Where’s the Curiosity?

MuslimGirl

“To love the past may easily be an expression of the nostalgic romanticism of old men and old societies, a symptom of loss of faith and interest in the present or future.”

— E. H. Carr, What is History?

When I walk into a college classroom these days it is as quiet as libraries used to be. Every head is bowed and every thumb is purrling away at a screen. There are few, if any, conversations between students. No one looks up until I take record. When the class is over the students depart as silently as they came. Even if they are drifting in the same direction they rarely talk to one another. It’s almost impossible to catch the eye of a student walking toward me, and if I break the spell with a cheery “Hullo!”, there is a startle reflex that reveals the depth of the self-isolation.

In one of his most famous essays, Michel Montaigne says, “To my taste the most fruitful and most natural exercise of our minds is conversation. I find the practice of it the most delightful activity in our lives.” He likens a good conversation to vigorous sparring, his “strong and solid opponent will attack me on the flanks, stick his lance in me right and left; his ideas send mine soaring.” There is joy in the friction of ideas, a closeness made possible by an unspoken willingness to play up and higher than one’s own level of thought. “In conversation,” says Montaigne, “the most painful quality is perfect harmony.”

Montaigne’s essay, “The Art of Conversation,” is a primer for civilized and vigorous conversation. It should be read and reread, taught at the high school level, and carried about in one’s pocket. I would be delighted if it were read into the Congressional Record, but its good-natured guidelines would be obliterated or simply ignored. We don’t know how to talk with one another about things that matter.

“You cannot teach a man that which he thinks he already knows,” said Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher some one hundred years after Christ, who taught humility as a prerequisite to learning. Epictetus was striking at the arrogance that prevents us from even considering unfamiliar ideas. Today his words would be shrugged off: we make no claim to know but we know where to look it up—and that’s the end of it. No need to look elsewhere; the goal of education is to tag what comes up in response to a query. Decades of teaching to the test and demanding quantifiable results have taught our students to take the quickest route to the first answer that presents itself on Google.

Montaigne, who positively reveled in being contradicted by another because “he is instructing me,” wouldn’t have known what to do with humility in conversation. “My thought so often contradicts and condemns itself that it is all one to me if someone else does so, seeing that I give to his refutation only such authority as I please.” Montaigne didn’t need to give up anything in order to learn from another, especially not pride, because what mattered to him in conversation was the diligence in finding the truth, no matter where it came from.

If Montaigne were here today I would take issue with him about conversation and communication. Especially as it regards conversation in schools and universities, I would ask him to look farther back and deeper down to the seed of learning, which is curiosity. Actually, come to think of it, Epictetus’ call for humility first could be set aside if only the student had curiosity.

In learning through curiosity there is no need to curb one’s arrogance first. If we are truly curious, then arrogance plays no part in thwarting us in the pursuit of truth. Curiosity is the engine of learning: without it we wouldn’t be clothed, sitting at our computers, able to tap into the world’s knowledge at the touch of a screen. But finding the facts is only the beginning for the curious learner. Curiosity isn’t satisfied with just the facts, but hungers for meaning, context, application beyond the immediate problem. Curiosity is the air that the sciences breathe, but it’s the heart that beats within the humanities.

I suspect that what generates even the briefest conversation among strangers is curiosity about what another is experiencing and feeling and thinking. Surely it would be curiosity that could break through our ear-budded walls and lure us into conversation about . . . anything. Within the classroom it would be curiosity that would go beyond the facts to ask not only how and where, but when—and most importantly—why? I do not see this very often.

Today, as I left a class in which the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the life’s work of one of his mentors, Myles Horton, was the subject of discussion, and in which only one student commented, asked questions, and generally showed the fire of curiosity, I decided I was not angry or frustrated or wounded or even nostalgic. I was wistful for the leap and thrust and joyful friction of real conversation.

Religion Unbound: Finding Faith in a Secular Age

What does it mean to say we live in a ‘secular age’? Charles Taylor, professor emeritus in philosophy at McGill University in Montreal, and winner of the Templeton Prize, asks a simple question with a profound answer. Click on the link below for the presentation with notes.

