Another Voice

 

 

At the start of this week’s post, I should say that a friend warned me to not get into politics this week. My concern as an historical theologian has always been about promoting critical reflection about faith, life, and morality. I respect my friend’s concern, but politics is part of our life experience; and with less than two weeks before the 2024 U.S. presidential election, there is a great need for critical thinking.

Being a critical observer and thinker today is challenging. There is certainly a lot of falsehood and pure nonsense in our contemporary world that is packaged and promoted as truth. There are also frightening realities.

In September, the former U.S. president said that if he is reelected, his plan to deport 15 to 20 million people currently living in the United States would be “bloody.” As Heather Cox Richardson reported on October 21^st, Mark Milley, 20th chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023, told journalist Bob Woodward that Trump is “a fascist to the core…the most dangerous person to this country.”

We need critical observers, but critical observers can also be quickly repudiated or denigrated. We need, these days, a great many courageous critical observers, who are supportive of other courageous critical observers.

The reality is that engaging in respectful exchanges of opinions, while working toward the same goals, is how we will thrive and grow as a society. That challenge will be here before and after November 5^th.

Thinking about helping people become well-informed critical thinkers today, I suggest that we stress “values clarification.” How do people display and practice truth and honesty? Or how do they display and practice falsehood and deception? Do we take time to compare or help people compare a person’s rhetoric with that person’s actual behavior? How do we help people clarify their own values? How do we clarify our own values.

Reviewing the most recent “Al Smith Dinner in New York,” on Thursday, October 17^th, can be a helpful values clarification exercise. The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, commonly known as the Al Smith Dinner, is an annual white tie dinner in New York City to raise funds for Catholic charities in the Archdiocese of New York. It is currently hosted by the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

This year Vice President Harris did not attend the October 17^th Al Smith dinner and Cardinal Dolan strongly criticized her for not attending, saying she was sending “one of those zooms” instead. Former President Trump and his wife Melania did attend the dinner.

Cardinal Dolan looked on with a friendly expression as Trump made his degrading comments, occasionally laughing at the former president’s remarks and personal attacks against Kamala Harris. “We have someone in the White House who can barely talk, barely put together two coherent sentences, who seems to have the mental faculties of a child,” Trump told the New York group. “It’s a person who has nothing going, no intelligence whatsoever. But enough about Kamala Harris.” Cardinal Dolan sat there with a big smile. Shame on Timothy Dolan, whom I have known from the time he was a young priest in St. Louis, Missouri. Once upon a time we were even friends.

The 45^th president of the United States is a Bible man, according to his ardent supporters. Indeed, the God Bless the U.S.A. Bible isalso known as the “Trump Bible.” It is based on the King James Version of the Bible (first published in 1611) with added content specifically relating to the United States. The God Bless the U.S.A. Bible was first published in 2021 but was later marketed by Donald Trump under his brand name and promoted as part of his 2024 presidential campaign. Donald Trump may be a “Bible man” but, as the American columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times on October 19^th, “Trump is proudly amoral. He disdains the Christian values I was taught by nuns and priests. His only values are self-interest and self-gratification.”

For the Al Smith dinner, Vice President Kamala Harris did not give “one of those zooms” but a well-thought-out video presentation. She had explained several days before the dinner that she could not be personally present because she would be campaigning in the battleground state Wisconsin on that Thursday. Cardinal Dolan was terribly upset she did not attend. Mr. Trump was probably relieved.

Getting ready for the big November 5^th election, requires values clarification reflection and decision-making. An important values clarification exercise before November 5^th would be reviewing the personal values of the candidates, as expressed in their words and actions. Project 2025 – the Trumpian agenda for the U.S.A. if he is re-elected — calls for a careful and critical reading. I find it dangerously alarming.

Well, we do indeed have much to observe and think about these days.

And this remark concludes my October “political” commentary.

•  Jack

 

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Researcher: Religion and Values in U.S. Society

As we draw ever closer to the 2024 U.S. presidential election on November 5th, my thoughts are very much about public morality.

Public morality – what some call civic virtue — refers to ethical standards for public behavior. The survival of democracy depends on it.

Public morality governs everyday life: how we treat ourselves and others, and what we think about the world — about nature, business, culture, religion, family life, and so on. Openness is essential as well as serious reflection and engagement. We observe. We judge. Then, we act.

Without a healthy public morality, democracy collapses into either chaos or authoritarian dictatorship.

Those dangers are very real today. Public morality is often casr aside in authoritarian dictatorships because social order is maintained not by adherence to shared public values but by fidelity to the dictates and wishes of the authoritarian ruler. Authoritarian “leaders” like chaotic situations in which people living in fear can be kept obedient and dependent on the leader.

There are three big characteristics of authoritarian rulers. They behave without accountability. They have zero tolerance for criticism or questions. They display unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions.

In a healthy democracy there are certain generally held moral principles. Key primary values, for example, are that murder is immoral, theft is immoral, harming innocent people is immoral, and lying is immoral. When these immoral actions are turned into social virtues or social normalities, society is in trouble. I recall the words of the French philosopher and writer Voltaire (1694 – 1778): “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

Public morality insures, in effect, the survival of the human spirit. By the “human spirit” I mean those positive aspects of humanity that people show toward one another: empathy, respect, generosity, connection, emotional bonding, and identifying with the other. These elements require a sense of equality and a demand for human rights and justice in all domains of life, especially social and economic justice. Extremely self-centered righteousness leads to conflict, not cooperation; to fear, not hope; to aggression, not mutual respect; and to suspicion, not trust.

People set and adjust their public morality through interaction with family and friends, and with social, religious, political, and educational groups with whom they identify.

