Gibranian Spirituality

Gibranian “spirituality” is a concept not unconnected to “morality”, a very practical aspect of day-to-day human life. Khalil Gibran (1883-1931) is a “reformer” and a “people’s philosopher” – very different from, and perhaps, opposed to the philosophy of the philosophers (often in their ivory towers). What Gibran said and advocated is moral philosophy. Ghougassian, a Gibran scholar, was of the opinion that Gibran through his writings and paintings attempted to reform “the social woes caused by injustice, ineffective traditions, and the unnatural laws that hurt the innate laws of human nature”. (Joseph P. Ghougassian, Kahlil Gibran: Wings of Thought – The People’s Philosopher, New York: Philosophical Library, 1973.)

For Ghougassian these are the chief concerns that Gibran expressed in his Spirits Rebellious. This was translated into English by H.M. Nahmad, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948; London: Heineman, 1949). The basic message of this book is put through four stories – “Madame Rose Hanie”, “The Cry of Graves”, “Khalil the Heretic”, and “The Bridal Couch”. These stories inform that the laws of the Church and the State are human made, and at present, these social laws are much decayed.

Elsewhere Gibran wrote about this social decay, dirt and deterioration thus: “If you wish to take a look at the decayed teeth of Syria, visit its schools where the sons and daughters of today are preparing to become the men and women of tomorrow.”

“Visit the courts and witness that acts of the crooked and corrupted purveyors of justice. See how they play with the thoughts and minds of the simple people as a cat plays with a mouse.”

“Visit the homes of the rich where conceit, falsehood, and hypocrisy reign. But don’t neglect to go through the huts of the poor as well, where dwell fear, ignorance and cowardice.”

“Then visit the nimble-fingered dentists, [metaphorically the leaders], possessors of delicate instruments, dental plasters and tranquilizers, who spend their days filling the cavities in the rotten teeth of the nation to mask the decay.” (Quoted from “Decayed Teeth” of Kahlil Gibran, Thoughts and Meditations, translated by Anthony R. Ferris, New York: The Citadel Press, 1960).

And Gibran poetically proclaimed that these laws of the Church and State prevent growth, “the individual to develop a self-identity”. For according to Kahlil Gibran, there can be no spiritual wellness, or health, and the human spirit will not be free if these areas of our society are not renewed and made to serve the needs of humans.

For Gibran, to be closer to God necessarily amounts to be closer to people. And he saw that religious and political leadership with all its structural paraphernalia of his time was far removed from the people and their concerns. And he perceived these institutions, both religious and political, as self-serving, prompting in him a rebellion against the leadership and revolting against the institutions, including his Maronite Catholic Church.

As for Gibran’s followers, according to Ghougassian, Gibran is a prophet, like the prophets of the Hebrew tradition, playing the “same effective social role in educating the minds in spirituality”. And Gibran’s writings on social woes are similar to that of the Hebrew poetic literature. For Gibran, like William Blake, was very much influenced by the Bible. And his spirituality was pragmatic and firmly rooted in compassion towards the more “feeble” segment of the society, whom Jesus called the anāwim, the needy ones, demanding more equity.

Gibran’s Spirits Rebellious, according to some of the early biographers, whom Ghougassian used in his study, was burnt in Beirut by the then ruling Turkish Government, and Gibran was exiled. The Maronite Church too joined the state in punishing Gibran by her own excommunication. Later biographers, however, do not seem to find evidence for this inhuman acts of the Church and State!

Gibran saw in those organizations of his time, which he was critiquing, a sense of hypocrisy, shallowness, lack of love and forgiveness, leading, to a dearth of freedom for the human spirit. He believed human spirit was endowed with a forward thrust and toward the infinite. And Gibran saw how these self-serving institutions were enslaving the human spirit from leaping towards limitless expanse of life.

At the end what I hope to communicate is that Gibran despite his rebellion, particularly against his own Maronite Church, remained an intensely spiritual person promoting, joyously, spiritual values. In fact, Gibran himself said that he was deeply spiritual though we do not see him as a practising Christian, refusing even a Christian burial at the end.

As for Gibran a person who is spiritual “does not embrace a religion” and one who embraces a religion really “has no religion”, meaning is not spiritual. In this sense Gibran is a mystic who had no inclination for any “formulated” or organized religion. He was inclined towards an intrinsic spirituality that is often described as “esoteric” religion, different from, if not opposed to “exoteric” religion. Gibran had no space for any extrinsic religion in his psyche. Gibran believed that “the extrinsic religion”, like that of any organized church, including his own Maronite Church, “promotes racial and ethnic bigotry, religious prejudice” leading the followers not only towards a religious competition but also “to discrimination, segregation and denials” of other beliefs and practices.

Ghougassian is not wrong in considering Gibran’s condemnatory stance of the religion too harsh. But what Gibran condemned was only the forms of “extrinsic” religions while upholding and even promoting intrinsic religion even when it came from beyond the Christian boundary. However, the Maronite Church that condemned Gibran was harsher and irrational in her dismissal without considering carefully Gibran’s thought on the “intrinsic” nature of religion.

In a letter to his cousin Nakhli Gibran, Kahlil Gibran wrote: “The people in Syria are calling me heretic, and the intelligentsia in Egypt vilifies me, saying, ‘He is the enemy of just laws, of family ties, and of old traditions.’ Those writers are telling the truth, because I do not love man-made laws and I abhor the traditions that our ancestors left us. This hatred is the fruit of my love for the sacred and spiritual kindness, which should be the source of every law upon the earth, for kindness is the shadow of God in man. I know that the principles upon which I base my writings are echoes of the majority of the people of the world, because the tendency toward a spiritual independence is to our life as the heart to the body.”

Gibranism, I maintain, that in spite of its anti-institutionalism, including anti-clericalism, still carries with it a sensible and a relevant spirituality to induce renewal. And this renewal is essential for the continuing safety and health of human life. Hence, Gibranism proclaimed through parables – prosaic and poetic - despite its ambiguity deserves a closer examination.

[More on this subject could be found in Henry Victor, “Scarecrow Spirituality: Exploring Gibranianism”, Religious Studies and Theology, Volume 24, Number 2, (2005), pp. 59-80.]

Pondering my Path!