Religion Unbound

3 Christs: Art for Resistance

RoualtAlbert Camus and Thomas Merton: both had a lot to say about resistance. Camus famously posed a challenge to Christians to speak out with honesty and clarity against injustice. Merton, Trappist monk and prolific author, toward the end of his life seemed to be developing a “theology of love”which he also characterized as a “theology of resistance.” Through selected paintings of Marc Chagall, Georges Rouault, and Salvador Dali, we have contemplative imagery that can prepare us for new perspectives on resistance to injustice from a humanist Christian point of view. Clink on the link below to read the script and see the paintings.

3Christs

The Courage to Dialogue

camus

In 1948, Albert Camus, author of The Plague, The Stranger, The Fall, and The Rebel, among many other plays, essays, books, and journalism, was invited to speak at the Dominican Monastery of Latour-Maubourg. Camus was not a Christian, but he was not unacquainted with Christianity, and maintained a vigorous dialogue and correspondence with Christian thinkers and writers until his tragic death in 1960. In fact, he wrote his dissertation on a fellow North African—the theologian, preacher, and early Christian Church father, Augustine—and was always respectful of a tradition he did not follow. But he refused to attempt a reconciliation between his beliefs and Christian ideals merely to “be agreeable to all.” 

“On the contrary,” he said in his address, “what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as is silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds. This is tantamount to saying that the world of today needs Christians who remain Christians.”

Further, asking whether the Catholic Church had condemned Nazism during the Second World War, Camus maintained that while the Church finally issued an encyclical against it, “The condemnation was voiced and it was not understood!”

In response to the invitation to speak freely to those gathered at the monastery that day, he offered these ringing words:

“What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that they should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest man. That they should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today.”

In these confusing and fraught times it is not easy to know how to speak up courageously as a Christian for justice and mercy. But I cannot ignore Camus’ direct challenge and I intend to rise to it.

Perhaps what we will someday live into would be something akin to Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity” and Thomas Merton’s exploration of a post-Christian humanism. But that is a discussion for another day.

When Laws are Bad

corruptlegislationlcWhen I was a child I was taught that laws were meant to be kept and respected. “Why?”, I asked. “Because they are the Law,” was the answer. By definition, then, laws were those human inventions that must be respected and followed by the sheer fact of their existence.

Somehow, that explanation sufficed for a time. But it sufficed because I was ten years old, a white kid growing up in Northern California in the Sixties, without any clear picture of how good I had it. My times were about to become tumultuous, and a few years later, when I was in high school, that explanation, that Law was sovereign just because, was blown open by a quiet American history teacher who engaged our teenage minds at the ground level.

“Have you ever wondered,” he mused one day in class, “why no black people live in Napa? Why the nearest place you will find blacks owning or renting homes is Vallejo, and beyond that, Oakland?” No, we admitted, we had not. “Do you know what redlining is?” he asked. Not a clue, we said.

He explained to us how redlining was the practice, by banks and other lending institutions, of drawing a line around neighborhoods that wanted to exclude certain people from buying there, people who might lower property values by their presence. Such was the practice in Napa at the time, and as such it came as a shock to us.

There was more: he explained how segregation was legal, how blacks in parts of the country were not allowed to eat, drink, sleep, learn, live, or have their being in proximity to whites, and that this was the result of laws intended to literally keep blacks in their place. Some laws are designed to hurt and destroy, he said, and he implored us to think critically about such laws.

Then there was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who, in his “I Have a Dream” speech and his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” further showed us that “legal” doesn’t necessarily mean “ethical,” and that laws—whatever their origin and intent— should be held up to the light to see if there be any light in them.

All this came as a revelation to us ninth-graders living up on a beautiful mountain above the Napa Valley in the mid-Sixties, while the world swirled and tossed just down the road. It was a valuable and precious education, one that marked me for the rest of my life, and instilled in me a longing for the justice that “rolls down like waters.”

Ethics, said Lord Moulton, “is obedience to the unenforceable.” It does not have the coercive power of law, relying as it does on the will and the discipline of those who long for justice and who understand the power of mercy. We expect our legislators to write good laws and abide by them, but we hope they will aspire to the higher standard of ethics. It is part of the bond of person to person and of the maintenance of community.

