Skip to content

Saint Saturated continued …

March 6, 2014

People have a great desire to be owned. I recall my late teens where I felt a slight nudge to witness my faith. I’d gotten into a few writings by Christian evangelists and felt something giving me a little shove to be a part of ‘the movement’ happening in the late 1970s. I’d been somewhat of a keen observer of what was going on around me, and was impressed with the change I was seeing in people’s lives, and I had started to feel a push. Where I stopped was in the words. I am not a public speaker, but what was an even greater symbol in why I did not continue in this vein was that I was not fully on board with what was being said in the evangelical movement. I appreciated and respected the changes I was seeing in the lives of people I knew, but I was not of this. It just wasn’t me, and I could not find the words at that time to express anything of what I was experiencing. I have looked back to this moment, and what I knew to be a “presence” for me, having been born out of early Christian doctrine, was that of guilt. I had been brought up in doctrine that had its roots in fear, and later, when the whole branch of evangelical and charismatic witnessing come out, I began to feel guilty for not witnessing my belief in Christ in the manner that had been instituted by the churches of that day, and yes, this is an Institution of Christianity. The call, be the apostle, this is your way to salvation … if you are ashamed to profess His name then He will be ashamed of you … being born again was, of course, the office for this. It was and is that push.

Imagine yourself standing at the edge of a dock, and you have never been in the water before, and you are pushed in, even if it is a slight nudge by another, but enough to make you lose your balance, and you find yourself falling in. How would you feel? How would you feel if you were suddenly invaded by a force far greater than you had ever imagined, and it “made you” climb into something you did not want to become a part of. What if you were born into something and later discovered that it was not where you should be, but you felt guilted into remaining in it, whether from those around you, or from something within insisting you stay where you are. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard young people share that getting their first child baptized in set religion was primarily because they felt pressure from parents or grandparents, or that they didn’t really believe or understand the purpose of baptism, but were afraid not to get the child baptized. They follow the herd, so to speak, or allow themselves to be pushed, and the act continues and continues and continues until someone somewhere marries differently, and puts her foot down, or the guilt and fear fades, usually replaced by some other belief of system. I watched the movie Nebraska last weekend and there was a scene in it that I found priceless. While standing in a cemetery where his dad’s family is buried, David asks his mother if her family is also buried there, and the mom responds curtly that a Catholic would not be caught dead around those “damn Lutherans”. Has anything changed?

I am almost certain that these Spirrealist Works would not be appreciated in the families of those in that movie, for this work is beyond recognition, even with its strong Spirit Symbology. God is Spirit (John 4.24).


Or even this one …100_0657

Or this one …100_0633

Fear of offending family … fear of offending the institution … family, institution … guilt, fear … what’s the difference? But there is a difference between God and Institution, and God would rather you not do something born from guilt, or rooted in fear. God desires that you desire, but His desire is not a desire that insists one push another, or make another feel guilty for not being like somebody else. There are greater differences among living beings than man can shake a stick at.


I am always in awe when I am working in an essay and something relevant is placed at my feet, but there is always the part where I must bend down and pick up this relevance, and do something with it. Here are recent words from the Roman Catholic Pope, which I received earlier this week:

“I don’t like ideological interpretations, this type of mythology of Pope Francis,” the pope told Corriere. “If I’m not mistaken, Sigmund Freud said that in every idealization there’s an aggression. Depicting the pope as a sort of Superman, a star, is offensive to me.”

and …

“The emeritus pope isn’t a statue in a museum. He’s an institution,” Francis said. “We talked about it and we decided together that it would be better if he sees people, gets out and participates in the life of the church.”

There it is. “He’s an institution.” He’s an institution, and also part of this institution is its “think tank”, no matter how divisive. He (Pope) is not God. He is not Prophet. He is an Institution. Now, before anyone thinks I am picking on the Pope, allow me to explicate my purpose in sharing this. First, that the Pope states this is  very instrumental. What this does is clarify the system, and provide analogy for the believer. The question the believer should ask is: what do I represent within this system? If I am an instrument, am I of use, misuse, abuse, or proof … of this institution? Am I a product of this system? If so, how?

