RonRolheiser,OMI

No Trumpets For Men

Recently at a workshop that I was giving a woman shared this at the luncheon break: “I have this secret dream. In it, I blow a trumpet one Sunday morning and at the sound of that trumpet, all the women in churches around the world walk out! Wouldn’t that be something! Wouldn’t that send some signal to Rome!”

That’s one woman’s dream, and, given some of the anger that has constellated in recent years around gender issues in the church, I suspect that more than a few women nurse that kind of fantasy.

For men, unfortunately, no such fantasy, or trumpet, is necessary. Most of them have already walked out. As tough as things are for women in the church, they are even tougher, I submit, for men.

Several years ago, I suggested in this column that the church suffers because of a double alienation: many women are alienated from the structure of the church, wheareas many men, perhaps the majority of them, are alienated from tis soul.

What do I mean by that? Let me attempt some explanation:

I know a number of women who no longer go to church because it is too painful for them, given an all-male clergy and a set of structures that they consider unhealthily patriarchal. Yet every one of these women prays, has a deep interest in spirituality, gives and makes retreats, and has deep religious and ecclesial concerns. They have left the church (or, at least, they have stopped going to church). But they are deeply concerned and involved with religion, with Christianity.

Conversely, I know many men, young and old, who do go to church, for whom the structures of the church present no obstacle, but who are, deep down, alienated from religion. They don’t pray, have no interest in spirituality and have virtually no ecclesial concerns.

They attend church and church functions begrudgingly, either out of a sense of duty or because they are dragged there by the women in their lives. And then there are still the millions of men who are not, it would seem, interested in religion and do not attend church either.

What’s to be said about this?

The rather simplistic answer is that women are more spiritually developed, more attuned to deeper things and more sensitive than are men. To my mind, that is a dangerous misreading of the situation.

The problem is not that men are more a-religious or irreligious than women. No. The problem is rather that, within Christianity in the Western world, men have and, quite understandably too, a spiritual inferiority complex the size of the Grand Canyon and this would is further exacerbated by the fact that Christianity, for the main part, has taken on a female soul.

While its structures may be overbalanced towards the male side, the church’s soul is weighted in reverse. Simply put—and I in no way intend this remark as sarcasm or cynicism, but in all respect—it is no accident that, seen archetypally, the pope wears a dress rather than the uniform of a knight or a soldier.

There are reasons for this, not the least of which is the fact that we were taught to believe and pray by our mothers (much more so than by our fathers), but those reasons aren’t my point here.

My point is rather that, as we try to build a healthier, more whole church we must, with more courage and honesty than has been the norm of late, look at the way both women and men are being alienated from the church, and we must look at both structures and soul.

Not to have the courage to examine how patriarchal our structures are is to run the risk of losing many women. Conversely, not to have the courage to examine how matriarchal is our soul is to run the risk of losing even still more men.

In his autobiography, Nikos Kazantzakis shares how as a young boy he was torn between the soft religiosity and piety of his mother and the hard impious anti-clericalism of his father. When he was a bit older, he picked up the Bible, intending to read it from cover to cover and then decide for himself what was right about Christianity, the softness of his mother or the hardness of his dad.

He tells how he thoroughly enjoyed the Old Testament. Yahweh was his kind of God—passion, blood, war, knives, horses, betrayal and forgiveness on every page. Then he read the New Testament. He describes his disappointment: “After all that strength, blood and passion, along comes Jesus, petting sheep and drinking camomile tea!”

His is not the best interpretation of the New Testament, but his comment is a good one to ponder as we try to renew ourselves as church. We must retain and balance many dualities: softness and hardness, piety and toughness, water and fire, soul and structure, female and male. God is all of these.

I Believe in the Resurrection

To believe in the resurrection of Jesus is to be comforted, comforted at a level so deep that nothing in life is any longer ultimately a threat. In the resurrection, the hand of God soothes us and the voice of God assures us, frightened children that we are, that all is good and that all will remain good forever and ever.

The resurrection is not just something that happened to Jesus two thousand years ago and will happen to each of us some time in the future, after we die, when our own bodies will be raised to new life. It is that, but it is much more. The resurrection is something that buoys up every moment of life and every aspect of reality. God is always making new life and undergirding it with a goodness, graciousness, mercy, and love that, in the end, heals all wounds, forgives all sins, and brings deadness of all kinds to new life.

We feel this resurrecting power in the most ordinary moments of our lives. A sense of the resurrection, understood in its deepest sense, manifests itself unconsciously in our vitality, in what we call health; in the feeling, however dimly it is sensed, that it is good to be alive. Allow me an illustration here:

Sociologist of religion, Peter Berger, outlining what he calls “rumours of angels in everyday life”, gives us the following reflection:

Consider the most ordinary, and probably the most fundamental of all – the ordinary gesture by which a mother reassures her anxious child. A child wakes up in the night, perhaps from a bad dream and finds himself surrounded by darkness, alone, beset by nameless threats. At such a moment the contours of trusted reality are blurred and invisible, in the terror of incipient chaos the child cries out for his mother. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, at this moment, the mother is being invoked as a high priestess of protective order. It is she (and, in many cases, she alone) who has the power to banish the chaos and to restore the benign shape of the world. And, of course, any good mother will do just that. She will take the child and cradle him in the timeless gesture of the Magna Mater who became our Madonna. She will turn on a lamp, perhaps, which will encircle the scene with a warm glow of reassuring light. She will speak or sing to the child and the content of this communication will invariably be the same – “Don’t be afraid – everything is in order, everything is all right.

The mother’s comforting reassurance, “Don’t be afraid, it is all right”, is, in fact, a profession of faith, in God and the resurrection. When she says these words, she is making an act of faith just as surely, even if not as explicitly, as if she was saying: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty … and I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.”

When she assures the child that there is nothing to be frightened about, she means it, and she means it (without her even realizing it) not so much on the basis that there are no immediate dangers to the child or because she is herself able to protect the child as on the basis that, ultimately, everything is all right. What she senses which makes here able to comfort the child is that there is nothing to be afraid of, even if something should kill us or we should kill ourselves, because at the deepest level we are all in the hands of graciousness and love and not in the hands of maliciousness and terror. To say: “Don’t be afraid”, and mean it, is to say that, in the end, the power of goodness is stronger than the power of malice, that dead bodies come out of graves, that all our mistakes will be forgiven, and that all terrors are phantom.

That is the power of the resurrection! That is what we mean when we say: “I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.” The resurrection means more than just the fact that God raised the body of Jesus from the dead. It means that God’s power to raise death to life buoys up every moment of life and every aspect of reality. The very atomic structure of the cosmos feels and knows that resurrecting power. That is why it (like us, when we are healthy) pushes forward blindly, buoyed up by a hope that it cannot understand.

Do you want to understand the power of the resurrection? Meditate Michelangelo’s Pieta: A woman holds a dead body in her arms, but everything about her and about the scene itself says loudly and clearly: “Don’t be afraid. It’s all right. Everything is all right!” 

Yearly thoughts From The Court Fool!

