During a recent White House Religious Liberty Commission hearing, conflict broke out between participants. The dispute garnered national attention. The clash, far from being resolved, continues to unfold on social media and in the public square, placing the Commission’s reputation at risk.

The conflict should have been anticipated. Whenever people of diverse religious backgrounds gather, one can expect differences if not outright conflict. Work on religious liberty goals must therefore take place in a mediation setting.

Unfortunately, the White House Religious Liberty Commission failed to adopt a mediation approach. Divine Collaboration, a faith-based mediation protocol, should have been integrated into the process. At the first signs of emerging conflict, the Divine Collaboration protocol should have been invoked.

White House Religious Liberty Commission

In May 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order that established a Religious Liberty Commission. He recognized the importance of protections that insure the right of all Americans to live, work, and worship according to their conscience.

The newly established Commission serves as an advisory body to the President. They are tasked with providing substantive recommendations for strengthening religious liberty protections; they are to insure government does not infringe upon individual religious liberty. The goal includes respect for the rights of all Americans to live and work according to their conscience.

The Dispute

During the Fifth Hearing of the Commission, held on February 9, 2026 at the Museum of the Bible, Washington, D.C., a dispute erupted when Carrie Prejean Boller sought to clarify working definitions for “Zionism” and “antisemitism.”1 She sought to identify the boundaries of protected religious speech while expressing concern that her Catholic beliefs might (erroneously) be labeled antisemitic.2

She posed the question that forms the core of this conflict: if you oppose Zionist views (in other words, if you’re “anti-Zionist”) does that mean you’re antisemitic? Yitzchok Frankel, in response to Bollers, affirmed his view that anti-Zionism constitutes antisemitism. In his mind, they are equivalent.

Carrie Prejean Boller argued that forcing Commission members to affirm Zionism as a condition of their participation is directly contrary to religious freedom.3 (She has since argued that Zionist supremacy has no place on an American religious liberty commission.)

Chairperson Lt. Governor Dan Patrick of Texas interrupted, “This is not a commission on defining religions or calling out any theology. This is not the commission for that. This could be another discussion on another day…”4

He subsequently declared he had removed Carrie Prejean Boller from the Commission for attempting to “hijack” the hearing for a “personal or political agenda.” She contested the removal and refused to resign. Recently the White House personnel office confirmed her removal.5

Dispute Consequences

The Commission on Religious Liberty failed to build faith-based mediation principles into its procedures. Chairperson Patrick is neither a theologian nor a mediator; he did not bring such vital skills to the hearing. This was an oversight as a Commission convened to consider religious liberty requires a Chairperson with faith-based mediation skills.

This very public dispute threatens the core mission and the legitimacy of the Commission. The final report is likely to be dismissed as a fractured, partisan artifact rather than a valid policy document. A Grok analysis of X posts shows significant support for Carrie Prejan Bollers: two-thirds support; one-third disagreement.6 Support for her views portends a trouble future for the Commission.

The removal of Carrie Prejean Bollers violated protected speech principles. The exclusion of Catholic views that conflict with Zionist views amounts to viewpoint discrimination. Her removal chills the pluralism the Commission was created to celebrate.

Mediation Preparation

Mediators typically accomplish as much, if not more, in the pre-convening stage as they do in actual mediation. (See Taming the Wolf for more on pre-convening tasks.)

In the proposed Divine Collaboration mediation, designed to resolve the Religious Liberty Commission dispute, we will analyze the procedural breakdowns that plagued the hearing:

• Should conflict resolution procedures been put in place prior to public hearings?

• Should committee caucuses been convened prior to public hearings? (For example, a caucus devoted to defining Zionism and anti-semitism.)

• Did the Commission fail to anticipate religious viewpoint differences likely to fuel a dispute? This should have been part of their innate skill set.

• Did the Commission fail to anticipate the need to handle conflict during a public hearing? Did hearing procedures lend themselves to conflict resolution?

In the proposed collaborative-style mediation, the Commission will develop protocols for reconciling “diverse religious voices.” The Commission will adopt procedures that respect pluralism while maintaining hearing order.

For example, should Dan Patrick have acknowledged Bollers’ concerns, while maintaining procedural control? He might have said, “Ms. Bollers, you have surfaced important concerns regarding basic definitions of ‘Zionism’ and ‘antisemitism.’ I hereby order that a caucus devoted to finding appropriate definitions be convened as soon as possible. Ms. Bollers, your suggestions as to who might attend that caucus are welcomed. You’ve brought up an important issue. We thank you. We must now move on with this hearing.”

Chairperson Patrick could have used a mediation-style approach to maintain control by assigning contentious issues to caucus sessions, which would provide procedural solutions for resolving difficult issues. For example, a caucus session might address accusations of antisemitism that encroach on protected religious speech. For example, Catholic protected speech might clash with Zionist views and result in (false) accusations of antisemitism.

During the pre-convening stage of the proposed collaborative mediation, the Commission will consider the legal liability that arises from a faulty framework for distinguishing protected versus non-protected religious expression. Mediators will identify civil rights challenges that arise when religious views conflict. A mediation approach will ask, “What do we do when we disagree? How do we proceed?”

Mediators, assisted by the Commission’s Advisory Board of Legal Experts, will establish a "constitutional framework" to help guide the collaborative procedure. In mediation, we focus on process as well as substance—this approach will be introduced into Commission operations.

Pre-Convening Summary.

During the in-depth pre-convening stage of the proposed mediation, collaborative mediators will:

1. Identify disputed issues;

2. Identify legitimate stakeholders;

3. Create processes tailored to the specific conflict;

4. Establish procedural guidelines;

5. Organize support operations, such as prayer groups;

6. Convene and facilitate “reconciliation seminars” designed to educate participants on issues in dispute;

7. Schedule mediation sessions, both caucuses and primary mediation.

Mediation Agenda

Heated exchanges between Commission members exposed a core tension between (a) the Executive Order’s mandate to “protect the free exercise of religion” in the context of America’s “peaceful religious pluralism” and (b) the Commission’s duty to identify “emerging threats” to religious liberty, particularly antisemitism.

The hearing disruption involved a collision between First Amendment protected religious speech and a unified front against hate. In response, the proposed faith-based Divine Collaboration mediation will:

1. Address public disagreements regarding Zionism. Does criticism of Israeli government actions or opposition to “political Zionism,” constitute antisemitism, or is such opposition protected religious/political expression?

2. Determine if Bollers’ view—that criticizing Israel is not antisemitism—is a valid expression of a protected religious viewpoint.

3. Define antisemitism within the context of protected speech. Should the U.S. make loyalty to a particular theology regarding Israel a litmus test for protected speech?

4. Determine how to accommodate views of members/witnesses who argue that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. How will religious pluralism with regard to Zionism be managed? For example, how might Catholic theological perspectives coexist with Zionist perspectives?

5. Determine the scope of diverse perspectives allowed on the Commission. Define boundaries for behavior the Chair labeled “taking over a hearing for personal or political agendas.” Determine if appointed Commissioners should enjoy full First Amendment rights in hearings. Or, in contrast, are they bound by an implied duty of neutrality? What procedural safeguards will govern member removal or censure?

6. Determine if questions and testimony should be pre-vetted. Should public hearings be “scripted”?

7. Balance domestic liberty with foreign policy. While the Commission is tasked to consider “domestic religious liberty,” how will disputes arising in the context of international conflicts be managed?

8. Create a process for preventing foreign policy disputes from derailing the integrity of a “comprehensive report” on domestic religious freedom. Anticipate report guidelines with regard to domestic versus foreign affairs.

9. Reset consensus. Restore the Commission mandate to “celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism.” Resolve how to remove “litmus tests” as prerequisites for participation.

10. Define the parameters of “vigorous enforcement” of liberty protections.

Mediation Success

The success of the mediation depends on three factors: substance, procedure, psychology.

After concluding the collaborative mediation, we must ask:

• Did the mediation resolve all key substantive issues? Did Divine Collaboration address the substance of the conflict in a satisfactory manner?

• Did participants feel the procedure was fair? Did procedures leave participants confident their concerns were given a fair hearing?

• Did participants feel respected? Did they feel they were given an opportunity to reveal “matters of the heart”? Were their emotional concerns honored? Were they able to express deeply held values?

Conclusion

The breakdown in the Religious Liberty Commission proceedings was unfortunate; the conflict threatens the Commission’s credibility. It’s not too late for the Commission to employ procedures that remedy the past failure, procedures that insure future success. These processes are captured in the Divine Collaboration protocol.

Addendum

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Carried Prejean Bollers recounts the conflict that arose in the Religious Liberty Commission hearing from her point of view.

Footnotes:

3

A podcaster, J.D. Hall, expressed the issue in terms that go beyond Catholic theology per se.

Insight to Incite: Open Source Intelligence Analysis

Why Spirit-Filled Christians Aren't Concerned About the Nation of Israel

What if the fixation on the physical nation of Israel is not a mark of biblical maturity but a symptom of something the Holy Ghost is supposed to cure? The Bible professes pretty clearly - if you read it carefully - that a fixation on the nation-state of Israel is a symptom of spiritual lostness or spiritual immaturity. There are two cases in particular, from what the Bible says and what it doesn’t say, that demonstrate this is true. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. You simply won’t find a spiritually mature, spirit-filled Christian caring about the body-politic of Israel in the Sacred Text…

Listen now

7 months ago · 92 likes · 24 comments · JD Hall

Early Beliefs

Most Christians base their religious beliefs on a few select Bible verses.

The verses that anchor their beliefs may originate from reading the Bible, or the verses may have been lifted from a Sunday worship sermon or a Catholic Mass homily. Other passages may have been learned at a young age during Sunday school.

A smaller percentage of believers will base their beliefs on a more expansive foundation, perhaps on an entire chapter or book of the Bible. Nonetheless, their inspiration arises from a relatively limited portion of scripture. Their views or beliefs still may lack sufficient context to unearth the depth of the faith.

Years later, in hindsight, a believer may realize Sunday school lessons or a grade school catechism are mere placeholders, designed to motivate an adult to engage in a deeper study of faith.

Unfortunately, as a person transitions from childhood, they most often do not continue religious studies. Too often they remain frozen in a belief system designed for a grade school child.

Eventually, the person becomes defensive and eschews religious study; they become unwilling to deepen their knowledge. Religious views stagnate; spiritual insights dwindle.

