DEFEAT FASCISM

 The irony of hypocrisy can sometimes make one’s head swim. Consider the modern concept of the flawed messenger, also known as the “despite it all syndrome.” Due to it, a man lacking any semblance of moral character replaces the Galilean as the preferred savior of a large and powerful cult.

Why?

One wonders.  Actually though, it is not a modern concept. Messengers have often carried flaws. Consider the founder of nations who was quite ready to cut his son’s throat because a voice in his head told him to.

These days we would call that schizophrenia. Followers call it the anointing of a messenger.

Consider another king of a religious order who sent his best friend to die in battle because this leader wanted to hook up with his best friend’s wife. He was a king and kings don’t warrant the scrutiny afforded the lowly.

Back to the modern example, the “mind boggling” aspect of his worship is the hypocrisy.

He cheated on several wives, but he had Roe v Wade overturned.

He lies, cheats, blasphemes and even makes fun of a disabled man on national TV , but he spews venom on those his followers hate. He torments the same people his followers wish tormented and will be successful in marginalizing them and denying them their fair share of the American dream.

Okay, but what about Bill Clinton?

“On no,” they shout. He was just flawed. Not our messenger at all, despite any successes he may have enacted. Hardly a true messenger.”

But he admitted his sin and repented.

“See above.”

But his closest allies and followers denounced his actions.

“See above.”

But he made amends and has stayed married to the same person for over half a century,

”See above.”

One sighs and sits back to watch the show.

DEFEAT FASCISM

When you think about it, the extreme right-wing fundamentalist evangelicals may be headed into a box canyon, a positive sign in the long term. It's like this:

The rise of the MAGA cult has benefited in large part from the support of the fundamentalists. How did this happen?

From the book THE KINGDOM, THE POWER, AND THE GLORY by Tim Alberta, we learn that they blossomed due to first their religion, then from fear, and finally from hatred. It didn’t arrive through study and introspection. The willing derived it by being spoon-fed rations of fear. Evil influencers preyed on minds troubled by primal fears that their lives were not progressing as they had hoped. Their belief cohort might not sustain hegemony. Dread of becoming a minority gnawed at their equilibrium.   A huge crowd of anxious prospects awaited the new alter call.

Giving them the doubt that many feel moved by their religious fervor, how did they move from the Sermon on the Mount to support the attacking of the most cherished citadel in secular America, the United States Capitol building in Washington D.C? How did they come to support a presidential candidate marked chiefly as being totally devoid of decency or morality?

Seems the next step was fear, fear that some dark force was forcing Christians to abandon their most cherished beliefs. Some were not long held. Abortion, for example, did not become a politically charged issue in the United States until the 1970s and 1980s, primarily due to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Someone saw it as wedge issue to be exploited, despite it's not being mentioned in the New Testament and only by enhancement of vague passages in the old, such as Psalm 139:13-16, which describes God's presence in the womb, suggesting to some the sacredness of life from conception.

From there it became a foundational “fear stone” in the movement of fundamentalism from religion to politics.

Gun control formed another support. Although if allowed, some Americans would vote to rescind the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there has never been a serious suggestion by any politician or person of power. It has become, nonetheless, an issued laced with almost rabid vitriol.

Then came sexual orientation and those who are not avowed heterosexuals.

Next, the “least of those among us,” demeaned as non-producers.

Then came immigrants forced to leave their homes due to warfare among cartels battling for supremacy in meeting the insatiable demand for drugs by Americans.

Then they moved to honest, decent Americans, not excluding Jimmy Carter, Anthony Fauci, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama and family, not to mention Joe Biden.

Then anyone who spoke on behalf of supporting the planet.

Then all Democrats and anyone labelled a "liberal." They don't ascribe the word to a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare. They refer to those who dare provide love and grace to "the least of those among us."

The fear and hate didn’t arise from a study of scripture, it came from pulpits, first for monetary reward and then for political power, usually for both. Far too many ministers found, that for personal reasons, the rewards of fear and hate far outweighed the rewards of love and grace.

Each year demands a new set of monsters bent—according to right-wing evangelist ministers, Fox News, and political operatives—on taking away evangelicals' freedom to practice their religion. Each step moves the group of monster/victims closer to average Americans. This includes our friends and neighbors, particularly mainline Christians who still spread the love of Jesus and don't mix it with politics. All of us are in danger. After all, the hate mongers must have new fuel with which to replenish their demand for fear.

In short, they will run out of sujets de haine, subjects of hatred.

Where can they turn, then, but to themselves? Rember the Nightof the Long Knives?

WRONG PROBLEM

 Peter Drucker, known as the "father of modern management," once said something to the effect that a manager who makes the right decision on the wrong problem is more dangerous than the manager who makes the wrong decision on the right problem. Just imagine the bull who, upon being forced into the ring, goes into decision-mode and decides that his problem is that little red cape, then makes the right decision therefor.

