As we come to the end of another year, Fr. Tom Reese has provided a disturbing description of the state of affairs in our country and in the world. His vision seems remarkably accurate and comprehensive.

Reese notes, for example, that religion is seen by many as irrelevant today, and by others as a source of conflict. He reminds us of how and why Catholics have lost trust in their leaders. Politics, he judges, has lost its ability to deal with substantive issues such as climate change and injustice. 

Reese goes on to describe political chaos: France, Britain, Hungary, the Philippines, and on and on.

At the heart of the problem appears to be a lack of care and concern for others. Elites have what they want and exhibit no interest in reaching out to assist others who are struggling to survive each day.

Reese even sees parallels to conditions that precipitated the build-up to World War II in the 1930s.

What is his solution to the current dismal picture? Religion. He recalls the words of Pope Paul VI, "If you want peace, work for justice." In the spirit of Advent, he calls on us to prepare the way of the Lord by strengthening and spreading more and more of the love of Father, Son and Spirit.

Let me share a few of my thoughts as we approach the Christmas celebration.

There is a danger that exhortations to religious fervor and practice will come across as hollow. Even Reese notes that religion is considered a part of the problem.

I tend to agree with G.K. Chesterton's idea that the problem with Christianity is not that it has been found wanting, but that it has never been tried. It is too easy to look at religious institutions and religious leaders today and see everything that is wrong with Christianity as we see it practiced. Also, of course, we need not even mention the frequent and inevitable failures of all of us as individual Christians.

Yet I cannot but be humbled by the idea of the incarnation. God became man. A god who loved us so much that he/she wanted to assume our nature in every way. God chose to become a part of our lives with all its joys, sorrows, successes and failures. With all the ugliness of humanity, and our inhumanity to each other, God chose to be associated with us.

In other words, God has not given up on us. We cannot afford to give up on ourselves. Our God, made known to us in Jesus the Christ, will certainly walk with us every step of the way. We are called as Pope Paul VI said to work for justice, to let our light shine in the darkness, and to take a stand against injustice in our world.

I believe 2019 can be a better year. Merry Christmas.

[Pat Perriello is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University who retired from the Baltimore City Public Schools where he served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services.]

Jan. 3 marked the start of a new Congress. It happens every two years. It is not that big a deal, and yet it seemed like a big deal this time. It turns out we still live in a democracy. In November, the American people voted to give Democrats 40 additional seats in the House of Representatives. Power in government shifted.

There were no riots in the street. Tanks did not drive down Pennsylvania Avenue to prevent the change in power from occurring in Washington. Law enforcement did not rush into the Capitol building to arrest new congressional members before they could be sworn in.

Autocratic governments are on the upswing in Democracies such as the Philippines, Brazil and Turkey. Even solid European allies are experiencing a dangerous populism that threatens their age-old democratic institutions. Yet it seems the United States remains strong in its Democratic traditions. We can be grateful for that as this new year dawns.

Yes, the current president continues to seek ways to extend his power, and especially to protect himself and his family from investigation. Yes, President Donald Trump clearly believes that as president he should be able to speak and make things happen. He expects all the levers of power to be engaged to do his bidding.

Yet, that is not working out so well for him. The Mueller investigation continues. Congressional investigations in the House will be getting underway. Other legal challenges to the activities of this president and his administration continue.

Perhaps our Founding Fathers really did know what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution. There is reason to hope that "our long national nightmare" may soon be over.

So, one has to ask the question about impeachment. It seems everyone is now asking whether this president should be impeached. Some Democrats are chomping at the bit to move forward immediately. House leadership says no. Wait for the Mueller report.

I have a somewhat different tack. I believe it is fair to say that the impeachment process has already begun. I would call it a potential impeachment. First, one needs to remember that it is a process. The House of Representatives cannot simply vote tomorrow to impeach the president of the United States. Those clamoring for immediate action should relax a bit and let the process move forward.

Hearings will soon begin to hold members of this administration accountable for what they have said and done. They will be questioned in public hearings and the American people will begin to make up their minds about what is going on and how they feel about it. To me, this is the beginning of the impeachment process. It could lead to articles of impeachment and impeachment, or not.

That is the caveat. The careful and deliberate process begins with these hearings. It awaits the Mueller report. It can then continue with articles of impeachment, actual impeachment, and conviction in the Senate and removal from office.

