Episode 16 - Shifting Tides

Outrage is easy. Repair is hard. We open the new year by tackling the knotty space between public shaming and meaningful accountability, asking what real consequences and real repair require when harm is public, painful, and politically charged. With Reverend Tony Snow, we pull apart the difference between performative certainty and the slower work of listening, facts, restitution, and time away from power.

We revisit MeToo-era church cases to show how institutions instinctively protect platforms while minimizing victims, then map what responsible action looks like: independent investigations, concrete restitution, clear boundaries, and leaders stepping back. We also face a thorny question many avoid—can we separate art from the artist? The answer depends on whether using the work continues harm. Some things belong in museums with context; others can be reinterpreted, or their proceeds redirected to survivors.

Tony brings lived wisdom from Indigenous communities in the aftermath of unmarked graves at residential schools, calling us toward truth-telling without spectacle. He draws a crucial line between shame, which paralyzes, and guilt, which can propel repair. We explore why restorative practices require real community to work—and why social media pile-ons fail that test. The conversation widens to pandemic-era backlash: how outrage was aimed at nurses, clergy, and immigrant workers while corporations profited, and how misdirected anger shields power by fracturing coalitions.

What emerges is a practical, hopeful path: reclaim nuance in a binary culture, practice grace that never erases consequences, center those harmed, and build durable, transparent relationships across faiths and movements. Real accountability costs us comfort, image, and sometimes power—but it returns something deeper: trust worth having. If this speaks to you, follow the show, share it with someone you trust, and leave a review so others can find conversations that choose repair over certainty.

Check us out at www.preparedtodrown.com

Continue the conversation over at our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/PreparedtoDrown

Transcript

Trading Certainty For Accountability

Bill 0:00

Folks, you do not need to look far in our world to see just how cheap certainty is right now. Certainty arrives extremely fast and feels very clean when it does, and it comes with a headline or a clip or a confident take that tells us to do nothing more than choose a side and declare a verdict and move on. Real accountability is far slower. Accountability requires facts and listening and asks for communities to hold their anger without losing their humanity in the process. Accountability asks for consequences that actually fit the harm and for repair that actually changes something real. So tonight, Joanne and Ricardo and myself are stepping out of the fog of certainty and into a harder conversation. And joining us in that endeavor is Reverend Tony Snow. What does meaningful accountability look like in a culture that seems hardwired and trained for outrage? What is the difference between real accountability and what many accuse of being canceled culture? We're gonna dive into it all tonight. Because I'm Bill Weaver, and this is Prepared to Drown. Let's take the plunge. And here tonight at the beginning of 2026, we are opening our new year with a conversation about accountability and the accusation that so often follows conversations about accountability, cancel culture. Over the past many years, we've watched very different moments spark intense public backlash, scandals involving church leaders, revelations of historic institutional harm, outrage during the pandemic that turned towards boycotts and harassment and public shaming, and some of that backlash named real harm that had been ignored for far too long, but some of it exposed how institutions respond when pressure finally arrives. And in some cases, some of it revealed how outrage itself can become a substitute for the harder work of repair. So tonight we're not asking whether accountability has gone too far. We are asking something more honest. The question is: how do we tell the difference between accountability and outrage? And what does a meaningful response to harm actually require from individuals and institutions and communities, especially when the harm is real and public and painful? So I want to start simply by asking the panel, and whoever wants to answer first, you are more than welcome to. When you hear the term cancel culture, what is the first image or story or thought that comes to your mind?

Joanne 2:32

Well, for me, I actually think um in the common parlance, cancel culture only happens when people on the left try to hold people accountable. Because along with it, lots of people go, oh, um, you know, especially America, but in Canada too, free speech is important and people should be able to, you know, express themselves. But it seems like when it's a a conservative talking point that is um, you know, like if they conservatives want to shut down things, then that's accountability. But if the left wants to hold people accountability, that's cancel culture. I think there's a double standard in terms of how that language is used. So that's the first thing that comes to my mind.

Ricardo 3:24

I when I think of cancel culture, I think of um maybe celebrities or famous people who have um people have discovered like 20-year-old criminal charges or postings that they wrote or something that they've done in the past and people hash it up and no matter what no matter what this person says or does to um uh to redeem themselves, even a a profuse apology or or um you know, something that was done back in the day that they they no longer are that person, people still want them cancelled or taken out of the spotlight or removed from their I mean I guess the the most striking example would have been um I think it was uh is it just a celebrity who might have had like a charge against them for you know sexual assault or sexual harassment, and then it was 25 years ago when they learned their Oh yeah, uh it was the person he was in the Olympics and he played volleyball, I believe. And um, you know, when he was 19, he had sexually assaulted a young girl and done his time in prison and rehabilitated himself and now had a family with two children, and he was playing volleyball, and the people were just relentlessly booing him and cussing him from the audience um to the point where he couldn't even concentrate on the game. And I I I I mean, at what point in time does somebody um actually get to be forgiven? Uh, is what I think of cancel culture because a lot of times people just don't let it let it go, even though they've done their time, had their punishment. Like I don't know what what the solution is. So that's cancel culture for me.

Tony 5:11

Yeah, I think it's it's interesting. It's been more of a modern context around um retribution and I think dealing with the idea of reconciliation. I think part of it is uh around the idea that we do not do this well. We do not perform uh meaningful repair in any way in a culture that is sort of manufacturing a lot of ideas for perfection, for how you present yourself, I think we see uh in the modern context, a lot of the connection to cancel culture has been more, I would say, on the more frivolous side for things uh that are uh spoken, things that are uh offending. And that um if someone um performs that uh in a way that offends a group or a uh particular um representative, then we start to see the dynamics, the social dynamics that follow it. I think that the broader um driver behind it is that we do have a lot of problems. We do have a lot of problems with discrimination, with racism, with a lot of our um intolerances. And as uh we just heard, I think it's important that um we understand where those are coming from. I got my mind first went back to um George Michael and how in his uh activities he was sort of singled out and they tried to go after him for uh not coming out of the closet and that sort of thing. And and in this um response, I think taking stand taking a stand against that, or to be truthful to oneself, there's an empowerment that um shifted the idea that um the status quo or the ways in which uh some of the uh enactments that have happened had been unjust and had needed to be questioned because they were creating and had created a toxicity for the culture. So in order to respond, in order to deal with some of that, um we need leadership, we need change. And that comes with oftentimes um some um catalyst, some uh moment where we need to redefine what we believe and what we understand, especially in light of new circumstances or new views or new opinions. And that's been, I think, very much seen in things like uh acts of reconciliation and working against um residential school systems and uh attitudes towards denialism and and other ways that those toxicities are holding on to a narrative that needs to change.

Bill 8:22

So one of the catalysts that I remember um from not that long ago uh was the Me Too movement, um, which uh started, I mean, as early as 2006, I think, was kind of you know out there in in the fringe uh trying to assist um victims of of sexual assault and sexual abuse, um, but really came to light in 2017 with Harvey Weinstein, right? This is when it uh hit the the mainstream and and was hashtag everywhere in the whole nine yards. Um and so really right after the Me Too movement in 2018, um, in the church context, and I'm using Big C church context here, not the United Church of Canada necessarily, um, we saw a couple of really prominent um figures in in the Big C church um with allegations coming forward of sexual misconduct. The first one being Bill Hybels in the US, um and uh and the response of the church there um was very different than uh that same year, David Haas, right, uh the uh music writer and uh and and liturgist um uh very different response from the church. So in the case of Bill Hybels, uh, when the allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of power emerged, the church leadership uh of the church that he served initially defended him, uh minimized the claims, marginalized the accuser, shunned them, discredited them the whole nine yards. Um, and only after a great deal of sustained public pressure and independent investigation did the institution actually acknowledge that harm had been done and that they had failed in their response. But by that time, he had resigned um and did not face any real um consequence for his actions uh while the victims were left to carry still the brunt of the uh the the weaponization of their victimhood um for for the entire time. Um Joanne, I'm gonna come to you on this one because uh when you look at institutional responses like this on the part of the church, um obviously this is pretty far from what we proclaim to be the kingdom of God, right?