I am in the latter part of my middle age! I realize I have the inclination to do what I did in the latter part of my teen – walking and wandering in the wilderness.

My walking trail, this morning, as I had been doing since the beginning of this summer, is the east of Cummings Lake in Fairview, Alberta. On the west of the lake is the well-driven road to Hines Creek and beyond into the Beautiful British Columbia. My work takes me frequently on that road. My leisure, however, directs me in the opposite.

This morning, as usual, again I secretly hoped I would encounter a black bear to make my day. Perhaps my hope was not strong enough that to happen. If it were, I would have carried my Canon PC 1130!

My preference to the backcountry has always remained steady. Now perhaps it is at the peak. This is perhaps strengthened by my sexual dysfunction, probably created by my diabetes with that additional catalyst, my inclination to becoming a hermit, at least in heart!

Not that I have acquired all the intellectual skills and physical muscles to promote my preference. I have tried in the past to learn more of natural life, exploring bird life, animal life, and wild flowers. I have also equipped myself with expensive books, telephoto lens and binoculars and so on. None of these have enabled me to see a black bear in this region.

But I did see this morning, for the first time, a newly born fawn, perhaps, born early this morning or last night. She was beautiful with her spots. The doe that looked very well fed left the fawn and started moving towards better security from an intruder. And the young one appeared confused and perhaps wondered why the mother in this desert has deserted her.

I am, I realize, is not in 60’s of the last century. On those days I would have walked towards that new beauty to make her my own no matter whether there was a road, or not! Since I will soon be 60, I decided to leave the fawn to find her mother and the doe to fend for her fawn while I retraced my path to my computer that is ready to listen to my adventure with hope for nothing.

My Journey to Emmaus!

“Emmaus never happened; Emmaus always happens” says John Dominic Crossan, a contemporary New Testament scholar of great repute! I too have made that journey! No. To be exact, I have not made that journey. I am in that journey right now.

In that journey Jesus often comes as a stranger. He, then, nudges me to take him as a fellow traveller, walking with me, listening to all my questions, feeling my fears and anxieties. Gradually, and sometimes suddenly, he turns into a kind of a wandering rabbi, a guru, teaching the obvious and dispelling that darkness. By the time it is late evening and the journey not over, I almost always consider him as a good friend to invite him into my tent.

Jesus, that wanderer, is a unique personality! He, whom I invite as my guest, ends up being my host. And the aura around him as he breaks the bread and passes the cup always unsettles me making me to want him more. But then he disappears leaving me unable to close my eyes for a very, very long time in the night.

The images of Jesus in my mind are never static. They keep changing. Sometime I look at him as a great hero mighty in word and deed before both God and human. Him as a Crucified Prophet is one that is foremost in my mind. He, of course is a puzzling mystery who appears and disappears. But when I exchange notes with his earlier disciples Peter, Cleopas, Mary Magdalene and other disciples in Jerusalem, Jesus becomes a resurrected Lord in my heart!

I am learning, now, to change my notion of Jesus, as I continue to travel Emmaus, then, is not wrong. I walk, I go through changing scenes of life, I encounter new events, I meet with new people, I read, I talk, I debate, I hear new accents, I sing new songs, I eat new food, and I am transformed both in my thoughts about Jesus and my life with him and in him. And that is the way God of the Holy Spirit, or the risen Christ, works within me. I realize, for sure, I must without any hesitation remain open to such transformation!

Spirituality, I am gathering, is a journey. Spirituality is a long walk. It is not a “one shot performance”, either in the Sunday school, or Confirmation Class, or reading a single book on spirituality, or reading all the books of a single author, or attending a conference or a single seminary training. It is a continuous Emmaus journey! I learn; I re-learn like Cleopas and his friend. I am re-trained in my discipleship to Christ, the risen Lord!

And in that journey, I am convinced, I must leave a little space for a companion to walk with me and talk with me! And that companion may, as I grow in my spirit, become an “angel” or “Jesus”!

That journey, I am learning, is training for me, where my mind and heart gets cultured in “hospitality”. This hospitality enhances my “seeing and perceiving” the “risen Christ reality” around me, present in a concentrated manner in that which I long to dismiss as “others” and “strangers”. This hospitality includes my careful listening to the outsider demanding that I put away from my faith and culture concepts and words such as “stranger” and “outsider”. Without that renunciation I cannot retain and rejoice within my circle that “risen Christ reality”!

This hospitality presupposes humility to listen. In this hospitality I am not the one, like that padre, provides the answer. I raise my questions and wait for the answers; I am willing to be corrected! In this I do not ask questions to prove my point. I ask questions. And I am open to the answers, even when it comes from a stranger.

This hospitality does not try to control my guest; in this I getting used to letting my guest controlling, if necessary, switching roles; putting me completely vulnerable in the hand of the stranger! There is “vulnerability” in being open to a “stranger”! With God, I know, I must be prepared to “loose my control”!

In this journey I am learning to enjoy such “incredible events” to take control of me and the rest of my life. I let it guide my next move, or my continuing journey! I have no plans. In fact, I have dropped all my plans of work, rest and relaxation in Emmaus. And if I return to Jerusalem I return only to exchange notes with those who are on the journey.

And that journey is impossible without that hospitality, which interferes with my comfort zone! Yes, it is a kind of hospitality that calls for a letting go of my self, my ego, my plan, my hidden agendas; it is a kind of hospitality that expects from me to cease micromanaging others; it is a kind of hospitality that readily and spontaneously switches roles; it is a kind of hospitality that is dictated and directed by the “risen Christ reality”; it is a kind of hospitality that prays, truly, “may your will be done”.

Prioritizing the Poor!

Giving priority to the poor and their concerns within the Church, at least, is as old as Christian religion. The Greek Scriptures, the New Testament, which contains the life and teachings of Jesus, portrays him as an advocate of the poor and the marginal people. Jesus’ manifesto, a quote from Isaiah that he proclaimed at the beginning of his roughly three years of ministry puts into a nutshell his concern and commitment to the poor. This reads: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”. (Luke 4:18f) Later, summarizing the life of Jesus Peter said: “… God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him”. (Acts 10:38)

Jesus’ “going about doing good”, serving the oppressed, marginal poor and the sick become the model for the life style of the early Christian community. At least this is how the later Christians perceived it. A prayer that is used in most Churches in Canada – Roman, Episcopal, and Lutheran Churches – reads: “The earliest Christian community held all things in common, and no one was in need. May we recommit ourselves to hold the goods of this world in common and to work to eliminate hunger and homelessness. For this let us pray to the Lord.” (Gail Ramshaw, Editor, Intercessions for the Christian People: Prayers of the People for Cycles A, B, and C of the Roman, Episcopal, and Lutheran Lectionaries, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990. p. 103.)

