the gospel according to who?

…one of the other things that I think we have been deceived in/by (whether intentionally or not) is that we are told as an act of worship that we must intensely pursue the desires of our “heart” yet from the pulpit in virtually every church worldwide we are essentially bombarded with presentations of sensual gratifications of the eyes of the flesh (money strategies, offered prestige, power (church leadership positions (aka ministry) etc), spiritual and social strategies, promises of and methods towards marriage and personal growth, various spiritual concepts, rights and privileges, etc)…

even from the get-go we are presented with a “gospel” that promises Jesus as our servant – we are preached from the pulpit that “God will give us” … and that we will “be given” salvation for free, that “we will get” eternal life, eternal security, healing, peace, a new sense of community, love, better jobs, more success, etc, etc, ad nauseum) when in reality we have all these things already. … and it is only our blindness and unbelief that keeps us separated from such realities

the real message of the cross to my mind is that in order to be ‘restored’ to where we were previously (i.e. pre the fallen state as per the metaphor of the garden in Genesis) we are presented in the recorded story of the Christ with an example and a teaching as well as a clear methodology to “put to death” the so called “deeds of the flesh” and to walk daily for the rest of our time left on earth with this “cross” on our shoulders, … placed there by ourselves and with the constant reminder of the stench of our own death filling our own nostrils as well as any in our presence

this real gospel is not preached anywhere from what I can tell… indeed if it were it would reap the same reward as displayed in the story of the Christ

… the messenger will be betrayed and crucified by friend and foe alike and at the end will have no followers save a mere few trembling who are the only ones who truly understood anything at all

imagine that gospel being preached every Sunday?

perhaps the iceberg has a tale to tell?

hmm, … yes, good sound reasoning applied in the video …
however, near the end the narrative suggests that the case against there being a purpose in the universe is extremely strong to anyone “who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be.”…
… this causes me to reflect that perhaps if we are willing and able to be as objective and “empirical” as we possibly can we would need to reconsider that in all our so-called advanced cognitive abilities and developed observational and deductive/reasoning faculties we see an extremely minute percentage of the data that is “out there”
also, to “see” vast chunks of that which we regard as scientific knowledge we are presently utilising and operating “empirically” with devices (technological and deductive) that we have created and developed for ourselves in order to “see” the things we cannot see with our own eyes
as a result we conclude causes, events and structures that together serve to build our “empirical” scientific world view….

… is this not exactly what the “religious” or “spiritual” mind does in attempting to make sense of it all … specifically, operating on sensory intuitive techniques and some other devices we have created for ourselves (belief systems, theologies, mythology, metaphor, etc.) in order to “see” and explain the things we cannot fully understand or ‘prove’ empirically? …  thereby concluding about events causes and structures that actively build our “spiritual” worldvview?
… call me a skeptic if you will, but there is many a time where I personally cannot shake the idea that even the most empirically educated and enthusiastically outspoken scientist is as driven and filled by “faith” and hopeful blinkered subjective passion as the most voluminously raving faith filled fundamentalist evangelist out there…

… and for us as participants on both sides of the great divide perhaps it may be wise to consider that to measure only the visible superficially discernible bits of the iceberg is profoundly foolish and very possibly perilous as well?

pass the spittoon, please

 

the constant quoting of others and the re-posting of popular pictorial memes on social networks and even in every day life is like eating out of the public refuse bins at popular toxic eateries like McDonald’s and KFC et al

… and if we are amongst those who believe that we are spiritually devout and adhere formally or informally to some belief system that has established sacred texts in public circulation I would also like to boldly suggest that the constant quotation of these sacred memes and principles falls into the exact same category

… and perhaps especially the ‘Christian’ fraternity (and I count myself amongst them) and our holy writings

… who mostly seem to claim that our belief system is not a dead and legalistic religious order like all the others … but instead is a living relational dynamic with a ‘personal’ infinitely creative and active God as the originator and sustainer of all things…

 

we ‘Christians’ … perhaps more so than most others need to consider that even the respectful verbatim quoting of the so called ‘new testament’ grace and freedom saturated biblical texts is as ‘legalistic’ as any other so called legalistic and controlling religious order we so often enjoy ‘exposing’ and ‘dissing’…

 

… an original thought is not such a bad idea‎… in fact, it’s never a bad idea

 

