Caste Integration or Racial Equality

 In a recent conversation with a friend, Racial Injustice and Systematic Racism in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada came up.  We conversed about the cause, symptoms and perhaps the cure of this horrible sickness in the society and the ACC. We expressed the following two positions because of our heritage and background.

·    Caucasians were colonisers and have to repent and seek reconciliation with the Indigenous People of Canada and the New Canadians.

·   Caucasians have apologised for their actions. However, they can solve the problem by empowering and delegating decision making to the Indigenous Peoples and the Visible Minority.

 

The first position submits that the Caucasians should feel remorse and lead the way forward because of the sin of colonialism.  While this is noble, it is neo-colonialism because Caucasians still are in authority and are engaged for self-serving reasons.  Moreover, they are the decision-makers and can think, speak and decide for everyone.

The alternative suggests power-sharing and empowering others, so the discriminated lead the discussion and discern the solution. Although intellectually, this concept sounds good – practically, it is impossible to achieve until the difference between race and Caste is discussed, and Caste replaces race in societal and ecclesiastical discourse.

Racism is the scientifically false belief that groups of humans possess different behavioural traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of different races or ethnicities. Modern variants of racism are often based on social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. In terms of political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices or laws, racist ideology may include associated social aspects such as nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, and supremacism.

A caste is a form of social stratification characterised by endogamy, hereditary transmission of a style of life which often includes an occupation, ritual status in a hierarchy, and day-to-day social interaction and exclusion based on cultural notions of purity and pollution. Its paradigmatic ethnographic example is the division of India's Hindu society into rigid social groups, with roots in India's ancient history and persisting to the present time. However, the economic significance of the caste system in India has been declining as a result of urbanisation and affirmative action programs. A subject of many scholarships by sociologists and anthropologists, the Hindu caste system is sometimes used as an analogical basis for studying caste-like social divisions existing outside Hinduism and India.

From the above definitions, it can be argued that racism and the caste system are identical in nature and overlap. It can also be concluded that both systems are designed to oppress and discriminate against the other. There might be other similarities – nevertheless, the differences between the two are significant to this discussion. First, racism and race are directly related to and is dependent on the context and the socio-political-ethnic formation of the society. Caste is permanent and transfers from one context to the other. Second, an oppressed race in one culture can be the dominant race in another culture. For example, South Asians are oppressed in the global north but enjoy autonomy and respect in their countries of origin.

Furthermore, socio-political change in the context can exalt the oppressed in power. South Africa, for example, experienced power transfer and transformation of racial identity because of the will of the dominant culture. Second, lower Caste can never assume to be in power regardless of the authority, status or appointments, members of the Caste, may achieve and enjoy. Third, racial tensions can be discussed, eased and diminished – Caste cannot be replaced, shrunk and changed.

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white people over non-white people in some societies, mainly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. With roots in European colonialism and imperialism and the Atlantic slave trade, white privilege has developed in circumstances that have broadly sought to protect white racial privileges, various national citizenships, and other rights or unique benefits. White privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not recognise, distinguishing it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural affirmations of one's worth, presumed more excellent social status, and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely. The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts. However, the concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as usual.

It should be noted that Caucasians, in general, have conscientiously appealed to 'White Privilege' to denounce their past actions. However, the sad reality is that they have inadvertently used the privilege to chart future racial relations, lines of communication and establish parameters to either accept or reject the person, race or opinion and conviction.

Debate on Equal Marriage in the Anglican Church of Canada is submitted as the example of 'white privilege' carefully guarding the discussion and, under the guise and shroud of equality, rejecting all those who disagree with them. This rejection and refusal to acknowledge diverse positions have superseded race and ethnic background. The group in power has equally discriminated against and ridiculed Caucasian, Indigenous and Ethnic minorities in the Anglican Church of Canada.

