SN&R publishes remarkable first-person story of life in Homeless World Sacramento

Buckner as pictured online at SN&R's webspace.

There is an amazing first-person essay in this week’s Sac’to News & Review that ‘hits on’ central crimes of Loaves & Fishes and its disgraceful leader. The crimes are those of “Warehousing the Rabble” and “Collective Punishment.” The essay, titled “Sacramento's coldest season” [online; in hardcopy it's titled, simply, "the coldest season"], by Christopher Lee Buckner, relates suffering he endured at Loaves & Fishes and at Sac Steps Forward’s Winter Sanctuary during this winter when he was homeless. Happily for Christopher, he is now back in an apartment and back in college – otherwise, for the outrage of saying something negative about the horrors of the Libby Fernandez administration at Loaves, he would be subject to denial of survival services. Some Overlords in Homeless World don’t tolerate essential American freedoms.

For the record, I have never met the writer, and I don’t know that he has ever heard of me. It doesn’t take social networking for knowledge to spread that Loaves & Fishes is a bumbling nightmare that undermines the efforts of homeless people to aright their lives. Homeless people, individually in large number, experience the dunderheadedness of how many so-called homeless services operate, and then the homeless people suffer the deprevations visited upon them by the massive waves of ineptitude.

Writes Buckner early on in his essay,

I spent the winter of 2010[-2011] at Loaves & Fishes’ Friendship Park, as one of the many misfortunate outcasts forced to call the streets my home due to unforeseen circumstances. I became a stranger in a strange land, forced to live among the forgotten and forsaken through one of the coldest and wettest seasons of my life. The park was meant to be a safe place that offered protection away from the elements. Truthfully, it was a cage, meant to keep those that no one wanted to see away from the civilized world.

Yep. “Warehousing the Rabble,” it’s called. It's a polity, first identified by John Irvin in the 1980s, of massively wasting homeless people's time to keep us out of public view and out of trouble. Enlightened societies/metropolises have moved away from this extra-legal and backward policy, but Sacramento at Loaf & Fish is 'Warehousing the Rabble' Central.

I'm told by my pals "out here" that they recognize the events Buckner writes about in his essay and that they occurred on New Year's Day, 2011.

Two paragraphs later, Buckner writes,

The closing of the park was not a rare occurrence. While the rules were clearly posted and many individuals did respect them, there were always those that felt the rules that governed the rest of us did not apply to them. As a result, the whole had to suffer because of the individuals’ mistakes.

This is the new Welcoming Center / Admin offices / Warehouse that Loaves & Fishes built during the past 12 months or so, in lieu of doing anything to shelter the homeless during the particularly cold and wet winter of 2010-2011. The cost was btw $1.5 and $2 million, dependent on whom you ask. This is L&F's way of giving homeless people the finger.

And, this, this is “Collective Punishment.” Here is the blogpost “Loaves and Fishes’ program of ‘Collective Punishment’” I wrote in July, 2010, that, with this blogpost, resulted in me being 86ed for life from Loaves & Fishes Mall of Services. Sister Libby, like a Middle East dictator, can’t tolerate anyone criticizing her outrageous behavior. In addition, she doesn’t want donors and potential donors to know how money gets wasted by her and her crew.

As I said, Buckner is also critical of Winter Sanctuary, which sheltered homeless people on the floor at various churches in our metropolis. For the benefit of sleep, homeless people have had to spend sixteen or seventeen hours per day getting a legal, sheltered place to sleep. This is outrageous. It devours a person’s day and can make the escape from homelessness impossible.

Hooray, you, Christopher Lee Buckner! Thanks for letting the public in on what is really going on in Homeless World Sacramento with your revealing essay. [And thanks, too, to SN&R for putting the truth out there! Please, please keep it up SN&R!] 90+% else of what gets published re homelessness in Sacramento is purely homeless charities’ press releases. It is wonderful to get the fresh air of what is true and real in your essay, Christopher. [And, I must unabashedly add, from this online publication, Sacramento Homeless blog].