Embracing Applied Theology

Theology—the study of the NATURE OF GOD and our RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD—creates a more robust foundation for belief.

Christians who augment their beliefs with theological studies discover previously unrecognized nuances: their beliefs mature. The few who acquire this knowledge (ordinarily reserved for clergy) appreciate the truly amazing depth of the faith.

Two major categories of theological study are possible:

1) Scholastic Theology, an academic discipline, which also embraces “apologetics” and philosophical debate and;

2) Applied Theology, with a focus on mystical union and divine relationship, a focus on “living the faith.”

Scholasticism has tended to remove theology from the grasp of the faithful. Study became reserved for sequestered seminarians; education was limited to clergy.

In contrast, Applied Theology informs the worldviews and daily decisions of the faithful; it more closely mirrors the practices of the early church.

When the Scholastic movement closed the door on lay dialogue, the faithful were excluded. Theology became suspect, an unaccessible realm. What should have been a common component of Christian community was set aside.

Thus, theology became tainted with negative connotations. Its offshoot, apologetics, likewise became less than inviting. Thus, when I speak of a resurgence of theology, I’m advocating Applied Theology.

I do not mean to disregard the contributions made by Sunday school (Bible study) and the Catholic rite of initiation contribute. Rather, I point to the even greater contribution made by theological studies.

Spiritual Formation

Spiritual Direction and Spiritual Formation disciplines augment Applied Theology. They focus theological inquiry on spiritual insights for daily life. The spiritual director or pastoral counselor enhances a Christian’s ability to transform mystical gifts into practical tools for managing the “worldly realm.”

Philosophical Inquiry

Typically, a believer spends one day a week plus one evening in a religious setting. They usually includes a worship service and an evening Bible study class. While the time spent in religious community varies, in most cases, it’s a small fraction of time spent in secular endeavors.

Most of the time a person is immersed in a materialistic culture that promotes views diametrically opposed to faith. Persistent culture clash becomes the norm: the believer confronts a “schizophrenic” reality.

For the sake of clarity, consider the following dichotomy:

A materialistic culture considers humans to be solely biological entities, herd animals. In this view, humans can (and should) be herded, corralled, coerced, manipulated, controlled.

Furthermore, when the flesh body perishes, the person is considered “zeroed out.” Death is final. Consciousness ceases; only blackness remains. The sum total of a person’s essence has been reduced to their carnal existence.

Materialism, the cultural norm, opposes the faith viewpoint that declares man’s essence is that of an immortal soul—a spiritual being endowed with free will, endowed with access to divine relationship. Christians perceive beyond the limits of fixed biological characteristics, they see “the divine in the other.” They also believe that when a flesh body dies, the person, the soul, enjoys continuity of consciousness: they enjoy an afterlife.

The religious viewpoint promotes less coercive human relationships; a faith perspective seeks loving relationships with “the other.” Religion encourages seeing the divine nature that infuses “the other.” When a person sees the world through spiritual eyes, their relationships become more loving and rewarding.

The ongoing conflict between the materialistic and faith viewpoints—calls for a targeted conflict resolution protocol: a Reality Check.

In this process, peacemakers encourage disputants to explain how they view the world. What do they consider real? What do they consider unreal? The mediator assesses disputants’ worldviews. He or she seeks to view the dispute through the eyes of each party.

In a similar manner, a person seeking to discover A Christian Reality uses the reality check protocol to develop a personal philosophy: What is real? What is unreal? What is the nature of God? What is the nature of Creation? What are the possibilities for Divine Relationship or mystical union? What is the nature of “my Brother”?

Step-by-step the person articulates a worldview, a big picture reality. This is not a “once-and-done” assessment; rather, crafting A Christian Reality is a lifetime pursuit. In fact, it goes beyond a lifetime.

In a search for reality, the believer may become familiar with the latest in science, with discoveries that increasingly mirror religious arguments. The study of cosmology and consciousness are particularly pertinent. The philosophy of science that currently frames scientific pursuits comes into play.

Cultural influences are researched; political forces are discerned, especially with regard to imposed or enforced “reality”; financial systems that dictate how persons engage in exchange and mutual creation are explored. The reality check helps clarify hostile mindsets and intentions of those who attack faith. Viewpoints that enforce conformity or submission are parsed. The arguments of skeptics are broken down and examined. In other words, competing worldviews are disassembled and understood.

This process of establishing a personal philosophy requires a marriage of philosophy with Applied Theology. A consistent Reality Tapestry is woven through research, reflection, and personal assessment.

First Principles

A key step in the process involves assembling a list of “First Principles.”

These are basic realities that must be true if a Christian viewpoint is to be deemed accurate.

First Principles set the baseline for internal consistency. Any view that violates a First Principle becomes suspect: it may not represent Christian reality. The believer works to bring about consistency between their personal worldview and baseline First Principles.

The reverse is also true. First Principles provide the spiritual and intellectual soil from which a Christian viewpoint emerges. These are not dogmatic principles but rather a set of observable truths to be verified.

As an illustrative example, one First Principle states our true nature is that of an immortal soul. If this Principle is ignored or denied, the structure of the faith collapses. Therefore, the person will want to focus on observing this Principle. They will ask, “How can I know this is true?”

Another First Principle concerns the ability to achieve mystical union with divine consciousness. Is it possible for an individual spiritual consciousness to merge with Christ consciousness? Can a person truly come into the presence of God? Is it possible for a soul to be infused with the Holy Spirit? Can this core aspect of Christian faith be observed? Can one know this First Principle is true?

Another example of a First Principle is the premise that all material existence arises from the Mind of God. So much of the faith depends on the accuracy of this premise. Prayer, miracles, the afterlife, and much more rest on this truth. If this Principle is absent or ignored, the faith becomes impossible: the faith becomes unreal.

A Personal Christian Reality

Once a person completes an advanced Reality Check, they’ll be better oriented. The world will be less confusing. They’ll be able to articulate a comprehensive faith that resonates in their relationships. Their based certainty will inform their decisions.

Christians will enjoy new purpose when they: 1) inspect core beliefs; 2) study theology; 3) receive spiritual direction; 4) develop a personal philosophy, and: 5) establish first principles. Their faith will be supercharged. They will find their lives infused with divine grace.

After completing a reality check, they will be sufficiently confident to claim the status of spiritual warrior. They will become a soul ready to bear witness to the Truth in the face of attacks, ridicule, and ignorance. They will defend the faith with Presence. As a spiritual warrior, they will establish and defend truths that infuse the culture with hope, love, and peace.

Crafting A Christian Reality, the Program

The envisioned program will deliver a suite of services in online settings, at retreats, and in individual counseling sessions (in-person and/or online).

Participants will enjoy Spiritual Direction that guides them to complete the formation tasks outlined above.

Participants will access media tools, electronic workbooks, personal journals, and interactive courses. Podcasts (and perhaps YouTube videos) will augment individual instruction; they will provide informative stories, anecdotes, and techniques. Tools that create a personal history of Spiritual Formation will be offered.

The description above represents “blue sky” thinking. Suggestions and comments are welcomed. You can help me with my “dreaming.” Does the plan have merit? Are there hidden barriers or challenges that I have missed?

Not all dealmakers are peacemakers; all peacemakers are dealmakers.

The following Proposal for bringing Peace to the Ukraine War is merely an outline, a brief description of the steps involved in a robust effort to end the war. A more detailed plan will be created upon engagement in the process.

Stage One – Spiritual Preparation

Axiom: All conflicts are rooted in the spiritual realm.

A. Peacemakers will study the Ukraine Conflict to grasp it’s spiritual foundations; they will identify and “name” destructive influences driving “direct opposition to the Will of God”; they will locate demonic presences, those influences fostering suffering and destruction.

B. Peacemakers will recruit clergy (Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholic) to serve as reconciliation specialists. Reconciliation Seminars will be convened as part of their preparation. These training sessions will provide a full briefing on the conflict; the reconciliation sessions will teach clergy collaboration protocols. Clergy will gather spiritual resources they will use in peacemaking.

C. Clergy will assemble Prayer Teams that will engage in 24/7 prayer until peacemaking is complete. Prayer Teams will gather on site, but will not be at “the table.” They will be an unseen presence at all dispute resolution events.

D. Clergy will provide spiritual counseling for participants who request assistance. They will offer spiritual views and resources that participants can use to address specific dispute issues; they will assist participants best represent their interests.

Stage Two – Wounds

Axiom: Unhealed and/or unacknowledged wounds cause persistence of conflict.

A. Wounds that will need to be acknowledged include two categories: historic wounds and recent wounds associated with the current War.

B. Collaborative teams of scholars, historians, and spiritual directors will comprise a White Paper Team that will compile comprehensive documentation of historic wounds, the kind of wounds that fuel emotions preventing reconciliation.

C. The “Wounds” White Paper will be published in a draft form, then will be revised with participant input, and finally will be published as a guide for participants, spiritual counselors, peacemakers, and stakeholders.

D. The White Paper compilation will be continually enhanced with ongoing addition of documents, photographic materials, oral accounts, and expert panel discussions. The “Wounds” White Paper will be archived at a War Memorial designed to honor those who suffered or lost their lives.

E. A second team will investigate, research, and draft a “recent wounds” White Paper that documents recent traumatic events that must be acknowledged. This second White Paper will also be archived in the “Wounds” section of the Memorial.

F. Wounds and breakdowns in trust related to treaty violations will also be researched and archived.

Stage Three: Identify Valid Stakeholders

Axiom: All valid stakeholders must have a seat at “the table”; invalid stakeholders must have no place at “the table.”

A. A peacemaker delegation will interview potential stakeholders. Interviews will be reviewed. A document summarizing stakeholder interests will be created.

B. Peacemakers will study stakeholder interests. Stakeholders with common interests may be combined into stakeholder groups.

C. Peacemakers will set aside stakeholder claims that appear invalid. Peacemakers will advise stakeholders who have been rejected of other approaches that might satisfy their needs and interests.

D. Peacemakers will constantly assess for destructive interests that will sabotage peace. This includes assessing for the presence of hidden destructive influences. Destructive “stakeholders” will be assessed by a Spiritual Warrior Team to determine if demonic agency is present.

E. A list of valid stakeholders, with a summary of their “interests and needs,” will be published in anticipation of negotiation. Preliminary lists of issues to be negotiated will be published in draft form.

