LSP49: Humanity's Search for Meaning in the 2016 U.S. Election

Addendum posted January 3, 2024: Because of recent changes in how individuals tend to read online posts and use -- or rather, misuse -- posts (by taking bits and pieces out of context and using catchy phrases to support their personal crusades), I want to say right up front, before you get to the paragraphs I wrote in November 2016, that I do not support former President Donald Trump in any way on any topic. Nor am I likely to ever change my mind. He is a coward -- a bullying, narcissistic, selfish coward.

In 2016, I didn't have the evidence to support or condone a flat out, across the board denunciation of the personality and policies of Donald Trump. But since the January 6, 2021 violence on Capitol Hill, Trump has, through his own words and actions, provided abundant proof about the kind of man he really is. Today, I wouldn't vote for him if he were the last person in Christendom.

Following this addendum is the post I originally wrote over seven years ago. You can decide for yourself whether Trump believes he's been elevated to the status of God.

_____________________________________________________

No one was more surprised than I when I woke up on the morning of the 2016 U.S. election to discover my vote was going to Trump.

I should quickly explain that I'm Canadian, so I couldn't actually vote, but, like so many others outside the U.S., I was carefully watching the primaries and the election.This election seemed somehow different from U.S. elections of the past. It had little to do with typical issues such as budget priorities, foreign policy, or health care reform. It was, for all intents and purposes, a debate about the soul--not, as you might imagine, the Soul of America (a sweeping phrase that aims to capture the self image of a nation) or the soul as a metaphor for righteousness and moral relativism (in other words, a justification for just about anything) but the actual permanent inner soul of individual human voters.Yes, that kind of soul.

You don't hear the word "soul" used much these days except in limited contexts. "Soul" in its core meaning of non-Materialist continuing consciousness has become an embarrassment in our society. Even those who profess faith in God are often reluctant to acknowledge the soul outside the strict limits of theology and religious doctrine. Excuses abound. We say the soul can't be seen, so it's superstitious nonsense (though we now run our lives on unseen wireless networks). We say the soul is part of a harmful dualistic body-soul paradigm we no longer accept (though we doggedly embrace many other dualisms that fly in the face of quantum weirdness and we ignore the complex, interfolded, universal energy systems we still know so little about). We say the soul is a religious idea, so the idea must be suspect because sometimes religious people do bad things (though non-religious people do bad things all the time and we don't discard every useful contribution made over the centuries by the non-religious among us). We say the soul, even if we do have one, must be greatly inferior to the human mind, since, after all, any sensible person can see for him/herself what the human mind can accomplish.

Yet the story of the human mind is far more complicated than most of us can imagine, and what we've seen in the recent U.S. election is the reality of the human mind writ large. It's a story about how we use our free will, how we make our choices, how we find our inner courage, and how we learn to balance both Happiness and Meaning in our daily lives as human beings.

Many people aren't yet fully aware of recent research into the intricate workings of the human brain. It's a vast topic, of course, and the avalanche of new findings seems overwhelming at times. Eat this, don't eat this. Do this exercise, don't do this exercise. Always stay positive, don't always stay positive. Go to church, don't go to church. Admittedly, it's very confusing, especially since many people assume there's one simple pathway amidst all the confusion that will lead us (if we do it right) to excellent health, longevity, status, success, romance, and, above all, Happiness.

Except there isn't one simple pathway and there never has been.

The biological brain of human beings isn't wired to seek only one pathway. There are actually two main paradigms or operating systems working side by side in the brain from the time of birth till the time of death. It's a theory about the brain called, among other things, Dual Process Theory, and it's based on observations about the priorities and contributions of different networks within the brain and central nervous system.