Exactly a year ago, I wrote a piece suggesting that we re-introduce the idea of having a court jester, a bumbling fool in every organization, church, and family, who regularly, through true foolishness (not cynicism) deflates pompousness, pseudo-seriousness, and self-important inflations of every kind.

Well, they are around, these fools, they only need to be given a serious listening. So … some kernels of foolishness from wind-breakers of every sort.

Are you irritated with receiving those form letters wherein a family not-so-subtly flaunts its achievements in your face? Try this kind of a response:

Dear Friends:

It’s been a thoroughly rotten year. Victor lost his job. Our oldest daughter was picked up for shoplifting and our youngest is living with a real creep. Our 11-year-old’s greatest achievement this year was to stop wetting the bed. I am checking in at an AA clinic to dry out and Victor is leaving me for a 20-year-old hairdresser. Happy New Year! Fed-up in Regina, Saskatchewan.

(Ann Landers)

And you think it is difficult to centre yourself and pray?

Listen to John Updike on a matter even more serious, and difficult: “It must be difficult for a man on his deathbed to take his own dying seriously; his son is asking to borrow the car, his wife downstairs is shrieking that the dishwasher is overflowing, his local sports team has lost four straight, his favourite sitcom is coming on tonight at 8:30 … and all this time he is truly dying.”

Some axioms you can live by, and bet by …

-Most people are carnivorous. This is more than a casual observation. They don’t want you on the program, they want you on the menu. (Dan Berrigan)

-Remember, your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, not an amusement park. (source unknown)

-The weirder you are, the more normal you look. The reverse is also true. When you see a kid with three or four rings in his nose, you know for certain that there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that person. (P.J. O’Rourke)

-Men should kiss their wives more often. At present this is the situation: Only 20% of men kiss their wives good-bye before they leave their houses … while 98% of them kiss their houses good-bye when they leave their wives. (Saturday Night Live)

-If you are a teacher, never get drunk enough to fall into this slip of the tongue: “What a class! I taught them everything I know and they are still idiots!”

-When riding on an airplane, watch the movie, but don’t use the earphones. Try to read the lips of the actors. Then, since you will understand practically nothing that is going on, you will feel quite at home, little different than you do on the ground. (Dan Berrigan)

And then, make sure you watch your language, be politically correct. I’ve checked out the following with the language police …

-Don’t say “lighten up”, it’s racist; nor “loosen up”, it offends the aging.

-Nobody is boring, some of us are charm-free.

-Nobody is untrustworthy, a crook; some of us are simply ethically disoriented, morally different.

-Nobody is wrong, some of us are just differently logical.

-There are no shoplifters, some of us are non-traditional shoppers.

-I used to be sloppy and clumsy, now I uniquely coordinated.

And here’s some hints for praying to patron saints …

-If you are balding you might want to pray to St. Hedwig.

-If you are a lawyer, try Our Lady of Good Counsel.

-If you are a knitter, try St. Casimir.

-If you are a fire-fighter, try St. Blaise.

-If you are a horticulturist, try Therese, the Littlle Flower.

-If you are a travel agent, try St. Martin of Tours.

-Finally, if you are overweight, you might want to try praying to St. Josaphat.

Dostoyevski said: “Call yourself a fool at least once a month!” For me, it’s been a year. It’s time!

The Embrace Of Good Friday

There are different kinds of loneliness, just as there are different visions of intimacy. We ache in many places, just as we dream various dreams of consummation.

I remember as a young priest, just ordained and barely beyond the loneliness of adolescence, saying mass and feeling very deeply these words from the Eucharistic Prayer: “Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.. I would say those words back then and they would excite my romantic imagination and incite feelings and fantasies that had to do with the fulfilment of my own personal loneliness. To become one body in Christ connoted, for me, that embrace that would put an end to my endless aching, restlessness, and sexual inconsummation. The need for unity in Christ, as I felt it then, had to do with my own personal distance from others.

That was the loneliness I felt then and that was what, by and large, I most wanted from the Eucharist (which I have always believed to be an embrace). I’m no longer a young priest and, although I cannot confidently state that I am beyond the loneliness of adolescent (who is?), I feel those words of the Eucharist quite differently now. When I now pray that Christ should make us one body, it is not so much my personal loneliness that I want overcome as it is something much wider, something beyond just me and my own aches and inconsummations. What I now feel more strongly is how painfully separate, and separated, we all are from each other and how seemingly hopeless are the divisions among us.

I pray the Eucharistic prayer now and what I feel, first of all, is not my own romantic and sexual separateness but how torn is our world and everything in, myself included. How separate we are! How divided!  So much makes it difficult, seemingly hopeless in fact, to ever be one body, one spirit – history, circumstance, background, temperament, ideology, gender, race, geography, and religion, among other things. There is a loneliness and inconsummation in the whole world. The world aches, as did my adolescent self.

Moreover, the older I get, the more I despair of any simple solution to this. There will not be world community, world peace, and one body simply because we sincerely desire it. The divisions among us, like the issues that separate a man and a woman who can no longer fight through the things that divide them and are asking for a divorce, are too overpowering. We too, as a world, cannot find a way any longer to embrace that will heal all the hurt and stop the divisions. We need an embrace from beyond, a vision from beyond, an intimacy we cannot give to ourselves.

Jesus, dying on the cross, is that embrace, that vision, that intimacy. We look at a cross and we see the secret. That is what real reconciling embrace looks like. We don’t understand it, we see it. And what do we see there?

A man, a God, hangs naked, exposed, vulnerable, defenceless, silent, with his arms stretched wide, open for an embrace, and with his hands also stretched open with nails driven through them. Yet strangely, in all that, we don’t see bitterness, defeat, and anger. Paradoxically, we see their opposite. This is what real trust, love, and metanoia (which means un-paranoia) look like.

And I say “look like” because we don’t understand this, we see it. We don’t understand intellectually how giving oneself over in betrayal teaches trust and how vulnerability and powerlessness are the real powers to bring about intimacy. But we see this when we look at the cross of Jesus. It is no wonder that so many people, millions of people literally, wear a cross as a symbol of love, trust, and hope. Unconsciously, they know, however dimly, what theology can never quite make clear to us, namely, that what divides us from each other can only be bridged by the cross of Christ and that our hope for intimacy and community is not in ourselves but in an embrace that is beyond us. In a cross this is not understood, it’s seen – mystically, not rationally.

So, as a priest, I stand daily before an altar and pray the words: “Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may become one body, one spirit in Christ.” What I pray for is precisely that what we see in the cross of Christ might be actually given to us, namely, an embrace from beyond ourselves.

In the cross lies the answer to our loneliness.

Waiting for a Wildflower

How do we reach the unchurched? What should we be doing in light of the fact that church attendance, commitment to the church, and simple interest in the church as slipping daily?

What do we do, given that both our culture and our own children, for the main part, are not interested in the church?

Today there is a lot of talk, and considerable passion, on this matter. For the most part, however, this has been more helpful in pointing out the importance of the issue than it has been in suggesting effective ways that the unchurched might be reached.