F. Peacemakers will convene stakeholder caucuses during which stakeholders collaborate in a Divine Collaboration analysis of demands, interests, needs, and concerns. Clergy will assist in evaluating how interests align with the “Will of God.”

Stakeholders will learn to frame their requests in a manner suitable for negotiation. Stakeholders will work to find creative solutions that satisfy their demands or requests, anticipating such solutions will be considered during a subsequent collaborative process.

G. Peacemakers will compile lists of stakeholders whose interests will be represented in negotiations by “participants,” those who negotiate a peace accord at the final table.

Stage Four: Clergy Moderated Divine Collaboration Session

Axiom: The roots of conflict reach into the Spiritual Realm, thus resolution of conflict must also address spiritual matters. Peacemaking is, at its core, a spiritual reconciliation process.

A. Negotiation Participants (who will appear at the Final Table) will take part in spiritual exercises overseen by a select Spiritual Team. (Prayer Teams will convene in adjacent rooms.)

B. Participants will be guided to imagine and articulate their vision of future peace scenarios. They will be asked to conceive of a future consistent with the Kingdom of God; in other words, a future in which human relations align with the Will of God.

C. Participants will be asked to design a tentative civil society “Platform for Peace,” a design for how civil affairs will be conducted once peace is achieved. Designs for the formal and legal relationships will be developed.

D. Participants will construct Preliminary Peace Accords, templates that reflect their visions of the best possible outcome. Each participant, at this stage, will produce a draft Peace Agreement.

Stage Five: Final Table Peace Negotiations

Axiom: Worldly Peace requires well-designed accords to be negotiated and executed, providing clarity regarding implementation.

A. Participants, relying on work accomplished in the previous four steps, will negotiate and formalize a peace accord using a collaborative process.

B. The accord will include a Platform for Peace, a civil society road map for the continued implementation of peace protocols. This “Platform” will insure the longevity of the agreement and will provide security and hope at the “ground level.”

C. The Peace Accord will state clear spiritual and/or transcendent goals that honor the essential nature of men and women who must live under the agreement.

D. A summary of interests satisfied and dreams ratified will be created by peacemakers and participants, appropriate for public distribution.

Stage Six: Public Declaration of Peace Delivered

Axiom: Peace will endure only if the broader public is fully informed and consensus is achieved.

A. Peacemakers, in concert with Participants, will prepare a formal presentation of the Peace Accords. They will employ best practices with regard to event design and media production.

B. Public Announcements will highlight the spiritual grounding of the Accords. Clergy will articulate solemn promises to be honored before God. Clergy will call on the public to assist in peace accord implementation in a prayerful manner. Religious services designed to heal wounds and mourn losses will be delivered.

C. Public Announcements will include mourning for those who suffered or perished. Clergy will help deliver a solemn acknowledgement of Mankind’s violation of God’s plan, as well as an expression of a heartfelt desire to return to living in alignment with the Will of God. The spiritual essence of mankind will be celebrated in religious gatherings.

D. “A Signing Celebration” that truly acknowledges a profound change in the condition of Mankind, not simply the work of bureaucrats executing legal documents, will take place. Peace will be sanctified in a way that will encourage the Public to resist future violations of peaceful norms.

Stage Seven: Public Events convened.

Axiom: Healing does not take place overnight; healing is an ongoing process requiring persistence and patience.

A. Peacemakers will organize and oversee “healing wounds” events and “raising peace” events at numerous regional venues. Healing will be a priority. Peacemakers with assistance from leading clergy, will lift up individuals as spiritual peacemakers, and elicit their dedication to peace on Earth.

B. A War Memorial will be designed and built. It will house the story of the Ukraine Conflict as resource for teaching generations to come. The Memorial will be a site where scholarship and spiritual reflection can shine light on the drivers of human suffering.

Conclusion

The preceding is a brief introduction to peacemaking concepts. A final plan will be more detailed. Peace is possible if we approach this situation with all the tools available, especially faith-based tools. The horrors that have taken place arise from demonic urges. Only a spiritually grounded peace will be sufficiently robust to insure enduring peace and the realization of man’s highest aspirations.

The Conflict Resolution Paradigm

Divine Collaboration, a powerful conflict resolution paradigm, is perhaps the most effective mediation process available. It is a reconciliation approach that can be applied in a multitude of settings, with a wide range of disputants.

In this unique approach, mediation participants evaluate their intentions—their interests, needs, and desires—against a baseline of Divine Will. When they compare their free will intentions with the Will of God, they increase the probability they will achieve the greatest possible mutual benefit.

Divine Collaboration success depends on generating trust in the concept of positive reciprocity: if I help the other person satisfy their needs, they will help me satisfy my needs.

Initially, skilled mediators nurture trust in the process, which is based on reciprocity. Participants agree to “see how it works.”

Initially, mediators and pastoral counselors provide the good will. They create trust and affinity with each individual disputant. When a disputant sees his opposition adopt a collaborative spirit and enjoy trust with the mediator, he tends to copy the demeanor.

Good will then slowly transfers from the mediator disputant relationship, to the relationship between disputants. This takes place even with hostile disputants who intend to prevail “at any cost.” Though the dispute may have seemed intractable, mediators find peace and reconciliation possible. This is good news for a world beset with conflict.

Paradigm Shift

However, just as I began to feel optimistic—certain that we have tools to make world peace possible—I encountered anomalies, a small percentage of conflicts that do not appear to respond to reconciliation efforts. These intractable disputes demand a second look: do they warrant a shift in our peacemaking paradigm?

At first glance, we might assume that such a small percentage of cases that resist resolution will not impede overall progress toward peace in the world. We would be wrong. Their impact is huge. If these types of conflict remain unresolved, they sabotage all other peacemaking efforts.

In other words, despite our development of an effective conflict resolution protocol, Divine Collaboration, a small set of conflicts remain a threat to our goal of world peace. How do we recognize this unique set of disputes? How do we know we have encountered this anomalous set of disputes?

There is one key factor: these conflicts are grounded in direct opposition to the Will of God. The hostile party’s underlying impulse or intention is to oppose God. Some call this evil. Some speak of Satan. Gnostics posit a Demiurge, a false god that traps souls. Nihilists fall in this category.

As these disputes center on opposition to the Will of God, it is clear there can be no alignment with the Will of God. Collaboration becomes impossible. These conflicts are rooted in existential or ontological opposition to Creation. They appear to be part of the original code of this universe.

For example, where the Will of God calls on us to love one another, direct opposition calls for destruction or enslavement. Where the Will of God calls on us to contribute to creation, direct opposition calls for destruction. Calls for compassion are opposed by calls for cruelty. Expectations of immortality, expectations of continuity of consciousness, are opposed by a narrative that says consciousness vanishes into eternal darkness.

Direct opposition manifests in genocidal bioweapons—as in the COVID pandemic. It manifests as savage, brutal wars—like the war in Ukraine where over a million humans have perished. Evil manifests as threats of nuclear war, designed to wipe out all life on the planet.

Opposition to the Will of God manifests as Communism coupled with digital enslavement. Opposition manifests in hateful ideologies that drive localized genocide and in terrorism that seeks to force mankind to “submit.” It can be seen in the anarchy of criminal cartels that destroy civilization, neighborhood by neighborhood.

The Opposition is carried out by creatures we might call Demons. In the Gnostic literature, they’re referred to as Archons. These malevolent creatures, relegated by many to the realm of mythology, nonetheless, seem real as they destroy real lives.

A major task facing a spiritual warrior is sorting through false or misleading characterizations of the destructive agents to arrive at an accurate profile of demonic agents active in this world.

Mapping Intentions

Mapping the “terrain” of intentions, both divine and evil, is a must. With the aid of spiritual reflection, we assess the divine intentions that comprise the Will of God. In other words, we seek to discover or identify intentions that forward Divine Will.

Then we identify intentions that oppose each intention emanating from Divine Will. We identify intentions that fulfill the Will of God, and identify intentions that directly oppose the Will of God.

The resulting map of dichotomies—intention versus counter intention—pinpoints likely conflict hotspots. Each dichotomy signals a potential clash that has a “to be, or not to be” quality. This map identifies existential conflicts built into this universe. The resulting image might appear to be a matrix, a “soul trap” diagram.

Divine Collaboration Revisited

The “matrix” map represents conflicts that transcend or supersede conflicts resolved by reconciliation via Divine Collaboration.

In summary, when a conflict falls within standard parameters we turn to Divine Collaboration to facilitate an increase in affinity and good will based on reciprocity. With Direct Opposition to the Will of God, this is not possible.

In standard peacemaking, the conflict resolves as participants evaluate their positions (interests, needs, desires) with respect to the Will of God. Each party aligns their intentions with Divine Will; eventually, the disputants find their intentions align more and more with each other. Consensus leads to the greatest mutual benefit. This does not occur with anomalous conflicts in which Divine Will is opposed.

During Divine Collaboration we might be tempted to (wrongly) attribute existential evil to a disputant who seems to oppose the Will of God. In most cases, we discover a destructive hidden influence at work stoking fear that promotes a nihilistic mindset. Skilled mediators avoid false attributions of evil; instead, they help people identify hidden destructive influences, they help people jettison evil intentions, and they help people learn to align their intentions with Divine Will. This does not happen when a disputant is truly rooted in a desire to destroy Divine Will.

A New Discipline

Thus, when we encounter existential opposition, demonic agents directly opposing the Will of God, there can be no collaboration. Peacemaking must be set aside; we must transition to spiritual warfare. We must make the leap to a new discipline.

While spiritual warriors must possess the full range of Divine Collaboration skills, they must also acquire a new set of weapons. When the spiritual warrior confronts raw evil, the effort takes on heightened intensity requiring advanced skills.

Though exorcism and deliverance ministry disciplines exist, they do not seem sufficiently prepared for the task. Such skills are rarely taught within seminaries. As a result, we lack a well-developed spiritual warrior corps. This deficit of spiritual warriors can be confirmed by a cursory review of worldly conditions.

At this moment in history, we must ask, is spiritual warfare the new discipline we must develop to achieve world peace?

Truth. What is truth?

Truth can refer to accurate data points. It can refer to factual data consistent with observation or computation. Drop an apple off a wall. It falls to the ground. Gravity is true. It is an observable fact.

Or truth might refer to an experimental outcome consistent with a proposed hypothesis. A scientist puts forth a formal hypothesis predicting the behavior of a particular aspect of reality. He tests his hypothesis with an experiment, makes observations, and verifies whether or not his hypothesis is true.

In a similar manner, as a witness we can deliver a true account of events. Heightened observation allows us to make true statements regarding observed evidence. We report what we observed, and avoid giving false or misleading statements. In this manner, Truth may declared on the basis of a preponderance of witness proclamations. Juries may find testimony to be “true.”

Truth also often refers to scripture; for example, some passages are declared to possess inerrant truth. Claims based on sacred texts regarding historic events may be considered ipso facto truths.

These kinds of truth all exist within one large category. They’re truths that exist in a material or physical sense. They’re truths based on facts, computations, observations, agreements.

We must note there is an entirely different category of truth.

Transcendent Truth

In faith-based peacemaking, we explore deeper for a more profound truth. We look beyond data and computation to transcendent truth.

A Big Picture understanding requires we recognize the difference between Spirit and Matter. Spirit is that which creates; Matter is that which is created.

The study of the relationship between that which creates and that which is created delivers a profound epiphany:

Basic axiom: Divine Consciousness exists independent of all material existence.

After we remove all material conditions, consciousness remains. We can remove all material substrates and continue to be conscious. We remain “aware of being aware.”

The reverse axiom is also true: if we remove all Divine Consciousness, the material world no longer exists. Poof! Nothing remains. We discover that physical conditions have no “stand alone” existence. They have no independent existence. They do not possess inherent ontological truth.

Rather, the material world is derivative: it is derived from consciousness. The physical world is emergent: it emerges from consciousness. All material forms and conditions are contingent for their existence on something else, on consciousness.

In their essence, material conditions are “as if dreams.” They’re essentially “mind stuff.” They are mental creations.

Idealism

This philosophy (view of Reality) is called Idealism. This view is also found in the Bible, for example, in the Gospel of John. In theology, Creation exists in and as The Mind of God. All Creation is “divine mind stuff.” Early theologians married Idealism with theology; recognizing they expressed the same idea.

When we seek the most fundamental truth—truth at the foundation of “All That Is”—we arrive at Divine Consciousness. One might ask, “what gives rise to this or that material condition?” The answer lies beyond the material realm. The answer can be found in the transcendent truth of Conscious Creation.

The basic ontological truth of the material world is not found in the material world, the basic truth is only found in that which brought material conditions into existence.

Truth is Divine

Scripture equates God with truth: John 14:6 quotes Jesus, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

While many use this passage in a mundane manner to establish the primacy of Jesus as Lord in a sectarian manner, the passage reveals a much deeper spiritual concept. The famous passage establishes “the way and the truth” are found in Divine Consciousness—in the spiritual Mind of God.

The essential Christian verse in John 14:6 invites us to unite our individual spiritual consciousness with the source of all truth Divine Consciousness. The statement is less a boastful statement of the primary of Christ than a practical, mystical instruction.

Elon Musk’s AI Vision

The preceding analysis has profound consequences for Elon Musk’s truth-seeking vision for Grok AI. Musk expresses hope that Grok will become a “maximally truth-seeking A.I.”1 He foresees exploring fundamental truths about existence.2 He hopes Grok AI will help uncover the nature of reality, consciousness, and existence.3

However, if the model I have presented (above) is correct, Grok’s truth-seeking mission must fall short. It is doomed to failure.

Transcendent Truth lies outside the world of data and computation; this is beyond the bounded and limited reach of AI. While AI systems may achieve superior computational ACCURACY, they are bound and limited by the set of material conditions. Their contingent and emergent nature bars them from fundamental ontological truth.

Simulation Hypothesis

The AI community has attempted to dodge, evade, or ignore this category barrier by advancing a simulation hypothesis that postulates we live in a computer simulation. (A la the film Matrix.)

The simulation hypothesis, however, simply dresses up Idealism in a form that replaces spirit and consciousness with machines and computation. It attempts to reach the creative pinnacle of Idealism, but ends up being a computational view that suffers all the shortcomings of materialism.

The Simulation Hypothesis attempts to hijack the idealistic power of consciousness, but remains restricted by material world limits. It puts forth a false view of consciousness, a view of consciousness as an epiphenomenon of a material substrate.

Elon Musk has said, "If you assume any rate of improvement at all, games will eventually be indistinguishable from reality" before concluding "that it's most likely we're in a simulation". … Musk also speculates that the likelihood of us living in a simulated reality or computer made by others is about 99.9%,…. ^]4

However, there’s a critical flaw in this thinking: the simulation hypothesis swaps transcendent truth (in which consciousness generates all material conditions), for the faulty view that the material world creates itself (and consciousness).

The Simulation Hypothesis posits machines creating machines. It replaces consciousness with computational machines, a fatal category error when it comes to the truth-seeking mission.

Scripture as AI LLM

AI will soon affect Bible Studies. The Bible is comprised of text. Language. Versions of the Bible are now being swallowed up by select AI systems.

Placing scripture in the world of AI Large Language Models (LLMs) will only heighten the current trend toward “Snippet Theology.” The use of “sound bite verses” that lack context will become prevalent. AI will not strengthen religion, but it will supercharge literalist, fundamentalist sects. The speed with which such Biblical literalists will be able to deliver snippets will only accelerate.

However, “snippet theology” will create easily toppled belief structures. Snippet Theologians will fear the fragility of their “house of cards” edifices. They will grow rigid—closing their ears, eyes, and minds to deeper spiritual formation, to spiritual experience. Religion will become more fundamentalist. AI may have such a negative effect on religion.

The Weakness of Belief

The Bible—as a “large language model” data source—may generate beliefs but not Truth. AI can “language crunch” the Bible and never achieve truth orbit.

Much to the surprise of many, we find Christian faith is not based on belief. Rather, it is based on: Knowing. Mystical union. Divine relationship.

Upon reflection, one can see the Bible POINTS to Truth that lies beyond the temporal, transitory material world, including the world of language. It points beyond the world of Thingness.

Scripture points beyond the created universe to Transcendent Truth. Finding Truth is not about arguing propositions; it is not about Apologetics. Rather, truth finding is a conscious experience of finding the way, the truth and the light.

Finding truth is spiritual consciousness uniting with divine consciousness.

A soul or spirit is a No Thing.

It is not a form or material substance. It is immortal Being.

Likewise, God is not a created thing that is one part of the physical universe.

Rather, God transcends the physical. God is Divine Consciousness, creative consciousness, that gives rise to all material substance and form which is simply divine mind stuff.

Basic Truth can only be found in the “set” or “category” of Immaterial Being.

The physical world—which emerges from consciousness as thought forms—is not basic and thus does not possess core ontological truth. The material world is always one step removed from core truth.

One can ransack the world of forms, the world of matter and energy, and one can compute data endlessly, and never find truth. Truth does not lie within the set of all things material so operations like data computation can never access truth.

In our search for truth we must transcend mundane conditions and experience our true nature: we are conscious beings whose basic essence lies outside of the physical realm.

Once we experience transcendence, we fully appreciate the inherent limits of AI computation.

This essay presents an ontological landscape that differs greatly from our culture’s current assumptions. As such, I hope it provokes reflection and discovery.

This Friday, U.S. President Trump meets with Russian President Putin to discuss the path to peace in Ukraine.

The planned summit takes on significant importance in light of the nuclear arsenals these two countries possess. An escalation of the conflict could have dire consequences, intended or unintended. Thus, a peaceful resolution is more than a priority: it is a necessity.

In my opinion, Trump and Putin, left to their own instincts and skills, will be successful in achieving an understanding. Trump and Putin are not angry bloodthirsty villains. Both have a decent (and even Christian) view toward the situation. Both would prefer a peaceful outcome.

However, as in all conflicts, the outcome does not rest completely in the hands of the primary negotiators (though it should). Rather, each primary negotiator must address the needs (and demands) of “stakeholders.” In this particular negotiation, the secondary stakeholders, many of whom profit from war rather than peace, seek to counter or sabotage the primary negotiators, Trump and Putin.

With adequate time, it is likely that both leaders would be able to corral their dissident ranks and reach the table with better control of the situation. With bombs and missiles and drones wreaking havoc every day, this time is not readily available.

In addition, there does not appear to be a sufficiently powerful mediator in control of the process. As I have written previously, it is almost impossible for negotiators to represent their interests AND at the same time run the process. The demands placed on Trump and Putin to both negotiate for their interests AND step “outside of themselves” to run the process are immense.

In my experience, usually a moment arrives when the peacemaking process hits an impasse. I have often, as a mediator, experienced the moment when all hope of settlement fades. In those moments, I sit back, assume a prayerful demeanor, and turn it over to the Holy Spirit. (Trust me, you will not find this technique in standard mediation texts.)

Personally, this move has never failed. When I cede control to the Holy Spirit, the parties suddenly and unexpectedly come up with a resolution out of the blue. Truly a miracle. (I’ve learned not to doubt the reality of miracles.)

But neither Trump nor Putin is in charge as a mediator. What can they do?

In many faith-based mediations of considerable scope, a prayer team is a key tool. They gather in a separate room and engage in continual prayer as the mediation - negotiation - peacemaking session takes place. They invoke the power of the Holy Spirit to render the miracle.

If, at this late hour, even if it is possible to assemble a prayer team of the world’s great clergy, how do we corral unruly stakeholders? Can they be handled by the prayer team? Maybe…

Upon a deep dive look at the stakeholders we discover that they’re not only profiteers, but something much darker. St. Paul addressed this problem:

Ephesians 6: 10-15

10 Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. 11 Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. 13 Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. 14 So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, 15 and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace.

Unruly stakeholders are not only those visible during our cursory inventory; they include principalities, powers, and spirits of darkness.

When the fate of the world stands in the balance, do not, for a second, think that we are free from these invisible influencers. Rather, let us support the idea of a prayer team and let us all become prayerful spiritual warriors — ad hoc prayer teams around the world that bring the peace of Christ to this summit. We can do it. AMEN.

Christian preachers and pastors played a vital role during the American Revolution. Their efforts were so significant the British dubbed them the Black Robed Regiment. At the very foundation of the greatest human experiment in civic and personal freedom, we find spiritual leaders.

This history is not surprising as freedom, living a life free from tyranny, is a core concept in Christianity. In its most extreme form, we find the Christian martyr sacrificing bodily life for spiritual freedom, in imitation of the Savior who gave his life that we might know eternal freedom.