Forgiveness, Restitution, And Stepping Back From Power

Joanne 10:30

Um I I mean these are prominent names, but it happens all the time on a sort of micro level, doesn't it? You know, we all know of instances where there's been ministers who have behaved badly, and because uh people have an affinity for them, they want to defend their behavior. Um so I can totally understand why, especially because you can't believe it at first, because public figures and particularly in religion tend to be you tend to sort of gloss over their personalities, like they're you know, great things. Bill Highbels wrote some great books. He had this global leadership conference that I happened to go to the year this was all discovered. And they brought in Daniel Strickland, who's a wonderful preacher, to kind of talk to everybody there about what was going on, and he's not part of this anymore, you know, all that. Um, but yeah, that first response, just cover up, cover up, cover up, is is often more damaging in the end, right? So for me though, I think the church has to hold people accountable. But the real issue is that person, will they acknowledge that they have hurt someone, done something wrong, they have transgressed, right? And this is um the whole thing about the church, like forgiveness, because we're love stories of redemption and starting again and all that, and we should. But you don't jump to that. If someone's been harmed, um it's really important for the person who has been accused and has done the harming to um acknowledge and make restitution in some way. See, that's the whole thing, just saying, oh, sorry is not good enough, right? Sorry is not good enough. Um there needs to be some kind of restitution, I believe, for victims. Um the other one, uh, David Haas, you know, he writes great, great music, which I love. Um and I, you know, my hope is that all the royalties that go to him for all the times we sing his music will end up at his victim's door at some point because there are lawsuits pending there. Um I think that when someone has transgressed to an extent where others have been harmed, so this is not just saying something that was unseemly. It's like you've actually hurt people, that it makes a lot of sense to say you just can't do this work right now. Like maybe in the future, but right now this is this is all that matters, is that you acknowledge there's some kind of reconstitution, hopefully some kind of uh reconciliation, if not reconciliation, at least, you know, um a way that uh coexistence can happen. And I'm not saying forever, but I'm saying right now you can't do this job. And that goes for ministers behaving badly in churches, too. Like right now, you just need to pull back, and we need to have a clear understanding of what has happened here and um who has been harmed and how we can make this as right as we can make it. Um yeah, just because you're a church leader and you love God.

Ricardo 14:08

Um It's interesting you say that uh in the context of a church, um when you have followers and congregants who are unquestionably devoted to the church they go to, um in the in what in what you're speaking of with uh with Highbels and people will turn a blind eye to it and look at the Catholic example, right? Um for how many decades did the Catholic Church just cover up and ignore the abuse of children and sexual misconduct in the church and just move priests around, right? Um and I think a lot of uh Protestant churches and contemporary churches that allow marriage and um and and see sexual misconduct as not only just, you know, let's call it what it is, sometimes assault or or um or abuse, um it's also uh infidelity. It's also like you're cheating on your spouse and and and ruining your family. But it seems like in the even in the context of Bill Hybels, that the first um reaction is to see the support base for that person before they make a decision to support the victim, right? And that's such a damaging reaction uh for a religion to do in a context is that is that they they want to test, they want to test the will and the the devotion of the people before they test the the person who's being accused, like you said, right?

Joanne 15:39

Well, I I mean let's be fair. Any institution, any corporation, they always want to do damage control before anything else. And I think that's what happened at Willow Creek. They just thought, oh my goodness, we've got so much going on, damage control, right? And then again, of course, Bill Hobbles was a larger-than-life leader, so it was hard for them to believe. And and the reality is believe, you know, women and and victims, but there are times when um stories are uh received differently than what actually happened, right? Like there needs to be findings of fact. But you don't go jumping to the defense of someone, you say, I'm waiting for the I'm waiting for all the information to come out before I cancel someone, for instance. Um, and I think finding that line between jumping on the bandwagon right away, isn't that awful? What are they doing? And that I'm just waiting for more information, or that defending someone, like those three different responses. And I think what's happened is in our culture, we are required almost to make a stand right away before you have all the information, before you know what uh the complete story is. And it seems to me that in all those situations, the jump to the defense and the jump on them uh are just as damaging long run as the let's just make sure we get all the information. I mean, maybe it's my legal training, right? You just want to have a statement of facts that you can all agree on before you bring a lawsuit.

Community Models Of Justice Vs. Online Pile-Ons

Tony 17:21

So um I think sort of that tie into objectivity, that idea that there can be a truth that we all work toward. And I think that part of this, when I think of indigenous models around this like retributive justice, the ways that we deal with um breaches of that breaches of protocol, breaches of uh form, breaches of enactments, that there are ideas of working through. And so uh working through community uh efforts, there's a couple of books that talk about uh how indigenous people form these um circles and way that that that information gets processed to the community and the responsibility of the community, what that tie-in, what that um legitimacy does, and how it humanizes those aspects, but doesn't um in a way follow a regulated path like we see in in the Western model, the Western uh legal model. So the uh in one example, the uh community would gather, there would be uh an uh a conflict that was occurring, they would talk to everybody in the circle, the elders and the people who had knowledge around something similar that had happened and had something to add to the conversation would say they're part, and the community as a whole, the circle as a whole, would say, okay, we think this is what should happen, and then they walk away. They don't tell the person to go do this, they don't tell the other person this is what's gonna happen. They set the model in place, and it's up to each of these people to take those steps. And if they're not, well, there's an accountability behind that. But it's more than just um uh what we see in in our legalistic sort of view of there's a punitive measure, there is a response, there's a uh um a way of responding through either financial or other means, and that is uh what is supposed to hold as the uh healing the the or the the the end point so that there is a conclusion around it. But that is never satisfactory because it's only between these uh causal sort of points and not as a community what we are willing to abide by, what we stand for and what we understand should be done, how we treat one another, how we engage in just uh causes and just actions that are, I think um tempering a better way to be going forward. I think that's where sort of the religious response would be more effective to sort of say these are our teachings, these are our ways of dealing with these issues. And in order to be honest and to uh uphold what we know, we fall back to those that help guide us in this current time, which may change.

Joanne 20:34

Yeah, it's it's interesting because the idea of the sentencing circle was um they tried to move that into the uh mainstream criminal justice system, right? And it did not work because there was no community, right? And so if you take that to what we now call cancel culture, and you have all these people because we have social media who are not part of that person's community, who don't have the same values as that person necessarily, or don't know the values to which that person should be held accountable, they all, you know, uh have a say, or they all feel like they should have a say on what should happen and and all that. And and sentencing circles work particularly because there's a community that's cohesive, that has a set of values that they share, and so that they can say, hey, you need a year in the wilderness before you can come back. I mean, on the flip side of that, you had like um Mennonite communities and such that engaged in shunning, right? You have violated the community standard, and so now we're just gonna pretend you're not part of our community, even if you still live here with us, which can also be very harmful.

Bill 21:43

Well, and which isn't limited to Mennonite communities. The same thing was happening even with Bill Heibel's community as well, right? Where if you were if you were speaking out or saying um that something had happened, the the segregation from the community is one of the ways that uh you paid the price for speaking up.

Joanne 22:00

Oh, listen, when I left the evangelical church, I was at a Christian college where I'd read I'd written an editorial as the newspaper editor that the administration disagreed with, right? And uh the people, this was in the early 80s, but still the people who had been my friends, I thought, just like looked at me like I had horns or something, and they didn't talk to me. And the dean of student affairs like dragged me in and said, Why are you here? You know, like shunning is a really effective method at getting people to behave, unless you're a rebel and you go, I don't need you anymore, and you move on. But um, yeah, but on the other hand, it is an effective means of behavior management because there is an understanding of shared values and what's appropriate and what's not appropriate. We live in a culture that doesn't have that. And so all this, you know, and with social media, this person, well, didn't you know? Like sometimes they make comedy sketches of, well, didn't you know they did this, this, and this? And oh no, we're not doing that anymore because that's appropriation, or didn't you know they, you know, you know, all these things. And it's like you can't keep track anymore sometimes of uh what is considered appropriate behavior and what is acceptable and what is not. It's and particularly, I gotta say, because I'm old. For people who are older, um, where you were raised in a different time, and that's not an excuse for criminal behavior, for hurting someone, for things that you know were wrong, but you just let slide, okay? But you lived in a different time, and it's all of a sudden things that were deemed appropriate in in your era are off limits. And it's like, when did that happen? I did I wasn't around. Like someone didn't tell me. Um, and then you get a backlash on the other side because people feel like, oh, I'm stupid, or or you're saying that I'm stupid.

Art, Artists, And Ongoing Harm

Tony 23:59

I'm not part of this community. So if we think about sort of Taylor Swift and Swifties and that sort of thing, and and uh the way that they react to uh any type of uh incursion into their mode of thought, they're creating that culture, they're creating that sort of uh mystique and and form around their belief system. When we think of sort of the Lizzo apology and and how people were patting her on the on the back for that, and the uh ways in which we start to see some um reconciling form coming out of that, that that's acceptable to the broader group, that's understood and affirmed by a larger population that that buys into that. Uh what we're seeing from your example is that they're not part of the equation. They don't matter in that system. And so immediately it's a dehumanization first, and then an ostracization. And I think that that's in in this society very difficult because once you become ostracized from the society, you no longer share in the benefits and rights and all of that that occur to that group or to that society. And that becomes sort of uh a world-ending type of idea of how we navigate our spaces now.

Bill 25:19

The interesting thing about like born in a different time, I recently I recently got to uh officiate a funeral for someone who actually knew my parents. Um and in the process of of sort of meeting and and planning at the funeral, you know, talked about the fact that uh, you know, uh they had been married. He he the the deceased uh uh had married her um because she was his secretary. Um and they all worked at the same place where my dad met my mom, who was his secretary, um, and where their best friends were married, um, and she was his secretary. Um and uh and they said like you know, like it's just what you did then. It's like this sounds like like an HR complaint to me now, right?

Joanne 26:02

Like Well, most people most people meet their spouses at work, like as a as a percentage, actually.

Ricardo 26:09

I can't think of one person I want to marry.

Joanne 26:13

I met my husband at work, I was not his secretary, but he did provide computer support to me. Um, you know, but uh that's where I met him too.

Tony 26:22

He's still doing it.