There have been some good efforts made, like some of those around the concept of “the remembering church,” but, in the end, they have not been effective. We continue to lose ground, both in terms of impacting the mainstream culture and in bringing our own children back into the mainstream of the church.

I say this with due sympathy, as someone who doesn’t pretend to have the answers on this, but, and the hard truth needs to be accepted here, that despite considerable sincerity and effort, we have come up with neither a language, nor an approach, nor a program, nor even a vision that offers much hope for even a minimal effect on the unchurched.

Most of what we have developed which is good—in terms of vision, approach, language and program—has to do with maintenance, with sustaining the church life that we already have. However, for all our efforts, we have done virtually nothing that has significantly impacted the mainstream, unchurched culture.

So what’s to be done? How do we take Christ to the world? How do we take him to our own children?

I’ll begin by saying this: I don’t know and it would seem that nobody else knows either! If we did, we could simply go out and do it. For all of our sincerity, efforts, pastoral think-tanks and workshops on re-founding, our imaginations are still pumping dry.

Moreover, this is not our fault since as one of the theorists on re-foundation, Gerald Arbuckle, is fond of saying: “The new belongs elsewhere!” And we aren’t elsewhere—we’re here, inside of the church, incapable, for now, of imagining new ways of reaching the unchurched, let alone imagining new ways of living together as a church.

So where will our answer come from? My own hunch, based upon how new imagination (“revelation”) has often come into the church in the past, is that it will not come from either our hierarchy, our theologians, our pastoral projects, nor as a result of our endless meetings and workshops on the issue.

It will come when some wild man or mad woman, like Francis of Assisi, will one day strip off his or her clothes and walk naked out of some shopping mall and out of some city and begin, with his or her bare hands, to rebuild some old church somewhere (or something to this effect).

That madness will not only capture the imagination of the world, the unchurched, but it will again reshape the imagination of the rest of us, the churched—and it will reshape it in ways that are right now beyond the imaginations of both conservatives and liberals in the church.

My own hunch too, based upon the axiom that “the new belongs elsewhere,” is that this wild man or mad woman will not be someone who is of our generation, that is the generation of Catholics that is so pathologically and inextricably wrapped-up in its own reactions to Vatican II, be they liberal or conservative and all the infighting that flows out of that.

A wild imagination is like a wildflower—it grows elsewhere, in unspoiled meadows, far from well-used roadways and city streets. The imagination that eventually truly reshapes our ecclesiology will, I suspect, constellate in someone who is already post-critical, who isn’t shadow-boxing with his or her own Christian past and with his or her own fellow Christians.

That imagination, which I suspect will come out of a new convert or out of somebody who, while born and raised a Catholic, has already understood both the awesome power and ultimate emptiness of pagan beauty and needs now to fight neither the world nor the church, will be truly free to pull from its sack the new as well as the old.

I suspect that it will be somebody, like Francis of Assisi, who comes out of the yuppie generation. But then, who knows? That’s just my imagination—and I am not a wildflower! I am one of those Catholics in whose imagination I have, in this point, little confidence.

In the end, the answer will come from the Spirit of God, the wildest of all flowers, which grows in both spoiled and unspoiled meadows and can resurrect dead bodies and faith in both the unchurched and the churched.

The Restless Heart

Every so often a book comes along that deeply touches the romantic imagination. Twenty­-five years ago, Richard Bach’s Jonathan Livingston Seagull did this.

Now, in North America at least, we have roughly the same phenomenon with Robert Waller’s book, The Bridges of Madison County (Warner Books, New York, 1992).

In the wake of this story, many a person, married and unmarried, will be restlessly searching for that one-in-a-million soulmate and daily scanning the horizon with burning eyes that ask:

“ls that her? ls that him? Might this finally be my soulmate, my destiny, the person with whom my true life can begin?”

Waller’s book is the true story of a love affair between Francesca Johnson, a farm wife from Madison County, Iowa, and Robert Kincaid, a free-lance photographer. In 1965, when he was 52 years old, Kincaid went to Madison County from Bellingham, Wash., to do some work for National Geographic magazine. His assignment was to take pictures of the covered bridges there.

Searching for one of those bridges, he stops by a farm house to ask for directions and his life and the life of Francesca, a married mother whose husband and two teenage children are gone for the week, change forever.

Instantly both sense that this meeting is not an accident but destiny. Both, too, instantly realize that life will never be the same again, that this meeting will leave a scar, of joy and pain, that will relativize all their joys and pains for the rest of their lives.

They spend just five days together, talking, drinking beer and brandy, smoking Camel cigarettes, dancing in the farmhouse kitchen, making love, sharing deeply their mutual loneliness, and taking pictures of the bridges of Madison County.

For them, however, those five days constitute a life-time, more than a life-time in fact. Both of them go to their deaths (Robert in 1982 and Francesca in 1989) believing that those five days were really their only real life and that in those five·days, they experienced something that, arrogant though this might sound, perhaps nobody has ever experienced as powerfully.

Waller’s book, based largely upon Francesca’s journals, found after her death, focuses mainly on those five days.

When Francesca’s husband and children return she is forced to make a choice—go with Robert or return to her life? Her whole being aches for Robert but her sense of duty wins out and she stays with her husband and children.

Except she doesn’t stay, really. From that day on, until she dies, even though she and Robert never see each other again and never, save for one small postcard, contact each other again, her heart and soul are with Robert and his are with her.

When, after his death, his will is opened, it contains a letter for Francesca within which he says: ‘I live with dust on my heart . . . There have been women before you, a few, but none after. I made no conscious pledge to celibacy, I’m just not interested.”

When he was leaving he had said to Francesca: “In a universe of ambiguity, this kind of certainty comes only once, and never again, no matter how many lifetimes you live.” For Robert Kincaid and Francesca Johnson, that was true.

Perhaps it is not true for some of the rest of us, but the fact that this book has stirred such a restlessness within so many people suggests that a good number of persons believe that it could be true for them . . . if only they would meet that one special person!

What’s to be said about this? ls there some one-in-a-billion person out there, some soulmate, who, if we could only meet, would make us whole and make the world real in a way that nothing within our lives now can ever approximate?

There is something lodged inextricably inside the heart that wants to say “yes” to that. But one wonders: If Romeo and Juliet had lived, would the spell have broken? If Francesca Johnson had gone to live with Robert Kincaid, would this one-in-a-billion romance have eventually become a one-like-everyone-elses?

Neither the naive romantic nor the cynical analyst, to my mind, can answer that question correctly.

But irrespective of our own answer, whether Waller’s story deeply stirs our romantic imaginings or leaves us shaking our heads cynically at two people who felt they had invented the wheel, we must, I submit, deal with this longing for a soulmate more by filtering it through Augustine’s dictum, “you have made us for yourself, Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you” than with restless eyes that assess every new person with the question: ”ls this finally her? ls this finally him?”