It dawned on me that many are wrestling with the wrong problem while attempting to understand what happened last Tuesday. They pose it as, "They watched her speak and him speak and made the decision based on what they saw, deciding to vote for him. What a problem."

I don't think that's what happened.

I don't think they ever saw or heard her speak in an unedited manner. I'm afraid that the bulk of Americans now get their vote-forming information from the following:

• Entertainment venues posing as news centers,
• Social media posts governed by algorithms that concentrate on desired outcomes,
• Evangelical pulpits,
• Church deacons, and
• Families and friends.

If they should happen to encounter dissonant facts, the result would resemble the scene in the original Star Wars film. Here's how it would go.

"I have found facts that don't agree with what you are saying."

Hand gesture: "These aren't the facts you're looking for."

"These are not the facts I'm looking for."

Conclusion: It's impossible to change an opinion with facts or logic when that opinion wasn't formed with facts or logic.

EPIPHANY OF THE DAY

 ELECTIONS

Our next election won’t rely on facts. Both extremes of the political factions denounce any facts that don’t resonate with embedded emotions and this phenomenon is spreading laterally.

It won’t rely on the Rule of Law. We are abandoning that.

It won’t rely on majority rule. The electoral college obliterates that.

It won’t rely on history. We distrust the telling of history, sometimes for good reason. (See: The Lost Cause Myth.)

It won’t rely on information. Too few control the dissemination, quality and content.

It won't rely on calm reflection. Our cell phones demand too much of our time for that.

It won’t rely on a concept of morality. The most commonly accepted source of morality in America is a book that lauds mass extermination, the murder of innocents, slavery, and harems, among its other tenets.

It won’t rely on sacrifice for the common good. That goes without saying.

EPIPHANY OF THE DAY

 AMERICA

Given the daily news, that so many Americans condone behavior most similar to that prevalent in 1930s Germany, we must wonder. Has something happened to America? It would appear so as a superstar of mendacious conduct controls a cult comprising a terrifying percentage of our people. Many of those had behaved, in all outward aspects, within normal boundaries until recently.

We now seem to have normalized bad behavior. It generates seductive news reporting and thus receives more than its reasonable share. We can’t seem to escape wallowing in its repulsive filth. Some examples:

-          Insurrectionists are heroes.

-          Facts are tools of the Dark One.

--       America needs a government operating on evangelical Christianity.

-          The Sermon on the Mount is banned from pulpits.

All at a time when America is outpacing the rest of the world in most standards of living.

Did something happen that threw us from an orbit of cognitive thought and rational behavior?

Or, some might say, have there always been flaws within our system? Did the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America open fissures that allowed the demons to escape?

We hope not.

Persecution

 Among other things turned topsy-turvy these days is the message of the eighth blessing pronounced by the Galilean in his most famous sermon as reported by the Gospel writer Matthew. Looking over a group of people who very well might be persecuted for following him, he said,

 “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:10 NIV)

 He was talking to a group of people who very well might have been persecuted for practicing his particular brand of righteousness. Certainly, followers within a century or so would know persecution when they became sources of entertainment for coliseum crowds. Yes, even today in some third-world countries, we hear of followers being murdered or tortured.

It has gotten to where in America, though, a self-proclaimed follower of the Galilean claims persecution when receiving a card in the mail that says, “Happy Holidays,” instead of “Merry Christmas.” That is hardly a measurable equivalent to being fed to hungry lions before a crowd.

Maybe we should work on our definition of righteousness. The Galilean mentioned it twice in his pronouncement of blessings. He first said for us to hunger and thirst for it. (Matthew 5:6) Then, as stated, he intimated that we might be persecuted for doing so. Evidently, he thought highly of it.

What is righteousness? Gosh. Who knows? Some self-proclaimed followers say it is the accumulation of money. There aren’t many things in more direct contradiction to the Galilean’s recorded words.

Some self-proclaimed followers say it consists of being born with the right physiological structure, that is to say one exactly like theirs. A person can sell a lot of chicken sandwiches by preaching that.

Some self-proclaimed followers say it consists of following the proper political candidate, even one who violates most of the strictures of our famous sermon each day before lunch. Of course, that candidate must hate the same people that the self-proclaimed follower does.

Some self-proclaimed followers simply say, “It is what it is. Trust us.” If the Galilean had listed naked honesty as a beatitude, that would tend to work, particularly if one’s father had been a famous follower.

Probably, if we read the sermon carefully, we will know what it is, at least what the speaker meant by it. Then we might come to realize that, in our modern country, the self-proclaimed followers of the Galilean are performing the bulk of the persecutions.

Yes, verily I say, our world is topsy-turvy right now.