Joanne 26:23

He's still doing it, yeah. He's still doing computer support. Yeah, no, but so it's one thing. Uh um, yes, marrying your secretary now because of um that would be an HR thing because there's a power imbalance, right? And that's what it has to do with it. You meet someone at work who's sort of on the same level as you, you go out for drinks, you end up married. That's okay. It's like when someone's got power over you, and that's because of sexual harassment that happens, has happened over and over and over.

Bill 26:52

Such as ministers with the power imbalance over their parishioners.

Joanne 26:56

Yes, no, exactly right. But what the remedy for that usually is that you come out and you make a statement that we're in a relationship and we're all okay, you don't keep it a secret. So there have models have been constructed in order to allow people to be people still. Um, but it it was other things that happened in the workplace a different time. Um, I remember talking to someone in the church, and she was saying, Oh, you know, like when we worked in offices back in the 50s, men would just pat our butts all the time. It was just the way it was. It was like accepted. And she said that. And I said, But you knew back then that wasn't appropriate. And she said, Yeah, we knew. We just allowed it to happen, you know. So there's distinctions, I think, to be drawn between behavior that's always been abhorrent, but people got away with it, and behavior which has shifted, which is yeah, doctors married nurses, you know, you married your secretary, whatever. I mean, it was like your mother would be saying, Oh, you know, that's a good job. Go marry them, you know. It wasn't un, it was like a catch. My mother said to me, no, she never worked with my father, he's a doctor. And I remember um actually it was a wedding invitation, my wedding invitation for the first wedding that I had that did not last long, but she wanted to say, Doctor and Mrs. Ken Anquist invite you, right? And I said to her, Mom, where are you in that? Like, I can see Dr. Ken and Ruth Anquist, right? But your name's not even there. And she said to me, I went from being a farmer's daughter to a doctor's wife. I think I did pretty well, right? And I just like, oh, a different time, right? I think there is merit in the a different time, but you have to draw a distinction between changing societal mores and bad behavior that was swept under the carpet. It was never okay to sexually assault a child, even if you were a priest. Never. Okay. Um, so you have to draw the distinction between abhorrent behavior, no matter what, that that we swept under the carpet because we didn't want to believe children or we didn't want to upset an institution, those things. And and just times have changed, and they should change. And we should learn new ways of being with each other as we move towards a kinder, gentler society. Definitely. Um, but there's a distinction.

Ricardo 29:31

We talk about behavior shifts and propriety in how we act. I can remember a time, I mean, not the too distant past where taking someone's picture without permission, I mean, we talk about permission slip forms now at the podcast, but like Princess Diana died escaping photography. Yeah. Right? And or if you wanted to take unsolicited and un un un like um pictures of people without their permission, you paid hundreds of dollars for a private investigator to do that stuff, right? Because you know, we had to load the film in and all that kind of stuff. Anyway, um, but now people just rip out their camera for any moment to take a picture of somebody. And I've seen innumerable amounts of posts on social media about people even just having a funny, funny look on their face, uh, which turn into memes and all this kind of stuff. And I think just last week I heard about the fact that X is under criticism and Elon Musk for having their um AI software taking pictures of people just in a regular thing and sexualizing those pictures. And he's like, Oh yeah, okay, well, we'll just make that a premium service. So yeah, you're you're paying for it. Whereas before it was like, that was that's completely inappropriate to do. Delete that now or or suffer lawsuits and all this kind of stuff. But like, you don't know who took the picture. Who you know, anything bad happens now. If somebody slips and falls and hurts themselves, people's first reaction isn't to call 911 with the phone in their hand, is to turn the camera on. Right? And that's where I think the line is very blurred through the passage of time on appropriate or not appropriate, right? Um in which you're afraid to act and behave any any way in public.

Joanne 31:07

Um it's not just appropriate, inappropriate, it's what is sacred and what is not. Absolutely, right? Absolutely. Um I remember I I wrote this paper back in seminary, but it they were talking about like Google uh Earth that goes and takes pictures of everything and maps things. And um they happened to take a picture of uh a body lying in a field, and uh the father of the person who had been murdered saw this and asked that it be removed, and they wouldn't do it. They said, Well, you know, eventually we'll map that again, and then it's okay. Like there's something wrong when there's a permanent record that any in the world can see of your child lying dead in a field, and a corporation says, sorry, you know, it's too much trouble for us to deal with this. What is the line in in sacred, not just appropriate, but sacred, and we don't have a shared understanding of that either. And so we yeah, it's a very confusing time that we live in, and and we need to speak more in terms of values than in terms of rules. Okay, so someone behaves badly, it's their behavior we're concentrating on, which has always been a problem. It needs to be a value about like what's the harm that happened here? Who got hurt? That's the focus, not what did they say, what did they do. It's who got hurt that should be the emphasis.

Intermission

Bill 32:40

Yeah. And so in the same year, Bill Heibels we were talking about, 2018, in the same year, David Haas, right? But the response was very different. And they didn't even have the answers to who has been hurt yet, right? In fact, some of that, even still to this day, as you said, there are still lawsuits and everything's still going on, right? Um, but when the allegations came out for him, immediately the institution like restricted his access to ministry, restricted his leadership, restricted um all of it. And we still see, I mean, even in the United Church right now, um, as we digitize the hymn books and all that kind of stuff, that the Haas music is being left out, right? That uh um that there has been sort of uh a shift towards solidarity with the victims, and and in the absence of answers to some of these questions about who has been harmed, what is the nature of that harm, what is the correct um response that actually meaningfully restores the relationship as best as it can be. Uh this is sort of the, you know, we can't really continue to look like we might be um supporting or benefiting or uh in the in the same way. So um I think my sense was at the time that the church actually learned very quickly from Bill Heibels um that that was the wrong way to go um when it's when it started happening yet again um in the same time.

Joanne 34:01

So like can the Isn't David Haas a a Catholic hymn writer? Yes.

Bill 34:06

Well like Catholic Catholic, but his writing was certainly not worth it.

Unmarked Graves And Calling A Nation To Truth

Joanne 34:11

Well, certainly, but his publisher was a Catholic publisher. Yes. Right? Yes. So they may have learned from other things as well. Oh, yeah. Not just Bill Bill Heibels, but um that's an an interesting uh yeah, it's an interesting parallel that you draw, but it's the same thing, you know, for a long time before the Me Too movement became uh popular, everybody knew. Like they have a phrase for sexually abusing women who want a role in your movie. It's called the casting couch, right? Something that happened all the time, and then me too happened. And and somehow it's like a verb now. He they got me too'd. Is that a verb or what what would that anyways? I don't know, grammar-wise, but um it be it becomes part of our understanding, right? Oh, that this happened and it shouldn't happen, and a value is expressed, which is how it should be done. Um, and then you have all these uh mostly men who have behaved badly all along, who are now terrified that they're going to be exposed. Well, and they should be, personally, I believe they should be exposed. And this is the opportunity for them to say, you know what, which sometimes when people make apologies, I I behaved horribly. And this is what I'm going to do to try and make up for this behavior that uh when I behaved horribly. But instead it's like, oh, they're, you know, um just trying to get attention, or and so they then start to um pile on the the victims or the people who have expressed how they've been harmed and make it their problem, not my problem, or they say it was a different time, which is not um the uh like I said, there's always been abhorrent behavior and we know it, and it was just swept under the carpet. A different time does not make an excuse. Um now I think it was appropriate that David Haas was uh removed from the institution and um the they uh investigated and that they took the claims of the people because this had happened over not just one, like Bill Hybels was one woman. Absolutely.

Bill 36:38

There were there were yeah.

Joanne 36:39

There were numerous women over many, many years in the David Haas case as well.

Bill 36:46

I think there was more than one with Bill Hybels as well, right?

Joanne 36:50

Um Well, mostly it was one Melissa's secretary.

Bill 36:53

I think there was one prominent, but that there were others who especially through the investigative reporting and everything that had to be done to try to And not numbers don't matter, the behavior.

Joanne 37:02

Yeah that doesn't matter. Um and the question is, as you said, you were saying they're not putting in in David Haas's music. So then the question becomes those wonderful hymns that he's written. Do they cease being wonderful hymns that he's written? Do you know what I mean? And this is for me the ver my the difficulty of art, right? The difficulty of art is that in some ways I believe art stands apart from its creator, like it becomes something that is outside of the creator. And other people, particularly in this environment, don't agree with that, you know, like Harry Potter. Don't read Harry Potter. Well, I haven't read Harry Potter because it's not my genre, but that was a meaningful book for a lot of people read Harry Potter. And now all of a sudden, because there's uh a woman who has archaic and hateful attitudes towards trans folk, does that make it not a good book anymore? You know, does the Lord's Prayer written by David Haas become something we can't sing and be moved by? Or better yet, we are called to act with justice? And I that's the difficulty that I have because if we canceled every single piece of art that had been created by someone who behaved badly, there wouldn't be a Picasso anywhere. You know? Nowhere. So somewhere, art, music, those things, there's some kind of space. And like I said, in my mind, uh all the royalties David Haas is making on any of that music that we sing is gonna go to his victims at this point. That's my hope. But that's the difficulty I have as a minister. Do you know? Like, do I go through Chris Rice, also I think was uh alleged as well, and it was just like, oh wait, I love that song, and this is all very good. And I didn't know who these people were till like it comes out in the news. Do you know what I mean? Like obviously, this music stands apart from them because I don't know who they are, essentially. So that I think is um maybe a controversial opinion, but I I really lean into the art stands apart from its creator, it becomes something other than just a work of that person. It becomes um a gift, a gift to humanity that is detached from uh who made it.

