What foundational beliefs
reflect the ‘companionship of empowerment’ for the 21st
century?
Painstakingly,
author Diarmuid O’Murchu presents an argument to name, unmask and confront
destructive energy as an external force of domination and control in his book
entitled ‘Christianity’s dangerous
memory: A rediscovery of the
revolutionary Jesus (2011)’. As the
title of the primary resource for this paper illustrates, the author has
provided evidence of the intentional erosion of the foundational
beliefs underlying Jesus’ divine inspiration that
has occurred over the centuries. Official
‘church’ understanding has evolved through the mantle of definitive doctrine, and
in many ways has abused power under the guise of being entrusted as the
legitimate authority to interpret His teachings (page 39).
O’Murchu’s
underlying intention is to awaken a sense of hope. But first we must consider the lasting effect
caused by centuries of implicit and explicit psychological abuses of ‘power’. Critical junctures in time reflect combined secular
and religious forces. He draws our
attention to the life and time of Jesus, the Edic of Milan in 313 A.D. and the subsequent
covert and overt influences remaining steadfast until being openly challenged
through evolving democratic actions.
O’Murchu provides
a scholarly analysis using historical and constructivist frameworks so the
reader may understand where humanity has been and the potential traps that can
sabotage a renewed course for humanity’s survival. Merging theology and with a secular framework
of power, he unpacks the apocalyptic interpretation of a revengeful dictator
God. He also highlights the ways
oppression has been sanctioned in every sphere of life, including education,
medicine, commerce, and agriculture throughout human history. Gradually O’Murchu invites the reader to
envision an alternative way of ‘being and thinking’. The reader is introduced
to ‘sapiential’ wisdom based on the original inspirational teachings of Jesus,
which he has framed as ‘Companionship of Empowerment’.
Other theologians
are also taking a multi-disciplinary approach to rediscover how the historical Jesus
was able to initiate transformative change and the factors that contributed to
lingering and dangerous misinterpretations.
John Dominic Crossan looks beyond official dogma of the institutional
church to construct an open theoretical matrix that is progressively moving as
distinctions come to light. This author
draws on three interweaving disciplines to inform each other, which are cultural
anthropology, Roman Jewish history, and archaeology.
Crossan
suggests that Jesus was at the right place at the right time. The Hebrew tradition situated the kingdom of God on
high, and the ‘chosen’ people were waiting for Him to come down to earth and
save them all. Then along came Jesus who
made an extraordinary claim that the kingdom of God is already here, through the
‘companionship of empowerment’. Jesus was a catalyst, introducing a repertoire of revolutionary strategies for salvation from
abusive subjugation that would nurture a person’s body and soul.
Of primary
importance was His insistence on non-violent resistance to oppressive power
structures. Also, His notion of
empowering all individuals to love one another was critical to create movement
for change. In the Synoptic Gospels we
can see how Jesus valued intentional acts of kindness by using the actions of a
marginalized woman to illustrate a ripple effect that benefits all of society:
“Do
you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for
my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You did not give me a kiss, but this woman,
from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not put oil on my head, but she has
poured perfume on my feet. 47 Therefore,
I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But
whoever has been forgiven little, loves little.” Luke
7:44-47
Three
major themes emerged as I reflected on the resources provided for this
assignment. First, I thought about the
power of intention. Second, due to my
own research interests, I explored the nature of collaboration drawing on four
common sociocultural factors, previously identified as the essential glue for
the maintenance of community:
· identity,
validated through community membership
· function,
as understood community objectives
· shared
values, as cultural norms and actions
· discursive
inquiry, as process used to refine ideas, not to criticize people
Finally I was interested in how
empowerment has an opportunity to thrive and hoped to be informed as to necessary
conditions to do so.
Importantly
I acknowledge that transformative change, as envisioned by Jesus, is a form of
energy that is constantly in motion, recognizable in every day
interactions. We can witness this on a number
of levels including the personal relationship between self, God and others plus
the countless variety of societal and institutional structures. A constraint is the difficulty to isolate how
and when each influences the other.