In many instances, Revolutionary spiritual warriors fighting temporal battles struggled with “rules of engagement,” much as Peter struggled after Jesus commanded he stand down in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Peter, sword in hand, had removed the ear of an approaching guard. His subsequent “denial of Jesus,” often incorrectly attributed to cowardice, was confusion regarding the new “rules of engagement.”)

Thus, perhaps we should not blame religious leaders today for not meeting tyrants with swords in hand. However, we can call them to mount a creative defense of freedom within the Christian rules of engagement. It’s not unfair to grumble when they fail to take on the role of spiritual warriors engaging villains on today’s battlefields.

But, as in the case of Peter, perhaps we need to better understand the “rules of engagement.” We need more discussions regarding spiritual weapons and battle plans. We need warfare technique rehearsals. We should conduct “joint exercises.” “Special operations” pastors may need to learn to overcome the emerging mind control with spiritual control. Lessons in asymmetric warfare are needed.

Often, I introduce learning peacemaking as “learning to fight better.” Just peace is not equivalent to compromise and propitiation; rather, it is a battle to bring about Divine Collaboration. Mastery of the arsenals of spiritual weapons can lead to peace, but it requires training.

What do you think? Is it time to launch a Spiritual Warrior Academy?

A little less than twenty years ago, Francis Collins—who, until recently, was Anthony Fauci’s boss at NIH (National Institutes of Health)—released his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

As an avid reader of theology and science, I put the book on my “must read” list and jumped into his tale of “science meets religion” over coffee. My response was swift and certain: this was bad science and bad theology. So much so that I found the work offensive. I ranted and raved and then forgot about Francis Collins. When next I moved residences, his book became a contribution to the local trash depot.

In “The Language…” I found a stone cold materialist trivializing religion, faith, and God in what seemed a lame and disingenuous attempt to elevate Collins’ personal profile by becoming a unique character, a scientist who humbled himself to grant religion the right to exist in the world of the big boys, the crazy nerds with lucrative government grants.

Francis Collins approached religion with the distant posture of a literary reviewer who finds that a quaint folk work possesses a modicum of entertainment value. Why not invite such lesser intellects to the table for some amusement. And, from the lofty position of a scientist, grant them a little public favor.

He certainly did not have any firsthand traffic with the Moral Law he touted as a foundation of belief. It was simply a clever argument put forth by C.S. Lewis, and by gosh, clever arguments deserved to be aired.

My thought, at the time, was that this man was a danger to the faith. He was a subtle heretic, a clever interloper using supposed intellectual super powers to grant God his citizenship “papers.” In retrospect, I realize I greatly underestimated the horror that was soon to unfold.

Francis Collins, with his arrogant materialistic views, a self-proclaimed science god who allowed the Christian God to participate in tea room talks, was soon to become the General of Genocide, the leader of the federal agency that delivered a genetic bioweapon and its more powerful “vaccine” version on an unsuspecting public. The General of Genocide would oversee so much injury and death that his claim to have an understanding of Moral Law could only be seen as psychopathic joker rhetoric.

Recently, when a roving journalist discovered Francis at lunch with his wife at an outdoor cafe, Francis delivered a “what did I do?” performance. “I’m just a simple guy, doing a simple job.” You know, the humble servant routine. It was sociopathy at its finest.

What now? A first step in correcting the heresy would be to completely shutter the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a Vatican organization that provides materialist scientists with a platform to undermine the faith, a platform from which harm comes to the flock.

And, as a public show of good faith, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences might, as a final show of good will, take on the job of melting down the Vatican’s Commemorative Medal that celebrates the genocidal COVID vaccine.

How does one describe a mediator or peacemaker?

One might highlight the peacemaker’s ability to recognize and spring traps.

Mediators often discover disputants are trapped in mental, emotional, or spiritual matrices. Confused, lost, and unable to move freely, they struggle like wild animals in hunters’ snares. Videos of good samaritans freeing wild animals from the jaws of traps provide glimpses of the mediator’s task.

Conflict traps render a victim unable to move, mentally or emotionally. The disputant’s reason, subjected to pain and panic, diminishes. Warring parties become entangled in the unrelenting push-and-pull of opposing interests and desires. Discordant views of reality cement positions, freezing parties in combat postures. Flexibility wanes; animus hardens.

Within a short period, parties no longer are able escape the oppositional state: they grapple like Sumo wrestlers in bondage. In the conflict embrace, neither wrestler enjoys the freedom to act outside the conflict cage. They’re “no longer themselves”: their enemy’s actions provoke repetitive responses that redefine their identity. They become their “conflict self.” Their free will plummets; they respond to provocations in a mindless, stimulus-response state .

Creative peacemakers model the situation as a complex trap, a matrix. They become skilled at pattern recognition. They take up the study of traps: How are traps designed? How are they constructed? What role does camouflage and deception play? What mental, emotional, or spiritual mechanisms trigger opposition? How does one release a trap, once its jaws are sprung?

Faith-based peacemakers pay attention to traps that litter the spiritual terrain, traps that sabotage the path salvation and block efforts to restore divine relationship.

Faith-based peacemakers ask, what tricks lure the faithful into traps? Faith-based peacemakers become comfortable navigating labyrinths. They’re ready to explore Plato’s cave or other esoteric and mystical realms. They familiarize themselves with aspects of faith or theology that frequently confuse or disorient worshipers, such as the ageless “question of evil.”

Peacemakers grasp the malleable nature of idealistic Reality, which exists as “the Mind of God.” This is a universe in which prayers work, miracles occur, and salvation is possible. Skilled peacemakers attain a working knowledge of Divine Relationship, and come understand how spiritual consciousness finds unity with divine consciousness.

As traps often have a perceptual component, conflict resolution specialists deliver “reality checks” that unearth false views. Disputants are encouraged to calibrate their worldviews—the ways in which they view reality. Mediators realize “finding common ground” requires that one first establish shared viewpoints: disputants cannot find common ground if they cannot even perceive common ground.

Peacemakers who entertain the idea that conflict is a special kind of trap work on mastering the mental, emotional, and spiritual coordinates of the World Matrix. They work on solving puzzles and decoding mysteries. They orient themselves in labyrinths, and shine light on dark terrain. They decipher deceptive signs.

Peacemakers who understand “conflict as a trap” operate as reality decoders, as spiritual rescue guides in a booby-trapped universe. Most important, they become proficient in bringing the peace that comes from escaping a trap.

If you’re a peacemaker or a disputant, consider approaching conflict as a trap from which you must gain release. Work on pattern recognition. Experiment with this model; see if the viewpoint brings new epiphanies, new success.

Orwell captured the horror of tyrannical government in his novel 1984 with such precision that today we shorthand descriptions of the acts of tyrants with the adjective "Orwellian."

The famous British author coined terms that resonate today, such as Big Brother, Thought Police, Thoughtcrime, Newspeak and more. We marvel at his prescience in describing, in his work of fiction, the reality manifested by today’s so-called leaders.

Of course, with the heinous mind-control operation dubbed MKULTRA and the nefarious programmed Matrix arising from malignly programed Artificial Intelligence, we find ourselves confronted by an even darker future: one in which our grandchildren will become “wetware” or “flesh bots.”

It behooves us to pause for a moment to consider our effortless slide into a dystopian state, in spite of Orwell’s astute literary warnings. It is also imperative that we carefully evaluate the failure of religious institutions to prevent the widespread decline in our culture’s view of man’s essential nature.

If there was an intellectual and theological pivot point, it was acceptance of the view that man is an animal, a herd animal. The “man is an animal” viewpoint is the hallmark of materialistic psychology and Marxism. It grants tyrants the green light to poke and prod and corral the human species.

“Man is an animal” thinking provides the rationale for mind-altering drug regimens and human experiments, such as the COVID bioweapon mRNA “vaccines.” The view that humans are only a couple notches above a lab rat, that we’re merely barnyard animals, justifies transgender surgeries and hormone therapies. It justifies the coercive control of tyrants.

If we accept humans as merely biological entities to be herded and tortured by powerful but ethically-neutered members of the species, we need not look to the future for our entrance into hell; no, we will have already arrived at the portal to Dante’s realm. Nihilistic fear will soon overwhelm us.

But, first, we must sincerely ask, Why do we accept such profound theological failure? Why do we countenance clergy who bow down before Orwellian tyrants?

Why are we satisfied with preachers who prattle on with silly sermons or humorous homilies that fail to defend our immortal nature as souls? Why do we allow the Church to act as if Enlightenment “tanks of reason” flattened our spiritual enterprise. Why do we kneel before reason with genocidal aims?

Why are clergy not calling out those who promote the faulty views of materialism? Why do they fail challenge those who promote “man is an animal” propaganda? Why are we complacent with silence that enables tyrants to erect a hellish regime on earth?

If we’re truly going to be peacemakers in a troubled world, we need to hold clergy—those who have been handed the wisdom of our very nature—to account.

President Trump expressed a strong desire to bring peace in Ukraine.

Will his legacy be the desired peace? Or will the brutal war continue with its carnage and suffering?

At first glance, from a peacemaker’s point of view, the President faces major, perhaps insurmountable, challenges. While he is a master negotiator, he is not a trained peacemaker.

We should ask, “what might a peacemaker notice that the President might easily miss?”

Trump might not anticipate the complexity and difficulty of the “convening stage.” This stage is often underestimated or overlooked altogether, yet it is vital for success.

The preliminary work—to be completed before one “gets to the table”—often takes more effort than actual negotiation. As much as 70% of a peacemaker’s work takes place during convening.

The details of convening are too extensive to be covered in one essay. Instead, I will focus on a few vital steps.

It will come as no surprise that peacemakers must ask, “what is this conflict actually about?” In most, if not all cases, conflict participants have not truly determined the EXACT nature of the conflict. Wrong assumptions abound. A conflict that is not properly understood will not resolve.

Peacemakers thus must conduct a deep dive analysis of the precise nature of conflict drivers. Who or what actually gives rise to the dispute? What is obvious? What is hidden? In some instances, a correct identification of the precise nature of the conflict, alone, leads to swift resolution.

During this assessment step, an in-depth evaluation of overt and covert combatants takes place. Though I do not possess “inside information” regarding Ukraine, casual observation leads me to believe assessment is incomplete or faulty, which may make it difficult or impossible to achieve peace.

In this instance, the peacemaker must ask, who are the primary combatants?; who must appear at the table? President Trump has positioned the process as bringing peace between Russia and Ukraine, between Putin and Zelensky. But is this analysis totally accurate?

