Paths of Righteousness

Preparing for my weekly thoughts on the Sermon on The Mount, I spent some time reviewing all the TV evangelists I could find. I was interested to see what these folks would say about what many consider the most marvelous passage in western literature, and others consider the most significant example of Christian teachings.

What I saw surprised me.

Actually, what I didn’t see surprised me. Not a word. Not an utterance. I did hear a couple of references to the Beatitudes on a televised Methodist service. That was a progressive service, though—one espousing the sort of love and grace the Galilean favored—and not a “preach for pay” spectacle.

Not trusting a small data sample, I lengthened the analysis to an excruciating four days.

Nope. Not even a strained syllable. Not even an awkward analogy. Not one mangled metaphor.

Shifting into the analysis phase, I developed two questions. I think the reader may find them interesting.

First. What on Earth do the “broadcast pundits” talk about if they never mention the Galilean’s most memorable speech?

Conclusions: I find it a bit difficult to say. It’s like each has a secret pathway to a righteous life that rest primarily on distancing the broadcaster’s group from any other’s broadcaster’s group unless a spiritual, negotiated, contract exists with the head pundits of the other groups. In this case, the philosophies of the aggregated group are as mystifying as the individual ones.

They seem to believe that jabbering in a made-up language is of more importance than the quite clear language used by the Galilean.

They don’t care for government much unless it relieves them of some of the burdens of spreading their influence.

They use their influence, to a large degree, on the moving of money from their listeners to themselves. Their brand of religion seems to favor fine homes and expensive aircraft. (Those are for the pundits, not for the "poor in spirit.") They all have expensive clothes and hair, or supplementary hairpieces. They all seem angry.

They particularly despise, it appears from their messages, any individual, sect, cult, political party, or congregation, that, in any action, seeks to abide by the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. They seem to disavow them, those teachings so much.

Second: Why do they find the Galilean’s teachings so abhorrent?

I find it hard to say. Some argue that the high ethical strictures of the Sermon simply show us the impossibility of being righteous. To turn away from them only represents an understandable response, a more modern reaction. This suggests turning to a more up-to-date sermon. Greed, fear of knowledge, despising the different, and single-source universally based state-mandated religion form the basis of this more relevant path.

I think I just heard the Galilean moan. More on all of this next week.