… indeed,  it could well be the highest act of worship and honour we can offer to our creator

… to allow the personal life-giving transformational presence and flow of divine power to cascade, even to explode through us in uniquely creative thought and deed, not hindered by literally incarcerated statutes, memes and man-made theology and doctrine, but ignited by the very presence of a supreme and ever present creator …who by all perceivable accounts excels in extravagant freedom and boundless creativity…

…seemingly never doing the same thing twice…

 

there are no perfectly straight lines in nature…

… the only straight lines are the ones we have drawn ourselves to try connect the dots, so to speak

…and drag the infinite and spectacular majesty of life into our very insignificant and limited dimension of time and space

 

we should cook and eat at home

and as we all seem to know … home is where the heart is…

… not on the pages of some glossy periodical

 

 

holy day

It is Nelson Mandela’s birthday today and social networks like Facebook, Twitter, the local press and virtually all other forms of media are voicing themselves in accolade and tribute to the greatness of the man.  We verbalize our honour of him, also of his achievements, his moral, ethical, humanitarian, reconciliatory stand.

Even government officials in our country are taking the time and effort to give tribute and thanks.  Many are jubilantly celebrating the high ground on and from which he took his stand.

We all bask in the glory … once a year.

 

But a year has 364 more days…

 

… and we all go back tomorrow and re-occupy the ground we usually stand on … not so high at all really.

 

I woke up to these public accolades this morning and penned my own little contribution.  I published my “status” update and it went like this:

 

“what about this as a real birthday present for Madiba: – instead of doing the doting ‘fan’ accolades why not honour him fully by simply following his example of love, respect and inclusive reconciliation by extending dignity to all?
(does anyone know how to get politicians presently in domination to read this?)”

 

A bit closer to home perhaps we Christians love to quote scriptures.  In so doing we reference what we value.  We honour the scriptures because we believe in the righteousness contained therein, the ethics, the morality, the humanitarian values, the grace and the reconciliatory stand it takes, the goodness, peace – yes the peace, acceptance and all the other benefits it proclaims.  We jubilantly celebrate the high ground on and from which Christ took his stand.

 

On Facebook I have a whole bunch of ‘friends’ who quote scripture as their status multiple times a day.  Many do not leave any personal point of view, just the quote and its topographical grid reference.  Nothing about them personally at all.

 

Great truth, profound wisdom, powerful transformational potential.  However, a theory remains a theory until proven.

 

For me obsession with quoting scripture is like a heavy hammer beating on a thin, tin roof.

 

The Word became flesh and desires those who receive to flesh out the Spirit like he did – like he fully represented, lived, died for.

He never wrote anything down himself that we know of.  His written ‘letter’ was intended to be evidence on the hands and feet of his followers, felt in the actions of the faithful, experience through the birth pangs of personal transformation.  He intended for the life he offered to be lived out and expressed individually, personally, intimately, demonstratively, articulately.  Not in multitudes of repetitious, parrot-fashioned memes or regurgitated declarations of intent, but rather in the impact of actions offered, lives surrendered.

 

The politicians love to celebrate Madiba, as do the world, us – you and me.

The politicians quote their version of scripture.  They quote from some historical act of virtue and significance.  An act performed on their behalf.  They don’t seem to honour it, but they love the memory and the stories about it.

They quote Madiba – and then go about business as usual, mostly violating everything about him, his actions, his values, his example.  But they remain committed members of “his” party.  Committed to his memory and the legend of his life.

 

If there was a “Christian” social network (and I truly pray to God there will never be), I would enter the same status I did today only with this one alteration, I’d insert Jesus’ name for Madiba’s

 

 

i wonder why?

In the church we spend great amounts of money, many other resources and lots of personal energy trying to gather as many as possible to come to us and then to secure their ongoing attendance.  We have ‘membership classes’, ‘orientation groups’, ‘enrollment’ and ‘data capture’ forms that we get people to fill in and return. We initiate ministry, function, or activity groups of all types and try get as many as possible involved in doing things in and for the local church.  Yet the way I read the bible it seems clear to me that Jesus never did any of these things.  He tended to keep moving and mostly seemed even to discourage people from following him physically rather than enticing them to join his entourage.  Instead of going to where it was obvious that more people would be he did the opposite.  When expected to zig, he seemed to zag.