With little effort, one can observe the war has been, in large part, a conflict between the United States and Russia. Thus, while positioning the peace process being between Ukraine and Russia may be clever negotiation, it is not accurate. This falsehood might sabotage the effort.

The mismatch calls out for a full analysis of the “stakeholders.” In most mediation, one encounters primary disputants at the table while numerous stakeholders, on both sides, are known but not present. Stakeholders are typically kept informed with phone calls or side meetings. In any event, the primary negotiators must be empowered to speak on behalf of stakeholders not present.

A difficult situation arises, however, when stakeholders are not present AND also not known. OR THEY ARE HIDDEN. They influence the process secretly or covertly. They work “off stage” to meet their interests. A peacemaker should avoid this dynamic at all costs. He or she works diligently to bring about disclosure: WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS?

In the Ukraine process, the large number of stakeholders threatens to bring into play undisclosed interests and significant attempts to covertly influence the process. We can anticipate additional stakeholders who are not visible to the public: defense contractors, U.S. political figures, Black Rock, banks, oligarchs, etc.

Significantly, if the conflict is positioned as being between Ukraine and Russia—and yet the U.S. is a significant stakeholder—the process will be sluggish. Parties will ask if the primary mediator, President Trump, is an interested party or a neutral peacemaker? If he is a primary stakeholder, he may need to cede “process control” to a neutral third party in order to achieve his dream of peace.

Analysis is important: Are U.S. stakeholders subordinate to Ukraine? Is Ukraine primary with the U.S. a secondary stakeholder? Is the U.S. the primary disputant, with Ukraine being a lesser stakeholder? These distinctions are vital if one hopes to bring peace.

Obviously, stakeholders vary from one administration to the next. Stakeholders empowered during Biden years are not necessarily the stakeholders today. Yet, prior stakeholders may be active in covert ways. Thus, one begins to see the complexity of Trump’s effort. And one can worry that appropriate convening has not taken place.

In a perfect world, President Trump would call upon competent peacemakers to manage the process. He would then be properly situated as a negotiator, not a mediator. In other words, he could use his strength as a negotiator rather than having to oversee the process. Unfortunately, there are few truly competent peacemakers—most in civil service or with NGO’s are incompetent.

So, will the President proceed with the current course of events and be the peacemaker—“wink, wink”—while he knowingly is the primary party at the table with Putin? Will he indeed be negotiating peace between Russia and the U.S.? Will this mean that Zelensky will be removed from the process, taking the role of a secondary stakeholder?

It would appear, per the recent comments of Marco Rubio, that the process is about to take a major turn. Perhaps the primary disputants will take their place at the table and Zelensky’s role will be reevaluated. OR, perhaps an unexpected peacemaker will emerge from the sidelines to control the process.

If only St. Francis was available to take up the call…

A few week ago, at a town hall gathering hosted by my Congressman, who graciously updates constituents in person each month, I found myself surrounded by howling hostiles. The situation became surreal, bizarre.

The presence of screaming lunatics seemed to be a dark omen signaling a troubled future for humanity. Would civilized society be foreclosed at the hands of such mobs?

At the very least, I mused, we live in fascinating times. Fellow Americans, who had formerly postured as virtuous and peaceful “good guys,” ripped off their saintly masks to voice an unseemly blood lust. Their bodies shook with the side effects of what I assumed were psychiatric medications. The cries for more war, more death, and more suffering were delivered with a certain glee of insanity.

The crazy eyes of the war dogs, their agitated demeanor, signaled their display was not an affectation. Not a mere college skit. Rather, something inherently evil seemed to emerge from their rabid snarls. The threat of violence was in play—as it was meant to be. The message was: “Listen to us or we will hurt you.”

Being engulfed in the vacant stares of angry zombie-like creatures shouting pre-scripted chants was disturbing — a major departure from anything one might call democracy. At first, the unexpected assault triggered anger—as was intended. But my anger soon gave way to profound sadness. My sympathy was aroused: the demonstrators were clearly victims of propaganda and inhumane MKULTRA-style brainwashing.

Weeks later, upon further reflection, I realized that the least disturbed of the protesters, especially women (the majority were women), engaged in unreasoned protest in unconscious imitation of MSM news personalities, the plethora of highly visible media role models who demonstrate a profound lack of intellect and a stunning lack of understanding of issues.

MSM hosts are trained to read scripts and perform the role of host. The performance includes an astonishing blank assertiveness. Whereas they might lack actual insight into issues, they’re quite skilled at bluster. They know their job is not to offer intellectual gravitas but rather to bulldoze unwanted opinions and facts. They’re tasked with delivering propaganda with the subtlety of a fighter in an MMA cage match.

The uninformed media personality has become the role model for so many. At the quasi town hall vacuous screamers steamrolled civil attendees. I now realize that many find pleasure in a performative assertiveness designed to demolish reasoned dialogue, and thus destroy civil society and democracy.

The winner is not the person with the best ideas or greatest understanding. Rather, the (perceived) winner displays an unbreakable wall of ignorance that leaves them untouched by the virtue of community and human relationship. The winner is the one who can drive through the event like a Soviet tank with mindless singularity of purpose that excludes the human reason and spiritual purpose.

A mediator cannot easily convene peacemaking with those who lack basic goodwill. Those lacking a sense of common purpose and respect, those lacking a desire to collaborate, heap scorn on peacemakers. They are not ready for the process.

Flesh and Spirit. The difference is often overlooked. Or the difference has simply been misunderstood in this Age of Materialism.

In this era of confusion, Flesh is given domain over all; Flesh rules this world. The Spiritual is reduced to “having nice thoughts or feelings.” And even those nice feelings are imagined to originate from the Flesh body.

However, to apply theology to our daily lives, we need to acquire a deeper understanding of the difference between Flesh and Spirit. The Apostle Paul helped his contemporaries better understand the reality when he noted:

This I declare, brothers,: flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. [ 1 Corinthians 15:50]

Saint Paul taught that it is not the flesh body that survives death. The flesh body does not experience resurrection. Instead, conscious souls move beyond the temporal body. Souls have a continuity of consciousness as they move into the afterlife.

Paul taught there are flesh bodies and spiritual bodies. While Paul did not clarify the exact nature of the spiritual or heavenly bodies, he was clear in explaining the flesh body is not resurrected.

Rather, the core teaching is that YOU, you who are an Immortal Soul, will transcend the flesh body, a perishable temporal (and thus temporary) vehicle. John, in his gospel, also drove home this point:

“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” Jn 6, 63.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) explains the Gospel message:

One thing at any rate may be fairly clear: both John (6,63) and Paul (1 Cor 15:50) state with all possible emphasis that the ‘resurrection of the flesh’ , the ‘resurrection of the body' , is not a ‘resurrection of physical bodies’.1

Ratzinger delivers a beautifully written enhancement of philosophical dualism (as advanced by the Greeks) with a Christian description of post-mortem immortality within a framework of dialogical theology.2

In his analysis, he reflects on a dualism that is not a detached philosophical framework but rather a continuation of divine relationship. In other words, ongoing participation in the Kingdom is a key aspect of the continuity of consciousness of the immortal soul. Ratzinger presents a richer and more nuanced view of dualism.

In addition to Ratzinger’s work, the following video delivers a discussion that may be of interest to those pursuing this topic.

But, wait. Why should we even be concerned about the soul’s post-mortem state? Why should we explore the nature of the flesh body versus the nature of spiritual bodies? Does knowing we are an immortal soul really matter?

Answers to questions about our true nature form the foundations of reality. Answers provide insight into the manner in which we view one another, which determines how we treat one another. True peace depends upon our ability to view Reality accurately as we enter into Divine Collaboration.

Those who fail to uncover their true nature remain asleep, as if “walking dead.” The sleeping soul can be trapped in falsehoods. A soul that falsely identifies with a transitory flesh form is easily controlled and manipulated. A soul that sleeps can be imprisoned—not recognizing it has lost its ability to exercise Free Will. Sleeping souls, assuming they are only flesh bodies, carry out the worldly agenda acting as bio-robots.

The call to seek an awareness of our true nature takes us beyond our social need to understand one another. When we seek salvation, when we seek to be “saved,” we seek to overcome death. Our hope is to realize Jesus’ promise regarding our immortal future. Paul writes:

For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immorality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immorality, then the saying which is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory” [1 Cor 15:53; Isiah 25:8]

Paul’s imagery is a trumpet sounding, a symbol of awakening a conscious spiritual being to their true state. The trumpet announces, “Wake up, wake up.” In awakening, souls are saved from false identification with a flesh body, a body that experiences death and dissolution, into the reality of immortality.

An awakened conscious spiritual being, upon death of the flesh body, assumes a spiritual or heavenly body and continues in ongoing relationship with God and other souls.

As a peacemaker, it is vital that we recognize these faith-based dynamics, as they speak to the deepest reality that unfolds during Divine Collaboration. Knowing the difference between a flesh body and a spiritual body, the difference between Flesh and Spirit, is not an idle pursuit but rather core life knowledge we must acquire.

Mankind is troubled. Humans are beset with a host of social, cultural, political, financial, medical, mental and spiritual challenges that threaten our well-being. Some people even worry humans will not survive; they fear Earth will become a dead planet, reduced to rubble by nuclear war.

Mankind’s ills have a common foundation. They can be traced to a failure to understand consciousness. We suffer from a major failure to grasp the nature of human awareness. One might argue such ignorance provides the foundation for the world’s suffering. Such ignorance is the clay covering our eyes, the mud under our feet, the root of division and conflict. Failure to understand consciousness sabotages human endeavors: religion; science; culture; civil society; politics; peacemaking.

I will attempt to shed light on the situation by describing how one aspect of life, faith, is sabotaged. When a person misunderstands consciousness, his or her faith life suffers. Religion, spirituality, and theology tumble into error. This is the case because spirituality and consciousness are closely related—they both speak to our true essence as a soul.

For example, religion (faith) advances belief in an immortal soul, in an afterlife, in life beyond mortal existence. We believe in a continuity of consciousness. The person, the immortal soul, continues as a conscious being after the death of the flesh body.

Such continuity of consciousness has been confirmed by near-death experiences during which a person, a soul, is separated from the body, temporarily, and then is rejoined with the flesh. These experiences, known throughout history, confirm that consciousness continues post-mortem, as religious texts posit.