In this we see a link between the professed faith of the contemporary church in Canada and her perceived vision of the early church, connected by this “concern and mission” to alleviate, if not eradicate “hunger and homelessness”.

The church of the Acts of the Apostles, in order to increase the effectiveness of their services to the widows and orphans, the early Christians even institutionalized that most important aspect of Christian faith by establishing “diakonia”, serving or service, particularly, “to care for orphans and widows in their distress”, along with their already established kerygma, the proclamation of the Gospel, and koinonia, the fellowship of the Christian believers. If kerygma and koinonia were fundamental, then diakonia too was. That is how the early Christians saw the spirit and structure of the newly emerging movement. For these people God is the Lord “who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who love the strangers, providing them with food and clothing”. (Deuteronomy 10:18)

Following the teachings and the living example of Jesus and deriving inspiration from the early Christian community, Christians now can learn from a long list of great champions and movements worked towards the cause of the poor and the marginal people.

Bishop Remi De Roo commending similar faith commitments to the Canadian Christians, in eighties wrote: “Concern for the poor and action on their behalf have remained the criteria for authentic Christianity throughout the ages.” (Remi De Roo, Cries of Victims-Voice of God, Ottawa/Toronto: Novalis in association with James Lorimer & Company, 1986, p. 68). And for him this “authentic Christianity” includes, among many other, the religious faith of St Ambrose (339-397), St John Chrysostom (349-407), St Augustine (354-430), and St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153).

St Ambrose, Bishop De Roo says, always taught his people “that when the rich give alms they are only returning the property they have stolen from the poor.” And for St Bernard of Clairvaux the only way the rich can enter heaven is by befriending the poor. We may also note that many of these champions of the poor also got into the bad books of their rich parishioners. And De Roo reminds us how St John Chrysostom was accused for continuously attacking the rich.

And we know even during our time Oscar Romero and many others have paid with their lives for taking up the cause of the poor in the name of their Christian faith. Such radical views of Christian caring of the poor are all part of the Christian heritage! Francis of Assisi, Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, and Jean Vanieer are only a few among the many that we may cite as examples for this radical Christianity from whose life and commitment we may receive greater inspiration for this concern. And what we need to note, now, is that this concern for the small and the oppressed was always kept alive throughout the Christian history.

From this discussion we learn that Christian concern for the poor, the oppressed and marginalized is in no way an innovative concern, or as some of the critiques of Christian social activism consider, it is not a newly politicized Christian faith. But rather that Christian faith demands Christians take issues of poverty, development, justice, and so on as fundamental to their faith concern.

Recognizing the increased consciousness of “justice and peace”, and writing in the eighties about the church of the future, Walbert Bühlmann said: “Christians have to learn that the option for justice, for development, for disarmament, is not the same thing as ‘going in for politics’, but an essential part of evangelization”. (Walbert Bühlmann, The Church of the Future: A Model for the Year 2001, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1986. p. 108.) Christians, therefore, have begun to move beyond that unproductive, divisive dichotomy of the “spiritual gospel” versus the “social gospel” and to see that “humanization” of the poor and marginalized as the “total evangelization”.

With Eyes of the Poor!

There is some discomfort in my heart with much that happens in the contemporary Church with regard to the poor and the nations that are yet to develop. I see a lot of irrelevance in the way we go about. If our concern for the poor has to become relevant there should be a shift towards the perspectives of the poor. “Justice” not “charity” that should be the priority. C.S. Song, a prominent Asian Theologian once said, “compassion that does not oppose injustice is not true compassion; it becomes an accomplice of unjust power” (C.S. Song, Theology from the Womb of Asia, London: SCM Press, 1988. p.156).

Christian concern for the poor must enhance the self-worth of the poor by working towards justice. Feeding, clothing, housing, teaching, counselling, training, loving, and so on that fills our Christian activism must transform the “doer” to accept the recipients of our doing as humans and equals.

The “doing” in our Christian concern for poor must decrease “dependency” and increase “self-reliance”. Christian activism must move towards finding more “permanent” solution, addressing the cause of poverty instead the symptom by constantly challenging false answers, overcoming prejudices, and eventually moving towards one community – no rich, no poor.

And this requires, first, a vision of the reality of the poor through the eyes of the poor. Therefore, Virgil Elizondo and Leonardo Boff, two prominent Latin American Liberation theologians, calling this as the Church’s preferential option for the poor, wrote: “When we enter the continent of the poor and try to think through their eyes and from their social position, we discover their strength, their resistance, their courage and their creativity. It then becomes clear that the society within which they live and suffer and from which they are marginalized has to be fundamentally transformed. From the position of the poor the urgency of liberation is beyond doubt.” (This and other quotes below are taken from their “‘Editorial: theology From The Viewpoint Of The Poor’” in Concilium – Option For The Poor: Challenge To The Rich Countries, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd, 1986.)

Second, they argued, in preferential option for the poor, we take up the cause of the poor. For Elizondo and Boff: “The cause of the poor is the cause of life and means of life such as work, bread, clothing, housing and basic education. The cause of the poor is a new society in which the vital questions which concern all citizens without distinction are given priority, in which relations of collaboration and equity prevail over exploitation and domination.”

Thirdly, Elizondo and Boff affirmed that in preferential option for the poor we take up the struggle of the poor. They wrote: “It is the oppressed who bring about liberation. They become aware of their dignity, organize their action, form links with other groups, which, like them, want a different society. The churches should join this struggle, make their specific contribution as religious bodies, reinforce the power of the poor to enable them to press for changes and participate in their implementation.”

Fourthly, they believed that option for the poor means taking up the life of the poor, as they wrote: “The option for the poor is not authentic unless we participate, at least a little, in the life and suffering of the poor…Support for the struggles of the poor frequently means suffering misunderstanding, persecution and even moral and physical injury.”