With the cautious restraint of scientific language, these two different systems have been labelled System 1 and System 2 (which always makes me think of Thing 1 and Thing 2 in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story The Cat in the Hat). System 2 aligns closely with our current understanding of the human mind's best qualities. Its priorities are logic, rules, status, analytic reasoning, algorithmic models, predictable results, and short-term rewards and sensations of pleasure (Happiness), all of which are most definitely necessary for biological survival in human societies. System 2 processing systems are newer to the brain in evolutionary terms. In the Big 5 model of personality traits, System 2 is linked to agreeableness and neuroticism.

The other processing system, called System 1, is much older in evolutionary terms and is linked to empathy, faith, emotional cognition, intuition, creativity, sexuality, calculation of complex systems using differential calculus and non-linear quantum flow rates, along with long-term rewards and delayed gratification (Meaning and Soul). These are the human gifts so necessary to a sense of safety and "heart" in interpersonal relationships. In the Big 5 model, System 1 is linked to conscientiousness, openness to experience, and extraversion.

What the human brain is wired for, and what it constantly strives for, is some semblance of balance between these two different yet equally important processing systems. In recent decades, however, our society has been creeping closer and closer to an imbalanced System 2 cultural narrative, one in which the short-term needs of Happiness take constant precedence over the longer-term needs of System 1 Meaning. This imbalance, I believe, is the root cause of the tension we were all sensing in the run-up to the 2016 election.

If you break down this photo into small pieces, you can logically explain the physics, chemistry, and biology of each small piece: how lakes freeze, how sunlight reaches the Earth, how clouds fill the sky. That's the System 2 approach. What you can't define logically when you look at the whole picture is the the knowledge of God's presence. System 1 looks past the logic to see beauty, hope, and wonder -- all "big picture" emotions that lend Meaning to our lives. Photo credit JAT 2021.

The brain's System 2 pathways, enamoured of rules and logic and Happiness, have a most unfortunate tendency to throw the whole brain under the bus of identity politics. Boiled down to its essence, identity politics is the belief that if you follow the cause-and-effect pathway of rights, you'll reach your goal of personal and societal perfection without the need to impose any responsibilities on your citizens. This pathway of rights is based on a series of either-or/black-or-white algorithms.  What inevitably follows from this approach, however, is not empathy for others or common sense fairness, but an addiction within the brain to "saviour" paradigms. The "saviours" are the small number of righteous people who, according to themselves, are the only ones who can be trusted to understand the algorithm of Happiness properly. These are the ideologues who try to bully everyone else into accepting the "truths" of identity politics, and who adamantly believe the rest of us are just boobs too uneducated/racially biased/gender biased/historically biased to look at the picture from the "correct" System 2 angle. And, of course, there's only one correct angle as far as the algorithm is concerned. But only an ingrate would turn down the fine gift of salvation for all, n'est-ce pas?

It just seems so darned logical to a System-2-dominated brain that human beings can be forced to be Happy and forced to have empathy for each other through legislation. And to a certain point, it's true. A nation needs clear rules to protect human rights, which do, indeed, help create Happiness. But at the same time, a nation needs equally clear rules to protect human responsibilities and the human need for interpersonal Meaning (as Dr. Viktor Frankl, author of Man's Search for Meaning, so wisely recognized during his time as a WWII concentration camp inmate). You can't build a nation on the pursuit of Happiness alone. Happiness is sometimes colossally stupid, and it needs to be slowed down and reined in by the non-linear insights and sense of purpose that come only from Meaning. (Needless to say, our society's addiction to fast-paced technology and social media isn't helping this issue.)

Greek philosophers asked many questions about how to create a moral society, and some of their answers are still with us today. Although it's not often acknowledged, the flourishing of philosophical, political, and scientific inquiry in ancient Greece was probably due in part to their deep respect for the arts -- their respect for poets, sculptors, musicians, and architects. Development of the brain's System 1 circuits depends heavily on lifelong exposure to all facets of creativity and the arts, and such development enhances creativity in more logical fields, such as science and medicine. This Roman bust, which copied a Hellenistic bust of the 2nd to 3rd century BCE, may have been the head of a specific person, perhaps an ivy-crowned poet. On display at the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

