ENABLERS

 There have been evil people throughout history. There are evil people today. From the Nazi era, let us look at the case of Julius Streicher. From the “Holocaust Encyclopedia:”

“Trained as an elementary school teacher, Julius Streicher (1885–1946) was an early member of the Nazi Party. In 1923, he founded the virulently antisemitic and racist newspaper, Der Stürmer. Streicher was a leading organizer of Nazi Germany's first official nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses in April 1933. Although Streicher had lost credibility in party circles by 1940, he continued to edit and distribute his antisemitic propaganda newspaper to hundreds of thousands of Germans.

For his influential role in inciting hatred and violence, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg indicted Streicher on count four, crimes against humanity. Streicher was found guilty and sentenced to death. He was hanged on October 16, 1946.”

Streicher was not a Hitler, nor was he a Himmler or a Reinhard Heydrich. He never ordered the murder of innocents, nor did he belong to a police unit that carried out the orders.

He was what we call today an enabler and a propagandist.

We find his type in the thousands today in America from Franklin Graham to Sean Hannity to Tucker Carlson and the hardcore members of the so-called evangelical movement.

But what about the ones who simply listen and stay silent? Will those who finally clean up our mess force them to parade by the dead bodies like General Eisenhower did the neighbors of Dachau?

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.

Choices

As I write this, America finds itself tested and the outcome remains unclear. The current situation may be a bump on the road to salvation, or it may be the end of homo sapien rule. The results of years of simmering distrust, even hatred of our own brothers and sisters, is exploding like a volcano kept too long under pressure. The culmination of more than three years of practiced divisiveness is spewing forth the results of seeking political gain through social distrust.

We find ourselves only wondering what the Galilean would say. Maybe our concentration on the Sermon on the Mount can guide us.

 Of the many dichotomies that he set forth in that brief sermon was the difference between righteous and unrighteous behavior. Perhaps that was why he began with a listing of those things that should make us blessed, or happy in the thought of eternal reward for worldly sacrifice and effort.

How did the forces of evil come to govern while claiming it is being done in his name? One wonders. It hasn’t come from the Galilean. He was pretty clear, if pretty demanding, about righteous and unrighteous behavior. For example:

Men can’t divorce their wives just because a younger woman sashays by. We sin even when we succumb to thoughts of sin. We must reconcile and show love with our enemies. What’s worse, we must even show forgiveness and forego revenge. We should consider what we think are our treasures and where we should store them. (Hint: It’s not money.) We should not worry. Some say he meant unnecessarily, but that isn’t what he was recorded as saying.

Those are some tough spiritual rows to hoe.

Some righteous edicts should be easier. We should help the needy in secret, likewise for praying. We should not look somber when we sacrifice, or fast. As for looking somber when we sacrifice, would that include waving our guns in the air and threatening violence. Some strictures are going to be difficult for a select crowd.

Others should be downright simple. He tells us that unless our righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law—the Franklin Grahams and Kenneth Copelands of the world—we will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Being more righteous than the spiritual “leaders” that now frequent the halls of government is a “piece of cake upside down.”

But overall, the Galilean knew it wouldn’t be easy, this seeking of righteousness stuff. He warned:

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7: 13-14 NIV)

Is it all worth it? Evidently many don’t think so. Some do, however. They find comfort in a favorite passage of those who legitimately seek righteousness. It reads:

“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! (6:22-23)

Art

For someone like me, who worries about the state of our country and the state of Christianity as so many so-called Christians practice it now, the Sermon on the Mount troubles the soul. How, we ask ourselves, can people that we have known for years, who live decent lives and never miss church, suddenly begin saying and writing things that would make the Galilean wince? Have they never read The Sermon, or have they simply stopped? How can a non-religious person like me use it—The Sermon that is—as a daily guide, when you could wield it like a crucifix on a vampire, to chase away the likes of a Franklin Graham?

That’s a question designed for better minds than mine. We all have our cognitive limits and I certainly do.

But, you may be thinking, "That’s never stopped you before."

True that. So here goes.

If we accept the premise, as I do, that The Sermon is many things, including a high-level work of art, we notice things about it that that are consistent with other great works of art. For example, in art, we must have “an approachable object.” What one does with that object makes a work of art.

In this case, the Galilean has an opportunity to elevate the message of righteousness by emphasis, erudition, and expansion. He chose his spot in history as carefully as Ansel Adams chose his spots on earth, or Rembrandt chose his faces in the crowd.

Art also offers a range of values, sometimes from pure white to pure dark. Consider the range of humanity in a great novel, say from Peggotty to Uriah Heep in Dickens great work, David Copperfield.

The Galilean provides us first with challenge of attitude that is easy to achieve. Call it the lighter, more doable, segment of his work.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

What could be more simple and straightforward than than respect for those words? It certainly doesn’t sound, as so many fundamentalists now claim, that it is taken “out of context.”

He shifts, rather suddenly, to the dark and troublesome exhortations.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 

Even a true and great Christian like President Jimmy Carter admitted to having trouble with that one.

It’s a hard and rocky road to travel, this living by The Sermon. Maybe that’s why so many people who once led thoughtful and generous lives now follow the mantra, “I’m with those who hate the same people I do.”

