Last Sunday, I shared with you an essay by Jim Palmer that mentioned, in part, the struggle between our capacity for good and our capacity for ill.

Regarding Jim's work I should have been more explicit - that sermon, save for some abbreviation and word changes here and there, was his words, not mine. A link to his essay is below.[i] 

This internal struggle between good and evil is picked up by St Paul in our first reading, this well-known passage from Romans (Romans 7:15-25a), summarized by the verse: “For the good that I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.”

Of course, Paul’s framing of that struggle, influenced by the cultural and religious currents of his time has proved problematic in ours. Aligning, for example, “the flesh” with evil, and “the spirit” with good, led to the affirmation of a body-denying dualistic philosophy.

So, flesh, body, sex, food, nurture, earth, and women generally were lumped together and labelled as a lesser order, “weaker”, gateways to sin and evil. And, on the other end, the higher order, was spirit (as in religious), mind, men in general, heavenly, disciplining and renouncing bodily “desires”.

In this dualistic world the ideal man did not listen to his body, for to do so was weakness - weakness which opened the door to sin. Desiring God and the things of God (faith if you like) was seen to be the opposite of desiring pleasure, mutual love, relaxation and enjoyment. Such dualism has plagued many a young man (particularly thoser aised in a Church environment) and has led many men to seek out psychotherapists and counsellors.

For women this dualism has been worse. The ideal woman was the oxymoronic and impossible ‘virgin mother’(undefiled by sex, yet nurturing children), chaste, compliant, submissive. She was taught to see her body as somehow inferior, and her beauty, let alone her brains, as somehow a problem. In short, this dualism undergirded a patriarchal understanding of the world that still exists in many places, amongst many religions, in most denominations, including our own. Just last week I heard of an Auckland parish where the new minister preaches about the ‘headship of man’– which is code for a gendered hierarchical understanding where a woman is ‘by nature’ not fit to lead men. Which, in my view, is destructive for both women and men and faith.

Now Paul, based on the seven authentic letters of his in the New Testament[ii],and based on the knowledge that later scribes deliberately inserted moreconservative views into one of those authentic letters,[iii]and based on his affirmation of women leaders in the early Jesus movements,[iv]was probably not as bad – f rom a modern viewpoint – as we in the more liberal church once believed. Whereas Paul’s Galatians affirmation[v]“there is no longer male or female” is extraordinary. It is not only a statement about radical egalitarianism and a refuting of patriarchal dualism, but in our current Kiwi context could be seen as critiquing the Gender Definition Bill before parliament. Like the Gender Definition Bill, Paul’s affirmation is primarily about power, and the mythology underlying who has it, and who doesn’t or shouldn’t.

Let’s return to the Romans text about the capacity for good and ill within us as individuals, as well as communities. “For the good that I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.”

In Jim Palmer’s essay he refuted the idea that humanity is fundamentally flawed(aka the doctrine of original sin), pointing out that “we understand far more today about developmental wounds, conditioning, attachment, fear, and survival mechanisms.” Yet, he goes on, “the deeper question remains unchanged. How do we account for the gap between our potential and our behaviour?” (that is our capacity to do good and do ill).

Later, when discussing the doctrine of Satan (that is the mythology which personifies evil as something outside us), Jim talks about the challenge of “shadow integration” and “learning to confront the aggression, fear, and destructive tendencies that exist within ourselves...”

Jim used the Jungian idea of shadow to talk about the capacity for ill or evil. In short, “shadow integration” is the lifelong process of acknowledging and accepting the unconscious parts of ourselves that we repress, deny, or project onto others and find healthy, conscious way to redirect it. Note, in Jung’s understanding, the shadow isn't just evil. It also holds vital, unlived creative energy.

There are a number of Christian spiritual practices, many ancient, that though using different language to Jung, have tried to help people to firstly acknowledge the worse sides of themselves – their selfishness, their capacity to hurt others and harm themselves, their addictions and destructive leanings – then engage in internal restorative, reconciliatory practices, including befriending yourself (loving yourself) and your neighbour – and then developing practices of self-corrective and of affirming goodness behaviour.

Christianity is full of simple mantras that I suspect were developed out of such spiritual practices. Mantras like: be kind to yourself, self-compassion, be kind to others, love your neighbour, walk a mile in another’s shoes, practice goodness, there but for the grace of God go I, say sorry and try again, do not judge… and the Philippians exhortation to modern mindfulness: “whatever is honourable, whatever is just... whatever is pleasing…, whatever is commendable, think on these things.”[vi]

++++++++++

The 1895 poem Judge Softly is written by the American Mary T. Lathrap. Mary was a preacher in the Episcopal Methodist Church and Congregational Church, a national leader in temperance reform and the women’s suffrage movement, and a prodigious poet. She was a phenomenal leader. It is from this poem that the phrase ‘walking in another person’s moccasins (or shoes)’ originated. And note, she was not Native American.

Although the poem’s use of exclusive gender language (man, brother) and similarly dated religious language (sin, tempter) is not usually one I would include in a service, I thought this poem was worthwhile to read and recall for the sake of its profound compassion. In these days of prejudging people on the basis of their race, religion, wealth, gender or immigration status Judge Softly dips into the deep reservoir of Christianity’s moral code – to remind us, always and always, to ‘judge not’ and ‘be compassionate’, that each person’s suffering(though maybe alike to yours and mine) is not the same, that to condemn another is to condemn a part of ourselves, to encouragement one another to engage in the imaginative act of seeing the world through another’s eyes, and to open yourself to the possibility that the grace of God may touch even you via the hand of a person you’ve previously disdained. Brian Tamaki, Winston Peters, Stephen Miller, and all who have or do peddled prejudice, note well.

In the first part of this sermon, I began to reflect on our capacity to do both good and ill, and how spiritual practices can help us come to terms with our less likable attributes and integrate them into who we are. One way, as Mary Lathrap reminds us is to be honest with ourselves about our failures in order that we can be understanding, forgiving, and generous to others in the times of their failures.

Another, and really the key point of this sermon, is that if we wish to see peace in the world, then we must simultaneously work for peace not only in our country and homes, but in our individual selves. For there to be peace without, we must build peace within. And building peace within is not by expunging what we don’t like, or denying it exists, or blaming others for it, but by coming to terms with the fact it is a part of us.

It’s about the part of you that you like befriending even loving the part of you that you don’t. Not that befriending a part of you means letting it run your life. Rather once you understand its motives, then decide on specific, healthier ways to meet those same underlying needs. And such internal processes can take years. And practice, more practice, and more. We need companions too to help us on such internal peace building journeys.

Finally, as an aside, on the subject of peace, I want to give a shout out to the Pakistani foreign minister, the Pakistani parliamentary speaker, and their team (all of whom are Muslim), in leading one of the most fraught peace negotiations ever – negotiations between two very fragile and psychologically flawed leaderships in the USA and Iran – in an age of instant public image, pretence, and pretentiousness – when the outcome of peace affects so many countries, so many people, and especially the economically vulnerable. Many their God bless them in their peace-making endeavours. Blessed are the peacemakers indeed!

[i]https://jimpalmerauthor.substack.com/p/10-religious-ideas-we-no-longer-need

[ii]Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians,Philippians, 1st Thessalonians, and Philemon.

[iii] I refer to Bart Ehrman’swork on 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 about women being silent and subordinate inchurches; whereas, for example, earlier in chapter 11 women were encouraged topublicly pray and prophesy;

[iv] Examples include Phoebe,the deacon of the church in Cenchreae, and Junia, whom he calls "prominentamong the apostles" (Romans 16).

[v] Galatians 3:28

[vi] Philippians 4:8

‍