The need for balance between rights and responsibilities is where System 2 thinking collapses under the weight of its own certainty. When emotionally nuanced impulses from System 1 circuits are consistently suppressed (especially moral thoughts related to guilt, sense of personal responsibility, right and wrong choices, and empathy for others), the principles of neuroplasticity dictate that the brain will eventually rewire itself to favour input from System 2 thought processes. At a practical level, System 2's agreeableness, aided by its neuroticism, wind around each other to create an almost unbreakable chain of denial, collusion, lack of courage, lack of honesty, and malignant self-righteousness. At first it looks like a very reasoned form of morality where no one's feelings ever get hurt. But eventually its dualistic nature is revealed, and relationships devolve into plagues of sugary-sweet niceness (agreeableness) countered by tides of vicious trolling and bullying (neuroticism), with only small scraps in the middle that look like common sense, respect for others, or faith in something other than our own exceptionalism. The inner soul, which is nothing if not empathetic, complains constantly of these injustices, but the System 2 circuits have stopped listening. It's the very definition of denial.

In addition, System 2's unwholesome dominance can lead it to assume it has the power to "save" everyone who's wasting their time on old-fashioned moral traits such as humbleness, emotional courage, patience, meaning, and soul intuition. It makes the mistake of believing that when the human mind builds pure Happiness, everything else will fall into place according to some vast cosmic Materialist law. It logically preaches that Meaning and soul will be proven redundant and human progress will finally achieve apotheosis. Simple as that.

The 2016 U.S. election suggests that almost half the American populace isn't buying into this bread-and-circuses illusion of Happiness. They may not know exactly why they aren't happy, or why they want to vote for a man who is demonstrably imbalanced much of the time. But perhaps, like me, they just can't stomach one more minute of the suffocating contempt so many now show toward the parts of ourselves that make us most human and most capable of love: our System 1 processes.

I was rooting for Trump not because I like the way he treats other people (I don't like his behaviour at all), but because I like Clinton's saviour complex even less. It remains to be seen whether Trump can find the balance within himself to forge policies that honour both rights and responsibilities, System 2 and System 1 perspectives, Happiness and Meaning. If he's able to find the courage to do this, I have no doubt his soul will rejoice.

In the meantime, I toast all those Americans who want some respect for the other half of their brains.

_____________________________

Addendum posted January 13. 2021: It's been a bit over 4 years since I wrote this post, and, during this time, a lot has changed. The entire world has been dealing with the unexpected travails of the novel coronavirus we call COVID-19. And the United States has again struggled with an election where a man named Donald Trump has forced a debate about the soul.

I'm writing this addendum on the day the U.S. House of Representatives is going to vote on a motion to impeach Trump for inciting insurrection. I hope the vote succeeds.

Over the past four years, Trump has shown with increasing clarity that he has no courage. He doesn't have the courage to listen to his own soul, let alone the souls of millions of Americans who needed a courageous leader during the 2020 pandemic, but instead found themselves saddled with someone who could only think about his own loss of Happiness when he lost the fall election.

On the plus side, people from both the Democratic and Republican parties have been appalled by the barrage of lies spewed by Trump and his closest supporters, lies that directly incited violence on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. America has been forced to see the ugly side of rhetoric, personality cults, and dualistic political mongering -- all negative aspects of System 2 when left unchecked by System 1.

It's a lesson we all should have learned from 20th century history, but apparently we needed a refresher. 

 

LSP48: Parable of the Rift-Sawn Wood

Parable of the Rift-Sawn Wood
 

The ticket window of King Station as seen from the ticket master's side (King City, Ontario). According to the historical plaque, King Station, first built in about 1852, is the oldest surviving train station in Canada. It's built entirely of wood, though some sections have been repaired, as seen here. Photo credit JAT 2016.

