Confusion

 Perhaps great literature, The Sermon on the Mount included, takes on a different meaning to each reader. If it actually occurred as Matthew reported, The Sermon leaves room for interpretation. A modern liberal person might interpret it as mandating that righteousness requires that we minister to those who are poor in spirit or in mourning while simultaneously emulating the peacemakers. That is hardly an interpretation “devoutly wished” by modern fundamentalists.

On the other hand, another reader might say that is a higher order model of the perfect Christian life, one not to be reached but to be aspired to in our earthly journey. It has been said that a person must fail to reach the teachings of The Sermon in a capitalistic society. Even some of the scribes and Pharisees so beloved by many of the fundamentalists of today teach that by ignoring the Beatitudes we can gain both prosperity on Earth and a seat in Heaven.

That’s the difficulty with famous writings containing higher-order thoughts. They can at one time support both social justice and social injustice. No less a beloved (by some) figure as Robert E. Lee could, in one mind, profess both an abiding religion and a belief that his African-American brothers and sisters were lesser breeds of the same species and their subjugation warranted wholesale murder of his fellow Americans.

He read the same Bible as Martin Luther King Jr. What passages prompted such cognitive confusion?

One passage, as we’ve observed before, has merited a great deal of attention throughout modern history. That one is: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (5-1:17-19 RSV)

Writers and thinkers divide their opinions along four major lines as they pertain to this pronouncement by the Galilean.

1. He meant exactly what he said.

2. He was just joking

3. He was adding onto “The Law,” taking away nothing but adding much.

4. He was changing things but didn’t want everyone to figure that out right away.

The decision rests far above the ability of our meager minds to make. Taking them in order, though, we might observe the following.

Option One can create some awfully confused and troubled people.

Option Two seems to be the favorite of the conservative political party and its fundamentalist base.

Option Three may have influenced the Pauline movement more than any other.

Option Four implies a delicious subtlety most fitting my personal view of the Galilean.

Please feel free to choose your own.

Mid-week Grumbling

No, I didn’t watch the so-called debates. Those things make me nervous. I sort of place them in the same category as watching an automobile race. The main objective of the crowd is to hope that someone in the group destroys herself or himself. Petty, inconsequential things rule. One word. One poorly shaven or perspiring face. One second of consideration of a trick question similar to, “Do you still beat your wife?” or “Do you think that, as human being placed on Earth in horrible, debased, cruel, and vicious circumstances, and fleeing to a safe haven to save your family from a lingering and tortuous death … you should receive comfort and basic health care from the richest country on the planet, while thoughtful, reasonable people contemplate your fate?”

Oh, that wasn’t the way the question was asked, now was it? What if the question ended with, “If you think the Galilean would have you say 'yes,' raise your hand?”

It seems we have conditioned too many Americans to say, “No, my Jesus would tell them to go back to where they came from.” They don't follow "the pale Galilean," but the orange evangelist and his crew of merry-makers.

That’s why I don’t watch the debates. I do try, though, to watch what’s happening to us, and it ain’t a pretty sight these days.

Dream A Little Dream

I’ve had this recurring dream for nearly 50 years. No, it’s not about the class I forgot about in college or the test I didn’t study for, or the paper I didn’t write. I read once where a huge percentage of college graduates have dreams along that line, though. The writer opined that we have such dreams in times of stress and they comfort us by beckoning to when we prevailed against great obstacles.

 I don’t know if dreams mean anything or not. Carl Jung thought they did. But gee, his patients, according to his records, dreamed of things like entering a dark and magic forest and seeing a portal through which the dreamer entered a majestic oak, where he encountered wisps of the spirit world.

Hell, I wonder what he would have thought when I told him about the dream of going to the Saturday matinee at the old Community Theater in Pine Bluff with Al Capone and Sandra Dee? Hmm.

But this recurring dream is different. I dream that, at some point, I’ve promised the United State Navy that they could have be back for four more years anytime they chose under some agreement or other. I think it has to do with fast ships and harm's way. I guess you could call the dream a sort of “Military Mephistopheles Metaphor.”

I had the dream last night, and guess what? Yep. They called and told this aged, decrepit, pitiful, unable, unready, and unwilling old man he was due back for military service. Yes, I’m aware of the hyperbole, but it’s nothing compared to the whining I did the first time.

