I could relate on an intellectual level to what they seemed to be saying, but I could not relate on an experiential level. Their focus seems to me to have been on restoring the principles of Vat II. That seems to me to be a nice idea, but I have trouble relating to it. I am more interested in dealing with I perceive to be an abuse of power on the part of the hierarchy in general. I noticed that the several priests of my own  diocese talked a lot about their fear of doing something the bishop might not like. An example would be going to the talk by Father Ruff, OSB, that was sponsored by Future Church. What would the bishop say/do if he found out that they had gone to it. While, based on what I have observed in this diocese since my retirement from the Army, I can understand their feelings, I cannot relate on an experiential level. I cant be bothered with stuff like that. I do not in any way want to criticize my brother priests for whom I have the greatest respect. I have it much easier than they do: I do not depend on the bishop for anything, except for faculties – I have a pension from the Army, my medical needs are taken care of, etc. The church leadership cannot take away any of my benefits. All they can take away are my faculties, and in so doing would lose the services of an almost fulltime priest who costs the church nothing, which would be their loss. I resent any leader or leadership style that would make men afraid of anything. I see it as abuse, a matter of justice that in some way must be addressed. Leaders (I hesitate to use such a dignified word in this setting) have been doing what they do simply because they can. No one has questioned them.

My experience of priesthood is significantly different from that of the priests at the meeting. I do not think there is much common ground. In many ways I feel I am an outsider. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. Yesterday in the open discussion with the whole group, I asked for some wisdom: I said that, since I am an “independent priest” taking nothing from the bishop except faculties, do I have a responsibility to do something more, perhaps say publicly what other priests feel that, for whatever reason, they cannot say. They looked at me like they were wondering “where did he park his spaceship”. No one responded in any way, either then or later.

Having been in a parish as both associate and pastor, I have some experience in common with them, and can recognize, but not really share, their frames of reference. However, I do not think they have any idea of what my experience of priesthood has been. I have been subject to authority, but not the kind of authority that they are subject to. A key factor in military culture and the exercise of military authority is mutual respect up and down the chain of command. There is precious little, if any, such respect in the “authority” I have watched exercised in the church – respect is demanded up the chain, but is not reciprocated down the chain. Rather than authority the whole things seems to me to be abuse of power for power’s sake. An example might be the way the recent translation of the Missal was imposed on the english-speaking world.

I think the Priests’ Association is a terrific and important venture. Based on my experience, my focus is significantly different from that of the other priests. I think I would be frustrated and begin to feel even more an outsider, and this probably would affect my interactions. I will continue to support the Assn at least financially, but active participation, I don’t know . . .

I will probably just continue helping out any priest who asks me to. I want to do anything I can to make their lives just a bit easier. I am used to being a circuit rider. At least here it is in the same country, and I don’t have to carry lots of different currencies. For me the church is the folks in the pews, while I wonder about the folks I know who used to be in the pews.