Thus, it is not racial discrimination; otherwise, conservative, fundamentalist, and evangelical Caucasians would not have been cast aside. Instead, it is a modern iteration of the caste system that can and has divided the Caucasians on dogma while keeping them united in their dealings with the Indigenous and Ethnic Minorities.

The Anglican Church of Canada's governing Caucasians will refute this point by stating the Indigenous ministries at the National Level, various task forces to end racial and sexual discrimination and their commitment to having ethnically diverse volunteer and paid leadership in power corridors.

This claim should be examined through the evolution (devolution) of racial harmony in American and Canadian society. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s brought forth the constitutional changes in the United States of America. The election of Senator Barrack Obama as the President of the United States was a momentous occasion – but it failed to strengthen racial relationships and change the prevalent attitude towards African Americans. Law Enforcement Agencies harassed and killed Blacks regardless of provocation or just cause; ethnic minorities, regardless of their religion or country of origin, are perceived as an enemy of the state, and conspiracy theorists still question President Obama's birth certificate. Caucasian Americans are divided on indiscriminate violence and harassment of African Americans based on their political and religious persuasion.

Discussions, task forces, patronising of the other, and changes to the canons and constitution will undoubtedly make the group(s) in power feel good about themselves. However, it will never address the discrimination and marginalisation of the other. Human Rights Advocates have pointed out ways in which, particularly in the hiring process, biases, assumptions and preconceived notions are integrated into an interview process to tilt the balance in favour of a privileged candidate. It has also been documented that unsuccessful indigenous or ethnic candidates are patronised, and their confidence is shattered through careful destruction of their experiences and qualification.

In conclusion, Caste is permanent. In the Anglican Church of Canada, the caste system is embedded in the practice of Caucasians in Power. They are the superior race because of their doctrine, dogma, expression of faith and belief that everyone, regardless of his/her race, has to agree with them. There is no room to dissent or discuss, or compromise. Either one agrees despite his/her personal belief or is cast aside. The elite would like to be diverse but have deliberately decided the space and authority they will afford to the other. BIPOC should be a clone of a Caucasian candidate or mindset to be hired at the executive level; in other words, BIPOC will never be there because how can s/he be an elite. Regardless of self-adulation for being just, Caucasian Elites of the Anglican Church of Canada have caused irreparable damage to the other. It is because of their belief that they are not racist or discriminatory – the problem is that no one can meet their standards, expectations, or fully agree with them.

The way forward for the Anglican Church of Canada is to decide that they want to be an inclusive church or maintain the status quo. If the answer is 'Inclusive,' then the elite must address the 'Caste system' through self-introspection and honest and vulnerable evaluation of the structures to determine how they have nurtured and guarded it. Second, destroy the structure and invite lower caste members to join them in rebuilding the structure and the church. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatama Karamchand Mohandas Gandhi destroyed the caste structure in 1947. Their vision and courage resulted in the election of a Dalat woman to be a chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and all Caste coming together to rebuild India after centuries of division and colonialism.

By: Edmund Laldin.

It cannot be reproduced or used without the written consent of the author.

 

Is there Islamophobia?

 

June 6, 2021, will always be remembered as the day of the Afzaal Family's senseless killing in London, Ontario, Canada.  The Afzaal's were standing on a sidewalk and were rundown by a twenty-year-old Caucasian man[1].  The driver admitted his guilt and gave racism and anti-Muslim sentiment and hatred as the reason for his barbaric action.

This incident shook Canadian society in general and every Canadian in particular.  Expressions of sympathy, anger, disbelief started to pour in from the Political Leaders, Religious Leaders and citizens of Canada. The incident became a topic of discussion in the global news agencies and political and social analysts, and critiques.