Perhaps the dream has something to do with the fact that, by all accounts, the military is scraping the bottom of the barrel with its all-volunteer effort. It does this while planning to invade two, maybe three, more sovereign nations on the whimsical orders of a leader who never served and doesn’t read. This political party-head does listen to some ultra-weirdos who formed their opinions of history and foreign policy in the 7^th grade and have never seen fit to change them. “Invade someone, for Christ’s sake,” they are telling him.

It will be the most disastrous event, in my opinion, since Operation Barbarossa commenced, but who am I to say?

A brief bit of inductive reasoning: I heard recently about a new trooper recruited into the military. It was a 32 year-old female with two kids. Think they won’t try to come after me?

Or you?

Or your kids?

Or your grand kids?

Back to the dream. I was on the bus headed back to boot camp with an odd assortment of fellow recruits. Years ago, the dream would have included ending back overseas wondering when my first watch would commence. I left that one years ago, though. I suppose there have been too many wars since then, Anyway, I woke up from the dream and rolled over before the bus reached San Diego.

When I started dreaming again, I was somewhere else and it was cold, real cold.

Oh, never mind.
I'll serve again.

Theology Time

Why am I stuck on the Sermon on The Mount? Maybe because I think it begins with some of the most beautiful words in literature, The Beatitudes.

It also contains, I think, some troubling and contradictory passages. Consider:

17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (KJV)

That spells out support for some of the most drastic and unfathomable strictures of Leviticus and must, by inference, condone the actions of Moses against the Midianite women, children, and virgin girls. Then he has to go and amplify it with the next verse.

18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I suppose that if I were an educated theologian, or a Biblical scholar, I might say how, in addition to being a singular figure, he was also a pragmatic salesman, one who knew better than to irritate the hardcore evangelicals of his day. (Of course, later on, he did just that.) Best to ease into things.

This morning early, while we were having our “coffee-talkee” (actually, he likes tea better), I asked the Galilean about these contradictions.

“My ways ain’t your ways,” he said, and changed the subject.

After he left, I began to derive some genius in his approach. First, he seemed to narrow the stricture.

19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Was he just talking about the Ten Commandments? That would simplify, particularly had he told us which ten. But anyway, stability, maybe that’s what were talking about … stability.

Consider that the present ruler of the United States and his minions express neither respect nor regard for our laws that have been around for years and years. Then consider the instability and insidiousness that this causes.

Stability, that’s what we are talking about. Now it makes some sense. Next, he seems to slap some of those very fanatics in the face.

20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

That’s a fairly easy mandate for us these days. It’s certainly not hard to “exceed the righteousness” of a Franklin Graham, the demonic hordes of TV “evangelists,” or leaders who cover up child molestation amongst their clergy.

Then he gets into some of what I call amplifications. “Holy high-standards Batman.” I can agree with some adversaries, but POTUS would be a challenge. An adversary that mocks a physically-challenged person would require some extra-high-power agreeing. I know, I know, the Galilean didn’t say a darn thing about how you could wait until your adversary agreed with one of his adversaries first.

Let’s move on to a real dandy.

27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery.

28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Being somewhat familiar with the making of laws and regulations, I immediately sought the list of “exceptions.” Alas.

A later one is a little easier.

31: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.

32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

I never had much trouble with this one. I am confused, though, when I hear about churches with special Sunday School classes for young divorcees.

Sometime I think the Galilean is just messing with us. He denies it, but …

38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?

47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

So, where do we start?

Those things are hard. I guess
he meant them to be.

Peace, Honor, Country ....

Theology Time: There’s an old saw concerning the point at which a preacher quits preaching and starts meddling. According to early Christian writers, and my opinion, the Galilean reached that point nearly 2,000 years ago. He said, standing on that rocky mount in remote Judea, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

Say what?

It doesn’t make much sense does it? According to most research, there have been less than a couple dozen years since America’s founding that it hasn’t been at war, at least for one day. A Christian nation? I report. Ya’ll decide. For a complete listing of America’s warlike excursions, click here.

What would the Galilean say about all this? I can only imagine. He might want to see some of the folks at the top. He might say something couched in modern phrasing, like, “What part of ‘peacemakers’ did you not understand?”

He might say something like, “You didn’t listen to me about divorces. Why should I expect any more from you?”

He might say something like, “That’s the silliest-looking mustache I’ve ever seen. Do you really expect people to take you seriously?”

He might say something like, “You graduated from West Point. Duty? Honor? Country? Destruction? You should know better. And please quit with the ‘rapture’ stuff. I don’t even know what you are talking about.”

He might say, “Please show me where I said anything like ‘blessed are the makers of aircraft carriers,’ if you would please.”