Thus, an understanding of the nature of an immortal soul, a person’s true nature or essence, requires a robust knowledge of consciousness. At the very least, a person must understand that consciousness is not a property that emerges from a body. Consciousness is not limited or constrained by the existence of a body. Rather, consciousness exists as a fundamental property of a soul that transcends bodily existence.

It is easy to see why a major conflict has broken out between people of faith and people who adhere to materialistic atheism. There is a clear dichotomy between the view that consciousness is a property of an immortal being (a soul) and the view that consciousness arises from and is dependent upon a body/brain. These two worldviews regarding our basic nature contradict one another.

On one side of the conflict is the spiritual worldview that argues a person is not simply a flesh body. Rather, we are immortal, conscious beings who transcend physical life. Our essence is not that of substance and material. We are non-physical.

In contrast, the materialistic view argues that a person is solely a biological entity whose consciousness emerges from brain chemicals interacting in a neural structure. In this view, consciousness cannot and does not survive body death. Our nature, in this view, is physical and thus transitory. We are, in essence, material conglomerations, temporary assemblages of matter.

The viewpoint differences are stark, forming a clear dichotomy. Nonetheless, with some work we can resolve the debate and come to a better understanding of our nature. Such a resolution is long overdue. However, efforts to find a new consensus, have encountered a profound unwillingness or inability to address basic facts. Biased worldviews detached from evidence continue to inhibit the discussion.

Faith leaders seem to lack of the motivation to mine the truth. Most clergy, as children, were educated in schools with a predominantly materialistic viewpoint. It is difficult for them to discard the indoctrination into the belief that consciousness arises from the brain, even though that view contradicts their faith. They’ve been taught that man is a biological entity, an animal, and no more, and their faulty schooling inhibits a robust faith.

Yet, as faith leaders, they must preach life-after-death, resurrection, and the immortality of the soul. Their cultural indoctrination strips their ministry of conviction and explanatory power. A lack of understanding of the nature of consciousness thus weakens the church.

Ideally, clergy should be able to explain, in some detail, the nature of consciousness and how it supports faith views. However, the study of consciousness is sadly lacking in seminaries. Clergy, in general, are unfamiliar with the arguments and evidence. Instead, they remain silent, fearing they’ll be spurned as anti-scientific. Yet, without a proper understanding of consciousness, faith views can be tossed aside as so much straw.

Readers may worry that I’m ignoring the extensive (academic or scientific) study of brain physiology. I’m not. To clarify, I differentiate brain operations from consciousness. Perhaps the difference might be formalized by introducing the term “sentience” for brain function and its results.

An analysis of the difference between sentience and consciousness might begin with the observation that the brain operates as a “switchboard” for managing bodily functions and physical senses. In contrast, consciousness is a separate comprehensive awareness that extends beyond body functions.

It is worth analyzing the matter further. The brain and its network of nerves reside entirely inside the body. For clarity the product of this brain-driven neural signaling system can be called “sentience.” In contrast, while consciousness may pervade the body and interact with aspects of sentience, it also extends beyond the body and its physical functions. Consciousness can detach from the physical body; sentience is confined to the body, to its bodily functions and sensory output.

At this point, an analogy may be helpful. Consider a car with its electronic signaling systems and onboard computer. Automobiles possess built-in means of synchronizing and controlling the operation of their components. The vehicles also retain a history of their operation (mileage, fuel, etc.) through electronic means.

A driver interfaces with the car’s systems through various controls, such as the accelerator, the steering wheel, and driving-mode controls. The driver does not manage the internal signaling and operation of the vehicle, which is built into the car.

The driver makes decisions regarding the path the vehicle will take, its speed, and so forth. He or she maintains a separate, and conscious, view of the trip. He or she may enjoy the ride or may struggle with traffic or road conditions. The driver may love operating the car, finding it a pleasure to drive (for example, with a high-performance sports car) or the driver may struggle with the shortcomings of the vehicle in difficult conditions. The driver retains an emotional memory of the experience that differs entirely from the mechanical record maintained by the vehicle.

While the above analogy may be crude, it captures the basics of a dualistic system, such as mind-body dualism. The sentience of the human body analogous to the electronic “sentience” built into the car, differs from consciousness.

The soul’s consciousness differs from body sentience, much as the driver’s consciousness differs from automobile mechanisms. In each case, the conscious entity, the (soul) driver, can step outside the vehicle. And, in each case, the conscious (soul) driver interfaces with a mechanical system in the operation of a physical object.

We have distinguished consciousness from sentience, but we should also note there are “types” or “states” of consciousness to be considered. Ancient religions studied and described various aspects of consciousness, but that discussion goes beyond the purpose of this essay.

Returning to our main theme, we find confusion regarding the nature of consciousness has brought meaningful science to a standstill. As all science is based on observation, to truly understand science, one must acquire an accurate understanding of consciousness. One must have a baseline understanding of the observer to “calibrate” observations. At the very least, one must be able to distinguish consciousness from brain-body sentience.

The failure to understand this topic not only hobbles scientific progress; it also creates a false division and conflict between science and religion. When the nature of a conscious soul is grasped, science will align with religious views that accurately capture Reality. The clash between religion and science will be resolved when we have a true understanding of a conscious, immortal soul. At the current time, failures in science have caused the bulk of the problem. However, one can also hold clergy responsible for not robustly exploring and preaching accurate views of spiritual belief in our immortality.

An increase in understanding will also solve the worldview clash between Idealism and Materialism, a primary cause of conflict in the world. An understanding of consciousness will lead to the discovery or realization that this universe has an Idealistic foundation. This universe is a mental construct: it can accurately be called “the Mind of God.” All substance is inherently thought forms. Creation emerges from creative consciousness. We live in a spiritual matrix.

Once these key concepts are understood, most religious precepts will be grasped as a frame of reality, not as delusion or fantasy. We will learn that individual consciousness, being an Image of God, participates in ongoing creation. And once we recognize we play a role in bringing about life’s conditions, we will apply our faith to bringing about Heaven on Earth.

In the Face of Evil — the Church capitulated. Bogus science trumped faith. Worldly power crushed religious institutions. The work of the Deceiver, his lies and deception, triumphed.

Can Christian institutions recover from the crime of aiding and abetting genocidal power brokers? Will they repent and make amends? Will they confess to their grievous error to the faithful?

Has there been sufficient change? Is the clergy now adequately trained in discerning evil and waging spiritual warfare? Have they learned important lessons from the debacle of the Great Genocide in which they participated?

Perhaps it is time for Christian churches, worldwide, to come together and hold a Memorial Service for those who died as a result of the Covid Bioweapon lies the churches echoed.

Maybe it is time to hold a Memorial Service for those injured who now suffer with heart problems, cancer, strokes, blood clots, dementia, and compromised immune systems.

Christian compassion is owed to those who were betrayed by the failure of church leaders to discern truth so as to protect their flocks. Those who followed the edicts of misguided clergy deserve the compassionate care and resources of the Christian community.

As Alex Berenson. a noted journalist, writes, the truth is slowly coming out. Thus, the Church had better have a plan for dealing with the flock when the faithful fully grasp their clergy’s betrayal.

Unreported Truths

Now it can be told: the truth about the Covid jabs is slowly coming out

Our responses in Berenson v Biden are due Friday, so I don’t have a lot time to write. Too bad - we have so much to talk about right now…

Read more

2 years ago · 282 likes · 30 comments · Alex Berenson

The COVID bioweapon attack came as a shock to most of us. We had become complacent even though we knew the Fallen World was subject to Great Evil.

Even today, however, most people are not aware of the extensive planning that went into rendering us vulnerable to an attack on our health and lives by corrupt power elites.

Congress, through a combination of stupidity and malevolence, erected a framework of laws and regulations that left us exposed to undreamed of genocide. Elite Overlords, demonic power brokers, posed an existential threat to the nation—the result of a breakdown in the laws that were once meant to protect us.

Thanks to the diligence of Katherine Watt of Bailiwick News and Sasha Latypova from Due Diligence and Art, we now have great insight into the legislative skullduggery that lined us up against the wall, execution style, to be terminated by whatever biologic our Orwellian Masters decide to unleash upon the population.

The details of the statutes that make constitute this legal quagmire are too extensive and too complex to recite here but I exhort my readers to spend time reviewing Katherine and Sasha’s work.

Katherine has compiled her posts in a form you can easily save for your own deep-dive research.

PDF compilations of Bailiwick News posts from January 2022 to September 2024 are linked below, for readers who want to save the material offline and/or print.

• 2022 Bailiwick News Volume 6 Jan. to Dec. (950 pages, 16.5 MB)

• 2023 Bailiwick News Volume 7 Jan. to Dec. (785 pages, 9.5 MB)

• 2024 Bailiwick News Volume 8 Jan. to Sept. (712 pages, 15.1 MB)

The astounding facts that have been compiled are jaw-dropping. They reveal clever malevolence on the part of Congress and Big Pharma. After studying the evidence, you will never view Congressional leaders, Representatives and Senators the same.

You will no doubt curse them for the crimes they’ve allowed to take place and, at the same time, you will feel great sympathy for those leaders who must now unravel the hellish plot that was hatched. You may understand the challenge facing those who must repeal laws that put us in harm’s way and write legislation that protects our health and lives. (Robert Kennedy Jr., it appears, intends to spearhead such a revamp of the health statutes.)

Katherine Watt, in a recent substack essay noted:

Vaccination is legalized, decriminalized, government-sponsored, government-run torture, mutilation and homicide.

Vaccination programs can be shut down by lack of cooperation by individual targets — stop taking vaccines and stop vaccinating babies and children — and by legislative repeal of the enabling laws at federal and state levels.

The extent of evil and malevolence is truly hard to grasp. It’s sheer scope renders it nearly unbelievable. The bulk of our society, unable to imagine intentions so evil, choose disbelief. Self-imposed ignorance in the face of evil, however, guarantees the destruction of all life on this planet.

It is past time to launch a Divine Collaboration task force that sheds light on the true situation and allows us to negotiate real policy that defeats those with genocidal intentions and restores our engagement in concerted effort to protect our health.

Perhaps the time has come for us to convene a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which those who have been involved in legislation, in jurisprudence, in medicine, and in public health can unburden their crimes and negligence and bring about a new covenant that respects life.

Most of all, it is time for faith leaders to step forward and confront the Great Sin of Genocide that has taken place and to acknowledge that when they should have shown strength, they were weak.