Peace

Want to be called a child of the almighty? It’s easy. The Galilean said so on that mount so long ago—if we are to believe in the record of his life. Didn’t he say?

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”  (Matthew 5:9 NIV)

There we have it, from the written words in the document that represents, or should represent, the true belief of so many in the world. It could not be simpler. In fact, it bears repeating.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

Yet.

Yet.

We wouldn’t know it by viewing social media in America this morning. Some posts, written by hands that just laid the Holy Bible aside, urge us to hate and demean others who aren’t like us.

We wouldn’t know it by reading the news headlines in the legitimate news this morning. People who are sure they interpret the scriptures correctly are shooting at those who are shooting back, thinking that they interpret the scriptures correctly.

We wouldn’t know it by listening to politicians, including some at the highest level of American government, who urge us to hate and wreak vengeance upon those who place a different letter beside their political affiliation.

We wouldn’t know it if we read the words of the son of a legendary preacher of the Gospel. Though he calls himself and evangelist, hate and divisiveness drips from his mouth like poison from that of a mad dog.

We wouldn't know if from talk radio or TV. Too many hosts make money by spreading the opposite of peace.

We wouldn't know it from too many TV evangelists who find no profit in peace.

We wouldn’t know it from our relationship with friends and families. We don’t speak to many of them anymore because we differ in our interpretation of righteousness.

Perhaps we should look inward. It is said that to be peacemakers, we first must be at peace with ourselves.

That presents a problem. Whose definition of righteousness will we choose? They vary don’t they? How will we join that holy fold with so many among us who would use violence to prove they know religion best?

What was it again that the Galilean said, again? Oh yes:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

Peace.

Purity

To be pure in heart. Oh my. If we want to struggle, let us think about that for a day get ready for a task. Does anyone think it is possible? The Galilean did, for he told us:

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” Matthew 5:8 (NIV)

What in the wide world did he mean?

We enjoy two far distant extremes in this area today. That’s one reason we hear so little about the Sermon on the Mount except from the old mainstream churches. When the topic is mentioned, we find one extreme version claims that one must be totally pure within our thinking and actions, both internally and externally. Not surprisingly, this achievement is reserved for the one person espousing the view. Like those custom-made criteria lists that tell us what city is best in which to live, the supporters of this view maintain their own criteria that, you guessed it, prove them pure of heart and ready to see their god.

On the other extreme, there are supporters who teach that if a person supports one, and only one, of the principles the viewer holds dear, that person is not only pure of heart but appointed by the appropriate god to lead us through the wilderness of life. Politicians win elections by claiming such views.

Where does that leave the vast majority who would invoke the act of seeking purity? It is difficult to believe, simultaneously, that history has produced for us only one perfect person, but that we all must be perfect in order to see our god.

The Galilean didn’t help much. He didn’t say, “Blessed are those who strive to be pure in heart.” Nor did the say “Blessed are those who seek to be pure in heart.” No, there was no “give it your best shot” exemption in what he said.

Even President Jimmy Carter, whom most would regard as pure in heart, admitted to improper thoughts on occasion. One doesn’t have to be a muscular pool boy or naughty movie star to solicit a wayward thought, or action. Even a film concerning Mister Rogers, a model hard to surpass in this purity of heart discussion, had his wife’s character say, “He has a temper.”

How does a person cope with such a standard? Perhaps we can adopt the stance that a cleansed and purified heart is one that operates without guile, or untoward purpose. One who is pure of heart may make mistakes, or fall short of the glory, if the effort is made with righteous intent.

That still leaves out a lot of people, many in high places. But the very act of valuing purity may lead us away from the many dark caverns of impurity. As the poet Alfred Lord Tennyson once wrote, “I must lose myself in action lest I wither in despair.”

Yes, that amounts to nothing more than simple striving, but it’s better than following the impure of heart off a cliff.

The Quality Not Strained

What did the Galilean mean when he mentioned mercy? He thought highly of it, for he did say: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” (Matthew 5:7, NIV)

We don’t dwell on it much these days. Many feel it is more blessed to be rich than merciful, better to win than show mercy, and better to exact revenge than forgiveness. But it is right there in one of the most prominent places in all of Christianity, the Sermon on the Mount. A trait can’t get a better endorsement than to star in The Beatitudes.

The Galilean thought highly of the trait of mercy. Why don’t so many of us?

It was a cruel and violent age during which this most famous sermon took place. Wars, conquests, crucifixions, gladiatorial spectacles, and slavery occurred without a thought of their inherent cruelty. A look at the morning news might indicate that we are headed more toward, as a society, this state than away from it. That’s why it might be important to look closely at this state of mercy.

Oddly, to show mercy, one needs to be in a position to be unmerciful. It is dissimilar to, say, the quality of love, in which the more we give, the more there is to give. Mercy means being patient with people's weaknesses, differences, shortcomings and quirks.