 
Once upon a time, there was a judge who lived in a small community. Although the judge had no particular claim to either humble kingship or wise judgeship (his training having been in other disciplines altogether), no error of word or grammar or logic or math could escape his perfect eye. Flaws in the words of others shone forth as brightly to him as the sun in the noonday sky, and so, over time, he became a protector of sorts, demonstrating to his little flock the dangers of ill-proved words. He took pride in his calling as upholder of the One True Truth.

One day, during a harsh drought, he decided to build a wooden courthouse at the top of the hill so his humility, stability, and permanence could be draw others into the fold of the One True Truth. This, he was certain, would help them cope during their travails.

“I will build a courthouse to rival the halls of Solomon,” he said with unwavering dedication. “Those who enter will find only justice. But,” he continued, “the courthouse must mirror to everyone the perfection and permanence of my judgments, so every piece of wood you bring to me must be sawn so the blade runs perpendicular to the rings of springwood and summerwood. These planks are the purest and strongest. No others will do for our courthouse. Discard all the rest.”

Each piece of wood was brought to the judge for his inspection. He turned each plank this way and that, peering at the rings from all directions, seeking only those boards that mirrored the timeless alternating pattern of springwood and summerwood, springwood and summerwood. He chose each piece with exceeding care.

As the floor and pillars of the courthouse slowly grew, so too did the piles of discards at the base of the hill. In one pile lay the boards that showed small knots, for the judge found evidence of branching deeply troubling and not at all reflective of humility. In a second pile lay the boards and burls that showed curved lines or cupped profiles or uneven grains, for the judge found irregular patterns toxic to his quest for stability. In a third pile, which was by far the largest, lay heaps of tangled roots and rugged, timeworn chunks of bark, for the judge found these ugly and unusable in a courthouse constructed to honour the teachings of the One True Truth.

At last all the trees in a wide radius had been cut down and the courthouse was complete. The judge nodded in satisfaction at his unobstructed view. The building was perfect, right down to the bold name Justice chiselled throughout. But it needed one final touch. This he accomplished himself. In the very centre of the structure, he placed a raised swivel chair upon which he could turn in every direction to see approaching newcomers. Each word they spoke, each point of logic they raised, came easily to his eyes, and made him shake his head in sadness when he saw the knots and burls and roots they carried. According to his duty, he took all newcomers on a tour of his courthouse, patiently showed them the perfection of his planks, and, though it pained him to do so, eventually sent each one away in tears to seek unblemished pieces of the One True Truth.                               

One autumn day, after a particularly cold, wet spring, and an even colder, wetter summer that had ended the drought, one of the judge’s followers came rushing in. “Sire,” said the follower (for his followers admired him and thought his mastery over words and logic made him wiser than Solomon), “sire, the rains have caused a terrible mudslide. The rain has poured down the hill and taken all the soil with it. A dangerous river, filled with rampaging branches and roots, has suddenly materialized. The town has been swept away. The roads are destroyed. The fall crops are gone. There is nothing to eat. You and I are the last survivors.”

The judge nodded sadly but wisely. “It was meant to be, my faithful friend. There’s nothing we could have done to prevent this tragedy.”

“What will we do?” said the follower. “How will we survive?”

The judge thought long and hard for several minutes. The answer came to him in a flash of brilliant light, the same flash he always saw when he studied the impoverished words of others. “We’ll take the wood from the courthouse and build ourselves a raft. We’ll travel. We’ll teach. We’ll save. You and I have been blessed with survival because we alone understand the meaning of the One True Truth, which is pure permanence from pure impermanence, pure freedom from pure determinism, pure justice from pure logic.”

The follower happily obeyed, and soon pillars and lintels had been torn down and refashioned into a raft. In many places, the word Justice peered up at them from the perfectly sawn planks.

“What shall we call our raft now that it’s finished?” said the follower. “Shall we call it Justice?”

“I think not,” said the judge. “You and I have transcended the simple justice of this courthouse. From this moment on, we will name our craft after the greatest law of universal determinism. We will call it . . . Mercy.”

LSP47: Affirming Ministries and the Curious Case from Mark

Here in Canada, many church congregations are asking themselves whether they want to become an Affirming Ministry, which, in the words of the United Church of Canada, means "ministries [that] declare, in words and actions, that God loves and accepts people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender." This is an important step on the journey of transforming the church from its roots in righteousness to its blossoming in God's love. But, as with any long journey where a lot of people are asked to walk together in the same direction, more or less, there are major disagreements and a whole host of new questions. Are we sure Affirmation is the right path? If God wants us to do this, why hasn't God left us a map? Why can't it be simple? Why can't it be clear cut?  What about Jesus?  Did he say anything about Affirmation?  Would he say anything about Affirmation?
 
For many congregations, the question of Affirming Ministries is a difficult and confusing issue.  Individuals must wrestle with complex questions about who we are as unique human beings, who we are as members of families,communities, churches, and who we are as children of God. Sometimes, in these discussions, our deepest beliefs emerge, and we can find ourselves alternately pleased and dismayed at our own inner reactions. All on the same day!

At a time such as this, I think it can be helpful to consider what Jesus said to us about a different but equally important matter.  It's sort of a "peripheral vision" technique.  When we stare and stare right at the middle of the Affirming Ministry question, sometimes all we can see is the main black and white issue.  But if we let ourselves see with our peripheral vision, too, where things are kind of blurry, but also much wider in scope, then sometimes we can see the bigger picture a bit more clearly.  I think this is something Jesus did, something he tried to teach others to do.  He tried to help others see God not only in the central issues but also in everything around us.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Mark's portrayal of Jesus as a physician scholar who was way ahead of his time in his understanding of what causes illness.

We forget, sitting in our comfortable, modern homes with access to a full range of modern diagnostic tools and medical interventions, that once upon a time -- during the time when Jesus lived, in fact -- the prevailing model for understanding neurological and psychiatric conditions was demonology.  Demons were thought to cause medical disorders such as epilepsy.

Not everyone believed this, of course.  Certain schools of philosophy and science had long been working on the idea of healing as a form of science.  But, for the most part, diseases were blamed on divine causes.  People went to priests, magicians, oracles, and holy men to find out which god or demi-god had been offended and what steps had to be taken to settle the debt and make things right again with the divine.  This was big business, and a lot of money was made by those who claimed to be gatekeepers for healing and exorcism.

The Gospel of Mark includes several fascinating stories that mention demons and spirits.  Even today, people tend to interpret these passages in Mark as proof that Jesus followed the lead of others in believing that demons were the cause of neurological disorders.

I won't go into all the background reasons for why I think this interpretation of Mark cuts out some of the very best and most helpful insights into Jesus' teachings, but I'd like to draw your attention to the curious passage in Mark 9:14-29 about the healing of the epileptic child.

It's quite a strange story to include in the middle of a religious narrative.  It's also a bit of muddle to us today.  If you read it carefully, it seems as if the author isn't sure how to describe what happens when a distraught parent brings his epileptic son to Jesus for healing.  The descriptions seem part medical science -- "whenever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid", which is medically accurate -- and part religious invocation -- "he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, 'you spirit that keeps this boy from speaking and hearing, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again.'"

To our ears, it sounds as if Jesus believes there's a demon inside the boy that can be exorcised.  But when you read the passage in its original Greek, you see some shades of meaning that aren't obvious to our English-speaking ears.  For starters, the usual Greek words for "demon" aren't used in the story of the epileptic boy.  Each time the spirit is described, the Greek word is a cognate of pneuma.  And pneuma is one of those tricky words in Greek that can mean a lot of different things, including breath, wind, spirit, disposition (as in personal characteristics) -- and sometimes a spirit with evil tendencies, though not always.  I think it's quite possible that Mark was using the word pneuma to describe a "force" that's real and tangible inside the head, even if we can't see it with our physical eyes -- the way breath and wind are strong forces that can't be seen directly with our eyes but are very real and measurable nonetheless.

