Catholic/Christianity

What if Jesus had Lived to 60?

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / 2 Comments

At sixty-one years old, I find myself contemplating the spirituality of aging and how, perhaps, our calling and mission might change as we move beyond the enthusiasm and excitement of our twenties and thirties and into an entirely different experience that we are just beginning to realize. Contemplating the changing nature of my own call, it hit me, Jesus died at thirty-three!  What would his life have looked like if he had lived past that excitable age? For those of us who have lived through those fruitful years, we remember the passion and excitement that fueled our discovery, our hunger for learning, and the feeling of being compelled to share what we knew, along with the transformative power of what we had only begun to explore.

To put it bluntly, in our thirties, we believed we knew everything that it was our job to inform everyone else. Ah….the innocence of youth.

At sixty-one, we know better (at least I hope we do). The truth we begin to realize as life whittles away at our “confidence” (ie: pride) is that we truly know nothing. Whereas formerly we were certain we knew the nature of God, we understood God’s Truth, we believed in “His” loving care and protection. As life has its way with us, we come to realize we know nothing about God, his plan (if there is one), or his truth. We also learn first-hand that maybe God doesn’t really have our back, and we cannot trust in his protection.

Have I grown cynical in my old age? Perhaps, but let’s look at Jesus for a minute. If we have called Jesus our teacher, read the story of his life, and attempted to understand and apply his teachings, we see that in the life of “God’s own son” there was no protection. God couldn’t even get his own son off the cross, so what possibly could “He” do to save us from the struggles of our own lives? Instead, God’s most beloved (as we were taught) was ridiculed, condemned, and murdered. Jesus failed in his mission and God did nothing to save him or ensure his success. (The “salvation” brought about by the resurrection notwithstanding.)

Jesus was plucked from his life right in the middle of the age of enthusiasm. Of course he was eager and excited to share what he had come to know (thought he had come to know) about God. He then went forth with the sense of mission and purpose consistent with his chronological age.

What would have happened if instead of being killed in the crucifixion, Jesus had somehow lived? Would he be doing in his sixties what he had been doing at thirty-three? I kinda doubt it. The enthusiasm and passion of youth are simply not sustainable into old age. Would Jesus (as God’s son) been granted some sort of dispensation from the natural quieting of age? Perhaps – but just for a minute, let’s pretend that Jesus was 100% human (along with being 100% Divine). Human nature is human nature and if Jesus was meant to live humanness in its entirety, and lived into old age, I truly believe his mission would have changed. It had to have.

For the sake of pondering, let’s just pretend Jesus survived being betrayed by his closest friends and companions and then condemned by his community as a heretic. Would he have stuck around, continuing his efforts of “sharing the good news” publicly? I think perhaps not. There would have been a natural attrition due to the scandal that accompanied him. The hundreds that once followed him would have returned to their regular lives and their devout membership that guaranteed their acceptance in the institution. The disciples, after betraying and abandoning Jesus would have retreated into their shame and returned to their former lives. Those who remained would have been the ones who truly believed and who had remained with Jesus up until the “end.” Even if after being banished by the Church Jesus continued to preach, and teach, and heal, it would have likely been on a much smaller scale.  “Not shouting or crying out or raising his voice in the street. (Isaiah 42).”  Eventually, he would have realized that his awakening (the discovery of that which brought him into the experience of Union with God in peace) was for him alone and that each and every human would eventually discover this on their own and in their own way. Further, he may have come to see that no one needed saving and that God was and would always be in charge. As an aged man, Jesus may have set aside the effort of attempting to save people that don’t need saving and the natural exhaustion that comes from that effort, and retreated into a quiet contemplative life where he could simply be – while perhaps taking up, again, the practice of carpentry that first showed him the peace present in mindful activities.

Of course we will never know what would have happened if Jesus had lived into old age, but this is one of the ideas I ponder as facing the reality of my own so-called calling.  I’ve lived the enthusiastic part. I’ve spent time teaching, guiding, and supporting people’s healing. I’ve been awakened out of my own innocence to the realities of life and its suffering and have learned first-hand that God’s provision and protection are not what I once thought or had been taught.

This doesn’t mean I don’t still look to “God” for help (Psalm 54). Instead of looking outside of myself, I look within. As life and its hardships are swirling around me, God is there in the silence.  God is there in the peace that arises when we move past the chaos, tragedies, and distractions of life. God is where God has always been – in stillness. “Be still and know that I am God. (Psalm 46).”

And today, I am the words of Rhea Rainwater that sustain me:

“A tired heart leaning into silence.”

Excommunications

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / 2 Comments

The Vatican announced on July 2, 2026, that Pope Leo XIV had formally excommunicated The Society of Saint Pius X, their priests, bishops, and congregants. SSPX was founded in 1970 in response to the reforms put forth by the Vatican II Council. They embrace an ultra-traditionalist approach to Catholicism, retaining the pre-Vatican II Latin mass while eschewing modern reform and contemporary teachings of the Church.

I’m not sure if this is spite, hypocrisy, or an observation of poetic justice, but I for one, am glad that the Church is finally taking a stand against ultra-traditionalists like the SSPX.  I applaud Pope Leo XIV for his bold action in this regard. For too long, the Church has looked away, even taken the side of ultra-traditionalists, when they have pitted themselves against both ordinary Catholics, and those who specifically embrace the reforms of Vatican II, along with other Church teachings that have espoused a more universal and ecumenical understanding of Catholicism (catholic literally means universal).

Speaking as a post-Vatican II Catholic who attended nearly 12 years of Catholic school and who completed my ministry training and spiritual director training through the Catholic Church, and worked in the Church for ten years, I have been a personal witness to the short-sighted, ill-informed, and harmful actions of ultra-traditionalists. Armed with little more than their felt-sense of superiority (they consider themselves the TRUE believers) I have seen them destroy entire congregations. One such group of ultra-traditionalists attacked our parish during a deeply vulnerable time, turning a loving and peaceful community of 1500 Catholics (in the widest sense meaning “universal) into an angry group of 25 apologists.

This same group of ultra-traditionalists brought their own form of the inquisition to my door, accusing me of sorcery, simony (I had to look that up), and doing the work of the devil, simply because I was fulfilling Jesus’ commandment of healing the sick. They eventually got the local bishop on their side, which further trickled up to the United States Council of Catholic Bishops who issued a prohibition of the specific kind of healing I was offering (Reiki).

In my experience, ultra-traditionalists are (or can be) dangerous. They DO NOT know the fullness of Catholic teaching, yet with this limited knowledge they have proven themselves adept at sowing seeds of discord and undermining the authority and confidence of Church leadership (an ordained priest or bishop should never bow to the pressure of a fearful few).

In excommunicating the SSPX, Pope Leo XIV is reminding all Catholics, priests and bishops included, that the Church is more inclusive and the teachings more universal than the fearful few would want us to believe.

Addendum: In no way shape or form to I claim to know the full extent of Catholic teach, neither am I institutionally devout. I do not believe Catholicism holds a monopoly on the truth. I am not a fan of the hierarchy or the clericalism that defines it. I personally believe Jesus never intended on starting a religion and while I don’t believe the pope is the sole representative of Christ on earth, I respect the role given to him within the context of the institution he has been empowered to lead.

Mary Magdalene: Scholarship vs. Fantasy

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / Leave a comment

We are living through an exciting (and sometimes terrifying) time of revelation. Truths that have long been hidden are now coming to light – the consequences of which are nothing short of earth-shattering. From the Epstein files to staged assassinations, to alien disclosure – every day we are faced with some new veil being torn away along with the shock that arises for some and the “I told you so” that arises from others as together we process new levels of apocalyptic knowledge. To say we are moving through unprecedented times would be an understatement.


Preceding these recent revelations were the discovery of thousands of years old sacred texts which described stories about Jesus and his followers that shed a whole new light on the development of the Jesus movement and the beliefs of first through third century Christians. Among these lost (hidden) documents are several providing unknown details about the person, Mary, called Magdalene – her relationship with Jesus and her role in the unfolding of the early Church. Central among these documents is a gospel written in her name – The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene).


As these previously unknown texts made it into the hands of scholars, who then translated, and later published these texts, they found their way into the hands of the general public, resulting in an explosion of renewed interest in Mary, called Magdalene. This eventually brought forth a cacophony of theories about Mary – some based in scholarship, some based in legend, and others based solely on imagination. Whereas all interpretations of Mary Magdalene may provide insights that inspire and nourish us in our spiritual journeys, in our search for the authentic Magdalene, it is important to separate fiction from fact.

In our search for the authentic Magdalene,
it is important to separate fiction from fact.