After the next presidential election, regardless of who wins and becomes president in January, we will still need to safeguard our democracy based on shared common-good public morality. Maintaining the common good means caring not just for ourselves but taking responsibility for the well-being of others.

As the American cognitive linguist and philosopher, George Lakoff (1941) stressed in his book, The Little Blue Book: Talking and Thinking Democratic, “Houses fall apart if they are not maintained, so do democracy and the gifts of democracy that we barely notice and take for granted: the right to vote, public education, human rights, due process, unbiased news, clean water, clean air, national parks, safe food, good jobs, ethical banking practices, affordable mortgages, fair elections.”

It is all part of public morality and avoiding polarization and chaos.

• Jack

Dr. John A. Dick—Historical Theologian

This week’s reflection is a follow-up to last week’s reflection by my friend Patrick Sullivan.

Christian environmental change means that our churches must be not only supportive caring communities but up to date biblically and historically, and always open to discovery and development.

Changing the church environment, for all Christians, must be a prophetic movement forward. Today, I suggest six ways to change, improve, and move ahead.

(1) We must move from living in the past to engaging with the present and thinking creatively about tomorrow. This means moving well beyond, for example, antiquated understandings of human sexuality and gender, prejudice against women, and distorted biblical and historical understandings.

(2) We need ongoing education that moves people from boxed-in perspectives to open and developing theology. All doctrinal statements are provisional understandings. We are all learners. No one has all the truth. There is still much to learn and discover.

(3) We need to shift from self-protective bureaucratic hierarchies, whose vision is to protect and save the institution, to being supportive communities of faith. Ideally, the institution is the medium for conveying the ministry and message of Jesus. Unfortunately, too often the medium becomes the message. People forget that Jesus did not exercise power over people. He empowered people to take responsibility in living, learning, and caring for one another. Jesus did not control people through authoritarian decrees, nor by setting up institutional structures. The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (272 – 337) was the great institutionalizer. At the Councils of Arles (314) and Nicaea (325) he passed on the institutionalization fervor to Christian bishops.

(4) We need to abandon religious arrogance and move into humble inter-church collaboration. No Christian and no Christian tradition can be regarded as superior to others and therefore act in a haughty or snobbish manner. Some Catholics still think they have all the truth. Some evangelicals think that way as well.

(5) We need to stop being energetic and proud temple-builders and start being traveling pilgrims. What do people today really need? An impressive and bigger cathedral or a roof overhead, a meal, health care, childcare, compassionate understanding, and a more secure and hopeful life. It is a values question.

(6) We must not focus on just schooling professionals but mentoring spiritual leaders. When it comes to Christian ministry, the mentality of the professional is often not enough. I trained and taught seminarians for many years. We need pastoral leaders and ministers who are much more than professionals. We need leaders who are men and women anchored in deep faith and who, as our fellow travelers, understand us and support our own faith development as compassionate and genuine spiritual guides.

 

Christians must stop seeing the world as their enemy and start appreciating the world as the real place where we live and meet the Divine. As Hildegard of Bingen (1098 – 1179) wrote: “The truly holy person welcomes all that is earthly.”

Jack

Dr. John A. Dick – Historical Theologian

 

This week I am busy welcoming guests to our university city, and therefore I am pleased to publish an observation by my friend Patrick B. Sullivan, DPA, M.Div.

 

I have been a student of organizational behavior for over 40 years. Within my background in public administration, I have observed many different organizations. I have found that most organizations are dysfunctional. The Cambridge Dictionary defines dysfunctional as “Not behaving or working normally.”

In the context of organizations, the meaning is somewhat the same. According to Angela Montgomery, co-author with Domenico Lepore and Giovanni Siepe of Quality, Involvement, Flow: The Systemic Organization (CRC Press, New York. 2016):

“The word dysfunctional contains the prefix dys- from the Greek meaning ‘bad,’ ‘abnormal,’ difficult,’ or ‘impaired.’  We can say that an organization is dysfunctional when it works in a way that is not consistent with the goal it is supposed to pursue. Why would that happen? Because there is a lack of clarity and understanding of the goal. This could easily produce dysfunctional behavior, meaning behavior that is not consistent with that goal. Very often what could be perceived as dysfunctional toward a stated goal can be extremely functional for a non-verbalized one.”

We need to consider what the goal is for organizations. Typically, goals in organizations are stated in terms of some kind of product or service. That makes sense, of course. However, there is another goal that is overloked. We organize to take advantage of collective efforts. This is not just a matter of the sum of the parts, i.e., the people. One should assume by using the term “organization” itself that we intend for there to be even more. 

What I have found is that far too much energy is consumed in organizations on wasteful interactions that interfere with carrying out the mission. The Roman Catholic Church exhibits all of these.

I identify seven practices or features that make any organization dysfunctional:

 

 

1.  Lack of relationship-building – The first thing I learned at the Franciscan School of Theology is that it is all about relationships. The irony is that the church discourages relationship-building rather than promoting it. At another seminary, this was very apparent. The leadership emphasized obedience and reprimanded me when I engaged in conversation with my colleagues. Diocesan priests now generally live alone. When I suggested that the priests from the five local parishes should live together, the response was a firm refusal. Don’t get me started with mandatory celibacy. The irony here is that such isolation only contributed to the sex abuse scandal. If a person does not build healthy relationships, one is more likely to either get drawn into unhealthy ones, depression, or substance abuse.