Fifthly, for Elizondo and Boff, preferential option for the poor, involves an identification of the mechanisms, which produce poverty. “The poverty of the poor is a result of a combination of causes, and first the international capitalist system and the relations of dependence and oppression it establishes between the nations at the center of the system and those at the periphery…The benefits are, on the whole, accumulated by the countries which are already highly developed or by the social classes in the poor countries which exercise social control in association with the multi-national interests of capital. The sacrifices are borne by those who are already poor and exploited. Development and underdevelopment are linked by a causal connection which makes them two sides of the same coin…If the churches and the theologians do not develop a critical attitude towards the socio-economic system within which they live, they run the risk of becoming mere reformists, reproducing the system in slightly improved form, rather than allies of the poor, who are demanding a once-for-all replacement of the existing system by another which makes possible more equality and life for all.”

And finally, they see preferential option of the poor redefining the task of theology for them and others who are committed to the poor, the oppressed, and marginal people in the world. “A theology today which does not place at the center of its concern the poor, justice, freedom and liberation will have difficulty in refuting the accusation of alienation and even cynicism, and will in the end become totally irrelevant…Without the poor the church loses its Lord and theology its evangelical content.”

Catholic Latin American Liberation theologians generally accept Pope John XXIII as the source of this revolutionary concept. For Pope John XXIII even prior to the Vatican II viewed the Church to be “the Church of all, but principally the Church of the poor.” And it is also accepted Pope John Paul II keeps repeating and reaffirming the same when he says: “The option for the poor is my daily concern.”

Thus, we may note, the Christians committed to the concern for the poor and the marginal today have been moving towards a bias towards the poor accepting the broad conceptual leadership provided by the Roman Catholic Church. This is very clearly reflected in the prayer used by the Canadian Christians following the ecumenical lectionary. Hence one of the prayers set aside for fifth Sunday after Pentecost reads: “We thank you, O God, that you favour the poor, the meek, the oppressed, the homeless, and the hungry. Make your compassion contagious that the rich might share with the poor, the strong befriend the weak”. The pastoral stance for the option for the poor is actually a response to a theological realization that God favour’s the poor, an aspect that is a guiding thought to the liberation theologies that takes the cause of the poor with utmost seriousness.

However, those who used the phrase “option for the poor”, particularly the Latin American Liberation Theologians, were aware that this was no small concern but one that involves large shifting for the Church that was not poor and hitherto had the sympathies and appreciation of the rich. These theologians were aware that this phrase was not for a mere announcing to the poor: “God loves you by preference” and do nothing. But closely connected with the words of Jesus to the learned lawyer to whom Jesus related the Parable of the Good Samaritan and said: “Go and do likewise”. In this regard Berryman makes an obvious but important point recognizing in it a call for a “change of heart” for the non-poor, for it is only the non-poor who can opt for the poor.

From this we learn that the challenge before the Christian community in Canada is, as Alfred T. Hennelly, another Jesuit commentator of liberation theology from United States puts it, “not only to accept and embrace this preferential option, but above all to translate this theoretical commitment into a creative and effective action on behalf of the poor majority of humanity”.

Breaking the Middle Wall!

Christ came, Christ comes, and Christ will come, to break that “middle wall” that separates “us” from the “other” so that we, all God’s creation, may become one in Christ, the gift of God to God’s world.

“For God so loved the world …” (John 3:16) is the very essence of Christian faith that express that gift of God and Christian life evolving from that single Christ event; for this is the very axle in which our spirituality and our whole church life revolves around. It tells us, very plainly, of God’s initiative in our salvation, our wellness and wholeness, informing that we can neither earn, nor boast of our salvation, which comes as a free gift from God. This of course includes God’s continuous providence established well through our regular work and leisure activities in God’s world with God’s people.

The passage also suggests that we drop off our petty “self-righteousness” and stubborn “self-sufficiency” and serve God by caring for, and serving humbly, God’s creatures in God’s world. This serving involves that we break down the “middle wall” we keep erecting both in subtle and more obvious ways to justify our self-righteousness and self-sufficiency.

Let me close this comment with “An Accent” – just below – a little poetic story, a plea to break one brick from that middle wall. This story was published earlier in my poetry collection titled Stinging of the Scorpion and Other Poems (2006), page 30:

An Accent

To the pond behind my yard
I saw strolling a frog and a toad
They were there on that rainy day to breed
But the two soon began chatting their creed

Said the frog: “You a Bufonidae
You disturb my peace with your croak”
Protested the toad: “You a rascal Ranidae
You scare me to my death with your squeak”

Friendly chatting now turned to a dispute
They leapt across belittling each other
And there crept the water snake, moving softly
Swallowed the frog, proceeding next to the toad!

Rejuvenating the Prophetic Ministry

A sure way to enhance the relevance of the organized Christian community is to rejuvenate the prophetic ministry. I will briefly explain this that may need to be developed further elsewhere. These thoughts are offered here to initiate a conversation.

I taught (between 2000 to 2007) in the University of Alberta a course titled “Community Action and Introduction to Christianity”. In this course I explored Christianity as a “religious faith” that goes beyond “merely taking care of our individual souls”. In other words, Christian faith was understood there as a concern that takes “social transformation” as an integral component, and therefore I explored the different forms of “Christian social activism” that I classified into two broad categories: One, the “Charity Model” and the other, the “Justice Model”.

I found I had little or no difficulty in presenting the first one. Charity, or Christian love, is so central to the teachings of Jesus and Christian faith! Therefore, Christian communities in their personal and congregational lives, made sure, that they keep this component alive through their support to the “Food Bank” and other similar humane causes! And generally it works not too bad though they almost never critically evaluate either the programme or their charitable contribution! All that makes them feel good! Even in the global level that works well with all Christians!

If Christians did not accept that as an important element of their faith they would not have gone to the extent of “beatifying” Mother Teresa, “the saint of the gutters”, who died in 1997. But Archbishop Oscar Romero, died in 1980, who promoted the “justice model”, by becoming “a voice of the voiceless” which many Christian Activists identify as “Prophetic Christianity”, does not get that attention which “Mother Teresa” gets!