We are now faced with a president who derides the customs of ethics and whose advisors cynically put forward ‘alternate facts’ in the face of reality. We are told that we shouldn’t take it so personally—after all it’s just business. Under the cover of security, patriotism, and freedom we are sold laws that destroy the many for the benefit of the few. Whether it be laws that tear apart families or deny entrance to this country to those who have been granted it, or laws that make it legal to deny access to the Internet for those who can’t afford it, or the lifting of laws that make predatory business practices illegal, or laws that make it legal to discriminate against others in the name of religion, they are laws that give the Law a bad name and appeal to the basest of human weaknesses.

“It is a hard task to be good,” said Aristotle, for “in every case it is a task to find the median”, the ground of virtue (between the extremes). But that is what we are called to do as humans, according to Aristotle and a host of others through the millennia, and that is what we are called to do as people of faith, according to virtually every religion in history.

Virtue, advised Aristotle, is a matter of practice, of making habitual the finding of the middle between the extremes of human characteristics. It’s best to start practicing when young, said Aristotle, because it’s awfully hard to develop virtuous habits after a lifetime of ricocheting between the extremes. That’s where education comes in, he thought, and that’s why I am grateful for my history teacher and many others, who persuaded us to question the disparity between bad laws and ethics. My teacher let us know that it was our right and our duty to call out such laws and to live into better ethics.

“All this was a long time ago, I remember,

And I would do it again, but set down

This set down

This: were we led all that way for

Birth or Death? . . .

We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,

But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,

With an alien people clutching their gods.

I should be glad of another death.” (T. S. Eliot, Journey of the Magi)

(Photo from the Library of Congress)

A Case Study in Lying

th

When Donald Trump tweets millions of people pay attention. And when Donald Trump lies it affects millions of people. If he stays true to his penchant for lying we will have a four-year dynamic case study in deception and lying from the President of the United States.

We need to pay attention to his lying for it can teach us a great deal about his methods of leadership and his views on democracy. We need to be alert to the various kinds of lies he and his administration will use, and the effect they will have on us as members of an experimental democracy. Most of all, we need to examine ourselves and our own tendencies to lie.

Recently, the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker, in an appearance on “Meet the Press,” demurred when asked by Chuck Todd if the Journal would call out Trump when he lies. “I think if you start ascribing a moral intent, as it were, to someone by saying that they’ve lied, I think you run the risk that you look like you are, like you’re not being objective,” he said. Baker believes the Journal should report what Trump said and let the readers decide if it was a lie or not.

But this betrays the historic role of the news media in ferreting out the truth no matter what. Few of us have the time or the means to drill down through the layers of propaganda, news releases from public relations firms, and “image refurbishing” that goes on daily. To a great extent, we rely on real journalism to do that for us, the kind of investigative journalism that doesn’t just find two opinions on the same topic and hit “publish.”

Journalists need to call out the lies when Trump doubles down on a statement that has been proven false, such as his claim that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating when the towers fell on 9/11 or that he was against the Iraq War. It is crucial to our moral vision that we distinguish, regularly and clearly, between truth and falsehood. And it’s even more important, in an age that is skeptical that truth even exists, to persevere in searching for the truths that can be established.

As someone who teaches philosophy and ethics, I have a professional as well as a personal interest in understanding lying and deception. This semester, at Trinity Washington University, I will be teaching a course in Social and Political Philosophy. We will study historical sources on how societies are formed, maintained, survive and are destroyed as a result of their ideas and practices. In addition to selections from the usual suspects such as Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Marx, and Gandhi, we’ll be reading and commenting on current views on our political process and ethics. One of the readings for the semester will be Sissela Bok’s 1978 book entitled Lying, as relevant now as it was in the wake of the war in Vietnam, the bombing of Cambodia, and Watergate.

Every administration lies, even if it’s using Plato’s “noble lie,” to hide from the people what they supposedly could not understand or to advance the public good. This is not a partisan issue. But I believe that with the Trump administration we will see lying on a scale we’ve never seen before. I think we should understand what lying is, what the many forms of lying and deception are, and ultimately, how we can be more honest with each other. I’ll be writing occasionally about these topics as a way to personally sort out what I’m thinking and learning about lying. I invite you to join me.

I’ll close with a quote from Sissela Bok that reads, “Trust is a social good to be protected just as much as the air we breathe or the water we drink. When it is damaged, the community as a whole suffers; and when it is destroyed, societies falter and collapse.”

Doors to the Kingdom

sunsetmanlake

In the past few weeks I have been re-reading Thich Nhat Hanh’s book, Living Buddha, Living Christ. Hanh is a Vietnamese Buddhist monk and teacher who was an early opponent of the war in his country, and who has been a spiritual leader for decades in interreligious dialogue and peace movements.

Sometimes it’s good to see one’s faith through other eyes. Hanh’s insights into the life of Jesus are startlingly and enlightening because he comes to Jesus as a little child, comparatively speaking, and he responds to moments in Jesus’ life and teachings that we Christians no longer notice as the extraordinary revelations that they are.

For example, in commenting on Matthew’s view of the Kingdom of God as a seed planted within us, Hanh says, “We do not have to die to arrive at the gates of Heaven. In fact, we have to be truly alive. The practice is to touch life deeply so that the Kingdom of God becomes a reality. This is not a matter of devotion. It is a matter of practice. The Kingdom of God is available here and now.” And then Hanh links this to Jesus describing Himself as the door of salvation, the door to the Kingdom of God. The Buddha, says Hanh, is also described as a door, a teacher who shows us the way in this life.

“It is said that there are 84,000 Dharma doors, doors of teaching,” says Hanh. “We should not be afraid of more Dharma doors—if anything, we should be afraid that no more will be opened.” Without taking anything away from the precedence of Jesus as the door, Hanh says, “Each of us, by our practice and our loving-kindness, is capable of opening new Dharma doors. Society is changing . . . economic and political conditions are not the same as they were in the time of the Buddha or Jesus.”

Each of us can be a door for someone to the Kingdom of God.

These are difficult times for our church, for our country, for our world. In the midst of apparent chaos we lose our sight lines ahead. We may fixate on our own feet or only on the ground in front of us. In the face of confounding actions by leaders and the constant denigration of basic principles, we may doubt our own convictions of what is right and true. But, as Jesus said, these are the birth pangs of a new age.

Women’s ordination, the issue that has engaged so many in recent years, is one that defines for many of us what our moral and spiritual core really is. These are matters that clear away the underbrush of indifference and apathy as we struggle to recognize the church we thought we belonged to. But I am coming to see women’s ordination as a Dharma door, a door to the Kingdom of God, a door that opens outward to a wider, enlivening world, not inward to a dark and dank room.

If there is to be a parting of the ways in the future of this church, I hope we will remember Women’s Ordination as a catalyst that quickened the faith of many of us. I hope we will become doors to the Kingdom of God.

500 Words on the Coming Debacle

By this time next week, October 7, 2016, we could be living in a very different church. Or not. We don’t know yet, but we can be sure that this year’s Great Disappointment will have the ring of present truth to it.

Here are two ways to regard the coming purgation brought upon us by a prayerful, sincere, but desperate General Conference Autumn Council.

The first is the Apocalyptic. In this view, based on the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ to this earth, the delay in the second coming—and thus the responsibility for all the tragic suffering of the world since Christ’s birth—is the result of the Laodicean condition of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This is unfortunate, of course, but it can be remedied by purging God’s remnant people of those who would stand in the way of the historic mission of the Church to seek and save the lost. Since the Church will be triumphant in the end, those who defy the General Conference, God’s highest authority on Earth, will have to go. And those who are the most defiant are the ones who insist upon ordaining women to the gospel ministry.

If it were a syllogism we could write it out this way:

Those who defy the General Conference defy God

Those who ordain women defy the General Conference

Therefore, they defy God.

Another syllogism inevitably follows:

The Second Coming must not be delayed

Women’s ordination delays the Second Coming

Therefore, it must be stopped.

Thus, a community that has survived for over 100 years will founder over an issue of justice. An issue that for all its rightness is a means to the larger end of living and doing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the fullest way possible.

The second way is Incarnational, based on the Sabbath experience of love for the earth, for the Exodus out of oppression, for living here and now in creativity. This view looks on the Church as community, a place to gather in and then disperse out from, to gather in again in time. It regards its purpose on earth to provide a home for people; that home has wide, inclusive boundaries and it is there whenever you leave it and return to it.

It is made up of people who have no certainty, but do have faith. Faith is courage that follows Jesus. It is experimental, present tense, a somewhat tense experience!

From this point of view women’s ordination frees up many talented people to recognize the calling God has given them, and to liberate them to work in faith. Women’s ordination is not an end in itself, but a means to an end—but an important means because women can communicate the Gospel in ways that are unique and absolutely needed.