• If a given religious group or organization believes it is following Jesus and being fishers of men, how does that explain a bishop threatening his priests with loss of faculties and livelihood if they disagree publicly with what he is doing in his attempts for impose on the general public the “catholic view” about marriage equality? How is that following Jesus and being fishers of men?
• Do fishermen force fish to bite their hook or jump into their net? Do they not try to make their bait appealing and desirable to the fish? The Gospel is appealing when lived by folks in their everyday life, not when dictated by leaders in funny costumes.
• Is the conduct of the hierarchy in general and many bishops in particular appealing enough to folks so they might want to know more? Since this type of “shepherding” seems to be driving many catholics to look for Jesus in other places, how can it be seen as attractive to folks who are not already catholic? Who would want to join an organization where there is a good chance that they will be bullied, threatened, browbeaten, and in general treated with an appalling lack of respect?
• What about secrecy and taking liberties with the truth – do they reflect the way Jesus lived his Father’s love among the folks of his day?
• Does it seem that some religious groups or organizations see themselves as the only way to Jesus rather than signs and symbols pointing to Jesus involved with our lives and filling us with our Father’s love? They seem to say that the only way folks can get to Jesus is to use their words, their ideas, their ways of worship, and deviations from these will not be tolerated.
• In some religious groups or organizations the predominant characteristic seems to be fear – fear of being disobedient, disloyal.
• In some religious traditions there seems to be the notion that folks no longer are allowed to think. Their leaders will do all the thinking for them. By virtue of their positions as leaders they know all there is to know about everything and they will tell their folks whatever the leaders think the folks need to know. Independent thought, using one’s God-given intellect, is not tolerated, nor is questioning.
• For some religious groups or organizations a stated value is that the ultimate norm of morality is the individual’s conscience properly formed. The operational value is the leaders will tell the folks exactly how properly to form their conscience. Deviations from the established position are not tolerated. The leaders always know best.
• A stated value is that the gospel is proposed and never imposed. However operationally this does not seem to apply in some situations where leaders attempt to force a particular group’s or organization’s view on the general populace through the enactment of civil laws. If civil authorities do not follow what these demands, the organization complains that their rights are being violated.
• Then there is the situation with the current new translation of the Missal. Leadership showed apparent insensitivity by ignoring the many requests for dialogue during the process. The fact that so many such requests were made was also ignored. The weak explanations and justification for the process and its result are perceived as an insult to anyone of average intelligence.
• Daily headlines seem to demonstrate that religious hierarchy is becoming more and more detached from the realities of everyday life for the folks they purport to lead. They are increasingly seen as irrelevant, embarrassing, out of touch, less than honest and truthful, totally disrespective of the intelligence and dedication of “their” folks.
• It is difficult to be a priest these days. The internal stress coming from within the organization is much more difficult than the external stress that comes from trying to witness to the Gospel among the folks. So often priests do not believe in the integrity, value, or truthfulness of what they are told to do from on high. They love their folks and do not want to see them abused. But they hesitate to speak their mind because of culture, training, and the fear that they can be removed from their assignment very easily, as has happened more than a few times, and thus lose their livelihood. It is easy to point fingers at them, as folks who have no idea of what is involved often do. Priests need real and solid support and understanding from their folks.
• I believe that the Holy Spirit is alive and well in all this. The involvement of so many good and qualified folks in many attempts to renew the church is a sign of the Spirit’s involvement. This is an opportunity for growth, for following the Gospel to a whole new depth and richness. The responsibility for each of us is a serious prayer life and the willingness to be surprised.

On our journey we might fear the experience of being led by the Spirit because we are not sure of the unknown, or what the Spirit might be calling us to. It is easier to retreat into a structure or institution than to set out on our own, to let others tell us what our journey is rather than making our journey ourselves. But no one can make our journey for us. We have to do it ourselves. The nature of a structure or institution is to protect and perpetuate itself. Structures are important and necessary, but they are not necessarily eternal. The folks in charge of the structure fear loss of control and power, and the chaos that they believe will surely come.

At times structures must be reformed or confronted, but often folks who would suggest reforms or confront the structure are seen as threats and made to suffer. This was true for the Old Testament Prophets, and it is true now. Independent thought is not safe, and having an opinion is dangerous. While a stated value is that the ultimate norm of morality is a person’s conscience properly formed, the operational value is the institution will determine what properly formed means, and any thought that deviates from an established position is deemed to be wrong, and the threats of “loss of one’s immortal soul” and “disobedience” begin to happen.  Also, while a stated value is that the Gospel is to be proposed and not imposed, the operational value is something quite different, as is obvious in attempts by institutions to have their beliefs and policies imposed on the general population through enactment of civil laws.

A special category in all this seems to involve the “professionals” of a given institution. There are a number of occasions where threats have been hurled, and disciplinary actions imposed, on these folks who had the audacity to follow their conscience, think in ways that are not in accord with an institution’s thinking, or act in ways perceived as threatening, and therefore wrong, by an institution. These threats may include, but are not limited to, being called disobedient, losing their position and livelihood, excommunication, etc.

People in charge of structures do not know what to do with prophets, so they try to silence them. And, as we have seen so recently, these attempts to silence folks makes whatever they have written a best-seller, and ensures that their ideas will become even more popular. It appears that freedom of speech, guaranteed by civil Constitution is not applicable in some institutions. But prophets cannot be silenced. Their ideas grow and become stronger. Who is to say they are not guided by the Spirit? Nevertheless, they will always be seen by the institution as a threat to be dealt with harshly.

In the Old Testament prophets generally did not come from the established elite, but from ordinary people. Perhaps this hints that in our day prophets do not come from the institution itself, but from folks who realize its faults and limitations and are actually responding out of a great love for the institution what it purports to stand for.

