric reductionism) there is neither a scientific lab, nor a graduate school designed, funded and universally (under United Nations auspices) and politically endorsed to begin the international research (not directed to prosecution) into how to bring about a human, shared, open, honest and obviously somewhat vulnerable perception that each of us is a carrier of this virus. And each of us is a potential ‘spreader’ of the venom on which this virus depends for survival. 

Needless to say, also, this virus is incompatible with all faith dogma, theory, and praxis, whether the leaders, hierarchy and most fanatical proponents agree or are even willing to become open to consider such a proposition. 

One of the most menial, meagre, and yet significant tasks for us ordinary, nameless, and highly private men and women is for us to begin to take formal and informal conscious steps to ensure that we are not unconsciously vulnerable to the temptation to engage as ‘willing ‘spreaders’ of the hate that underlies the Muslim conference in Montreal this past week. 

Searching for God # 125

 In one of his penetrating, provocative and challenging essays entitled, ‘If Jesus Came Back, Who Would He Confront,’ Jim Palmer, former Episcopal priest and adjunct professor of religion and culture, writes: 

The question is not whether Christianity believes in Jesus. The question is whether Jesus would believe in the Christianity that now bears his name. If that question feels offensive, perhaps it’s worth asking why. 

Here are ten things Jesus would have something to say about. 

1. His vision for a transformed world became an afterlife religion. Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God as a radically different way of living here and now, where justice, compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation reshape human life. Yet much of Christianity redirected that vision toward escaping earth for heaven. The focus shifted from transforming the world to leaving it. I suspect Jesus would ask why so much energy is spent preparing people to die instead of teaching them how to live. 

2. A religion was built around his name instead of a movement embodying his way of life. Jesus did not call people to worship him. He called them to follow him. His concern was never building an institution but forming people marked by courage, mercy, humility and love. Yet Christianity has often become far more concerned with believing the right things about Jesus than becoming the kind of person Jesus embodied. Confession replaced imitation. Orthodoxy replaced transformation. 

3. The gospel became centered on his death rather than the life he lived.  Christianity has devoted enormous effort to explaining what Jesus’ death accomplished, often while neglecting the life that gave his death its meaning. Before there was a cross, there was a way of being human that revealed compassion over condemnation, inclusion over exclusion, and intimacy with God over separation from God. Jesus might well ask why Christians spend more time defending theories about his death than practicing the life he actually lived. 

4. Christianity became more deeply shaped by Paul that Jesus himself. Paul became Christianity’s primary theologian, and his letters came to define much of its language and doctrine. Yet Paul’s concerns were not always Jesus’ concerns. Jesus announced a way of life through stories, encounters, and example. Paul explained that life through theological interpretation. Somewhere along the way, the interpreter became more authoritative than the teacher. 

5. He became so uniquely divine that his humanity ceased to be a model. By placing Jesus beyond ordinary humanity, Christianity often placed his example beyond imitation. If he alone possessed the capacities he displayed, then following him becomes admiration rather than participation. Yet Jesus continually invited others to live as he lived. He came not only to reveal God, but to reveal what human beings themselves are capable of becoming. 

6. Truth became confined to one religious tradition. Jesus consistently crossed religious, ethnic, and social boundaries. He found faith where respectable religion expected none and challenged those convinced they possessed exclusive access to God. Yet Christianity frequently came to claim precisely that exclusively for itself. The man who dismantled boundaries became the justification for building new ones. 

7. Humanity became defined primarily by guilt, wrath, and condemnation. Much of Christian theology begins by declaring humanity guilty before God Jesus repeatedly began somewhere else. He moved toward people with compassion before demanding anything of them. He restored dignity before correction behavior. He forgave before punishment. Jesus would challenge any the9llgy that makes condemnation the starting point of one’s relationship of one’s relationship with ultimate reality. 

8. People began waiting for him to return instead of accepting responsibility for the world. For centuries Christians have waited for Jesus to return and make everything right. Yet Jesus consistently called people to feed the hungry, confront injustice, welcome strangers, forgive enemies, and participate in healing the world themselves. The greatest obstacle to changing the world is believing someone else is coming to do it for us. 

9. His name became treated as possessing supernatural power. Many Christians speak as though power resides in saying, Jesus’ name. Jesus himself placed the emphasis elsewhere. He consistently pointed toward transformed character, courageous action, compassion, forgiveness, and faithfulness. The power was never in pronouncing his name. It was in embodying his life. 

10. His name became associated with institutions of power instead of humanity itself. For millions of people, the name Jesus now evokes churches, politics, theological arguments, culture wars, and religious authority. Yet the Jesus of the Gospels consistently stood with the marginalized, confronted religions power, defended human dignity, and placed compassion about institutional loyalty. The greatest tragedy is not that so many rejected Jesus but that they have encountered Christianity before they ever encountered him.  

The great irony is this: the man who spent his life confronting religious systems became the centerpiece of one. The man who refused to make belonging contingent upon correct belief became the justification for endless tests of orthodoxy. The man remembered for his courage, compassion and humanity became increasingly obscured behind layers of doctrine, institution, and religious certainty. 

Jesus doesn’t need Christianity to defend him. Christianity needs Jesus to confront it. 

Jim Palmer. 

Sports analysts often offer what they call ‘instant analysis.’ To do that here would be a significant disservice both to Mr. Palmer and to the readers in this space. There are, obviously overlaps with some of his assertions and those of Robert Funk in Honest to Jesus, especially the notions of Jesus’ teaching of the Kingdom of God, and placing God as the focus of his teachings, not himself, his irreverence to religious authorities and proforma religiosity, and his generally rebelliousness nature, seen in the paradoxes of his parables, as well as in the manner of his associations, not with the powerful but with the outcasts. 

The question of his divinity has been analyzed, debated and then embodied in creed, while both Palmer and Funk seem to be advocating for perhaps an extraordinary human being, conceived naturally and never even hinting at a return to ‘save everyone.’ Recall Funk’s note on this: 

The question regarding the historic creeds is not whether the plot of the external redeemer is believable—apparently it is for many moviegoers—but whether a hero from another world is salutary religiously, socially and politically. We know that our perceptions of the world arae decisively shaped by our mythic stories....The redeemer hero in this plot comes from beyond and belongs to a reality not our own. The hero is not one with us; he or she is qualitatively different from us. This feature of the redeemed suggests that the created world is basically flawed and must be redeemed from without. In this flawed world, evil is stronger than human powers and cannot be overcome without superhuman aid. Mortal men and women are powerless within the framework of the myth because evil itself has cosmic dimensions. Spectator religion, morality, and politics are the inevitable result. Human beings are pawns in the cosmic drama being played out on a stage wider than their own. Myths in this category tend to tranquilize, to function as escapist fare. (Funk, Honest to Jesus, pps. 307-308) 

With the range and distribution of views similar to those of both Funk and Palmer growing, one has to wonder if and when the institutional church is going to acknowledge such voices, views and the monumental implications for the ecclesial future. Acknowledging the inordinate significance of the creeds, of Paul, of the resurrection, to the dismal dismissal of the life of Jesus of Nazareth has to be a beginning step in the revisioning of Christian theology. There will have to be congresses and courts, doctoral theses and their defense, a replacing of the old wine of the last two thousand years and the imaginative, creative and courageous/compassionate generation of new myths, stories, images and both aphorisms and sayings, ‘loyal to the manner and style of the seriously debased Jesus of Nazareth. 

Will such an institutional and theological metanoia be merely a fantasy of some, or a horizon full of colour, light and hope for the future of Christianity?