2. Arrogance – The primary source of arrogance, according to the National Institute of Health (NIH) is the resistance to accepting the limits of one’s own knowledge. Nelson Cowen, a psychologist from the University of Missouri, suggests that there are three types of arrogance: individual, comparative, and antagonistic. He identifies six progressive components: distorted information and limitations in abilities, overestimation of one’s information and abilities, resistance to new inforlation about one’s limits, failure to consider the perspectives of others, belief or assumption of superiority, and denigration of others. I have observed every one of these in the church. An excellent example of this was an instance in a seminary for second career vocations. One of my classmates, who was an M.D. and had a Master of Public Health degree, pointed out that the food served to the seminarians was entirely inappropriate for older men. I brought this to the attention of the vice rector. He utterly rejected the idea and said the food was fine. What would prompt a person whose only credentials were in theology to argue against the medical doctor? I think you know the answer.

3. Lack of Trust – Closely tied to relationship building is the development of trust. The lack of trust leads to turf protection and duplication of effort. Brené Brown, research professor at the University of Houston, identifies seven attributes of trust: boundaries, reliability, accountability, the vault, integrity, non judgmentn, and generosity. I have observed many instances of gossip, judgment, and lack of accountability. The sex abuse scandal has certainly exposed much of this. I cannot count the number of times I have dealt with those either ordained or lay who have violated trust or failed to own their mistakes. What is particularly troublesome is Brown’s definition of integrity: “It’s choosing courage over comfort; choosing what’s right over what’s fun, fast, or easy; and practicing your values, not just professing your values.”  I believe the values should come down to the great commandments of loving God and neighbor.

4. Lack of transparency — A healthy organization is one that is open about its challenges and failures. Transparency is a critical leadership attribute that helps to build trust. Studies have shown that transparency is particularly helpful for organizational commitment. The idea is to inform the key stakeholders regarding the critical issues of the organization. The church has not exactly been clear about all their finances. We found that out with the bankruptcy hearings tied to the other thing we did not hear about. I remember clearly a bishop telling me that the whole sex abuse crisis was just “anti-Catholicism.”  A few years later, he had to admit that they had mishandled the whole thing as part of the settlement.

5. Excessive emphasis on control – I honestly do not think I need to say much at all about this one. During my ten-year journey trying to become a priest the emphasis was almost always about obedience. I can understand wanting to have consistent teaching of theology. However, the obedience was less about that and more about controlling resources and the congregation. In my experience, there is truly little teaching of theology for adults in parishes. It is clear the fear is that adult Catholics will think for themselves.

6. Untrained managers – Even though seminary training is extensive (eight years if you count undergraduate studies) there are no courses in leadership or management. The one course I identified was on parish administration but had little to do with leadership and more to do with control. This has become a greater problem in recent years because there are so many more parishes with only one priest.  There is minimal opportunity to serve as an assistant or associate pastor to learn some of the “soft skills” (a term I loathe because people skills are the hardest ones of all to learn.)  Instead, a newly ordained priest can be sent directly to be the pastor.

7. Poor conflict skills – Most of my consulting work has involved dealing with conflict. The truth of the matter is that very few people know how to engage in conflict in a healthy manner. The church is no exception. In several parishes I have been involved with, there is invariably an argument over liturgy or music. Instead of working toward collaboration to find win-win solutions, the usual process involves recruiting allies and building to a heated argument. There is some truth in the joke “what is the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.”  When I interviewed people involved it became clear that the conflict was largely conducted surreptitiously. Healthy conflict involves each side being able to convey their perspective directly and honestly and the two parties working toward a solution. Conflict is inevitable but it does not need to lead to hard feelings and disruption of the organization.

I am not saying there are no decent people in the church or any organization, for that matter. I am pointing out that the interrelationships are dysfunctional. It does come back to honest relationship building. We just choose not to do it. We have rationalized our way out of doing the hard work of building relationships. I use that work intentionally. This is a continuation of adopting what we call rational thought as the only way to solve problems or work together. The problem is that our emotions and conation also play a role in how we work together. Without them or when we disregard them our ability to cooperate and learn from one another becomes terribly hampered. In the church itself, we are failing to follow,the last commandment Jesus gave us: “love one another.”

After surviving his first assassinatiin attempt, Mr. Trump announced he has become “more spiritual.” His popularity stays strong, and his supporters now see him as “called by God,” to be God’s emissary to “fix” the United States. Assassination attempts, whether real or supposed, reinforce convictions that the “victim” is “God-chosen.” Many of Trump’s white evangelical supporters believe that “God has a hand on him,” meaning that, despite his moral flaws, God has chosen Trump to serve once again in the White House. This continually-stated pronouncement makes me think about the observation by Madeleine Albright (1937 – 2022) former U.S. Secretary of State: “This is the first rule of deception: repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible.”

Authoritarian leaders have always found religion a wonderful convenience, which they manipulate to their advantage. It enables them to lord it over other people and allows them to punish their “enemies” guilt-free, since that punishment, they can proclaim, is what God wants. Their distorted religion enables them to bully and denigrate certain groups of people: women, LGBTQ people, non-whites, foreigners, and miscellaneous “losers.” Values like love, mercy, and compassion disappear. The key value is faithfulness and obedience to the authoritarian leader.

There are classic historical examples: The atheist and anti-clerical Benito Mussolini (1883 – 1945) needed backing by the Vatican to promote his National Fascist Party. He therefore married in the Catholic church and had his children baptized. In his first parliamentary speech in 1921, he announced that “the only universal values that radiate from Rome are those of the Vatican.”

Spain’s Generalissimo Franco (1892 – 1975) became a cruel and murderous dictator. Although Franco himself was known for not being very devout, he portrayed himself as a fervent Catholic and used religion to increase his power. He used the Guerrilleros de Christo Rey (the Warriors of Christ the King) to implement his policy of torture and executions.