It is dissimilar to sacrifice, in which one might suffer in order to provide solace to another, for example when a homeless man gives his coat to another on a frigid night. Mercy means doing good to those who hurt, offend, or torment you.

 It is dissimilar to a mandate, in which one provides mercy as an exaction, say by paying taxes. Mercy means personally helping someone you know who is hurting, even though they bear no resemblance to you physically, spiritually, nationally, or socially.

It is dissimilar to reparations or judgements. Mercy means reaching out to those whom we don’t love, or those who are the most difficult to love.

It requires a direct manifestation. One doesn’t show mercy, for example, by tossing coins in a holiday pot. That shows kindness and goodness maybe, but not mercy. It requires a face-to-face transaction for which, the Galilean asserts, one will receive it back in the future.

Is it any wonder that we see it in practice so seldom, this trait of mercy? Wouldn’t it be nice to see it roll into America from the highest halls and offices? Maybe, just maybe, justice would roll along with it. That might make the Galilean happy.

"The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice Act IV Scene I

Q

Hunger and Thirst

What is it today that we hunger and thirst for in our lives? To the Galilean on that Judean mount it was righteousness.

Not power.

Not riches.

Not fame.

Not adulation.

Righteousness: Here is exactly what he had to say:

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” (Matthew 5:6 NIV)

Righteousness: What does it mean? In everyday life, the definition is:

1.     Characterized by uprightness or morality,

2.     Morally right or justifiable, or

3.     Acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous.

This may sound like a check-off list. Other early writers would link it to salvation, even claiming that it came through faith alone. We are left to ponder what exactly the Galilean meant by it.

It’s interesting that he didn’t simply say “seek righteousness.” He said, “Hunger and thirst for it.” That adds another dimension, doesn’t it? Those fail the test, it would seem, who simply display the Bible for all to see without sacrificing one “jot or tittle” of earthly fame or fortune. To hunger or thirst removes all hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement.

I like to think the Galilean was referring to what we yearn to feast upon. He refers, in other places, to what we feed ourselves and what it produces. I like to think that to “hunger and thirst” for something, righteousness included, forms our daily habits and controls our very demeanor.

Such hungering doesn’t bring much in today’s market. To understand this, we might latch onto the words of a more modern writer, John Steinbeck. He said this of a character, based no doubt on his fried Ed Rickles:

“The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding, and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success.”

Equally unnerving in modern American society is the lack of positive role-models who would teach us to hunger and thirst for righteousness. They exist but are outmaneuvered and out-shouted by the anti-righteous cadres. In fact, some seem to worship evil because it sounds bold and trend setting. This bodes poorly for our youth. We read this dire warning from another writer of the last century:

“How shall the love of God be understood by those who have been nurtured in sight only of the greed of man?” - Quoted from an unnamed source in “How the Other Half Lives” by Jacob Riis.

Passions

 We don’t celebrate meekness in our culture these days. We celebrate assertiveness, except on occasion in children and always in women. Even in these cases, we don’t seek meekness as much as blind obedience. We prefer our men on the prideful side. Why then, did the Galilean place the following early in the Sermon on the Mount?

 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

 Was he advocating legions of zombie-like followers, bland and obedient, willing, and malleable? Perhaps, instead, he realized that true meekness more closely resembled the reining in of a wild horse, a situation in which power, true power, was harnessed and passions lay under control, to be guided to some good end. Didn’t the law that he claimed to have come to fulfill already offer a guide? Proverbs 16:32 states "Better a patient person than a warrior, one with self-control than one who takes a city."

 Well there we go. To be meek is not to be weak. Leave assertive bravado to those who would pattern their lives, and leadership, after a professional wrestling star on a television show. Leave obsession with greatness to actors, athletes, and politicians. The Galilean would tell his followers later, in Matthew 11:29. “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” (NIV) If that is not a call to meekness, what is?

Perhaps the Galilean realized that the power of restraining passions in favor of meekness lay in the effect that power might have when released while under control. Hence the lasting power of his own sermon on that lonely hill. Abraham Lincoln knew that. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that. The late John Lewis knew that. Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosa Parks knew it.,

 Their world struggled, still does, against the believers of pure power. At stake is not only the fate of our country, but likely the fate of the entire planet. The Galilean says that the meek shall inherit the earth. But will that earth be a charred, smoking ruble, or a new Garden of Eden? I think the Galilean left it up to his followers to decide. I think he left the gift of the Sermon on the Mount as a guide, hoping that some leader would, at some distant time, would hold it high while leading the world out of darkness.

                                                

War Games

Sundown in zion

Chapter forty

            “Permission granted to come aboard,” Sheriff Love said as Nelson entered his office Monday morning. “Which Gideon Nelson do we have the honor of seeing today: avenging angel, secret agent, horny sailor, or dedicated deputy?”