To that end the General Conference is a servant, not a master. To deliver ultimatums destroys the home. It’s a divorce from which no one recovers. It does not have to be this way.

If Prayers Were Eggs: On Praying for the General Conference

An enduring image from Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address is that of the North and the South, Union and Confederate armies, both praying to the same God for victory.

If that gives you pause—as it should—think about the thousands of Adventists praying that God’s will should prevail in the decisions made at Annual Council this year.

These are Adventists who are the third and fourth generation in their family to claim the name of SDAs; these are those who have labored in service to the church for decades; these are young Adventists who are trying to find their way in the church and are dumbfounded by some of the decisions recently made. And there are others, deeply immersed in the workings of church administration, who are concerned at the direction many church members and organizations are taking in defiance of policy imperatives, who see these independent movements as the tendrils of the Devil creeping among us.

When we’re honest with ourselves we must admit that we can’t know for certain if our actions and plans are aligned with God’s. But sometimes, in the aftermath, we believe we see the hand of God working to accomplish what we could not. That’s the rub, isn’t it? Like Steve Jobs once said, we can’t connect the dots looking forward; we can only connect them looking back. Or as Kierkegaard said, we must live life forwards, but we can only understand it backwards.

How do you like your eggs? Imagine our prayers as ways to prepare an egg: how would yours look?

Poached: a prayer that is gentle, delicately preserved, and does not remain at high temperatures very long. It asks that everything go well and no one gets hurt.

Fried: prepared whole, with minimum accompaniments. Brisk, straight forward, it asks and assumes—in faith—that what is asked for will be delivered.

Scrambled: prepared by constant stirring, repeating the name of the Lord fervently and often in hopes that the whole thing will hold together. A cheesy smile helps.

Hard-Boiled: prepared at high temperatures with few words and no frills. A man’s prayer, understood by others only after penetrating the hard, brittle, outer shell.

Deviled: labor-intensive, long preparation time, filled with imprecations. Best left to the professionals.

Jesus asked that we pray for those who curse us, who use us in ways that demean us and cut the ground from under our feet. The recent actions of the General Conference in threatening to bust the unions for bringing women into the role of pastors have hurt many and discouraged even more. Now there is talk of a year of ‘grace’ for the unions to reconsider their sins and repent. This is hard to swallow, especially since it threatens the very gospel that we live within.

We pray, in this case, to reconcile ourselves to God. What God will do remains to be seen.

The Gospel of Imperfection

The Gospel is for losers

The proud, the arrogant, the blind, the halt, the lame, the penny-pinchers and the big spenders, the manipulators and the gullible, the doubters and the believers, the thieves, the liars, the murderers, the slanderers, the poor, the ignorant, the lazy, the tight-fisted and the self-indulgent, the impulsive and the fearful, the indifferent and the cynical, the gluttons and the ascetics, the hypocrites and the self-righteous, the foolish and the false, the bullies and the weak.

Have I left anybody out? Oh yes—the perfect.

The perfect don’t need the Gospel.  

For years self-help and business books have focused on achieving invulnerability, finding quick solutions, crushing one’s opponents, and using Machiavellian techniques to get ahead.

Recently, however, I’ve noticed an emphasis on being honest about our weaknesses. For example, Brene Brown’s presentation on vulnerability and recognizing one’s needs is the fourth most-watched TED Talk at 25 million views. The second most-watched TED talk is Amy Cuddy’s research on how our bodily stance can give us the confidence we lack for social encounters. Medium.com is a unique writing site built by the co-founder of Twitter. A constant theme of Medium’s posts comes from start-up entrepreneurs rhapsodizing about failing upward, launching out to new adventures, enjoying one’s failures, and learning from those who keep trying despite their constant failures.

Social media’s uptick of interest in our failures and mistakes isn’t reason enough for Christians to follow along, but the fact is we were there early. Christians know a great deal about missing the mark and falling short.

I’d like to explore a perspective on life which I think we deny. It’s a view which runs against both the officially optimistic attitudes of the self-help industry and the prosperity gospel business, yet it’s more realistic and hopeful than either of them. We ignore this viewpoint to our detriment, and in fact denial of it has damaged thousands of Christians through the centuries. But rightly understood this alternative view offers us a way to fully experience God’s grace in our lives.