My task here is to high light the importance of this particular stance of Christian ministry! And that is what I mean by “rejuvenating prophetic ministry”. If Mother Teresa performed a difficult Christian Ministry then Archbishop Romero was involved in doing a dangerous Christian task!

Book of Amos alludes to three types of leadership – or three patterns of actions provided by these three types of leaderships. The three types of leadership that we encounter in that little book are royal, priestly, and prophetic, all well meaning, and also found elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, are rooted and emerged from two very opposite perceptions of current events, or visions. So when Amos spoke his message, Amaziah, the priestly colleague of Amos, viewed the message as something that was disturbing the status quo, very subversive and undermining the orderly rule of Jeroboam, the King. (Cf. Amos 7:10-17) In that controversy and conflict, we see the priestly ministry of Amaziah expressing a wholehearted support and a total solidarity with the royal responsibilities of Jeroboam the King while Amos was in complete solidarity with the poor, or the people in the margin. So the prophetic ministry of Amos was in conflict with both the royal and the priestly ministries!

I say all these to confirm that prophetic concerns are part of the Christian Tradition that is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures! And Jesus of Nazareth comes in that great line, paying with his death for starting a conflict with the priestly and royal ministries of his time!

My mission in this short space is to highlight the need to rejuvenate a Christian Ministry that resembles, in spirit, the prophetic ministry of Amos and Jesus of Nazareth. And I intend to do this without going into too many technical details about Amos, a prophet who lived eight centuries before Christ, or the book attributed to him. But Amos and the book containing his prophecies will be a fascinating springboard for those who want to explore, seriously, a prophetic mission in today’s world of intense consumerism that in many respects is not very different to the world of Amos! I believe to look at Amos is not only relevant and appropriate but also urgent in the present context where organized Christian community is becoming irrelevant in the eyes of many.

Temptations of Amaziah and the priestly order of Jesus’ time were conforming too much to the perceived order. I call that conformity to the dominant culture that benefited only those in the centre while creating cracks in the margin. Amaziah and the priests of Jesus’ time derived their visions primarily through their focus in the centre while Amos and Jesus considered the importance of looking at those in the margin – “the least among you”! And therefore their actions, which of course include what they said, came into a complete contradiction to the dominant culture! This is what happened in the case of Archbishop Oscar Romero too! So to “rejuvenate” the prophetic ministry would mean, to use Pauline phrases, “not to be conformed” but “to transform” the dominant culture with the values embedded in the. In that we see a prophetic ministry as counter-cultural!

The task of prophetic ministry is then nurturing, nourishing, and evoking a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us. This means the Church must have a voice about the current events – not just when someone is trying to remove the Gideon Bibles from the Hospital bedside! Church should become a watchdog! Church must observe and critique the political and social development that cause “marginality” of people that eventually leads to the need to establish “food banks” only to soften the sting but never removing the cause!

Justice issues must become “Church” issues, not simply left to smaller interest groups! But the whole Church must become a living organism that mobilizes the people to speak and act together for the benefit of all people! Our vision, and therefore action, should be related to current events.

Prophet is one who watching the current events proposes “a radical alternative” – “a complete reordering” – “a changed social system” – presuming “a changed set of social priorities and social appetites”. Prophet “anticipates nothing less than the dismantling of the presently-known world for the sake of an alternative world not yet embodied”. Prophet refuses to put “a band aid”!

To rejuvenate the prophetic ministry Christians must become “excessively conscious” of justice issues! Justice is one of the major themes of the biblical prophets. “He has told you, … what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8) “… But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:24)

Walter Brueggemann, a man who spent his entire life reading the biblical prophets defines biblical justice as “to sort out what belongs to whom, and to return it to them.” In my conclusion, then, I offer you an interesting story from Brueggemann who in turn borrows and re-tells to drive his definition of justice:
“I recently heard a story which speaks of forgetting to whom things belong. A very proper lady went to a teashop. She sat at a table for two, ordered a pot of tea, and prepared to eat some cookies, which she had in her purse. Because the teashop was crowded, a man took the other chair and also ordered tea. As it happened, he was a Jamaican black, though that is not essential to the story. The woman was prepared for a leisurely time, so she began to read her paper. As she did so, she took a cookie from the package. As she read, she noticed that the man across also took a cookie from the package. This upset her greatly, but she ignored it and kept reading. After a while she took another cookie. And so did he. This unnerved her and she glared at the man. While she glared, he reached for the fifth and last cookie, smiled and offered her half of it. She was indignant. She paid her money and left in a great hurry, enraged at such a presumptuous man. She hurried to her bus stop just outside. She opened her purse to get a coin for her bus ticket. And then she saw, much to her distress, that in her purse was her package of cookies unopened!”

Justice concerns are precisely a right reading of social reality, of social power, and of social goods.

Unseating the Dominant Culture!

Jeremiah’s perception was that God had picked him to the prophetic ministry even before his conception in his mother’s womb. The text (Jeremiah 1:4-10) very clearly affirms that Jeremiah’s ministry had nothing to do with any human agents. It is God who appointed him in that ministry.

The text also outlines the kind of task Jeremiah was to perform. He was expected “to pluck up and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow” before he was permitted “to build and to plant”. This is spoken in a metaphorical language; it means that Jeremiah was to promote a counter culture, challenge the conventional wisdom of his time. Jeremiah precisely performed those duties and suffered for doing so!

Jesus also did much plucking up, pulling down, destroying and overthrowing that made the synagogue leaders very angry! One morning there was a disturbance in a synagogue. This was due to Jesus doing something very different from the usual Sabbath doing (Cf. Luke 13:10-17). The problem here was Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Healing on the Sabbath was considered working on the Sabbath. Jesus’ actions that morning suggested a counter culture!

For the Hebrew people working on the Sabbath was wrong and sinful. But for Jesus showing mercy, no matter whether it is Sabbath, or not is the essence of spirituality. Hence, Jesus did more than a healing on the Sabbath. He unseated their ‘religious culture’ in order to put a new one.