Intention
O’Murchu
cited Walter Wink, who described oppression and the depth of desperation being
experienced by individuals, family units and the entire Jewish population. Long before the time of Jesus, hopeful
messianic dreams emerged as advanced by ancient prophecies. Imaginations construed a divinely inspired
redeemer who had the power to relieve the depths of despair. One quote I found interesting is:
“In such a milieu, the
authenticity of Jesus was like a beacon that drew all the mythological motifs
to itself. Incubating in the womb of
that period was God’s rash gamble that humanity might become more humane” (page
26)
Crossan’s
lectures on the historical Jesus illustrated how He used provocative parables
to intentionally get people to think and share their understandings so wisdom
would be revealed. This is the power of
discursive inquiry so that a moral teaching may be revealed. Most often, Jesus was not explicit but left a
trail of interesting ideas that provided seeds of hope for an alternative reality
to be nurtured. He used common everyday situations
so that ordinary people could relate to His deeper message. Jesus also provocatively
challenged their common ways of interacting with one another, revealing loving
or unloving ways to respond.
I cannot
but think, ‘How else can humanity evolve, unless awareness is brought to light?’ Being provoked and left to think about other ways
to respond may provide the opportunity to break habitual patterns and offer a
better way to live our lives.
Interestingly,
His intentional storytelling as a method of choice was questioned by the
disciples in all three Synoptic Gospels. When they asked why he went about
teaching this way, He acknowledged the value of insight having a chance to emerge
from time spent with one another. But
for other followers, hungry and desperate for a path to freedom from
oppression, there were only brief moments to deepen understanding. Parables were a way of generating personal
and larger group reflection to awaken possibilities:
To you it has been given to
know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others I speak in parables so
that ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand’.
Luke 8:9-10
I could
not help but recall modern day Marshall McLuhan who coined the phrase, ‘the
medium is the message’. Generally
speaking, the intentional choice of delivery ultimately influences how a
message, or moral teaching, will be perceived and transform into action.
Collaboration
In the
mid-20th Century, scholars have tried to reclaim the Jewish identity of Jesus. Identity
reflects participation, and Jesus identified ‘community’ as the place holder for
‘shared’ participation in the kingdom of God. Crossan looked at the ‘program’ of Jesus as
laying the foundational spiritual building blocks of an anti-greed
community, becoming the antithesis of urban
civilization’s centers of power being constructed under the leadership of Roman
emperors such as Caesar, Herod the Tetrarch and their contemporaries. Importantly, Jesus differentiated the kingdom
of God from the kingdom of Rome by tapping into long-standing understanding.
Crossan
provided examples of how Jesus presented egotistical symbols of earthly kingdom,
such as coins with Caesar’s images or the known desires of Herod of Antipas and
Roman imperialism. Kingship was traditionally represented as an aloof, top-down,
authoritarian regime with a leader who is the ultimate problem solver and has the
final say in decision making. The king
also has legitimate power and the right to create wealth in any way ‘he’ deemed
possible, including violent retributive justice when loyalty falters. Violence is justified as a means to an end,
in service to the desires of the king.
The
teacher Jesus provided a unique view of the type of governance needed within community. He recognized that in contemporary fashion He
was being revered by His disciples, which O’Murchu identified as the seductive
deception of personal Jesus. However, in
actuality, scripture represents Jesus as being humble and He never elevated
himself or asked His followers to worship Him. Instead He presented community formation
as the companionship of empowerment, which He
called the kingdom of God. Here, there
are no material trappings but an invisible source that lives in and among all people,
manifesting in multiple domains of the here and now. There is no patriarch in the leadership sense. God could no longer be viewed as a traditional
kingly Bible character that could be counted on to protect His creations by eradicating
evil as suggested by Walter Brueggemann in his
lecture, ‘A Conversation on the Nature of
Evil’.
In
the New Testament, both Crossan and O’Murchu suggest that the God of Jesus is no longer the avenging, violent
character who sanctions ‘an eye for an eye’ as found in the Old Testament books
of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Instead, God is divine energy whose
nature is compassionate and loving. In
Luke 6 and Matthew 5:43-47, Jesus is speaking to an expert in the Law, citing Leviticus
19:18, but extends the directive by stating that the love of all neighbours and
enemies springs from the love of God as its source:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate
your enemy.’ 44 But
I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in
heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the
evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward
will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what
are you doing more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do that?