            Nelson laughed and pretended to think as he took his seat. “Maybe a little of each,” he said. “And what Sheriff Love do we have: jaded politician, former marine, star crime-fighter, or benevolent boss?”

            “Just a tired old asshole,” the Sheriff said, “but I have something for you.” Nelson looked surprised as the sheriff opened a side drawer in his desk and retrieved a small white box. “Here,” he said, pitching it to Nelson. “Never let it be said that I wasn’t willing to spend money on you.”

            Nelson opened the box to find and slid out an inner one filled with small cards. He fingered one from the pack, slid it out, held it before his face and read, “Gideon Nelson, Special Deputy.” The address of the Sheriff’s Office and phone numbers followed. He looked at Sheriff Love, his face registering a question.

            “Nice to leave around with folks,” the sheriff said. “Just in case they remember something they may have neglected to tell you.” He leaned backward in his chair and smiled. “Now please tell me you know things.”

            “I know things,” Nelson said, closing the box and placing it on his lap. He proceeded to relate the results of his efforts of the previous week, including the news on Clifton Sikes. “And the rest of the weekend was devoted to personal things. Don’t ask.”

            “I know they didn’t include your most fervent admirer in Armistead,” he said. “I saw her at noon yesterday, dining alone in the Cotton Bowl. Her chin was hanging so low that you could have cleared a minefield with it. The rest of her looked shipshape, though.” He stared into space. “Shipshape.”

            “As long as we’re using military analogies,” Nelson said, ignoring the message behind the Sheriff’s comment, “maybe we should talk war.”

            “I’ve fought mine,” the sheriff said. “Let these entitlement-laden assholes take care of the next one. It would do them good—might make them think twice before they vote.”

            “No doubt,” Nelson said, “but I’m talking about using military tactics to aid in our local crime fighting endeavors.”

            “You have my attention,” the sheriff said.

            “Things are too quiet and bottled up right now,” Nelson said. “Maybe we need to shake things up a bit … disrupt the homeostasis … make the rats run out from their hiding places.”

            The sheriff leaned back and thought. Then he leaned forward, opened his top desk drawer, withdrew a toothpick, placed it in his mouth and leaned back again. After another moment’s thought, he withdrew the toothpick and said in a slow voice, “If, by that, you mean let’s fuck with the bad guys, I’m all for it.”

            “That’s exactly what I mean,” Nelson said. “Any ideas?”

            Sheriff Gladson Love moved mentally back into battle fatigues, wilting heat, and the sour smell of rotting jungle. He nodded his head. “I don’t suppose,” he said, “that you ever did this, because you guys don’t stay in one place that long. But after we had been pretty much surrounded long enough, we jarheads tried a technique sent down from topside and borrowed from army airborne.”

            “Army airborne?”

            “A little thing called ‘mad-minute,’ designed to keep our foes off balance while we were encamped.”

            “And it worked how?”

            “We only practiced it when they knew where we were dug in and it wouldn’t have given away our position. At a secret time, between sunset and sunrise, usually on the mid-watch, the entire garrison would suddenly open fire on the jungle and maintain it for a full minute, supposedly keeping our enemy in a state of honest apprehension.”

            “Did it work?”

            “Does anything that the military thinks up ever work?”

            “Only when they seek the input of those who must actually carry out the mission,” Nelson said. “Tragically, they are almost always to hell and gone from the Pentagon.”

            “You are unusually perceptive for a sailor.”

            “So the mad-minute was a failure?”

            “It woke us all up.” The sheriff looked away to some distant place. “‘It worked once, sort of. The company commander had it set for 0137, after a new watch had been on for a while. There was this new kid in the company. Just been in-country for a couple of weeks. They “choppered” him out to our unit the day before. We had set listening posts that night, but had notified them to ease back into the perimeter in time to enjoy the fireworks ... all except for the new kid. We totally forgot about him. When we started firing, he panicked, and instead of flattening out on the ground, he started firing too. All anyone could see was his muzzle flash. We had no way of knowing the direction of fire.”

He paused and it took over a minute to compose himself. “We stopped counting the bullet holes in him next morning at 32. Seems he panicked after the first couple nicked him and started running back toward the compound.” He sniffed once, then again. “Nobody else wanted to know who he was, and the name on his blouse was obliterated. But I looked at his dog tags. Later, I found his name on the wall in Washington,” he said. “They didn’t put an asterisk after his name. I’m glad to say.”

“I’m a little confused,” Nelson said. “You say the technique didn’t work but you sounded just now as if you wanted to try it.”

“Just because something hasn’t worked doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea,” the sheriff said. “We’re not surrounded here, where all you can do is wait to see what happens. In fact, we should be the aggressors. Besides, there isn’t a bad guy in Armistead County who is as smart as the average NVA warrior.”