Readers, please read the whole of Buckner's essay!  Splendid information, splendidly written.  The truth of things, the unblinkered truth:  "Sacramento's coldest season."

Modern day Shadrachs, Meshachs, and Abednegos

A regular preacher at Union Gospel Mission with the unlikely first name of Darwin – Darwin Ellis – told us last night that End Times are near, beginning with an era of terrible tribulation. The Enemy, Satan, is amassing his soldiers and we must be warriors to confront his evil. Horrible times are coming very very soon. We must make ready.

A depiction of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the furnace. Jesus is there as the Fourth Being, protecting the three Israeli boys from the deadly flames.

Or, I should say, he alluded to all that in the most foggy, frustrating and obscure ways possible.

Guys in the chapel seats weighed in with approval [“Amen!” “Praise Jesus!”] here and there as Ellis spoke of supporting Jesus, following Jesus and preparing for difficult battles, but nobody can have known what he was really talking about. The Enemy, in terms of the Who and What of the organizations and people of today was left out. In was a sermon minus anything specific. It was obscurity lost in a foggy mist of obscurity. WHAT are you talking about!?

The Scripture Ellis read from had to do with Shaddrach, Meshach and Abednego, the Israeli boys who were loyal to God, angering King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, who had them tossed into an impossibly-hot furnace. But because of their loyal, abiding faith, they were protected, and could be seen with a fourth being, Jesus, protecting them from the lick of the flames.

And, thus, according to Ellis, we in the mission congregation should be modernday Shadrachs, Meshachs and Abednegos, faithful and courageous, unafraid in the face of a coming cataclysm.

What WAS Ellis talking about!?

For months now Ellis has been on the same topic, spoken in increasingly obscure ways. But in his first sermons on the topic of “preparation for tribulations,” I’ll call it, last October and December, he was somewhat specific on who all were in Satan’s Camp.

Here, from my notes,

Ellis's October sermon was opaque to us, seeming to have to do with serious criticisms he had about specific, unnamed other preachers who were "wolves in shephards' clothing."

Ellis's Dec message was that a spiritual war is immanent -- but from the details it sounded like he meant a political war. He used 1 Kings 18: 20-40 as being prophetic of a coming war, with enemies including those relating to the worshipers of Baal and Ashteroth/Astarte (which, he said, translates, today, to supporters of Universal Heathcare, sex, sexual immorality, and ecology/'supporters of efforts to confront Global Warming') Reaction from the congregation was silent to cold, with the exception of just a few. Ellis made evident his disappointment at not being better received.

The cover story for Time magazine's Apr 25, 2011, issue was about Pastor Rob Bell of Mars Hill, a megachurch in Michigan.

Last night, Ellis again alluded to preachers who were the enemy, citing those who lived Large [though that’s not how he termed it] and some unspecific preacher(s) who has/have mega-churches. Possibly, though he didn’t say so, Rob Bell, who is getting a lot of press lately, and is the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, a megachurch in Michigan, is on Ellis’ mind as an Enemy of God.

Ellis said of these Enemies that they make the Good sound Bad and the Bad sound Good. Bell is in the news for his books that certainly seem to confront traditional Christianity. His latest, Love Wins, denies the existence of Hell and (from what I understand) preaches a Universalist message that the good news of the Gospel is "better than we could ever imagine."  Also, from what I've just learned online, Bell is one of several central figures in the so-called Emergent Village Movement that teaches many things that confront standard Christianity.

A critic of Bell, tells me that these are some of the principles of Emergent Village:
1. There is no hell. (In one of Bell's books prior to Love Wins he refers to hell as a temporary state of "Pruning".)
2. We should accept the “truths” of another religion and another can accept the truths of Christianity while staying in their own religion and by doing that, we will all go to Heaven.
3. The Bible is up for interpretation.
4. Virgin birth of Jesus was not necessary.
5. Cannot define when same sex marriage would be illegitimate.
6. People who believe in the second coming of Christ are distorted, deadly and terrible, blaming the Middle East conflict on those who believe in the second coming of Christ.
7. Fundamental Christians are harmful in the fact that they believe in the end of the world, and contribute to it’s destruction, thus bringing in a “self-fulfilling prophesy” when we “should” be trying to preserve the earth and nature.
8. God is a “chick”. Etc…
9. They teach that Islam and Christianity believe in the same God.
10. Their main focus is obviously, interfaith coupled with good works of men and purpose for living
apart from foundational truths found in The Bible.