At this time of the year when we commemorate the coming of the Prince of Peace, God With Us, it seems worthwhile to question what all this really has to do with trying to be open to Christ. Jesus spent time with his Father, and then reached out to all folks, meeting them where they were, and inviting them to come with him. He did not hurl penalties or throw them out. It might be that some institutions are actually barriers between the folks and Christ. The question might be, therefore, what are folks to do? Spending time with Jesus and our Father seems like a good place to start.

If we are serious about learning from Jesus, we have to question his Stories and teaching. What does a given Story or teaching say to us today in the concrete situations of our life? How does his lifestyle then call us to live today? If Jesus in his day reached out to folks who were considered unclean, sinners, outcasts, what does this say to us about our relationships with folks considered to be the same in our own day? When Jesus confronted the authorities about their unjust and uncompassionate treatment of folks in his day, what does this say to us about folks treated the same way by religious authority in our day? When Jesus included both men and women, and all kinds of folks, in his ministry to spread his Father’s love, what does this say to us in our own day when such is not the case?

When we question and ponder Jesus’ teachings in our own life, we do so with an attitude of eager and trusting respect. We want to learn from him without telling him exactly what it is that we want to learn, and we believe he really will show us. He is the Teacher, we are the disciples, the students. There is much hurt and suffering done in his name these days. We have to ask him if this is what he really wants us to do in his name in our lives. He treated everyone with loving respect, even if the structures of his day did not. If he is calling us to do the same among the folks we encounter today, how does he want us to do it, even if the structures of our day do not?

When Jesus criticized religious leaders in his day for treating the folks with less than compassion and understanding, what does this say to us in our day, when folks who seek to ask question or raise doubts are seen by an institution as disobedient and are threatened by the institution with the loss of their soul? As if any institution really had such power, even one that, in practice, claims to have all the answers for everybody always. When Jesus freely entered into discussions with folks about sensitive topics, eg the Samaritan Woman, what does this say to us when in our day some in leadership would tell us what we can and cannot think, what we can and cannot talk about? Jesus did not seek power, so what does this say to us today when in certain segments of his followers power is a defining issue, and abuses of power are increasingly obvious? Jesus invited folks to open themselves to his Father’s love. What does this say to us in our day when loyalty to an institution is seen to be more important than any other relationship with Jesus, or when the institution presents itself as the only means to a relationship with Jesus, or, instead of being a symbol or example of God’s loving compassion, an institution portrays itself as the only means of receiving God’s loving compassion?

If we are going to question Jesus and his teachings, we need to have a close relationship with him. No one can have this relationship for us. We have to find out for ourselves what Jesus is calling us to in our own life. We are part of a long tradition, and we can learn from it, but we have to make our own choices. We need a lifestyle where prayer in its various forms is an important part of our everyday living. We need to be familiar with his words, Stories, and teaching, not only studying them, but also praying them, pondering them, questioning them in an attitude of trusting openness. As Jesus’ time with his Father was an important part of his life, so our time with Jesus has to be an important part of our life.

Finally, as it was for Mary, our pondering and questioning of Jesus’ life and its relationship with our life may lead us to difficult places. He did tell us that if we want to be his followers we have to take up our cross every day and follow him. We have to ask what this really means for us. What we pray for is the wisdom to know in some way just what he is asking, and the courage to do what he may be calling us to do. This might be a good way to begin a new year.

Many of the “explanations” for the new translations seem to me to be ludicrous at best, something akin to “alpha kilo”. I wonder how some of these good gentlemen can say what they say with a straight face. I am concerned about the increasing lack of civility in discussions of these issues. None of us have all the answers, no matter what kind of headgear we wear. Honest dialogue has a respect for the truth in another’s position. These days there seems to be precious little dialogue. Too many of us do not tolerate any opinion other than our own.

Because the people where I celebrated Mass yesterday were so well prepped, Mass went smoothly. Most of the rough spots were mine as I tried to negotiate the challenging phrasing. There were no comments on the translation as I greeted the folks after Mass. I wonder if they are just going to passively accept this whole thing, and if those who really care are already gone. I have heard more comments during the week on the street than on weekends at Masses. The street discussions go well beyond just this new translation. Many folks of all ages would like to see women priests.