We could call it the Gospel of Imperfection. There are three major points. The first is realism about our human condition, the second is finding language and symbols that truly reflect our spiritual experience, and the third is about living in humility.

Realism about our condition

Three things we can acknowledge about the human condition:

We are severely limited — we don’t have the strength, the will, or the resources to do life right;

We are deeply flawed — under the surface, close to the heart, we are all broken;

We are immature — we resist change, act badly when we don’t get our way, and become murderous when challenged.

In a word: We are imperfect. To be human is to be imperfect.

“We must somehow strip ourselves of our greatest illusions about ourselves,” says Thomas Merton, “frankly recognize in how many ways we are unlovable, descend into the depths of our being until we come to the basic reality that is in us, and learn to see that we are lovable after all, in spite of everything!

“This is a difficult job. It can only really be done by a lifetime of genuine humility (Merton, No Man is an Island).”

BUT: Matthew 5:48 commands us, “Therefore be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” the final lash of the whip for lazy Christians.

How many of us have struggled with this over the years, wanting to be sinless, yearning to be perfect so that God will accept us, only to realize how far off that perfection lies and how impossible it will be to achieve it. Yet the pressure to conform is constant if we listen to certain refrains.

We’re told that all that stands between the world and the final judgment is a perfected church that has informed the whole world of its rights and responsibilities under God’s laws. In fact, the delay in the Second Coming is because of us, our lack of passion for the message, our sinfulness, our disobedience. Thus, we thwart God’s sovereign will and timetable. We prolong the agony of the world until we can perfectly reflect, individually and as a church, the character of God. In this view Seventh-day Adventists are the center of the universe. Let’s hope the world never discovers the real reason why evil continues or the persecution will begin in earnest.

Marilynne Robinson says, “We all know about hubris. We know that pride goeth before a fall. The problem is that we don’t recognize pride or hubris in ourselves, any more than Oedipus did, any more than Job’s so-called comforters (Robinson, When I Was a Child I Read Books).”

What we might not realize is that the Greek word teleios, translated “perfect,” does not mean “to be without sin or flawless”, but rather is that which is “fully complete.” In the context of the whole passage that follows Matt. 5:48, “be perfect” means to be compassionate to all, to treat others equally and fairly.

To be perfect is to be complete, finished, whole. Nothing to be added or changed.

Even at our best we are open-ended, incomplete, limited. There is more in play here than meets the eye.

Language and Symbols

The second point is that for many of us the language and the symbols of conversion and daily living have changed from our childhood and youth. Language and symbols matter. Some move us, some leave us cold. I can recall Weeks of Prayer as a teenager in which we were exhorted to “surrender all,” and to be ”washed in the blood of the Lamb,” so that we might throw ourselves “at the foot of the cross.” I find that much of the 19th-century language about Jesus in hymns, sermons, and devotional material appeals to a sensibility that I lack.

Do you respond more naturally to a command or an invitation? Do you commit to God through love or duty? Perhaps both: duty sometimes leads to love, whereas what we do in love does not feel like a duty–unless it’s required by the one who is loved.

How do we imagine Jesus? As a king? A prophet? Our Father or a brother? Is he not all of that and more? Can you imagine walking with him in deep conversation down the Emmaus road or would you be tongue-tied in his presence, like waiting to get an autograph from a celebrity? At any point in our lives we may need one role in particular, but not to the exclusion of the others. We change, we evolve, life bears down on us and we need a savior, a comforter, a healer, a guide. Each role is different and we respond differently to each one. Our needs change, but Christ meets us where we are in the moment.

The thing is, we cannot predict what touches us most deeply about Christ or even where it might come from. We can’t even know what we need from Christ, except that we know we need Him.

It might be a song on the radio, a passage of Scripture or a poem read alone late at night, news of an unspeakable tragedy, or something a friend says that wells the tears up in our eyes and leaves us longing for God. All we can say is that we see in a glass darkly and what we usually see is a dim and muddy likeness of ourselves. Most of us are perfectly capable of beating ourselves up over our sins. We don’t need others to do that and Christ won’t do it.

Merton says, “We cannot find Him Who is Almighty unless we are taken entirely out of our own weakness. But we must first find out our own nothingness before we can pass beyond it: and this is impossible as long as we believe in the illusion of our own power (Merton, No Man is an Island ).”