Crosssan
used the Parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate the revolutionary genius of
Jesus and how He used discursive inquiry to initiate a powerful paradigm shift when
dealing with the usual conflict among neighbours. Then He extended the act of loving
forgiveness and reconciliation to enemies as well. The cultural enemies would be many, including
tax collectors, representatives of Rome, the aloof judgmental groups of
Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, as well as the hero of the story, the reviled Samaritan.
I can relate
to the internal perturbation that would rise in each and every listener, then
and now. This is an excellent example of provocative methodology that has the
potential to create controversy, making people think and challenge their moral
conscience.
A function
of community is to encourage participatory engagement as an explicit norm for
interaction between self and others. Issues, concerns, dilemmas and problems naturally
arise – it is an integral component of being human. Solutions however, reside
in the heart of mutual respect. Valuing dignity
has the potential to foster self-respect by acknowledging the gifts that each
person has to offer. Part of Jesus’
identity was being recognized as rabbi, so it would have been customary to
preach in temple gatherings. However He
did not expect people to come to Him.
Instead, Jesus traveled to the people and shared His wisdom throughout the
area of Galilee. He explicitly stripped away the illusion of earthy authority
and lifted the veil of power through healing, both spiritually and
physically.
In turn,
He sent His disciples out to heal those who are sick and eat with those they
healed (Luke 10:1-24). Eating was viewed as a cultural opportunity to deepen
understanding, while also nurturing the needs for material life. Jesus also promoted a strategy of non-violent resistance
when encountering conflict that is present in everyday life to further nurture a
person’s body and soul.
Empowerment
Transformative
change would not come easily. I often wonder what Jesus would say today about
the mess we are in, 2000 years later. Perhaps Jesus had underestimated the
extent of damage that had been done after centuries of internalizing external
forces of oppression that intentionally debilitate, disempower and traumatize
the inner self (O’Murchu, page 14).
Recounting what an exasperated Jesus might have said, Crossan imagined a
scenario
that might have unfolded:
‘Don’t
you see what has been happening … You people have been waiting for God to do it
for you through Divine Intervention, while God has been waiting for you people
to do it with Him, by collaboration ‘with’ God … no wonder nothing is happening’.
This scenario of taking on personal
responsibility represents a significant paradigm shift for human and spiritual interactions. Collaborating ‘with’ God as a viable alternative
is intentionally designed to undermine entrenched beliefs and systems of power. This idea would have been revolutionary and
dangerous, often at the expense of lives. No wonder, internalized oppression
would take a long time to overcome.
Crossan
reminds us that the foundational beliefs set in the first century by Jesus draws
upon a theoretical framework called collaborative eschatology, meaning the
kingdom of God is a participatory kingdom.
As mentioned, this approach is intended that people collaborate with
God. However, the evolving Church retrieved
the conception of God as autonomous and omnipotent from the Old Testament as
illustrated by St. Augustine’s sermon in the year 416, “God made you without
you, but He doesn’t justify you without you”.
Scholarly research indicates
that Augustine’s statement reflects the pervasive Christian cultural norms that
began to thrive one hundred years before.
In 313, Roman rivals Emperor Constantine in the west and Emperor
Licinius in the east made an effort to unite the empire by issuing the Edict of
Milan. As suggested by O’Murchu, this law helped stabilize the empire’s
need for power and control.
There are scholars who
suggest that Constantine’s mother Helena urged his conversion to Christianity
as a way for salvation and heavenly reward.