He might say, “Would you please show me where I ever called the makers of guns ‘the least of those among us’—the ones most in need of our love and succor?”

He might say. “Did I ever instruct my disciples to go forth and slay those whom they didn’t love?”

He might say, “Oh, and while I am at it, I never liked those Nazis. Sad to say, some of those they murdered were distant, far distant, relatives of mine. I approved that war, but I never called their descendants ‘fine people’ that I can recall.”

He might say, “Ya’ll better start paying attention to ya’ll are listening to.” (I think he was from Southern Galilee, wasn’t he?)

He might say, “You people give me a colossal headache. Don't make me come back down there.”

Well, he might say a lot of things. What he did say was, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” Neither Rupert Murdoch nor his prancing imps can change that.

If it sticks in your craw, and you consider it meddling, you might better start paying attention to whom you listen.

Blessed are the Bomb Makers?
I can't find it.

Sailing to Oblivium: March 23, 2018

It seems I spend a good part of my time irritating my friends, a good part trying not to irritate my friends, and much time saying “What the hell?”

I guess that causes one to ask the primal question, who am I?

Well here goes.

A lifelong Democrat, I certainly don’t agree with all that the party has historically represented. For example, I believe that Orval Faubus, governor of my state during my formative years, was an evil man by the standards of his time. He nearly destroyed my state, but would be a highly respected conservative senator these days, probably considered a moderate Republican.

Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t grow up hating people who supported the opposition party. I still don’t. I respect any rational reasonable person, no matter what their politics. I’m wondering, though, how some may feel about a party led my Donald Trump.

In my lifetime, I think Dwight Eisenhower was a fine leader and a not harmful president. I was bemused to learn that Lyndon Johnson, as Senate Majority Leader, often helped Ike more than Ike’s own party in achieving some of his goals.

That’s how political life in America used to be.

I think, in my state, Winthrop Rockefeller was the most inspiring governor of my times, and we’ve had some good ones since. I stopped in Arkansas, when the Navy had paid my way all the way back to San Francisco because I had read about the things Rockefeller was trying to do. Am I glad I stayed? Well, I met my future wife here and have no particular penchant for computers, so yes. Arkansas isn’t as poor and ignorant as much as it thinks poor and ignorant.

I voted once for a member of the opposition party. It was a time when a crossover vote in the primaries enabled Arkansans to rid the state of a particularly icky politician. I have no regrets over that vote.

The rest of the time, though, I’ve remained a “Blue Dog.” The candidates haven’t been perfect—both parties must share blame for Vietnam—but they’ve been successful and, other than a case of an overactive libido, haven’t been a national embarrassment. We’ve even produced a statesman or two. And, although a firm believer in the First Amendment, I do use the Sermon on the Mount in making political decisions. Therefore, I think Jimmy Carter was the finest person we’ve had as president in my time, though he made many mistakes while having “a hard row to hoe.”

I think the push and pull of opposing parties creates a sound government. I would never wish for one-party rule.

Although I still weep at times over the fact that a Supreme Court that included Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia elected George W. Bush president, I’m not sure he was a bad man. I am sure that his primary handlers, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were. The stain of their bloody hands will mar America forever.

And speaking of such, look now at the man whose bloody hands will point young Americans into a land war, if past performance is any indicator of future behavior. If there is now a deranged and dangerous man in American politics, it is John Bolton. Ask the spirits of the perhaps more than a million dead from the Iraq War he helped orchestrate, creating in the process an unstable Middle East. His coming sins will only be surpassed by our shame.

As for the current state of America, the sounds of the Old Testament, in Samuel One Chapter 19, ring in my ears: "Your glory, O Israel, lies slain on your heights. How the mighty have fallen!”

It is my personal opinion that America’s greatness is being slain upon the heights of greed and avarice.

It further appears to me that insidious forces are at work in my beloved country. I fear that the cable TV show “Fox News” is destroying the cognitive ability of a vast segment of American society, for a reason that is as inexplicable as it is alarming. The fact that its major owners are an Australian and a Saudi Arabian may suggest a lust for global power, accompanied by a lack of concern, account for the reason more than any organized game plan.

As America witnessed the “Doomsday Clock” bound forward a notch yesterday, and as parents and grandparents ponder how they might keep loved ones out of a ground war such as the one that mauled those of my generation, the days ahead look dark to me.

This is my opinion. I’ll never support a government that would punish anyone for having a different one.

Unlike many though, I’ll be the happiest person in America if future events prove me wrong.