The New Legalism – The Tyranny Of Programs

One of our perennial struggles as a church is with legalism. Invariably we set up certain hoops which we believe must be jumped through if one is to make proper contact with God. Invariably too we are blind to the fact that we are doing this. Hardly ever does someone see himself or herself as a legalist. Yet that is how we are often perceived by those who are struggling, for whatever reason, with the church.

We all have, I think, a pretty good feel for how the old church (if I may use that phrase) was legalistic. The rules were pretty strict and if a man or woman couldn’t live up to them, well, he or she had to seek the consolation of God elsewhere. We have, I submit, considerably less of a feel for how we, who are trying to build a better church, are perpetuating this. Let me, in a way that is perhaps a bit devious, give an illustration:

I have always found a certain incident in Jesus’ ministry highly curious. It’s the occasion (Mark 7, 24-30) where a Syrophoenician woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter and he refuses, telling her that “it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” But the woman persists, pointing out to Jesus that “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” That answer changes Jesus’ mind. He mellows instantly and not only grants her the miracle she requests, but tells her that nowhere among the Jewish community had he found a greater faith than hers.

When one reads this account superficially it would seem that, at first, Jesus was pretty petty, legalistic, and hardly the role model we want. He refused this woman the miracle because she is not Jewish, pure and simple. In effect, he tells her that the Jewish people are the children, everyone else are the dogs! Ironically, though, examined more deeply, this incident reveals the reverse, Jesus’ freedom to act beyond legalism. How so?

Picture this: You are in charge of an RCIA program in your own parish. You have, through nearly 8 months, worked with a group of very sincere people who are preparing themselves to enter the church. You have met weekly, shared faith stories, prayed together, studied scripture and church doctrine together, participated in several very moving liturgies of initiation, and have just finished making an intense retreat together as the Vigil of Holy Saturday approaches and these persons, strongly supported by their sponsors, will to be baptized and received into the church. It is now less than an hour before the Vigil is to begin and you are giving some last minute instructions and encouragement to those who are about to be baptized, when a woman, a complete stranger, walks up to you and says: “I would like to be baptized too! Here, tonight, with these others!”

I doubt that she would receive baptism in very many of our churches. I suspect that our response would be similar to Jesus’ initial comment to the Syrophoenician woman: “It isn’t fair, you aren’t prepared like these others, you didn’t do the program!”  Yet Jesus, after that initial response, did baptize her that night. In effect, Jesus’ first line was: “You aren’t ready, you didn’t do the program, you didn’t do the RCIA which is called the Old Testament!” But the woman responds to this by showing him that, even though she has not done the formal program, she is just as ready as anyone who has. She gets the miracle, not because she did the program, but because she is ready.

There is a deep lesson in that incident for today’s church which, not infrequently, suffers from a new legalism, the legalism of program. We have, in recent years, developed many good programs (and they are programs, even when we refuse to call them that) to prepare people for baptism, marriage, eucharist, confirmation, and ministry. Please don’t get me wrong. Virtually always, these programs are good and necessary and have helped countless people. But, and this is the point, they have also, in many parishes and communities, become the only way, the non-negotiable avenue, to receive these sacraments. They have too become the new way power is wielded and the way that the poor (who have many faces) are again excluded from the church. Rare is the RCIA director who, if approached on Holy Saturday by a unknown woman, would pull that woman aside right there, interview her, and than decide that perhaps after all she is ready … even though she hasn’t done the prescribed program or process.

John Shea once suggested that Jesus was crucified because “he made God as accessible as the village well.”  I sometimes fear that so many of our our programs, good as they are, do not always make God quite that accessible.

Thinking Small

A year ago, I was at a religious education conference which had as its keynote speaker Maya Angelou, a black woman of considerable talent and remarkable graciousness. Among the many things she shared was this story:

“When I was six years old,” she said, “one summer day on the playground a little boy called me a nigger. Fall came that year, winter came that year, spring came that year and brought with it all kinds of flowers, and summer came in all its splendour and beauty – but, in all that richness, the only thing I can remember from that whole year is being called a nigger!”

Hearing her, I was reminded of a story I once heard from John Patrick Gillese, one of our Western Canadian writers. He tells the story of going home, to the small town in Alberta where he had grown up, for a funeral of an elderly woman. Among the many messages of condolence that were sent to her family there was a note from a family who now lived in British Columbia and who had left that small Alberta district some 30 years before. The note expressed sympathy to the family on the loss of their grandmother and added simply: “We will never forget how kind she was to us back in the 1930s.” Here was a family who remembered a small act of kindness, whatever it was, fifty years later.

These stories, although they make the point in opposite ways, teach the same thing: Small acts, of cruelty or kindness, leave their effect long after the effects of events of seemingly much greater importance have passed away.

There is, I believe, a profound lesson in this. The Kingdom of God, as Jesus assures us, is about mustard seeds, about small seemingly unimportant things, but which, in the long run, are the big things.

Not much in our world today helps us to believe that. Most everything urges us to think big and to be careless about small things. The impression is given us that what is private in our lives is little and unimportant. Likewise what is played out on the smaller stage of life – in the more domestic areas of family, marriage, and our exchanges with our neighbours and colleagues – is also deemed to be of little consequence. The big stage is what is important. What mark have you left in the world? What have you achieved on the bigger stage? What has been your involvement in the great causes? Nobody cares about your little life!  Private morality, private grudges, the little insults that we hand out, our many angers and resentments, the small infidelities within our sexual lives, the many little acts of selfishness, and, conversely, the small acts of sacrifice and selflessness that we do and the little compliments that we hand out, these are not valued much in our culture. As a song suggests: “Our little lives don’t count at all!”

I remember a young man, very dedicated to social causes, once asking me: “Do you really think that God gives a damn whether or not you say your morning prayers, or whether or not you hold some small grudge, or whether or not you are always polite to your colleagues, or whether or not you are always chaste sexually? That’s petty, small, private stuff that deflects attention off of the bigger moral issues.”

Well, I believe that God does care, and that God cares a great deal because, in the end, we care and small things, as these stories illustrate, affect a great deal.

I have always found it ironic that we easily forget the big things, the events that seem of great importance. Who won the Nobel prize for literature two years ago? Who won the academy awards last year? Who won the Super Bowl three years ago? Who won the World Cup 10 years ago? Who starred in that Broadway (or West End) play three years ago? It’s funny how quickly we tend to forget these things. It is also curious what we do not forget.

We tend to forget quickly who won such or such an award, or who starred in such and such a movie or play. But we remember, and remember vividly, with all the healing and grace it brought, who was nice to us all those years ago on the playground at school. We remember who encouraged us when we felt insecure. Conversely, we also remember, and remember vividly, with all the scars it brought, who laughed at us on the playground, made fun of our clothes, or who called us stupid.

Falls come, winters come, springs come, summers come and go, and sometimes the only thing we can remember from a given year is some small mustard seed, of cruelty or kindness.

Tenderness And Politics

Few things are as singularly urgent as is the need to bring about a better marriage, between justice and contemplation. The tension that exists between them expresses itself in a variety of ways.