It's Jesus' understanding of this real but unseen force inside the head (what we know today are abnormal cortical events causing seizures) that leads him to treat the boy and his family in ways that would have been unthinkable for most religious scholars of the time, whether Jewish or Hellenistic or Mithraic.  It's Jesus' understanding of the boy's condition as a scientific matter that leads him to ask the same kinds of questions a doctor would ask today: "What are his symptoms? When did they first start? How can we treat this right here and right now?"

Detail of "Christ Washing His Disciples' Feet" by Jacopo Tintoretto, about 1545-1555, on display at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Photo credit JAT 2018.

 We tend not to notice what Jesus doesn't say to the boy and his family.  Jesus never judges them.  He never says to them, "What did you do to deserve this?  How did you offend God?  How did your parents and your parents' parents offend God?  What sacrifices have you offered at the Temple to remedy your offenses?  What have you done to restore your purity?"

Jesus asks none of these questions.  He says only that it's a matter of faith and prayer.  And after he treats the boy as a person, and asks the right medical questions, and performs some sort of healing treatment (though we're not sure what), and stays with the boy as he convulses to the point of appearing dead to everyone in the crowd, Jesus does the most remarkable thing of all.

Jesus, a Jew, doesn't step away from the body, the body from whom the spirit or pneuma appears to have departed.  Jesus doesn't step away from the corpse to protect his own ritual purity (which would have been considered religiously appropriate at that time and in that place).  Instead, he moves even closer to the boy, taking him by the hand, lifting him up till he's able to stand, and (we infer) returning him to his father's care.

For Jesus, no one was unworthy of God's love and healing, despite what those around him said.  In first century Palestine, with its blend of Hellenistic and Jewish cultural norms, an epileptic child would have been considered a blemish, a punishment, a valid reason to revoke some or all of the family's "honour and status" and treat them as unworthy, little better than the dogs who eat the crumbs from under the table.  Today, we'd never dream of doing this.  But in Jesus' time, it was the norm to marginalize whole families simply because one member was sick and needed proper treatment.

It's interesting to note that although Jesus goes around the Galilee and the Decapolis to assess and treat many kinds of illnesses and neurological disorders, he's never once shown by Mark as trying to heal or "fix" somebody's sexual orientation.  It's pretty clear Jesus is keen on monogamy.  It's also pretty clear Jesus is keen on people not committing adultery.  But monogamy and adultery are altogether different issues from sexual orientation, and if we rejected everyone from the church who's ever broken faith with Jesus' teachings on adultery, I dare say the church would have snuffed itself out like a dying candle long, long ago.

Jesus does give us a hint about how the epileptic child is healed.  He says to his apostles in Mark 9:23 that "all things can be done for the one who believes" and then, in Mark 10:27, he adds some more information, saying, "'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible."  Jesus was a man of science, but he also believed in miracles.

It isn't up to us, as Christians, to reject the very children whom God loves.  Jesus' healing of the epileptic child tells us that even when we don't understand, as human beings, the unique challenges and talents given to each child and adult around us, God understands.  God loves what we don't see.  God accepts what we try not to see, what we try not to speak of or hear.  When we're ready, though, God shows us how to speak of and hear Divine Love, as the epileptic child began to speak and hear once he and his family accepted they were worthy of God's love and healing.  God stands by, ever ready to help, when we find the courage to take the same steps on the path of understanding and inclusion that Jesus once had to take.

God loves us all, each and every one.

God bless.

LSP46: Don't Know God from Adam

Adam: So God, I was thinking.  I've decided I should become a more spiritual person, so I thought maybe you could give me some tips.  Nothing biblical, of course.  I'm thinking of something more modern.  I'm thinking . . . oh . . . maybe something with a bit of a Jesus feel to it.  Jesus seems to fly well with just about everybody. You know, all that love and forgiveness stuff.  How about it?  Any suggestions for how I can be more like Jesus?  I'd really love everybody to love me.  The way they love Jesus.

God:  Hmmm.  Interesting choice, son.