So there it is: when we’re honest with ourselves about our weakness and imperfection, Christ finds us. That’s the flash point between us and Christ—our honesty and Christ’s incomparable response.

But God is not left without a witness and there are many paths that lead to the top of the mountain.

Christ for me is both a living symbol and Real Presence, a past historical figure and my mysterious companion in the present, the Word of God made flesh.

T.S. Eliot’s lines in The Waste Land lift the veil slightly:

Who is the third who walks always beside you?

When I count, there are only you and I together

But when I look ahead up the white road

There is always another one walking beside you

Gliding wrapt in a brown mantle, hooded

I do not know whether a man or a woman

–But who is that on the other side of you?

Attention to this point is to find the metaphors and analogies that resonate to our lived experience.

Humility as a Way of Life

The final point in the gospel of imperfection is the role of humility. Humility is really the hinge upon which all of this turns. It’s about our imperfection and our great need. It’s a way of regarding God and religion from the basement to the rooftop, down to up, from us to God.

Humility is the working mindset that results from gratitude. Gratitude for what, you might ask? Well, for one thing gratitude for giving us reasons for living instead of shuffling off this mortal coil. Albert Camus famously said there is only one serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. This is the question that demands an answer from each one of us. Everything else amounts to games. I don’t mean to be melodramatic, but for a lot of us the glass is almost always half empty. It takes the upside-down thinking of Jesus for us to see it as half full, with the possibility of it brimming over someday.

I think it’s revealing that the word ‘humility’ comes from the same root as ‘humor’ and ‘humanity’. The root word is humus, and humus is earth or dirt. To be human is to be made of the earth, as ancient and as glorious as the stars, and as common as . . . dirt. We’ve all come from the same stuff, so to speak. We’re all humus.

So humility is paradoxically the virtue that we aspire to without testifying that we’ve got it. Humility is seen, but not heard; others may tell us they see it in us but if we brag about it it’s pretty certain we don’t have it. To be humble is to not make comparisons.

But the glory of the creation story is that this mud can aspire to magnificent things. Humility as a way of life is remembering where we came from, Who sustains us, what we are capable of doing. It’s not about living with constant shame or feeling ourselves to be worthless or whipping ourselves for our sins.

And it’s not about inflicting that sense of worthlessness on others either. That’s humiliation—standard fare in the power arenas of our age. Humiliation is imposed on us from the outside and is a capitulation out of fear. Humility says comparisons are foolish and dangerous: “the problem with both ‘first’ and ‘last’ is that both are extremes (Kurtz and Ketcham, The Spirituality of Imperfection).”

Humility speaks from the inside and whispers our need of God. Gandhi said humility is a state of mind, but humble people aren’t conscious of their humility. C. S. Lewis put it succinctly when he said: “Humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.” And it doesn’t hurt to have a sense of humor about all this.

Marilynne Robinson says of Jesus, “It is his consistent teaching that the comfortable, the confident, the pious stand in special need of the intervention of grace. Perhaps this is true because they are most vulnerable to error . . . (Robinson, When I Was a Child I Read Books).”

And Thomas Merton concludes, “The relative perfection which we must attain to in this life if we are to live as sons (and daughters) of God is not the twenty-four-hour-a-day production of perfect acts of virtue, but a life from which practically all the obstacles to God’s love have been removed or overcome (Merton, No Man is an Island).”

Living this way would change a lot about our relations with others. I think it would change how we got along in our communities too. If we thought about ourselves less and about others more it would turn our world upside down. We’d be better drivers, more caring to our spouses and partners, more interesting in conversation, and safer to be around. We’d be less anxious—humble people don’t have anything to prove. I think we’d listen more and probably pray more mindfully.

So here’s the thing: nothing I’ve said here is new or original. This is the Gospel before it became a job. Being realistic about our imperfections, finding language and symbols that reflect our experience, and living in humility, humor, and gratitude puts us squarely in God’s neighborhood.

I’ll give the last word to Thomas Merton:

“As long as we are on earth our vocation is precisely to be imperfect, incomplete, insufficient in ourselves, changing, hapless, destitute, and weak, hastening toward the grave. But the power of God and His eternity and His peace and His completeness and His glory must somehow find their way into our lives, secretly, while we are here, in order that we may be found in Him eternally as He has meant us to be (Merton, No Man is an Island).”