Ricardo 39:32

Well, forget even the Christian context, like the network of P. Diddy.

Joanne 39:36

Yeah.

Ricardo 39:37

And Sean Combs and all the sexual assault and prostitution allegations that he had against him. But like the more people are digging into his history and his crimes, the bigger the spider web of sexual abuse affecting multiple, multiple very popular artists is growing, right? And forget even Epstein.

Tony 39:58

Yeah.

Ricardo 39:58

Right? I mean, I'm sure Epstein is a podcast in and of itself on how we deal with that, but like the amount of powerful people that are trying to cover up anything possible. And it's quite interesting to me how like the King of England is the one who's taken the most drastic action against his brother for, right? Oh, yeah. Stripped him of everything, right? Um, to the bare minimum. But like, you know, Trump is the Department of Justice has covered up and redacted a whole bunch of stuff, and because his name's in there, the Clintons are refusing to testify, and uh, it's just circling the wagons, this circling the wagons culture of of and the the the women who have come forward, like and the one committed suicide, right?

Joanne 40:39

Yeah, yeah.

Ricardo 40:40

She was she was harassed and and and and that's where the cancel culture piece comes in, where um it it works on both sides of the pendulum.

Joanne 40:50

Well, you're canceling the wrong people.

Ricardo 40:51

Exactly. Right? It's it's like we're seeing a lot more of that on the right now of canceling things.

Joanne 40:59

Yeah, but they they don't call it cancel culture. That's the thing. That's what I was trying to say at the beginning. It's only the left that cancels people in a bad way, right? Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Shame Vs. Guilt And A Path To Action

Tony 41:08

Well, I think that we had sort of better tools around it that understood and worked towards a conclusion. Because I think your idea of the funds going to the victims is important. And I think that that should be written into the way that we perform it within the denomination, and not just allowing um and and putting these things in their proper context. Every year, when we do the Huron Carol, I've been uh pointing out that it is not a uh something that Native people want to hear. And particularly the way that it's performed and and written into our um uh hymnary and and other ways that that it's performed in in the society more broadly. There's no interconnection, there's no um uh history to it. And uh the hymns that are like that, the uh ones that are uh I think meaningful and could help to foster a better understanding, we are oblivious to because we only take bits and pieces in this environment, especially in our theology. We don't look at it in its wholeness, we don't look at it in terms of uh what is this teaching us, what is this telling us, how are we moving ahead, and how are we developing something out of this that we pass along to the next generation. I think a lot of the um responses and the ways that uh we deal with those criminal activities and things like that are um meant to uh encapsulate the problem and put it aside rather than dealing with the ongoing issue. Because every year we're dealing with missing and murdered women, we're dealing with uh domestic violence for the moose hide campaign, we're dealing with um the losses of uh people's lives, especially those who are trans and non-binary, that are affected in our community. And we're not uh working toward a progressive aim or goal, we are merely doing triage for a system that is unwilling to change.

Joanne 43:27

It's interesting. Like the Here on Carol has a significant historic Yeah. Right? Because I think that was the first hymn written in Canada. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Tony 43:38

First um Christmas Carol. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Joanne 43:40

Christmas Carol, yeah. Written in Canada. Um so a distinction I would draw, and I think that uh it survives as a result of its historicity. It's got a beautiful tune, blah, blah, blah, blah. Um but uh what I'm trying to do.

Bill 43:56

That is terrible. Yeah, that is how you conflate a lot.

Joanne 44:04

There's lots of reasons why the hero on Carol is not going to disappear.

Tony 44:07

Waiting for the peanuts Christmas to come on in the phone.

Joanne 44:11

However, in that work of art, because it is art, there is ongoing harm, right? Because it paints a picture and stereotypes and um supremacy of Christianity, that if you continue to sing it without that acknowledgement, it continues to do harm. David Haas's Lord's Prayer uses the words that are in the Bible. Do you know what I mean? Like it's it's a it's a different thing to me. So if we have a a work of art that shows uh an atrocity of some kind, that art needs to be replaced. You know, like the the statues in the US that were put up after um, you know, like the Confederate statues that were set up specifically to intimidate people, they gotta go. They weren't art anyway, they were mass-produced. But things that can continuing harm that is not just because it's attached to a person, but it propagates harm, that is a different thing that has to be dealt differently. Some things belong in museums.

Tony 45:19

I think it's the same thing when we talk about sort of what the Huron Carol was and why it was created in response to uh a um uh Jesuit priest's healing and his thankfulness to the people, creating something that had a um a well-wishing uh rendition of the Christian nativity within a when that context, and presenting something beautiful back as a thank you. And similarly, with the idea of utilizing the Lord's Prayer in that way, uh what we've seen over time is that that then gets rewritten into stereotypes and uh overgeneralizations and things that then cause the harm uh that are added on by the uh preaching that's taken or the perspectives that are uh imposed, the injustices that are layered onto that, that then color that into a space where it no longer functions in the way that it should. And that's I think where we see the David Haas idea that something created in beauty then gets um put into that barrel of what's going on. And now can we do we have access to that anymore, or are we uh forever filtered first by uh what we know and not by the production itself?

Joanne 46:54

I can understand how people who have suffered real harm at the hands of people who behave badly would want to erase everything they've ever done. Yeah right? Happened with Woody Allen, too. Like, let's just erase every film he's done, everything. And I and I really sympathize with that. I don't know that as a culture writ large, we can erase everything that has caused harm to people. Do you know what I mean? Understanding for sure. Uh hold people accountable, seek reconciliation, all these things have to go along with this. But I don't think we as a society or at large or church or anything can make our decisions always just on I've been hurt and I want to erase everything this person has ever done. Right?

Bill 47:50

Eradicating any element of the other.

Joanne 47:52

Any element, yes. And and again, this goes to the idea um that there's a lot of interests, and we speak of values, right? What are the values that are driving this? And um sometimes the values are um are worthy, like not just worthy enough, but they're so obvious. So like the Huron Carol, I mean, Tony, you and I sang it on Christmas Eve. You sang it here, and you sang it in Wendat, right? Um and so the Huron Carol does does continue to do harm because of colonization, and this is like an uh example of that. Um it also so the values around that have to be examined and how it still hurts people. Also um the value, the historic value that it has, the beauty of it, all that. These are all values that have to be weighed against each other. To say, so I'm happy to say if any time we sing the Hero on Carol, we give an it we tell people why this is harmful. Or not even I I don't we didn't sing it this year, I don't think at all.

Tony 49:07

Or some of that in context and and history.

Whose Stories Get Believed And Why

Joanne 49:09

Yeah. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Sometimes things belong in museums. You don't erase them, you put them in a museum so that they can be explained and understood. Or even if it's in a public space, that there be both the stories presented, not just this is the greatest man who ever lived, notwithstanding that he John A.

Tony 49:28

McDonald.

Joanne 49:28

John A. McDonald, yeah. Father of our country, also started the whole, you know, essentially cultural genocide. Yeah. Um those two things did happen. Those two things are both true. And that's the difficult thing. We are all flawed. Take David, the King David, right? His whole thing with Bathsheba. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Bill 49:51

Well, this is the this is the thing, right? Like if we're gonna if we're gonna eradicate all anybody that's that's ever done harm, like we still at a funeral this Friday are gonna read a psalm written by a guy who impregnated another man's wife and then had that guy killed and got murdered.

Joanne 50:06

Yeah.

Bill 50:06

Cover his tracks, right?

Joanne 50:07

So um Which is true, and still is like the greatest king that Israel ever had, apparently. Yes. Um, however, in in the arc of his career and his life, that was the turning point. After that, everything started unraveling in his life, David's life. His kids started fighting with each other, tried to kill him. The end, he had some young woman who would sleep with him just to keep him warm. Like that's his life unraveled after that. That doesn't negate the things that uh he did to unify Israel, the the strength. This this is the thing. We are complex human beings, all of us. And I would hate, I always say, I would hate to be judged by the worst day of my life. That would be horrible. If for the rest of my life the thing, you know, I did something um that I regret, and that becomes the only thing I'm known for. I just think we're more complex, and that if we could in our culture understand nuance again and say, yeah, both things can be true. You can be a horrible human being and write great music. Both things can be true. You can be a great filmmaker and have very questionable values and morals. All these things can be true, they can both be true. And what do we do? That's why I'm saying values. What do we do as a society about these things? We can't erase an entire person's work because they behave badly, particularly if it's brought a lot of joy and uh hope to people. Do you know? Like, but those are conversations we have to continue to have. It's not one or the other. It's like, is the harm ongoing? Will it continue to be ongoing? As in the case of like the Huron Carol or art that shows parts of history that are oppressive and difficult. Like, what do you do? What do you do?