What is clear, however, is that the process can also be aborted at any point along the way. If the hearings don't move the public in the direction of impeachment, it becomes less likely. If the Mueller investigation doesn't produce damning evidence that stirs up the public, it would be difficult to go forward. If congressional Republicans and rank-and-file Republicans remain solidly behind this president, then impeachment may not be feasible.

On the other hand, it is also possible that the facts will move the public to demand action. In short, the impeachment process has begun.

[Pat Perriello is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University who retired from the Baltimore City Public Schools where he served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services.]

A bank robber enters a bank in a large city. He takes hostages as the bank is surrounded by police officers and SWAT teams. The police department begins negotiations with the robber by phone. The release of hostages is demanded.

A slow process begins whereby some hostages are released, as the robber realizes the precariousness of his situation. First, we see the children come out. Then come the dangerously ill or handicapped. Perhaps we see the women released next alongside the elderly.

As the number of hostages is reduced, the discussion turns to the major issues remaining: Surrender, assurances and logistics for a safe getaway, safety of the remaining hostages.

Currently 800,000 American workers are being held hostage by their government. Millions more are deeply impacted by the shutdown. We can't even begin to illustrate the pain and suffering that is being experienced by our fellow citizens because of this shameful government failure.

Government shutdowns have almost become a routine way of conducting government business or legislating. Thus, working Americans are being held as hostages in political battles. This is unconscionable. Including the present one, modern history has recorded a total of 18 government shutdowns since 1976.

Two things need to happen. First, the government needs to reopen. Second, legislation needs to be passed to make it impossible for another shutdown of this type to ever occur again. Politicians can argue issues as much as they want, but not on the backs of American workers. No one: president, Republicans, Democrats, should be able to use this tool as leverage in a legislative argument. Enough is enough.

One possibility the president has been considering is declaring a national emergency. He seems to be backing away from that course of action as opposition builds to such an idea.

That brings us back to our bank robber. The way to reopen the government at this time is to release the hostages, one by one. Government agencies that are closed or partially closed include Agriculture, Housing, National Park Service, FDA, IRS, NASA, Department of Commerce, Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

The House of Representatives is passing individual bills for each of the government agencies to be reopened. It is time for the Senate to bring these individual bills up for a vote. They can establish priorities for the hostages that are being held. If airport security is at the top of the list, then start paying the TSA agents again. Maybe IRS agents would be next.

Eventually everyone would be back to work except for the critical Homeland Security agency. Either pass a continuing resolution so the politicians can fight over this issue to their hearts' content or resolve the issue and get everyone back to work.

The American people are surrounding the capitol and the White House. They are demanding to be put back to work. They will give free passage to politicians to continue their bickering for as long as they want. But first, stop the hostage taking. Free the hostages. End the government shutdown.

[Pat Perriello is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University who retired from the Baltimore City Public Schools where he served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services.]

Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore has taken unilateral action to address the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. He should be commended for doing so. While his efforts are unlikely to resolve many of the problems associated with the crisis, it is at least a decision to act rather than waiting for permission.

However, the church is faced with a crisis that goes even beyond the sex abuse atrocities. There is a fracturing within the church of historic dimensions. Pope Francis himself has lost credibility, as members of the hierarchy feel emboldened to criticize him directly. They not only question his actions on the crisis but go after his leadership and commitment to what they see as unchangeable doctrines.

Bishops have accused the pope of lacking clarity in his statements on homosexuality and divorce. According to the Times, less than half of U.S. bishops attended the January retreat which Francis had encouraged the bishops to hold back in September.

Should the bishops act on their own? How does Francis and the church reestablish unity — or can they? Certainly, prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance is in order, but what can be done?

I agree with Pope Francis when he says that credibility"cannot be regained by issuing stern decrees or by simply creating new committees . . . as if we were in charge of a department of human resources."

Too often the church has attempted to acknowledge the problem and feel that somehow solves the problem. It doesn't. Many pastors felt the need to apologize and express remorse after the Pennsylvania grand jury report accusing more than 300 priests of sexual abuse surfaced. That's fine. But there is somehow the notion that if I apologize from the pulpit for one or two weeks, the problem has been excised. Everything can return to normal. It can't. 

The institutional church has been forced to acknowledge that there have been a lot of bad priests who have done bad things. The church even acknowledges that many bishops foolishly covered up the actions of these priests.

What does the church seem unable to acknowledge? There is something wrong with our church. Significant change needs to occur.