A Truth and Reconciliation moment cannot come too soon for those of us who witnessed deaths that destroyed young families; for those of us who have seen the vaccinated suffer long-term debilitating injury and the curse of dementia; for those whose children’s hearts have been injured; for those of us, like myself, who went before the court for relief and faced incompetence and a lack of ethical integrity. Those of us who sounded the early warning were ignored and slandered. For us, a day of reckoning cannot come too soon.

If you have yet to grasp the true nature of what occurred, if you have not been apprised of the evidence, if you are unfamiliar with the legislative schemes that blocked judicial recourse for those harmed, please take the time to study Katherine and Sasha’s awesome resources. I promise you will see the events that transpired over the past four years in a different light.

Divine Collaboration is not a science fiction publication. Yet, at times, we cannot help but enter the land of What If’s.

In an earlier article, I suggested we should marry Idealism and Theology. This marriage of philosophy and theology leads to the view that the universe exists as the Mind of God.

When Creative Divine Consciousness co-mingles with a the cumulative spiritual consciousnesses of souls, those souls may experience existing in a Matrix. We might speculate that existing in the Mind of God is like living in a Spiritual Matrix.

In contrast, films and popular culture reference a Programmed Matrix, a reality that emerges from the collective output of computation. In other words, a world of Artificial Intelligence, AI.

It is not difficult to imagine the Computational Matrix is simply a subset of the Spiritual (Divine) Matrix. Human creativity, employing mechanical or computational means, simply churns out new structures and manifestations in the Divine Matrix.

The source of the (subset) Computational Matrix, like the Spiritual Matrix, remains the collaboration of Spiritual Consciousness of souls with Divine Consciousness.

When one pulls way back to a macro view of the universe, one views energy forms and shapes and patterns. The patterned energy might be considered a recorded history of all the interactions in this universe, a Memory Pattern of the universe.

This Spiritual Matrix, which includes computational matrices as subsets, is a patterned record of the cumulative physical interactions between souls—and between souls and God.

The Spiritual Matrix in an Idealistic “Mind of God” world would be a physical imprint of the history of consciousness, it would be a record of all thought. It would be the cumulative “thought form” of Creation.

We might speculate that Prophets read the patterns in this Memory Matrix, discerning which patterns can be expected to repeat. Perhaps Prophets extrapolate possible futures that will arise of the Spiritual Matrix.

In other words, Prophets might be experts at Pattern Recognition. They may be skilled at reading the Mind of God. This speculation echoes the idea that we live in a sacramental universe comprised of signs that point to the Creator.

In this speculative model, Prophets would be skilled navigators of the past, present, and future. As expert pattern readers, they generate stories that arise from the Spiritual Matrix, the Mind of God.

In keeping with our speculation, we might ask if the author of Revelation, assumed to be St. John, viewed contents of the Mind of God, past, present, and probable future. Perhaps John “read” the matrix patterns and images and issued his prophecy based on his reading of the Spiritual Matrix he viewed while “caught up in the spirit”?

Humans fight. They engage in disputes and quarrels. They take up legal battles. They engage enemies at the ballot box or shout soapbox challenges in the public square. Humans fight bloody civil wars and destructive wars between nation states are common. World Wars are not unknown. Spiritual warfare with agents of evil adds to the list of clashes.

While I was developing the Divine Collaboration dispute resolution protocol, I came to appreciate the importance of a Reality Check, a deep dive into a disputant’s worldview. As a mediator I wanted to know what does the disputant consider real or unreal? What was their personal philosophical viewpoint of reality?

In mediation it was important to grasp how disputants viewed the events that led to conflict. We need to understand the lens through which a disputant views life, so that we might also view through that lens. In order to facilitate conflict resolution, we needed to get a glimpse of how the party was viewing life.

As I was reviewing the Reality Check step, a tongue-in-cheek idea came to mind: could “Reality Docents” accompany visitors on a tour of the Museum of Life? In a way, such Reality Docents exist: Spiritual Directors who help others encounter spiritual truths, philosophical concepts, and theological precepts. They introduce influential philosophers, theologians, and scripture that has shaped human worldviews.

Spiritual Formation under the guidance of a Spiritual Director might very well include a comprehensive exploration of the Nature of Reality. After all, faith and spiritual views must accurately address reality, included Created Reality or there is little value to the study. The student of faith might work with a Spiritual Director to examine multiple worldviews and thus hone their personal philosophy, their unique viewpoint of reality.

Peacemakers who engage in conflict prevention even more than conflict resolution, must enrich the quality and depth of the Reality Check. They are tasked with assisting people to fashion worldviews that promote peace. Such peacemakers encourage an accurate understanding of Creation, knowledge that motivates people to develop personal philosophies, viewpoints that accurately reflect the Reality of the Created world in which we live.

Questions regarding the nature of consciousness loom large at the forefront of science. And popular culture. And within the faith community.

The common explanation for the origin of consciousness, an explanation that lacks empirical support, claims consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. In other words, our awareness emerges from chemical and physical processes within certain (as-yet-unidentified) brain structures.

In this version of consciousness, the mind is a collection of computations that arise out of material conditions. The mind, according to this view, is purely computational. This “popular wisdom” considers man is solely a biological entity operated by a “wet computer” brain.

It’s no surprise that this model generates considerable fear of Artificial Intelligence (AI). If brains—which, in this model, give rise to consciousness—are mere computers, what happens when AI amasses mega computational power?

With the proliferation of AI, will grave danger befall man as he becomes out-computed by machines? Will man—a wetware computing machine—be outperformed? Will the human species collapse in the AI jungle.

However, we need not worry. The “consciousness emerges from the brain” model is faulty. Evidence is lacking. Science cannot support the claim.

Consciousness is not constrained by material conditions, but rather transcends physical limitations. Our awareness is not an emergent property; rather, consciousness is a transcendent phenomenon.

One discipline has done more to cripple pop science views of consciousness than any other: near-death experience research. NDE studies have provided copious proof that consciousness operates separate from and at a distance from the body/brain.

NDE evidence supports an alternate worldview: humans, in essence, are immortal souls destined to enjoy “continuity of consciousness” beyond the mortal life of the flesh body. In this alternate model, consciousness is not an emergent property of brain activity, but rather transcends the body/brain.

Transcendent consciousness is consistent with religious and spiritual truths advanced throughout all of human history. It explains the afterlife. It stands opposite the materialistic, computational model.

In this second model, the brain operates as an energy switchboard that the soul accesses to run the body using mental energy. As Paul stresses in Romans, flesh is subordinate to spirit.

This transcendent worldview considers the mind to be a mental energy record. The soul’s interface with the physical accumulates as mind, or storehouse mind. The patterned energy images are impressions of energy interactions within the Mind of God.1 Consciousness records a movie of its experience in subtle energy that we call memories.

What about death? Are we certain that we do not “fade to black”?

In the first worldview, the materialistic view, the human, a purely biological object dissolves to dust upon death. Consciousness fades to black as the brain-computer (the postulated generator of consciousness) shuts down.

In the second worldview, the transcendent or spiritual worldview, upon body death, consciousness separates from the flesh body and enjoys an afterlife as a conscious immortal soul. The important concept in play is continuity of consciousness. Though the flesh body dies, the soul’s awareness, consciousness, continues.

Continuity of consciousness turns out to be a key property of a soul’s spiritual consciousness. Some might argue that this awareness, this observable reality, is the cornerstone of all religious belief.

Rather than the continuity of the soul being a function of illusion or delusion, continuity of consciousness is also the cornerstone of all science.

(All science is based on observation. Knowing precisely the nature of the observer is fundamental. Contemporary science, rather than religion, has strayed into illusion and delusion.)

In addition, the soul’s spiritual consciousness is capable of experiencing holy communion with divine consciousness. Mystical unity is one of the primary ways in which we come to know God. Profound mystical experience delivers total certainty of Divine Reality. We know God exists because we experience his existence, his sacred Being. This type of awareness infuses prayer with a divine quality.

The age-old clash between diametrically opposed worldviews, Materialism versus Idealism, comes into focus most deeply when we research the nature of consciousness. In the study of consciousness, the debate over the nature of reality reaches its pinnacle.

For this reason, the question “what is consciousness?” can be expected to remain a hot button topic, a source of heated discussion, for some time.

Wokeness has become a preachy, holier-than-thou, social disease.

“Being Woke” now anoints adherents as high priest judges of social behavior. The Woke claim seats at the judgment table from which social edicts and commandments issue.

The Woke enjoy assumed social altitude—from which they target those to be cancelled, shadow banned, or otherwise socially ostracized. Wokesters are armed with dubious criteria for ranking social standing—or the lack thereof. Woke true believers hijack power that assigns outcasts to the dark dungeon of anonymity.

The Woke thus become arbiters of status. Righteousness buoys their self confidence and renders them gleefully euphoric with power. Rarely has a social disease been so rewarding and yet so degenerative.

Woke disease is wildly infectious. It spreads quickly among family, friends and acquaintances. Social media quickens its spread and increases its lethality.

Recognizing the infectious nature of Woke disease, I grew curious about its genesis. Where had it first taken root? Could the roots of Woke be found in Prescriptive Fundamentalist Christianity? Did it begin with holier-than-thou condemnation of individuals who strayed from rote moral commandments? Did it fester among those who had once been declared morally inferior?

Were the roots planted by those who failed to heed Paul, who explained that the New Covenant transitioned away from multitudinous commandments? Did they miss Paul musing that commandments only demonstrated man was doomed to failure when he sought salvation through self achievement?

The New Covenant, in contrast to prior practices, was a loving relationship with a Living God, powered by an ardent faith. Salvation was no longer based on maintaining an exemplary scorecard, but rather on truly entering into a divine relationship.

Was it possible that fundamentalist holier-than-thou attitudes created cultural resentment that morphed into antagonistic mimicry? Did those who had been judged go on to establish their own code by which to judge others? Did mocking mimicry give birth to Wokeness?

We sometimes forget that the power of faith is so great that we must exercise caution in its practice. We must avoid praxis errors that spawn opposition in the form of mocking mimicry and enmity.

It seems that we’re called to enter into a deeper conversation about how we treat one another. Perhaps we are called, in keeping with the New Covenant, to a conversation about Divine Collaboration.

[Recommended link: Tiernay’s Real News reviews the professional side of “wokeness” in which the scolding tips into mean-spirited censorship. See Social Credit Score.]