It’s the perennial tension between piety and politics, private morality and social engagement, biblical righteousness and social justice, your local prayer group and Greenpeace, tenderness and hard action.

Ernst Kasemann once put it this way: The trouble in the world and in the church is that the pious aren’t liberal and the liberal aren’t pious.

Few people resolve this tension very well. Invariably we fall off one side or the other.

When worship, piety and private morality are the dominant focus of our religious lives, we too often tend to rationalize away the Gospel’s demand for social justice. Religion then means going to church, praying privately and keeping our private morals roughly in order.

In circles of piety frequently there is little sense that true worship of God demands more than church going and private morality.

Conversely, when social justice is the dominant focus of our religious lives, we too easily confuse Greenpeace with the Gospel and forget that what ultimately grounds our commitment to justice is Jesus Christ, not liberal ideology.

In social justice circles there is often too little sense that the commitment to justice demands more than merely having a just cause and doing effective political action.

One person who, to my mind, has found a rare balance here and who serves both as a challenge and a model for the rest of us is Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourners, community in Washington, D.C. Wallis and his Sojourners community are in the front lines in virtually every justice issue in America; they are also a community on the front lines of Christian worship and private morality. And they are not a Johnny-come lately to either of these.

Right from its inception 20 years ago, Sojourners, mainly through the vision and articulation of Wallis, committed itself non-negotiably to both personal righteousness and social justice, private morality and social transformation, piety and liberality. They married these, the church and the street, in a way that few, very few, others have.

And the ensuing 20 years have not been kind to that marriage, just as they haven’t been to most marriages. Pressures of all kinds, from the right and from the left, tempt them and everyone else to give up on that marriage.

But fortunately the reverse seems to be happening. What is coming out of Sojourners, as seen both in the literature it is producing and in the social actions it is taking, is a model for how contemplation and justice, private and social morality should meet.

In Sojourners we see a paradigm for how the church and the street, piety and politics, might mix, namely, in a Gospel that is not divided, but that embraces both the call to conversion and the summons to justice, a Gospel that integrates prayer, worship, private morality and social transformation.

Allow me here to quote a recent article by Wallis (‘Worth Fighting For,” Sojourners, Feb./ March, 1994):

“The frightening disregard for human life among too many young people is a bitter reflection on the way these same young people have become so utterly disregarded by their society. The coldness of heart that makes even veteran urban activists shiver is a judgment upon our coldness towards our poorest children: We reap what we have sown.

“Neither liberal sociology nor conservative piety can begin to address the roots of this crisis. Neither government spending nor simplistic self-help slogans will suffice. What is called for now is that particular biblical combination of which the prophets most often spoke—justice and righteousness.

“Both the structures of oppression and the morality of personal behavior must undergo radical transformation. We need a change of heart and a change of direction not only among troubled urban youth, but for all of us.

“The problem is too deep and our task too large to take it on by ourselves. We will need the help that comes by faith. As another young man in the post-riot meeting in Watts said to us: ‘We’ve got some habits that only God can cure.’ That goes for all of us.”

Wallis goes on to suggest that at this critical historical juncture only faith will make possible the political imagination needed to find solutions to the social problems that beset us. He sees signs of hope already emerging. He is one of them!

Rooted In Honesty

You are as sick as your sickest secret! That’s a phrase some Alcoholic Anonymous groups use to challenge people to understand what, at its roots, sobriety really is.

Drunkenness, of all kinds, has much more to do with lying than it has to do with alcohol, drugs or anything else. We are sober, truly sober, when we stop lying.

I point this out because today, everywhere, the prevailing temptation is to lie. Very little invites us to real honesty, to face our sickest secrets and make a searing act of contrition. Rationalization is more the rule and is, to my mind, perhaps the leading spiritual disease of our time.

Everything conspires with us to bury our sickest secrets so deeply that, after a time, we are no longer even aware that they are there and to rationalize them so that eventually we don’t even realize that they, and we, are sick.

This is a dangerous game. The health of our souls is what’s at stake here. Let me try to explain:

A few years ago, a 26-year-old filmmaker, made a movie which he intriguingly entitled Sex, Lies and Videotape. It won first prize at the Cannes festival. Deservedly so.

At the risk of an irreverent comparison, this movie makes a good commentary on the ninth chapter of John’s Gospel, where John uses his famous story of the man born blind to teach us a basic truth: We don’t have to be sinless, bright or even religiously interested to find Christ and eventually give ourselves over to him. We just have to be honest. We just have to stop lying!

Sex, Lies and Videotape says much the same thing, save it substitutes the concept of health for Christ.

Its story line is quite simple. A young man, with every kind of dysfunction in his background and with a sick sexual neurosis, makes a vow that he will never again tell a lie. Whatever other sin or whatever other folly he might fall into because of weakness, circumstance or hurt, he resolves that he will never again lie. And he invites others, in his own warped way, to follow him in this.

So he sets up a cheap video camera and invites people to come and, with as much honesty as they can muster, speak into the camera and tell the story of their sexual lives.

An interesting thing happens. Everyone who comes and who speaks honestly gets better, grows gentler and eventually gets healthy, irrespective of whatever weaknesses and perversions he or she has. Conversely, everyone who lies, who does not face the truth, slides ever deeper into hardness, rationalization and self-deception.

Maybe it’s stretching things to say that when those people face the camera and began to tell their sickest secrets we see the secular equivalent of the sacrament of confession.

But it is a curious irony that many people who, for all kinds of reasons, regard sacramental reconciliation with a certain disdain understand what was happening in this movie.

The point is as clear. The truth sets you free. When you stop lying and face and speak the truth, you change, the world changes, you get healthy, no matter what you’ve ever done and no matter what issues you are struggling.

Granted, the movie zeroes in on being honest in just one area, sex—and this is not incidental because sexuality is the area that we find it very hard to be really honest about—but its point is universally true. Health takes its roots in honesty. To lie, in any area of life, is to be somehow sick in every area of life.

The blind man in chapter nine of John’s Gospel, could be a character from Sex, Lies and Videotape. His blindness is more than physical. He’s blind to the truth, not interested in the way, the truth and the life. But they find him . . . because he refuses to lie.

Truth, Christ, life, light, health, these will find us too if we stop rationalizing and lying. NO honest heart will stray far or stay long from the truth.

A friend of mine who, in the passion of his youth, once did a colossally stupid thing, a thing which is now the source of considerable embarrassment for him, is, when he is confronted with his past mistake, fond of saying: “It seemed like a good idea at the time!”

I often wonder how different human history might have been had Adam and Eve—after eating the apple and being found by God, hiding, naked, cowering and ashamed—instead of rationalizing and blaming, simply said to God: “It seemed like a good idea at the time!”

Martin Luther once said: Sin bravely! There’s a wisdom of every sort in that. We are as sick as our sickest secret. The truth can set us free, but we must, at some point, stare our sickness in its face and honestly acknowledge it. Then the truth will find us, just as Christ found the man born blind.