The political significance ended the persecution of Christians and gave
all people full authority to worship as they chose. Another devastating outcome unfolded, which eventually
destroyed the emergent collaborative model for religious community as envisioned
by Jesus. O’Murchu and Crossan highlight
the entrenched secular beliefs but there were also religious beliefs influencing
the work and efforts that would be needed to create possibilities for equitable
religious formation. Religious memory
can be seen in St. Paul’s letter as he tried to establish order out of
the first century chaos brought about by the immense social change initiative
sparked by Jesus. When taken literally
the passage reflects ancient Babylonian and Mosaic laws, instilling
the status quo for relationships between men and women, which
ultimately contradicts the teachings of Jesus:
“As in all the congregations
of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed
to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire
about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is
disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”
(1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
The cumulative stress
and tensions that would have been generated gave way to the ‘default’ mode of
the time, including the Roman Empire’s hierarchical patriarchal structure. With this came authoritative interpretation
of the Bible, doctrine to guarantee entrenched power of the church, exclusionary
rules, definitive protocols and liturgies conducted in elite Latin. All were intentionally designed to retain
power for church clergy and created a mysterious cloak for common understanding
of the scripture. Teachings of Jesus,
which promoted distributed justice in how spiritual knowledge, wealth, food and
material goods can be shared fairly throughout society was nearly abandoned.
Change requires the
ability to entertain other ideas as possibilities for improving the conditions
of life. By the 1300’s it is estimated only
5% of the entire population of Europe were allowed to receive any sort of
education. Peasants formed the major
demographics and often education was prohibited by law
(https://www.lostkingdom.net/medieval-education-in-europe).
Common to the
majority was attendance at church to receive guidance in the day-to-day
decisions of ordinary living. Here, there were lessons, some of which promoted a
heaven for obedient Christians and there was a hell for the unfaithful. Retributive justice enforced the threat of
everlasting damnation creating a duty bound following that has endured to this
day. In other words the oppressive strategy of fear mongering guaranteed
obedience.
In high school I was grappling
with my own understanding of what a relationship with God might look like. My art classes afforded an opportunity to relate
abstract notions of spirituality through artistic expression. It was a time of Vatican II, where I was
trying to reconcile the dangerous memory of the past to the hopeful promise of
the present. I knew the after-life
consisted of a heaven, hell and purgatory with the last two options
frightening. Thoughtful teachers were
trying to illustrate humanity’s history through the elaborate paintings and frescoes
commissioned by prominent medieval Christians reinforcing a fearful ‘doom’ tradition. Today I recognize how intentional schemes to
retain or increase power crossed over religious and secular domains. Numerous examples reflect this theme including
Last Judgment paintings by Fra Angelico, c 1425 and German artist Stefan Loc, c
1435:
By 1541, Michelangelo’s Last
Judgment covered the entire wall behind the altar in the Vatican’s Sistine
Chapel, a prominent view for those staring at the backs of clergy. What thoughts might have filled their minds
as they looked at Christ sitting on a heavenly throne, ultimately determining
the fate of everyone, whether saint, peasant, elite citizen or clergy?
In
comparison, early catacomb art depicted symbols of peace, miracles of healing, gatherings
with women presiding, and parable stories depicting God’s messenger as a
benevolent loving shepherd embodying companionship of empowerment.
The
difference over time, when comparing implementation of the teachings of Jesus
is startling. O’Murchu turns to various
forms of power to illustrate how this happened.
First he presents power as a force relying on persuasion and coercion to
create an overarching network that dictates cultural values in our world. The result is a ‘fierce stranglehold that
leaves millions disempowered and disenfranchised’ (page 6). Second, he presents
power as spirit in the form of nationalism or patriotism that divinely
sanctions redemptive violence, legitimizes suppression of poor people
everywhere and extracts wealth from those already marginalized. Finally, he addresses patriarchal power as a
relationship of co-dependence and passive submission to a ruling king-like
avenging God. This way of thinking
depicted Jesus as the sacrificial scapegoat who saved humans from humanities’
collective disobedience. In the end, His death pacified the angry, demanding
divine patriarch who sits on a heavenly throne.
The quest
for power entails satisfying the illusive demands of ego aggrandizement. O’Murchu presents this as a pervasive
perspective and argues that in contrast, Jesus envisioned non-violent
interdependence among one another, hence with God. Today there is hope, as Crossan acknowledged there
are members of church clergy who are rediscovering the historical Jesus.