Tony 52:09

It reminds me that um, and I'll I think um we need some some other voices in here. Uh, but it reminds me of a talk that was given by an anthropologist named Dr. B. Medicine at the University of Calgary, talking about um as a woman, and and a lot of the white women in the audience were uh talking about feminist values, and what she told them is that if you don't have your own rights recognized within this institution and within this environment, fight for that. That's not where I'm coming from. She talked about her own um role as a matriarch and the traditions around that and and what that entailed for her, how she was following in the cultural norms of her people, and the connection that that brought her to in a different sort of reality. The reason I'm saying this is because in our tradition, uh the Stony Nakota recognized that um pipe carriers, medicine people, those that are uh living a holy life are usually the people that were questionable at one point, that were uh fallible, that were um not very good people, they through their life and through their evolution came to a different understanding and empowerment of their religious vocation, that their practice held holy um connections, so they could cause things to happen. They they were touched by God, they were, even though they were, as you're saying, the person with the the worst day of their life, that they weren't compartmentalized to being only that, and they evolved into powerful, uh beloved and uh honorable people in the end, as elders, as teachers. And so these are necessary sort of evolutions of the hero, of these different types of uh modes that we work through in our life, and that um as we evolve into something better, it is uh showing us that there should be this growth and understanding that is the empowerment back into sort of being in the human light, being and we're living in the time of epiphany, it's sort of that time of light, being able to walk back into the world. That's the part I don't think that we deal very well with in this society.

Building Real Relationships Beyond Optics

Ricardo 54:49

Aaron Powell I think also the passage of time and opinion um is is important to understand as well and and to right some of the wrongs of history. So when we talk about the Me Too movement or even um um sexual safety and consent, um I think of that uh those two brothers who were in jail for killing their parents, um the Menendez brothers. And how in the 90s, when we when they went through the trial, there was not one soul on this earth that was in their in their court. They murdered their parents, doesn't matter what happened to them. Doesn't matter that your father was putting his cigarettes out on your arms every day or doing whatever he was doing. But now that documentary came out like a yeah last year or the year before, and there's this huge movement to to uh right the wrongs of what happened to these children. Um there's another one too that that I think about quite often. Um uh is and this may not be relevant, but it it it always uh tweaked my my my interest is the the the uh old lady who had burned herself with McDonald's coffee. Yes, that's right. Yeah. Um to the point where you know she required skin grafts off of her body to repair the damage done to her thighs, it was so hot. And I can remember being in the a kid in the 90s and she was vilified. Yes, vilified so horribly, saying that she just wanted a payout because she was a poor pensioner and and that and she was a horrible and the the society rallied around McDonald's, they rallied around McDonald's, billions and billions served yeah, to against this poor woman. Yes, all because and all that changed was she got some sort of payout and never got decided in court, and they finally put caution hot on their on their coffee cups. And that's all that she they needed, and it was crazy. But if you think about it now, the way, uh of course, the the disparity between rich and poor that exists right now between corporate and and the working class. If anybody burned themselves on coffee and that little old lady was looking for just some sort of payout to be able to pay her medical bills for having skin grafts put on her, I think that the world I think that everyone would march to her to her to to her defense, right?

Bill 57:01

Yeah. So again, as Joanne had said earlier, there there is sort of a um and I'm I'm paraphrasing what Joanne said earlier, there is there is sort of a a need, it seems, in our society now to to respond first or to to be outraged first and let the the facts actually catch up later, right? Um and and so I'm I'm aware of the time I want to I want to move to intermission and I'm hoping when we can come back, I wanna I want to talk a little bit more actually about I'm I'm hoping Tony, if you don't mind when we come back, I'd like to talk about the the public response and your response um when uh when the the um the grave sites were found on the sites of former residential schools because your approach to um or your response in the moment uh to a nation that was finally coming face to face with uh not being accountable and not um not working very hard at telling any kind of truth uh was a very different message, I think, than what a lot of people um expected to hear in the midst of their outrage. So we're gonna take uh a brief intermission and then when we return, we're gonna pick it up there and see where we go in the second half. And we are back and continuing our conversation that is moving between ideas of cancel culture and accountability, and beneath all of it, uh meaningful responses when harm has been done. And so, uh Tony, as I had said before the break, I was hoping that we could pick up looking at uh your response. You wrote a reflection called A Blight on Our Nation um after the discovery of the 215 unmarked graves on the site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School back in 2021. And um not gonna read it word for word, but the the pieces that I remember um taking away from it at the time uh were that this was a a moment when uh the elders could finally be heard after generations and generations and generations of people ignoring them or dismissing them or refusing to um acknowledge the harm that had been done. And that you openly named um from even within the church uh the church's complicity and the government's complicity, uh, not as some kind of an accident, uh not uh, you know, there were good people on both sides kind of approach to uh to argumentation, uh complicity um outright, and that it was an opportunity for true and genuine accountability and truth-telling and honesty uh in the midst of it all. Um so while the rest of society seemed to be really reacting again in sort of that outrage first answers later, and while um uh whole communities were also deeply grieving um and and wondering uh what next and and requesting further searches of other sites and all those kinds of things, you you chose to um call people uh call the church, call the nation inward uh to a time of um honesty and self-reflection and and truth. And my question, I think, to start us off is what moved you for that to be the place that you chose to start in trying to address what was such a a monumental um tangible sign of the tragedy that had been ignored for so long?

Outrage’s Misfires: Pandemic Backlash And Labor Harm

Tony 1:00:28

I think part of it is what you said at the beginning, that the stories themselves never went away. The stories never ended. The stories are an ongoing uh recollection, a testimony, a verification to the community that these were parts of our past and that these are what formed us into our opinions, our uh way of dealing with conflict with government, with outsiders, with people who were uh not of the fold. And so trying to work in a way that uh empowered them to continue to tell that story, to remember that story, to connect it to a long history that's more than uh what we individually can share. So we each have a part within the story, but we're not the whole story. And in this um deeper interconnection, it goes back to the oral history, it goes back to the elders' voices, it goes back to the communities and their agency within that, that they do have a core that they're working from, that they have been working from, and that we are just recognizing it. I think for the groups that were outside of that, that had never heard it or that had refused to hear it or had tried to bury it, um it's this resiliency that uh there's a continuum and that even changes, even generations do not erase the continuum. When I sort of stepped into this idea, it was based on uh the work of Christina Cleveland, who was a uh theologian uh at Duke University and and uh Duke Divinity School, and she pointed out in the work of racial reconciliation that oftentimes um there was an effort to get over uh some of the issues by glossing over some of that past, but also thinking about um the reasons for that. And one of the things she said was that uh when it's tinged with this idea of shame, it becomes a debilitating force. When people are experiencing shame, that is more in line with defining them and who they are, how they operate in the world and their function. So it tended to shut people down in the willingness to be involved or engaged. When she talked about guilt, she said guilt is wonderful. Guilt is something that we can work with, guilt is something that we can work our way out of. It gives you an agency to work through. Shame defines you. Guilt actually gives you a direction and a journey to go on. And so for these two things, for that impetus was to say we are on that journey. We have never been off that journey. And even the indigenous people will tell you that. What they're expecting is what we promised at the treaties, is what we promised to one another, that we would live in a way that would uh help foster a better future for both, and that we are called at this point, when there is this overwhelming sense of shame and responsibility coming from the uh outside world, and this recognition, the spotlight that is put on that, to uh heighten that awareness and to show not only that Canadians are not the um bastion that we thought they were, they are ultimately human. Here in your humanity is an opportunity to act.

Bill 1:04:31

So one of the things that I remember very acutely uh feeling in in the moment myself was that there was a I appreciated your words because I think it it gave people like you were not focused on trying to manage public outrage or public emotion. Um you were really focusing on um normalizing that this response is actually what happens when we when we don't um like name the guilt and and and and talk uh and speak the truth and recognize that we have fallen short of the promises that were made. Um and and failure to to to really kind of walk that journey in a in a way that sort of bears the integrity and the relational commitment that um was named is uh you know, when when you don't do that, you get these these these tragic moments, but also these very um very outraged responses when when people find out just how far we've fallen. And this is the normal response for the lack of um the the lack of intention to honor the commitments that were made. Um we should respond with anger when we um when we find out that promises have not been kept and and that this is the the cost of that uh kind of promise.

Joanne 1:05:47

So um but worse than that in this instance was as Tony was saying, the elders were saying all along this has happened. These were stories that were out there and they were ignored. So again, it's like who's controlling the narrative in these things? That's a really important question to ask always. Like indigenous folk were not believed. And that even with the violation of our treaties that we've signed and how we have mistreated indigenous folk in our country. Just not even hearing them, erasing their stories of trauma was like the original sin to me. You know?

Ricardo 1:06:39

It was worse than erasing, from what I know, from what I believe. People actively shut them down and call them liars and made them feel inadequate and rebellious for even speaking like that about the people that were supposedly helping them through the residential school system. Because I always think of the opposite impact of if if if there was a school that was killing white children and burying them in the backyard of the school, how quickly a response would come from any level of government, right?

Joanne 1:07:16

And just not even telling parents.