Broken and Distributed

Ten years ago, while I was doing graduate studies in Belgium and still on faculty at a theology college back home, I received a letter from one of the students at that college. She shared with me, rather excitedly, that a new student had registered there. “And she’s a poet, a genuine poet,” she wrote. “A big surprise awaits you on your return, we’ve got a real poet here at the college!”

I returned there a year later and met our poet, a young woman named Mary Lynn Jones. For the next two years, though, she never shared any of her poetry with me, nor, as far as I know, with anyone else at the college. I soon forget that she had been introduced to me as a poet. What I noticed instead was her keen intelligence, her diligence, her gentle spirit, her shyness, her quietness, her faith, and her physical disability. Mary Lynn was already walking with the aid of a cane, a victim of scleroderma, a rare connective tissue disorder that slowly debilitates and then kills its victims.

For two years I was one of her teachers and, during one of those semesters when Mary Lynn found it too tiring to attend class regularly, I had the rare privilege of giving her a guided reading course, a process that required that occasionally we would have long discussions together. Still she read me no poetry, nor even hinted that she had some to offer. Then, one night, after having dinner at her house, with her husband and myself near killing her with cigar smoke and Mary Lynn pouring the cognac, she suddenly announced: “Tonight I want to read you some poetry!” She did and I was deeply moved. Her poetry, was good, very good. It carried all of her intelligence, shyness, gentleness, and faith.

When she finished her reading, I suggested to her that she should try to publish it, not just in a book, but also in some ongoing way, in a column in some newspaper. There was no false modest refusal – “Oh dear, I don’t think it’s that good!” No. She knew that it was good and that it was worth sharing. She too thought that publishing would be a good idea and it is her comment on this that I most want to share here: “If some newspaper or magazine would accept the idea, I would very much like to write a regular column, both of poetry and commentary, and I think that I would like to call it Broken and Distributed since, when you have a disease like mine, when your body is falling apart and you cannot hide that fact, when your debilities and vulnerabilities are so public, when you are 39 years old and walking around with a cane, when your physical beauty is wasting away in a world that values mostly that, and when you are daily becoming more helpless and there is nothing you can do about it, then you are broken and distributed – a little like the broken body of Christ in Eucharist.”

Mary Lynn never did get to publish her column. She died a month ago, bedridden and physically broken. Those of us who loved her, and there were many, gathered to say our good-byes and, especially, to reflect upon what a gift her life had been for us.

It was a joyous good-bye. All of us felt it. We were at a double Eucharist. Christ’s body was being broken and distributed, but so was Mary Lynn’s, just as it had been during those years of her illness. Sick, she gave us her life, not her sickness. Her sickness was only a prism through which it was sometimes easy for us to see her gentleness of soul, her trusting faith, and her deep beauty. Now with her passing, and we all felt it, she was also giving us her death. What a gift that can be.

Henri Nouwen suggests that there is such a thing as a good death. We choose the way we die. We choose between clinging to life in such a way that death becomes nothing but a failure to keep on living or we choose to let go of life in such a way so that we can be given to others as a source of hope. Death can be our final gift to others. Mary Lynn’s death was this kind of gift. Everyone who knew her, everyone who had ever dealt with her, and everyone who gathered to say good-bye to her felt nothing in the way of guilt, unfinished business, or heaviness towards her life or her death. She left us peace and at peace.

Like the Eucharist too, she left us grateful.

When Therese of Lisieux was dying, she promised those around that, after her death, she would shower the world with roses. Mary Lynn Jones was a person of extraordinary gentleness of soul. Those of us who knew her are already experiencing a shower of gentleness. I am sure that, given the mystery of the body of Christ, many others who didn’t know her will receive that same rain. She died and it is us who are now resting in peace.

The Restless Spirit

In the preface to Elizabeth O’Connor’s book, Search for Silence, N. Gordon Cosby writes: “The one journey that ultimately matters is the journey into the place of stillness deep within one’s self. To reach that place is to be at home; to fail to reach it is to be forever restless.”

That’s a scary thought, especially for those of us who are restless and who find it difficult to be comfortable alone and with silence. Yet there is no doubt that Cosby is right, not to reach inner stillness is to be forever restless. So it is good to make our peace with this.

And that peace is not easily won. The journey inward to that quiet centre, that central silence, where one’s own life and spirit are united with the life and Spirit of God, is long and arduous. Moreover, very little invites us to make it.

First of all, we are born restless, over-charged for our own lives, so on fire with eros and energy of every kind that simply sitting still is already itself a considerable task. This restlessness, which is the heartbeat of a human soul, is the fire of God within us and is God’s assurance, written into nature, that we will not settle for anything less than everything.

As Augustine so aptly put it: “You have made us for yourself, Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Still, given all this, spontaneously our restlessness pushes us outward rather than inward. When we are restless, almost invariably, there is the compulsive desire to seek rest in something or somebody outside of ourselves. Rarely, when we are deeply restless, are we drawn inward, to seek a solution to our yearnings in stillness and silence.

In addition, almost everything within our world militates against journeying inward towards stillness and silence as a remedy to the painful obsessions that we experience in our restlessness. This in a double way. The world both intensifies and trivializes our restlessness.

Our culture invites excitement, not silence; activity, not stillness. Thus we find ourselves constantly titillated and overstimulated in our restlessness. Somehow the impression is out there that everyone in the whole world is finding something that you are not, that everyone’s life is more full and complete than yours, that your life, as it is, is too small and timid . . . and that only if you bring many more people, things, places, and experiences into your life will you find peace and calm.

The world suggests that the solution to your restlessness lies outside of yourself, in building a bigger and more exciting life. If you are lonely, find a friend; if you are restless, do something; if you have a desire, fulfill it.

Beyond this, the world trivializes our restlessness, inviting us in a thousand ways to forget that God has called us to make an inward pilgrimage. The world, while not necessarily against God, invites us to forget God.

“Distract yourself,” it says. “Lower your ideals. Forget about immortal longings and eternal peace and think of your immediate frustrations, your lack of self-expression, your yearning hormones and of how little of the good life you’ve actually got. Do more things, change marriage partners, make a career change, have a better sex life, travel more, read more books, go to more movies—or write a book, plant a tree, have a child. Find enough life and leave some mark and you won’t be so restless.”

Given all of this, it is not easy for us to believe that the ultimate solution to our restlessness lies in a journey inward. Given all of this too, it is not easy to have the courage to make that journey, even when we know that it must be done.

Cosby’s challenge—”The one journey that ultimately matters is the journey into the place of stillness deep within one’s self. To reach that place is to be at home; to fail to reach it is to be forever restless”—should be written in bold letters in the preface of every spiritual book today. Too much inside of us and around us invites us to forget this and it is too dangerous to forget it. It’s our rest, our peace, that’s at stake here.

When Christ invites is to make the preferential option for the poor, he also spells out the consequence of ignoring the invitation, namely, at the last judgment the King might not recognize us since he never met us in the least of our brothers and sisters.

The invitation to move inward, in silence, to gently calm our raging restlessness with an inner stillness that comes from union with God is just as non-negotiable. To ignore it is to take a bad risk.