Three concerns that emerge from that single act are noteworthy. First, he challenged the synagogue leader and the system that considered women as mere possessions, and often less important than even an ox that ploughed the fields, or the donkey that carried the load! In this system an ox or a donkey brought more money! These were days when the work, women performed were not taken into consideration. Second, the Hebrews, like many of us, often lived with a misplaced value system. Money and money producing machineries are more important than humans! Finally, they also mistook a set of do’s and don’ts as the only requirement for faith and spirituality. But for Jesus, mercy and kindness is the core of spirituality. Those who show mercy and compassion even when they did not belong to a religious community or practice religious faith are indeed in a spiritual journey.

In lifting the woman on the Sabbath morning, then, Jesus challenged the status quo, upsetting the religious people of his time, particularly the synagogue leader. In the Gospels, Jesus’ troubles are always when he challenged the “conventional wisdom” of the people of his time, disturbing the status quo, or acting out a counter culture.

Jesus’ expressions of spirituality and cultural inclinations that morning did an uncomfortable unseating of the dominant value! He made the circle wider. He added an additional gender, with it a new sound and a new smell to the new sphere, making it more multi-gender the chief characteristic of heaven.

Challenging the Conventional Wisdom!

Jesus had plenty of problems during the three years of his ministry. This was because he challenged the conventional wisdom of the people of his time. He, in other words, was disturbing the status quo. Jesus in his teaching and preaching provoked his listeners. Justifying his tendency to be provocative he said, “I came to bring fire to the earth” (Luke 12:49)! He came to provoke and disturb the comfortable people! Jesus was always a provocative disturber of the status quo. He was always pro-active in provoking his audience.

Often when Jesus spoke to people he hurt their pride, pricking their bloated ego, reducing the self-importance of the listeners, particularly those in the centre of the then society! Here, Jesus like his predecessors, the Hebrew prophets, “plucked, pulled down, uprooted and destroyed” - recurring words in the writings of Jeremiah - their sense of self-importance, something the prophets considered God’s doing before God made things new!

In the Hebrew Scriptures this is called the “prophetic inveighing”, a sport almost all the prophets practiced. And, of course, all prophets, even prior to Jesus, suffered much. They preached the Word of God through such provocation. And the Word of God, according to the Hebrew Prophetic Scriptures, frequently came not as sweet as honey as the psalmist often proclaimed. It was usually uncomfortable words, needing a lot of humility and a greater maturity on the part of the hearers. Reinhold Niebuhr about his own preaching, and all preaching said that preaching should “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”. Jesus precisely did that. He expected his followers also to do the same.

Earlier young Moses did the same. He too knew the consequences of disturbing the status quo. At one point, he even tried to plead with God to let him out of the hook and pick instead Aaron, the old bloke who is also a good orator! But, we know, that did not happen. Once God decides on someone, there is no escape! And there is also no freedom from pain in an authentic ministry! Bonhoffer said when God calls you he calls you to suffer and die! That did happen to Bonhoffer! It happened to Jeremiah. And it happened to Jesus. Jesus could not escape from the cross, though at the end he yelled at God – Eloi, Eloi lema sabachthani? “My God, My God why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

God, in the Sacred Scriptures of the Christians, is not a sweet chocolate! God is not one who puts humans on a bed of roses! God does give to people chocolate and beautiful roses! But God gives above all a responsibility to become a prophet and a prophetic community to pluck up, to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow our prejudices, our narrowness, our smallness, our sense of self-importance, and so on before we build for God “the hymn of love”! Towards this, the same scriptures affirm, God gives God’s own Spirit!

Song writer James Manley boldly believed the Spirit of God is that which “breaks ancient schemes”, “stings with sand”, “calls us to live in an uncertain tomorrow”, “coaxes us to do what we do not like”, “wakes us from our slumber”, “gives us a new vision”, “stirs me from my placidness”, and much more.

Unpredictability of God!

Unpredictability of that “Being” I call God has frequently frustrated me. But there have been many, many moments my mind has been simply fascinated by that “More”. It is this fascination that prompts me to what the ancients called “praising God”! And my adoration of that Absolute Love at the edge where I stand breaks into this “un-poetic” prayer where my “soft amen” disintegrates with the souls of those perishing in hell, a human construct.

Your unpredictability like the wind
Blowing where it chooses to blow
That I hear very clearly the sound
But knowing not where it comes
Or whither her path would be
Increasing that sense of mystery to surround
You and your ways of dealing in the world
Making the thought of your eternal
Unchangeableness a very sure heresy
Leaving me to wonder, and wander after you
Like Moses journeying alone
In that Sinai wilderness
For so long before he gets a glimpse
Of your being in the burning bush

I, now, drive through the Albertan bush
Seeking like Jonah, Jeremiah, and Jesus
That restless rest that comes from resting
In your endless, ever-expanding
Being that is always becoming!

Authentic God Talk!

To say, “there is no God”, is not the worst thing in the world! But to believe and affirm God while denying the right of another human to live, at least, as much as I want to live is the nastiest.

This is the essence of Amos’ concern. Amos lived about 800 years before Jesus and has left behind a little book, which is part of the Bible that could be of great value for those promoting a religious culture.

Amos was very hard-hitting on those who limited all “God talk” to a “worship service” and “the Sabbath” (or a Holy Day) and went onto to live the rest of the week a self-centred, a selfish life.

The book of Amos is addressed to those “very religious” persons who have not integrated their religious faith to the values and culture of their daily living! These are the people who wait for the religious activities to be over so that they could go into another set of rules to fatten their wallet at the expense of the poor and the needy. These people, Amos said, “trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land”.

How do they do this? They do this, in his terms, by “making” the “ephah small and the shekel great”. In our terms the weight, or the volume decreases in the market place and the dollars you need to part-with goes up!

Amos observed the people. First, he saw how people behaved in the “religious spaces”. Second, he also saw how they conducted themselves in the “market places”. He did not find any connection between the two. One said something in side the four walls of the sacred space and went out to do something else.

This lack of correlation between religious profession and conduct in the day-to-day living invalidates the authenticity of the faith professed and does disservice to the religious cause!

Bertha, a Living Saint!

Bertha, now, is past 80 years! She had a foot operation at the age of 13. She, in her young age, never could run, or walk straight. In the early days before a neighbor friend of the family, a police officer, detected her foot problem, her parents thought that Bertha was imitating her grandfather’s walk.

The foot problem recurred when she was in her 50’s. She has undergone hip replacement 20 years ago. And both her knees are replaced. She still walks slowly and not straight. Her hip that was cemented needs to be further repaired. The doctor who fixed it years ago though have not verbalized feels that it is not worth the fixing! But not Bertha!