And of course, as we are already commemorating the end of WWII in Europe, we know the story of Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945). Hitler ceased being a Catholic when a teenager. But Hitler and his Nazi party promoted their brand of “Positive Christianity.” He described Jesus as an “Aryan fighter” who struggled against the corrupt Pharisees. Joseph Goebbels (1897 – 1945), Hitler’s Reich Minister of Propaganda and one of his closest and most devoted associates, wrote in April 1941 that although Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican and Christianity, “he forbids me to leave the church, for tactical reasons.”

Getting back to the contemporary United States, I suspect we all remember that day in early June 2020 when, Bible in hand, then President Trump posed for photos in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church. It was Trumpian political theater.

Dr. Mariann Bude, Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC since 2011, stressed that Trump had used the Bible at St. John’s “as if it were a prop or an extension of his military and authoritarian position.” Trump is now selling “God Bless the USA” Bibles for $59.99 as he faces mounting legal bills.

Ideally, healthy religion supports and gives meaning to our lives. It proclaims values about how we should live and how we should relate to one another. It can unite us and give us hope and courage for tomorrow. All the great religious traditions call for honesty, justice, respect, and compassion. When grossly distorted, however, religion can also be a source of violent division, destruction, and death.

Promoting a healthy Christian way of life may very well be our biggest Christian challenge in 2024 and at the start of a new presidential administration in 2025. We need to reflect and examine our beliefs and our behavior, encouraging and supporting other healthy religion people.

The United States should be a society with liberty and justice FOR ALL. Leadership counts. Character counts. Authentic Christianity, in collaboration with other religious traditions, helps make it happen. 

• Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

 

We not only learn from historic people, but we can also be encouraged by them.

This week some reflections about Hildegard of Bingen whose feast day was September 17^th. She was an amazingly prophetic woman who continues to motivate people and stimulate serious reflection. She was an abbess, an artist, an author, a composer, a mystic, a pharmacist, a poet, a preacher, and a theologian.

Hildegard, the youngest of ten children, was born in 1098 at Bermersheim near Mainz, Germany. Her parents were members of the nobility. When she was eight years old, her parents entrusted her to the care of a holy woman named Jutta. Then when she was fourteen years old, Hildegard, who was already having mystical experiences, entered the Frauenklause, a female hermitage associated with the Benedictine monastery at Disibodenberg, Germany. She was accompanied by Jutta who later became the superior of the small community of women. Hildegard remained under Jutta’s tutelage. When Jutta died in 1136, the members of the community elected Hildegard as their magistra (mother superior). Hildegard and her sisters soon afterwards left Disibodenberg because the nearby Benedictine monastery with strongly misogynist men made life difficult for them.

Hildegard then founded monasteries for women: Rupertsberg, near Bingen, in 1150 and Eibingen in 1165. After her death on September 17, 1179, Hildegard was buried at the convent cemetery at Disibodenberg. In 1642, her remains were removed to the church of Eibingen. Pope Benedict XVI (1927 – 2022) canonized Hildegard on 10 May 2012, and on 7 October 2012 he proclaimed her a doctor of the church, one of only four women to have been so named. The others are Catherine of Siena (1347 – 1380), Teresa of Avila (1515 – 1582), and Therese of Lisieux (1873 – 1897).

Hildegard’s theology was intensely incarnational. She understood the material world as imbued with sacred significance and sacramental meaning. She considered the human body a microcosm of the cosmos, which Hildegard viewed as an ordered, harmonious whole. She emphatically affirmed that both women and men carry the image of God, which endows each sex with equal dignity before God and within humankind.

Philosophically, Hildegard stood far apart from her male predecessors in her ability to uphold the two principles of human difference and equal dignity. Plato had dissolved difference into masculine unity, while holding onto at least a basic equality. Aristotle had conceived of difference as hierarchical polarity. Hildegard’s complementarity, however, affirmed difference as a balanced, integrated harmony.

An esteemed advocate for scientific research, Hildegarde was one of the earliest promoters of the use of herbal medicine to treat ailments. She wrote many books but particularly two books related to healing. Physica was about how items in the physical world (plants, gemstones, fish, etc.) could be used in healing. Causes and Cures goes into personal health more directly, such as the importance of following a different diet in the winter than in the summer. During the Middle Ages, monasteries had their own infirmaries and were places that people might go to if they were ill. So, it was natural for Hildegard to have known about healing. She was really one of the first people to write in such detail about healing and health, and she was certainly the first woman to do so.

Hildegarde was also well-known as a composer. She combined all her music into a cycle called Symphonia Armonie Celestium Revelationum (“The Symphony of the Harmony of the Heavenly Revelations”), composed around 1152, which reflected her belief that music was the highest praise to God. Her works, including In Evangelium and O Viridissima Virga, are still released today, and her ethereal style continues to influence New Age music, defined more by the effect or feeling it produces rather than the instruments used in its creation. People studying the history of music before 1600 consider Hildegard the best-known example of a female composer during that period.

Hildegard refused to be defined by the patriarchal hierarchy of the church and pushed the established boundaries for women. She is perhaps best known for her spiritual concept of Viriditas – “greenness” – the cosmic life force infusing the natural world. For Hildegard, the Divine manifested itself and was apparent in nature. For her nature itself was not the Divine but the natural world gave proof of God and glorified God.

She is also known for her writings on the concept of Sapientia – Divine Wisdom – specifically immanent Divine Feminine DivWisdom which draws close to and nurtures the human soul. Scivias was Hildegard’s first major theological work and the only one of her writings that was both illuminated and copied by scribes from her monastery during her lifetime. Scivias was completed in 1151 or 1152 and described 26 religious visions she had experienced. It was the first of three works that she wrote describing her visions.