Everyplace I go to help and celebrate Mass and the sacraments the folks are wonderful, and the pastors are working their tails off. It seems to me they only thing they hear from downtown is that they have done something wrong, they have to do more, or they have another activity coming that they have to support. Over worked and underappreciated is an understatement. Most of the folks seem inclined to just go along with whatever the Church. It seems to me to be a continuum from passive acceptance to blind obedience. Maybe nobody cares. I am less concerned with the quality of the translation, faulty as it may be, and more concerned with the way this whole thing was imposed from on high without any sense of respect to people who asked for a delay or at least a discussion. It seems to me to be yet another symptom of the complete disregard on the part of church “leadership” for any opinion other than their own as it is handed to them again from on high. It seems they really believe they have all the answers for everybody on everything always and everywhere, while the rest of us know nothing about anything. They demonstrate an almost total disregard for any of us at the lower end of the food chain.

I hesitate to judge others, because I know the pain of having been misjudged myself from time to time.  Folks have told me more times than I care to count that being a catholic is like being in the Army: just keep your mouth shut and follow orders. That idea is far from anything I experienced during my years in the Army, where there is respect both up and down the chain of command. There does not appear to be anything similar in the church. The upper levels of leadership demand respect from those below, but do not seem to reciprocate. In the Army any General worth their salt cares about what the Private thinks and does, and tries to know their concerns and address them. A function of command is to keep all levels of the chain as aware as possible about what is important to the mission. A result is that all levels feel important and necessary, and do their best to accomplish the mission. The operation model in the church seems to be the upper levels telling the low to be quiet and do what we tell you; you cannot think this, or discuss that, and you will not question what we say. Of course, this is backed up by the threat of losing one’s immortal soul. It seems to me that the church can learn a lot from our military at all levels.

I am bothered by the quality and quantity of folks I know who for whatever reason have no real involvement in a believing and praying community any more. In many cases, knowing what their experience of church has been, I understand and sympathize with their decision to walk or even run away. Many of them have been presented with a God who is distant, judging, threatening, remote, uninvolved, etc. They have never gotten to know the God Jesus brings to us on a very personal level. I feel bad about this.

It my be a coping mechanism, but I find myself seeing the folks in the pews as the Church, and the “leadership” (such as it is) as an irrelevant embarrassment. I really don’t see any improvement in church dynamics on the horizon. Yet I also believe that the Holy Spirit is alive and well in this mess, and that each of us needs a solid prayer life so we can be open to what the Spirit is calling us to do. Also, I am very glad to be retired.

CTA mentions a letter signed by some 165 priests to the Superior General of Maryknoll in which they voice their support for Fr Bourgeois’ right to express himself. I believe he has the right to speak his mind. His taking part in the ordination of women is another matter. I have no problem with ordaining women. While I might from time to time express my opinion privately or even publicly in certain settings, I would not preach it, nor would I take part in the ordination ceremony for a woman priest. I would not preach my opinions during Mass because the people celebrating Eucharist have the right to a homily on the Gospel, which my discussing this probably would not be.

I hesitate to sign the letter from CTA because I am not sure what the repercussions would be for me locally. This strikes me as an act of cowardice on my part. I am having an intense discussion with myself. All I can lose is the faculty to celebrate Mass publicly. Either I believe or I don’t believe. Either I have the courage of my convictions or I don’t. I don’t think I am being faithful to the Army Values here.

I resent the church leadership telling Catholics what we can and cannot discuss. I resent bishops telling priests who disagree with the church on certain matters that they can lose their pension, livelihood, or assignment unless they remain silent on whatever the issue may be. There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that this is really happening. I understand why so many priests are afraid to say anything. They have a lot to lose, and some bishops can be pretty vindictive. A number of police officers have mentioned to me that crooks they arrest on the street have more rights than priests have. Priests aren’t much different from indentured servants. I am independent. I have a pension. I wonder if this gives me more responsibility to say what I believe as a gesture of respect for those who cannot say what they believe? It seems to me that respect, honor, and integrity are in play here.  Now what?

I resent the promptness with which the church disciplines a priest or bishop who speaks on a forbidden topic, eg, ordination of women, optional celibacy, same sex marriage, etc, while being far less swift in dealing with priests who have abused children and bishops who have covered for them.

I applaud the Irish Taoiseach in his remarks that the Vatican had been downplaying the mistreatment of children in order to uphold its own power and reputation. There seems to be evidence that the Vatican had actually interfered in the Irish government’s investigation of the mess. It looks to me that power and its protection is the guiding principle of the church leadership, and not only in Ireland.