I can't really confirm any of this [I have "requested" Love Wins from the Sacramento Public Library and will report on it when I have had an opportunity to read it.].  And, I don't know if Bell and the Emergent Movement is a target in Ellis's sermons.

What I do think is that preachers at the mission have an obligation to be rather specific when they are rallying us to confront Enemies of Christianity/Jesus that they have identified.

My friend, Steve, has been wholly impressed with Darwin Ellis in the past, but unfortunately he wasn't in attendance for the sermon last night.  I will be interested in his thoughts since he is particularly knowledgable about Scripture.

For my part, I am troubled by both what I read online about Bell and about critics of Bell.  Also, I should disclose, I am centrally Buddhist, but am what I term a "Skyhooks Buddhist" -- a believer that life is not wholly pushed up from the ground [in a reductionist understanding of evolution] put "pulled" upward by something I try to understand.  My effort to understand what "pulls us up" is ongoing and the basis of a great interest in Christianity.

I will post again on this expanded topic as information comes forward.

Homeless: Moonlight sleeping on a midnight lake

Paul Simon and Ladysmith Black Mambazo singing "Homeless." Sung during Simon's "African Tour" in 1987, following the release of his Graceland album.

You could argue that the homelessness they are singing about isn't the homelessness of urban Sacramento -- but, then again, you could argue the opposite.

Strong wind destroy our home
Many dead, tonight it could be you

Those two lines from the lyrics could narrowly refer to a deadly storm, or, symbolically, to devastating events that lead to homelessness and then the dangers of being homeless.

Homeless short

This is a short film on YouTube that has gotten some attention.

It's interesting mainly because the film seems not to have a point of view. The positions of each of the three men in the film seem foolish. We are left with no direct message.

So, what does the mini-movie do? Nothing much in and of itself, but it opens up a possibility for us to consider what really goes on in the world.

The view of each man in the film has some validity as well as being substantially flawed. And, each man is somewhat representative of many in the real world.

The homeless hater's position is well stated, and includes the usual gross simplifications and harrowing narrow-mindedness. And the liberal-but-ignorant position is well represented.

The homeless man in the film is a tabula rasa onto whom stereotypes, good and bad, can be projected. Certainly, there are some homeless men in Sacramento who are clean, contented and aimless -- which seems to be the disposition of the homeless fellow, if he was meant to have any qualities at all. In real life, homeless people are greatly varied with unmistakably distinct personalities.

One thing that is common, but not in the way depicted in the film, is the homeless man taking on an opinion of himself as expressed by unknowing others. Sadly, homeless people read and start to believe the bathetic crap about themselves in Loaves & Fishes' donations-grab newsletters. Or, we marginalize ourselves as a result from 'established' citizens' cruel looks when we're out in the world.

Trouble in Mudville

This post has been withdrawn, pending review of some information that it was based upon that now appears contrary to facts.

Homelessness isn't just an issue on the parkway, it pervades communities throughout Sacramento.

A homeless man walking along the sidewalk. [Graphic used with permission of sacbee.com.]

The title of this blogpost is taken from a sentence used repeatedly in a series of ten photographs of homeless people, in a so-called photo gallery of ten, "Homelessness Affects Many Sacramento Neighborhoods," taken by a Sac Bee photographer in communities outside the American River Parkway: “Homelessness isn't just an issue on the parkway, it pervades communities throughout Sacramento.”

It is good that the Bee is recognizing that there are homeless people other than those sleeping in Safe Ground camps, or next to Safe Ground encampments or in SG-organized shelters at churches. Yes, Scoopy, only about 100 people are affiliated with SafeGround while, perhaps, 1100 other homeless people live on the streets, by themselves, or in loose confederations having no connection to SafeGround. And there are others of us living in bona fide shelters, or otherwise making do as we can.

I don’t mean to be overly sensitive, but while the photographs are nice, do the existence of the homeless people who are photographed necessarily represent “an issue?” And, what issue is that, precisely? What is the innuendo, here?  exactly?

	A man who had spent the night in a doorway. [Graphic used with permissio of sacbee.com.]

The “issue on the parkway” was related to unkempt camping, and homeless folk seeming to have made the American River Parkway inaccessible to joggers, bike riders and other traditional users of patches of property set aside for nature to be its splendid unsullied self. Whereas, the set of pictures seem to all be of tidy homeless folk not on the American River Parkway.

Let us suppose it is 1957 and Sacramento was segregated as it perhaps was, then. And let us suppose that a Bee photographer of that long-ago time took some pictures of Black people outside a southern section of the city where Black citizens were concentrated. And in the series of pictures this sentence appeared repeatedly: “Black people aren’t just an issue in Oak Park, it pervades communities throughout Sacramento.” Would that be cool? Would it be a sentence the Bee would stand proudly by, today, some fifty-plus years later?

A homeless guy on a bicycle. [Graphic used with permission of sacbee.com.]

I write all this not meaning to correlate 1950s Black citizens with homeless citizens. We homeless, as a group, have problems, and often present problems [it is, perhaps, accurate to say], that Black citizens, as a group, never have. But, I am bothered by the presumption that homeless citizens sleeping where they can must be presented as a “pervading issue,” albeit unspecified.

Sometimes, something that must happen and happens repeatedly isn’t that big a deal. A dog barks in the middle of the night. It’s noticed that the grass needs to be watered because there are brown patches. A crumpled sheet of paper tumbles along the street on a windy day. The air is pervaded by the scent of spring.

A time may come one day when very very poor people won't be in doorways or walking on the street with their bedroll. But will that be a good thing? Should the poor folk in our society be fully hidden away?

Rise and Shine Street Fair

A handout that was given out Monday, announcing the fair. Click on the pic to enlarge it.

With only a few days' notice to the homeless public, the Union Gospel Mission put out word it will be hosting its annual street fair this coming Saturday.

I've attending the fair the last two years, and can tell y'all it is a fun, worthwhile event -- aimed toward getting us homeless and other poorish folk some things we need in a joyful, music-filled environment.

The street fair is not actually out on the street, which nowadays is rather heavy with traffic, but inside the mission's property which, by Saturday, will be transformed into a pretty "fair"-sized fairgrounds.

Judging by past years' fairs, the "fun, food, music, gifts and raffle" will be there in great abundance.  And, there will be a goodly crowd of fair-goers acoming (because those who have been to the fair before are very likely to come again).  So, come early [if you're smart] and be prepared for long (but fast-moving) lines and a good, satisfying time with lots to do and see.

The power of words

Thanks to blogger great James Ure for this:



While the meaning of the film may seem forthright, I do think it is worth a a good bit of chin-scratch pondering.

And, of course, because of the focus of this blog [Homelessness!], and the sometimes-spiked writing style of this blogger [perhaps], a man sitting by a sign hoping to get money is of particular interest.

The "negative" response I have to this film is that it seems to support an "advertising" sensibility and emotional manipulation as opposed to a very straightforward appeal.

Must everything have a sub-rosa element that works on us outside our direct awareness?

On the other hand, it is good for us to be socially aware of each other and to comprehend "the other's" experience.

It is also true that there are times when we must be more aggressive in how we say something to get to the deeper truth of things. Powerful words and powerful connotations are sometimes not only better but quite necessary.

Of the 1%, By the 1%, For the 1%

Comes to me from bloggers Bill Harryman via Steve Curless

Illustration by Stephen Doyle - THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS: The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says Stiglitz, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

There has been a wave of blog interest in an article by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia professor and 2001 Nobel winner in Economic Science [Economics is a science!?], on the grotesque, obscene disparity of wealth that now exists in America and its ruinous effect on our future.