Hildegard corresponded with the great personalities of her time, including emperors, popes, and queens. Sometime between 1154 and 1171, she responded to a letter from Eleanor of Aquitaine (1124 – 1204), Queen of France from 1137 to 1152, asking for advice, with these words “Your mind is like a wall which is covered with clouds, and you look everywhere but have no rest. Flee this and attain stability with God and men, and God will help you in all your tribulations. May God give you blessing and help in all your works.”

Hildegarde of Bingen stands out as an extraordinary figure in women’s history. She was a courageous woman who found remarkable success by expressing her unique voice. She did not accept the traditional place for women in the world. She wrote her books, and, in a male-dominated church, she went on preaching tours at a time when women were not supposed to preach, especially in public. She refused to behave in “traditional” ways. She called for the recognition of the Divine Feminine to balance the traditional Sacred Masculine. She wrote at a time when, if the church authorities had not thought she was divinely inspired she could easily have been put to death as a heretic.

As a German Benedictine abbess, she was a no-nonsense person and certainly no stranger to controversy. She confronted Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (1122 – 1190) for supporting at least three antipopes. Between 1152 and 1162, Hildegard often preached in the Rhineland. When she was 80 years old, her monastery in Bingen overlooking the river Rhine was placed under interdict because she had allowed the burial of a young man who had been excommunicated. She insisted that he had been reconciled with the church and had received its sacraments before dying. Nevertheless, the local diocesan canons authorized civil authorities to dig up the young man’s body. On the evening before the authorities arrived, Hildegard went to the grave, blessed it, and then, with the help of her nuns, removed all the cemetery markers and stones. She made certain the burial plot of the excommunicated man could not befound. The irate canons placed the abbey under interdict and forbade the celebration of or reception of the Eucharist at the Bingen monastery. This sanction was lifted only a few months before Hildegard’ death.

Hildegard of Bingen was truly an extraordinary woman and, I would say, the most fascinating and influential woman in medieval church history.

 

• Jack

 

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

 

Polarization is pushing U.S. Americans across the country to divide themselves into distinct and mutually exclusive camps. All with closed minds. In Matthew 12:25, Jesus warned the closed-minded people in his days, saying “Every country divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.”

Acknowledging other perspectives means recognizing and considering alternative viewpoints or opinions on a given topic. It involves being open-minded and willing to listen to different ideas without at once dismissing them. It involves realizing that we all have much to learn about life in all its dimensions. I would emphasize that being open-minded means being less judgmental and more inquisitive and considerate. Open-minded people consider multiple perspectives before reaching a decision.

Sometimes, being open-minded can be tough. It shakes a person loose from beliefs and values once so comforting. I once believed and felt secure in my belief that Jesus’ disciples were only men, and for that reason only men could be priests. I also pictured the historic Jesus ordaining the Apostles at the Last Supper. But then, thanks to a college professor who kept asking question and encouraged me to ask questions, I started asking my own questions. Very quickly I learned that some of my certainties had no historic foundation.

Today I know that Jesus’ disciples were men AND women. As an historian I have learned as well that women presided at Eucharistic liturgies in the early Christian communities. I also have also realized that Jesus did not ordain anyone because ordination did not exist during his lifetime. In fact, in the first three centuries of Christianity, we have no direct evidence of an ordination ceremony.

Now I realize very humbly that on this human life journey we do learn new things, by being open to the knowledge and insights of other people. Being open-minded, we need to continually adjust our understandings and beliefs.

Being an open-minded believer truly enriches a person’s life. I can think of seven ways, but I am sure there are more:

• Open mindfulness enables one to explore and discover. Being an open minded person allows one to experience new ideas and fresh thoughts that stimulate personal growth as they challenge old visions, understandings, and beliefs. It can be a very liberating look at one’s contemporary world through an open mind. Remember Paul in First Corinthians: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I put the ways of childhood behind me.”

• Open mindfulness promotes personal change and transformation. Opening our minds to new ideas allows us the opportunity to change what we think as well as change our view of the world. This does not mean one will necessarily change basic beliefs. It does mean one has to be open and respectful to people with differing perspectives. We work together. We must work together.
• Open mindfulness makes oneself vulnerable. This is scarier. In agreeing to have an open-minded view of the world, we acknowledge we do not know everything. We accept that there are possibilities we may not have considered. This vulnerability can be both terrifying and exhilarating. The jar is either half full or half empty. It depends on one’s perspective. I prefer to say that it is only half full.
• Open mindfulness helps one see and acknowledge personal mistakes. With an open mind one begins to see things from others’ perspectives. One can recognize the mistakes one has made. From time to time, we all fail and fall. The challenge is to acknowledge it and then get back up again and continue the journey, anchored in the virtues of Christian humility and courage
• Open mindfulness strengthens oneself and gives stability. It presents a platform upon which a person can build, putting one idea on top of another. With an open mind, one learns about new things; and one uses innovative ideas to build on old ideas. In my field we call this ongoing theological development. Dangerous stuff for the old guard ecclesiastics. Nevertheless, everything a woman or a man or a child experiences adds up. It strengthens who one is and what one believes. Note well: It is extremely hard to build on experiences without having an open mind.
• Open mindfulness helps one gain confidence. When a person really lives with an open mind, he or she develops a stronger sense of self. One can respect and appreciate but is no longer confined by the beliefs of others. Then the respectful dialogue can and should begin….
• Open mindfulness promotes self-honesty. Being open-minded means admitting that one is not all-knowing. Even if one is an older theologian! Whatever “truth” one holds, each person must realize that the underlying reality in its depth has more to it than anyone realizes. This understanding creates a sense of honesty that characterizes anyone who lives with an open mind.