Nelson put a finger to his cheek and nodded in thought. So?”

“I’ll call some of those punks from that church in Connorville in and lay down some harassing fire,” he said. “You start spreading some bullshit. That’s something sailors are good at.” He smiled. “In the meantime, I’ll ask old Weasel, that police chief in Connorville, if he can be prepared to join us an a large-scale joint operation, but that I can’t tell him yet what it is. That will spread like a cosmic shit-storm. And don’t you have some suck with the press around here? Oh, and we’ll sweat a few meth-heads for good measure. We’ll do it all at once and see what happens.”

“That reminds me,” Nelson said. “Is meth a big problem around here?”

“Meth is a big problem in every rural county in America,” the sheriff said. “Ours seems to be centralized around the south-central part of the county. I’d love to take a look inside that so-called ‘hunting-club’ the gun nuts hang out at.”

“Is that the one where the Soul Warriors go?’

“The very one,” the sheriff said. “I just can’t get anything on it to justify a search warrant.”

“Did they build it?”

“Oh hell no. They don’t build things. They just destroy things, by shooting them. A bunch of rich men in Connorville built the club. Used to go there and gamble, drink, and run in whores. About 15 years ago the wives got agitated about it when one of them brought it up at the country club only to find out they were all equally pissed.”

“So they made their husbands sell it?”

            “Better than that. They ‘borrowed’ a trailer one night, one used to transport a diesel tank—most of the men were farmers, you know, and had all kinds of equipment.  They, the women, loaded on several five-gallon buckets of oil along with the diesel, then hauled it all over to a big wooden bridge on the only road into or out of the club. Got there about two o’clock in the morning.”

            “I think I see where this is going,” Nelson said.

            “They say you could see the flames all the way to North Little Rock,” Nelson said. “Took them three days to boat the last asshole out. Some of the whores may still be there as far as I know. Like I say, I can’t get a search warrant.”

            “They sold it then?”

            “Transferred the ownership to some legal entity or other. I think they lease it to this new breed of assholes.”

            “Did they replace the bridge?”

            “Oh yes. You can still get in right from the state highway, if you have a key to the gate.”

            “I thought the entrance was from a county road.”

            “That’s the new entrance,” the sheriff said. “They just keep the old one for an escape route, in my opinion.”

            “So meth is a problem and you think the hunting club is connected.”

            “Wouldn’t be surprised, but meth isn’t our only problem.” He smiled.

            “Oh?”

            “No. ‘Stuff’ causes us a lot of problems.”

            Nelson looked confused. “Stuff?”

            “Stuff … poontang, pussy, trim, cooter, snatch …”

            “Stop,” Nelson said. “I get the picture.”

            “Hiding the salami,” the sheriff said. He then yelled toward the closed door. “Now get back to work, Miss Manners, before I include some of your favorites.”

            There was a rustle from beyond the door. “Stuff,” the sheriff said, “The destroyer of kingdoms, fortunes, and power, plus the downfall of weak-willed men throughout history. Five of our last six murders were over stuff, including the man whose wife burned him alive in a house trailer, along with his girlfriend, a quality-checker from the ammo plant out on the Interstate. That’s where they both worked. She had been filching samples for some time and bringing them home. She had hidden them under her bed, so we had to wait until they quit going off before even attempting a rescue. By then they had both been plugged numerous times. It nearly drove the medical examiner crazy.” He shook his head. “Stuff,” he said. “The defense attorney got the wife off by claiming there would only have been minor burns without the accidental discharge of all that fire power.”

            Sheriff Love started scratching notes on a pad. After a moment, he looked up. “But I interrupted you. Why did you ask about meth?”-

            “I’m not supposed to know about this, much less repeat it, but I have it on good authority that the punk who killed himself driving too fast the other say had all sorts of meth traces on him?’

            “As in high on it?”

            “No, that’s the odd part. Just in his clothes.”

            “Like he had been involved in production?”

            ‘Big time.”

            “Holy hymn book,” the sheriff said. “When I get that report, I may be one step closer to a search warrant. That might be where the ephedrine is stored.”

            “The what?”

            “Ephedrine, actually pseudoephedrine, a main ingredient of both cough medication and methamphetamine, but highly regulated now. We can’t seem to find out where they are getting and storing it. Our federal friends are helping but they are stumped too.”

            Nelson was silent.

            “But,” the sheriff said. “Drugs are my problem, and I don’t have enough money to make you work on that problem for free, too.” He leaned back and smiled a broad smile, his dark eyes dancing. “’Anyway,” he said, “I’ve already wasted your time getting you off balance with a tirade about the dangers of stuff.”