Some Of The People

Michael Meade, the mythologist, is one of the truly gifted story tellers in America today. Maybe it’s his Irish chromosomes, but when he tells a story everyone, from young to old, sits spellbound.

And there is a particular refrain that appears like a leitmotif in many of his stories. Michael will be recounting some incident when he will say: “Then the people, that is, some of the people, began to say this, and they began to say that . . .”

He is not fond of saying “the people” without immediately adding a significant little nuance, “that is, some of the people.”

I bring this up because today we live in a world wherein many people claim to be speaking for “the people.” In truth, all of us have that constant temptation, which we often publicly act out, of precisely thinking we are speaking for “the people” in some form or fashion.

How frequent is the phrase: “The people are saying this! The people are angry! Youth feel this way! Women feel that way! Men think like that! The people don’t want that anymore! The people are leaving the church for this reason! Adults only learn by this method of education!”

Rarely, most rarely, when we hear these phrases, or speak them, are they immediately qualified with the nuance: “that is, some of the people are saying these things, and some of the people are learning in this fashion, and some of the people are feeling like that.”

Recently at a church conference I was attending, there was an open forum. Anyone could go up to a microphone and, for three minutes, give a little editorial on some issue that she or he felt some passion on.

There wasn’t a Michael Meade in the bunch. Speaker after speaker left no doubt that he or she was speaking for “the people.”

One speaker told us that youth (by her insinuation, all of them) felt that the church today had sold itself out to the secular world and that it is because of this that youth are disillusioned with it.

Another speaker told us that people (by her submission, all of them) no longer attend church functions because the church did not use adult methods of education and that adults (all adults) learn only by a certain methodology.

Another person went to the microphone and told us that youth (again, supposedly all of them) were totally disillusioned with the church’s stance on sex outside of marriage and until the church woke up to this and responded more positively youth would not be much in sympathy or attendance.

And so the editorials went on. Never did any of these speakers intimate, even vaguely, that perhaps he or she was speaking for only some of the people.

I kept hearing Michael Meade as each one spoke his or her piece, however sincere, and every time someone said, “youth feel this way, people think that way, adults learn this way,” I inwardly added to myself: “yes, some youth feel this way; yes, some people think that way; and yes, some adults learn like that.”

Perhaps, this example is unfair, but I use it because it is so typical. All of us—conservatives, liberals, feminists, anti-feminists, social justice advocates, adult educators, pedagogues, androgogues—alike, especially if we have a passion for truth, tend to have and give the impression that we, and we alone, are truly feeling what the people are feeling; that we, and only we, are truly hearing what the people are saying; that we, and only we, are truly understanding what the people are struggling with; and that we, and only we, are truly speaking for the people.

But that is a fault both in modesty and truth. Simply put, there is not one thing in the whole world that all of the people feel and think the same about and it is self­righteous, self-deceptive, and highly irritating to everyone around us when we do not make real allowances for that in our language and judgments.

I recall a psychologist who once taught me, telling our class: “Never, never, presume that anyone feels or thinks exactly as you do! That is a cardinal mistake and you will begin to be much more helpful to people when you learn that.”

Had he taken the microphone that night, at that open forum, I suspect that his editorial would have constantly qualified itself with the phrase: “And the people, that is, some of the people, feel this, and they say that, and they learn in this fashion.”

So this is my little editorial and I suspect that when it appears the people, that is, some of the people, will think it says something of importance. Conversely, I suspect, the people, that is, some of the people, will consider it a piece of self-contradictory and self-righteous tripe.

Hence, I ask you, the people, that is, some of the people, to bear with me and forgive me this little affront. After all, this is what people today are feeling!

A Church Which Comforts

Recently I attended a church synod in my home diocese. About 200 very committed persons had gathered for a week to reflect on what the church should be doing today.

At one stage, the synod animator gave us this question: “What is the most important thing that the church has to give to the world?” A very interesting question.

I was struck by the variety of answers people gave: “The church needs to challenge the world to care more for the poor! The church needs to challenge the world to find deeper meaning! The church needs to challenge the world’s secularism and consumerism! The church needs to challenge the world . . .”

All the suggestions had to do with challenges. Valid as these are, none of them, to my mind, named the most important thing that the church has to give to the world. And what is that?

Consolation. The first task of the church is console the world, to comfort its people. As Isaiah puts it, “Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God” (Isaiah 40:1).

Thinking about this, I remembered a conversation I had shortly after I was ordained. Working for a summer in one of our larger Oblate city parishes, I was living in the rectory with an elderly priest, a very fine, saintly man.

He had been ordained for more than 50 years and had, during all those years, been exemplary, honest, faithful and generous. He was deeply respected by everyone who knew him. Now, in his late 70s, legally blind and semi-retired, he said a Mass every day, heard some occasional confessions and spent most of the rest of his time praying.

I was taken by his goodness. One evening, sitting in the recreation room with him, I asked him this question: “Leo, if you had your life as a priest to live over again, would you do anything different?” I was expecting him to say no, that given his obvious goodness and fidelity, he had no regrets. His answer surprised me.

“If I had my priesthood to live over again,” he said, “I would be a lot gentler with people the next time. I would console more and challenge less. You see, I was one of those people who was taught, and who deeply believed, that only the full truth can set us free, that we owe it to people to challenge them with the truth, in season and out. I believed that and did it for most of the years of my ministry.

“And I was a good priest, I lived those years for others and never once betrayed in any real way my vows and my commit ments. But now that I am older, I regret a lot of what I did. I was too hard on people! I meant it well, I was sincere, but I think too often I ended up laying more burdens on them when they were already carrying enough pain!

“If I were just beginning as a priest, I would be a lot softer, I would spend my energies more trying to lift pain from people. People hurt enough. They need us, first of all, to help them with that!”

He is right. What the world needs first of all, and most of all, from us, the church, is comfort, help in lifting and understanding its pain, its wounds, its anxieties, its raging restlessness, its temptations, and its infidelities and its sin.

Like the prodigal son, it needs first of all to be surprised by unconditional love. Sometime later, and there will be time for that, it will want some challenge.

And our comfort must be offered not on the basis of human optimism, human forgiveness and human potential, which, in some respects, the world already understands more deeply than we do.

No. The comfort that we offer is that which we ourselves will first feel when we begin to realize how deep, wide, all-embracing and all forgiving is the heart of God.

We will comfort the world, and it will be comforted, when we show it that God sees its heart with the eyes of the heart, that God feels for it more than it feels for itself, that God never feels frightened or wronged by the assertions of its freedom, that God always opens another door when we close one, that God is not put off by all the times we turn our back on what we know is best, that God empathizes with our lusts, our greed, our anger, our jealousies, our failures and with our every despair, that God never stops loving us for a moment even when we put ourselves in hell, and that God descends into all the hells we create, stands in the middle of our huddled, shivering, timid, wounded, and guilty hearts and breathes out peace.

We will comfort the world when we tell it that, in spite of everything, its life is good. The world will finally be helped by us when we trust God enough to have the courage to tell it to live, even to risk mistakes, because, in the end, all will be well and all will be well and every manner of being will be well.