For some people, being open-minded is easy. It seems to come as effortlessly as breathing. For others, having an open mind can be a challenge. But for anyone who wants to travel the road of life, it is essential. We remember the words of Jesus, in John 8:32, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

– Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick — Historical Theologian

Email: john.dick@kuleuven.be

 

On a peaceful summer afternoon recently, the noise pollution really hit me. We had sunshine after what seemed like a month of rainy days. Then suddenly one neighbor began mowing his yard with a very noisy lawn mower. Another was in his backyard with the radio playing loudly. And another began to saw and pound boards in his backyard. I laughed and thought “oh for the rainy days of peace and quiet.”

Ubiquitous noise works insidiously. It not only raises our blood pressure but contributes to anxiety, stress, and nervousness. It closes our minds to contemplative experiences. But along with noise, hyperactive busyness characterizes much of our contemporary life. People today feel guilty if they are not rushing from place to place, working on projects at home, multitasking, and constantly connecting via cellphone, texting, and social media. If the power goes off, life becomes suddenly strange and disconnected.

A friend said we need a rediscovery of reflective contemplative moments. We need to control our noise pollution, clear our schedules for more free time, and reduce our cyber connectedness. The more receptive, contemplative, and inwardly quiet we become, the more open and attentive we become to the deeper vibrations in Reality. I would call that deeper contemplative awareness spirituality. I remember the words of Martin Luther King Jr. in his 1963 book Strength to Love: “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.”

Contemplative moments open us to an experience of the Sacred which we describe in several words: our experience of the Transcendent, the Ground of Being, and of course our experience of God.

This week, therefore, a reflection about God from a master of contemplative wisdom whom I greatly respect: Richard Rohr (born 1943) a Franciscan friar in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He posted this on his website a few years ago but it rings true today. I have now known Richard since the early 1970s and have occasionally collaborated with him. On July 1, 2022, Pope Francis met with him and expressed support for his work. Later that year, Richard announced he would step back from public ministry following a lymphoma diagnosis. On May 9, 2023, he announced that he was now officially on the Core Faculty Emeritus at the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque.

Richard’s Reflection:

“It takes a long time for us to allow God to be who God really is. Our natural egocentricity wants to make God into who we want or need God to be. It is the role of the prophet to keep people free for God. But at the same time, it is the responsibility of the prophet to keep God free for people. This is also the role of good theology, and why we still need good theology even though it sometimes gets heady. If God is always mystery, then God is always on some level the unfamiliar, beyond what we are used to, beyond our comfort zone, beyond what we can explain or understand….

“The First Commandment says that we are not supposed to make any images of God or to worship them. At first glance, we may think this deals only with handmade likenesses of God. But it mostly refers to images of God that we hold in our heads. God created human beings in God’s own image, and we have returned the compliment, so to speak creating God in our image. In the end we produced what was typically a tribal God. In America, God looks like Uncle Sam or Santa Claus, or in any case a white Anglo-Saxon male, even though it says in Genesis 1:27 that “God created humankind in God’s own image; male and female God created them.” That clearly says that God cannot be strictly or merely masculine.

“Normally we find it very difficult to let God be a God who is greater than our culture, our immediate needs, and our projections. The human ego wants to keep things firmly in its grasp; and so, we have created a God who fits into our small systems and our understanding of God.

“Thus, we have required a God who likes to play war just as much as we do, and a domineering God because we like to dominate.

“We have almost completely forgotten and ignored what Jesus revealed about the nature of the God he knew. If Jesus is the ‘image of the invisible God’ (Colossians 1:15) then God is nothing like we expected. Jesus is in no sense a potentate or a patriarch, but the very opposite, one whom John the Baptist calls ‘a lamb of a God.’ (John 1:29).”

•  Jack

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Right now, of course, especially in the less than under 70 days until the next U.S. presidential election, people are watching political trends across the United States. I am as well. But today my Another Voice focus is about U.S. religious trends.

For many years, my academic and professional focus has been religion and values in U.S. society. As a contemporary U.S. American, I try to be very attentive to trends and developments. I pay especially close attention to publications from two research organizations: the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C. a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world; and the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a U.S. nonpartisan research and education organization also in Washington, D.C., that provides information about religious, political, and social issues for all 50 states. And of course, I am in regular contact with many U.S. colleagues and researchers.

The Pew Research Center and PRRI point to the following contemporary U.S. religion and values trends.

(1)        The religiously “unaffiliated” — also called “nones” – form the only major religious category experiencing growth in the United States. Around one-quarter of U.S. Americans (26%) identified as religiously unaffiliated in 2023.

(2)        The U.S. Catholic loss in membership, continues to be the highest membership decline among major religious groups. Catholics continue to lose more members than they gain.

(3)        White mainline/non-evangelical Protestants, however, also continue losing more members than they replace.

(4)        Since 2023, white evangelical Protestants, on the other hand, have one of the highest retention rates of all U.S. religious groups (76%).

(5)        Black Protestants (82%) and Jewish Americans (77%) enjoy the highest retention rates of all U.S. religious groups.

(6)        Most unaffiliated U.S. adults today are not looking for a new religious or spiritual home. The vast majority of the religiously unaffiliated appear content to stay that way. Only 9% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say the statement “I am looking for a religion that would be right for me” currently describes them very or somewhat well.

(7)        Currently 24% of U.S. Americans attended religious services, either virtually or in person, at least once a week, a 7-percentage point decline from 31% in 2013. Two decades ago, an average of 42% of U.S. adults attended religious services every week.

