God's Preferential Option For the Poor and why clergy get it wrong

When Modern Western Society was being formed, there came to be what was called "The Three Estates." In other words - there were three types of people in the world:

The Clergy - the Nobility - The Masses.

You were either, a priest, a prince, or a nobody. Life was that simple.

I think the church at that point had forgotten its roots. It forgot that Jesus was part of the third estate, a nobody, a poor person with a social agenda. I don't think we ever really got it back.

The church has always had an identity problem. It is caused by the fact that Jesus was poor and talked about helping the poor - but the church is almost exclusively made up of middle-class folks, and ruled by the societal elite.

I know we do not want to hear this - I know so many pastors, clergy, priests - who over and over claim they are just common ordinary folk.

Well. No.

Like it or not - we are different.

And I do not mean made holy and set apart by God. That is either a construct of our powerful hierarchy or it is something we say to make ourselves feel better.

I mean we are different in that we are part of the ruling elite - we are just not paid enough for it to be part of the societal elite in our hyper financialized class structure. 

Clergy are hyper-educated. Even the minority of people who go straight into the first estate have a minimum of two University Degrees. Many of us have a whole other career we trained for as well, and a huge percentage of us have more than two degrees.

Secondly - we get decision making power in a society that is really out of tune with the average jane. I can talk to the mayor about how I think something should be done - and they will probably consider it. People listen to me for advice on everything from how to bake bread to whether or not to leave their spouse. A clergy person has a scary amount of power when it comes to influencing.

People tell us their secrets. Almost everyone.

All of this, for as long as there have been professional religious leaders, has gotten us into trouble repeatedly. Think about Rasputin in the Russian Court or Richelieu in the French Court. Think about paedophile priests and native residential schools.

I wonder if it causes more problems now than it ever did.

And I wonder if this is because we pretend it is not true.

The current pandemic is changing the social landscape. I no longer think it will last long enough to change it permanently. But something else will probably happen and continue the work the virus began.

Which is the work of rebalancing society?

And what we are discovering is that the third estate, the ones we always discount as being not the elite of society, are the only ones making society function. I mean, if you take away a priest or a politician from a local community - there will still be food, and water, and fire, and shelter... as long as there are farmers, carpenters, labourers... There will still be joy and spiritual depth as long as there are still poets and musicians...

Here is the secret that everyone has always known - the third estate, the huddled masses, the poor... they are the ones who matter the most.

And when we use religious language, when we sing hymns from hymn books, when we make prayers responsive and use words that no one understands - we shut everyone out from experiencing what Religion is all about.

Greta Vosper talked about removing the magical language from religion and stop making it like we are talking to some other "being" like the great Santa Clause in the sky... and this was a good corrective.

But I think there is another step necessary here. We need to strip religion of class. That is the far more dangerous aspect of what we do - maintain a class structure that no longer serves anyone well.

We need to abandon religious trappings and become "plain" in what we do. We need to realize that the Quakers and Mennonites were the ones who best understood Luther and the whole point of the church reformation back in the early 1500's. They were trying to make faith accessible to the common person.

So no more words like epiclesis, exhortation, benediction, or sacrament. No more reading King James Bibles from the pulpit as if those words meant anything to anyone any more. No more robes and collars and ridiculousness.

If these days have taught us anything - it is that the stories of faith, the stories of goodness, the actions and language we need to use to change the world - are not ours, they belong to those who live life every single day from the gutter up.

I have a friend I have never met in Memphis - a guitar player who knows my wife - who was outside of a Walgreen's on the weekend and gave some Gatorade and protein snacks to a homeless guy... A minute later another homeless guy ambled across the street and the first one, now with a bag of groceries, says, "I got ya covered man" and hands him a Gatorade and Lunchable.

See - that is what Jesus was like. And that is what we should be like too. That is religion and those are the stories we need to tell.

We All Need Somebody... to Hay ay ate...

I posted a small philosophical rant on Facebook around the reality of mass shootings. Or perhaps the prevalence of mass shootings. In those short paragraphs, I suggested that it was once not a part of my reality at all - but the shootings in Montreal at the Polytechnique and in 'Merica at Columbine began a slippery slope in which mass shootings happen more often and in more places.

So what happened?

I should back up a moment and tell you that yes, I do realize this to be an oversimplification. I realize there was violence previous to this. The stonewall riots for example. Or the Northern Ireland conflicts. We have always been a species prone to violence.

But when I stop and examine what I am saying a little more closely - what has changed is the specificity of the violence.