In a twist
of fate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu presented a sermon in 1999 when he cited a
historical sermon given by St. Augustine in 416. But he unintentionally changed it. Augustine presented the creative source as the
authority who can affect your life independent of your involvement, “God made you
without you, but He doesn’t justify you without you”. Instead, through a simple sentence, Crossan
explains that Tutu resurrected the notion of inter-dependence between our
creator and us in such a way that illustrated the heart of the revolutionary
vision of Christianity, when he said, “God without you will not, as you without
God cannot”.
Crossan
went further, describing the necessary conditions for empowering collaborative
interdependence by saying:
‘The coming of God’s
kingdom, the dawn of eschatological transformation, the great Divine Cleanup of
the World, by whatever name, is non-violent and so also is our God-empowered
participation in it and God-driven collaboration with it’.
Conclusion
Developing
the conditions to not only survive the violent normalcy of civilization but
thrive, we can turn to the divine mystery’s kingdom of ‘kin-ship’. Jesus provided an alternate reality whereby ‘space’
is intentionally created so that each person is valued as being an inter-dependent
co-creator with God. Individuals are
entrusted with spiritual knowledge and wisdom that can be shared with one
another. John 2:20-21 offers
encouragement for those whose want to live with honesty and integrity, to courageously
draw on the light of Jesus’ vision of empowered collaboration that manifests
itself as love in action:
“You have been anointed by
the Holy One, and all of you have this knowledge. I write to you not because you do not know
the truth, but because you know it.”
I believe
we must begin with ourselves. My local
Heart of Compassion community’s reading circle has been sharing insights from ‘The grace in aging: Awaken as you grow older’ by Kathleen
Dowling Singh. In an interesting
paradox, she dedicated an entire chapter to humility, not in the traditional
sense of reducing our self-image but as a way to empowerment. As humans we experience traumas, loss, perceived
hurts and disappointments, all becoming knots that bind us into fear-based
feelings of rejection, pride and jealousy. Reliance on self-referential
realities instead of intentionally considering the reality of God’s kingdom
existing as a companionship of empowerment will cause us to create defensive
reactions by making comparisons, judgments and assign blame. Hardened resistance to embracing forgiveness leads
to condemnation, debilitating both others and ourselves. As suggested earlier, history has showed us
that there is an expectation that God is a mysterious character who resides in
a faraway realm:
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father
and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me,
Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen
me has seen the Father ... 11 Believe me when I say that I am
in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of
the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell
you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will
do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in
my name”. John 14:8-13
Jesus is
telling us that the kingdom of God dwells within and among us. So it is our beloved Jesus who invites us to
begin with ourselves. Humility serves as
a gateway when we humbly emerge in our wonder and pay tribute to its source. I
found this meditation inspirational to imagine true humility:
Empowerment
as envisioned by Jesus also requires the conditions that reflect flatter power
structures such as community that disenfranchises competition for ego
aggrandizement and empowers wisdom for the greater good. This in itself has been
a daunting undertaking over the centuries as systemic oppression has been in
existence long before the first century and up to this day. Also, there are many levels, from small to
large scale operations. Moments by
moment interactions occur in personal, inter-personal, small group and large institutions
with complex elaborate organizational systems of communication.
As I previously
mentioned, it is difficult to isolate examples of direct influence as practices
and systems of belief in both religious and secular institutions are
interconnected. Change that brings about
loving norms of interaction has been advanced since the moment of Jesus’ death. However the illusion of power has forever
suppressed attempts to create an alternative reality.
In order
to distinguish between empowerment and disempowerment O’Murchu believes it is
necessary to ‘unmask’ power in its various overt and covert forms. He draws upon the work of Wink to outline
recognizable characteristics for ‘Power of Domination in Body and Spirit (page
8). However, as the media will
demonstrate, a wise professor told me it is easy to identify abuse of power, but
much more difficult to recognize collaborative empowerment.