Ricardo 1:07:17

Not even telling parents, right? If there was a if there was an oil gas company that wanted to dig up someone's backyard to excavate the oil in Calgary, how quickly that would happen. You know, but we had Standing Rock in the USA where hundreds of people were protesting and they were sending the army in to quash them, right? To just to keep their land safe. And so it's it's interesting how marginalized groups like that their voices are not only just actively ignored, but they're actively suppressed. And um and that suppression actually fuels um ignorance in in a lot of ways for people to to define what the story is. Um and it takes literal decades for these things to be reversed, right? I mean, this has nothing to do with it, but I was watching um uh a documentary. Uh the CBC had this series called The Detectives, and they talked a lot about cold cases, and they talked about the Toronto serial killer in the gay commun in the gay village in Toronto, Bruce MacArthur, and how like people were begging the police to like investigate because people were going missing, and the people that were going missing were um racialized, sometimes married with children, people visiting the gay community because they were gay and had an outlet, and but Bruce MacArthur was prying on them. Uh, and at one point in time they had him in custody and they let him go because they didn't believe that he had anything to do with it. And it wasn't until he killed and kidnapped and killed a prominent white person within the community that the police were like, Whoa, hold on a second, something's not right here. A guy got killed, and then they looked at his property and found bones and his flower pots of people he had killed. Um and it speaks and the reason I bring that up in in conjunction with what we're what Tony's talking about is the intersectionality of uh race and other equity-seeking uh things that happen where um you know no the minute it's a person of color or from a culture or a society where um being different is or like or you know um existing here is not I don't know how I put it. Like people assume that because he's he's from the Middle East or uh from a country where being LGBTQ is is criminalized that um he's probably just hiding somewhere, or are you know what I'm saying? Or living that cultural norm in Canada. Um but the minute it's the white person that it happens to, it's it's it's all the resources are there.

Nuance, Grace, And Thinking More Deeply

Tony 1:09:51

It's a repeat of what was happening for many years with the missing and murdered women and and the women at the Pinkton Farm. Exactly. The idea of um that these are lives that don't matter, or these are stories that don't matter, um are held over because of this overarching narrative that says we will silence you, we will muzzle you, you will fall in line, you will assimilate and be part of this uh story, whether you like it or not, according to some voices that we hear south of the border, that those ideas are endemic to the way that power is structured within this sort of system. And the more that we uh try to blend within or work within the system, you can only get so much done. And so this effort, as we're talking about, uh to get recognition, to bring people into the light, to bring people in their complicity to that table, to be able to have an honest conversation is what we've always been saying, what we've always been pushing for, that it is not the systems we want to talk to. We don't want to talk to avatars. As we go into our Sunday morning services, everybody puts on their Sunday bests and doesn't talk about the things that they're going through, the challenges that their family is facing, the hardships that they're that are occurring, they tend to uh try to put on the brave face and try to fit in uh as best they can because to be anything otherwise is to be outcast or to be difficult or to be problematic to that system. And so in that way of thinking, we can see the parallels to what the narratives that try to define those who are not conventionally thought of as part of the community. So we see the struggle of the people who come to our doorsteps, people that come in seeking in help and seeking sanctuary. Uh these are dire needs. But at the same time, I think that it is a hope that we are responsive and in that light and equal to the task that our scripture and that our theology calls us into as we step into this realm of humanity and community. It is that hope that we are learning as we evolve, we are learning, we are growing, we are accepting, and we are taking on those challenges. We are not the, in the Good Samaritan story, we are not the clergy officials that just walk by the person by the side of the road, but we are ones who stop, ones who take action, ones who help to build a better future coming out of a situation that we may have no idea about. Oftentimes, with this uh work, we hear, oh, I never knew, I never heard, and and kind of that's it, and and not a lot of uh afterthought into well, what is this calling me to do? What is this calling me to be involved with? And how am I up to that task based on what I understand and where I'm coming from, what my belief is. And that is a difficult place to be in because we really need that support, really need that help. Um, oftentimes for our elders and for those that are struggling in our community with uh mental health issues or financial issues, families who are uh needing food, um, very difficult times, especially with prices out of whack and limited uh incomes for elders, for people that are on uh social assistance and other ways that they are uh trying to manage their lives at this time. We have to think about what is our role within that. And not just within that sort of microcosm. We are being thrown a whole bunch of things with the political environment, with the social environment, things that we are being called to live into. And because we are a complex society, these efforts I think compound. But as for me, when I work on these issues, by working together, by building relationship, by building connection and community outside of our particular box into interfaith and interdenominational work, there's an opportunity for us to expand this role and to make something more meaningful happen that we can all collectively take pride in. That it is not limited to the work of one group, one committee, one church, but that this is something I think that we can only do by collectively working toward a better goal.

Bill 1:15:08

So in response to um the discovery of the unmarked graves, um, your reflection, a number of um responses from across um you know, government and church um uh people in different positions uh five years ago now. Um Has there been movement? Has there been meaningful work done to truth tell, um, to take responsibility, take accountability?

Tony 1:15:43

It's pockets of effort, not prolonged effort. And I think that that is sort of the intergenerational work, that it's not up to one group that's gonna find the silver bullet that everybody's kind of looking for so that they can then walk away, look away, not be tied to this. I think that um some of the efforts have been good. Others have been mimicking what others are doing and kind of hiding behind the facade of, oh, well, we're just doing what they're doing and and we are uh therefore uh under cover of their good works. I think that there's a lot of um non-ingenuous kind of work, that it is uh something that is a task for some groups, and that when they can do it within their own sort of um quietude of a uh one church, one community, that it's not seen and not transparent. It's uh very opaque to those outside of it. We can say it on the pulpit on a Sunday morning, this we did this, and not everybody showed up and not a lot of support was put behind it, or funding from the church itself, a lot of it coming from grants and other sort of forms, that the church is not in support, but we are doing it, and the face and the optics of it look like we're involved, uh, which is not always true. So thinking about where we stand within this, what our commitment looks like. I think uh we would have much better uh responses if we had a really a deeper understanding of what the follow-through looks like. Talking to um Marco, Reverend Marco at the um Ralph Connor, talking about we want to do an apology to the Stony Nation. We want to go out, read the apology, have a connection, start building around that what this community can look like. That's that's one step that hasn't been done, hasn't been thought of. And yet, in working through this, a lot of it is about the work that I try to do is about empowering and working with the various churches and communities to step into something that they're comfortable with. Not everybody is going to, not everybody is capable of that. Not everybody has the staying power. A lot of our uh communities are aging out, are all um elderly. And so we don't have that shoring up of a new generation or energy to commit to this. And I remember that from one of the people here at this church who said we're 10 years behind, we're 10 years too late. Ten years ago, we could have really done something. This is a conversation that we had. And here it's uh a regret, but we can't live within that regret. We still have to move this forward because I don't want to be the one holding it. I want to be able to pass it off to others that will continue that work. And that's kind of what we're seeing in some uh instances. They need the guidance, they need the interrelation with the communities around them. Uh, we were able to do a uh quite successful event with um Marie Wilson that came last year in March and had about 12 churches, 12 different denominations and groups, and uh Unitarian Church and others that that came on board. Uh I had them phoning around and and talking to the Friendship Center, talking to Tsutina and talking to various groups to try to foster a uh a program of activities that could go on during that weekend. We ended up doing a few things, had about 600 people come out to that, uh, had a very successful series of events, and I think that that uh showed us some of the mechanics of what we're trying to do. That I keep saying it's it's not about one group, it's not about one effort, it's about a continuum of that activity reaching beyond itself, reaching beyond its generation into something I think that helps to foster a hope. And that hope needs to be what's sustained.

Ricardo 1:20:05

Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Bill 1:20:05

And a commitment to the relationship for the long term. Right. Um and uh and and a commitment to the mutuality of that relationship for the long term.

Hopes For Genuine Accountability

Tony 1:20:15

Aaron Powell Yeah, and I think that that's a really important part, that it is participating from indigenous people, indigenous communities, and church partners and those outside of that sort of religious space. Uh, so that it's not sort of dependent on one person, one group, one effort, one thing, but we can coalesce around particular issues, particular times. Uh that was the dream that we would be able to be able to work in that um sort of liturgical space of when things were important or salient to groups, and try to address that within our uh practice to build in something that people uh can look forward to.

Bill 1:21:04

So I I want to make sure that before we get to the end of this episode, we actually talk about what uh meaningful accountability, responsibility, and um Joanne, you had even said, you know, sorry is not always enough, right? Um what does whether it be restitution or reconciliation or whatever is kind of required in the moment. But I do feel like if we are truly going to cover the breadth of the topic, we have to talk about one more kind of response. Um and uh and so I've I've chosen um another case study, so to speak, uh in the pandemic. Uh especially, I shouldn't say especially here in Alberta, but it felt like especially here in Alberta. Um uh there were some who had to live through the backflip or backlash that uh flowed towards healthcare workers, um clergy, even. We we experienced a lot of it even here uh in our churches and small business owners um uh who were trying to either adhere to or do better than the minimum around things like masking requirements, um protocols, um, and uh the the same kind of idea of um backlash and boycotting and um framed under the language of freedom um or uh rights or uh so we we have talked about very tangible, not necessarily the right responses, but tangible real issues. Um we have also, I think, hinted throughout this uh episode or throughout this discussion that there are also times where uh it's actually the issue at heart, the cult of outrage, uh if you will. Um and so uh Ricardo, I'm actually gonna start with you on this one. Um he's gearing it for um because from a labor injustice perspective, what happens when anger actually uh presses power, and what happens when it flows towards people who don't have the power? Um and and so, yeah, what what happens when the outrage actually um forces people who have no power or authority or who are being compliant with the authorities um that that you know oversee them? What happens when the outrage actually is directed towards them from a justice and labor perspective?