As it relates to happenings of the first century of this common era, especially as it relates to the Jesus story, there is nothing that we can truly call fact. Yes, we have the scriptures. Additionally, we have a few reports from historians of the time that suggest there was a man named Jesus (Yeshua) who was crucified by the Romans in the early part of the first century. Archaeological evidence has surfaced that may or may not be related to Jesus and his kin. As much as it all may have happened, it is just as likely that none of it happened. As such, when I speak of “fact” here, I’m referring strictly to what has been presented in source materials (ancient texts), what can be surmised through historical documents, and what has persisted in cultural legend and oral traditions – knowing full-well that all of these can be, and have been disputed. There are enough consistencies among these sources, however, to credit them more than what I will otherwise refer to as fantasy.

Fantasy is something humans have simply made up. Whether it be attributed to channeling, creative imagination, or wishful thinking, fantasy has no basis in scholarship. There exist no historical documentation or archaeological findings to support it. That is not to say, however, that the insights provided through fantasy do not speak a kind of truth to us. These may ignite motivation, self-awareness, or even awakening in us. That doesn’t however mean they are true in a verifiable sense.

As it relates to the Magdalene, for example, there is absolutely nothing of scholarship to support the idea that she was a temple prostitute, a sacred sex worker, or involved in rites of Hiero-Gamos. While these ideas may speak to women and men working to transform sexual shame into sexual liberation, I find these ideas antithetical to the efforts being made to correct 1400 years of Mary Magdalene being incorrectly associated with sexual “sin.” Additionally disturbing are the attempts made to create Mary and Jesus into some kind of royal couple with a sacred lineage that later defined European aristocracy. Whereas the writer of the gospel attributed to Matthew, speaking to a strictly Jewish audience, had a specific agenda of proving that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah of the House of David, nowhere else is this prevalent. Instead, the overwhelming message and actions of Jesus were to overturn hierarchy and privilege in favor of an egalitarian world in which all are in service to each other – the exact opposite of proclaiming or lauding his so-called “royal privilege.” By association, I believe we can say the same of the Magdalene.

In my own work with and study of the Magdalene, I find myself increasingly frustrated by the fantastical ideas put forth regarding her. Well-intentioned, or not, I find these fantasies diminish the true power of the Magdalene – a power that must be reclaimed if humanity ever hopes to survive in this tragically failing world. Mary, called Magdalene, was not Jesus’ side-piece. Neither was she the sinful woman. She would not have claimed any royal status – even if she had some. If she bore a child with Jesus, which could have happened, this child would not be any more special than any other child born out of love.

Instead, supported by scholarship, we can say the following about Mary:

• Mary was a disciple of Jesus and more than most, understood the true depths of his teaching.
• Mary received teachings from Jesus that he did not share with others.
• Magdalene is not a surname. Neither was it a place name. Instead, it seems to have been a title imparted upon her in recognition of her learning and commission.
• Mary was “cured of seven demons,” which was more likely a process of initiation/liberation that she completed under Jesus’ tutelage, than an accusation of her “sinful nature.”
• Mary was with Jesus at the foot of the cross.
• Mary assisted with his entombment.
• Mary was the first witness to the resurrection and was sent by the resurrected Christ to tell the disciples he had been raised from the dead.
• Mary delivered the news to the disciples and was immediately rejected.
• Mary experienced post-resurrection encounters of and teachings from Christ.
• Mary was later invited to share with the disciples what Jesus had taught her in secret – some accepted her teachings and some did not.
• By the Eastern and Western Churches alike, Mary was given the title “Apostle to the Apostles” in recognition of the unique commission given to her by Christ.
• At some point, Mary separated from the Jerusalem community and took her understanding of Jesus’s teachings elsewhere where she likely shared them with others. Some legends suggest Alexandria, Egypt and others Provence, France. The Greek Orthodox Church reports her as teaching in Rome, and eventually Ephesus. The Catholic Church loosely supports the legend of Mary in Provence.
• There exists a long-standing tradition that Mary was highly regarded as a teacher and a healer, in her own right, imparting deeply transformational knowledge to those who would hear her.

As it relates to all other things suggested of the Magdalene, (including my own personal theories and fantasies) I treat them with proper discernment – immediately discarding the ridiculous, while holding the possibility that within the theory might reside some seed of truth. For as anthropologist, Ron Wetherington once said,

“All stories are true. Some of them actually happened.”

Lauri Ann Lumby is the creator, facilitator, and spiritual director of the first, and only, Mary Magdalene training that is rooted in true scholarship, academic research, canonical and non-canonical scripture, and the deeply held traditions of Judeo/Christian contemplative practice. The goal and measurable outcome of this in-depth training is the embodiment of Universal Love and the knowledge of self such that one is led to a rich and meaningful life of service to the betterment of the world through their own unique gifts.

Learn more here

Universal (Personal) Jesus

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / 4 Comments

As we are approaching Easter, thoughts of Jesus are running through my head. Who was Jesus? Who IS Jesus? Was Jesus real? Was he made up? Is he “Savior?” and if so, for whom? These are the questions that get batted around in theological circles. People have gone to war over these questions. People have been killed for answering these questions “incorrectly.” And yet, after 2000+ years, there is no conclusive answer to these questions – except those which men have created into dogma. But who’s to say any of that is even true?

To me, none of this matters. Whether Jesus was or wasn’t, lived or died, was crucified died and rose again, or is planning to return has zero impact on my faith. Why? Because faith transcends belief while defying logic.

As I am equally romantic and pragmatic, I can allow all answers to be true. I can also allow for them to be false. Because, at the end of the day, we have very little verifiable, scientific evidence to prove any of it. Instead, all we really have is faith. Not what others have told us to believe. Instead, what do we personally believe about Jesus? What have/has been our own personal experiences of Jesus (if any)?

For me, the answer to this question begins with scripture – both canonical and non-canonical. Whereas scripture has been traditionally contained within the doctrinal jurisdiction of religion, my experience is that scripture transcends religion. As an historical work, containing the pseudo-history of a people, scripture provides a narrative within a specific context. Scripture is worthy of study simply for this purpose. Understanding who wrote the different books of the bible, when they were written, their audience, the genre utilized, and the purpose of the author’s writings gives us insight into the tribal, theological, and religious/liturgical evolution of a people. Approached through a pseudo-scientific lens, scripture provides much insight into the Hebrew people who later named themselves Israelites, and into the experiences of the people within that tribe who later called Jesus their teacher and how his presence altered the trajectory of their lives. All of this is worthy of studying.

If we want to know who Jesus is for us personally, however, we have to move beyond the simple reading of scripture. Neither, can we know Jesus simply by what someone else has told us, regardless of who that someone might be. For me, this personal Jesus came through dedicated attention to the methods of prayer, contemplation, and discernment favored by St. Ignatius of Loyola. These approaches to prayer allow for direct communication between Source (God) and ourselves. Through this prayer, what I have uncovered (as have many others before me) is the possibility of a Universal Jesus – one who speaks Truth to all people regardless of their religion, or personal beliefs.

One does not have to proclaim Jesus Christ their personal Lord and Savior
to receive the benefits of his teachings.

To say otherwise, is proclaiming oneself as higher than God. Who are we to declare that God has ONE chosen people or to suggest there is but one path to being saved? Salvation, I have learned, is simply a matter of perspective – have we found a way to equanimity in the midst of the human condition or have we damned ourselves to suffering?

Beyond anything else, Jesus teaches us how to find peace, contentment, and even joy in the midst of the challenges and difficulties of being human. Whether heaven is here on earth, or on some other plane, is up to us to decide. Jesus shows us how to choose the former. Even if we hope for paradise on the other side of this life, Jesus’ deepest message is how to find paradise here. You will not find these teachings in any church’s doctrine. They can only be found within.

To me, the Universal Jesus is one that came to understand the message of LOVE at the heart of the Judaism in which he was raised. He came to understand the highest Truth taught – that all of creation is an expression of this Love/God and that we are all ONE with this Love. Jesus learned how to remember and embody this Love. He then sought to teach others how to do the same:

The Love (kingdom) of God is within you.

His message is truly this simple. YOU ARE LOVE. Remembering this Truth helps us to find peace.  Right here.  Right now.  (And maybe even more completely when we fully return to Source after we have finished this life).

What Are We Celebrating – Really?

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / Leave a comment

What is Christmas – really?
We claim to be celebrating
The birth of a child
Who later became a man.

But what version of the man do we honor?
The one who taught us Love,
Or the one who causes us to hate?

I will always choose the former,
Yet I’m amazed at how many continue,
In his name,
Choosing hate.
It makes me not want to honor
The birth of the child
Lest some confuse me
With those choosing hatred in his name.

Neither am I comfortable calling myself “Christian”
For all the baggage now heaped upon the name.

  • The name raised as a banner in war.
  • A name forced upon others under threat of death.
  • The name hurled in condemnation over those feeling no other option than choice.
  • A name used as justification for the subjugation of women, children, and the foreigner.
  • A name that has built walls, and prisons, and instruments of torture.
  • A name men in power claim, who couldn’t see Him if He was staring them in the face.

Because of all of this,
Christmas to me has become
Just another day –
And like all other days,
A time to reflect on Love,
And how to Be and Live it more fully –
Just as Jesus did.

“Women Can’t Image Christ”? Why the Hell Not!?

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / 5 Comments

It’s been a minute since I’ve gone head-to-head with the Catholic Church, but the Vatican’s most recent statement forbidding women to be ordained as deacons has provided just the right amount of fuel to fan my flames of righteousness.

Before I get into the grisly details, let me start by saying this:

In no way, shape, or form, do I have any interest in being ordained by an institution defined by clericalism deeply rooted in misogyny; and to be honest, I’m a little suspect of women who would want to be ordained into that patriarchal/hierarchical power-hungry fraternity.

That being said, as a woman with a ministerial calling, who considers Jesus her teacher and who has modeled her own ministry on Jesus’ example. I am living proof that a vocational calling to serve is not limited to men. Further, there is scriptural proof that Jesus commissioned women to serve (Mary Magdalene) along with historical evidence of women in the early church who served as both deacons and in priestly roles.

Now let’s get to the grisly details. From the National Catholic Reporter: “A Vatican commission studying the possibility of female deacons reported that the current state of historical and theological research ‘excludes the possibility of proceeding’ toward admitting women to the diaconate.”  In other words, seven men voted against the ordination of women into the diaconate. The justification for this exclusion, stated in a commentary signed by retired Italian Cardinal Giuseppe Petrocchi, was that “women cannot image Christ.”

WHAT?!

It’s one thing for the Church to use big-T tradition, and little t – tradition as it’s excuse for not ordaining women. It’s also a well-known and documented fact that the institution of the Catholic Church has done everything in its power to keep women down, holding women to different standards than men, scrutinizing women saints more ruthlessly than their male counterparts, ignoring and then demonizing the very women Jesus appointed to continue his ministry, etc. etc. etc. We have long known the Church to be a bastion of misogyny, despite their protestations.

Me thinkest they protesteth too much – and this recent statement proves it. In these words, the Church has finally laid bare the truth of their beliefs – women are less than, and therefore unworthy of imaging Christ.

It’s funny to me, really (funny ironic, and funny sad). Because despite everything I was taught and the promises that were made in my own ministerial training within the Catholic Church, I experienced directly the privilege men, especially priests, received in the Church. Men are held to lesser standards than women, afforded greater opportunities, and awarded with advancement and praise. I received the identical education and training as my male counterparts, yet they were rewarded with ordination. I, and my female co-horts were not. When I experienced scrutiny and harassment by the local self-appointed inquisition, the Church did not have my back, instead, it joined the bandwagon.  For the men, with whom I served, who were acting amorally, the Church just looked the other way.

Women have always been treated as “other” in the Catholic Church, but to say that women cannot “image Christ,” is just bad theology!

Isn’t “imaging Christ” exactly what we’ve been taught????? Isn’t this what we were told in twelve years of Catholic school? Isn’t this what scripture invites us to be and do? Aren’t we all called to “be Christ in the world?”

If this is no longer, or has never been true for women, then what’s the point? Why adhere to Jesus’ teachings? Why follow his example? Why “put on Christ” if it’s really only men who can image him?

In saying that women cannot image Christ, regardless of the call to be ordained, the Church has told millions of women throughout history who have called Jesus teacher, served in his name, been the Love he called us to be in the world, that we don’t matter.

And you know what, they’re right. We DO NOT MATTER –  to the Church. We never have. The Church has just pretended we matter because it is the women who have always done the work.

Maybe not anymore. In light of the knowledge of what the Church actually believes about women, maybe we should leave (I technically left long ago). Without those of us who “cannot image Christ,” the Church would collapse. And maybe that’s exactly what the Church deserves.

In the meantime, I still consider Jesus to be my teacher and Mary Magdalene my guide. I continue working on being the Love Jesus calls us to be in the world. I know that despite what the Church says, I am doing my best to “image Christ,” as are all the women I know who hold up Love as their purpose and mission, because the truth is, the Church does not have the power to deny what Christ has already ordained.

Finally, my official response to the Church – a big fat F-you!

Is Your God too Small?

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / 3 Comments

This past weekend an article came out in which Kim Kardashian, after failing the bar exam, was complaining about all the money she spent on psychics who all told her she would pass, and how duped she felt by them. My response was “duh.” Relying on psychics to determine your success seems naïve ( at best). Especially when (in my personal experience), many (if not most) psychics are happy to take your money and then tell you exactly what you want to hear.

This article isn’t about psychics. Neither is it about Kim Kardashian. What inspired me to pen this musing was the comment thread relating to Kim’s rant. In the comments an individual wrote, “You block God’s blessings when you mess with that stuff.”  I suggested to the commenter that her God might be too small. She said, “I’m Catholic do with that what you will.”  I chuckled because I’m Catholic too (kind of) and the “God” I have come to know is way too big to be limited by the likes of a few psychics, or by those who would turn to psychics for “guidance.” I am of the firm belief that there is NOTHING that can limit or block God – the Presence, Power, Providence or Grace of God.

“I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God” Romans 8: 38-39

Turning to a psychic doesn’t “block God’s blessings.” All that happens is that we are giving away our own power to reason, discern, and exercise our own truth by putting someone outside of us in the position of power. The same is true when we give anyone the power to determine the path of our lives – parents, teachers, religious leaders, government officials, partners, etc. etc. etc. The only true and reliable authority dwells within us in our connection and union with that which I call “God.”

If you grew up in any kind of Christian denomination, the “God” you were taught was most likely the old man in the sky God – the one Jesus called Abwoon – which has most often been translated as “father.” This “father” God was then painted into the image of either a vengeful, wrathful, punitive father, or one of great compassion like the father in the story of the Prodigal Son – in other words, a God made in our image.  

Even the Catholic Church eschews these images of God in humankind’s image:

God is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. (Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 370)

Jesus taught of a God who is Spirit who is all-loving and who is present within us, among us, and all around us. John, in his letters, called God Love (1 John 4). And yet, even the Catholic Church who teaches these scriptures and authored the Catechism, often preaches of a God who is too small. (Hence the woman who believes a psychic has the power to block God).

I, however, refuse to allow God to be limited by the threats of the inquisition, the local Church, by Bishops, priests, or congregants who seem to have missed the whole entire point of Jesus’ teachings. There is nothing greater than the Love that made us, surrounds us, and dwells within us. Even our own forgetting of or disbelief in God is not enough to separate us from that Love. It is our origin, our true nature, and our ultimate destination, for at the end of the day, Love is all there is and there is nothing that can block that.

Love is Kindness

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / 2 Comments

Yesterday, nearly 7 million Americans gathered as an outward example of Love in what has been called the “No Kings” rallies. Contrary to dispersions cast, there were ZERO violent acts within or among those who gathered. Beyond the perception of politics, people of all ages and genders gathered to express their support of the freedoms promised by the US Constitution and on behalf of those who have been maligned and mistreated by those who have forgotten how to Love.

Love, in the context of the human identity, can only be understood in one way – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you;” or as Jesus has been quoted as saying, “Love one another as I have loved you.” For those who claim to follow Jesus, or call him their savior, it is to Jesus’ words and actions that one might understand Jesus’ commandment about love. Jesus’ example is clear:

  • He treated people of all beliefs, social standing, race, and gender with love, honor, and respect.
  • He focused his attention on those who were marginalized in his culture: women, children, the poor, the sick, the ostracized, those who the culture condemned as unclean, those condemned by the culture as sinful and undeserving of God’s grace. 
  • Jesus welcomed those otherwise shunned.
  • He defined what it meant to be love: giving sight to the blind, visiting prisoners, setting captives free, care and provide for those who cannot care for themselves.

In short, Jesus’ example is one of kindness – to every single person whatever their need might be.

Love is Kindness.

Also, as Bono of U2 described in the lyrics he wrote for song of the same name:

Love is Blindness.

To exercise the kindness Love requires, we must take on a sort of blindness. Blindness in this case is related to judgment. To truly Love, we must set aside the conditioning and experiences we have had which may have prejudiced us against others, or which has caused us to separate each other into “us and them.” Love sees no separation – only the fact that we are ONE human race, each deserving of love, respect, honor, and care.

This is what I saw in the “No Kings” gatherings – not a bunch of people against something, but a mass of people for humanity. We are one humanity on an individual and collective journey toward Love. Kindness is one path that helps us to get there.

Tools for Growing in Love:

Special pricing through 10/31/25

Letters from Hell #3 – Jesus

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / 4 Comments

In hell, everything is a distorted and twisted version of its true self. This is especially true of the man called Jesus, after whom Christianity was given its name.