"Back in my day," which I am getting old enough to actually say now, the targets of violence made sense. It was not correct. It was not moral. But... you could sit back in your armchair while watching the nightly news and say - oh... they are after the blacks again. Or the gays. It was domestic violence. It was... you see what I am saying - there was a rhyme and a reason.

But now, buddy in Nova Scotia kills 18 or more people whom he randomly pulls over. A guy drives a van through a crowd. In  Las Vegas a man takes random shots into a concert crowd - and we sit back trying to figure out what in tarnation caused them to decide to go on a shooting spree. Usually never finding an answer.

So there were replies to my post. There was a fairly good discussion. But I had another discussion with a colleague in the background that made me wonder about another possibility.

Something we do not say out loud.

Maybe we were happier when there was someone to look down on.

I am not advocating what I am about to say. I am examining it from a philosophical and sociological point of view. So bear with me just a second and reserve judgement in terms of writing this off.

You see, once upon a time - in my lifetime... black people, indigenous people, gay people, women, poor people, welfare recipients, mentally challenged people and even crippled people were inferior to me. It was shown to me in subtle and overt ways. Jokes and movie portrayals, right through to outright acts of belligerence. They were all sort of normal because, well, they were inferior.

Again - this is not how I feel now, nor do I believe it "should" have been how I felt then.

But back in the day, it was politically correct to find someone in another category of life, and determine that they were the enemy, or at least if not the enemy, then inferior to me.

Which in turn allowed me to feel good about myself.

There was an old prayer once in one of our religious traditions, I won't call them out, but it was a famous prayer that you said when you woke up in the morning and part of it said "Thank God I am not a woman, I am not a..." it was an actual, written prayer, counting blessings, by pointing out that if God had hated us, he would have made us.... (black, female, gay, poor...)

And by default - being a white male person of privilege was to be blessed.

I wonder, if by creating political correctness, we took away, not only the easy target, but also our own self-worth. Certainly, we have heard men, in particular, speak like this as feminism was taking root in the '80s and '90s. If we were not the superior species, then what were we? All of a sudden there was a crisis of identity. And it was necessary, and it was good, and the way men are now is way, way, way better. But...

Think of this on a global scale. Now, no matter who you are - woman, indigenous, gay, white, crazy... no matter who you are, we live in a society where everyone is equal and everyone has value.

On the surface that is a wonderful thing. But is it also forcing those people on the outer edges of sanity to not be able to make peace with their own inner demons?

Was the ability to express anger and outrage at another "group" one of the safety factors that vented hostility which would otherwise be focused on the self?

I keep feeling I have to go back and say, once more, I am not advocating a return to racism, sexism,  classism, ableism, heteronomous though or anything of the sort. I am merely trying to ask if we might see this as a possible turning point in society from whence came crazy unfocused violence.

Is it really rage at the self, at the parts of the self we do not like, outwardly manifested as a shooting spree?

And is this rage exacerbated by the fact that there is no one we can focus that negativity on? Did hating gays at least allow me to repress the violence I felt towards my own homoerotic ideas? for example.

Did hating women allow me to feel that at least as a man I had built in masculinity and power and so I did not feel weak and powerless?

I wonder...

I wonder if that is behind the rise of random violence?

And the solution, by the way, if I am even close to correct, would not be going back to a less egalitarian way of thinking. The solution would be to recognize that there is darkness in people that we are not addressing.

I think perhaps whenever we change systems or ways of thought we tend to gloss over some of the negative consequences and feel they will just go away. No one wanted to admit that there was actually a sociological reason why having a group be "lesser" helped soothe the ego of people in the group that was "greater." And because no one ever admitted that, no one worked at finding other, healthier ways, for us to cope with our inner demons.

As an aside, the more I thought about this the more other factors of modern society have clicked into place for me. Again, no science behind any of this, just observational data and it could be false - but I am an op/ed writer, not a scientist.

For example, the rise in populism within politics and the way Donald Trump, and now others, gathered large swathes of supporters simply by putting other people down.

Does this back up what I am saying? We are actually hungry for someone to hate so that we can feel better about ourselves. And in a world that tells us, it is so terribly morally wrong to hate anyone - we feel lost. But along comes Trump and essentially ignores the last 40 years. Women, gays, blacks, Mexicans, Islamic folks, they are all the enemy now...

And it makes the listener feel like, finally, I am the winner! Without having to do anything to earn that praise. By being a white, racist, male, I am perfect! And so there is a rise of self-worth, a rise of pride, and we jump on the bandwagon.