Closing Reflections And Call To Repair

Ricardo 1:23:31

Then the the the rich win still win, right? Right? When we start when we start cannibalizing each other instead of focusing on the actual problems and and you know, I think of I think of Cargill and High River from my personal experience when I was when during the pandemic with UFCW, right? Like when the pandemic first started, you know, you couldn't find a glove or a mask or a bottle of sanitizer anywhere in the world, but Cargill got their hands on some and only gave them to management. Right? Um and they wouldn't allow occupational health and safety into the plant, and they did inspections via video chat. And it wasn't until our chief steward died from COVID that the news broke, and then two more people died, and people were still blaming the Filipino community, saying you guys live too in too much, uh, too many people in one house, you guys are carpooling, that's inappropriate. You know, they were cannibalized, people were blaming the workers for the spread of that virus in the planet. And absolutely, I mean, you're you're you're sitting right by you're you're less than a foot apart from each other, killing 4,000 more plus cows a day for people to have their cheeseburgers. But not one person like a cargo and said, What the hell are you doing? Why would you give them masks and gloves? Right. And so I think, from the bottom of my heart, still till today, that company got off scot-free for murder, right? Um, and those workers took the brunt of that because they were forced to go to work. Um, in the US, Donald Trump signed an executive order forcing meat packing plants to reopen again and forcing those workers back to work. Um, and so when we start cannibalizing each other and going through the nuances of people's daily lives and how they live their lives, instead of focusing on the people that are so why were so many Filipinos living in the same house together? Okay, we have a temporary foreign worker program, you bring them across the country, you pay them $22 an hour to start, and to rent a house or an apartment, one salary wasn't covering it, so they had to live together. Nobody expected a virus to come into the country and upend people's daily lives the way it did. But at the same time, rent didn't go down, groceries didn't go down, prices didn't go down anywhere. People still couldn't afford to live. People still couldn't afford to live separately and live safely. They had to still work. And so while people lived at home and worked from home, um, the essential workers, those people that they called essential, the the food production, the grocery stores, they all still have to go to work scared. Um and companies capitalize off that in the billions and the billions of dollars. They capitalize off all of that. And so it in tying Cargill High River to like the trucker convoy, for example, like I still don't understand till today what the trucker convoy was about because the policy on vaccinations to cross the border was just a response to the US one that was imposed first by Biden. So they just wanted people to have their vaccinations before they crossed the border and carried a virus with them, and like and whether or not what the reaction from the government was, but 95% of truckers just went and got their vaccine and went to work and drove across that border, right? But every single person in the towns that they drove through, because I was in Brooks uh doing some work when the trucker convoy came through, and like people just wearing masks because they wanted to stay, keep themselves safe, were vilified for by the people in that convoy. Yeah. Uh and for what reason? Right? Like, why can't I wear a mask? Why can't you why do you wear a baseball cap, right? You know, it's just when we start cannibalizing and we start attacking each other for for being different or or or having an opinion that that doesn't match or align with yours, or even just like doing something that might make you slightly uncomfortable. There's only one person that wins, and that's the people that are that are profiting off that division, right? Uh and profiting may not be the right word, but it is the right word because they are making the money off of these divisions, they are, right? Like um it's it's it's crazy. Like uh this is completely different. Like I was just reading an article the other day about uh the the the GoFundMe for that that young woman that was killed by the immigration and customs enforcement officers. It's like 1.5 or 1.8 million dollars or something like that, and it's going to and that Charlie Kirk's wife has raised like 90 million dollars now since the day, you know what I'm saying? Like there's somebody making money off. something and they're feeding off of our division. And so from what from my context is um yeah you know um when we start b battling each other we we lose the greater fight we do.

Joanne 1:28:15

And that's that um the pandemic's a perfect example of conflicting values right because having come through it I can almost guarantee you we would never have a shutdown like we had again right nobody would accept it anymore right and yet it was done to save the lives of people right um because we had seen in Europe in Italy I think it was the healthcare system completely collapsed. They had trucks in New York City where they were piling bodies up like we saw what was happening. And I remember having a discussion with somebody who was just against this shutdown completely. And I'm like in California people were dying at quite a rate and and she said to me yes people will die right but that was an okay price to pay um and again it's the clash of values that happens and when you become polarized the way we are where outrage is the um sort of milk that we drink on both sides on all sides it shouldn't be binary on all sides when outrage is so important you don't get nobody is um being honest about how there are trade-offs of values that are happening here how much death do we accept in order to keep you know stores open what is it is it okay one person a week 10 people a week like what's the this this happens in business all the time right how many deaths on our can we accept uh in doing this project and keep it going like we're hurricane hurricane planning the same thing how they stock stores yeah so the these are actually conversations that happen all the time um but that inability for us and again this is who's controlling the narrative who's who's winning and why this is also a theological um exercise as well we talk about theology from the underside right so when we start to look at the texts now and we say who is benefiting from this story being told in this way who is in that story that we're not hearing from what happened to them right and we are uh almost unable to have those conversations now because we are being encouraged to choose sides very early. And I think with that whole um like I don't think you should force people to be vaccinated either. They never were forced they lost the ability to make their livelihood if they chose not to be vaccinated, right? And actually there is an argument for how could we have uh made sure that people who didn't want to be vaccinated could still well which was the payments right that the government gave so there are nuanced ways of dealing with disagreements that just don't happen because we choose sides and anything that comes out that says we should be shut down saving lives is is the most important thing I I still believe that. If it happened again I'd still encourage a shutdown because pandemic's the plague you know took out 60% of Europe at one point. So so public health is really important. But having come through it like I know now we would never accept those restrictions again not in our lifetime I don't think forget restrictions.

Ricardo 1:31:56

Calorie can't even restrict water right now with the second burst of the pipe they were all lifted today. We all rallied together the first time the pipe burst or the second time the news said people are three minute shower forget it.

Joanne 1:32:08

It is going business as usual yeah no no that's exactly right it's it it's exactly right but this is this is the problem with i i it it all comes down to me again the the people who made money in the pandemic like billionaires made a lot of money a lot of money a lot of money a lot of money and in many cases also still claim the government payments to make right yep yes so people with power and money and you know I love the Warren Buffett's of the world do you know like not everybody you're just because you're powerful and have money does not mean you are morally suspect. Okay let's make that perfectly clear but the people who with power and money who want to maintain power and make more money at all cost spend a lot of of time and energy and finances in controlling the narrative in a way that benefits them. And for me it's always important to bring values into a conversation again going back to the very beginning let's get all the information before we jump on the outrage machine let's be nuanced in our conversations and let's look who's benefiting from this story being told in this way. Who are the people who are making the money, who are gaining the power, that are controlling the narrative and who are they silencing going back to the indigenous folk in our country who have been silenced for hundreds of years because it didn't fit the narrative of a Canada that's going to expand and be was it Laurier who said you know the last century belonged to the United States and this century belongs to Canada? Like that was the narrative that we were promoting and the pesky indigenous folk just didn't fit the narrative. Sorry Tony.

Tony 1:34:05

One of the things that that's important in in what we're saying and how we're we're sketching this out that we often put the straw man arguments of oh those that in power are facilitating. What do we have seen in sort of the enactments of bureaucracy, of the superintendents that were put in place to impose assimilation policies and to go at some of the more horrendous activities like the death of children that were because of the law didn't have to be recorded until the 1930s. So their deaths, their the register of of where all these children were buried, what happened to them, their gender, anything didn't matter. And so the system itself and the people that were perpetrating that system didn't care. And so when we look at things like the thing that stuck out to me from um this time of the new administration in the States was that first act of the USAID that when the um the the action was put forward to withdraw all of the money and all of the people that were involved, it was sort of robotically followed that they walked away even if people were dying, even if people needed medication, even if people needed food their ability to not see what was in front of them really showed where the where we were at and the blight of humanity's action what how easily we are controlled and and how easily we run to cover of saying well they said we couldn't do it. And a lot of that to me is these actions on the ground the people who put their neck on the ground who shout out at a president while he's walking by and get fired or get suspended. Those kind of things are important because it shows that we're not all in lockstep. We're not and that's the hope coming from Indigenous people who are never in lockstep, who always have a different understanding, a personal understanding a personal spirituality, a personal way of looking at things and a way to to connect that to the larger story, the larger narrative of who we are and what we're doing. To me the the problem of where we're at right now is that people don't know their story. People don't know where they're interfacing and don't want to tell themselves that they are part of this system. If they act only as a cog, they will do what a cog does and they have the only following orders mentality to continue that system. If we start to stand up as they are in the States and if we start to enact things that challenge where we're coming from collectively, how we see our role and our place within the society that's a different calculation and that's where I hope that we will one day get to that people will be able to be proud of who they are, of where they come from, of their identity, of who they love, all of these things that we say within our theology that we are standing up for, we don't see a lot of that follow through happening in our communities. As these things come to the forefront, we are called to be part of this we are called to be part of that risk to say we are more than just Sunday morning Christians. We are something beyond that and that we are proudly beyond that that we can move this society in a different way which is what I think religion as a whole is kind of lost that we only follow one particular practice or one particular church, sing only certain songs and do certain things that define us and that that's all we are. It's like the story that you're building on comes from a Hebrew man who didn't have a lot and you want to take his example and live that in your life there's a big challenge. And in order to do that in an ongoing way you need help you need support you need love you need agency you need to work within the systems that you're in but you also need to break down the ones that don't work anymore.