Say what you will about the Catholic Church (I will not argue), in the parishes and schools in which I was raised, above anything else, we were taught that Jesus was Love. Therefore, by association, so too was God. Rather, Jesus came to remind us that despite humanity’s desire to make God in their own image, God was, in fact, Love.  Period. End of sentence. End of paragraph. In the Church in which I was raised, this God loved all of humanity without condition. It didn’t matter your race, your nationality, your gender, or even your religion, God loved all infinitely and abundantly.

The Jesus that taught this Love is not the Jesus that exists in hell. Instead, the Jesus of hell (and therefore the God he represents) plays favorites. This Jesus divides humanity into “true believers” and “the damned.” This Jesus encourages his followers to hate those who are not like them – to hate people of color, women, people who follow other gods (isn’t there only one God? At least that’s what I was always taught), essentially anyone who isn’t a straight, white, male. Even more strange than this, the Jesus in hell is American.

I’m not sure how a brown-skinned, middle eastern Jewish man became American, but to Christian Nationalists, it is America who has received a special blessing from Christ along with the command to convert the whole country (and then the world) into Evangelical, Fundamentalist Christianity.

Like I said, the Jesus in hell is bizarre! This Jesus is a stranger to me. I don’t know who he is or where he came from.

Actually, that’s not true. I know exactly where he came from because I’ve seen it happen with my own eyes.

The Jesus in hell is born out of humanity’s fears.

I’ve seen it over and over and over. Seemingly normal human beings who have been able to live in harmony and peace with people of differing beliefs and lifestyles, suddenly turning toward fundamentalism in its many forms. Every single time, this dramatic turning around is precipitated by something traumatic that casts the individual into fear, and its ugly bed-fellow – shame.

Let me provide a few examples from my own Catholic experience.

  • The young woman who found herself unexpectedly pregnant and who chose to terminate the pregnancy and who never sought out the help that might have supported her in self-forgiveness, who later turned to fundamentalist Catholicism (yes, that’s a thing) so she could be absolved of her guilt (she never did accept the fullness of God’s love that would have allowed her to release her shame, dying with that shame).
  • The young adult man who experienced an enjoyable sexual encounter with another man but became ashamed of the act as he was unwilling to accept that he might be gay. He also turned to fundamentalist Catholicism so that he might earn God’s forgiveness.
  • The adult woman who was once excited and open about some of the “new age” authors of the 90’s, who later discovered her child was being molested by a family member. She dropped all “new age” authors believing they were the cause of the trauma that happened in their family and then became a devout fundamentalist Catholic.
  • The young couple who discovered their child had a debilitating and ultimately fatal disease who suddenly turned to fundamentalist Catholicism hoping through it they could pray away their child’s disease.

For those not raised Catholic – fundamentalist Catholicism is known in a strict interpretation of Catholic dogma (letter of the law), often leaning toward a pre-Vatican II expression of Catholicism. Some of this leaning go so far as to reject the Vatican II council completely and seek out congregations that perform the Latin mass. Some take it further and reject Catholic social teachings along with anything that suggests people of other faiths might be “saved.”

I get it.  I understand how fear can provoke us to seek out something that might absolve us of that fear. The same is true of shame. For some, peace is found in absolutes and in the belief that in abiding with these absolutes, they are right(eous). Some even find freedom from shame in embracing “salvation.”  Proclaiming Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior gives many people the peace they need to mitigate the anxiety of living in an uncertain world. Jesus resides in this peace.

Jesus, however, is not in the division and hatred that is sometimes (even often) espoused in denominations created in his name – this includes the Catholic faith in which I was raised.

Jesus is not in the hatred. He is not in the division. He is not in the calls to war. Not once did he ask people to be soldiers in or kill in his name. He never spoke about sexual orientation or condemned people of differing beliefs. Jesus isn’t even Christian. He was a Jew. Period.

And yet, the Jesus in hell is all of this. Whispering hatred in his followers’ ears. Urging them to side with genocide. Tempting them to condemn the immigrant. Forbidding them from feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, liberating the prisoner. The Jesus in hell goes so far as to tell his followers that the more money they have the more they are loved by God and that they should hoard that money and do whatever it takes to amass wealth, power, and privilege. This Jesus has told his followers that the man who currently holds office who is a proven rapist, thief, and liar, was chosen and is the Beloved of God, and is here to usher in the Second Coming.