Instead, we face a fierce battle between a traditionalist hierarchy and so-called progressives in the church. Even though Pope Francis seems committed to some incremental change, the dominant conservative message coming from the hierarchy is that nothing can change in this mausoleum of a church. Such rigidity and refusal to understand the challenges the church faces in the 21st century does not suggest this church is capable of successfully dealing with any crisis it may face.

What needs to change in our church? Do we need married priests? Of course. Do we need female priests? There is no question about it. Do we need to rethink some of our moral proscriptions in light of today's culture? Certainly. Do we need to rethink a policy requiring Catholics to submit to confession to a priest for the forgiveness of sins? What do you think? Do we need to loosen liturgical norms which prevent pastors from leading their own congregations as appropriate? I would think so.

I could go on and on, but we continue to be faced with the power of those who only know one word – no. Does the hierarchy need to understand that they no longer have a right to the authority they claim and need to change their relationship with the faithful? Absolutely. That has to change.

I believe that at this point it can only change with a worldwide Third Vatican Council. Many don't realize that conservatives were also very powerful during the Second Vatican Council. Yet progressive forces were able to overcome conservatives like Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, especially because the papacy provided support. 

This time around a church council needs to include women, laity, sexual abuse survivors and members of other significant groups as voting members. There needs to be a major period of preparation that should begin now. The entire event may take as many as ten years, but creating a new church will of necessity require a large block of time.

Only when the church realizes the need for a major overhaul will it be able to address its complete failure and shame over the major scandal and cover-up it has participated in.

The alternative is an inability to retain the respect and allegiance of its members. A remnant of those who retain blind adherence to the church will remain. Many others will walk away from a church that doesn't even understand the full import of its cataclysmic failure to be the light of Christ to the world.  

Just a few words on the government shutdown and the reopening of the government. Congress has three weeks to reach a deal that the president will sign, or the government could shut down again. I feel confident in saying that is not going to happen. It is inconceivable to me that after all the pain of the last five weeks, politicians or the president would shut the government down again in three weeks. I sure hope this prediction of mine does not turn out to be wrong.

I would go further. I also don't believe President Trump will declare a national emergency. Many consider this the vehicle he will use as an off-ramp to demonstrate how hard he is fighting to build his wall. But there is serious opposition to this maneuver even within his own party. The bottom line, I believe, is the president will have to keep the government open because Republicans in the Senate will not permit another shutdown.

When I wrote about the shutdown on January 14th, I indicated that something had to be done legislatively to ensure this never happens again. There is some talk about that now. It can never be acceptable to shut down the government for a political reason. The government work force cannot be considered a tool to use as leverage to get one's way on a policy matter. Congress has been established to debate policy issues, but not to hold government workers hostage to win a debate. 

This has turned out to be a shutdown over nothing. The president sought 5.7 billion dollars to build a wall no one wanted. It turns out the shutdown cost the government 11 billion dollars. This kind of behavior on the part of politicians and the president is not acceptable.

Clearly the president has taken the brunt of the blame for this shutdown. That is as it should be, but it does not mean the Democrats are blameless. Personally, I would put the blame at about 70 percent Trump and 30 percent Democrats. I do think it was necessary for Democrats to stand firm and not give in on the President's demands, but I think more needed to be done, if only behind the scenes, to work towards a resolution to the crisis the president precipitated.

More to the point, Democrats need to work with Republicans in Congress to put together a deal that Congress is comfortable with and which can pressure the President to sign on the dotted line. It is also time to dampen down the rhetoric and take a more conciliatory line.

A strong bipartisan committee has been named to work on reaching a deal. I believe this committee will produce a deal that will enable the president to claim he has what he will call a down payment on his wall. At the same time Democrats will be able to say they have given the president no money for his wall. The semantics of the arguments now need to be used to make a deal everyone can sign on to, instead of highlighting differences that mitigate against a deal. I believe the president will sign such a deal. 

That represents the stuff of compromise. It represents government working, and it is certainly time for us to see government working in this country for a change.

[Pat Perriello, a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools, served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

Competence. Experience. Authenticity. Highly qualified. Well-regarded in the African-American community. Well-liked by American workers — think Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Pushed President Barack Obama to evolve more quickly in promoting marriage between gay and lesbian members of the community. Knowledgeable on foreign affairs. Moderately progressive.

What's not to like?

The Democratic field has a very progressive cast to it right now. That's good. I think Democrats are pretty much all progressive. Joe Biden is certainly a progressive. The question, though, is what is meant by progressive.

I hear too many Democratic pundits on television espousing the far-left edges of the progressive agenda. Medicare for all. A wealth tax on billionaires. Abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Etc. I'm a pretty liberal guy. In fact, I don't necessarily disagree with any of these points. I just believe you have to crawl before you can walk.

It is necessary to shore up the Affordable Health Care Law before you can talk about Medicare for all. The worst parts of the unfortunate tax law passed by the Trump administration need to be corrected before we can talk about confiscating money from billionaires. Why would we even consider abolishing ICE right now? Of course, there are terrible abuses that need to be corrected, but the notion that we don't need security to protect our border is a nonstarter in our country.

It was my understanding that the No. 1 priority for Democrats this election cycle was beating Donald Trump. I don't think many on the left are considering that reality when they fantasize over turning our country into another European socialist government. It sounds very Trumpian to me to forget where 40 percent of the country is ideologically and to impose our will on them because we know better.

We are being told that the country is moving to the left and is ready to embrace Medicare for all, and a high tax on billionaires. Maybe so, but these are things that need to be approached on a gradual and responsible basis, not recklessly announced as campaign promises. Even in the effort to increase the minimum wage, most states have used a gradual approach by increasing the minimum wage to $15 over a period of years.

Unfortunately, the growing Democratic field of candidates is locking itself into a litmus test that is producing an unseemly conformity. There is not only room for a moderate lane but a need for one. Former Vice President Biden is fully capable of making that case and appealing to portions of the electorate needed to win, without alienating the more progressive wing of the party.

An arrogant and aggressive push for an over-the-top progressive agenda is not a way to win an election. I believe it also shows a lack of understanding of Democratic voters. They want fairness, they want progress, they want to overturn as much of the damage the Trump presidency has done as possible. They want a comprehensive immigration policy that treats all people as worthy of dignity and respect while still protecting legitimate borders. They want the promise of the Affordable Care Act restored and made better and more affordable — perhaps with a public option. They want sensible gun safety laws to protect our children.

Some of the pie-in-the-sky agenda items being proposed can get in the way of the practical agenda that is needed to return our country to a sane domestic and foreign policy that all of America can unite behind. The agenda being enunciated by current Democratic presidential candidates can turn away independents and Republicans who will absolutely be needed in 2020 to put Trumpism behind us.

We need to change the trajectory of our country. The progressive agenda being highlighted by Democratic candidates for president seems hell-bent on jumping over giant steps necessary to the process, in order to get to where they want. That could be a disastrous choice.

Run, Joe Biden, run.

[Pat Perriello, a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools, served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

The much-anticipated February conference on sex abuse at the Vatican is now history. This is the conference that prevented the U.S. bishops from acting on the sex abuse crisis back in November at their meeting in Baltimore.

Was it worth it? What was accomplished? We heard the same rhetoric we have been hearing since the crisis first broke in Boston more than 15 years ago. Little in the way of concrete action came out of the discussions. They were marred by divisive speeches demonstrating just how divided our church has become. Finger-pointing and accusations often drowned out thoughtful or serious dialogue on how to address the issue that continues to bedevil the church.

It appears there are some, too many, in the hierarchy who have no real interest in resolving the crisis but just want to add fuel to the fire of dissent and conflict. It does not bode well for real progress on this issue if church leaders cannot work together to initiate appropriate steps to ameliorate the crisis.

I have noted before that it seems schism may be the only way out of the current conflict in the church — and that still seems a real possibility.

Having said that, the report and press conference coming out of the Leadership Roundtable's Catholic Partnership Summit in Washington with Cardinals Blaise Cupich and Sean O'Malley are actually an important first step. What strikes me as new and what goes beyond the rhetoric we are so used to hearing are some of the following ideas that came out of the Catholic Partnership Summit:

• The roundtable itself was a coalition of clergy, laity, and religious.
• The involvement of local laity and clergy is recommended in the selection of bishops.
• New structures are seen as needed to improve relations between bishops, clergy and laity (clericalism must be dealt with directly).
• The report stresses the need for lay involvement in co-responsible governance structures.
• The report suggests that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, together with lay leaders, revise the theology of priesthood and priestly identity to reflect servant leadership.
• The roundtable has proposed that independent entities be created to address misconduct of bishops.

These concepts could provide the format to begin significant structural change in the church, which in turn could lead to meaningful reform. The notion that laypeople need to be involved in a revised theology of priesthood is pretty exciting, and a dramatic departure from clericalism. It will be important to see what the U.S. bishops' conference does with these recommendations at its next meeting.