Joanne 1:39:11

And I I actually think the first step with any of this is to think more deeply about things right like as we were were talking um I just kept thinking about Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem right because Eichmann designed the the gas chambers because that was his job that was it you know and it's like um we need to encourage I don't think it's a I don't think it's an accident that education systems are under attack. Yeah because um when you are are teaching uh young people to think more deeply about things it upsets the status quo and to me the role of the I mean there have been a lot of religions who just want you to fall in line no question about it. I'm united because the questions are more important than the answers, right? I say that all the time but um yes to think more deeply but starting from this premises of God seeks for humanity wholehearted living peace through justice not victory hope that one day we will be a community regardless of where we're from what we look like who we worship all these things we hold in front of us.

Bill 1:40:38

And so my job as a minister is to I believe help people to think more deeply about these things in their lives and our lives together so that we can uh you know the Bible says come let us reason together and that's uh that's the beginning and from that thinking more deeply comes action that matters not knee jerk reaction but um a crafting of a strategy that can move us to a place where we are uh more in tune with each other and where um we we can not necessarily control the narrative but shift the narrative to a more just understanding I'm also wondering I wonder about the importance in all this because again it doesn't surprise me at all that education is under attack it also doesn't surprise me at all um that we are we are in kind of the loneliest time in society that we've ever been in as well right Tony you talked about this idea of like the community coming together discerning together um sharing values together and sharing like what is what is the way forward together and there's an accountability in that for all of the participants to to live into that um within their community and none of that works if there is no community um if we are all isolated you can have all the wisdom in the world if you're discerning in your basement alone it is only ever going to be a a a small fraction of the the the total picture right so um I am aware of time and I feel like we could go on for a very long time about all of this um but I want to try to to somewhat wrap it up and I I we can't not at least name it so I I I wanted to leave it more as a footnote of possibly at least an indication of movement. I'm not gonna say that it is change um but movement uh because we um we have another currently unfolding kind of instance of you know uh church person behaving badly right Philip Yancey is now in the in the news um not with any um so far anyway not with any you know kind of allegations of sexual impropriety um but certainly um an eight year um extramarital affair um and the interesting thing in this one is that we didn't see the um the immediate defensive response um from the institution um we also didn't see the immediate kind of restrictive um and and like quarantining response from from the institution in fact it was Yancey who initiated the response of removing himself altogether um as everything comes to light and um like to be clear um so far there has been no attempt anywhere to discredit any of the the narrative that's unfolding anywhere either right so whether or not uh that is growth or whether or not that is just simply a a different kind of a moment um that will um um remain to be seen right but uh uh before we before we end first off uh my thanks Tony for being here tonight as always always uh grateful for your wisdom and for your willingness to share uh and everything that you bring to the conversation Ricardo and Joanne obviously I love you to death every single month that you are here. Closing remarks um so uh closing thought if you could name one hope for what accountability could look like in our world moving forward not cancel culture but genuine accountability uh for our world moving forward one practice or value or something we could cling to what would it be?

Ricardo 1:44:31

And I'll start with Ricardo of course uh right now during our um this affordability crisis we have right now we are seeing um people rally around to make sure people have food and can afford shelter and as a union as a negotiator I am seeing public support left right and center for people getting raises and adequate living wages um and I think that we have to deal with the extreme wealth of the 1% at some point in time. How it's grown exponentially just in the past five years since the pre-pandemic. And uh the distribution of wealth is is horrific. And there is a path forward and it's gonna be when people are at their breaking point and we can feel that breaking point now. Post pandemic uh you're you're right it's the loneliest time in the world and I remember Joanne a few a few episodes ago you had talked about like after the pandemic all everybody wanted was just like a time a breath to take a deep breath and and recover from the the the the chaotic environment of of shutdown and we never got that from from pandemic went to inflation and now we're in a situation where people can't afford boss fare anymore. Right? Calgary is now the most expensive in the country right and so I see I see people rallying together and and and forcing some sort of uh change in in the way we are our our well our wealth and our and our lives are distributed.

Joanne 1:46:04

So I would say in these conversations there's two words first is nuance let's let's claim it again like let's understand two things can both be true at one time um and be careful about proclaiming um one side or the other without all the information so that's one and the second is grace right and grace is not this forgive and forget as I said that's not what grace is grace is saying to people you've behaved badly and there are consequences of that but I can walk with you through those consequences. I'm not gonna erase you um just because you've sinned right that's what we promise is like that uh was it dead man walking the nun Sean Penn played the not in the very end and she was vilified Sister Jane was it you're looking at me but you're older than I am so she was a nun who was w walking with somebody who killed killed people and the families were outraged that she would visit him and have conversations with him Susan Sarandon played the nun I remember Sean Penn was that and it was just like at the very end she walked with him she had a conversation with him and the last thing she said to him was you need to acknowledge what you've done you need to say I hurt this family before you you know are executed and I think that's that's the thing about all of this is um yeah it people behave badly they hurt other people and and we need to um hold them accountable for that and hope they acknowledge it but we we can also walk with them through this space as they um seek a deeper understanding of what it means to be a good human being and we can encourage that. So that's the grace part and the nuanced part is the deeper thinking about things just all around.

Tony 1:48:16

I think for me one of like the things that I thought about when this was first presented was the ideas around the bad behavior of those who claim indigenous identity and those that are in the news more recently about that. And how do we deal with sort of a truth element within that of being able to recognize and understand and find a way through with a lot of difficult situations. Because I think a lot of this is yes we can put up walls and polarizations and vindication for particular acts and actions and there should be accountability for that where it breaches sort of legal and other standards that we are living within that we are expectations of community when it is these other um disguises, deceptions, ways that are not tangibly formed, thinking about what is our place within that and I always turn back to some of the teachings of our people talking about that our action is tied to what we know. Our the only sort of frame that we live within is that wisdom that is passed on to us that we can work with and help us to foster a good life. That you practice your faith, the way that you practice your ceremony is unacceptable to me, therefore unacceptable to everyone. It is this idea that we have an integrity to what we're trying to do, how we live in this world. We want to maintain that as we look into these other problems, as we look into these other spaces, bring our whole selves and our understanding to a way of living in the world that is honest to where we come from, and trying to build out a better form through that ability to say, I don't know everything, but I'm willing to listen, I'm willing to learn, I'm willing to change. I think that is um probably the depth of where we need to go and where we need to live within. Um and it does bring us to these social justice elements where we need to take action. It does bring us to these uh interpretations that need uh to have um a correction to the work of um Thomas King or or Buffy St. Marie and things like that, that uh we are on an even keel trying to deal with very difficult things. But we know who we are, and we know what we believe, and we know where we're going, what we want to have in the future. I think that the more that we can hold on to that, that hope that there is a future, that we will move through as many indigenous communities and people and lives have moved through various challenges, annihilations, genocides, to the point where they're still telling that story. They haven't given up. And they won't give up. We won't release that, the spirit of what we're trying to do. We're trying to hold on to something because it has value and it has worked for us, and it continues to work for us when we are honest to it and living according to that. And that to us is what those teachings and wisdom about the great spirit are trying to instill within us that there is a light that we're holding on to, that there is something that's more than what we are, more than who we are, more than who we believe we are, that is going to hold sway for not just us, but those that come after.

Bill 1:52:48

I would say that my hope would be that um we can collectively find a way in our world to move away from the need to respond to harm with denial. Um and move away from a need for the response to accountability being that it needs to be forced upon um in order to take root, um, to recognize that there are ways to, with grace, uh with shared communities of discernment and care and support embrace accountability as a way, uh as a means of moving towards growth and to a way of moving towards um greater relationship with each other um across many different uh lines and stories and contexts. So uh with that, uh, we are going to close off our conversation for tonight. Thank you to our live audience for being here and to you for listening online wherever it is that you are listening. Uh this has been Prepare to Drown, and we will see you next month. Thanks for staying with us on this one, folks. If certainty is cheap, then accountability, true accountability, is costly. It costs us our comfort, it costs us our reputation, it costs us our power, and it costs us the illusion that we are always on the right side of the story. Tonight we have named practices that move us towards something better. Listening to the voices that were dismissed, telling the truth without a spectacle, making restitution where harm has been done, building communities that can hold new ones, and practicing grace that does not erase the consequences of our actions. If this conversation mattered to you, share it with someone you trust. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts, and join us live at McDougally United Church in Calgary if you are ever in the area. Until next time, stay curious, stay brave, and keep choosing the work of repair. I'm Bill Weaver, and this has been Prepare to Drain.