The article in the May issue of Vanity Fair is titled "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%," a play on the phrase from Lincoln's Gettysberg Address, which was "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  Stiglitz is suggesting that the lower 99 percent of those people [i.e., us] have been pushed out of our one-time democracy.

The article begins with this stern warning: "Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret."

And this sobering statistic gives you some idea of the radical change that has quickly taken place in our was-middle-class nation:  "In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent." That is, the Top 1%'s percentage of nation income has gone from 12% of all that is to 25%; and their percentage of all the wealth in this country has increased from 33% to 40% of all that there is. At this rate, we, The Bottom 99%, will be left as the wealthy's raggity serfs.

Welcome to Homeless World, all of you in the middle 98%! Pull up a broken bench and sit with us.

Basically -- though Stiglitz doesn't say it this harshly -- the uber-filthy rich are dipping their world in gold and killing off the rest of us like we were cockroaches.

For job-seekers, like so many of us in the homeless class, there is this in our futures:

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

And there's this which should make all of us in the lower-99 mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore:

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that.

Read the whole article -- and while you're doing it think of the new Admin offices soon to be occupied at Loaves & Fishes, built to cater to the very very rich so they can give their pocket change to Libby and not have to view the poor.

Thank you, Libby, for your vanity-filled contribution to misery. Here, 25 cents.

Woe, the idiocy. Libby does it again.

Without giving notice to the homeless until the middle of this morning, Loaves & Fishes announced that it is cancelling many of its services, tomorrow, for a Staff Retreat for the purpose of discussing its mission.

Let me clue you in, Libby:  Your mission begins with offering services reliably.

It is fortunate for America that you bombed out of the Air Force or the security of the United States would be imperiled.

This happens over and over and over again.

Loaves & Fishes is not a legitimate organization; it is a whorehouse. A legitimate organization thinks of its customers or those it serves. It has a desire to satisfy the very people it is there for. It wants to do well and bring something of value to the world. Hmmm, come to think of it Loaves & Fishes is much much worse than any whorehouse.

I would need to catalogue all the idiocy that comes from Loaves & Fishes' Board of Directors and Administration, but I am concerned that it would be thicker than a 1960 Sears & Roebuck Catalog -- but let's begin with the building that Libby will let the curtain down on on June 8. A building that cost over $1.5 million to construct.

And, what will it be? A building that will aid the homeless? Why, no. Something like that wouldn'd adequately appeal to L&F vanity. It is described by L&F as the new Welcoming Center slash Administration Building slash Warehouse.

It's brand spanking new. And further removed from where the homeless are; well down the street, so senior staff will never need to see any homeless; for it is not the homeless who are welcomed at the L&F complex, but donors. Come, come all you rich and foolish donors. Open your wallets; give to Libby; and for God's sake don't ask any questions.

Ask Joey and the clear-eyed view of others

Joey Garcia of "Ask Joey"

I happily admit it. I’m crazy nuts about “Ask Joey,” the relationships column written by Joey Garcia for the SN&R that persistently urges writers-in to push their “operating level” to a higher plateau. Twice before, I’ve blogged about “Ask Joey” regards matters homeless: “Homeless advice in recent ‘Ask Joey’ columns” [12/1/10] and “Homelessness and shoplifting. Ask Joey, Part II” [12/31/10]. In the current week’s AJ, what has me jazzed isn’t something directly about homeless folk, but something about how we should see others, generally, that Joey Garcia writes in response to a woman’s story of her ragged path in trying to re-connect with a high school gal pal thirty years after graduation. Here, for me [in text I’ve bolded], is the money quote from a swatch of what Garcia wrote, that is solid advice for us all in every kind of interpersonal situation [and as, generally, a high-level manner of experiencing the presence of all others in our life]:

Stop thinking in black and white. Falling in and out of love with someone is not love at all. It doesn’t matter whether the relationship is with a platonic friend, a business associate or a committed partner; extreme emotional swings are a sign of entrenched thinking errors. The work here is to see others as they are with special gifts, unique beauty and distinctive life experiences plus shortcomings, eccentricities and unhealed emotional wounds. After opening your eyes to the truth of a person, your task is to accept that person as one (potential) expression of the Divine.