Adam, shrugging:  Hey, it's, like, just a little something I dreamed up.

God:  Well . . . it's certainly doable, son.  How would you like to start?

Adam:  I'm very big on the idea of respect, so we should start with that.

God:  Oh.  You'd like to know how to respect me?

Photo JAT 2015

Adam, chuckling:  Of course not.  You have such a sense of humour, God.  No, I was thinking it's important for me to state what I need.  That way, the boundaries will be clear, and there'll be no misunderstandings between us.

God:  I see.  That's not the way Jesus started his conversation with me, but go on.  Let's see where this takes us.

Adam:  Great.  Just so we're clear . . . you and I are equal partners in this, okay?  I mean, I don't even have to be doing this.  I could just carry on with the life I've been living.  I'm pretty impressed with the choices I've been making so far, and other people have told me how great I'm doing, so this spiritual stuff -- it's an add-on.  If I don't like something, I'm gonna say so and I'm gonna stop right then and there.  That's my bottom line.

God:  You have free will, son.  I give that to everybody.

Adam:  Another thing.  You're going to guarantee me the results I want, right?  You're going to make sure I'm even more popular and successful, right?

God:  You know Jesus was hated by the people he loved, don't you, son?  You know he pushed all their buttons?

Adam:  Yeah, yeah, the crucifixion thing.  But that was before we got smarter and more accepting of others in our culture.  That wouldn't happen today.  We wouldn't let it.  Today we know the difference between love and hate.

God:  You know the difference between status and lack of status.  I'm not sure it's the same thing, son.

Adam:  So back to the Jesus plan.  How do I start being more like Jesus?

God:  Well, I need a lot of help getting practical things from the people who have them to the people who need them.  Do you think you might be able to help with that?

Adam:  You mean I should write a cheque to a charity?  I might be able to squeeze out a few bucks for you.

God:  Actually, I was thinking about a young man who lives in your community and could use a kind word, an encouraging smile, and a fair chance at getting a job.  You're going to cross paths with him on Monday at 5:00 p.m.  Think you can help me with that?

Adam, checking schedule on phone:  Uh, well, sorry, but Monday isn't good for me.  I have to be at the gym by then.  Another day would be better for me.  What's Friday like for you?  I can squeeze in some time at 7:30 p.m..

God:  Shouldn't you be home with your children at 7:30 p.m.?  I'm just wondering, since Jesus placed an extremely high priority on the emotional needs of children, and if you were to spend time in the evenings with your children, it would be a great first step.

Adam:  No problem.  I always give them a kiss when I get home, and during the day I sometimes text them.

God:  You know, Jesus was pretty keen on the idea of visiting people in person.  He did his teaching and healing in person, even though he could have written long sermons and sent them out by messenger the way other teachers did.  Think you could be more of a hands-on guy?

Adam:  Interesting thought, God.  Interesting thought.  I don't think it's really my style.  Thanks for the suggestion, though.

God:  Your children have free will, too, Adam.

Adam:  Hey, don't tell me how to raise my children, God. Next you'll be telling me I should say out loud I believe in God.  Nope.  I draw the line at saying -- or even thinking -- I believe in you.  It ain't gonna happen, God.  That's one of my ground rules.

God:  So . . . . to be clear . . . you want to be like Jesus, who believed in me with every shred of his being  . . . but you don't think you should have to believe in anything beyond yourself?

Adam:  You got that straight.  I know my rights.

God:  Okay, son.  Well, I think I'll be on my way now.

Adam:  Wait!  I'm not finished!  If this is going to work between us, I expect you to listen!  You're supposed to help me when I ask for help!

God:   . . . .(offstage whisper) Where's my copy of Horton Hears a Who?  Anyone see my copy?  Jesus, you borrow it again?  Never a copy around when I need one.  The kids love it  . . . (smiling) . . .

Adam:  See?  Just what I thought!  All talk, no commitment.  Where are you, God? What kind of God are you, anyway?