I believe in free speech. I believe in the separation of church and state. I do not think any religion has to right to impose their beliefs, however noble, on the general citizenry through laws. I believe the Gospel is proposed, never imposed. If we impose our beliefs on our fellow citizens through laws which we have lobbied to enact, other religious traditions can do the same to us. We are all equal. How would we like to have sharia, a tradition in the Muslim faith, imposed on us? If we think our values are worthwhile for others, we might try to live them ourselves, perhaps teach by example. The Infantry School teaches this well – “Follow Me!”

There is the idea of same sex marriage. The Church opposes this, and is trying to impose her will and teachings on the citizenry through law. What about other traditions who favor same sex marriages? What are their rights? The Church can make all the rules she wants about marriage in the Church, but I don’t believe they can be forced on people who are not Catholics. There are enough rules about marriage in the church already, and they treat some wonderful people pretty shabbily. Where is Jesus in all this?

The notion that women cannot be priests is to me, at least, in the same category as women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and makes just as much sense.

Perhaps the “wise and the learned” might be the folks who have all the answers, have everything figured out, know all the right words and what everybody should do. They do not have any room for mystery. It would seem that the “little ones” do not have any of these, especially all the answers. In their own way they simply trust.

When we know all the answers we put God in a box, and so keep ourselves safe. When we know all the right things about God we don’t feel the need to know God. We like our constructs. Among the earliest beginnings of our tradition has been the awareness that nothing we can say about God comes even close to the reality of God. Whatever we say about God tells more about what God is not. It is not always a good idea to take our descriptions of God literally. We cannot express in finite terms that which is infinite. This is not something we come to know through simple logic, but something that comes to us through our journey of prayer.

We begin our journey with questions, answers, labels. We seem to be building a house to hold all we feel we need to put order in our life, along with some semblance of safety and security. We accept from others the plans and layout of our house — what we have to believe and know so that our house will be safe and everything will be in order. All our labels, definitions, directions do this. At times we find ourselves questioning others whose plans for their houses have come from some other source. Are they as right as we are, etc? We place ourselves among the learned and the clever.

At some point in our life we might feel the urge to go out of our house because there seems to be more than what we have, and we begin to wonder. We come to sense we really are among the learned and clever, and this might not be all that good. In our wandering we come into contact with mystery, and begin to realize that it is into mystery that all the things we have previously accepted are pointing us. We begin to let go of them and start to move towards where they point. We might not be prepared for what we are beginning to encounter, and so we come to sense we might be among the little ones, and that this is an exciting place to be.

No one can make this journey for us. Only Jesus can show us what his yoke is. Only Jesus can bring us to the Father, and this is an intensely personal journey. Our being on our journey can be a threat to others who are still in their houses with all their stuff. We come to a new awareness and acceptance of what reality is in our life, and in this acceptance we encounter Jesus who quite often is not the Jesus we had in our house. He is intimately and powerfully involved in everything, and while we might not be able to “prove” it, it is something we are coming to know as a matter of our own experience. The Stories about Jesus begin to reflect what we are recognizing in our own life. He is no longer confined to ideas and titles.

We are burdened. We begin to sense that the ways so many of the Stories have been interpreted throughout history have been used to protect someone’s power and interests. We believe Jesus, besides being God, was a man just like us. He taught and told stories, while often throughout history, and even in our present day, the Stories are being used to tell people what and what not to think and talk about, and to restrict the rights of folks whose gender or lifestyle do not fit with an established interpretation. Deviation from the norm is again a dangerous walk.

We are burdened. Perhaps we might come to a point where we wonder what this Story is saying to us on our own journey in this time and place. Jesus invites us to take his yoke upon us and learn from him, for he is meek and humble of heart. He said what he felt had to be said, he was not easy on those whom he saw as using their power to protect themselves by abusing others – a situation pretty much like what is going on today. He reached out and welcomed all who came to him, offering to show them the Father who loved them so immensely, without placing legal conditions,  gender or lifestyle requirements, or telling them what they had to think and what they were not allowed to talk about. All who came to him he treated with kindness, firmness, and respect, not threatening and punishing. This cost him his life.

We are burdened. Groups which began as signs of God’s love for all have developed themselves into mediators of God’s love, determining who and under what conditions can receive God’s love. The love that was Jesus has been turned into a fear that keeps people in line, with the threat of loss of means of support, as well as eternal salvation, as weapons. The stated value that “the Gospel is proposed, never imposed” does not seem to be reflected in the operational values of groups who use cajoling, threats, partial truths, and huge amounts of money in attempts to have their own tenets of morality imposed on all as codified civil law.