I wonder why?

Yes, he did say that we should follow his example,  but there is only record of him approaching some of the 12 apostles and telling them to physically, “follow me.”   When he did this there is interestingly no record of an induction course or qualification mentioned or any formal training strategy other than simply following him and going along with him day by day – doing, seeing, and participating personally, experiencing, learning, failing, doing it again, and again, experiencing more, growing, learning…  It also seems that after telling them to follow him he simply turned around and walked.  To me it looks pretty much like as if he made the offer and it was up to them to respond how they saw fit.  I sort of get the picture in my head that if he turned around some time later and they were there they were … and if they were not there, they weren’t.

I wonder why?

If anything in all of this, I would say that Jesus went to the people.   He left his home and went out to be with them, amongst them.  He never expected them to come to him.   Again, he kept moving.   He just walked.

I wonder why?

However, there is also record of how Jesus openly challenged those who followed him in a most direct and controversial way.  He challenged their real reasons why they followed him and in so doing multitudes were severely offended, turned back and apparently never followed him again.   It seemed like he made it increasingly difficult, even impossible for them to follow him and they left in their droves.  These days we intentionally avoid all forms of controversy and in fact will do almost anything to attract positive and friendly attention and get as many people as possible to follow us regardless of their reasons.

I wonder why?

There is no textual evidence documented of Jesus ever asking for money from anyone.   He himself came from very poor stock and yet by all accounts it is apparent that he tended to give finances out at times for the poor and needy.  Oh yes, and there is also the one other small little passage that seems to indicate that there were a few women who supported him out of their own means (their ‘substance’) – but no more than this vague statement is revealed and even this statement is not at all clear in terms of what it meant then or might mean for us today.   Such a big issue these days for us… apparently not so at all for Jesus.

I wonder why?

Jesus told us to baptise converts and to eat of the communion table in remembrance of him and his sacrifice, death and resurrection.  He instructed us to do this as often as possible, in fact as often as we meet together.  Yet strangely, even though this was almost a command from Jesus these are practiced only sometimes, at most only monthly and this usually only in the most fastidious of churches. Even baptisms are mostly done seasonally or according to permitting weather patterns.  More strangely however, the most regular ‘sacrament’ practiced in churches today is the collection of tithes and offerings.   This is done every corporate gathering without fail regardless of how fastidious a group is.  In fact we even often have a small teaching presented to the people as to why and how much to give.  We have become very skilled in this sacrament and clearly most committed to it.  Yet Jesus never did this at all, in fact as I have suggested, he seemed to do the opposite.

I wonder why?

Jesus also told us to follow his example – even to death – that we were to do exactly as he did – from sacrificing ourselves, to washing each others feet, unconditionally loving and forgiving and not condemning or even holding things against others,  to serving even our enemies … and this all at our own personal expense.  He even instructed us not only to forgive our enemies, but to actively and consciously bless them.  Yet not much at all of any of these things are really seen practiced in the present church.

I wonder why?

There is no evidence that Jesus had any social, emotional nor monetary problems.  There is overwhelming evidence that we do.

Today we tend to have all manner of flaky, semi-converts and we love them – in fact, the more the merrier.  Indeed, we work extra hard to keep them happy and feeling safe, secure, and protected.

In sharp contrast the disciples Jesus walked with made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives willingly in service of him.

Again, I wonder why?

and how do you see it?

as is my custom I posted a somewhat semi cryptic, yet personally very significant and meaningful status update on facebook a few days ago

a sweet, well meaning friend added a comment that had nothing to do with the status update in any way whatsoever other than that it was written in the comment section underneath my status update. he had something to say and he seized the opportunity

I responded to his comment in the very next comment box under his and felt sure this would close down any flow that might have issued from my original update

now I can safely say that this specific person had no mind to be in anyway contrary, disrespectful or deviant at all, but my amusement turned to wonder in a few seconds as it made me think, “now isn’t this such a sign of our times?”

it also made me think about a line from a Paul Simon lyric that goes something like, … “he makes me think about all of these extra moves I make, and all this herky-jerky motion, and the bag of tricks it takes, to get me through my working day …. one trick pony”

how often do we say what we want to say to others not because we have heard them in any cognitive way and want to respond to them in what they say or feel but simply because they  happened to be there in front of us and happened to make a noise by saying something?  we say what we say because we want to say it … because we want to say it … and say it we will

how often do we seize every opportunity to ‘market’ ourselves in order to take advantage of some context for ourselves?

perhaps it’s because we are bombarded with so much info – data overload – that we have learned to block out stuff and can only see and hear what we want to see or hear?

“be careful what you hear” we are told

we are also led to consider that we are only able to love others as we love ourselves … and if we often don’t even see them or don’t even hear them, or if we block them out except for the opportunity it affords us to say what we want to say – … well, what might that say about us?

I catch myself doing this often, do you?

 

to give is better than receiving, to hear than to speak

and when we speak, how much of what we say is of us by our own creative initiative and how much is merely knee-jerk repetition of socially accepted rhetoric – merely memes, washed over pleasantries, subliminal agents of placation, absorptions of times spent listening without hearing, seeing without perceiving…?

and then we go out and contribute to the world we live in, make our cross, our vote for a better future, place our obligatory contribution into the offering plate … and rest at the end of a day with a feeling that this is all okay, and we fall asleep

until the next person says something

and I am honestly and sincerely confident that I too am a sweet, well meaning person with no mind to be in anyway contrary, disrespectful or deviant

 

 

a life forgotten

It seems to me that in a sense Jesus tended to walk away from more than he walked towards.  The way I read it he walked about from place to place, preaching of the kingdom of God and making contact with people, mostly making physical contact with them.  What I mean by that is he got down and dirty, really identifying with them and not just in word, but in deed.  He touched and healed and extended love and dignity to those he came across, especially the untouchables, the rejected, the socially unacceptable, the impoverished, desperate, hopeless, vile sinners as well as the socially, religiously and politically incorrect.  He never came for the righteous nor the religious, he came for those who missed the mark, who messed up, who were devastated and lost.  He had no home he went to each evening after a hard days walk, no comprehensible set pattern of movement even to the point that it seemed as if whenever they all expected him to zig, he zagged.  He also had no mission headquarters and no regular venue as a meeting place.  He went to them and the masses tended to follow him as he walked and from time to time and he felt compassion for them and stopped to heal and comfort them … sometimes he would feed them … but then, he kept moving on.  There is no record of him trying to start feeding schemes nor social help centres and institutions, nor actively collecting followers or converts.  He was not interested in building a religious order, a social club or a political party.  There was no morning roll-call, sabbath attendance registers, or accountability structures.  He led a small entourage, but he did it as a servant … he just kept walking and talking, mostly walking, always moving.  In fact, it looks very much to me like he made it very difficult for people to follow him.  He came from the poorest of social stock but there is no record of him asking for support, or even taking up a monetary collection to meet his or his disciples personal or ministry expenses.  Instead there is evidence that he gave money to the needy and not the other way round.  And when the masses thronged around him in pressing need he challenged them directly about their self centred motives for seeking him out, how they were following him because he had fed them all and not because they were seeking truth.  He then continued to present his teaching in even more mysterious, metaphorical, vague, even dark ways that had even his own closest disciples scratching their heads in perplexed frustration.  Instead of changing this tack, softening his delivery, and making them feel comfortable and secure in their hearts and minds about him and what he was saying and doing he instead disturbed them even more by telling them in exact detail of the very real risks and great cost it would take for anyone to follow him including, social alienation,  excommunication even physical death.  Yes, he did tell his 12 disciples to follow him but then, having spoken to them individually he seemed to walk and leave it up to them if they followed or not and there is no real record of him trying to persuade them or anyone to believe in him using manipulation, logic or any other such skilful oratory device.  In fact, there isn’t any record of him taking anyone behind any waling wall and asking them to repeat after him a prayer of confession according to the 4 or so spiritual laws that would lead them to, and seal their personal, eternal salvation.  Actually, he presented a whole new and revolutionary angle on the same memes his hearers had heard for many generations and it appears to me that a lot of the time he seemed to deliberately say the things that he knew very well would disturb, confuse and even totally infuriate those who heard him, especially the religious leaders.  He was kind and compassionate to the lowly and the lost but with the religious leaders he often became very shrewd, even furious.  And then to cap it all he told them all that the world would hate and reject all who believed in him and followed his example … that those who believed would suffer exactly the same way he would, and this simply for believing in him and living out his example … and then he deliberately got himself killed.

… and just before his life on earth ended he once again said, “follow me, … as you have seen me do, do likewise”

he was murdered for this

He went about doing good and healing all who were under heavy pressure from negative, evil circumstance.   As he went along amazing things seemed to happen around him.  It was clear that a force much more powerful than himself, the words he spoke, or the deeds he did was tangibly present with him.   Lives were marvelously changed as he made contact with all manner of people and as a consequence they sought him out and followed him virtually wherever he went.   They thronged around and asked him questions and he graciously spoke back to them in response.   He taught them what the sacred texts had hidden in them, presented a revolutionary, fresh angle on ancient truth and opened the eyes of the blind.   He demonstrated by way of his own lifestyle, a way of life that had never been seen before.   As a result lame legs were restored, withered arms were straightened and for the first time enabled to reach out and touch, caress and even heal.

Other than the twelve he officially called to be his personal disciples, to leave their homes and families and to walk with him he never asked anyone else to join him or follow him as he walked.   He never developed unrealistic expectations in the hearts and minds of those who met him and instead seemed rather to make it more difficult for them to follow him than that which first was apparent.   He was unpredictable in almost everything he did and when expected to ‘zig’, he ‘zagged.’   He extracted no payment for his service of kindness but often met the needs of the poor instead.   His only charge was for all to honour God and do as he did – to follow his example of giving up his own life for those of his friends.  In fact, he more often than not forbade the recipients of his kindness their passionate request to follow him and even had the emancipated fortitude of wisdom, personal conviction and divine sense of purpose to amongst many other seemingly controversial acts,  inadvertently cause a very wealthy man with all his worldly resources, to turn away from following him by lovingly revealing the great poverty of the mans extreme wealth and success.

He had no personal empire of material or political wealth.   He never drew attention to himself nor promoted his service.  If anything, he underplayed the accolades of the crowd and preferred to call himself the ‘son of man’, a lowly, unpretentious description for someone who performed such incredible feats of miraculous kindness.   He never owned any form of personal transportation nor any building with attractive, socially trendy décor to accommodate the masses who pressed in.   Instead, he chose the dusty footpaths, market places, the homes of often socially inappropriate people, taverns and once a week, the small, traditional religious gathering spots to make contact with people.  He had no permanent roof over his head other than the stars, no place to call his own nor to hang his hat or raise his banner.   He tended more often than not to profoundly offend the established religious order and the prevalent leadership of the day and they too pursued him relentlessly, but for other reasons than respect, admiration and gratitude.

Eventually Jesus was murdered for this, as are any who follow his example and do as he did.

…. so what is it about persuasion?

So what is it about persuasion? Are we really able to persuade others? Can we be presented with or present an argument ourselves that can change the course of ours or another’s life?

What is it with our seemingly innate drive to attempt to try to persuade others of our views?

There are some who are addicted to narcotics or fermented or distilled liquids. Others are addicted to chemical reactions that accompany dangerous or extremely challenging exploits or even painful, life-threatening acts of skill or even endurance. Some are addicted to visual stimuli of various kinds, sexual exploits … the list goes on….

Maybe there are far more of us than who are prepared to admit it that are addicted to the rush of persuading others about our own ideas and concepts? … an addiction to a strange kind of “success”?

Or could persuasion be a primitive, basic, deeply rooted drive to stamp our dominance in a social setting?

Could persuasion be a weapon? Maybe just like a cheetah uses speed, a leopard uses stealth, and a lion uses strength, we simply use our most fiercest weapon, our mind? In conjunction with our mind maybe we use that most dangerous weapon of all to run a victim through and bring them down, our tongue.

On the other hand could persuasion possibly be rooted in deep insecurity? …is it perhaps a need to get as many as possible thinking along the same lines as we do so as not to feel personally isolated and in error in our own beliefs? If this is the case perhaps we really are only like dreary, dull, mindless, sheep who have an instinctual drive to blindly follow the herd and the safety we believe it offers us? Could this all be mixed with a cocktail of fear that behind the next bushel there lurks a viscous predator? Or is it perhaps a brilliant and intelligent statistical strategy that the greater the size of the herd, the less the chances of us being picked off as the next meal? Maybe that’s why we so passionately pursue the art of persuading as many as possible to join us – self preservation?

Maybe persuasion is an essential tool for survival. So much of our world is devoted to the act of trying to persuade others to buy something from us that they possibly don’t really need. In order to succeed we trick them into believing that they really do need something and then we persuade them into parting with their resources to get it from us. Could this make persuasion the artful skill of parasitical predators!

Gathering in groups as a result of persuasion may be an apparent possibility in issues of faith and belief, but isn’t it equally true in other less obviously ‘faith’ driven social activities. Perhaps I can suggest fashion, sports clubs and teams, music genre preferences, political party politics, just to name a few. Don’t we just love being ‘right’ or simply just perceived as on the side of the ‘victorious’?

People in groups have their own issues. It doesn’t take much to find trauma and tragedy even loss of life resulting from like-minded groups blindly aligning to ‘group think’ and conformity due to the persuasive nature of a leader or two. Just thinking of how many wars were declared as a result of divergent political views, groups whipped up into frenzied riots, lynch mobs, mass suicides, the crusades, jihad’s, genocides, … I could go on and on ….

Many belief systems have the persuasive sharing of their faith with ‘outsiders’ with the specific intent of gathering converts as central activities for worship and spiritual service. Yet there are many belief systems who do not actively try to persuade others to join their group. These groups believe that their faith is something one is born into and not something one can choose. Some of these are  flexible and make space for a few ‘outsiders’ to become proselytes but often these are as a result of intermarriage and the social requirement of conformity to the practices of the faith is very often the driving force.

It would seem to me that the views of these types of belief systems do not have a high regard for individual personal choice as pertaining to their religious orientation. Being born into a Jewish or Islamic family automatically makes the child a member of the faith and the expectation is that compliance is a given, a non-negotiable. The proselyte who joins the faith of that group through marriage could say that they made the decision themselves and even believe so, but did they really? It is very difficult to draw a clear conclusion. Had they not met the partner they desired to marry would they have tried to join the religious order anyway? We believe we can change our core value but could it be convenience and our amazing ability to adapt that is at play here rather than a core value shift?

I suppose a key question might be whether we really can choose for ourselves or not? http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing.html

One could possibly argue that the various faiths and belief systems that are based on the “Christian Bible” (and alarmingly there are many) are amongst the most active in evangelising for converts. Yet even in the Christian bible there is an idea set forward that the gift of God is manifested and that those who receive it have the power to become God’s children, but not by natural descent or human decision. The decision maker in this idea is that of God alone. Jesus himself is recorded as saying that no one can come to him unless God the Father draws them.

Core values are very deep. We think we make independent decisions based on our intelligence or acquired wisdom. We believe that we are independent thinkers, sophisticated, educated and informed, deductive, technologically equipped. But are we really?

The dictionary definition of persuasion is: persuade - to induce to undertake a course of action or embrace a point of view by means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty.

So, again I am stumped by a question. What motivates us to try to persuade others? Is it really for their sakes? ….  or ours? Is all the effort exerted in this process merely smoke and mirrors? Is it all to confuse and disorientate and by so doing blend into the safety of the herd or even to sneak up and move in like an ace predator?

Can we actually effect a change? …. and if we believe we can, how would we know or measure this change? Yes, it is said that we will be known by our fruits, but fruits are external things and are directly a product of the root and rest of the tree which is far more substantial than the fruit itself. And let’s face it, we are often more adept at changing colour to blend into our environments than chameleons themselves. Even that could be seen as an act of persuasion.

What if core values are really that deep that changing other people’s minds is actually getting them to be dishonest? Possibly even getting them to violate the integrity of their own reality and even plunge them into a cauldron of internal, hypocritical turbulence?

Perhaps we may or may not be able to change peoples minds but we can share the way we see the world with each other. And hopefully in this sincere act of grace it may well happen that deep might call to deep and we could end up being surprised by peace and joy?

How will we ever know unless we go?

_____________________________________

seed

living seed

agitating the soil

growing

breaking the surface

ploughing up the fallow ground

uprooting bitter foundations

toxics expelled

dislodging alien life forms

 

not spinning fanciful yarns

nor tickle the ears

to stimulate the sensually indulgent

nor saying things the lukewarm masses demand

to hear without ears

nor casting spells of peace and prosperity

where there isn’t

____________________________________