I have always been intrigued by generational differences. I am especially interested in the religious values and social views of Generation Z and their impact on Generation Alpha. But it would be helpful, first, to understand who belongs to the various generations and what characterizes them.

 

People laugh when I say I belong to the “Silent Generation,” but the generational categories look like this:

–        Silent Generation – People born 1928 to 1945

–        Baby Boom Generation – People born 1946 to 1964

–        Generation X – People born 1965 to 1980

–        Generation Y – People born 1981 to 1996

–        Generation Z – People born 1997 to 2010

–        Generation Alpha – People born 2010 to 2024

Now a bit of explanation…

THE SILENT GENERATION:

     The Silent Generation were children of the Great Depression, whose parents had enjoyed living in the Roaring Twenties. But before reaching their teens, the Silent Generation shared with their parents the horrors of World War II. Many lost their fathers or older siblings who died in the war. They saw the fall of Nazism but also the catastrophic devastation made capable by nuclear bombs. The Silent Generation focused on “working within the system.” They did this by keeping their heads down and working hard, thus earning for themselves the “silent” label. Religion was especially important for the Silent Generation. Speaking extemporaneously on December 22, 1952, a month before his inauguration, President Dwight Eisenhower (1890 – 1969) said: “Our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” In 1955, the Jewish theologian and sociologist Will Herberg (1906 – 1977) published Protestant, Catholic, Jew. He argued that the United States had become a “three religion country,” where religious commitments mattered more than ethnic ones, and that, despite irreconcilable religious differences, U.S. Americans together formed a kind of U.S. “common religion.” On July 30, 1956, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution declaring ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ the national motto of the United States.

BABY BOOM GENERATION:

     In Europe and North America, many boomers came of age in a time of increasing affluence and widespread government subsidies in postwar housing and education. They grew up genuinely expecting the world to improve with time. The United States was in the midst of social, religious, and political upheaval when the Baby Boomers were reaching young adulthood. The Baby Boomers were the last generation to be routinely baptized, confirmed and taken regularly to mainstream religious activities.

GENERATION X:

     As children in the 1970s and 1980s, a time of shifting societal values, Generation X has called the “latchkey generation” stemming from their returning as children from school to an empty home and needing to use a key to let themselves in. This was a result of what “free-range parenting,” plus increasing divorce rates, and increased maternal participation in the workforce. Video games were also a major part of juvenile entertainment for the first time. In their midlife during the early 21st century, research describes Generation X as active, happy, and achieving a productive work–life balance. According to Pew Research, 70% of Generation X identify as Christian. Only 7% are atheists/agnostics, but 23% identify as “nones.”

GENERATION Y:

     Members of this demographic cohort are known as Millennials because the oldest became adults around the turn of the millennium. Generation Y has proven to be incredibly community-oriented and environmentally conscious. They are leading the movement in helping gender non-conforming kids to be happy with who they are. They are taking a freer approach to parenting, allowing their children to explore and create without constant structure or supervision. Generation Y, the “Millennials,” are the ‘spiritual but not religious’ generation. I recommend the fascinating 2019 book edited by Justine Afra Huxley Generation Y, Spirituality and Social Change. (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, Philadelphia)

GENERATION Z:

    Following Generation Y, Generation Z is the first social generation to have grown up with access to the Internet and portable digital technology from an early age. Generation Z teenagers are more concerned than older generations with academic performance and job prospects and are better at delaying gratification than their counterparts from the 1960s. Two-thirds of Generation Zers are somewhat religious, but this includes 10% who identify as white evangelical Protestants, followed by 9% Hispanic Catholic, 8% white mainline/non-evangelical Protestant, 7% Black Protestant, 7% white Catholic, and 6% Hispanic Protestant. They are the first generation in history in which the “nones” clearly outnumber the Christians. The parents of millennials and Generation Z young people did less to encourage regular participation in formal worship services and typical religious behaviors in their children than did earlier generations. Many religious activities that were once common, such as saying grace before meals, became more the exception than the norm.

GENERATION ALPHA:

     Generation Alpha is the demographic cohort succeeding Generation Z. Named after alpha, the first letter in the Greek alphabet, Generation Alpha is the first to be born entirely in the 21st century and the third millennium. Generation Alpha people were born at a time of falling fertility rates across much of the world and experienced the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic as young children.

When I think about Generation Alpha, I am not pessimistic but appreciate the observation of my favorite poet T. S. Eliot (1888 – 1965): “For last year’s words belong to last year’s language. And next year’s words await another voice. And to make an end is to make a beginning.” For Christian pastoral leaders, Generation Alpha will be the great challenge to speak meaningfully about beliefs, values, and Christian life experience. More about that next week.

–        Jack

 

Dr. John Alonzo Dick – Historical Theologian

Email: john.dick@kuleuven.be

 

In the past few months, I have picked up several new readers. I am very happy about that of course. Many have asked me to explain my focus on “historical theology.” People who have been with me for a few years, please bear with me if I am repeating some earlier explanations. I do try to update even old explanations.

Describing myself I would say I am an “historical critical theologian.” To understand what I mean, one needs to think about what we call “historical criticism.”

HISTORICAL CRITICISM:

        Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries. The primary goal of historical criticism has been to discover a text’s original meaning in its original historical context. This requires examining the historical context of the author and of those for whom the text was written.

When examining a text, questions arise. Is the text describing an actual historical event or using symbols and creative images to describe a mythological or presumed historic event? The account about Adam and Eve, according to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, is a good example. Nearly every ancient culture told its own set of creation myths, and they share a remarkable number of similarities, including key elements of the Adam and Eve story: humans fashioned from clay, a trickster figure who subverts the gods’ plans for creation, and a woman taking the blame for sin and pain.