The words that Joey Garcia uses are carefully chosen and demonstrate a keen understand of the nature of the human animal. I write this (and can write this) with no claim to any such keen understand, myself. Garcia says that we should look at people, whole — with appreciation/acceptance of their talents and foibles. In Buddhism, there's a similar central idea: that we see others as sufferers. The Garcia and Buddha ideas don't sound all that similar, but I submit that they are. We understand ourself as a complicated vehicle, but often tend to denigrate an other due to an aspect of character that nettles us, or through the slit of a single incident where we've locked horns with this other person. The patience that we must have with our complicated, inconsistant, inscrutible self, we tend to deny others. This is a central problem that individuals have. We mustn't limitedly see others "as ourself," (or, as Divine) -- because that is a romanticised, illusory notion and very much not the clear-eyed splendor of what actually, factually is. All people are gloriously and ingloriously screwed up in ways that are uniquely squirrelly and charmy. We mustn't deny [nor overlook] all the fluffy and muddy flawedness. Last year, Kirstin Paisley of Trinity Cathedral vaultedly wrote that the SafeGround homeless were a phalanx of Jesuses. [You can read her essay posted in full at the bottom of this Brian Baker blog post.]  Nah.  They certainly ain't Jesuses. That's a romantic, "all-white" notion, with no shades of gray, about us homeless who are each very evidently flawed. In another Baker blogpost from about a year ago, we see Judy LewLoose paintings of many Sac'to homeless paired with pics of Jesus holding his cross.  Yes.  Well.  There's the idea that we each have a cross to bear, but I remind Herr Baker that it's not Jesus's.  To make too literally impossible connections is romanticism.  When he, or anyone, decides that they prefer looking at the homeless through rose-colored glasses [or, through glasses tinted with a gloss of the Savior's blood], then it pretty much means they are refusing to see things as they are, possibly because in their heart of hearts they believe the homeless stink on ice and only A Bid Lie let's 'em see things as they choose to see things. Libby and Joan of Loaves and Fishes, famously, always depict the homeless as pathetic. "They may look like humble clay as they trudge along 12th Street towards Loaves & Fishes," was how L&F's newsletter depicted homeless people last June.  But whatever L & J really might think can be lost in their always-on effort to corral donors and sneak away with some of their dollars. The Haters, who come around to post comments to any article in the Bee or SacPress about homelessness, don't let not having any (or much) knowledge of the homeless condition stop 'em from having fully negative things to say, based on stereotypes of homeless people, dating from the '50s, that where probably never valid, even then.

Human beings, generally, are pretty spiffy, and, indeed, so are the homeless subset of that lot.  The great  clear-eyed Thomas Merton wrote in text that has been dubbed "The Vision in Louisville" how terrific regular people are that he saw on the street in Kentucky.  It's not written from a romanticism sensibility; and it is certainly not Loaves & Fishes' smarmy avarice-headedness.  It comes from a grown-up, serious man, writing honestly and with no side effort to say anything that isn't completely truthful. One of the late paragraphs in Merton's "Vision" is this:

Then it was as if I suddenly saw the secret beauty of their hearts, the depths of their hearts where neither sin nor desire nor self-knowledge can reach, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God’s eyes. If only they could all see themselves as they really are. If only we could see each other that way all the time. There would be no more war, no more hatred, no more cruelty, no more greed …I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other. But this cannot be seen, only believed and “understood” by a peculiar gift.

Merton is all too rare in having that "peculiar gift," that Joey, too, seems to have found.  The rest of us should look for it in ourselves. By the way, I certainly don't think it's a Christianity-only thing. The Great Ken Wilber, too, writes, using different lingo, about the "center of our being ... a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth" that Merton speaks about in his "Vision." Wilber suggests that we may find it as the witness [our true self] that watches our very dreams.