Bertha’s legs may be faulty but she has a clean heart. I have never seen her controlling any one. She does not lord over any of her associates. Her relationships are bonded in true affection and authentic love.

Bertha is always doing the humblest work. Bertha is ever ready to do the cups and dishes, whether in the church basement, or at the seniors’ centre, where she has a little apartment with things scattered all over, a sign of her outgoing and busy schedule.

She goes for bowling with other seniors. Not that she scores very many points. But she continues to go, keeping her self very active and enjoying the success of others! She always has plenty to talk about other people’s greatness.

She comes to church very regularly. She also drives for worship three other women from the senior center. She agreed to serve in the Vestry and shares her views and questions without hesitation. Whether she understands, or not, she encourages the minister, the study leader, with her presence.

I was quite pleased when she said that she did not understand what I had written to the Fairview Post! She does not pretend. On an earlier occasion too she said that what I had given for print went above her head. She may, with no malice, occasionally attribute that to my university background!

She reads a little. She watches the TV a little. She socializes much, and enjoying quite a bit of Bingo! She visits the drop in centre whenever there is an event. She sits with the seniors. She loves the young people, normally talking fondly about her grandchildren in 20’s and 30’s! Her daughters do not share her faith. They go to different churches. But she neither envies them nor is judgmental. She lives, with her dead husband in her heart, frequently sharing stories of Benny. She also regularly talks about her dead son who, if alive, would be of my age.

She works hard – has a garden during summer, knits, sows, bakes, cooks, inviting always others to share her beverage and food! She is a woman of great energy. She has overcome much prejudices others of her age and younger continue carrying, to live with. She believes that she inherited such openness and kindness from her father who homesteaded in the Eureka River district, running a store, mixing very freely with the Jews, who were hated at that time, and the aboriginals who were generally looked down by the settlers, and helping those who had nothing to eat!

Water and Wine!

Jesus turning water into wine has always intrigued me! To the best of my knowledge, Christians of all denominations affirm this as one of the “divine manifestations” and view it a “sign” to Jesus’ glory.

How do I understand the “manifestations” of God, the Ultimate, the More, the Unseen? Where do humans encounter God? In what manner does God meet me in my daily life? What should I be doing to meet God face-to-face? Jesus turning “water” into “wine,” I believe, provides an answer to some of these very pertinent questions.

Water is the symbol of the “very ordinary.” Water is very “earthly” and very “natural.” Water is nothing “special.” But this very ordinary “water” changes to extraordinary “wine” when my inner perspective changes!

I see spirituality as common sense. Doing simple things is all that is expected of me. A glass of water, a plate of food, a simple visit, an encouraging smile, a gentle hello to someone in need, or taking a little time to light a candle in darkness – is all that is required to be spiritual, or to be religious in the Christian sense. But most of all spirituality is a cultivation of a new sensitivity – a sense of respect and reverence to the “ordinary water.” It pleads within me “an attentive mindfulness” to the simple, the small, the humble, and the natural. What is really “extraordinary,” in the end, is the very “ordinary!”

Humans encounter the divine in small things of life. Moses encountered God in just an ordinary bush with an attentive mind to look at the ordinary with an extraordinary sense of awe and wonder. Naaman, the Syrian Commander was cured when he had the humility to do the simple dipping himself for seven times in very ordinary water.

Beauty, they say, is in the eyes of the beholder. When I feel, or think, that water is not as tasty as wine, then water will not be as tasty as wine. But when I change my perspective, water becomes as good and as tasty as wine. Water here changes to wine! Water and wine, then, are primarily a conditioning of my mind and a craving of my heart.

Sages and saints, I now realise, are those who have overcome the conditioning of mind and craving of heart. The spirituality of Jesus is cultivating a sense of equanimity in my perspective. Religion here is not a pleading for change in the chemistry of the water, but rather, a rigorous effort to transform my psychological stance.

The sage or a saint, they say, is one who can view, in the same way, “a gold bar” and “an ordinary brick.” I may not reach such a height, but I can cultivate within me a serenity to view “a glass of water” in the same way I view “a glass of wine.”

Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa!

“Samaritan”, for me, is a symbol of all that I want to exclude from my little agape! Jesus by sitting and chatting with the Samaritan woman and ready to receive a drink from her suggests that I should break those little barriers I erect between others and me, sometimes in the name of morality, faith, and religion!

This spirituality of inclusion that Jesus left behind has been very carefully manipulated, in the past and in the present for the exclusion of many – continents, religious communities, even committed Christians but with different sexual orientation.

Christians, I see, continue to define their identities in terms of exclusion! Much of the Christian theology, liturgy, hagiology and so on have been developed contrary to the spirituality of Jesus. They express and affirm a distorted Christian exclusivism.

Fortunately, we have better examples of inclusion in other religions. One such is the Dalai Lama calling Mother (now Blessed) Teresa a “Bodhisattva”, an enlightened person, somewhat a synonym for Buddha, who is committed to the salvation of others. It is bigger than the Christian notion of “saint”. In this I see a Buddhist attempt to include and celebrate a Christian soul. But I am yet to see a similar Christian attempt to include and celebrate a so-called non-Christian.

And as an Anglican Christian I find it frustrating to see hardly any coloured saints, except the apostles and may be three other - a Chinese, a Japanese, and an African mentioned in the Anglican long list of saints!

Jesus broke down barriers and established the rule of the compassionate God! His was a spirituality of inclusivisim similar, or greater to that of Dalai Lama! But can Christians learn inclusion of others from Dalai Lama?

Jesus, the Inclusive Rabbi!

Jesus was not a pussycat; he was a tiger. These are not my imageries. These I picked from the late Anglican Bishop J.A.T. Robinson. If Jesus had been a pussycat no one would have bothered to pick an AK 47 to deal with him! Jesus, during his time, was perceived as a disturber of the status quo. He was indeed. So he was crucified.

Jesus did not do great things; he built nothing; certainly he built no 4000-seat mega church; organized no big companies, or power blocks; gave no blue prints for any great movement. But he broke traditions that maintained the status quo, an apparent peace. People of his time, like many today, preferred that peace. This phoney peace has the tendency to breed an attitude of ‘you in your small corner and I in mine’, a counterfeit co-existence.

Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-42) promotes a “pro-existence”, drastically different to a mere tolerance, a shallow co-existence. Jesus, unlike the Rabbis of his time, always journeyed through the Samaritan (the enemy!) territory, not my clique.

That was a big sin for the Jews of his time. He even committed a greater sin: Chatted with a woman. That too a Samaritan woman! It was shocking even for the Samaritan woman. For she has never before experienced such “radical love”. Jesus’ was a love that did not shy away from acknowledging its own vulnerability and need! He was thirsty; and he hesitated not to receive a drink from a Samaritan woman.

In a predominantly white – Caucasian community, it is possible to capture the impact of this text if you can imagine your self walking on a hot summer day, and walking through the inner city with no coins in you pockets, no credit cards in your wallet. You are not even carrying your water bottle, and then suddenly you stop to ask an aboriginal woman for a little drink from her bottle!

Jesus was aware that his own religious tradition encouraged him to avoid the Samaritan territory. Whenever the Jews in Jerusalem wanted to go to Galilee they preferred to avoid the shorter route of going through Samaria. Instead they would go east, cross the river Jordan, and go up north to Galilee, sometimes doing a second crossing of the river Jordan.

Jesus taught the rule of God, the Kingdom, excluded not any of God’s creatures, including the Samaritans. Jews of his time hated and viewed the Samaritans derogatively as “dogs”. But Jesus never avoided people, even if they were not of his class, clan, creed, colour, or culture. For him, the “divine agape” embraces every creature; the immanent spirit of God is always inclusive. Hence, the compassionate God of Jesus includes you and me, the Muslim and the Hindu, the atheist and an agnostic! Such is God’s inclusion. Then what about the gay and the lesbian?

Compassionate Listening

Frequently people of "faith", and “no faith”, forget they must listen to one another. In their eagerness to speak their "faith", or “no faith”, they "plug" their ears and fail to recognize that the other also possess something "sacred and precious". Failure to "listen" can easily slip into "belittling" the "faith" of the other. This is the first gun shot for a major war in which the victim is not just the "other" but my own "faith" too!

Buddhist Emperor Asoka more than two millenniums ago proclaimed: "He who does reverence to his own sect while disparaging the sects of the others wholly from attachment to his own, with intent to enhance the splendour of his own sect, in reality, by such conduct inflicts the severest injury on his own sect." The late philosopher-president of India, S. Radhakrishnan, believed that religions are at their best when they accommodate the other. Other poets and philosophers too have confirmed this.

The very first step towards such accommodation is "compassionate listening". "Faith", or “no faith”, is relevant to our contemporary Canadian life, which is multi-cultural and pluralistic in religions, only when it can "listen" to the other, and "listen with compassion".

Listening to the “faith”, or “no faith”, of others is encouraged, not with a view of an "altering our religious allegiance”, but to transform our own "faith" from within, so that we may be compassionate towards one another. In the process of listening, it is possible that some may change their “faith”, or “no faith”. That’s a risk we must take in the name of a Compassionate God desiring more human compassion.

This reason for listening is hinted in Hafiz’ poem titled "An Old Musician." He asks: "How should those who know of God meet and part?" For which his answer is: "The way an old musician greets his beloved instrument and will take special care as a great artist always does to enhance the final note of each performance."

Khalil Gibran also provides not so different answer in his humorous parable titled "The Philosopher and the Cobbler." It reads: "There came to a cobbler's shop a philosopher with worn shoes. And the philosopher said to the cobbler, "Please mend my shoes." And the cobbler said, "I am mending another man's shoes now, and there are still other shoes to patch before I can come to yours. But leave your shoes here, and wear this other pair today, and come tomorrow for your own." Then the philosopher was indignant, and he said, "I wear no shoes that are not mine own." And the cobbler said, "Well then, are you in truth a philosopher, and cannot enfold your feet with the shoes of another man? Upon this very street there is another cobbler who understands philosophers better than I do. Go you to him for mending."

The purpose of listening is to walk in someone else’s moccasin, giving a little time to mend your own boots, a broadening of your perspective.

The Third Way!

Anglican polity, by and large, knows only two responses to the question of “same sex marriage”: either you accept or reject! Those who reject consider those who accept as “immoral” while those who accept frown upon those who reject as “self-righteous”. My position is that there is another way. You may call it the third way. History of Religion(s), primarily, informs this position.

Marriage is a social creation, grafted only later as an aspect of religious institution – still later as one of the “seven sacraments”. Protestant reformation has firmly established that “marriage” is not a “sacrament” comparable to the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist. As soon as that part of the Church realized that Holy Matrimony is not the same as Holy Baptism, they “dropped” the number 7 and affirmed 2!

A similar thought was re-established when Canadian Anglicans pronounced that the “same sex marriage” does not make up the “core doctrine”. But this time nothing was “dropped”!

We must remember that the “dropping” – or to “let go” – the 7 was considered a part of “reform” and growth into vitality! What I am, then, suggesting here is the “dropping”, or that “letting go” of the “marriage” as a religious concern.

Contemporary Anglicans must “let go” that desire to “officiate” at every “social function” – and in this case marriage. Marriage in any case is a “social construct” changing from place to place and time to times! There are numerous types of marriages that I do not need to spell it here!

Marrying persons, or blessing persons, when they are socially (and legally) married was one of the many “mission” works that the church did in the past. This is in some sense parallel to the church “running educational institutes”. When the state began to do that work, and did it better, the church willingly, and at other times unwillingly decided to let go that function.

I believe Anglicans have arrived – long time ago – when they added or subtracted nothing through their liturgies to “those legal marriages”. Recognizing this fact, Anglicans must now withdraw their liturgies of “Blessing of a Marriage” from circulation.

Marriage is an affair of the state at the moment! And if Anglicans let go this business, they will have plenty of time to engage in the prophetic ministry of critiquing the state authorities and the market powers that infect and infest God’s world with consumerism, leading to all types of injustices impacting adversely the desired abundant life, which Jesus advocated. At present they are too busy debating and departing to christen, marry and bury, and this has nothing in common with the Nazareth Manifesto of Jesus, the bridegroom of the Church!