Imran Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, immediately labelled it as 'Islamophbia' and renewed his resolve to mobilise the Organisation of Islamic Countries to address these issues with the European and North American Countries.  Incidentally, he remains the only Islamic statesperson to equate the killings with Islamophobia.  Last year, Mr Khan justified the beheading of a French teacher by a young Muslim boy by stating that the teacher had shown cartoons of Prophet Mohammed to the class.  Furthermore, Mr Khan was openly critical of France's decision to protect free speech and liberal democracy by raising 'Islamophobia' and demanding to rescind free speech related to either Islam and or Prophet Muhammed.  Tehreek Labeek Pakistan (TLP), a fundamentalist and right-wing Islamic political party, protested violently on the streets of Pakistan, demanding the expulsion of the French Ambassador from Pakistan and severing ties with France.  Mr Khan's Government listed TLP as a terrorist organisation, assured them that his motives are the same as theirs and allowed TLP to contest a by-election in Karachi.

Pakistan's Left-Leaning Journalists and Intellectual condemned both the killing of Afzaal's, usage of 'Islamophobia', and their Government's duplicity and hypocrisy.  Their argument was rooted in Islamophobia, root causes of violence towards South Asians, Orientals and Arabic in the European and North American Countries. 

Islamophobia loosely defined is the fear of, hatred of, or prejudice against the religion of Islam and Muslims in general, especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism. The meaning of the term continues to be debated, and some view it as problematic.  Some scholars view Islamophobia and racism as partially overlapping phenomena, while others dispute the relationship, primarily because religion is not a race. The causes and characteristics of Islamophobia are also subjects of debate. An increase in Islamophobia resulted from September 9, 2001, the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and other terror attacks in Europe and the United States by Islamic extremists.  The term has proven problematic and is viewed by some as an obstacle to constructive criticism of Islam. Its detractors fear that it can be applied to any critique of Islamic practices and beliefs, suggesting terms such as 'anti-Muslim' instead.

Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Stockholm. Dr Ahmed refuses to interpret or label the actions of the French Government or random killings as Islamophobia because of religious freedom and other liberties afforded to Muslims in Europe and North America.  According to him, countries have protected their culture (France) and punished perpetrators against Muslims according to their penal system.  He believes it would have been Islamophobia if the caricatures of Jesus Christ and the criticism of Christianity were a crime and Islam's criticism was allowed and encouraged.  In support of Dr Ahmed, European countries and Canada opened doors to the Syrian refugees while the middle eastern countries shut their doors on the Syrian refugees.  Canadian Intellectuals of Pakistani origin such as Mr Gora, Barrister Bhusani, Mr Farooqi's narrative is the same as Dr Ahmed's.   

Ms Arzoo Kazmi, a Pakistani Journalist, opines that the Pakistani Government, notably Mr Khan, should address their indifference towards the violent treatment of religious and ethnic minorities in Pakistan.  In the recent past, Ms Kazmi cites the Government's silence on the kidnapping and forcible marriages of hundreds of young Hindu girls in Sindh.  She also references a Christian couple burnt alive in a kiln, a Christian couple incarcerated for seven years on baseless blasphemy charges, and converting a Church into a Mosque by Muslim nurses and demanding the Christian nurses convert to Islam. Regarding violence to other Muslim sects, Ms Kazmi highlights targeted killings of Shiite (belonging to Hazara and other ethnic groups), the disappearance of thousands of Baloch men and the desecration of Shiite and Ahmadi's cemeteries.  On an international and global scale, Pakistan has not raised any concerns or have advocated the genocide and inhumane Chinese Government's treatment of the Urgher's Muslims or have spoken to Saudi Arabia's rulers about the killings of Houthi's in Yemen.

Ms Kazmi and other like-minded journalists and Dr Ahmed and other intellectuals posit that the Western world ubiquitous person sees these images and hear 'Death to Kafir (Infidel)' and the hypocrisy of the Islamic rulers.  These images and message fuel the negative images of Muslims and emboldens rogue and deranged persons to kill innocent Muslims. Moreover, while they condemn these incidents as isolated and barbaric, they point out religious and cultural freedom enshrined in the constitution and protected through the Charter of Rights of Freedom.  Thus, this is not Islamophobia. Instead, it should be deemed Muslimphobia.

Muslimphobia is an exclusive term as it represents crimes and attitudes towards Muslim Canadians.  This phobia should be understood and interpreted through the broadest possible lens and juxtapositioning with other crimes of hate.  Since September 2001, hate and racist crimes and incidents have increased in Canada.  These crimes have been against Chinese Canadians, the Jewish community and the Canadians from South Asia.  In the recent past, after discovering Coronavirus, Chinese Canadians in particular and citizens of the far eastern countries were discriminated against, harassed and were the victim of violent attacks.  Likewise, several groups have attacked Jewish cemeteries, persons and businesses belonging to them.  Canadians of South Asian and Arab origin, since September 9, 2001, have been targeted, insulted, harassed and subjected to inhuman treatment.  Religion(s) can be a reason, but the main reason is the hatred, racism and phobia of every ethnic minority in Canada. 

This discussion can be concluded through the following points:

·         Islamophobia is a misleading term as it does not represent a race.

·         Canadians of South Asian Origin, regardless of religious persuasion, have faced racism and violent crimes.

·         Islamic world (Pakistan in particular) should protect the rights of their minorities and afford them the same protection as it demands from the Western world.

·         Extremists and White Supremacists have divided the Canadian population and society into safe Caucasian (Europeans) Canadians and dangerous Canadians (every other ethnic group).

·         Canadians should confront explicit and implicit racism and hatred through educational programs and scrutiny of organisational policies and practices.

 

A positive step to combat racism and engender goodwill among citizens can be the Government agencies, non-governmental agencies, and religious institutions that can facilitate dialogue and interaction among various ethnic communities to foster relationships.

---

[1] Deliberately, I am not taking this man’s name because he does not deserve to be remembered by his name.  He should always be remembered as a callous, hateful, racist and cruel person – who killed four innocent people because of their ethnicity.

Advocacy for Guaranteed Basic Income

In November 2019, Bishop Geoff Woodcroft shared with me about his dream and vision for guaranteed basic income (GBI) for every Canadian.  The setting was the district deans and archdeacons retreat.  In a private conversation about GBI, I heard enormous care and passion in Geoff’s voice.  His body language, voice and words exuded excitement, hopefulness and resolve to work towards it.  Because of busyness of life and circumstances beyond my control, I did not have a chance to pick up my conversation with Geoff re: GBI. 

On May 3, 2020, Anglican House of Bishops along with the National bishop of Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and Lutheran bishop of Manitoba and North Western Ontario forwarded a letter to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance encouraging them to bring in GBI for every resident of Canada.  Resident in this context means citizens, landed immigrants, refugees, seasonal foreign workers, indigenous peoples – in other words, everyone in need should receive GBI.  It is indeed a remarkable witness of our bishops in these challenging times.  Bishop Woodcroft’s vision and dream has become a reality and now is a time for all of us to work towards this goal.

The bishops encouraged every person regardless of their denomination to write to their member of parliament and other political leaders to summon their support for this cause.  Certainly, advocacy and lobbying are extremely important not only to show numerical support to our bishops but also to remind the politicians about their duty to listen to their constituents.

Social Media and press, at times, have these sad indictments and comments about the new Canadians, refugees, and the indigenous peoples of Canada.  Comments and opinions generally portray those in need as a burden on the society.  Most of the information is misleading; nevertheless, its primary purpose is to malign, stigmatie and blame the vulnerable sector as the reason for all our financial, legal, ethical and moral problems.  We cannot ignore it neither can we dismiss these sentiments by believing that no one will pay attention to it.  Social Media is an extremely powerful and persuasive medium with inter-generational audience and consumers.

What we should and can do is to work, simultaneously, on GBI and discrimination and discriminatory attitudes in our society and our churches.  The chorus of the song, ‘we are one in the spirit’ rightfully proclaims, ‘they will know we are Christians by our love’.  Love, as we know, conquers all and does not differentiate one from the other; in fact, love brings everyone together.

By addressing privileges of various kinds, all the 

isms (sexism, racism etc.), hierarchy, patriarchy, nepotism, and elitism in our own dioceses, parishes, congregations, clerics and laity; we will not only be respecting and honouring everyone but will also be setting an example for our neighbourhoods, cities and country.

For all of you are one in Christ Jesus!

The title of this reflection is the latter part of Galatians 3:28. This line summarises the essence of the Christian faith and relates to the prayer of Jesus recorded in John 17:21.  It says, ‘that they may all be one.  As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.’   St. Paul, through this simple yet profound line, impresses upon the community that their unity and identity is because of their membership in the body of Christ.  This reality had overcome any obvious differences of age, gender, ethnicity and/or status in the society.  St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 further develops on this concept of unity by using the example of the human body.  As every part of the body is unique, distinct and interdependent on one another with a primary role to ensure that the body functions and lives in the best possible manner.  Thus, the members of the body of Christ are unique and are commissioned to offer their best to the glory of God through their interdependence on one another.

Unfortunately, unity of the body of Christ has been understood and practiced in a hierarchal and oppressive manner over the years.  Hierarchal, as power and authority has been vested in the dominant culture.  Oppressive because of the dominance and suppression of different viewpoints and cultural practices by the dominant culture.  Dominant culture can vary from ethnic background to theology or the liturgical practice and preference.  Labels such as evangelical, conservative, liberal, high or low church are examples of various dominant cultures within the church in general and the Anglican Church of Canada in particular.  Furthermore, Caucasian Canadians continue to hold religious, doctrinal, spiritual and liturgical authority at all levels of the church.  Thankfully, in most of the cases, the body of Christ learned to live with their differences and to unite the body of Christ.

Missionary movements brought the gospel and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ to all parts of the world.  In the sub-continent, missionaries developed education and health care systems along with the conversion of the masses and establishment of churches.  Missionaries primarily evangelised to the downtrodden, poor and untouchables in the sub-continent.  Although, conversion to Christianity assured the love of God through Jesus’ own sacrifice and resurrection among the converts - it did not change their status in the society.  They were and continue to be untouchable.  Missionaries and their institutions were the only persons and places which offered love, acceptance and hope to them.  This acceptance and restoration of dignity and integrity perpetuated enormous respect for the Europeans in general and the missionaries in particular.  Missionaries not only made them the members of the body of Christ and heirs of the kingdom of God but also accepted them with open arms, was the reality and gift to pretty much everyone of them.  As a young child (five years old or so), I remember going with Miss Audrey and Miss Sharon to the slums of Karachi, Pakistan.  The highlight of the trip was having either some candy or ice cream towards the end of our journey.  Incidentally, I do not remember any activities in different locales.  Being in a car, having a place of honour during those meetings and a treat made me the happiest child in the world.  Miss Audrey and Miss Sharon and by extension every European missionary represented goodness and love of God to me. 

The majority of New Anglican Christian Canadians from the global south, regardless of their country of origin, have been struggling to find a spiritual home in the Anglican churches.  For Canadians of Pakistani and Punjabi heritage, Anglican Churches have been disappointing at many levels.  Obvious conclusion and reason can be discrimination, racism, interpretation of the holy scriptures, equal marriage, music, liturgy or attitude towards their customs and traditions.  All of the above have exacerbated the angst, disappointment and isolation, and consequently a departure from neighbourhood churches.  However, I believe these reasons are symptoms of a much deeper and underlying issue of expectations from and the image of the Anglican church community.  One of the main reasons for Pakistani Christians to emigrate to Canada is to have their dignity and integrity affirmed and restored at various levels of the society and culture.  Pursuit of material and physical goods, best education for their children and affinity to fellow Christian are the ways to earn acceptance and respect in their new homeland.  Canada in many ways resembles the missionary institutions and missionaries of their ancestors’ time; an oasis in the desert where there is shelter, food and comfort because of the will of and blessings from God.  They can appreciate and rationalise discrimination outside of the church walls but find it difficult and crushing to face the same in their churches.  This results in isolation, spiritual and religious crises and rejection.  Moreover, it mimics the society and circumstances of their homeland. Furthermore, this profound disappointment changes the image of Caucasian person(s) – Caucasian Anglicans are supposed to restore dignity and integrity regardless of differences of opinions and practice of faith.  Instead they have changed from the ways of their ancestors and have become an instrument of societal prejudice and discrimination.  Evangelical and free-standing churches and denominations, because of the baptism of the believer, provide spiritual shelter and immediate acceptance and sense of belonging.  On a side bar, new Canadians from Pentecostal and Roman Catholic churches, according to research, join their denomination and stay because of the universal primacy (Roman Catholic) and the baptism of the believer.

Personally, I have and continue to struggle, at times, with my place in the Anglican Church of Canada because of discriminatory and racial incidents.  All of those incidents chip away the image of Caucasians.  However, because of a chaplain at the seminary and two professors, I dealt with the disfigured image and arrived at a conclusion that I may not belong to them but they belong to me.  This was a gift and learning from the seminary.  As a priest, I have tried to engender the spirit of belonging through my words and actions among all congregants.  It is done through my utmost respect for diverse theological opinions and their personal theology, open dialogue and appealing to the passages from first Corinthians, Galatians and the prayer of Jesus.

It is time for Anglican Church of Canada to appreciate, respect and accept New Canadians with a resolve to nurture and challenge their faith while preserving their integrity, dignity and cultures.

Let the King Enter: Hope in the midst of uncertainty

“Remember you are dust and dust to you shall return”, are the words spoken at the imposition of ashes during the Ash Wednesday liturgy.  Ashes are a clear and obvious sign of our mortality and God’s saving grace in our lives.  We are dust and to dust we shall return while singing the glorious song of resurrection and with hope of eternal life with God.  Thankfully, God’s grace and mercy is present and at work in our lives every day in various ways.

Ash Wednesday also ushers in the Lent.  Lent is a time of reflection, prayer, repentance and preparation-preparation to observe the holy week and to celebrate Easter with thankful hearts, minds and souls that God fulfilled his promise and reconciled humanity to himself through the death and resurrection of his only son, Jesus the Christ.

Little did most of know on 26^th February (Ash Wednesday) that the coronavirus will bring our life, as we know it, to a screeching halt.  Social distancing and closures of public buildings, schools, offices, non-essential businesses and houses of worship will be the new normal for the foreseeable future.  Hospitals and other medical facilities and social services struggling to address the needs and to provide medical assistance to those in need, was not even in our most irresponsible dreams and thoughts. 

Depression, spiritual isolation and questions and doubts about the love of God are common reaction(s) in stressful and dangerous times.  While questions are common, the way to deal with it is not common at all.  Prophets of doom and gloom and God’s vindication are interpreting this time as a fulfillment of God’s vindication to punish sinful human beings and to bring the rest of humanity to God through Jesus the Christ.  Others are suggesting that it is nature’s way to take control of the mother earth and to rejuvenate herself.  Conspiracy theorists are blaming other countries for deliberately releasing the virus for their own nefarious gains and reasons.  All of these irrational theories and pronouncements are intensifying the angst and stress of analready stressed populace and are creating spiritual, racial, and religious divisions.

Fundamental difficulty and objection to God of vindication, earth inflicting pain and suffering on us and conspiracy is that it:

·         Portrays God as a monster who delights in the suffering and killing of wayward persons.  If that is the case then why did Jesus die on the cross and resurrect on the third day.  Moreover, Jesus did say that he did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfill them.  Fulfillment must be understood and accepted that because of Jesus we are not burdened by the Law of Moses (way to reconcile with God) and the prophets. 

·         Submits that nature, God’s creation, will turn on us and will reset itself.  Rejuvenation of the earth since COVID 19 is the example of how much healing and restoration earth and nature desperately need from us, the stewards of creation.

·         Blaming the other further separates one from the other and nurtures division, racism, xenophobia and fear in a fractured and broken world.

Lent, as mentioned above, is a time of reflection, prayer and devotion.  Because of this pandemic, we must pray, focus and reflect on our fragility, life styles and relationship with God and our neighbours.  Palm Sunday celebrates Jesus’ entry into the holy city.  Inhabitants of the holy city along with the visitors regardless of their race and religion came together to welcome the Son of God in their hearts and in their midst.  They received Jesus regardless of foreign occupation and hostility of the institution of the day.  They were there because they knew and believed that welcoming Jesus is to allow the light and faithfulness of God in their own lives and because of that they can face any calamity and oppression because the King has returned to his rightful place.

Likewise, I hope and fervently pray that we will be strengthened by the faith and zeal of these children and adults in the Palm Sunday event.  That our reflection, prayer, fasting and discipline during lent and these uncertain days have prepared us to set aside anything and everything which can deny the nature of God, splendour of the created order and oneness of humanity and has brought us to a place where we proclaim loudly Hosanna to the Highest and allow the King to come to his rightful place.

What option do we have? Silence or arrogance

In 1993, a female friend shared the experience she had earlier that day in her third-year university class.  The discussion was between a couple of middle-aged male and female students.  The conversation evolved from generalities to particularities and got very personal and heated.  They were discussing the tension between the law and the human rights and should the law be interpreted and evaluated regularly to ensure that it recognises and thus remains impartial to every member of the society.  Interestingly, the males argued that interpretation and evaluation of the law will make it ineffective and irrelevant while females held their ground and spoke with great passion and clarity about the importance for the law to reflect societal and cultural evolution. 

During lunch in the common room, a male student, from another year, chastised the female students as they had argued with the men.  He talked about their voice and demeanour while completely absolving the men from their discriminatory statements and attitude towards women, children and visible minorities.  The advocate wanted the women to apologise to the men for their arrogance and attitude towards men.  The disgusting aspect, according to my friend, was women were expected to apologise and to take the responsibility for invoking the racist, misogynist and discriminatory attitude of these men.  In other words, she continued, her existence, attitude, intelligence or mere presence, as a woman, invokes misogyny and her silence and unconditional agreement are the only acceptable and respectful behaviours.     

Unfortunately, women, indigenous people of Canada, people living with disabilities, person of colour (visible minority), and members of LGBTQ community can relate to this incident because of their own experience of subjugation and discrimination. 

I am certain that if asked male students will vehemently argue that they are not racist, sexist or misogynist and they believe in equal rights for every person in the world. Sadly, they are, in my opinion, absolutely right because of the societal and cultural expectations and norms.  Our society has concentrated not only the power in white men but has also defined and normalised our attitudes towards everyone who is not a white man.  This attitude is so ingrained in us that we do not even realise it.  How many times have you crossed the road when you saw an indigenous or a man of colour walking towards you at night or have been surprised and commented on your safety when you saw that it is a female pilot flying the aircraft or a female surgeon operating on you or your loved one?  Finally, Archbishop Linda Nicholls shattered the glass ceiling when she became the first female bishop to be elected Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. 

I face prejudice and racism on a regular basis because of my heritage. I have been asked if I am loyal to Canada.   I have been questioned about my attitude towards Christians and if it is ok to be wished Merry Christmas (as it was assumed, I might be Muslim).   I have been asked if I am a wife beater and have consistently been subjected to extra scrutiny at the airport.  In the church world, a cleric told me in 2012, after my impassioned speech to the synod of the diocese to accept the motion  to offer blessing to married same sex couple, that she was nervous when I walked to the microphone as I am a logical and persuasive speaker and debater and I would convince the synod to defeat the motion.  But to her surprise, I spoke for the motion.  The most frequent comment I hear, from white middle-aged men, is that I am arrogant as I speak with passion and forthrightly and it makes them uncomfortable and that they feel slighted and insulted by me.  In every incident, the speaker has assured me that they are not racist and they are not suppressing my voice.  In fact, they have argued, that they are doing this for my benefit.  When asked, if they have spoken to other equally arrogant (white men) the answer is, ‘you know it’s them, they do not intend any harm and you should accept them’.  So, I am arrogant for speaking passionately and unless I quieten down, cool down or be silent I can expect to be shunned or shuffled to the side-line where I will hopefully remain silent.  When I am asked to the table, I now question the motive.  Is my input really wanted or does it make the table look more diverse?

Is arrogance an asset or liability?  Apparently, it is both depending on the ethnic origin and the gender of the speaker.  And it will remain this way until we challenge the psyche of our culture and start seeing and accepting people for who they are instead of their gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.  Until that day, what option do I have?  I am torn between the choice to be silent or to be deemed arrogant, forthright and passionate.

                                                                                                                   

Uniformity or Unity in Diversity?

‘Cultivating and nurturing a culture of inclusion’, has been the vision and mission, of the parish where I am serving, for the past three years.  We arrived at this statement during the interim period and through deliberate and focussed discussions, dialogues and assessment of the congregation, neighbourhood and the city.  I am delighted and humbled to note that we have taken concrete steps to realise this vision in our own time and through our own efforts.

While we have made significant progress through the re-configuration of the sanctuary and  to being open to learn about human sexuality and mental health issues, we must not stop or believe that we have arrived, rather we should remember and live out the words of a traveler on a snowy evening, ‘I have miles to go before I sleep, I have miles to go before I rest’.  This simple yet profound line by Robert Frost reminds us that our journey with God and his people is without end and whenever we think we have arrived – God shows us yet another way to reach out to the world and (in our case) continue to cultivate a culture of inclusion.

As you know, our business meetings, at the parish, diocesan level and beyond, make decisions by following a rule of simple majority voting on a resolution.  In some cases, like financial reports etc., that is the only way to move forward and to give legitimacy to the reports.  However, when it comes to the doctrinal or missional issues and plans, I believe simple majority does move us forward but either leave or suppress the voices, conviction and faith of those who voted against it.  As a result, dissenting voices (both who won and who lost a resolution) can suppress, ridicule and trounce upon the theology and the faith of the other in order to either malign or convert to their way of thinking.  This was and continues to be the case in an ongoing debate and saga with regards to the equal marriage.

This desire to convert and to malign the other and to walk away from dialogue and conversation, in my opinion, is a symptom of a much larger problem with our understanding of ‘unity’ of the body of Christ.  Unfortunately, ‘uniformity’ has been equated with and presented as the fundamental principle and foundation of ‘unity’.  Uniformity at all cost has hurt the church more than we would like to know and acknowledge.

The church has never spoken with a uniformed voice.  The Acts of the Apostles highlights the way early church resolved the issues and disagreements among the apostles and the disciples.  They resolved it by speaking out and in some cases poaching members from the other groups but never losing sight of their purpose and mission in the world.  And their purpose and mission in the world was to preach the Gospel and to live out the commandment of Jesus to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked and to visit the sick and the prisoners.  In other words, diverse voices and opinions found common ground and vision to be the church in a hurting and unsettled world.

‘Inclusion’ means that we will include everyone regardless of our differences and agreements with them and will equip them to serve God and his people to the best of their abilities.  It also implies that our unity is in our diversity.  It also demands listening ears and discerning hearts so we can learn and sojourn with one another regardless of our theological positions