            “Quite the contrary,” Nelson said. “And, as a matter of fact, I’ve been thinking about the same subject myself. What say we go stir up some shit?”

 

The Man on Efficiency

The Sermon on the Mount causes a great deal of puzzlement. One of the most severe instances involves some of our most prevalent emotions. The Galilean certainly goes against much of our modern sentiment when, partway through this most famous sermon, he throws us this moral curve:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-42 NIV)

This passage could equally inspire the “Defund the Police” crowd and the “Don’t take a knife to a gunfight” one. The first could say, “See who agrees with us? Be righteous.” The second could say “See what the weaklings want you to believe? Be afraid.” There is a third group, one believing in simple explanations, whose adherents would say, “His ways ain’t our ways. Be content.”

I’m not sure what the Galilean would say. He was more involved in preaching than in explaining. He leaves us much to figure out for ourselves.

Those for whom none of the foregoing responses suffice might view the passage from an “efficiency expert’s” view. Just imagine the time we waste in life dwelling on retribution and revenge, hoarding our possessions, thinking of how to avoid the unavoidable, or figuring ways to avoid sharing wealth. It might "free up a lot of our time" as the man in the TV commercial says.

What might we do with that time? We'll have to read the rest of The Sermon for that.

May I Be Your Neighbor

While watching a film based on the life if the late Fred Rogers, yes “the” Mr. Rogers, I couldn’t stop thinking about the Sermon on the Mount. From what we know of films and biography, few modern Americans lived a life more in harmony with those words attributed to the Galilean some 2,000 years ago than that simple television star of modern times.

As for us mere mortals, living these demanding scriptures is difficult in the Facebook age. Just look at the first examples following the glorious Beatitudes.

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. (5:13 NIV)

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. (5:14-16 NIV)

These constitute the famous “salt and light” sections of the Sermon. They fall directly upon the listeners and reflect precisely what the Galilean expects of his followers. They have garnered much attention and analysis over the years, including opinions regarding just how much light a household lamp of the era produced. We shan’t go into such detail here. Suffice it to say that he expected much from us.

Salt is a strange analogy, carrying a dual function in our physical world. It forms both a necessity of life and flavor to what may be a bland or troublesome existence. What if we viewed ourselves in this manner? How would we act if we truly felt that every moment of our waking life might bring continued hope and a blessing of seasoning to a troubled soul? Do our posts on social media, for example, reflect such a sublime responsibility?

Similarly, do we post items in order that our light may “shine before others,” and reflect our good deeds? The same source quoted in the Sermon also cautions us about judging others, so we had best limit our analysis conclusions to our own actions and leave others to their own thoughts.

Let us just conclude that these are troubled times and the strictures of the Sermon pose huge challenges in compliance. One man made the effort, though, and there are countless others we could name who have risen to the challenge. In selecting names, we would surely fail in the test of inclusion, so let us rest content with the one life mentioned at the beginning.

The Galilean gave his followers a “rough row to hoe,” as they say in my part of the country. They don’t pose the easiest path to follow. Maybe as a beginning effort, we can stop short of saying, “What would he do?” As a more achievable effort, we might just say, “What would Mr. Rogers do?” He sure made it look easy.

Cause and Effect

As inspiring as the message of the Sermon on the Mount is, we are at last forced to consider why the crowd came to hear it. We should also consider its lasting effect. Neither will cheer us on this bright Sunday morning.

The disciples came because it was their duty. The Galilean had chosen and assembled them soon after he withstood his temptations. It seemed their duty, more or less, to sit near him on that Judean hill. Followers follow.

As for the crowd, we don’t know. Their motives may not have withstood detailed scrutiny. Matthew reports that, after choosing his disciples, the Galilean:

“… went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them. Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.” (4:23-25 NIV)

There’s the rub. Even in today’s society, it wouldn’t be hard to draw a crowd by performing miracles, especially ones aimed at curing medical malformities. Sadly, one can draw crowds in modern society by simply promising miracles. Our most intriguing example is of one who expands this theory to the maximum. He promises miracles, fails to perform them, and uses lies (false witness) to disguise the failure to his true believers. Further, when science offers a miracle-like solution to an epic problem, he disparages the very actions need to make it work. His followers make disobedience to truth a bedrock act of acquiescence. Paraphrasing a line from an epic American film, they scream, “We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.”

That brings us to the question of loyalty. As for the Galilean, it seems to have been, at least in contemporary measure, what some describe as “a mile wide and an inch deep.” Some of the same folks who gathered with great hope on the Mount, may have been in the crowd that screamed for the Galilean’s blood when it appeared that his miracle-performing days were over.

Contrast that with our modern example whose followers seem not only unphased by his shortcomings but virtually emboldened by them.

“What does it mean” we might ask ourselves. Is there some hidden genetic trigger that guides us more fervently to greet, avarice, hate, and destruction than to the opposite attractions of love, peace, forgiveness, and righteousness?

Does it mean the virtues expressed in The Sermon are no longer pertinent in American life? After all, those prophets who call themselves “evangelicals” never mention The Sermon and seem, by all their actions, to eschew the very notions expressed in the Beatitudes. They turn instead to the cruel dictates of the older biblical texts. They even form cruel nicknames for the dwindling group of believers who still find “The Blessings” exalting.

What would we say if, somehow, the Galilean were to ask us, in modern parlance, to “review” his most famous sermon?

Perhaps it would be a good idea for each of us raised in a Christian culture to spend some time pondering that question.

How low? How high?

One way to view the Sermon on the Mount is vertically, or by height and depth. We live in a time during which the moral “limbo bar” has been lowered to the ground and we seem to be excavating to descend it further.

The Galilean on the other hand, created a bar that was not a measurement of the depth of depravity, but a test of our ability to ascend to righteousness. In other words: a tall moral measurement.

When he tells us, for example, to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, it is, as we Southerners would say, “A hard row to hoe.” He’s asking us to leap pretty high. How many would make the effort these days when people tend to see the characteristics of good and evil so clearly—diametrically opposed as they may be.

He equates “lust-think” with the actual act of adultery. The concept of lustful impulses remains, however, one of the most solid bedrock principles of modern advertising. In modern mythology, some of us can not only get away with pronounced lust, we receive great rewards for it.

Perhaps the most difficult of the Sermon’s exhortations, at least for many of us, is that which urges us not to store up for ourselves treasures on earth. Some of the worst transgressors here are men and women clothed in their self-sewn cloaks of righteousness who flit to and fro upon the Earth while claiming to speak for “God.”

They don’t mention the Galilean a lot, never his most famous sermon.

Anyway, he despairs over divorce except in cases of adultery, yet we live in age in which modern churches proudly advertise special classes for divorced singles.

What are we to think? Anglican clergyman and theologian. R. F. Browning summed the opposing views about The Sermon clearly.

“On the one hand are those (predominantly Catholic) who have regarded them as commands

to be taken as they stand; for with the help of divine grace, they are able to be put into practice, at any rate by those with a special vocation to do so, such as members of religious orders. Others (mostly Protestant) have regarded the sermon as giving ideals to be striven towards; for a requirement to love as God loves (5: 46) is an impossible demand for perfection (Matt. 5: 48) which accuses the readers of their imperfections and which already Luke in his version (6: 36) modifies to the more practicable command to be merciful as God is merciful.” -  "Sermon on the Mount." In A Dictionary of the Bible.”

As we ponder the imponderable, it is instructive for us to remember that the Galilean didn’t require proof of loyal party membership by his listeners. He spoke to disciples, the rich, the unwashed, Jews, Romans, and Gentiles alike. Perhaps he intentionally left it to each individual to whether that person would strive for the heights or wiggle as far as possible into the depths of depravity and despair.

That is where we find ourselves this fine Sunday morning in America. It is our destiny to think. The Galilean set the limits of our yearning. A modern motivational guru, Dale Carnegie finessed the message when he said. “Two men looked out from prison bars, one saw the mud, the other saw stars.”

That is the challenge of modern life. Do we see a bar over which we may climb to seek righteousness or a bar designed to measure how far we may sink down and away from it?

Pondering the Imponderable

As one who professionally deals with policy analysis and the regulatory process, I always stand in awe of the simplicity employed by the Galilean in the Sermon on the Mount. You need to go no further than his opening line, the first Beatitude.

 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3 NIV)

Close your eyes and you can just hear the modern analysts having a go at it.

“Did he mean the poor, or the poor in spirit? Which source has it right, Matthew or Luke? Should the text include a disclaimer section?”

“Did he mean all of the “blessed” or a statistically pure population sample?”

“We need to add an exceptions section. Are Muslims included? Lonely prostitutes? Sexually confused teenagers? Methodists?”

“We need to define the word ‘spirit.’ Is it a measurable phenomenon or a simply a linguistic guide?”

“Is the kingdom of heaven theirs alone or will they share it with the others? Do we need an organizational chart?”

“Is there one kingdom of heaven or several? We may need mapping.”

“Will the statistical definitions of ‘poor’ change over time or are they fixed?”

"Have we fully established provenance?"

“If the term ‘blessed’ translates into ‘happy,’ what are the definable characteristics of same?

“Let us consider the contextual implications.”

“Does ownership include control over?”

“Is there a legally defensible definition of ‘heaven’ we can use?”

“Has anyone checked the translation from the original English in the King James Version?”

And so it goes. His simplicity seems to breed confusion and spawn difficulty in acceptance. He might as well have told us not to get divorces, to forgive our enemies, or to quit loving money.