It is clear the hierarchy of our church can no longer run our church by itself. The sooner we see power equalized in the church among all stakeholders — clergy, laity, and specific and appropriate interest groups — the sooner it will be possible to feel good about being part of this institution again.

[Pat Perriello, a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools, served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made clear her reservations about moving to impeach President Donald Trump. Some in her party and in her caucus disagree, but it is especially the media that seeks to stoke the flames of this issue into a more significant controversy than it is.

The media also wants to focus on the most "extreme" statements coming out of some of the newly elected house members, even though they represent but a fraction of the Democrats in Congress. I believe they represent even a smaller fraction of the rank-and-file party members across the country.

One could argue there is enough evidence on its face to begin impeachment proceedings. I have suggested previously that impeachment hearings are already underway in the congressional investigations that are ongoing.

Why not move forward and prepare actual articles of impeachment? It wouldn't be that difficult to produce a reasonable set of articles that would demonstrate valid reasons for impeaching this president.

However, the question has to be asked: To what end? What would be accomplished? The votes exist in the House of Representatives to impeach this president, but as Pelosi said, impeachment would require bipartisanship.

The problem, however, is bigger than that. The impeachment process would energize congressional Republicans as well as Trump supporters throughout the country. It would be seen as an overreach by Democrats that, as Pelosi said, would be terribly divisive; it would end any chance of building a bipartisan consensus on any issue. Even the current hearings in the House are being attacked as partisan and an overreach by Democrats.

The hearings in the House, however, are necessary and critical. They provide the only opportunity to hold this president accountable. More importantly, the public hearings offer a forum to explain to the American people, including skeptical Republicans, what is actually happening in the Trump administration. The hearings force Republicans to examine the reality of Trump administration transgressions and reconsider their positions.

This is what Pelosi means when she talks about the need for overwhelming evidence of major wrongdoing that might cry out for impeachment. Essentially, we will know its time to impeach when Republicans say it is time to impeach.

This is a dangerous time for Democrats. They need to accomplish something constructive. They are passing important bills on voting rights and gun safety, which is good. However, none of these bills are going anywhere at this time. They need to find something they can do together with Republicans that can be seen as moving the country forward. Minor fixes on the Affordable Care act would be important — especially since health care was the number one issue during the midterm elections. Putting together a critical infrastructure bill would be another example where bipartisanship may be possible.

They also need to remember that 2020 is not just a presidential election year. All they have gained will be lost if they lose the House in 2020 and fail to retake the Senate. A Democratic president with a Republican Congress will not be a recipe for moving this country forward.

Finally, they need to quit talking about their pie in the sky prescriptions for the country. The Democratic platform needs to be about jobs, health care, better wages, safety net protections, etc. That's a lot. We should be talking about preserving and expanding health care for all — if that becomes Medicare for all, so be it. But to make it a litmus test for Democratic candidates is the wrong direction to go.

The litmus test should be fighting for working Americans, understanding their needs, and working with all Americans to correct as many of the failures of this administration as possible.

Frankly, some of the rhetoric coming out of certain Democrats as this campaign gets underway makes me think they know as little about how government works as the current president.

Finally, one of the areas where president Trump has done the greatest damage to our country is foreign policy. His dangerous notions regarding NATO, withdrawal from Syria, rapprochement with Russia and North Korea have made us less safe. Yet these issues are not being discussed on the campaign trail, and few if any current candidates have significant expertise in this arena. That needs to change.

In short, I disagree that what we need now is a bold new vision for this country. I don't believe going from one end of the political spectrum to the other is where the American people are right now. Politics, lest we forget, is the art of the possible. We need the nuts and bolts of practical, step-by-step movement to make this country better and to reverse the trends of the last two years.

There are a few things we know about President Trump that are pretty incontrovertible. He is narcissistic. He attacks the media as the enemy of the people. He attacks the Department of Justice when it suits his needs. He fails to accept the findings of his own intelligence community. He seems to like dictators more than leaders of Western democracies. He insults dead war heroes like John McCain. When he is challenged in any way, he lashes out at that individual in the most vigorous way possible. He has difficulty with the truth. He has grave doubts about the reality of climate change. He evinces hostility to immigrants, Muslims and people of color.

A victory in 2020 will almost certainly exacerbate all these tendencies. Without doubt we can expect a reelected Donald Trump to proclaim his greatness and his victories far and wide. It will for sure be the greatest election victory in history.