It is not America First that Trump actually sold. It is a white male first.

Seeing how effective this rhetoric was for him, and others only solidify my assumption that there is something dark and unaddressed in the modern human psyche that has to do with my need to feel better than others.

How do we fix this?

Quarentine Roulette

I have posted memes on Facebook which amount to saying this: Things were broken, let's not go back.

The black and white divide between the past and the future I am calling out is, of course, artificial. And I have attributed those posts to economics, capitalism, lack of socialism, broken health and tax systems... a number of "culprits" who when taken at face value, are probably not to blame.

The other thing I have seen over the last few weeks is a so called divide opening up between introverts and extroverts. Those who are okay with being locked in a house and those who are needing to leave.

Now this divide is also artificial but has equally black and white factors attributed to it. I need to see people, I need a hug, I never liked people anyway, I read books, I have a cat... all kinds of people saying all kinds of things as if they were the one and only answer.

A problem with social media has always been presentation of ideas. How I present something makes a difference, and in social media most people present "opinions" as not merely "facts" but as somehow brought down from the mountain on stone tablets.

Carved in stone truth for everyone is rarely found in social discussion.

But we sort of know that.

So I wonder what is really behind the messages. What is at the root of thrive or failure to thrive in the pandemic world?

I am going to present some ideas born from discussion with my wife and consideration of our families and see if they might not round out some of the edges of what is causing problems both now, before, and potentially after.

None of this might ring true for you - but I think good discussion makes you think, and so I am presenting this as something to think about.

Extrovert and Introvert is a false label. Or rather, has become a shortcut, used to describe very limited understandings. To be an extrovert means more than needing to go outside. To be an introvert means more than needing to be alone.

Here are some issues around that - how comfortable are you reflecting on your own life? How comfortable are you in your own house? How much do you need to be around other people? Do you like to be in a crowd? When new ideas crop up in your head do you need to talk to other people about them? How much television is actually healthy?

You see - the ideas are complex. And when we say, I am an introvert I am ok - it could mean SO many different things that there is no easy label on why that is true.

Take me, I am somewhat introverted in that I recharge emotional energy by being alone. However, I cannot for the life of me sit in one place for longer than, say, half an hour. In the round of a week I usually travel, say, 400 km just driving from one place to the next - sometimes for no reason.

I cannot not have my mind occupied - so I need to be "doing" something all the time. But is that an extrovert quality or ADHD?

I have anxiety and PTSD but that does not mean that I do not thrive off of constant newness. I do not even drive home from the store using the same route I took.

So jsut for myself, there is no easy label. And I imagine that is true for others as well.

How about the economy, social safety net, etc.

I say it was broken but the reasons I say it was broken may not resonate with anyone else.

I think it sucks that the main point of most of our lives is sustenance employment. It takes two breadwinners most of their week to earn enough money to provide human basic needs. That should not be true. We should have way more time to paint, make music, love, food, etc. Or at least that is how I feel.

I always thought communal living would be a better answer. Still do. If we were in groups of 10-15 now instead of groups of 2-4 would that not be better? But again, that is me.

I do not value "stuff" the way others do. I wear old clothes and buy most of what I own at Giant Tiger. But I need high end tech and expensive rum, as well as trips across the country.

What we value and why differs from each person, and it differs greatly.

I guess when I say the old system was broken I am meaning the system that said getting rich was the plan, having 1.4 kids was the plan, working more than 40 hours per week was the plan, always buying the next new thing was the plan... these are the things I am glad have been taken away by the pandemic.

Now what is important is keeping healthy. What is important is finding joy where you are. What is important is spending time with family. What is important is making do with what you have.

And in those ways I feel joy in my heart.

But "I" think, and again, this is an opinion, that what needed to change, and may yet perhaps change in this - is that our value system needs to change.

And it is not about how we run an economy, it is not about whether we are introverted or extroverted, it is not about rich or poor, gender, sexuality, or anything that we have been fighting over before...

What needs to change is the recognition that each individual person is just that. And what I need, how I meet those needs, and how I fit in with others is unique to me alone. And I wish we could create a society that valued that - the individual and how they fit into the common good without losing their identity.

That is why I keep saying I want to go back to the hippy movement. I think they were on to something when they claimed that each person was a wonderful person just for being them.

But maybe I am wrong...

Either way - each of us needs to find how THEY thrive in this new world. I don't think we will go back to the way it was two months ago - there will be more diseases, more natural disasters, more political turmoil in the months and years to come. And they will change us. So maybe be patient with each other and try hard to help everyone be the best person they can be.