Another good example of creative biblical imagery about an actual historic person is found in the Infancy Narratives in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. The Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown (1928 – 1998), in his book The Birth of the Messiah, stresses that the Infancy Narratives are imaginative literary products, created by the early Christian community primarily to express its belief about the historic Jesus as “Son of God.”

HISTORICAL CRITICISM AND TRANSLATIONS

        In historical criticism, a close examination of textual translations is important as well. Are translations faithful to the original text? In my professional development, I had to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. I did alright in Hebrew but excelled in Greek and Latin. I learned very early, however, that translations from one language to another can sometimes be very problematic, especially when translators use a contemporary word to translate an ancient word. A good example – there are many actually — is the way biblical translators have translated Pontius Pilate’s inscription on Jesus’ cross.

The famous INRI is an abbreviation for the Latin words Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. (The letter “J” did not exist back then. It wasn’t invented until 1524 thanks to Gian Giorgio Trissino, an Italian Renaissance grammarian.) The word Iudaeorum means “of the Judeans.” However, it has too often been incorrectly translated as “of the Jews.” And so, we have inherited the absolutely erroneous translation which has greatly contributed to ignorance and antisemitism. The word “Jew,” did not enter the English language until the twelfth century. There were no “Jews” in the first century. The religion was the Hebrew religion. In the Bible we find Hebrews, Israelites, and Judeans, but never “Jews.” The correct translation is “Jesus of Nazareth King of the Judeans.” The historical Jesus (Iēsous in Greek and Iesus in Latin) was a Hebrew. His Hebrew name was Yeshua, which is a derivative from the Hebrew verb meaning “to rescue” or “to deliver.”

FAITH IS AN EXPERIENCE:

        Historical critical theologians focus on interpretations of faith. Faith is an experience. In the faith experience people have an experience of the Divine, often described under various names: God, Creator, Father, Mother, Allah, the Ground of Being, etc. To be open to the faith experience, we need quiet and reflective time. Faith and belief are not the same thing.

BELIEF:

        Belief is the attempt to put into words the meaning of our faith experience. Belief is really theology which is “faith seeking understanding.” Theological understandings – statements of belief — can end up as official teachings (doctrines) when religious institutional leadership judges them useful guidelines for Christian life. But it is important to remember that all doctrinal statements are time-bound, because language and understandings are time-bound. All doctrinal statements therefore are provisional until a better expression comes along.

 

SUGGESTIONS FOR THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION TODAY:

(1) I suggest first of all that we think of “church” not as an institution but as a community of faith-experiencing believers. What is happening within your own community of believers? What are the key issues and concerns? What does it mean for you and for your friends to experience God today? Where do you and they find your support?

 (2) In the first three centuries of Christianity, we have no direct evidence of what would later be called an ordination ceremony. The historical Jesus did not ordain anyone at the Last Supper. He probably had no understanding of ordination. By the end of the third century, however, Christianity had a clear organizational structure headed by presbyters, from the Greek word for “elder” presbyteros; supervisor-overseers, called epískopoi in Greek; and deacons. (In the tenth century, our English word “bishop” evolved from the Latin word episcopus.)

(3) Initiation into the three orders was accomplished through a rite of ordination that inducted a person into a local office in a particular community. Ordination was introduced as a kind of quality control to assure communities that the women and men who were their leaders were trustworthy and faith-filled leaders. As my theological mentor, Edward Schillebeeckx (1914 to 2009), often said, “You led the liturgy because you were the leader of the people. You didn’t lead the liturgy because you were ordained to have the power of consecration.” (Prof. Schillebeeckx had a big impact on my life. Unlike other theologians, he did not view this modern world, with its secularization, as a loss or threat. On the contrary, he saw in it as a new opportunity to live Christianity authentically, creatively, and meaningfully today.)

 (4) Let’s scratch our heads about new forms of ministry and break out of the old patterns and paradigms. I have often thought over the years that many of my theology graduate students, regardless of sex or gender, would make excellent ministers in the university parish. Why not be creative with ordination. If ordination is desired, could it not be for say five years, with possibility of renewal for a few more years? Does it have to be life-long? Why not divide local parishes into neighborhood communities under several part-time ordained ministers, who are also professional people in the larger community, doctors, teachers, electricians, etc. How about electing bishops for a limited ministerial term office? Say five years and a renewal of a second five-year term possible after a positive performance appraisal.

(5) Healthy Christianity is rooted in being a healthy follower of the Way of Jesus. So, what does it really mean to be a follower of Jesus Christ today? Early Christians understood Jesus as the revelation of God’s graciousness and love. And they understood that Incarnation involves all of us. As Jesus says in Luke 10:16, “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Our humanity is anchored in divinity, whether people realize it or not.

(6) We need to change our conversation. Changing the conversation means moving from lots of talk and talk to making lots of real changes. We need to be creative and courageous change agents, realizing that change rarely comes from the top. In my Catholic tradition, for example, change usually starts at the grassroots level. People see the need and make the change. The old pattern is proven historically: (1) change is made; (2) change is condemned by church leadership; (3) change endures; (4) leadership allows the change as a limited “experiment;” (5) change becomes more widespread; (6) and finally church leadership allows it as “part of our tradition.”

 …

Creative and critical reflection is not a dangerous activity, and it can be a source of life, because it brings a new focus, a new conversation, a new change, and new life. That is the focus of historical theologians. At least the historical theologians I resonate with.

– Jack

John A. Dick, Ph.D. – Historical Theologian

Email: john.dick@kuleuven.be