It has
taken more than 2000 years for possibilities advocated by the historical Jesus to
become mainstream and recognizable. On
the left hand side of the column below, I have tried to briefly identify the embedded
indicators in the resources provided for this paper along with examples. In the column entitled ‘Empowerment in Body
and Spirit’ I have tried to provide an explicit image of contrast, recognizing that
once you begin, the list is endless:
Power of Domination in
Body and Spirit
|
Empowerment in
Body and Spirit
|
|
|
Imperial power of every type
-
expansionism through power of persuasion and coercion
-
intentional subversive policy
|
Self-determinism
-
‘democracy’ as
a social experiment
-
shared participation
|
Violence needed to safeguard and uphold
such power
-
terrorism
-
retributive justice
|
Non-violent
interdependence
-
mutual respect
-
promote different perspectives to increase
possibilities, sanctioning differences, ‘agree to disagree’
|
Unjust economic relations
-
lack mentality
-
special interest lobbies, over riding the interests of
others
-
suppress freedom of the press
|
Distributed
justice
- abundance mentality
- sharing
of knowledge, goods, services and wealth
- freedom of the
press
|
Crippling grip of irrational fear
-
propaganda
|
Peace
and ease
- practice of
meditation, reflection, prayer
|
Slavery and oppression of every type
-
genocide
-
exclusion of women
in Roman Catholic Ministry
-
intellectual bias in various forms
-
uniformity
|
Freedom
-
tolerance
-
inclusion in the ARCWP movement
-
equal opportunities, free of intellectual bias
-
diversity
|
Dualistic splitting between sacred and
secular
-
disavowing climate change
-
exploitation of planetary life and resources
|
Inter-connectedness
-
openness to honour scholarly research and scientific
discourse
-
responsible management and sustainability of planetary
resources
|
Human disempowerment
- poverty
- negative ‘isms’ such as racism, despotism, nepotism,terrorism
- discrimination
because of race, religion, ethnic group, gender or sexual orientation
|
Empowerment
-
positive ‘isms’ such as feminism
-
all are deemed worthy to have a say
-
equal human rights
-
#metoo and #timesup movement
|
Religious validation of above
-
exoneration of injustice
-
exclusion of women in Roman Catholic Ministry
-
collusion by civil powers and organized religion to maintain absolute domination of the lives and thoughts of the people.
-
conversion of indigenous natives of the Americas
|
Actions
by the institution of Church that rebuke powers of domination
-
prayers of forgiveness
-
the spoken and written word as in a report by CNN, ‘Pope
Francis said that GOP front- The article in La
Civiltà Cattolica, which is vetted by the Vatican before publication, lays out
a scathing critique of “evangelical fundamentalism” in the US, arguing that,
on issues ranging from climate change to “migrants and Muslims”, proponents
of the ideology have adopted a twisted reading of scripture and the Old
Testament that promotes conflict and war above all else’.
|
More needs
to be said beyond the scope of this assignment, but movement is being evidenced,
much more dramatically in recent times inspiring hope. For example, the seminal work of scholars
such as Kenneth Leithwood has contributed to the growing body of change
literature, making terms such as transformational leadership mainstream. Thirty years ago, I changed careers from
banking to teaching, as Ken said; I was jumping from the frying pan into the
fire. Coming from business with hierarchical
business principles, my scholarly interest propelled an extensive literature
review on ‘collaborative’ cultures and to my dismay, found that only a handful
existed.
Related
examples were indigenous circles and cooperative team structures. Today ordinary
people and leaders are embracing collaboration as the hope for humanity’s
future. Individuals like Malala
Yousafzai, Mother Teresa and Rosa Parks each made a difference propelling them onto
the world stage through their heroic non-violent activism. Political leaders and their actions, such as
Martin Luther King Jr’s walk along the bridge in Selma, Baraq Obama’s
foundation and recent Chicago Youth Leadership Summit, and Nelson Mandela’s
influence to end Apartheid in South Africa, to name a few, have ‘walked their
talk’ inspired by Christian values leaving legacies that connect the secular world
with the sacred within.
-->
It goes
without saying that further investigation is warranted to illustrate the wisdom
of Jesus as God’s messenger for western civilization has also been realized in
other cultures. Companionship of empowerment is seeping into all levels of
human interaction. Hopefully our strides
will become longer and wider, hastening pace, so Crossan’s hope for “God’s
gamble that humanity might become more human” will be realized before the
amazing wonders of creation implodes. It
is a matter of survival.