We are burdened. This is a serious question. We know we are not wise and learned, and we are not sure what it means to be little ones. What are we to do? Thus the importance of prayer in our life. We ask that he draw us to himself, without telling him how we will accept him. We ask to learn from him without telling him what we want him to teach us. We ask for his yoke without demanding to know what it is. We realize all things have been handed over to him by the Father, and that we are included in this. He is reaching out to each of us. Perhaps he would use each of us to reach out to others.

What are we to do? What am I to do . . .

In today’s Gospel Story (John 6:51-58) Jesus says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life”. He does not say whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood according to a specific style, and having met certain standards and being in certain approved categories. He doesn’t say it has to be done only in the way a given religious organization does it. He does not even require asking anyone’s permission. He says this to everyone. He is reaching out to everyone, and in so doing seems to be threatening our sense of security. No organization is in charge of him.

Many religious groups like to feel they have the only inside track. Some go so far as to say whoever disagrees with them or who does not use their exact terminology is wrong, and thereby excluded from the possibility of Jesus. This gives them a sense of security. While Jesus welcomed everyone to his table, many groups set up barriers to keep away from their worship any who do not totally agree with them. Some go so far as to make such an announcement at their worship service, thereby turning Jesus’ inclusiveness into exclusivity. What do we know that Jesus didn’t?

Over the years I have served with many of other traditions whose faith in their approach to living this Story was as deep and profound as my own. Just because they do not do things our way, who is to say they are mistaken? Is there only one way to celebrate the Story? Is it more important to believe the right things about Jesus expressed in strictly delineated terminology than to believe in Jesus? I have no doubt that the wonderful folks I served with are on their own journey with the same Jesus I am trying to follow. We just use different words to try to describe what cannot be described. Who are we to practice exclusiveness when Jesus lived inclusiveness? Jesus offered himself to all who approached him, while we impose restrictions and requirements. What do we know that Jesus didn’t?

These days there are increasing numbers of intentional prayer communities who, for whatever reasons, fell excluded from established church organizations. These gather for their own Eucharistic celebrations, often writing the prayers themselves. They believe they are truly celebrating Eucharist, and who is to say they are not? Just because they are not following “established norms” does not mean Jesus is not among them. After all, he also said, “whenever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them”. While a given religious organization can rightfully establish rules and customs for itself and its members, can it impose those rules and customs on others who are not members? While a religious organization might proclaim itself to be “true”, does this means all others are necessarily false? It would seem that the Story shows the infinite Jesus is beyond all finite groups. What do we know that Jesus didn’t?

Just sayin . . .

This relationship happens in the context of real everyday life. Jesus is not inviting us to let him take us to somewhere else at some later time, eg, taken us to “heaven” after we die. He is inviting us to know him in the real happenings of life every day. Jesus is not inviting us to believe the right things about him, but to believe in him, and to go wherever this takes us. Becoming aware of Jesus as real in our life leads us to know that our life on earth is not a waiting room for a real life that comes later. Real life is now, and what comes later begins here and now.

It is dangerous for us to think we have the only correct understanding of Jesus and that anyone who does not agree with us is wrong and cannot be saved, however we may interpret that. Jesus calls us to life here and now, not later. The only thing we know for certain is life right here and now. Everything else we believe, and it is what we believe that gives insight and direction to our living here and now. When Jesus becomes part of our experience we have to grow, because this is what he is calling us to do.

As we look around at life these days we realize that the old answers we have come to rely on are gone, and we have to find new ones. This is true both in our world and our brand of Christianity. Before we always knew what war was, but now we have to come to grips with terrorism. Before we had good medical care for the times and life span was shorter, but now we have discovered new medical techniques and life is longer, bringing its own sociological implications. In the religious sphere there are many new questions and issues never raised before and to which we have not yet found the answers, eg, ordination of women, mandatory celibacy, use/abuse of authority in the church. There are new readings and interpretations of scripture, and new theologies are beginning to grow. Church demographics are changing as many people simply walk away, and many folks are forming their own intentional praying communities with or without “permission”. Where once there was simple acceptance of what was handed to us as the only way to interpret scripture or believe correctly, there are now many different interpretations clamoring for attention. Life has changed, and life always wins. Life is God revealing Godself to us, and, at least in our tradition, Jesus is guiding us to understand what we are called to be and to do.