My Parents Shaped My Soul

Introspection is not always a bad thing. On occasion, it’s good to reflect on the persons and events that helped shape your soul. This is a form of prayer of which we should do more.

l sometimes do this sitting at my parent’s grave. They’re buried together in a small rural cemetery and, when there is occasion and my mood is right, I sit at their graves and try to figure out who gave what to me.

Half of me is my mother. She was an overly-sensitive person who wounded easily, was anxious to please, and who could not say “no” enough. So she often found herself over-stretched and tired. Today some would say that she didn’t keep clear boundaries. She had 16 children. Her critics would rest their case.

She was a generous person, always giving things away. Sometimes she gave away food and clothes that our own family needed. As a child I was angry with her for that. I didn’t want a generous mother. I wanted things.

She, on her part, wanted some things that she didn’t always get—good health and peace in her family. I remember her crying one Saturday morning as she was cleaning the house and trying to keep peace and order in a family that was, on that particular day, given over to disorder and crankiness. She cried and told us how disappointed she was that our family wasn’t like the Holy Family!

We weren’t the Holy Family and she was frustrated a lot, not so much with us as with the plain inadequacy of life. Beyond this all though, she was a happy person, more naturally buoyant in spirit than my father. She danced more easily than he, laughed more spontaneously, was an easier touch for us kids.

She took life less reflectively than he did, though not as unreflectively as we, her children, naively supposed. After she died, we found a diary and we found that she’d thought more deeply about things than we’d supposed.

She was completely relational and her deepest longing was to share her soul. Here, she got lucky. She met my father. They became, from soon after they met until the day he died, soulmates in every sense of that word.

She didn’t have to tell him her secrets or share with him her frustrations, and neither he in reverse. They understood each other without having to explain themselves. In all my years of growing up, I cannot ever recall them having a single misunderstanding or even being angry with each other.

My father died of cancer and she, who had been strong until his death, died three months later of pancreatitis and a loneliness nobody could cure. Today some would look at that and say she was a co­dependent. But she would laugh and tell you that she got what she wanted from life. She died of missing my father, died happy. There’s something to be envied in that.

I’m her son and when I contemplate these things about her, my own soul becomes less mystery, as do my struggles, my faults, my longings and my strengths. I even understand why I’m tired a lot!

The rest of me is my father. There’s nothing in me that isn’t explained by genes. He was the other half of my mother. He didn’t dance easily, though he was a deeply affectionate man. Dancing was too public for him. He preferred to express his love in private.

He loved my mother, us, his family, and most everyone else. But his way was not to trumpet this in public. There was a reticence here that could look like coldness, but you had to read his actions and his eyes. There was an abhorrence of all exhibitionism, especially as it pertains to any public expressions that say: “I love you!” Some people cannot make love with the bedroom door open. My dad was one of these.

He was the faith, the stubborn uncompromising moral principle in our family. This was another reason he had trouble dancing. He agonized over all that was not right in the world and his patience didn’t always meet the test. I feared his eyes at those times that I disappointed him. I also feared, and still do, ever disappointing him.

He was the most moral person I’ve ever met and he had a sixth sense here that was near infallible. He knew right from wrong in a way I couldn’t doubt. He instructed me—against my protests.

If I end up in hell, I can’t plead ignorance. My dad equipped me, faith-wise and morally, for the world. I have the faults that come with that too, his faults, compounded by my own.

What a mysterious thing is a human soul! What incredible factors account for its beauty and its distortions!

Ten New Commandments

God once gave us Ten Commandments to help teach us love.

They are not infallible indicators of love, for we can keep them and still not be loving, but they are infallible in one sense: if we are not keeping them then we clearly are not loving.

As we begin this New Year, I would like to offer 10 other commandments, 10 New Year’s resolutions, of a different genre. I call them 10 things we should try to befriend this year:

This year try to make friends . . .

  1. With your humanity . . .

To be human is to be fallible, wounded, dysfunctional, scarred, and living in a far from perfect world, family, church, body and history.

Don’t look for somebody to blame, to sue, to be angry at. This is the human condition. Make friends with it. Grief, not rage, is the proper response. Chaos, not blame, is what is at issue. An older generation called it “original sin.”

Don’t let the literature on dysfunctional families, valuable though it is, make you an enemy of your own condition—and of much of the world as well.

  1. With what is best in you . . .

Henri Nouwen recently said: “Here lies the great call to conversion: to look not with the eyes of my own low self-esteem, but with the eyes of God’s love.”

As long as we look out at the world and others through our wounds we will be full of self-pity, bitterness and jealousy. If, however, we can look out through the prism of what’s best in us, through the sense of gratitude for where we’ve been blessed, our jealousy will turn to appreciation and we will be astonished by other’s goodness.

  1. With those who love you . ..

John Powell once said that there are only two potential tragedies in life: To go through life without loving and not to express love and affection for those who love us. We need to make better friends with our friends. We need to express affection, appreciation, contrition, and love frequently and readily. Thank those who love you, tell those whom you love that you love them.

  1. With chastity . . .

So much of our pain and restlessness comes from our lack of chastity. So much of our dishonesty and subsequent hardness of heart comes from not admitting this. Those with the heart of a child and virgin enter the kingdom of God.

We have sophisticated ourselves into unhappiness. Make friends with chastity. Make a searing and honest confession some time this year.

  1. With your own body . . .

Do not be afraid of your own body, of its goodness, its sexuality, its pleasures, its tiredness and its limits. It’s the only one you’ve got in any case!

Be friends with it. Don’t punish it, don’t spoil it, don’t denigrate it. It’s a church and it’s the medium through which you love and communicate. Give it enough rest, exercise, respect and love.

  1. With the other gender . . .

Women are angry, men are grieving, everyone is uneasy and picking away at somebody. Gender issues are real—but their resolution lies in deep and mutual sympathy. Make friends with what seems threatening to you in the other gender.

  1. With your Father . . .

The deepest hunger in the world today is “father hunger.” Reconcile with your own father, with other fathers and with God the Father. It’s only your father’s blessing that can deconstrict your heart.

  1. With your own mortality . . .

Death comes to us all. Make friends with mortality, with aging, with wrinkles, with grey hair and with the fact that, as we age, we are asked to give our blessing and life to the young, let go and move on.

  1. With your sense of humor . . .

The fact that we can laugh, irrespective of whatever enslaves us, shows that we are somehow transcendent, above, all situations.

Our hearts and our souls can soar, through them we can fly above the things that bind us. Humor is a marvellous way of flying. Thomas More made a joke with the man who beheaded him. No prison could break him—and no prison will break us if we can continue to laugh.

  1. With your God . . .

God, as Julian of Norwich assures us, looks down on us with a face that is completely relaxed, smiling and beaming out a goodness that resounds like a marvellous symphony.

God also assures us that, present pain and sin notwithstanding, in the end, all will be well, and all will be well, and every manner of being will be well. We want to try to be better friends with that God.

In 1994, begin to befriend.

Share