Can we also expect journalists to go to jail for criticizing this president? Will he assume greater sway over the DOJ and the FBI — and will anyone prevent this? Will we begin to see political prosecutions of some of Trump’s enemies? We are already hearing calls for prosecution of such frequent targets as Hillary Clinton, James Comey and others from the Justice department.

What will happen to our foreign policy? Consider the press conference he just held with the newly elected president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. He did not sound like any president of the United State I have ever known. Everything Trump said was antithetical to what have been considered American values. Trump welcomed the far-right leader and indicated he would become a major non-NATO ally of the U.S. The two leaders vented on their feelings about fake news. Trump accused American companies of discriminating and silencing conservative views on social platforms and said something must be done about it.

We can expect more of this. No one from the past who came back to see this country in 2024 would recognize our stance on the world stage. Our alliances by then would be upside down. Our relationship to Western Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would be essentially abrogated. Instead, we would be partnering with the likes of Russia, China, the Philippines and Brazil. It is mindboggling.

His continued insults and outrageous conduct to anyone who challenges him will go on unchecked. He has already cowered all Republican elected officials into silence or adulation. Dissent will be a dangerous thing in the world of Trump Part II. His lies will continue, but no one will bother to fact check the number of his lies per day, week, month or year any longer.

As for climate change, Trump will continue to deregulate this government until nothing is done to preserve our environment, and even basic safety regulations will be done away with. 

The future of Dreamers is in grave danger. Children separated at the border will not be reunited but will be kept in long-term debilitating detention camps. Attacks on Muslims in our country will be all but condoned, and white Nationalism will grow. They and other such groups will have free rein across the country to peddle their rhetoric of hate.

Perhaps the worst thing of all will be that the world will no longer see this country as the America they once knew. That shining city on a hill, that country always striving to attain the pinnacle of its yet unrealized ideals will be no more. The America of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, etc. will cease to exist.

Is this what the American people want?

It is difficult to discuss conditions in the institutional church today. I have been hesitant to even write about the challenges confronting the church because there is little that can be said in a positive vein.

There is the sex abuse crisis.

There is the cover-up by the hierarchy.

There is a dearth of forward-thinking ideas to remedy the crisis.

There is Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI returning to the scene for what purpose remains unclear.

There is the increasing irrelevance of Pope Francis himself amid a significant loss of his credibility.

There is the hostility among traditionalists toward Francis, and a determination to return the church to pre-Vatican II status.

The church broke apart during the Reformation. The current plethora of Christian denominations is what we have to show for it. Is that where we are headed again? It is difficult to see how the problems and the divergence of positions can be reconciled.

In the words of a hymn that is seldom sung today: we need to "sing a new church into being."

So much needs to change in today's church. We must rid ourselves of all those things that have taken us away from truly following in the footsteps of the Lord.

The church has picked up too much baggage over the centuries. It all started as early as the time of Constantine. The church became too comfortable being connected to government. Power, influence and wealth became driving forces that caused it to lose focus on the message of Jesus of Nazareth.

Our evangelical brothers have adopted that posture to their detriment in our country today. We need to heed the words of Jesus to "render to Caesar those things that are Caesar's and to God those things that are God's" (Mark 12:17).

The strength of our faith is in the multitude of believers who still seek to practice Gospel values and live their lives as faithful followers of Jesus, the Christ.

I believe that to go forward, we must go backward. As we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord, we need to return to the Gospels. Jesus in Mark tells us to go before him into Galilee and there we will see him. The apostles reunite with their Lord on the shores of Galilee. Jesus sends his Spirit to start a new church and to guide it into the future.

Peter steps out onto the balcony and preaches: "This Jesus whom you crucified, God has raised up and made both Lord and Messiah" (Acts 2:36).

In the Christological hymn of Philippians, we learn of Jesus' emptying or kenosis. It says in part: "Have this mind in you which is also in Christ Jesus, who though he was God, did not believe divinity a thing to be clung to, but rather he emptied himself, taking on the form of a slave, and becoming like us in all things except sin. ... Therefore, God has exalted him ... so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth; and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the father" (Philippians 2:5-11).

We are called to follow the Jesus of the Gospels and the Lord who is risen, not the cacophony of voices providing so many distorted notions of what Christianity is all about. We can also not follow those leaders of our church who have failed us in so many ways.

This Easter may we recognize the risen Lord in the breaking of the bread and may the Spirit lead and guide us to a new church and a new community of servant leadership.

[Pat Perriello, a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools, served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]