Believing in Jesus does not guarantee us anything other than a deeper relationship with him, which in itself is profoundly good. It does not mean we will have an easier or better life. It makes no sense at all to folks who have not tried it, or who have felt safer to believe the right things about Jesus. Believing in Jesus is not a ticket to somewhere else, but a call to life as it is happening right here and now, with these people and these events. Jesus does not call us to cast off those who would disagree with us, but to recognize the good that all of us share together. Jesus would bring all of us to his table, and not exclude folks in certain categories that do not fit with some interpretation of believing the right things about him. We are all important, we are all good, some of us do not know it. Life is good, we are good, and bit by bit, this is what Jesus is teaching us.

These days the perception seems to be that it is more important to believe the right things about Jesus than to believe in Jesus. There are any number of groups and organizations eager to impose their particulars on everybody else. These groups, some very large and some not so large, some “official” and some not, claim to themselves the exclusive means of believing in Jesus. In varying degrees they are right, all others are wrong

Some organizations go so far as to tell their members how to think, what to believe, how to live, what to talk about and what not to talk about. Some throw out members who dare to deviate from standards established by the particular group. It seems that the style of leadership employed is based on fear and secrecy. This style has given rise to what is euphemistically referred to as the “temple police”, self-appointed enforcers who look zealously for any who deviate even slightly from an organization’s established norms and then report these to the organization’s higher authority. Some groups have an official policy of segregation based on gender, lifestyle, or marital status, going so far as to declare that some orientations are “intrinsically disordered”. There is the perception that the leadership in some groups is more concerned with protecting their own power and perks than in anything else, in maintaining a class structure that ensures exclusivity rather than encouraging empowerment of its members. There is the perception that leadership in some groups has no respect for the people they would lead. The perception is that there is no room for dialogue, only for threats and attempts at intimidation. It would seem that the members exist to serve the leadership, even though Jesus said, “whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave”. Who is serving whom here? A further perception is that there is a major disconnect between the leadership and the lived daily experience of the led. Along with this there seems to be a diminishing respect for the leadership in general and many leaders in particular. They are seen as increasingly irrelevant. It would appear that something needs to be done, and that the Holy Spirit is very involved these days. There are many good people who have a lot to offer, and in many cases they are being ignored. Where is this in the Gospel?

The Story goes on to say that, “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him”. There is the perception that some of the religious organizations are doing the condemning that Jesus would not do, condemning anyone who does not adhere strictly to the group’s teachings, or who has the temerity to talk about things forbidden by the group. Anyone who in any way deviates from the party line can expect to face disciplinary action. In some groups there is the practice of keeping the ministers in control by threatening to withdraw their ability to work within the organization and thereby also withdraw their means of sustenance – which itself would seem to be a violation of the minister’s civil rights. The ministers seem to have a status not unlike indentured servants.

As good people, who are well beyond the pray pay obey stage, begin to question an organization’s practices and/or beliefs, they are not so politely ignored by some leaders or they are even threatened with various sanctions. Questioning of authority, it seems in many cases, is not permitted. Some of these groups have serious problems which are not going to go away. If Jesus came among us to save us, perhaps these groups might be in the way. In many places good people have quietly walked away. They choose no longer to be threatened. Many of them are forming their own communities to celebrate the Spirit among them in the belief that as they gather together Jesus is among them and they are truly celebrating Eucharist, and who is to say they are not? Jesus said, “Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am among them”. He did not say anything about first getting the approval of a group or the permission of its leader. Many of these groups find themselves, as a consequence of their worshipping together, drawn to service of others in any number of settings. They are coming to see this service as a vital component of their praying together. Who is to say they are not right?

As disturbing as these perceptions are, they are shared by many folks, and perceptions become reality. There is a need for honest and open dialogue at all levels within and among religious organizations. Dialogue involves listening in respectful silence while the other is talking, not using the time to prepare one’s own comments. If a religious organization really believes it is of Christ, then Christ and the Gospel have to be the basis of everything the organization does. The perception is that this is not the case many places these days.

It has been said that “The Gospel is proposed, not imposed”. For some organizations this might be a stated value, but it is not an operational value.

]]> http://phrogge.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/gospel-thoughts-19-june-2011-trinity-sunday/feed/ 0 phrogge