Now let’s talk about the use of the word aggression. I did not look up the quote to see if it is from Freud, but I will say that the Pope’s interest in quoting this may have more in line with think tank divisiveness than it does with the Pope as pope. Agl. John Klimacus once said: Some wise men have said renunciation is hostility to the body. An understanding in this is that a rejection of something of interest within is an aggression to the whole. This whole is seen in two modes; one is the whole of self, and the other is the whole of, in this case, Roman Catholicism. The much used quote by JFK, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” would apply here. This statement by politician-president JFK is, in part, what the Pope is saying: He’s an institution. The president is an institution as much as the country is an institution, therefore, to idealize him or his position, or to condemn him or his position, is an act of aggression. It shows partiality within the institution, where members (those aligning with or belonging to set institution) are to be of one body.  Now, if the leader fails to produce the desired product, then is it not the responsibility of all these within this body, and not just the one? Never is there ever one leader and no members, for then ” leader” ceases to be, and a leader can not do for all.


Here is an example of a type of aggression, but not an act directed at one individual. The author is a former student of Theology at a seminary where a new president has come in and let go much of the staff of teachers, and from what has been shared with me, has brought in another type of “theology”, which has left many with the feeling of having been pushed off the dock into the water.

This is a powerful statement, one that addresses several concerns, but what stands out, and relates most sequaciously with my topic is the message on nepotism, and the practice of fear. The president in this case is an institution, but the question we need to address: which institution? The Institution of Fear? How did this seminary go from being of one atmosphere to being of another? Were these members slumbering while something was taking affect within their institution? Or did something of agenda thrust itself through the door and make change abruptly? I do not know the answer to these questions as this is not my institution, and I am merely sharing Al’s powerful statement, and I hope he will post his comments after, that we might learn more in this dilemma, for it really does touch on many things going on in seminary, college and university life.

Another situation that has come to my attention is the conflict with the St Patrick’s Day Parade in Boston. Here is the link:

I don’t think I need to go into detail on what’s behind the rallies on both sides of this topic, but I would like to weigh in just a little, but as one not taking sides. First, I do not believe Patrick to be a saint, thankfully, or I might be offended that he is being so drunkenly abused in these agendas. But okay, so an institution views him as a saint and wants to celebrate him in various ways. Now, how do I carefully say that each group in the parade is advertising something of his own interest, including the parade itself, without sounding aggressive, or sounding as if I am attacking Patrick? I can’t, because its states in the article that the parade is a celebration of Patrick, and I do not want to come off as appearing aggressive to one leader. You see, I told you I would like to weigh in just a little.

Seriously, the ways of things in the world have gotten a bit saturated, and man loves his heros, and he loves his institutions, and the hot and cold of this is that man often does sit on his hands, mantling a polite silence, in fear, as if fear is his adversary, while the nepotists rule, or, he slumbers until he is confronted with that push, and suddenly fear is upon him. Then again, he may be actively practicing in a way that permits change when change is upon him, as if all along he is ready for what Spirit may be showing him, even if it means he must respond with a boldness that speaks out against nepotism, fear, ignorance, and even guilt.

Are we ever a product complete? Have we ever reached our peak in unity on Truth? Where are the present day saints of God?  Where are our Mystics and Prophets on Truth? When do the Dreamers begin to hear apart from worldly affairs and institutional malice and fatigue? Hopefully drinking his green beer after the rations have been distributed.


Peace and Love.

  1. opheliart permalink

    Good morning,

    Seventy million is a lot of dough. Do you know which camp gifted this and why? Knowing and understanding this may say a lot about the abrupt change in atmosphere at Christian Theological Seminary. “House of Horror” is a scary sounding situation. Is it a current student who shares this, staff member, or another?

  2. opheliart permalink


    The political landscape says a lot about the camp menu. Yes, there are two sides … to every coin. Do you think Spirit Art has a chance in hell … of being heard?

    Peace and Love.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: