Episodes

Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe returns to the project of exploring her faith through rhetoric.

---

Transcript

Hello and welcome to The Priest and the Prof. I am your host, Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe. My producer. Carl and I would like to welcome you to a discussion about what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century. This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’ve been a rhetoric professor since 2010 and Carl has been working in church communications since 2022. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.

Hello, listeners.

As you heard, Rev. Deborah will no longer be a part of this podcast anymore because she has moved back to South Africa to be with family. However, it is our goal to keep bringing you content. We will be still be exploring the kinds of challenging issues of the faith and the social world we always have, but we will be inviting guests such as faith and intellectual leaders, and of course Carl and I will be here for you as well. We will lead you through this transition until there is a new priest at Trinity who will be our new partner in this endeavor.

In the meantime, we’d love to hear from you! If you have ideas for content, topics, or just want to tell us how you are feeling about this new era of the podcast, feel free to reach out to me at elizabeth@priestandprof.org.

Thanks for sticking with us, and let us know what you are thinking!

A few weeks ago I shared with you how I see my faith and my intellectual life intersecting. However, when I did so, I focused pretty much entirely on ancient and classical theorists. A listener reached out to me and said he really enjoyed it, which I appreciated. But, he said, he’d be interested to hear if there were any current, or at least somewhat more modern applications.

I was kind of struck by this.

What he was asking was are there later theorists, post-Classical, who can help me understand my faith.

And I thought that was a great question, and worth thinking about. So today I’m returning to that same topic, but with a different angle – who are the people who can help me make sense of my faith beyond the Classical period?

It’s actually a very interesting question because, as it may not surprise anyone, the farther you go in ANY field’s train of reasoning, the farther AWAY from Christianity you get. Science, the humanities, logic…they are all comfortably nestled in the Church in the Middle Ages, but starting in the Renaissance there is some pull. And then in the Enlightenment the way we think about things starts separating from Christianity. There is a greater emphasis on rationality and human reason and progress. That lasts for a long time, until we get to the 20th century and then all bets are off and we reject it all – God, science, capitalism, the whole shebang.

So looking at my faith through more modern lenses is tricky. Because modern theory would generally tell me to reject it. So, here again, I admittedly am being creative, and possibly cherry-picking. But I guess we do what we need to to make the world make sense.

The first person I want to tell you about is Kenneth Burke. I’ve mentioned him before, but now you’re going to get an earful. I’m not actually Burke’s biggest fan. Not because he wasn’t important or revelatory. On the contrary – he was both. But I get annoyed with him because he is the lazy man’s rhetorician.

What I mean by that, is if a reviewer or critic feels like they need to comment on something or critique something, but they don’t actually have anything to say, they’ll refer you to Burke. That’s BECAUSE Burke is so important and revelatory. Whatever you’re doing, Burke is probably relevant. Which means he may or may not be helpful because he’s so ubiquitous. And in the 1950s and 60s when Burke was writing his ideas were like a Kuhnian shift. And when you explain to undergrads the difference between Aristotle and Burke they tend to see why.

So let me go back to Aristotle for a second so you can get the big picture. Aristotle was the first to kind of systemetize rhetoric, which he pretty much defined as the ability to persuade. He came up with the basic format and formula we were all taught all throughout school that, based on the comments section of anything online, we have all definitely ignored. But from Aristotle we get the idea that an argument should be a claim, followed by evidence of a variety of types, then a summed up conclusion. Cicero came along and kind of perfected this, but let’s stay with Aristotle. Basically, Aristotle set up the parameters for rational, civil, argumentation and established the basic groundwork for persuasion in the public sphere.

Consider the assumptions here, however: If you believe that a rational argument is persuasive, you are assuming that your audience is rational. If you are setting up the rules for argumentation and they are civil and reasonable, you are assuming those characteristics of your audience. Here again – see the comments section.

Now, when I explain this, my students generally laugh. Because in no way do they assume the general public is rational (no word on what that means for their classmates). But then when I ask them what that means for how to make an argument and whether reason and logic are really all that helpful for motivating, it gets eerily quiet.

Enter Burke.

Kenneth Burke was basically responding to World War II in most of his work. What I mean by that, is he looked at a world in which a couple of guys took center stage and said, “Hey, it would be a great idea if we took over the world and killed millions of people in the process!” and people found that compelling and wondered how on earth did that happen? How did we get to a place where global domination and the holocaust seemed like the reasonable thing to do?

Burke’s conclusion was that it had nothing to do with reason – and everything to do with identity. Rhetoric, Burke posited, was not a matter of a rational speaker convincing people with evidence. Rhetoric was a person creating a sense of identification or division with a community. Hitler wasn’t a successful speaker because he was reasonable, he was a successful speaker because he convinced people that he got them. He understood them. He was ONE of them. And he was able to effectively identify who was NOT them, as well. It had nothing to do with making a rational argument, and everything to do with creating senses of unity with one group, and marginalizing others. And it’s easy to point to the marginalization part – that’s obvious. But in many ways the identification part – the part where he convinced all Germans that they were in it together and he was one of them, making Germany great like Germany was supposed to be, is more important. Because division isn’t helpful unless you have a strong sense of identity to divide from.

Some of you may see where I’m going already, but I’m going to elaborate. I’ve been thinking about the notions of identification and division in terms of my faith and it’s actually pretty profound.

When I was young I liked this song by a Christian artist called Steve Camp called “Don’t Tell Them Jesus Loves Them.” The title is misleading. The whole chorus is, “Don’t tell them Jesus loves them until you’re ready to love them, too.” That was a powerful message for me when I was a teen. I thought long and hard about what it meant to tell someone about my faith, as I actually did relatively often, from the perspective not just of someone who proselytized, but from the perspective of someone who cared. That made a difference in how I approached things. But as powerful as that message is, I think it only goes about ¾ of the way there. And this is where Burke helps me make sense of things.

Burke doesn’t say you should like or love your audience, Burke says you should BE ALIKE or BE ONE with your audience. You should find those things that you share and those commonalities and create a space where you understand each other and make community. THAT is how the faith grows. Not by preaching at people or testimonies. But by showing people that they are not outsiders. That they have community. That they will be a welcome part of the family.

The flipside of that is equally clear. There are churches and those in the faith that, instead of identification focus on division. There are churches that, instead of showing people that they are part of one community, are intent on showing certain people that they are outsiders, and creating animosity for those outsiders. This definitely helps create a sense of community for the insiders, but it is unstable and filled with strife.

Burke wrote about this extensively. And, as I note, it was literally a response to Hitler. There are those who include and those who exclude. Even if the stage is different, the messaging and the rhetoric is the same.

Okay – I’m about to get complicated. Later theory is. But I’m about to tell you a little bit about linguistics and semiotics. Hold onto your seats.

A French linguist called Ferdinand de Saussure once theorized that communication, specifically words, are made up of different elements. He called these things like sign and signified.

In 1923 Charles Ogden and I.A. Richards refined the model and created what they called the semiotic triangle. They said words are made up of three things: the referent, the symbol, and the thought. The referent is the thing itself. The symbol is the word. The thought is your idea about it. So if there is a dog, the referent is the animal itself, the symbol is d-o-g, and the thought is your association with that symbol that connects the symbol to the referent.

This sounds like a way to complicate what is pretty simple but it gives us a way to explain misunderstanding. When I say “dog” you’d think we’d have an understanding. However, that “thought” part makes a big difference. We might both hear the same word. We might both even see the same animal. But we might have very different associations with that referent. What if I’ve been bitten by a dog before? What if you are allergic to dogs? What if I was saved from a burning building by a rescue dog as a child? This is obviously a very silly example, but you can see how things like personal context can make even one simple word like “dog” have pretty different meanings for some people.

Now consider something much more complicated – like the church or faith. Let’s say the word is “Christ.” This presents a real problem for a lot of people. Because there is not a referent. That means there is not a “thing” or a an actual object, person, or whatever to attach a symbol or thought to. That’s what faith is We have symbols. We have thoughts and contexts. But we don’t have a referent. We, as people of faith, fill it in.

I think we need to be sensitive to the task that we may be asking of others when we demand that they adhere to, or even respect our beliefs. Because they are incomplete. The way we communicate to the world and understand the world doesn’t make sense. We are missing a part of the triangle that is required for a whole message. We need to acknowledge that is hard to overcome. Here again we have to consider what we have to offer. If we cannot offer radical peace, community, or love to make that empty referent seem sensible then it seems like we simply are incomplete.

Similarly, say the word is “church.” This presents an even bigger problem.Because many people DO have a referent for that. There is a notion, however vague, of what the church is. And we have a word. We have multiple words for church. But the thought can be nefarious. So many people have negative associations with the church. And we’ve done that to ourselves. For so many Americans the “church” sign is a close triangle. And it is a very negative one. Here again – the only way to change that is to address the “thought”. If the association between the word “church’ and the referent “church” isn’t community or love then we have lost the plot. We are not living out the message of Christ.

So this semiotic triangle may be a way to complicate simple things. But it is also a way to explain what should be obvious.

The least likely candidate for my rhetorical journey through my faith is with a French theorist named Michel Foucault.

Foucault was a post-structuralist and just kind of a weird dude. We don’t need to go into his personal life, but if you Google him, you’ll find out this this is a theoretically, politically, and personally odd choice. But Foucault is a bit like Burke in that he’s everywhere. When I was getting my MA in English we used to joke that if you didn’t have anything valuable to say you could just make something up and attribute it to Derrida or Foucault and nobody would know any better because nobody really understood them or had read them in grad school but we knew they were SUPER important, so, go for it. Derrida is less important in the field of communication, but Foucault is still a theoretical behemoth. Traditional, institutional folks who don’t see themselves as classicists tell you to cite Burke. Folks who see themselves as more transgressive or modern (but maybe still don’t have much specific to say) tell you to cite Foucault. That’s not to say these two are not useful! You can cite these two liberally, for sure. But they are definitely the lazy-scholar’s go-to.

So, what’s Foucault’s deal? It’s power.

Foucault doesn’t believe in truth – he believes in power. He actually has a very complex theory, so I am going to give you kind of the cartoon version of it, but it boils down to this: Our world is governed by various systems. Those systems are systems of power management. That means material power, political power, discursive power…all manner of power. Our lives are not governed necessarily by any kind of capital T truth or set system of morals (as we can see because those have definitely changed over time), but by those systems of power. Your life and existence is determined by your position in that system and your relationship to those systems of power. You don’t necessarily have a ton of choice in that, but that doesn’t mean you can’t try to change your position in that system.

Yeah, okay, what on earth does this have to do with me being a Christian? Because my relationship to the world, including my life in the faith, is determined by power.

Let me give you an example: There is a potent narrative among some Christians that American Christians are a terribly persecuted group and we need to be protected from the world and from and intrusive government. That is patently untrue and the people who are spinning that yarn are liars. White Christians are the most politically powerful group in America outside of the billionaire class. We basically define the discursive rules in America politically and legally. We ARE the system. And if you are sitting there shaking your head, telling yourself, oh, no, we have it so hard, I’m sorry, but you have been taken in BY that discourse of power. Christians have more power here than they know what to do with. And we need to acknowledge that. And, quite frankly, take care with it. And that is the thing that is missing from our politics. Foucault has described how truth is created by power. The Evangelical church IS the power in America – and it has spun a narrative that it is not. And as Christians we need to be very aware of our relationship to that power. We have power. And whether we like it our not, we wield it on a daily basis.

So go back to Burke – what do you do with your power? What is your part of the system? Do you divide or create identity?

There are also questions of how systems collide.The church is a system of power. The state is also a system of power. And the economy is a system of power. We need to be acutely aware of how all of these things intersect and OUR role in that. Because people are looking to us to define terms like truth, justice, etc. Because we ARE the systems of power.

Okay, I know that was heady, and a whole lot, but let me boil it down: Our society is defined less by immutable laws and more by who is in charge. Christians are very much in charge in America. We need to take great care with how we treat each other.

So what is the endgame, here?

I work in a world where faith is not exactly promoted. People in my world believe in proof, rationale, and reason. Even the ones who deal in things like postmodern theory, which seems so pie in the sky, demand that we show our work. So people are often very surprised to find I am involved in a church They are VERY surprised to find I am actually invested in it. And, I don’t think I have to explain my faith.

The whole point of faith is that it defies proof. People who demand proof of faith misunderstand what it is. And that is very frustrating for people like my colleagues. But that doesn’t mean I can’t explain my beliefs. It doesn’t mean that my thinking is inconsistent. It just means I have to take opportunities like this to explain myself.

Thank you for listening to the Priest and the Prof. Find us at our website, https://priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast@priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at https://priestandprof.org/donate/. That will help cover the costs of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.

Music by audionautix.com

In this second of a two part episode, Rev. Deborah Duguid-May interviews Brother Jacob, a transgender Anglican Benedictine monk, about his winding spiritual journey to monastic life and his experience at Holy Cross Monastery.

The interview was recorded in September of 2025. The two parts of this interview are the last content with Rev. Deborah that will be released on this podcast.

The interview is presented with minimal editing to retain the flow of the conversation.

---

Transcript

DDM [00:03]: Hello and welcome to The Priest and the Prof. I am your host, the Rev. Deborah Duguid-May.

MET [00:09]: And I’m Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe.

DDM [00:11]: This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’m an Episcopal priest of 26 years, and Elizabeth has been a rhetoric professor since 2010. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.

CRT [00:38]: This is the second part of a two part interview with Brother Jacob at The Holy Cross Monestary in the Hudson Valley, New York. The interview was recorded in September of 2025. The two parts of this interview are the last content with Rev. Deborah that will be released on this podcast. The interview is presented with minimal editing to retain the flow of the conversation.

DDM [01:02]: What have been some other surprises that you’ve discovered in monastic life? I’m sure there’s been many, but just what comes to mind?

BRJ [01:12]: I, I think, I think I’ve surprised myself more than anything.

BRJ [01:17]: My, my favorite story is of my first week of silence. Um, every two or three months we have a week of si- it’s, it’s actually only five days.

BRJ [01:28]: Contemplative days. Um, and when I, when I first entered the monastery, I’m– I mean, you know, entering a monastery is a big deal, right?

BRJ [01:36]: Like, there were a few things I knew here and there that I would struggle with, right?

BRJ [01:41]: But silence was the only thing that truly scared me. I had never even spent a day in silence. I was not at all sure that I would survive a whole week, right?

DDM [01:55]: I mean, we live in a world that’s just constantly bombarded by news. You’ve always got a radio on or a TV on or, you know? Right.

BRJ [02:02]: Right. Yeah. Yeah. So I, I, I was terrified. I, and I’m, I’m not even sure what I thought exactly would happen.

BRJ [02:11]: I just didn’t want to spend that much time alone with myself,

BRJ [02:18]: As the first– as my first contemplative days drew nearer, our formator was a huge support, um, and I had conversations with other brothers about it, how to occupy myself, and taking comfort in their stories of struggling in the silence.

BRJ [02:38]: I had a plan of what to do, and that was, like, extra prayer, study, work, leisure. These are the backbones of, uh, uh, or the backbone of Benedictine life.

BRJ [02:51]: Um, so the first day came, and it, and it, it went okay.

BRJ [02:59]: Th-there were moments that I struggled, and so, like I was told to, I took them to prayer, then the moment passed.

BRJ [03:08]: And, and I went, “Oh, well, that wasn’t so bad.”

BRJ [03:14]: Like, I, I survived. Um, this is the funny part of the story. That, that night after my first day of silence, I actually woke myself up talking in my sleep.

DDM [03:30]: That’s hilarious.

BRJ [03:32]: I don’t even remember what I was dreaming about, but I just needed to vocalize apparently. And then, you know, the rest of the week just went and it, you know, it, it got easier, and I realized that I would survive and it, it wasn’t horrible.

BRJ [03:49]: Right? And I could even see how maybe I would enjoy it one day. And now I do. And, um, actually this year, uh, I’ve had to miss contemplative, contempo- contemplative days twice in a row because I was away.

BRJ [04:03]: And so, and actually today begins the first set since then. I’ve been craving it for months. So that’s, that was a big surprise.

DDM [04:13]: That’s interesting

BRJ [04:16]: Um, I, I have another short story to tell, but do… I don’t know if we want to include it or if that’s enough

DDM [04:26]: Yeah, no, I’d be interested to hear. Yeah. We don’t get to speak to a monk very often,

BRJ [04:33]: Okay. Um, so one thing that surprised me about monastic life, which then led to another surprise about myself, is how our natural God-given gifts and desires are, are really encouraged and allowed to grow here. Uh, well, I mean, I think I had a feeling that’s how monastic life was supposed to be, you know? But, but to actually experience it really is surp- um, for me, it was surprising.

BRJ [05:05]: Um, ’cause, you know, like other groups outside monasteries tend to focus on, on what does the group need, and how do you fit into it? How can you meet our needs?

BRJ [05:18]: But here it’s what does the community need, and what do you need, and how can we fulfill both of these needs at the same

DDM [05:26]: Oh, that’s beautiful.

BRJ [05:28]: right? Yeah. And so like in that process, hidden gifts and desires come ali- come alive.

BRJ [05:34]: I, um, I experienced that in becoming the assistant groundskeeper, which has been a true blessing. Um, I was still a postulant in my first six months here, and we needed someone to take over the compost system, and not like I have never been a gardener. I barely managed to keep three houseplants alive before joining, right?

BRJ [05:56]: I had no idea what I was doing. But I’m an animal lover, and we don’t have animals here.

BRJ [06:03]: I want something to care for, to nurture, and it won’t be a cat, I’ll settle for worms.

DDM [06:10]: Oh my gosh.

BRJ [06:13]: So I volunteered to take over the compost, right? And, and like happily thinking that that would be the extent of it, right?

BRJ [06:19]: Like, I’ll just do the compost. I don’t want the ground, you know? But of course, my desire grew from there. And now I’m in the garden every day, right? And in the spring, you and, and our friend Petra are coming to the monastery to lead a gardening retreat with me. I would never have seen that coming.

DDM [06:36]: I’m looking forward to that.

BRJ [06:39]: Yeah. I, it’s gonna be a blast

DDM [06:41]: So it’s so interesting because, you know, we’re speaking about compost and worms, which are things that people don’t generally think about in relationship to monastic life. Um, which, which is a reminder for us, you know? But, but I am interested very specifically in this whole journey, where is God in all of this?

DDM [07:00]: I mean, I know you’ve, you’ve mentioned it, you know, a number of times, but I’m just kind of interested in specifically.

BRJ [07:07]: Yeah. I mean, I see God so much more than I ever did before. I see God in people and places I never would’ve thought to look in- including on the compost pile.

BRJ [07:21]: A- a- and this is, uh, this is just the beginning of the journey. Um, so the, the first year and a half at Holy Cross are, are spent in initial formation.

BRJ [07:35]: It’s mostly about learning what it means to be a monk and how to live in community, right? Um, uh, around the end of that time, I went back and read my spiritual autobiography, and I was shocked to see how much I’d grown and changed in less than two years

DDM [07:57]: It’s interesting, yeah

BRJ [07:59]: And now that I’m a junior professor, this stage in– of formation is more about the individual spiritual life.

BRJ [08:09]: So our studies go deeper and, and we really work to let them sink in and surrender to conversion of life. We, um, we study the Bible. The Psalms are very important. The writings of the mystics, theology,

DDM [08:24]: It’s interesting, sorry, it’s interesting that you begin with, with exploring community and only after that then move on to the individual. That I find is fascinating.

BRJ [08:35]: Yeah. Well, I mean, uh, it, uh,

DDM [08:38]: Of course, it’s all woven together.

BRJ [08:42]: There’s… The, yeah, it’s a matter of emphasis,

DDM [08:45]: Mm, mm, mm.

BRJ [08:47]: but yeah, I mean, uh, uh, because, because community life is, is so essential, so vital to religious life. Yeah. Yeah.

DDM [08:59]: always

BRJ [09:00]: Yeah. You got it. Yeah.

DDM [09:06]: that there is that impression that, that monks are simply, you know, sort of on their own reading scripture, praying, that sort of individual journey, you know, and deeply spiritual people, you know?

BRJ [09:21]: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, uh, well, it, it is tr- it is true to some extent, right? Like, and, and some of us are like super intellectual, constantly reading and, and heavy philosophy and stuff. But like I d- before entering, I didn’t have any theological training or experience, right? Like, I’m only now learning the basics and like different ways of reading the Bible.

DDM [09:48]: Right

BRJ [09:49]: And like I’m, I’m just… You know, we, we all participate in these theological philosophical classes, discussions, but, um, I’m much more comfortable shoveling worm poop.

DDM [10:02]: Right

BRJ [10:03]: know? Like we all have to hang, but, you know, we, we, we do it differently

DDM [10:07]: Right, right, right I think that’s liberating for people to hear, you know, because I do think that often in, in our mindset we think that monks and nuns are, almost have this super spiritual direct line to God, you know? But when I’m listening to your journey, it’s, it’s so much more about discovery rather than already necessarily having the answers, you know?

BRJ [10:34]: Yeah. And I mean, well, it probably is true that like we pray more often than the average person outside a monastery, but that doesn’t mean that God hears me more than you or any of your congregants or even a random atheist walking down the street,

BRJ [10:48]: Right, Like,

DDM [10:49]: right. Yeah. What are some of the things that you love most about your particular community?

BRJ [10:56]: Oh, I love this question, Deborah.

BRJ [11:00]: Um, number one, top of my list is worshiping with these guys. We are in church five times a day together, so it helps that I like it.

DDM [11:14]: Yeah.

BRJ [11:17]: But I just, I, I love the way we do church and, and share responsibilities around it and just show up in our human frailty, right? Like, no matter what kind of day we’re having,

BRJ [11:34]: Um, I love how diverse we are. I– Our, our gifts and interests are all over the place. We have brothers from all over the world.

BRJ [11:47]: Our socioeconomic backgrounds run the gamut. We, we represent four generations. Our sexualities are diverse. Our abilities are diverse. Our levels and area of education are diverse. I mean, we, we check a lot of DEI boxes.

DDM [12:07]: I hope you’re not getting funding from the state, but sorry, carry on.

BRJ [12:14]: it do- it makes for a willy, a really well-rounded community,

DDM [12:18]: It does. It does. It’s beautiful.

BRJ [12:20]: cool thing is that, is that even with all of these differences, we manage to love each other and accompany each other, and we build intimacy, right, with each other on our journeys to building intimacy with our creator. And that’s, that, I mean, that’s what monastic life is all about,

DDM [12:38]: And that’s such an example, I think, to us in our world for those listeners, um, you know, who, who are aware of what’s happening in the USA. You know, just what you’re describing of how diverse you are, you know, the difference, and, and yet how you, you manage to love each other, you know, and, and build intimacy with each other.

DDM [12:58]: It’s a, it’s a real model for what would be wonderful if we could be achieving more in our own communities.

BRJ [13:07]: Well, and, um, we’re not perfect, right?

DDM [13:11]: sure

BRJ [13:12]: we practice love because it’s, it’s hard sometimes, right? And sometimes we truly screw it up because we’re human, right?

BRJ [13:22]: And, and then we do our best to be honest with ourselves and with each other, and then we try again,

BRJ [13:28]: right?

DDM [13:29]: So when you’re talking about DEI, I have a question. So why can’t girls then join your particular order?

BRJ [13:38]: Yeah. Yeah, we don’t check all the DEI boxes

DDM [13:41]: I know, I’m thinking for instance, like given the fact that you’ve taken vows of celibacy, you know, why can communities, religious communities not be beyond gender? You know. Now, on the other hand, when I say that, I also am aware that for female-based communities, those have sometimes been very redemptive spaces for women to be in a, in a space beyond patriarchy and outside of patriarchy.

DDM [14:05]: So I know there’s definitely, you know, an argument for same-gendered, um, communities, especially like for female-based communities. But I’m just interested. Yeah.

BRJ [14:16]: Yeah, I do– I, I mean, it’s a great question, and honestly, like one I really struggle with. Um, I, I, I think the simple answer of why we continue to be gender separated is, is tradition, right? And like you said, in, in old days, we were gender separated because of celibacy, right? Like, but, um, the claim I’m about to make, I don’t know if any official numbers exist, but like judging by what my eyes tell me and anecdotes I’ve heard, the population of queer people is much more dense in religious orders than in the general population, right?

BRJ [14:57]: So like celibacy is not necessarily the basis of a valid argument to maintain gender separation anymore, right?

DDM [15:08]: Right

BRJ [15:09]: Um, now there are a handful of mixed gender communities out there. Or I, I’ve heard of both Anglican and Catholics, uh, order, um, communities doing that. But, but most, as we know, uh, enforce the gender binary.

BRJ [15:25]: So in my struggle to understand and feel at home in this strict gender system, I have found a few factors that add up to a, a more substantive argument for continuing this tradition, okay?

DDM [15:41]: Oh, interesting. Okay.

BRJ [15:42]: not that I’m arguing that it should be continued, but that there is, there is what I would call a valid argument for it, okay?

BRJ [15:51]: So l- I’m gonna preface it by saying I am about to make some sweeping generalizations that are clearly not true for everyone, okay?

DDM [16:00]: Sure, sure

BRJ [16:02]: But while, um, individual experiences of, of gender are quite varied, we still live in a culture that treats sex and gender as binary, and we cannot escape the reality that men and women and girls and boys are, are treated differently and have very different expectations laid out for them from a very early age, right?

BRJ [16:26]: So having lived on both sides of that divide, right?

BRJ [16:32]: See gender as a spectrum, not a binary. There is a big divide between the way I was treated when I had breasts and the way people treat me now that I have a beard,

DDM [16:42]: That must be so fascinating to actually know the different ways people treat in your own body. You know, I mean, I can only think and see with my eyes how I’m treated versus somebody else, whereas you’ve experienced that in your own body. I mean, that’s fascinating.

BRJ [16:58]: It’s, it’s a wild shift to experience, yeah. Um, so, so I’ve spent a lot of time exploring and playing in the gray area or m- the lavender area, right? Like between pink and blue. I, I’m quite comfortable there, and I’m sure some of our listeners are

BRJ [17:17]: So while I’m about to make some binary gender remarks, it’s not to deny or offend those of us who, who revel in this middle space, but to acknowledge the effects that our highly gendered society has on us.

BRJ [17:34]: Okay,

DDM [17:35]: Okay, I hear you.

BRJ [17:36]: Okay. So in general, boys are encouraged to express anger, and girls are encouraged to express a wider range of emotions. Like I said, it’s not, it’s not true for every child, right, but the vast majority.

BRJ [17:52]: Uh, boys are encouraged to be more analytical and girls to be more feeling, right? And this has, uh, uh, an impact on our psychological health and makeup o- of men and women, right?

BRJ [18:05]: Another thing, um, Sister Lynn said, um, at that formation retreat, which resonates with my experience, is that our psychological development and spiritual growth cannot be separated. It’s one journey.

BRJ [18:22]: So the way we process and express our emotions is like directly related to the way we live our spiritualities.

BRJ [18:31]: And, in religious life, the way we live our spiritualities guides everything, right? Okay. So this is the, the basis for the first factor here. Okay? Let’s call this the psychological spiritual factor of this gender argument.

BRJ [18:51]: Okay. Th- this, this factor gets amplified. Um, it’s, it’s probably gonna sound a little controversial, so hang, hang with me for a minute, okay?

BRJ [19:02]: So having lived about half my life now with estrogen as the dominant sex hormone and then testosterone as dominant, and admittedly, I, I have no empirical evidence for this, okay? This is my lived experience.

DDM [19:16]: Okay

BRJ [19:17]: I believe there is a biological element that contributes to the difference between the way men and women experience emotions.

DDM [19:27]: Interesting. Okay

BRJ [19:28]: When I started taking testosterone, I was seriously shocked to, to watch my thoughts and emotional reactions change, right? Like, I, I really did begin to view things more analytically and less emotionally.

BRJ [19:47]: And when I had emotions, anger was right up front in a way that I had never experienced before

DDM [19:54]: I’ve heard this from, from other friends of mine.

BRJ [19:57]: Yeah. Yeah. So, so this is not to say that, like, my empathy or capacity for emotional processing or, or expression changed, or that my intelligence changed, right? But my first thoughts and reaction to a stimulus tended more toward logic or anger than they had before, right? So that’s my personal ex-experience, and apparently others as well, right?

BRJ [20:25]: Like, and, and, and recognizing this has helped me make sense of our gendered society,

DDM [20:32]: Right, right

BRJ [20:34]: So because it seems to me that, that our, our hormones affect our emotions and, and, and psychological makeup, they in turn then affect our spiritual lives,

DDM [20:45]: Interesting.

BRJ [20:47]: So the psychological spiritual factor is enhanced and becomes the, the, the psychological biological spiritual factor,

BRJ [20:57]: right?

BRJ [20:57]: Like, all of these things are working together and affecting people differently depending on where they fall in these, like, multiple spectrums, right?

DDM [21:06]: right.

BRJ [21:10]: So, okay, now that’s one complex bit of it. Then un- like you said, another part is simply patriarchy,

BRJ [21:20]: Um, now I have heard that cultures exist in which women hold the power and men are subordinate to them,

BRJ [21:29]: but they’re like so rare and obscure that I couldn’t tell you w- like what they’re called or even on what continents they exist, right? So this means that no matter where we come from, no matter what governing or caste system or biases we carry from our past, the vast majority of us carry an embodied experience of men being dominant and women being subordinate,

DDM [21:59]: very true. Yeah. Very true.

BRJ [22:03]: The Rule of St. Benedict and many other religious rules make it clear that, that we are to make great efforts to level the playing ground when people enter,

BRJ [22:14]: And introducing gender diversity brings an entirely new and complex bias to tackle, right? It’s not to say that it can’t be done or that it’s not worth the effort, just that it is a significant reality that would need to be faced and reckoned with in a mixed-gender community,

DDM [22:40]: I mean, I’m thinking of, you know, those unequal power relationships and sexual violence and, you know, the vulnerability. Yeah, I hear you. Mm-hmm.

BRJ [22:53]: Um, and, and then there’s the community life factor.

BRJ [22:59]: So, um, religious community is, is like being married to a whole group of people, okay?

DDM [23:09]: Polygamy at its best.

BRJ [23:11]: Yeah.

DDM [23:13]: All right.

BRJ [23:13]: polygamy. No. Uh, I’m a little anxious about using those words,

DDM [23:19]: I’m sorry. I’m sorry.

BRJ [23:22]: Um, but, well, I mean, maintaining a marriage with one person is hard enough,

BRJ [23:28]: right?

BRJ [23:28]: Like, it’s why half of marriages fail.

DDM [23:31]: Right

BRJ [23:32]: So imagine being married to 20 people, right? When, when you consider all the diversity we touched on earlier that we have, like the race, culture, background, et cetera, community life gets very complicated and messy very quickly,

BRJ [23:47]: right?

BRJ [23:49]: And navigating and negotiating how we live and, and minister to the broader community together

BRJ [23:58]: while honoring each other’s needs and perspectives is a lot of work,

BRJ [24:05]: So, so given, given these factors, the, the psychological, biological, spiritual factor, the, the patriarchy factor, and community life,

BRJ [24:19]: from a gender-separated monastery or convent to a mixed-gender one requires great intentionality and awareness and constant work on both the individual and communal levels, right?

BRJ [24:37]: And quite frankly, I can understand why a vowed religious of any gender would say, “You know what? That is a whole can of worms we are just not ready to open yet.”

DDM [24:48]: You know, honestly, when I asked you that question, why can’t girls join, I, I was expecting just some short, you know, s- quick answer. But honestly, this is the, I think about the most that I’ve actually really seriously thought about it as I’ve been listening to you, and I mean, a, a lot of what you’re saying makes sense, you know, which is very interesting.

DDM [25:05]: I’ve… Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for taking it seriously, that question.

BRJ [25:09]: Oh, I’ve– I’ve, oh, I don’t know that I would’ve survived here if, if I hadn’t been wrestling with it already, you know?

DDM [25:17]: right

BRJ [25:19]: I’m, uh, well, I mean, because I personally believe that more diversity is better, right? I would love to see our order move toward being mixed gender. And I totally understand, having wrestled with it, those who say that our life is complicated enough, and we already have enough to wrestle with,

BRJ [25:40]: And, and in wrestling with this, I see that gender-separated communities have their unique blessings too,

BRJ [25:48]: right? Like for me, being raised as a girl with a sister in a gender-separated conservative Christian culture

DDM [25:55]: That’s interesting. That’s interesting, that phrase. Yeah.

BRJ [25:59]: and then finding refuge in the lesbian community, I am more comfortable with women than I am with men,

BRJ [26:07]: I, have known what a unique blessing it is to be part of a loving and supportive community of women. And honestly, I wasn’t sure that living m- with men would work out for me, right?

BRJ [26:22]: but they obviously wouldn’t let me move into a convent looking like this, so I probably like, I had to give it a shot.

BRJ [26:30]: And there have been some difficult moments, right? But it’s because of those moments that I learned what it’s like to be part of a loving and supportive community of men.

BRJ [26:43]: And I mean, there, there have been some individual men in my life who have loved me in extraordinary ways.

BRJ [26:52]: to be part of a community of men,

BRJ [26:56]: it’s, it’s different, and it’s just really special.

BRJ [27:00]: It’s a true gift.

BRJ [27:03]: while I’m in favor of more gender diversity, I, I also recognize that gender separation brings its own unique gifts and graces.

DDM [27:13]: Oh, Brother Jacob, I feel like there’s so many more questions I would love to ask you, but we just don’t have time for today. And so to our listeners, if you have any questions that you would like to ask Brother Jacob about monastic life, about being transgender or transgender in monastic life, about spirituality, sexuality, community life, or anything else that you may be interested in asking, please write your questions to us at the end of this episode, and perhaps we can have Brother Jacob for a follow-up conversation to explore your questions.

DDM [27:48]: And so honestly, Jacob, thank you for your openness, your vulnerability, your honesty, and just being this authentic you in our world.

BRJ [27:58]: Oh, thank you, Deborah. Same. It has, it has been a blessing. And many thanks to, to Elizabeth and Carl.

DDM [28:06]: Oh, thank you so much. Have a beautiful day

BRJ [28:10]: Oh, you too. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all evermore.

DDM [28:17]: Amen

BRJ [28:17]: Amen

MET [28:22]: Thank you for listening to the Priest and the Prof. Find us at our website, priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast at priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at priestandprof.org slash donate. That will help cover the costs of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.

DDM [28:53]: Music by audionautix.

In this first of a two part episode, Rev. Deborah Duguid-May interviews Brother Jacob, a transgender Anglican Benedictine monk, about his winding spiritual journey to monastic life and his experience at Holy Cross Monastery.

The interview was recorded in September of 2025. The two parts of this interview are the last content with Rev. Deborah that will be released on this podcast.

The interview is presented with minimal editing to retain the flow of the conversation.

---

Transcript

This transcript generated by an automated process.

DDM [00:03]: Hello and welcome to The Priest and the Prof. I am your host, the Rev. Deborah Duguid-May.

MET [00:09]: And I’m Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe.

DDM [00:11]: This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’m an Episcopal priest of 26 years, and Elizabeth has been a rhetoric professor since 2010. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.

CRT [00:38]: This is the first part of a two part interview with Brother Jacob at The Holy Cross Monestary in the Hudson Valley, New York. The interview was recorded in September of 2025. The two parts of this interview are the last content with Rev. Deborah that will be released on this podcast. The interview is presented with minimal editing to retain the flow of the conversation.

DDM [01:01]: Hello. So today we are going to be having a conversation with Brother Jacob. He is a monk at the Holy Cross Monastery, which is an Anglican Benedictine religious community in the Hudson Valley of New York. So for those of you that may not be aware, in the Anglican and Episcopal Church, we also have religious communities like many other faith organizations.

DDM [01:27]: And so I am so excited that you all are going to have the opportunity of meeting Jacob and hearing from him today. Brother Jacob, and I remember that I met you first at a community meeting where ironically you and I in the break ended up bonding over food and discussions around food, because for those of you who may not know, Brother Jacob and I are both foodies.

BRJ [01:56]: Yes. Yeah, it was, it was so exciting to meet you. I was thrilled by the idea that your spirituality influences your food choices and the way you nurture your land and your animals, and I’ve, I’ve really been loving studying the theology of food since then

DDM [02:15]: So I want to begin this, um, conversation today with you, Jacob, around what called you, particularly as a young person, to religious life. You know, um, for many of us, we think of religious communities as being people who are older, and it seems unusual for a young person these days to enter into monastic community.

DDM [02:39]: Or is that just the appearance of how it seems to us on the outside?

BRJ [02:44]: Right. Well, no. Well, first, thank you for calling me young. I am 45, so I’m starting to experience aging, but, um, i- in this community, ages range from 26 to 94, so here I am among the young.

DDM [03:00]: Yeah

BRJ [03:01]: And, um, I think the state of the world today has people reassessing their lives and priorities, which means that more and more young people are considering and entering religious communities.

BRJ [03:14]: And here, there’s at least six guys here that are, like, definitely younger than me, and a, a couple right around my age, too. So,

DDM [03:20]: Fascinating, huh? Yeah. Yeah.

BRJ [03:24]: as for what drew me here, the, of course, the obtuse answer is God, right?

DDM [03:30]: Right

BRJ [03:31]: But, um, I’ll give you a, a brief version of my spiritual autobiography. Um, I was always drawn to monastic life, but I grew up in the Church of Christ, a very conservative evangelical church, part of the Holiness Movement, right?

BRJ [03:48]: Like, um, uh, I remember Elizabeth talking about, um, growing up in the Southern Baptist Church. It’s very similar to that. We– I think we thought of them as kind of liberal.

DDM [03:59]: Oh my word.

BRJ [04:01]: So yeah. So monasticism was not part of that tradition.

BRJ [04:05]: and watching The Sound of Music was, like, my first exposure to the religious life. And then in high school, I was fascinated by the book Lost Horizon by James Hilton. It’s set in a lamassery, a monastery in the Himalayas. Uh, but again, you know, mon- monasticism just seemed so set apart.

BRJ [04:26]: It was totally inaccessible. Um, and then left the church entirely when I left my parents’ house at 18. I called myself an atheist. Um, then I was exposed to Zen Buddhism when I was 25 or 26, and it totally changed my life

BRJ [04:46]: Mindfulness and meditation, uh, helped me experience an inner peace and stillness for the first time.

BRJ [04:55]: And so I, I was learning about Thich Nhat Hanh and, and Buddhist monks and, you know, I was like, Oh, what’s, what’s that over there? Maybe I could do that, right? Um, but after exploring some Buddhist sanghas, it just didn’t feel like a good fit for me. I knew that Buddhism held a lot of lessons for me and a lot of wisdom that I could learn from, but it wasn’t really my spiritual home.

DDM [05:20]: Interesting. Interesting.

BRJ [05:22]: about that same time, I was introduced to the idea that many of the major world religions are all worshiping the same God, just talking about it differently, doing it differently, and that always made a lot of sense to me, seeing the similarities and the differences between Eastern and Western spiritualities, right?

BRJ [05:43]: And again, around that same time, this was a very ri-rich period of my life, apparently, um, my sister joined the Orthodox Christian Church, and that completely changed her life.

DDM [05:56]: Wow.

BRJ [05:56]: And I looked at my sister and the changes she was making, and I thought, I want what she’s having. Right? And so I started exploring the Orthodox tradition and this beautiful and rich tradition of theology.

BRJ [06:11]: It, it really draws me in. Um, and because of my strong Christian upbringing, I felt more at home there, right, than I did with Buddhism.

BRJ [06:22]: I, I tried the Orthodox Christian Church for a while, but it– that didn’t really work out because they don’t tend to embrace members of the LGBTQ plus community of which I am a part, so, you know,

DDM [06:36]: Right. Right.

BRJ [06:37]: had to keep moving.

BRJ [06:38]: Um, and then the Episcopal Church was the next obvious stop because, you know, there is the dedication to tradition and the embrace of queer folks

DDM [06:48]: Isn’t it lovely the capacity of the Episcopal Church to hold both of those together? That rootedness but also the open expansiveness, you know?

BRJ [06:58]: Yeah, there really is, um, uh, there’s so many middle ways to be found in the Episcopal Church.

DDM [07:05]: Absolutely. Absolutely.

BRJ [07:07]: Yeah. But by the time I joined the Episcopal Church, I had already married.

BRJ [07:12]: when I found out about Anglican monasticism, I had made a commitment that prevented me from exploring a monastic vocation

DDM [07:21]: The ironies of life, huh?

BRJ [07:23]: Right.

BRJ [07:24]: Yeah. And then, um, 2020 hit, right? And totally turned my world upside down. Um, I know that didn’t– the pandemic didn’t affect everyone the same, but for me, by the summer of 2021, I was completely stripped. M- like I had, I had nothing. My sense of security at home and my s- and family and career were just completely shattered.

BRJ [07:51]: then after my marriage fell apart, the only thing I had left was church and the church community

DDM [07:59]: So,

BRJ [08:01]: So I’m sitting there at rock bottom, and I, I spent some time looking where I was and what got me there and where I wanted to go, and it just, um, just didn’t take long at all for me to set my eyes on the monastery.

BRJ [08:17]: Um, of course, I tried talking myself out of it, right? Because like you said, who joins a monastery anymore?

BRJ [08:23]: Right? Um, I was looking at compromises and religious intentional communities and, you know, all sorts of things. But I just, I just knew in my bones that I needed to become a monk. And I know this also doesn’t work the same for everyone, but, uh, you know, some monks and nuns really struggle with their vocation and making the commitment.

BRJ [08:47]: But this feeling of surety I had was familiar to me. Um, I already knew well what it meant to know something deeply about myself

DDM [09:01]: Can I just ask you quickly, so Brother Jacob being m- previously married is not an impediment to entering a monastic community?

BRJ [09:11]: No. Oh, from be–

DDM [09:13]: Interesting.

BRJ [09:14]: can’t be married while you’re…

DDM [09:16]: thank you.

BRJ [09:18]: Right, right. But, um

DDM [09:20]: just wanted that little digression, you know?

DDM [09:22]: Because I think sometimes people may feel if they have been married that, um, you know, that that may in some ways prohibit them from exploring religious life.

BRJ [09:34]: Oh God, let me tell you, there are so many, so many different tasks that we carry with us, right?

BRJ [09:43]: And I mean, I, I’ve even heard of people with kids joining monasteries. I don’t know about the details of that, like if they have to be 18 before you enter or, you know, some other arrangements or I, I… You know, that if, if you have kids and you’re interested in joining a monastery, reach out to them and talk to the vocations director because, um, you never know until you ask

DDM [10:08]: that’s amazing. sorry to have interrupted.

BRJ [10:10]: No, it’s okay. Oh,

BRJ [10:11]: okay.

DDM [10:12]: so knowing something deeply about myself, right? W- um, when I was 23, I looked in the mirror one day and I saw a man. It was– I, I– it doesn’t sound on the surface like that significant, except that I was assigned female at birth. I was raised a girl, and at that time, I identified strongly as a lesbian.

BRJ [10:40]: So given my religious upbringing, I had struggled a lot with my sexuality, right? And

BRJ [10:47]: emerging from that struggle, I knew deeply that I had zero desire to be in a relationship with a man and an innate attraction to women.

BRJ [10:58]: So that day that I saw a man in the mirror, this light bulb moment for me, it started another journey, which would eventually lead to a deep knowledge of my gender.

BRJ [11:10]: And so the, that moment in the mirror was 2003 in Kansas.

DDM [11:17]: my gosh.

BRJ [11:19]: I–

DDM [11:19]: It was a tough time.

BRJ [11:20]: it was a tough time. I had never even heard the word transgender, right? Like, I didn’t know what this image in the mirror meant.

BRJ [11:28]: But trans folks are really good at finding each other.

BRJ [11:33]: The community was small and dispersed, but very resilient. And side note, it was, it was my trans siblings that taught me what community really is and how beautiful and supportive and messy community can be, right?

BRJ [11:53]: How important it is to forgive each other and stick together, especially when it’s hard and we’re angry with each other, because sometimes community is all we’ve got,

DDM [12:05]: Yeah. I remember that was my experience in South Africa as well with the LGBTIQ community, you know, is when you’re a m- a marginal community, um, yeah, you hold together. I mean, you know, you are each other’s entire world and support system.

BRJ [12:22]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it was, it was that experience of, of community that told me when I was at rock bottom that I needed to find a religious community.

BRJ [12:33]: Yeah. So, um, living into my trans identity was like the missing puzzle piece, right? Like it, it made the rest of my life make sense.

BRJ [12:45]: And sometimes people ask me how I decided to transition,

BRJ [12:50]: but it never felt like a decision to me. Uh, right? Like I, I knew it was going to be hard. I knew my family wouldn’t understand. I, I, I’d heard more real-life horror stories than I care to recall. But I knew that I wanted to live an authentic life led by my integrity and not fear, and medical transition was obviously the way to make that happen

BRJ [13:21]: So that’s how did I decide to be a monk?

BRJ [13:24]: It never felt like a decision, right? Like it’s, it was another missing puzzle piece that just made the rest of my life make sense.

BRJ [13:31]: But, uh, um, in becoming a monk, like even with that surety, when you re- when you explore a religious vocation, you gotta, you gotta hold it lightly.

DDM [13:43]: Um, because entering religious life is a, a mutual decision for both the community and the individual, right?

BRJ [13:52]: So I was called to monastic life. I knew that, and I knew that God led me to Holy Cross Monastery, period. That was very clear to me, and I had to hold it all lightly. I, I still have to hold it all lightly because maybe this is just another stop on my journey, not the final destination,

DDM [14:14]: It’s hard to do that when you’re so sure of something in your life to still hold it lightly, yeah?

BRJ [14:18]: sure.

BRJ [14:19]: Yeah. And, and I mean, I, I have every intention of making life vows in a couple years, but anything could happen between now and then. It’s not just my decision. So even if the community and I agree that I have a call to the monastic way of life in the Order of the Holy Cross, there’s still a chance something else entirely will emerge between now and then,

BRJ [14:43]: right?

BRJ [14:44]: So for, for now at least, both I and the community agree that I am where I’m supposed to be. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be here.

DDM [14:52]: That’s amazing. That’s incredible. Um, can I just ask you as well, uh, Brother Jacob, like how did the community responder respond to you being transgender? Like was, was that an issue for the community? Or was it just part of that kind of mutual discernment?

BRJ [15:12]: The communi– So from what I underst– not having been here before I got here,

DDM [15:16]: Right, right, right

BRJ [15:19]: from what I understand, the community was working on And talking about being open to trans men entering for at least a decade before I got here

DDM [15:34]: That’s incredible, huh? I mean, when you think about where civil society is and the fact that 10 years ago already there was discussion and, and sort of discernment around this. That’s, you know, we don’t think of religious and monastic communities as always being that prophetic in some ways and, and ahead of the curve, you know?

BRJ [15:58]: Right. Well, uh, I mean, it’s, it’s ironic because, um, m- m- change happens so slowly in monasteries in general. And, um, like you said, we’re houses of mystics and prophets. That, that’s what we’re here for, right? Like we’re, we are here to shake things up. And, and we talk about it for a decade before we do anything, right?

DDM [16:30]: I really

BRJ [16:31]: not entirely true. Some– There were some trans guys that were exploring their vocation before I got here. It just didn’t work out for them. Like, just like it doesn’t work out for every cis guy, you know?

DDM [16:41]: Absolutely. So, so Brother Jacob, I’m very interested in sexuality and monastic life, you know, because for many, the vows of celibacy seem so strange in a society where sexuality seems to be everywhere, all around us in very explicit ways. Um, and, and I, and I guess what’s making me ask you this question is because I studied at a Roman Catholic seminary in South Africa, and I had a friend who was like a brother to me, and he was entering monastic life, and he was in his mid-20s.

DDM [17:14]: And, you know, as young people, we talk about everything, right? And I remember saying to him, But how do you not have sex? You know? And I remember him saying to me, You know, Debs, it’s freed me so much in my relationships with women, because he said prior to entering the monastic community, every woman that he kind of befriended, at somewhere at the back of his mind, there was always that thought of, This may end up being a sexual relationship.

DDM [17:44]: But he said once that option was literally taken off the table, he found that he was able to enter into very deep, intimate relationships with women in a way that he hadn’t been in the past, and that he actually found that he was enabled to, in a way, see them as full human beings in relationship rather than as possible potential sexual partners.

DDM [18:10]: You know? And so sometimes I, I wonder, you know, about, you know, the fact that we live in such an explicit, um, sexualized, um, time in our world. Is this maybe in some ways impoverishing our capacity for intimacy? You know, I mean, I listen to research, and they say the irony is that young people are having less sex than ever before of any previous generation.

DDM [18:37]: You know, and so I start to wonder, you know, maybe sex currently is not bringing us the intimacy that we’re actually longing for.

BRJ [18:45]: Yeah. I, I think you’re so right. It, um It is really interesting how celibacy can be freeing. And I, I mean, I, I know it may not sound right, um, but, you know, maybe young people are, are catching onto this. It, it is just one of the many paradoxes of, of religious life.

DDM [19:07]: But just because

BRJ [19:08]: but just because something can’t be easily explained doesn’t make it not true, right?

BRJ [19:14]: Um, and, and your friend speaks to a freedom from the pressure and expectation of sex and the way that that freedom allows us to honor others and ourselves more fully, right?

BRJ [19:28]: Um, a couple weeks ago, a few of us attended a, a, a weekend formation retreat where we discussed this, uh, right? Like, how can we foster intimacy in the context of celibate lives?

DDM [19:42]: I l- I love the fact that you guys have these discussions and, you know, are exploring these issues, you know? ‘Cause I think it’s a very different model than repressed sexuality or trying to cut off a part of ourselves, you know? I just excite- it’s exciting that you guys actually verbalize and explore these issues.

BRJ [20:01]: Oh, yeah. We, we have to. W- w- the– we talk about the hard stuff all the time, right? Like, uh, yeah. ‘Cause, yeah, ’cause we can’t struggle by ourselves. Um, so this, this, um, this weekend was led by Sister Lynn Levo, a brilliant woman, a sister of St. Joseph, who, um, is a, a psychologist, and she talked about intimacy. Um, uh, she said when we hear the word intimacy, we, we immediately think about genital sex, right?

BRJ [20:32]: Like, we know this. But, uh, but these– intimacy and genital sex are not the same, right? Like, we can have intimate relationships while keeping our hands to ourselves, right?

DDM [20:43]: Intimate relationships while keeping our hands to ourselves.

BRJ [20:44]: And we can have genital sex with zero intimacy, right?

BRJ [20:48]: Um, and the word intimate, actually, it comes from the Latin, which means to reveal what is innermost

DDM [20:57]: Oh, that’s beautiful

BRJ [20:59]: Right?

BRJ [21:00]: So in monastic life, we spend time in prayer and meditation to build intimacy with oneself and intimacy with God and intimacy with the community.

BRJ [21:15]: And, um, God, of course, already knows what is innermost in all of us, right? So, so being intimate with God is– it’s not about informing God,

DDM [21:27]: But about presenting to God what is innermost

BRJ [21:27]: in us that we may see ourselves in a divine and loving mirror,

DDM [21:33]: That’s

BRJ [21:34]: right? So we take the things that we find in ourselves that, that are ugly, and we show them to God.

BRJ [21:43]: God might say, Oh, that’s not ugly. That’s how I made you.

DDM [21:47]: you. You’re the

BRJ [21:48]: Look, you’re not the only one out there like this, and, and anyway, if I’d made you all the same, you’d all be so boring. Right? Or, or God might say, Oh yeah, that is ugly, but that’s not you.

BRJ [22:01]: That’s darkness.

BRJ [22:02]: You know, your neighbor said the same thing to me the other day. I’m gonna send them your way. They’ll help brush you off and walk you into the light. That’ll feel better.

DDM [22:10]: Oh

BRJ [22:12]: Right? And then we take the things that we like about ourselves, and we say, Hey, God, check out what I learned about myself, right?

BRJ [22:23]: And God goes, Oh, good,

BRJ [22:25]: you.

BRJ [22:26]: Now take that gift over here and tell this other person, ’cause you two are gonna do cool things together.

DDM [22:31]:

BRJ [22:31]: Right? So, like, by becoming, um, more intimate with ourselves and with God, by giving our bodies and our lives to God, we foster a different kind of intimacy.

BRJ [22:46]: We come to know ourselves better and God better, and, and the, you know, these things enable us to connect with each other better, m-more fully and authentically.

BRJ [22:55]: And, you know, anybody can do this. You don’t have to be a monk or celibate to foster that kind of intimate relationship with God, right?

BRJ [23:03]: Just that, like, being celibate allows us to, to take that energy that we might give to a sexual partner and instead give that to God,

BRJ [23:12]: right?

BRJ [23:13]: But God’s relationship with us is not exclusive.

DDM [23:17]: Oh, I love that. I love that, yeah. You know, another question is that people sometimes see moving into a monastic community almost as a, a retreat or an escape from the world, and I’m just interested to explore, do you see it that way, or do you find that maybe you are moving, like you were explaining with intimacy, maybe more deeply and more authentically into the world?

DDM [23:42]: You know, um, I’m thinking, you know, also about the idea that sometimes just because we are in the world doesn’t mean we’re actually present to the world, you know? I mean, I can be in a, in a relationship and yet not present to that person at all, you know? So I’m just interested your thoughts around some of that.

BRJ [24:00]: Yeah. I, I think it’s a, that’s a common idea, maybe misconception. Um, uh, so an- another thing that Sister Lynn talked about was the

BRJ [24:05]: distinction between solitude and isolation, ’cause from the outside they look similar, right? Um, but they’re, they’re really quite different. Isolation is cutting oneself off from others and one’s surroundings, right? You’re, you’re all alone, you’re cut off.

BRJ [24:23]: But in solitude, we bring our relationships with us.

DDM [24:29]: Um,

BRJ [24:29]: And, um, our order is, is blessed to have a house in Hermanus, South A- South Africa, um, St. Benedict’s Priory. They’re actually about to become St. Benedict’s Monastery and move to Plettenberg Bay, which is a little bit closer to, to Durban, which is exciting.

DDM [24:46]: But that’s such a beautiful area. Sorry.

BRJ [24:49]: Yes, I’ve heard. Yeah, I can’t

DDM [24:51]: area.

BRJ [24:52]: So one of the things, uh, that we on this side of the Atlantic have learned from our brothers there is the philosophy of ubuntu. I am because we are,

DDM [25:04]: Yes, yes

BRJ [25:06]: Um, and in Western cultures, there’s a big emphasis on individuality and self-sufficiency, but ubuntu is basically the other end of that spectrum, right?

BRJ [25:18]: An emphasis on our interconnectedness and, and community with compassion, right? Like, um… And it’s similar to the emphasis on, on interconnectedness and interdependency in the Buddhist tradition represented by the, the endless knot.

BRJ [25:38]: And Jesus said, uh, too, in, in his prayer to God that, uh, that they all may be one as you and I are one.

BRJ [25:48]: I and them and you and me, that they may become completely one, right? We’re all connected. Paul said in Galatians, There’s neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one.

BRJ [26:03]: So all things, Deborah, me, the church, immigrants, people who are imprisoned or impoverished or differently abled, Mother Earth, our food, even, uh, the, the dinosaurs and the spotted lanternflies, and genocides and authoritarian leaders and their supporters, we are all interconnected and interdependent. It, it might be a difficult idea to hear for the first time, but it’s true. We are all part of the same ecosystem. Nothing functions by itself,

DDM [26:46]: Yeah, you’re so right. And I, when I listen to some of those things, I think about how we try to cut them off from ourselves, you know, because we hate them or, you know, um, and again, that’s that isolation maybe versus solitude. Yeah.

BRJ [27:01]: And, and we know from studies that isolation leads to all sorts of mental health and, and physical health crises and, and deteriorations,

DDM [27:10]: fragmenting.

BRJ [27:11]: so in solitude, ideally we pe- we become more acutely aware of our interdependence and how, how our every action ripples out to affect all of us, right?

BRJ [27:24]: And here at Holy Cross Monastery, we have a guest house ministry with people of any number of religious backgrounds coming and going all the time. So the world comes to us. We’re not cut off at all,

BRJ [27:37]: right? And to facilitate our ministries, we have to be mindful of and intimate with, there’s our word again, our interconnectedness.

BRJ [27:49]: So when people with whatever background they have come to us and ask for spiritual direction, we can help them in, in whatever they’re grappling with, right? Like, we, we couldn’t do that if we didn’t stay connected

DDM [28:04]: Yeah, I’m thinking so much about what you’re sharing here now, you know, and how it also relates even to transgender and sexuality, um, and bodies. You know, it’s the whole thing of if we cut off parts of ourselves, that’s that isolation, the fragmentation. So what does it mean to, to rather enable and see that interconnectedness of all parts, even the parts that we struggle with or we don’t like or we’re grappling with, you know?

DDM [28:33]: Yeah.

BRJ [28:34]: um, it’s a, it’s a deeper real- uh, well, so And it’s, it’s not just solitude we find here, right? Like, you can find solitude in any number of places.

BRJ [28:48]: But it’s– this is church. Our, our, our brother Randy said on Sunday, In a house of God, we find liberation from our illusions.

BRJ [28:59]: We can– we come here to, to shed our programming that tells us earn acceptance and find safety, be better, do more, find peace, be worthy,

BRJ [29:11]: God’s house, like you said, we a- awaken to the present moment. It’s not an alternate reality we’re living in, but a deeper reality

BRJ [29:22]: A-and, uh, I can’t pretend like we don’t enjoy a certain buffer between the monastery and the rest of the world, right? Like, we are shielded in a way that, that people who have not made the extraordinary decision to join a monastery are not shielded. But

BRJ [29:44]: That buffer between us and the world is nothing but love. That’s it.

BRJ [29:49]: Love is what softens the blows of this world.

BRJ [29:52]: And church, any church, not just a monastery, any church, I hope- hopefully, if we’re doing it right, is a place where people go to love more freely, right?

BRJ [30:05]: Because Jesus said, I give you one commandment, just one.

BRJ [30:09]: Love one another. Paul said, The whole law is summed up in a single commandment, you shall love your neighbor.

BRJ [30:17]: Our, our founder said, Love must act as light must shine and fire must burn. Love is literally all Jesus asked us to do,

BRJ [30:30]: So if church isn’t a place where you can love more freely, um, I would encourage you to explore that idea and take it to God, our loving and divine mirror, right?

BRJ [30:44]: Because lo- love is why I go to church. It’s why I moved into church, you know?

DDM [30:50]: And that’s what’s so dangerous, I think, in so many parts of the Christian church, but we could say this about many of the other faith traditions as well, is when they’re hijacked to become weaponized or, you know, to support things that really are not about love, you know? Yeah.

DDM [31:07]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

BRJ [31:10]: So if, if, if there is anyone out there who finds it difficult to accept that, uh, that monastic living is anything but a retreat, I, I refuse to apologize for retreating into love

DDM [31:27]: I really love that phrase, retreating into love. That’s beautiful.

CRT [31:33]: Join us next time for the conclusion of this interview.

MET [31:39]: Thank you for listening to the Priest and the Prof. Find us at our website, priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast at priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at priestandprof.org slash donate. That will help cover the costs of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church.

MET [32:04]: Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.

DDM [32:08]: Music by audionautix.

Rev. Deborah Duguid-May says farewell to The Priest & The Prof’s audience.

---

Transcript

DDM: Hello and welcome to The Priest & The Prof. I am your host, the Rev. Deborah Duguid-May.

MET: And I’m Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe.

DDM: This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’m an Episcopal priest of 26 years, and Elizabeth has been a rhetoric professor since 2010. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.

DDM: I can’t believe that today is my last recording with “The Priest & The Prof.” Myself and my wife, Melanie, have decided to relocate back to South Africa and are leaving in July of this year. And so I’m sad that this will be my last episode with you all. When I think back to how this was a dream of Carl and Elizabeth and mine about five years ago and where this podcast has come to today, I’m really proud of what we’ve done.

DDM: But I think more than that, for me, this podcast has been about a couple of things. I think firstly modeling what healthy dialogue and conversation can look like. We live in a time in our country where people have become so polarized. We often tend to only want to be friends and speak with those who see things the same way that we do.

DDM: And Elizabeth and I, although similar in so many ways, we also see things very differently on some issues. And so our dream was how to enter into conversation that grew us both while also having the space to disagree. I think we need a lot more models of how to have these conversations and dialogues again that are healthy and respectful, but also with a genuine desire to learn from one another.

DDM: Secondly, I’m acutely aware of how our faith has been used in the past and is currently being used as a tool for oppression to disempower those who are already incredibly vulnerable. Christianity, as it is currently being used, has become literally the opposite of the gospel. And so our faith is used to support the powerful and demonize the poor, to uphold patriarchy and denigrate women, and as a justification for treating the environment and all other species as simply capitalistic commodities.

DDM: And yet the reality is when we read the Gospels, Jesus came for the poor and the vulnerable. Jesus overturned tables in the temple and rebuked the powerful and the leaders. I really believe that Christianity is currently facing a battle for its soul. And so my dream in this podcast was to remind us of what our faith actually teaches and to educate around these issues, because a sermon on a Sunday really does not give one the opportunity to teach deeply on these issues, and people really need education around their faith. I think for me, it has also been a way about helping to articulate a vision of our faith that is life-giving and liberatory for people outside the walls of the church.

DDM: For so many people, they have not had good experiences of Christianity or the church, and so our dream was to enable those outside or on the fringes of the church to have a small experience of faith that is truly life-giving. And lastly, for myself as a parish priest, it’s been wonderful to have the discipline of having to think and write theologically in a way that often once we’re in a parish, we no longer do to the same extent.

DDM: I have thoroughly enjoyed both preparing and producing these episodes with Carl and Elizabeth, who’ve been phenomenal partners in this endeavor. And so I am sad to be leaving, but I also know that Carl and Elizabeth will be bringing in a number of new voices to engage with, that you, as listeners, will have the joy of hearing on many subjects.

DDM: And so I just want to end with saying thank you to all of you who’ve journeyed with me on “The Priest & The Prof,” because without you, this podcast would simply have been a conversation between Elizabeth and myself. But you’ve made space for these conversations to enter your home, your space, your hearts, wherever you are in the world.

DDM: I hope that this podcast will continue to inspire and challenge you as together we all do what we can to build a better world.

MET: Thank you for listening to the Priest and the Prof. Find us at our website, https://priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast@priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at https://priestandprof.org/donate/. That will help cover the costs of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.

DDM: Music by Audionautix.com.

Rev. Deborah Duguid-May interviews Linda Ketchum and Paul Pompili about “Save New York’s Rural Economy: A Journey of Empathy Caravan.”

This interview, presented in its entirity, was recorded in September 2025 about an event that took place in August 2025.  The discussion continues to be relevant today.

---

Transcript

DDM: Hello and welcome to The Priest and the Prof. I am your host, the Rev. Deborah Duguid-May.

MET: And I’m Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe.

DDM: This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’m an Episcopal priest of 26 years, and Elizabeth has been a rhetoric professor since 2010. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.

CRT: This interview took place in September 2025 to describe a journey taken in August 2025. The discussion is still very timely today, in June 2026.

DDM: Welcome. So today I want to, especially welcome Linda Ketchum and Paul Pompili. They are both members of Trinity Episcopal Church here in Greece, New York, which is a suburb just outside of the city of Rochester. You’ll recall that Elizabeth and myself have in past episodes discussed the issue of immigration, agriculture, work, poverty.

DDM: Well, today we will be having a discussion and conversation with Linda and Paul, who recently participated in what was called the Journey of Empathy Caravan in early August, which really touches on all of those above issues and podcasts. So welcome to you both.

P P: Thank you.

DDM: Can you begin by telling us just a little bit about what the journey of Empathy Caravan actually was?

L K: Sure the journey of Empathy Caravan. It was a series of events to raise awareness of the value that immigrant workers bring to our economy in New York State. So from August 2nd to August 9th, starting in Eastern Long Island, a caravan of cars and trucks and vans traveled westward to the Hudson River Valley, then up to Albany, and then the north country up to the St. Lawrence River near the thousand Islands, and then down through the middle of the state through the finger lakes region, then to Rochester and we ended in Buffalo. So we traveled a thousand miles had 50 stops. So the stops included visits at churches and synagogues. We had meetings with farmers and workers support groups. We had prayer vigils outside of two ice detention centers. So it was all organized by the Rural and Migrant Ministry. So, and then one thing to know here, in addition to, you know, expanding the empathy for immigrant workers, the event was also called Save Our Rural Economy, to raise awareness that we need immigrant workers for the health and survival of our economy. So the farms and the vineyards need them, the restaurants need them.

L K: The landscapers and gardeners that made the Hamptons so beautiful, and our healthcare system . They all need the immigrant workers. The list goes on.

DDM: Right, and I think for people who are outside of this geographic area, when they hear New York, they probably think of New York City. I remember before I moved here, I just thought New York was a big city. And then I moved here and I was like, oh my gosh, most of the state is actually rural, which I think many people who may be listening in on this podcast are not aware of how rural the vast majority of our state actually is, you mentioned , rural migrant Ministry. Can you share for our listeners briefly what the Rural Migrant Ministry really is and what it does?

P P: Yeah, it’s, an organization that started in 1981 by a group of churches.

P P: There was a point where the migrants around that day, they would go to work in the farms and their children would sit alongside the farm because there was nowhere to bring their children. So what a lot of the local people did is they got together and they built , a childcare center, a daycare center, and that was 1981.

P P: That’s basically how it got started because the farm workers needed childcare. So it’s evolved today into an organization that is in support of not only the migrant workers, but immigrants in general, especially with the climate, that we have today

DDM: Right. now, that’s fascinating, Paul, because, I’ve worked with rural migrant ministries for a number of years, but I’d actually never heard that story. And isn’t that beautiful? Just to hear how local communities see a need, respond to the humans, you know, around them.

P P: What was surprising for me personally was that story was one of the very first ones we heard on the caravan and it was in the East Hamptons. So when most people hear the Hamptons and the East Hamptons, you think of all this wealth and. That’s all it is out there. But we started there and learned very early on for a reason.

P P: It was very enlightening. Very enlightening.

DDM: Fascinating. And what inspired the two of you to join the caravan? I mean, that’s quite a commitment to make.

P P: I didn’t wanna go. No, I really, because I am not an activist at heart. Never have been.

DDM: I know you Paul,

P P: And it just never was my way. Linda and I have been kind of really polar opposites in that, over the years together we’ve come much closer, to the middle of whatever that is each.

P P: So I went in support of her ’cause she said, I’ll go without you and that’s fine. I’m okay going alone. I wouldn’t let her wanna that. So I went with her in support to her I did, and I received a lot of benefits from it.

DDM: I’m sure I’m sure.

L K: And so for me, you know, civil rights and law enforcement and the criminal justice system, that’s been a focus of mine for some time, and I’ve been very upset. Seeing what’s happening with ice, just really kidnapping people off the street and out of their homes and, that’s the Immigration and Customs of Enforcement Agency.

L K: I thought when I heard about the caravan, you know, this was a way to get involved with a group that was taking some action to support the immigrant workers because they’re, they’re all targets for ice detention and deportation.

DDM: right. And I think what we are all witnessing now by federal ice agents has been very disturbing. But while many of us are not comfortable with what is happening, I think for a lot of people that doesn’t lead. To action, whereas you both actually decided to do something in response to what you were seeing.

DDM: I’m just interested, do you feel that your faith played a role in your motivation to join the caravan?

P P: I believe so. Right, because I mean, our faith tells us we should love everybody and there’s a, a portion of our society, some religious, some not that don’t believe that. And this was a way to really act on that and put myself through the test, do I really believe this? You know, do I really want to love everybody?

P P: And so I think that was. For me, regarding the faith, that was probably the biggest thing is that we are all human beings. We’re all people. We have our own beliefs, we have our own faiths we have our own everything, of everything, so to speak. And it’s not up to me to decide I’m gonna go with this one, but I’m not gonna love this one.

P P: You know, it’s up to me to just be as loving or understanding or, there’s so many words you can probably describe it as I possibly can and just be the best at it that I

DDM: And I think somewhere that narrative is being lost in our culture at the moment in the USA, but also in other parts of the world where we are seeing just the rise of almost the legitimation of hate speech. You know, the capacity to be able to say, I hate my enemies as, as legitimate. You know?

DDM: And I think for many years we worked under the assumption that to love. Everybody is actually the way we’re called to be, and I think that’s really being eroded in our civil discourse now in a way that maybe it hasn’t in the past as much.

L K: Yes. I think even the word empathy is being mocked by some people.

DDM: I noticed that in the beginning, Linda, because with the Caravan of Empathy and I thought, wow, nowadays even the word empathy is often being seen as a negative thing, you know?

L K: Yes. It’s just so, I don’t know. It’s so perverted destructive.

DDM: It’s a distortion. Such a distortion of common…

P P: during the caravan with the signs on our cars, you put yourself out there. I mean, you’re out there and, there’s all kinds of people. Most of them really were welcoming, beeping their horns. And one town we rolled into actually had a band out on sidewalk. but then there were the other side of it that harassed us and heckled us.

P P: And there was one stop where guys driving the car around the gas station yelling out the window, just being as bad as you can be, you know, and but that was the only one of that type during the whole week. So you have to kind of expect that.

DDM: Yeah, for sure. For sure. And Linda, I’m interested in your faith, how that may have woven into this experience.

L K: Well, being a member here of the Episcopal Church, we have been supportive of the rural and migrant ministry in Western New York. And so this was a way for me to see, oh, how does it operate in the rest of the state?

L K: And I am also very drawn to interdenominational and interfaith activities.

L K: So the idea that we could be with people from many different churches, that we were going to go to some synagogues, you know, that was an appeal for me also. And…

DDM: And would you say that’s partially what was behind your decision to do the entirety of the caravan? Because if I’m right, you could choose to just do a portion when it came through your community, whereas you both chose to do the route in its entirety.

P P: I tried to talk her into just doing Rochester.

L K: Yes, most people, I mean, I think that’s how it was promoted. When the caravan comes through your area, please join us for few stops. And when I saw the schedule, I just thought, you know, this would be an interesting way to take a road trip through all of New York State.

DDM: I love that.

L K: You know, let’s see it and I’m glad we did it this way because, you know, Paul mentioned the signs on the cars.

L K: So, you know, that’s the first thing we learned. We started at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in East Hampton. And when we got to the parking lot people came up to us and they said, we’ll help you decorate your car. And we said, what? And, ’cause we didn’t know what to expect, so. All the cars had big signs.

L K: They said, “who will milk the cows?” “Who will pick the apples?” “Save our rural economy,” “have courage, have empathy,” so the experience of actually traveling from place to place, from city to city, town to town with the core group was very special to us.

DDM: Yeah.

L K: Sometimes when we left at the beginning there were, I think about 20 cars and trucks. We were in some places out in the country where it would be five or six cars, you know, and we went together, we had our lights blinking so people knew we were in a procession. And then when we got to Rochester we we were up to 34 cars at one point.

DDM: Wow, that’s incredible. That really is, I’m interested. Was there something that you experienced or learned or heard during this entire caravan that really stands out for you?

P P: One thing I learned that still will hold, stay with me probably for the rest of my life is how well I, I should have known this, but it brought it to the surface how scared the immigrants are to even come out into public. They don’t go to the grocery store. There was one woman at one of the detention centers.

P P: She waited until our next stop, which was several miles away, to tell her story of people she knew that was inside that detention center, that when they went in, they were able to work and they were physically able to do work. And when they came out, they were basically in a wheelchair.

DDM: From their experience of being

P P: inside, inside the detention center.

DDM: So that the abuse that took place

P P: that’s the, yeah, I think that’s the assumption you take out of her story, but she was so afraid to say it while we were to tell that story while we were there at the vigil and at that detention center, they’re very scared. I mean, there’s volunteers that go to the grocery stores and get food for them and bring them to ’em.

P P: Those people are. Go through training on how to deal with law enforcement if they get stopped because law enforcement is aware that this is going on. It’s a horrible thing and it really makes you stop and really think how fortunate in my case how I am to be white skinned.

DDM: Right,

P P: Very much so.

DDM: Because we know that this isn’t happening to

P P: They’re not taking the immigrant, Italians

DDM: Or from Ireland, exactly.

P P: They’re taking, everyone that’s a black and brown skin and it’s a terrible thing.

DDM: Right, right, right. You know, just to add into this, I recently had a family stay with me who actually were documented. They have legal status here in terms of asylum, but. They were so petrified because people are being taken up whether they’ve got legal paperwork or not, and they were so petrified their children were gonna be taken from them because they had a newborn baby and a little 4-year-old.

DDM: And they’ve subsequently just left the country. But again those are agricultural workers who’ve left again, even though they were documented because it’s just become too frightening to stay. Yeah. Wow.

L K: And those workers are highly skilled workers as well. You know, that’s one thing that we learned, we stopped at an agricultural center. It was called the Chester Agricultural Center in, in Orange County. A farmer spoke with us and he made a point of telling us, you know, we were looking out on the farmland and he said, there’s about 270 acres here.

L K: And he said, the immigrants who have farmed this land years ago, they were British, Dutch, German, Italian, Polish, and Irish. And now. More recently, they are Jamaican, they’re Mexican, and they’re Egyptian. And he said they are highly skilled. Nobody should think of this as unskilled labor that you could just send, you know anybody in.

L K: And then, and they, they can do what they do in a day.

DDM: Oh, absolutely. I mean, we forget how much of the agricultural industry is highly skilled, you know? Yeah, no, absolutely fascinating.

L K: And one thing he told us is that people think when you have crop losses, it’s because of the weather or it’s because of, you know, the economy. But he said often their crop losses are because of lack of availability of the workers. The immigrant workers that they need.

DDM: Yeah. And a lot of these are my right are not large, big agro businesses. They’re family farms.

P P: Small family farms.

DDM: Yeah. You see, and, and I think that’s the problem. You wonder how much of this is an assault actually on small agricultural family businesses. That indirectly ends up benefiting agrobusiness because I know from myself living in the rural areas, you know, the agro businesses are so big and have such a large basis that they can afford to go through these H 1 B programs where they bring in workers from, you know, Haiti or the Dominican Republic.

DDM: Whereas your average family farm, I mean, you’re not employing necessarily 150. Workers and you can’t afford the legal fees to set up all these programs for yourself necessarily. Right? Yeah. Yeah.

L K: Yes. And speaking of money there is a whole economy with this. I mean, another thing that we learned, we were at the orange County Jail, which is actually serving also as a federal detention center. And, a local man met us there. He’s not the county executive yet, but he is running for office.

L K: But he told us that the jail was built, it was originally planned for 300 people, but they built it for 800 for the express purpose of getting a contract with the federal government for immigration detention.

DDM: Wow.

L K: He says that their county has a yearly budget surplus of $200 million because of this. So this is the money that is there, and his intention if he is elected as the county executive is to end that contract.

L K: But that’s the kind of money in these small places that, you know, I think some towns will not want to lose.

DDM: Wow. So people are literally becoming wealthier on the backs of imprisonment and fear.

DDM: It’s really frightening. I know I learned a similar thing when we once went up to Buffalo with a group for education to go and see some of the buffalo. Facilities around there for processing and around that area, there’s all these hotels like the Holiday Inn and those kind of sort of things. And you assume that these are fully functioning, operating for the tourist economy. And somebody was telling us that no, they keep one floor.

DDM: For the tourist economy, but the rest have actually been converted into detention centers. And I was stunned because you’re looking at all this. Commercial tourist infrastructure thinking it’s there to serve, you know, happy holiday makers coming to Buffalo, when in fact behind those walls and curtains are just floors of detention holding centers, which I think your average person has absolutely no idea of. Was there something on this caravan that really connected with you from perhaps a faith perspective?

L K: Yes.

DDM: I’m interested,

L K: So, the rural and migrant ministry, they have a couple of slogans and one is, it’s we, not they, and it’s actually a hashtag that they use in their social media and their promotion. So hashtag it’s, we not they.

DDM: Lovely.

L K: And I think it’s a very important message because it’s not okay.

L K: They’re the immigrants. We’re the citizens, you know, they’re the workers. We’re not. It’s all of us together in community. And for me, what it also brings up is in the Episcopal church, in our service, we have a prayer called the general confession. And in one version of that prayer, there is a part that goes

L K: we repent of the evil that enslaves us, the evil we have done and the evil done on our behalf.

L K: And I always think of that phrase, the evil done on our behalf because I, I think we need to look at this as we’re part of the evil that’s being done here. We benefit from it. We need to, try to do more to reduce it and to minimize it.

L K: But I think it’s not right, and it’s not healthy just to look at it as, oh, other people are doing bad things and we’re not, we’re trying to stop them. You know, we’re part of this system of injustice and exploitation and I, I think it’s it’s a responsibility.

DDM: Absolutely. And I think that’s one of the advantage of churches like the Episcopal Church or some of your more traditional churches, is there was that real understanding that sin is not individual, it’s collective. Sometimes we’re benefiting and there’s a complicity in a system, even if we’re not active proponents of that system.

DDM: We’re complicit in it, and even if it’s simply our silence. What is enabling this to happen? Because I think we are living increasingly in a culture where freedom of speech we’re seeing is under attack. Uh, people are afraid to speak out. My own father phoned me this week and was really saying to me, Debs, please don’t say anything.

DDM: Maybe you should reconsider doing your podcast because of the consequences of speaking out against these things, but. If we don’t speak and use our voices our privilege, our complicity is just escalated. You know? I love that saying in our tradition, all that’s needed for evil to triumph us, for good people to do nothing, to say nothing.

P P: Yeah. For me, it’s probably a lot more simplified. to simplify things in my head in my life, but that I learned that it’s okay to care, it’s okay. It shouldn’t be an issue that’s divided by political party.

DDM: it’s such a human issue.

P P: All of us are human beings, whether it’s immigrants or whatever the topic is. That played a lot to me with my faith because,

P P: You know the old saying if you’re gonna talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk. like that. So am I just going to, you know, speak my faith once a week in church, or am I gonna practice it every day?

P P: And this was an opportunity to really look for myself, look in the mirror and say, Hey, are you doing as you believe. are you doing. As you speak. And so that was big for me. In that way and in a lot of ways during this whole week on the caravan, it changed me all the way down to allowing somebody to tape signs on my car. I mean, I’ve always looked at my car as it’s a tool to go from point A to point B. Whether it’s a small car, medium car, but it doesn’t matter. And I never put anything on the car. Even like during the last election, Linda wanted to put bumper stickers on and we agreed on just the kind that stick on the glass because they’re removable.

P P: And now we have those on a window in our home. We still have them home for the candidate, but I was outnumbered. I had to let it go through.

L K: We were told that it wouldn’t leave Marks. We weren’t so sure, but we just put tape all over the car with a lot of signs.

DDM: But you know, I was thinking when you both were speaking, because we speak about in a way our capacity for our hearts to be expanded. To be loving, to be compassionate, but having your heart expanded is, is very uncomfortable down to the practicality of. I really don’t wanna have signs on my car.

DDM: You know, I was identifying with you when you were speaking that, but sometimes what does it mean to allow everything that we own to actually be a tool for goodness, justice, for love, for compassion, you know which, isn’t always comfortable, you know?

DDM: What coming out of this experience do you wish more people knew about immigrant workers ICE raids, detention.

L K: One thing is that I wish more people understood that nobody is safe. I, I don’t feel that any of us are safe right now. There are masked men in unmarked cars. They are taking people off the streets, out of homes. There was a raid in a small packing facility in a small town called Cato, New York.

L K: And up to 60 people were taken. Many of them had legal papers to work here legally who’ve already been deported, but people are being taken without any warrant, there’s no judicial arrest warrant. There are reports that people have the blank warrants in the car, and they will fill in the names after they round up the people.

L K: And, it, it’s very dangerous. So, we stopped in a very small town in Western New York, and one of the speakers, he said he had a friend there, a childhood friend who still lives there and works for ICE, and has worked for ICE for many years. And he said, now the pressure from Washington is immense.

L K: It’s all about numbers now. And so, what’s happened there, we were told is that some of the business owners and the farmers, they’re working with the workers because instead of having the workers all go and stay in one place, because that is what ICE likes, they like one place where they can take a lot of people.

L K: So they figured out how they can move around and just have one or two people stay in different places.

L K: So there is actually some local people who might just hear through the grapevine, you know, be careful tomorrow. So there is definitely unhappiness here over a job that used to just be legitimate law enforcement.

DDM: Right.

L K: So I think these are human rights abuses that we’ve just a accepted, you know, the lack of privacy. I mean, one person on the caravan she told us of a man she knows who was detained and kept in the handcuffs and chains with other men in a van for 24 hours without water.

L K: There’s no place for them to go to the bathroom. So the ice, they don’t wanna give them water. And so these human rights abuses that we all just kind of accept are not acceptable.

P P: People are uninformed. I was with a friend of mine about a week ago, and we were having this discussion about immigration and he said, no, they’re only rounding up the criminals. They’re only taking the criminals. And I said, “no, that’s not true.” ‘Cause when we were on the caravan, we learned of an Episcopal priest, I think it was at Scarsdale somewhere. Her daughter is a student at…

L K: I think it’s at Purdue right now. She was high school graduate of Scarsdale high school. Her mother is here legally from South Korea. Her mother is an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of New York.

DDM: Right.

P P: Right. So I told him this. The daughter went in to renew her visa. ‘Cause she was getting ready to go back to school and it wasn’t coming up until the end of the year. She went in, did what she had to do inside. When she came out, ICE was there and picked her up.

P P: The next day she was shipped to…

L K: Louisiana Detention Center.

P P: Now she since has been released, but the horror that she had to go through that’s gonna live with her, if not the rest of her life, for quite some time.

DDM: Absolutely. And especially, I mean, you think her daughter, just what could happen to her? I mean, any of us who are parents, you think if that was your child,

P P: And my friend, thankfully, he believed me. believed what I was saying. He says, well, I didn’t know that

DDM: I think that’s the problem. There’s so many of these stories that people are just not hearing.

P P: They’re, misinformed on the topic. A lot of people don’t pay attention to it because they have their own things going on in their life, and

DDM: Of course. Of course.

DDM: What have you both done since the caravan last August? And what are some of your thoughts about what you may be planning to do in the future?

P P: There’s this weekly protest on Fridays at 12 Corners in Brighton.

L K: I think it’s the First Unitarian church. They have organized it. Because one thing that we learned on the caravan. Oh, there was a small town we went through where six Roman Catholics, they said, we stand here, with our signs once a week in the town square. And we’re just wondering, you know, are we all by ourselves?

L K: Is anybody else with us? And then we went, through another town where every Wednesday they have a protest or a vigil, they hold signs. And it’s just, it put it in our heads that doing something once a week as a ritual is helpful.

P P: Helps to raise awareness people who aren’t aware.

DDM: Right.

P P: So what we’ve been doing is we go on Friday, it goes from five o’clock to six. It’s at 12 Corners and each week there’s a few more people there. The last time we were there it’s over a hundred people.

DDM: Wow.

P P: In 12 corners, and everybody’s got signs except me. I go there to protect Linda. I am the protector.

L K: Paul. The first time we went, somebody came up to you and asked you a question.

P P: Yeah, that’s right. Yes. She remembers everything. Yeah. I’m sitting on the bench there, and I am observing the people because you never know if some kook’s gonna come over there and you wanna protect your family. ’cause one week we brought my granddaughter with us, so we had her to a watch out for, so the woman comes up to me and she says, may I sit here?

P P: I said, sure. She says. Were you in the caravan last week? And I said, yes. So she introduced herself as the person from the Unitarian Church, and she organizes this protest. She’s one of the organizers, her church is, and she’s part of that. And, so she remembered us from the dinner that we had there that night. So I thought that was so neat. And so she’d come up to me each week, you know, and one week she gave me petitions. I forget what the petition was for.

P P: But anyways, it’s that kind of relationship that has started, you know, and hopefully we’ll continue on.

DDM: Right. And it’s almost like that networking and a network of people who, who are prepared to put their bodies where their values are a way.

L K: Yes, exactly. Because you know, as we got closer to home in the caravan, when we went through the Finger Lakes area, some people joined us and they had signs that said, “free Elena, Louise and Raymundo.” These are local people in their community who were taken and then they’re trying to get them released.

L K: So they joined us in Auburn, at the Harriet Tubman house. So we went there, which was very special. And they stayed with us through Rochester and into Buffalo. And I, talked to the one of the women there and I said, you know, I’m gonna remember this. And a week later we saw a notice that there was a rally in Geneva.

L K: To free Elena, Luis and Raymundo. So. We went and I saw at least five or six people there who were on the caravan with us in this part of New York state. And you’re right. And one woman came up to me and she said, oh, I lost the piece of paper you gave me with your, your email address and your phone number.

L K: And I’m so glad that you’re here ’cause I wanted to tell you about this rally. So you’re right, this type of networking it’s very, very important now.

DDM: And I was just thinking as well the fact that Paul’s going to a protest once a week is unbelievable. If you know Paul, it’s not who Paul normally is, but, I was thinking, you know, part of what’s so important about that is the raising awareness because, you know, a lot of people, as you say, are just simply not aware of these issues if they’re not touching their intimate lives.

P P: And a lot of people that may have these type of characteristics that I do in this topic might be afraid. To go to one of these protests, you know, ’cause there’s a lot of us that have been changed by the politics and the ongoings of our country in the last 10 years.

P P: And so we may have been here at one point, but we are now here, you know, we’ve moved, not that we have changed. You know, we have changed,

DDM: But the political landscape

P P: we’ve become more aware of a lot of the things that are going on. In this case, we’re talking about immigration, which is huge. It’s huge. The nursing home we were at. There’s many immigrants in that system working in the healthcare system, at the nursing homes throughout the country. And if you took them out of that work, out of the nursing homes, who’s gonna do it?

DDM: It would collapse.

L K: Nursing homes, home healthcare, the hospitals. Yes. So we did have one stop where a doctor came. Came and talked to us and he told us about the whole healthcare economy there. And without the immigrant workers it would just collapse.

P P: Yeah.

L K: But you’re right, there is a lot of fear right now.

L K: And, you know, we’re all in a computer, we’re all in a computer on the wrong side of fascism. So, that is true. And, i’ve been thinking a lot about a movie I saw back in the eighties. We’re. Baby boomers. So we grew up with a lot of the books and the movies about the resistance during World War ii. There’s a movie, a French movie with English subtitles. The director is Louis Malle, it’s called Au Revoir Les Enfants. It’s about boys in a Catholic boarding school in France and the priest who leads the boarding school. He also uses it to hide two or three Jewish students from the Nazis. And so it really is kind of a coming of age movie, but also you see at the end.

L K: It’s not really a spoiler ’cause you know how it ends, but the Nazis come in, they arrest the priests. He goes to a concentration camp, where he dies. They take the boys, they find them. And it’s based on a true story. This director Louis Malle lived through this when he was I think 11 years old.

L K: In France and so I think clergy now are all at risk of something similar. If we don’t stop what’s happening.

DDM: Yeah. We forget about the parallels in this story with history. We’ve been through this before and we know it doesn’t end well. know, how can others support the rural migrant ministry that was so foundational to this whole

L K: So on their website. If you just go and search for rural and migrant ministry, you can sign up for a newsletter. There’s a way to donate and you know, there are many activities there that you can sign up for. They have annual dinners and then also while you’re on the website, if you search for the Journey of Empathy Caravan, you can see a lot of the local news coverage that we had going town to town.

L K: And you can see the daily schedule that we followed.

DDM: Lovely. Well, I’m so grateful to the two of you for firstly making that commitment to go and see and hear what too many of us just don’t see and hear in our communities. And then of course, for coming today to share a little of what you saw and heard and learned. And I’m also really grateful to each of you who are listening into this podcast for your openness to hear the stories of people who are vulnerable in our communities, perhaps more now than ever.

DDM: As Paul and Linda shared, I really encourage you to go to the Rural and Migrant Ministry website, but also maybe. To consider becoming a part of the Rapid Response Network, which you can also get onto through their website. They offer multiple opportunities for training on how local individuals and communities can respond to ICE raids, how to help vulnerable families, and really just to become a partner for Justice and hope in your own community and for our international listeners.

DDM: Maybe some questions are, how are immigrants being treated in your country right now? How are your agricultural laborers being treated? Are you struggling with some of the same issues that we in the USA are facing? And how are you managing to make a difference with your voice, your body, your car, your faith?

DDM: Please reach out and let us know. And thank you once again, Linda and Paul for being with us today.

P P: Thank you.

L K: Thank you for having us.

MET: Thank you for listening to the Priest and the Prof. Find us at our website, https://priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast@priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at https://priestandprof.org/donate/. That will help cover the costs of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.

DDM: Music by Audionautix.com

Join Rev. Deborah Duguid-May and Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe for a discussion about Armageddon and the end of the world.

---

Transcript

DDM [00:03] Hello and welcome to The Priest and the Prof. I am your host, the Rev. Deborah Duguid-May.

MET [00:09] And I’m Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe.

DDM [00:11] This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’m an Episcopal priest of 26 years, and Elizabeth has been a rhetoric professor since 2010. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.

DDM [00:38] Today, Elizabeth and I want to be looking at the religious ideas that are openly being expressed by people like Pete Hegseth, Lindsey Graham, but in particular around the theme that we are in the end times and approaching the final battle of Armageddon.

MET [00:58] We have talked about Christian nationalism before, but current events are making this an even more vital conversation. As Deborah mentioned, there is a theme emerging from political leaders that has long been kept in the shadows of American leadership but is now being brought into the open. And that is that part of America’s job as God’s chosen nation is to bring about God’s will, which is ultimately the end times as certain evangelicals understand it.

MET [01:32] This isn’t new. In the Reagan years, political leadership used Armageddon and the Rapture as an excuse not to take action in environmental crises. The thinking was, “Yeah, we could do something about the changing climate and carbon emissions,” because we absolutely knew about it then, “or concern ourselves with deforestation, but Christ will come back before the forest will, so why bother?” The message coming from the Pentagon, at least as it is being reported out from watchdog groups, is even more sinister. The war in Iran, and I guess it’s a war, is not just a battle over oil or money or even a distraction from bad politics at home. It serves a spiritual purpose, and that is to usher in the end times.

MET [02:23] Now, let’s be very clear, this is not a good thing. Depending on which version of the end times you believe in, and yeah, there are different versions because as Deborah will tell you, it’s all nonsense, so of course they can’t get their story straight. Either there’s going to be a huge global war led by the Antichrist, all Christians are going to be taken up in the Rapture, and the rest of us heathens, because Deborah, Carl, and I would definitely be counted among those, will be left behind in this new hell on Earth, or all Christians will be taken up and then the Antichrist will start a war with who is left.

MET [03:03] I think there are other iterations of this, but those are the main ones I can remember. And we’re sending Tomahawk missiles to girls’ schools to make sure one of these things happen.

DDM [03:16] So let’s unpack some of this. Firstly, we have to start by saying that this thinking is not a traditional Christian belief, but it really is a 19th, 20th century development based on misconceptions around biblical prophecy that believes that the world will end in a massive Middle Eastern war called Armageddon.

DDM [03:40] Now, for the first 1,800 years of church history, this was not a Christian belief at all, so we really need to understand that this is a modern interpretation being placed onto scripture. In the New Testament, the early Christians expected the end of the world to come soon after the ascension of Jesus.

DDM [04:03] They believed Jesus would come again in their lifetime, and God’s kingdom would be established. But they did not in any way equate this with a geopolitical war or map out nations and military alliances the way we are seeing this being done today. The apocalyptic imagery in the Book of Revelations, the whole beasts, dragons, battle of Armageddon, that was generally interpreted symbolically or spiritually by early theologians.

DDM [04:37] This battle between good and evil was understood to happen throughout history in every age and generation. And so Armageddon was not a literal future battlefield, but the spiritual conflict between good and evil always present in the world in every people and community. That’s how Revelations was always understood in the church from the beginning.

DDM [05:02] This only changed in the 1800s with a preacher called John Nelson Darby, who developed what was called dispensationalism. He developed an idea that history was divided into stages or dispensations, and he developed the concept of a rapture where Christians would be taken up into heaven before a time of suffering.

DDM [05:28] He developed the concept of a literal battle of Armageddon centering on Israel, and this idea was used by Christian Zionists and gained popularity as the modern state of Israel was being created, and it was also used as a theological justification for Israel’s existence as a state This kind of thinking continued to be developed and expanded until the 20th century, where authors and preachers made these ideas extremely popular amongst the common people.

DDM [06:01] Hal Lindsey and his best-selling book, “The Late Great Planet Earth,” “The Left Behind” series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Now, these works of fiction, and they’re fiction, presented these detailed scenarios where modern political nations play roles in the Battle of Armageddon, and ideas of the rapture were vividly shown.

DDM [06:25] And so millions of readers and viewers came to view this fiction as literally what the Bible predicts. But serious theologians know this is simply fiction, and dangerous fiction, because books like Revelation were really written to encourage Christians living under the Roman Empire. The language is highly symbolic, using symbols people understood in that culture and in that time, and ancient biblical place names don’t even map accurately and neatly onto our modern political countries.

DDM [07:03] But despite scholars and theologians, these ideas became incredibly popular for psychological and social reasons. At times when there is seeming chaos in the world, the rise of violence and what we would call evil, these ideas give people a framework to understand this chaos, this evil, this violence, and a sense that people psychologically need that everything is happening for a reason and moving towards the ultimate triumph of good and their own people over evil, which of course is always the other nation or the other group of people.

DDM [07:42] And so what we call in theological circles apocalyptic literature, of which Revelations is a form, the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament is a form. These forms of apocalyptic literature always arise during times of war and suffering as a way of saying, “Your suffering is not meaningless, but it has purpose, and ultimately, you will triumph.”

MET [08:10] Okay, so I didn’t grow up in a household that was obsessed with the end times the way some evangelicals are, but I definitely grew up thinking Revelation was about the literal end of the world and bought into the Armageddon rapture stuff. In fact, one of the things that Carl and my mother-in-law still give me a really hard time about is when we first got married, I would panic whenever I lost track of Carl in the grocery store or if he left the house without telling me, because if I find myself in the store or the house by myself and I couldn’t see anyone else around me, my initial thought was not, “Oh, Carl went to go get tortilla chips,” it was, “Oh no, everybody got raptured and I missed it.”

MET [08:55] This caused great amusement for my in-laws who had not been exposed to this kind of thing and were also a bit concerned that I assumed Carl would be taken up, but not me. But as I learned more and more about apocalyptic scripture, I began to understand it as something completely different.

MET [09:15] Not as something predictive, but as something descriptive or even argumentative. The closest analog I have to apocalyptic scripture is protest rhetoric. I have taught classes in protest, democracy building, and social change, and in some ways that is applicable and in some ways it is not. It isn’t because the writers of the Bible and literature of that time were not looking to build democracy, and they were not shaped by the traditions of the West.

MET [09:48] If anything, they were giving shape to the traditions that the West would eventually adopt. But really, the West would take as much or more from the Greeks or Romans and just kind of pick and choose from their actual religious roots. But at the same time, there are similarities. Any people wanting to protest against their oppressors have certain things in common, and so will their rhetoric.

MET [10:10] So in books like Daniel and Revelation, I see things I recognize from my own work, like solidification, polarization, definition of terminology, and things like promulgation, all of which come straight out of social movement studies. For one, there is a good deal of work to solidify the group of protesters here.

MET [10:32] The people who are being oppressed are tightly bound in a group of articulated traits. The people who this was for knew who they were and why it was for them. This was a narrative that brought a people together. It brought them together in opposition to a greater power. But that is what good protest rhetoric does.

MET [10:55] People want to believe that good protest rhetoric brings us together, but that’s not completely true. If you want to make change, you have to show that change is necessary, and that means you have to point out a problem. That requires solidifying around an issue, showing how oppression exists. It’s the important first step.

MET [11:16] That actually leads to another important part of the process, which is polarization. I know it’s not pleasant to think about because we like the idea of all holding hands and kumbaya-yaing our way into wholeness, but change doesn’t come because you’re all happy with each other. Change comes because one group of people says, “No, this will not stand.” If oppression is happening, then there has to be an oppressor. You can aim to make peace with your oppressor, but you can’t just ignore the oppression. ultimately has to be a good guy and a bad guy. And a lot of people love to say, “Oh, MLK didn’t think that way,” but that is because they don’t know jack about MLK. Because MLK talked about white moderates being a bigger threat to justice than the KKK and said white moderate people need to just get out of the way ’cause they’re the real problem. He identified who the enemy was, but we don’t like to quote that part because it’s uncomfortable to, you know, white moderates.

MET [12:16] There are also some terms thrown around that the ones doing the speaking, and not the establishment or Rome, get to define. The ability to define your own terms is crucial to guiding the narrative. So when the author starts throwing around terms like The Dragon and Whore of Babylon, he’s also doing more to create solidification.

MET [12:41] He’s setting up a shibboleth. If you don’t understand these terms, then you are not one of us. And all of this is supposed to spread the word. A sermon or plain old letter might not do the trick, but a vision of monsters might. If you wanna talk about how serious things are and get your message out there, put it in terms of the world ending. That’s a good way to go viral.

DDM [13:07] And, you know, for people who don’t see themselves as religious, even still, we cannot dismiss these religious ideas because they are incredibly powerful and strong, and they shape and influence global foreign policy and thinking, especially in the Israel and– especially in Israel and the USA. Remember, this religious thinking was developed in the USA and then picked up and used by Christian Zionists and later Jewish Zionists.

DDM [13:36] It focuses on the understanding that the Jewish people must return to the political state of Israel before the end times can happen. And this thinking has shaped the funding to repopulate historic Palestine with people who call themselves Jewish and try to populate this newly created country of Israel, and especially we see that taking shape in the illegal informal settlements in Israel.

DDM [14:02] But this thinking also equates, obviously, the state of Israel with the biblical Israelites, which is completely inaccurate biblically. But it claims that those who bless Israel as a state will be blessed by God. Organizations promoting this view is CUFI the Christians United for Israel, and they believe Israel has a God-given right to the land from Egypt all the way into Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and they call this the Greater Israel, which is why Israel is the only nation that has not set its borders because they are still reclaiming the land that they believe belongs to them, and why we see the constant destabilization of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and now Iran by Israel and the USA.

DDM [14:53] But what is crucial to understand is that in this thinking, war is not something to be avoided, but rather something to be embraced because Jesus will not come again until after the Battle of Armageddon, according to them. So to bring about a global Armageddon is to bring about the return of Jesus, and so a global devastating war is ironically for them, in fact, to do God’s will.

DDM [15:21] And American Bibles like the Scofield Reference Bible actually include commentary explaining all of this and adding all of these political thoughts to the scriptures.

MET [15:36] The Bible actually is the source for a few rhetorical devices and genres. One of those is called the jeremiad. Now, the Book of Revelation is not a jeremiad. I wanna be clear about that. But these things kinda go together in my head because they do similar things. Biblical rhetoric often performs similar roles, and that’s not because it is boring or uncreative, but the audience has similar requirements because of their culture or setting in many situations.

MET [16:10] You could say the same thing about an American audience or a Nigerian audience or whatever. A jeremiad is a form of speech that combines lamentations over a society’s moral decline with a demand for reform and a hopeful prophecy of renewal. It’s named after the book of prophecy in the Bible, Jeremiah, and it follows a three-part structure: denouncing current sins, comparing them to an idealized past, and calling for repentance.

MET [16:43] I’m not actually gonna go over a big example or do a lot of analysis on this one. What I need you to know is that a jeremiad is a kind of prophetic speech. It calls out our bad behavior now and claims that things were better in the past and we can get better again. There’s a lot going on here. First, you have to be convinced that things are terrible now.

MET [17:08] Maybe they are, or maybe things are just different than how you want them. But for a jeremiad to be productive, you have to believe that now is awful Secondly, you have to be convinced that at some point in the past, things were way better. There was some happy, ideal point in the past when things were good and bright and happy, and all the problems that plague you or us now don’t exist.

MET [17:36] It is very important that you believe things were better in the past, because if I can get you to believe things were once so much better, I can get you to believe that they might be again. This is a hugely powerful bit of persuasion. If I can get you believe that things will be like they once were, and I can get them there, you are putty in my hands. If you haven’t put it all together, Make America Great Again is the soundbite version.

MET [18:06] I think this is important to think about in terms of revelation and Christian nationalism and foreign policy because the Trump admin has been promising for over a decade that they are going to make things like they once were. But they are also leaning on interpretation of the Bible that promises a future of war, literally the end of the world. So they’re going to make things great like they once were before, but they are also going to bring about the end times. The end is what is great. I know people say it all the time, but it’s true.

MET [18:44] This is very much a death cult. And that sounds outlandish and polemic and completely unhinged, but they’re saying it right there out loud. The goal is to both make things better and bring about the end of the world, and there’s only so much interpretation you can do with that

DDM [19:02] it’s really frightening. So whatever your view of religion, these ideas are currently being very actively used politically to justify war crimes, environmental destruction, regime changes, and they are now being used openly. They’re not biblical, but they have become dominant teachings in many churches. I think we need to, especially as Christians whose faith is being hijacked for political ends, call these out for what they are, evil heresies to further political empires and their power with no concern for the destruction of ordinary people and even the world in which we live.

DDM [19:43] We need to say out loud and clearly each time these ideas are expressed that this is not what our faith teaches.

MET [19:55] Thank you for listening to The Priest and the Prof. Find us at our website, priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast@priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at priestandprof.org/donate. That will help cover the cost of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.

DDM [20:23]Music by audionautix.com.

Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe describes the way her understanding of rhetorical history shapes her faith.

---

Transcript

DDM [00:03] Hello and welcome to The Priest and the Prof. I am your host, the Rev. Deborah Duguid-May.

MET [00:09] And I’m Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe.

DDM [00:11] This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’m an Episcopal priest of 26 years, and Elizabeth has been a rhetoric professor since 2010. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.

MET [00:38] I had this student once who had the greatest opening line to her presentations I have ever heard. It always made me laugh, but also feel really good about life because this young woman came from a really conservative background, and she had gone to a hardcore religious school, and she had a lot of glass-breaking moments in my class when I informed her what she had been taught by her pastor was not, in fact, true at all.

MET [01:04] But she was a genuinely good person, and she wanted to make people feel good in her presence. She cared about others. So at the beginning of every presentation, this hardcore religious kid would smile as big as she could and say, “Hello and welcome, guys, gals, and non-binary pals.” And it was like some tension melted in the room because we did, in fact, feel welcome.

MET [01:33] She didn’t know it, but she was a master rhetorician. What she inherently understood about audience, pathos and ethos, delivery, and messaging takes years to teach, which makes me think she had been absorbing it over her lifetime, which probably means she had grown up hearing some mighty good preachers.

MET [01:56] This young woman had come up in the tradition of the Black church, so things like audience, delivery, pathos, and ethos would have been incredibly important to a service. So she might never have taken a public speaking class, but had absorbed more about public speaking than half the people with communication degrees.

MET [02:17] Okay, so why am I telling you this? It’s a charming story, and it raises some interesting questions about whether one can actually teach another person to be a good public speaker. But what I really wanted you to notice was a kind of flashpoint. Over the last year and a half, I have talked to you about a lot of different kinds of rhetorics.

MET [02:40] We’ve covered classical theories, the postmodern, political rhetoric, legal rhetoric, religious rhetoric. I’ve taken you on a whirlwind tour. This is an interesting story because it covers so many of them. It is both political and religious. It is invitational and constitutive. It is Aristotelian and feminist.

MET [03:03] There’s just a lot. And I realize as I tell you this, I’ve taken you through your paces and gotten you to where you can recognize all of this. But I don’t know that I’ve ever made my fundamental connections for you. So today, if you’ll give me just a few minutes, I wanna take us back to the beginning.

MET [03:23] Carl and Reverend Deborah were kind enough to let me have the mic by myself this time because I wanted to take you on a journey that is specific to me, both as a person of faith and as an intellectual. So a bit of rhetorical history and theory. I know it’s just what you were thinking you needed today, but also you are here with me, so you had to know it was a possibility.

MET [03:49] Now, there are basically three roots to the rhetorical tree, the Sophist teachings, Aristotle’s theory, and Plato’s critique and elevation. I’m actually gonna start with Aristotle, not because he was first, but because he ended up being the most important. Plato won Christianity, but Aristotle won science and the Enlightenment.

MET [04:15] I mean, I guess we can argue about who was most important really, but I’m starting with Aristotle regardless, mostly because he ended up being the most important to rhetoric. Aristotle began with a few basic assumptions. One, the audience is rational. This is really important to understand. If you assume the audience is rational, it makes a difference in how you make your argument.

MET [04:42] It also lifts some of the burden on you to police yourself, if I’m being cynical, because a rational audience can sniff out problems. A rational audience can be persuaded by a good argument using evidence and reason. Aristotle also assumed that audiences were relatively universal. By that I mean he made sweeping generalizations about the elderly or the young or the rich or the whoever, and said, “These are their characteristics.

MET [05:13] Here’s how you appeal to them.” On the one hand, they were straight up stereotypes. On the other hand, we do the same thing with market research and voting demographics all the time. We just have numbers to go with our claims. I will note that any time I have presented Aristotle’s claims about people to modern undergrads, they have decided he got it about right.

MET [05:39] But this is also important to understand because his audience kind of was universal. It was all landowning male wealthy citizens of one city-state. I mean, if you only know one kind of person and they’re all the same, you’d probably jump to some conclusions too. Finally, Aristotle took these assumptions and said, “Rhetoric is discovering or using the best available means of persuasion in any given case.”

MET [06:10] This means given the audience, so they are old or they are rich, et cetera, what kind of things will they respond to? What is the best combination of proofs? There are inartistic proofs, which is just the stuff you don’t come up with, the stuff you bring into the argument, and there are artistic proofs.

MET [06:31] That’s what you bring to the argument. And this is why it matters that the audience is both, A, rational, so able to make considered decisions and can be persuaded, but also, B, young, so prone to rash decisions or whatever. The artistic proofs are appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos, and that just means how much you depend on appeals to logic, emotion, or your character.

MET [06:56] You are probably wondering at this point what on earth this has to do with me and my faith. I promise I will get there. We’re going the long way today. The second person who is worth talking about is Plato. Plato actually hated rhetoric. He hated rhetoric because he associated it with the Sophists, who I’ll talk about in a minute, who he believed to be dangerous and idolatrous. As far as Plato understood rhetoric, it was completely relativistic and could easily let the wrong people gain power.

MET [07:34] Plato was really certain of two things. There is a right and ultimate truth, and there are right kinds of people, and they should be in charge. For Plato, rhetoric shouldn’t be about persuasion. It should be about what he called the dialectic, a philosophical back and forth and an ongoing search for truth.

MET [07:57] Rhetoric should be a search for transcendence, not a bid for power. And along those lines, Plato wasn’t real big on democracy, whereas Aristotle’s and the Sophists’ versions of rhetoric went hand in hand with democracy. Plato believed what we need are philosopher kings, people of great knowledge, wisdom, and character who will take on the mantle of leadership and basically be a benevolent dictator.

MET [08:25] This is the difference I need you to understand. Plato is at the heart of both Christianity and fascism. Aristotle leads to the Enlightenment and colonialism. That just leaves the Sophists. Here’s what you gotta know. Everybody hates the Sophists. The Sophists were, depending on how you frame the story, itinerant teachers of rhetoric who went from town to town, sharing their knowledge in a radically democratic fashion, or flamboyant rabble-rousers who went to a town and took whoever’s money they could until they were thrown out of that town and went to the next.

MET [09:08] The Sophists were easy to recognize. As I said, they were flamboyant in their dress and hairstyle, and that in and of itself bothered the traditional, more civically-oriented teachers and politicians of the day. Once again, things have not changed. You’ve got the people in charge And you have the folks in edgy clothes and wild-colored hair demanding something different.

MET [09:33] Ecclesiastes 1:9 says there is nothing new under the sun. This is a reminder that in many ways that is very true. There will always be those with institutional power who hate upstarts who look and sound different with challenging ideas. What those challenging ideas were is of particular interest. For example, the Sophists had a very different approach to education than Aristotle, Plato, and all of the other rhetoric teachers in the Greek world.

MET [10:05] The established rhetoric professors, the ones who had their own institutions, were very selective about who they taught. They let in the sons of wealthy, established families who showed great promise in math, logic, rhetoric, and even physical prowess. The Sophist said, “Ha ha, not really,” and would teach anyone who had the cash.

MET [10:29] Now, a couple of things about that. It is at once both a hugely democratizing step in education, but also a sign that money still talks. It is democratizing in that there are no established hierarchy barriers. If you had the cash, you could get the education. Farmers, merchants, whoever. If you could save up the money, the Sophists would teach you. This means that the Sophists were offering anyone access to the education and power that were reserved for the propertied rich and powerful.

MET [11:06] So yeah, there were many reasons and excuses to hate the Sophists, but you had to figure that was one of the biggest. They were opening the doors of education to anyone. However, there were still barriers. Education was very expensive. You had to save up the money. Sometimes that could be close to a year or two’s worth of salary for some people.

MET [11:31] But if you had the money, they would teach you. Then there was what was taught. The Sophists taught about rhetoric, politics, and all the things that people like Aristotle, Isocrates, and Plato were teaching. But they also taught the equivalent of how to do your taxes. The Sophists taught things like how to make business decisions, how to comport yourself in public, and how to account for your money at the end of the day, as well as persuasion politics and democratic theory.

MET [12:05] So the democratization part of their education is vital to understand. Sophistic education wasn’t just about how to be a good senator or whatever. It was about how to be a successful and prominent citizen. Once again, you can see how this would upset those in power. The last thing they needed was for the commoners to have access to knowledge that would allow them to improve themselves and their lives in significant ways.

MET [12:36] Finally, one of the biggest reasons people like Plato hated the Sophists was their supposedly moral reasons. The Sophists had very different ideas on truth. For Sophists, truth was very much a matter of the moment. Truth was something that you created as a matter of context. Truth happened at a particular moment in that particular context at the right time in the right situation.

MET [13:05] You could imagine a guy like Plato, who believed in capital T truth, had a huge issue with the Sophists. But the Sophists believed and taught that truth was a creation of context. That, of course, made rhetoricians particularly powerful, because a person in that context could potentially be a truth maker.

MET [13:29] Now, it would appear that I have forgotten this is a podcast about issues of the faith, and I have taken it upon myself to lecture you about rhetorical history and theory. But actually, I want to tell you about how this comes together for me. Christianity borrows heavily from Plato. We get our notions of truth, hierarchy, and much of our philosophy from Plato.

MET [13:54] Our religion is surprisingly Greek and Roman for being based on an Aramaic Jew. And I don’t necessarily like what we got from Plato. Platonic thinking breeds exclusion. It creates environments where there’s not just insiders and outsiders, but blessed and cursed. And Aristotle’s clinical approach probably shaped Paul’s systematized and rhetorically constructed letters throughout the New Testament.

MET [14:23] Paul, being well-versed in Greek, probably knew all about these folks and had put their theories to good use. A study of the letters in the New Testament as documents and letters instead of theology reveals some pretty classically rhetorical artifacts. It is very easy to point to how Plato and Aristotle have affected Christianity.

MET [14:46] And because our faith is so vested in Plato and Aristotle, especially Plato, we assume that is right. There are ultimate truths, and there are ways to present your case. And I’m not here to contest any of that But I want to tell you for a minute about the Sophists and how I see their philosophy shaping my faith.

MET [15:09] For one, the Sophists opened up knowledge to everyone, or as much as anyone did in that day and time. This radical inclusion is incredibly important to my faith. I wouldn’t follow Christ if I did not believe he was open to everyone. Part of Christ’s revelatory approach to community was that he did not put up barriers.

MET [15:34] He was not a gatekeeper. There were no rules about who he would and would not share his message with or his table. I wouldn’t say Christ practiced radical democracy because I don’t think I would apply any statist theory to his work. But I do think he practiced radical inclusion in community.

MET [15:56] And of all of the rhetorical theorists of the classical age, it is the Sophists who got closest to that. In fact, Plato, who we borrowed most heavily from, was kind of the opposite of that. The Sophists were the ones who came closest to providing a picture of the kind of actions I see in the Gospels. And the fact that those in power hated them just lends credence to that.

MET [16:22] Secondly, the Sophists taught the kinds of things that affected people in their day-to-day lives. Plato and Aristotle were great if you were going to trial or were trying to get a body of legislation to pass a law. But the Sophists attended to your life, your mundane, everyday choices, as well as the grandiose.

MET [16:42] I see that in the Gospels as well. When Christ told a parable, it was often about someone relatable. In Luke fifteen, Christ tells the story of a woman who lost one coin and went searching for it. How many times do we hear about shepherds and their sheep? We also hear about rich men, but very often we hear as much about their servants as well.

MET [17:07] Christ’s lessons were about how to treat your neighbor more than how to relate to systems of power. Jesus wanted you to know how to function in the day to day as much as he did about how to function in the halls of power. Finally, and this is the clincher, the Sophists taught that truth was contingent.

MET [17:30] This is the stickler for a lot of people. If there is one thing we are certain of in Christianity, it is that there are certain truths that should not be questioned. And I’m not here to say whether that is or is not the case But I wanna talk about where I find God. All too often, God is not in the grand walls of a church.

MET [17:54] God is in small moments. God is in the time I spend with my husband and daughter. God is in those moments in the classroom when I know we’ve made genuine progress. God is when Carl, Deborah, and I finish up a podcast, and I know we’ve made a quality product that I think will help people. I’m not claiming I make God or truth, but I do find God and truth in the contextually defined moments of my life.

MET [18:23] It is one thing to say that God is everywhere all the time. It is quite another to know for a fact He is working in your life. Sometimes truth is found minute by minute. Sometimes God shows Himself in the most mundane circumstances. The Sophists taught that truth was a product of context. I am not telling you that God is a product of context.

MET [18:48] But in my life, God is found in those small moments that are defined by context of community, family, and even resistance. In that way, God is a God of context. For while He is always with me, I feel Him most when I am doing His work, and that is something I create. So what is the point of all this? For me, it is a matter of figuring out how we understand God.

MET [19:20] I’m a thinker. I understand the world as an intellectual project, so it matters to me what framework I view the world through. For some people, that isn’t a big deal, but for me it is. So when I consider this thing, rhetoric, that I have literally devoted decades of my life to, it matters how that colors other parts of my life.

MET [19:43] And what I have come to understand is that the connections are not always as clear as tradition would have us believe. Plato is not for me, though he is very much at the heart of Christianity. Aristotle doesn’t speak to me, though he probably did to Paul. But the Sophists, those folks who were accused of atheism, rabble-rousing, and disrupting the very fabric of society, that makes sense to me when it comes to the life of my faith.

MET [20:14] I can see where my mind and my spirit intersect there. So as I close today, I encourage you to think about a few things. How do you see the different parts of your world connecting? The Bible says we are supposed to love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. How do you draw connections between all three?

MET [20:37] Where do you find your faith? Is it in big moments in church or in small moments in your life? What is meaningful to you? How do you live that out? Who is included in your faith? Are there barriers or is anyone invited? Consider these things as you move through the next two weeks. It’s your rhetoric homework

MET [21:16] Thank you for listening to the Priest and the Prof. Find us at our website, priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast at priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at priestandprof.org slash donate. That will help cover the costs of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.DDM [21:45] Music by Audionautix.com

In this episode, Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe is joined by Producer Carl Thorpe for a brief discussion of prayer and the Bible in public schools and their experiences as educators.

---

Transcript

DDM [00:03] Hello and welcome to The Priest and the Prof. I am your host, the Rev. Deborah Duguid-May.

MET [00:09] And I’m Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe.

DDM [00:11] This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’m an Episcopal priest of 26 years, and Elizabeth has been a rhetoric professor since 2010. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.

MET [00:38] Hello, it is good to be with you. Producer Carl is with me today, and we are here to talk to you about our experiences both as people of faith and as educators. One time, years ago, I had my students in political rhetoric do some group projects on major political and cultural issues of the day. One group got prayer in school. The group got up there and they were setting up their slides and getting ready in general, and then they turned to the class and they said, “Okay, we’re ready.” And one woman who I knew to be pretty conservative and religious said, “Okay, before we start, I’d like for us all to bow our heads and start with a word of prayer.” And everyone in the group clasped their hands and bowed their heads. You could feel the chill run through the room. The rest of the class started shifting very uncomfortably and some of them gasped. I was ready to jump out of my seat and say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s calm down here.” When the woman raised her head, opened her eyes wide and said, “Just kidding, but your reaction gets us ready to talk about today’s topic.” There was a collective sigh of relief and many people laughed out loud.

MET [02:00] It was easily one of the most memorable intros to a presentation I have ever had in one of my classes, and I don’t think I will ever forget it. No lie. I loved it. I thought it was perfect. I gave them a ton of points for that. But this woman was exactly right. For most people, the notion of prayer in class makes us really uncomfortable. But at the same time, there are some people who think it is absolutely essential.

MET [02:31] I grew up doing things like see you at the poll, which if you did not grow up in an environment where people were constantly trying to shove religion anywhere and everywhere, it was a yearly event where students gathered before school and gathered around the flagpole to pray. I guess we were supposed to pray for our schools or the nation, but that was never really made clear. We were just kids who were supposed to pray. And we did, and we sang our God is an awesome God and we’re our best evangelical selves. And there were signs up all over my church that said quippy things like, “As long as there are tests, there will be prayers in school.” I was surrounded by folks who generally believed that things would be better if we could shove as much Christianity into school as possible. I did not know this was a relatively new attitude, but I’ll get to that in a minute.

MET [03:27] For just a second, I’m going to ask Carl to give us a tiny bit of insight as someone who was a K through 12 teacher. Carl, can you tell us about your experience as a junior high teacher dealing with religion and school?

CRT [03:40] Sure. Back in Texas, I worked for two years as a paraprofessional at a wealthy elementary school and then three years as a classroom teacher at a low income middle school. Every morning, we had a moment of silence after the Pledge of Allegiance to both the American flag and the Texas flag, which is very weird, but that’s something for another day. This was intended to be a time where students and staff could pray silently if they wanted. We were supposed to ensure that our students were motionless and silent during this brief time. Many teachers required students to stand. Now let’s ignore for a moment the students who were not religious in any way. And let’s be honest, Texas most certainly didn’t take any of them into account either.

CRT [04:20] This was supposed to be non-sectarian. However, I often wondered about those students whose former prayer wasn’t respected by this. What about those students whose former prayer were supposed to be audible or who prayed in a prostate position or prayed facing a specific direction? A moment of silence privileges those whose faith allows for silent, private individual prayer. And honestly, even the groups who definitely could and did engage in silent private prayer, such as those who organized and attended to see you at a poll event Elizabeth described, would have preferred audible, specifically Christian prayer if they could have gotten away with it. The moment of silence was the best they could get away with at that time.

CRT [04:59] And speaking of CU at the poll, at the middle school I taught at, this was not a once a year thing. It was at least weekly and at times more than that. And many faculty and staff members participated, including the principal and some of the vice principals of the school. The students who participated were given more leeway in terms of behavior and discipline because they were good Christians who made mistakes. Rumor had it that the administrators who participated often prayed for forgiveness with students who were sent to their office as one part of their punishment for behavior issues and let off the hook, so to speak. Teachers who wanted to participate were excused from before school duties such as monitoring students coming off buses, et cetera, so they could go pray. Administrators and other teachers would say things like, “I haven’t seen you at the flagpole. You know it lets our students know how much we love them and respect them when we participate.”

MET [05:47] I wanna be very clear so much of that is so illegal.

MET [05:51] Also, historically, it hasn’t always been this way. Believe it or not, Baptists were some of the chief opponents of prayer in school for a long time, right up until the time the moral majority, which we have talked about before, took over American politics. And for some people, this seems so counterintuitive. Surely the largest evangelical group in the nation would want prayer in school, right? That’s what so many of us have learned for most of our lives. But no. For most of the Baptist tradition, there was a persistent effort to keep religion out of schools and other manifestations of state.

MET [06:37] So let’s talk about why. Let’s say you decide to make a public prayer at something like a town hall meeting or a school event. That’s a state sanctioned happening, right? Which means the state gives tacit approval for everything that happens. So, the state has a vested interest in what is said, which means the state has a controlling interest in what is said. In short, the state may have a say in what you say in your prayer. If you pray at a state event, the state gets to have a say in that prayer. For example, a lot of places have said you can have a prayer as long as it is inclusive and represents a number of belief systems. A Baptist of yester year might say, “No. When I pray, I pray to Jesus Christ, son of God, creator of the universe, and it is an infringement on my religion for you to tell me I have to pray to anything or anyone different.” In other words, historically, the more conservative religious groups wanted to keep religion out of the state because they wanted to keep state out of religion.

MET [07:54] The problem with combining the two is that it is not a one-way street. Once you inject religion into the state, it is impossible for the state not to become part of religion. And that may be great if you pray to the state, which quite frankly, a lot of so- called Christians right now do. But if you pray to Jesus who rejected worldly power, this is pretty much as blasphemous as it gets.

MET [08:22] Of course, I come with receipts. I’m going to give you a brief rundown of some of the most significant court cases dealing with religion in schools to give you some idea of how this is trending. The first case I want to talk about is Engel v. Vitale. What happened was the New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, claiming that it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The question at hand was, does the reading of a non-denominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the establishment of religion clause at the First Amendment? The court held that the state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.

MET [09:21] In an opinion authored by Hugo L. Black, the court held that respondent’s decision to use its school system to facilitate recitation of an official prayer violated the establishment clause. Specifically, the policy breached the constitutional wall of separation between church and state. The court ruled that the constitutional prohibition of laws establishing religion meant that the government had no business drafting formal prayers for any segment of its population to repeat in a government-sponsored religious program. The court held that the respondent’s provision of the contested daily prayer was inconsistent with the establishment clause. Okay, that’s a lot of complicated words to say that you can’t voice prayers over the PA system or whatever, even if they are voluntary.

MET [10:14] For the record, this would come up again in Santa Fe v. Doe when there was a case over prayers at football games. That’s a complicated question because for decades, it was illegal for schools to have prayers before football games, but schools did it all the time anyway. Then in 2022, there was another prayer at Football Games case about a coach leading his team, and they decided that was acceptable, even though it was quite public. For the record, I have a huge problem with that case and wrote a whole book chapter on it. So if you want my thoughts, send me an email and I’ll shoot you the whole document.

MET [10:54] A second case from 1963 is Abington School District v. Shchempp. The facts of the case are that under Pennsylvania law, public schools were required to read from the Bible at the opening of each school day. The school district sought to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The district court ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment even after the statute had been amended to permit a student to excuse himself. The question was, did the Pennsylvania law requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and 14th Amendments? And the court decided public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord’s prayer under the First Amendment’s establishment clause. It’s wild to think of a time when this was a question. At the same time, there are a lot of people out there right now who are trying to shoehorn the Bible into classrooms. So what are we thinking?

MET [12:06] Lemon v. Kurtzman is a particularly important case, both for the test it led to and for how it is largely being ignored by modern courts. Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education. The Pennsylvania statute was passed in 1968 and provided funding for non-public elementary and secondary school teachers salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects. Rhode Island’s statute was passed in 1969 and provided state financial support for non-public elementary schools in the form of supplementing 15% of teachers’ annual salaries. The appellants in the Pennsylvania case represented citizens and taxpayers in Pennsylvania who believed that the statute violated the separation of church and state described in the First Amendment.

MET [13:14] Appellant Lemon also had a child in Pennsylvania public school. The district court granted the state official’s motion to dismiss the case. In the Rhode Island case, the epelees were citizens and taxpayers of Rhode Island who sued to have the statute in question declared unconstitutional by arguing that it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The District Court found in favor of the Appalees and held that the state violated the First Amendment. Okay. So the question in all of this is, do the statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment? The court held that a statute must pass a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the establishment clause. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. Its principle or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The court held that both the state statutes in question had secular legislative purposes because they reflected the desire of the state to ensure minimum secular education requirements were being met in the non-public schools.

MET [14:45] Now I’m gonna shift gears for just a second. Kitzmiller v. Dover is a case that doesn’t always come up in these conversations, but I think it’s important. The Dover case is actually about intelligent design. I include it here because after evangelicals seem to have lost the prayer in school’s battle, until recently, they turned their eyes to science classes. It is not an exaggeration to say that intelligent design is one big bit of hogum. If you’re not familiar, it is an alternative theory to evolution that some states have tried to shove into science classes and argue that it wasn’t evolution, but an intelligent designer that created the world. And I love that. It isn’t God, just some unnamed, far off, intelligent designer that created the world and absolutely did not follow the laws of established science, but set the world down whole cloth. It is creationism without Genesis. It is garbage, but Christians love to propose it as an alternative scientific theory that fills in the gaps. Friends, it is not scientific, and there are no gaps. I remember a student years ago in a class announced that evolution couldn’t be accurate because there was a missing link. I told them, “The missing link you are looking for is Australopithecus africanus, and we’ve known about it for decades, and just because most people are wildly ignorant of science doesn’t mean we should teach people to be more ignorant.” My students were shocked, offended, and educated. In 2004, the Dover School Board mandated that biology teachers mention intelligent design as an alternative to evolution using the textbook of pandas and people.

MET [16:54] This one didn’t even make it to SCOTUS. It stopped at lower levels. The judge concluded that intelligent design is not science and cannot decouple itself from its creationist and thus religious antecedents. The decision deemed the policy unconstitutional and halted efforts to introduce ID into public school curricula nationwide. One of the most recent ways we have seen all this rear its ugly head is in places like Texas and Alabama, where states have tried to make laws requiring states to place the 10 commandments in classes.

MET [17:32] A case that has come up is Stone v. Graham. Sydell Stone and a number of other parents challenged a Kentucky state law that required the posting of a copy of the 10 Commandments in each public school classroom. They filed a claim against James Graham, the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky. The court ruled that the Kentucky law violated the first part of the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, and thus violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. The court found that the requirement that the 10 Commandments be posted had no secular legislative purpose and was plainly religious in nature. The court noted that the commandments did not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as murder, stealing, et cetera, but rather concerned matters such as the worship of God and the observance of the Sabbath Day.

MET [18:26] Look, if it isn’t clear by now, this is a mess. The rules change depending on the court and half the time red states don’t follow the law anyway.

CRT [18:36] I don’t know if you know this, but there isn’t just one list of 10 commandments among Christians. The Catholic and some Lutheran versions combine having no other gods and making no graven images into the first commandment, whereas Protestant traditions separate those into the first two. For Catholics and against some Lutherans covering your neighbor’s wife and your neighbor’s possessions are divided into the ninth and 10th commandments, while other Protestant traditions combine them into the 10th, which carries an off-putting emphasis on your neighbor’s wife being one of his possessions. In Texas, for example, they mandate the Protestant version of the 10 commandments as found in the King James version of the Bible, excluding the Catholic version, which again is probably intentional. So even something that claims to be non-denominational most certainly isn’t.

CRT [19:22] Similarly, mandates for teaching Bibles in schools usually privilege one specific translation over others. Again, Catholics and some Orthodox churches include a set of books often referred to as the apocrypha in their Bibles, and they are usually excluded from versions specified in these mandates. So even if you are 100% on board with biblical principles and texts being taught in public schools, students of other denominations of the religion that these laws and mandates seek to privilege are still being excluded.

MET [19:51] Okay. So what does all of this say about our faith? Honestly, I don’t think it’s anything good. If we are so unsure about our faith and insecure about it that we feel the state has to mandate it, then we are not doing our jobs. If we are willing to turn our religion over to the state to take care of its keep because we need the power of the state to keep it going, then we are failures. I don’t think the drive to put religion in schools indicates any great belief in the great commission. I think it represents a profound lack of confidence in your own beliefs. If your beliefs are so small and so fragile that you depend on the state to make them valid, then that’s not faith. That’s bureaucracy. And I do not believe Jesus came to be a bureaucrat. I do not believe salvation comes in the classroom. I do not believe we can depend on the power of the state to justify our faith, and if you do, then your faith is ridiculously weak. We talked just recently about God and the public, and I think there is a place for that, but I would never depend on the state to be the source of my religion, and I am thoroughly convinced that it is an unchrist-like way to approach Christianity.

MET [26:30] Thank you for listening to The Priest and The Prof. find us at our website, https://priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast@priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at https://priestandprof.org/donate/. That will help cover the cost of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.

DDM [27:00] Music by Audionautix.