I can’t with this Hell-Jesus. He’s a liar and a horribly twisted and distorted version of the Jesus of Love. He is everything that the Jesus of Love is not. And yet, he is the one that people are increasingly turning to as the world falls apart. So much so, that the Jesus of Love is really difficult to find. I’m just grateful for all the experiences, resources, and tools that have come into my life that have helped me, not only to discover, but to personally know the God that is Love. My prayer, is only, that more turn to this Love (by whatever name you call it) for it is the only way that humanity might one day know peace.  

An Uncommon Priesthood

/ Lauri Ann Lumby / 3 Comments

Uncommon: not ordinarily encountered: unusual; remarkable, exceptional

Priest: someone who is authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God

Priesthood: the office, dignity, or character of a priest

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

On the first day of the Christology course that was part of my ministry training, our (female) professor asked those of us who felt called to ordination to raise our hands. The men in our class, as was to be expected, raised their hands as they were on the track to becoming deacons. My friend, Karen, and I also raised our hands. That got us a giggle because women, of course, are not allowed to be ordained, either as a deacon or a priest, in the Catholic Church.

I was a preacher
My heart broke for all the world
But teaching was unrighteous for a girl
In the summer I was baptized in the mighty Colorado
In the winter I heard the hounds and I knew I had been found
And in my Savior’s name, I laid my weapons down
But I am still around… (Highwomen, lyrics by Amanda Rose Shires / Brandi Carlile / Jimmy L. Webb)

That was thirty years ago, and yet still today, women are barred from priesthood in the Catholic Church. That prohibition, however, has not lessened my call to be priest. In the years since, I have discerned priesthood through two denominations outside of the Catholic Church, but in both instances, the prevalence of clericalism in those institutions dissuaded me from completing that path.

Clericalism:  a policy of maintaining or increasing the power of a religious hierarchy (to Merriam-Webster’s definition, I would add: lauding, flaunting, defending, and enforcing that power and in some cases, using it to justify non-loving acts)

To me, priesthood has never been about power. It has always been about service. Neither has it been about hierarchy. Instead, it is a collaboration of gifts in support of individual and collective need. This is the priesthood I see in Jesus and what he drew forth from those who gathered around him. Jesus was not a leader who wanted followers. Instead, he was a catalyst who empowered people in their gifts. By humbly serving those most in need, Jesus’ example challenged the religious and political institutions of his time. These institutions valued their power and privilege over the people they were meant to serve.

Sadly, Jesus’ example did not stand as the early disciples (Peter and Paul in particular) traded the collaborative empowerment that Jesus’ taught them for patriarchal and hierarchical power. This model still stands today in nearly all Christian institutions. This is why I did not, cannot, and refuse, to fit into any institution that values power over service.

Instead, it seems, I have carved out a priesthood all my own. One that has been ordained, not by a bishop’s anointing and laying on of hands, but by careful attention to the call of Love, and living out that Love in all the many ways I have been called. Sometimes this call looks priestly in the marriages and funerals I officiate. Sometimes this call looks formative as I create and facilitate classes and write books in support of participants’ personal/spiritual development. Sometimes it looks pastoral in the one-on-one spiritual counseling I provide. Sometimes the service I provide supports people in their healing, in finding direction, and in experiencing comfort.

Most commonly, however, my priesthood is confirmed in unexpected and surprising ways. It is known in the 6am phone call from a distant friend seeking support for a family member in crisis. It is known in the generous financial donations I sometimes find in my mailbox. It is known in the confidences people have shared with me during challenging times. It is in the many acquaintances who suddenly seek my support and my own wondering of why they chose me. Why would they trust me with this, I barely know them? And yet, time and time and time again, this is so. People who I know – but not really. Amazing, lovely people who I have come to know and love along the way – but we don’t really hang out. People who I know from simply being me in the small community where I live. People, in whom I’ve likely seen something (love, kindness, generosity, honesty, integrity, authenticity) who are somehow seeing me, and trusting me with the most intimate and challenging times of their lives.

This is the priesthood for which I am most grateful.  A priesthood that is unexpected and surprising and looks absolutely nothing like what we have come to associate with being priest. And yet, it is exactly what the Catholic Church preaches in its invitation to participate in the priesthood of all believers (Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs: 1267, 1268, 1141, 1143, 1268, 1305, 1535, 1547, 1591, and 1592). Whereas the institutional church does not recognize my priestly calling, I am profoundly humbled and grateful to all those who have invited me to serve in this role.