Those are the thoughts that trouble me today. Oh, and yes, I’ve quoted from the King James version of The Sermon in deference to my conservative readers who prefer to “read the Scriptures in the original English.” At any rate, new versions of the Holy Bible ordained by “prosperity-gospel” preachers and cult-evangelicals will no doubt expunge The Sermon in its entirety. The translation and its demanding strictures may be lost to history. So, I’m afraid, will our national experiment in social justice for all and care for the "least of those among us" that was so long in coming, so difficult in endeavor, so righteous in concept,  and so violent in denunciation.

Sorrow

It’s proving difficult for me to write about The Sermon On The Mount today. I live in a country, the ruling party of which has just trampled on the very essence of the Galilean’s beautiful work. The very idea of eschewing anger, fornication, vindictiveness and greed is, they say, such rubbish. Their ruler and savior stands above the laws of man and God.

We have, as a nation, waved a curse on the very idea expressed in the following:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

We have said, as a country, that we no longer wish to be the light of the world, a city that is set on a hill and cannot be hid.

We have said, as a people, that we choose instead to be an example where might makes right, rulers rule outside the law, minion toadies define righteousness and sin, and where we denounce our godly brothers and sisters as our enemies. We proceed now to trample upon the least of those among us, while the greedy triumph, alone with their rusting treasures stored in mighty skyscrapers.

We mourn for Zion, while the Galilean shakes his head.

Who led us hither?

The teacher?

The reader and thinker?

The humanist?

The worker?

The questioner and writer?

The reporter of truth?

No, none of those have cursed the meek or peaceful. They don't propose to sell our country for personal gain. Rather, they seek righteousness and pray in secret, each in their own manner.

Tragically, it is a cult of the self-defined godly who brought us here, those who define their faith from one or two sentences of redacted Bibles. They are those who sound their trumpets loudest in the churches and in the streets, the hypocrites who shall have their reward, a consummation for which we devoutly wish.

They are the ones who praise the fornicator, the divorcee, the hater of his brother, the mocker of the least among us, the promoter of hatred and anger, the greedy deceiver, the denouncer of veterans who have gone into harm’s way at the request of their country, the praiser of evil dictators, the destroyer of the planet given to us by the Galilean’s father, the promoter of corruption, and the spreader of a blot on humanity itself.

The Galilean never said it, but I wish he had included, as his final benediction, “Woe upon them who call themselves of me but treasure evil, those who would follow the ungodly despite his transgressions, those who sin and call it holy.”

That’s what America has become.

Interpretations

If one cares to read The Sermon On The Mount, and few do these days, it can be daunting. Many so-called “Christians” avoid it completely, particularly the silk-shirted TV evangelists and the fundamentalist crowd. They prefer the hard-bitten pronouncements of the Old Testament that instruct them on whom to hate. They also dwell at length upon the writings of the Apostle (and the writings ascribed to him) for their multi-layered interpretations. And, of course, they wallow in the mystifying ramblings of last book of the Bible as it sets for, for them, if interpreted properly, the end of what they see as a world totally inconsistent with their primal beliefs. It also prescribes a horrible end for those who aren’t like them. What could be more gratifying?

The words the Galilean, delivered, we are told, on that Judean hillside so many years ago, do not appear to us as multi-layered. According to the reports of people who weren’t there and whose accounts survived countless translations—even interpretations—over the last 2,000 years, his words formed a narrow path to righteousness. When a man says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God,” there isn’t much that we can do to assign multiple meanings to that.

But we try. That’s why our study of The Sermon tends to sound like the parable of the blind men describing an elephant by feel alone.

To the ethical humanist, the man may have been crazy, certainly not the “Son of God,” but he had some fine ethics.

To the followers of the pirate band that has captured America, the sayings in The Sermon weren’t rules but guidelines.

To the so-called “Prosperity Gospel” evangelists, the whole sermon is taken out of context. We should be happy to be poor in spirit for it means the preachers are getting rich.

To the average person seeking righteousness, the sermon presents laudable but unachievable standards that can cause pain instead of joy.

To our modern “pharisees” like Billy Graham’s son Franklin, the Sermon on the Mount is a terrifying indictment that delivers much the same effect to his crowd and him as a crucifix to a vampire. In other words, you could chase them with a copy.

To a man with two ex-wives, a history of fornication, and a deeply embedded penchant for hatred of his opponents, the Sermon isn’t something for fit conversation. Had he been on the hill, he could have come up with something better, much better.

To the mental wanderer and obsessive seeker, The Sermon is a magnet for contemplation, at times what we might call a “brain-worm.”

So what was the Galilean up to on that lonely hill?

I still am not sure. That’s why I spend time with you once a week thinking about it. I think it makes me a better person and I know it makes me smile.

Blessings

Sometimes when I think of Christmas back when I was a youth, I think of the first Beatitude: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” It could be a cruel season when I was young, never worse than the day we each had to stand and tell our classmates in grade school what “Santa” brought us for Christmas.

There were lots of bikes. Some kids claimed roller skates, some electric trains. One kid got a new deer rifle.

There was a catch, though. I attended a school on the south of town where a bunch of rich kids lived. They also bussed kids there from out in the country. They didn’t get bicycles or deer rifles for Christmas.

The luckier one got clothes. Not fancy sweaters and such, but new blue jeans or socks.

Move down and notch they would start to mention fruit and nuts.

Then candy.

Once a kid just sat on his hands and cried.

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

I’d like to believe that is true. It’s not, or so the modern TV evangelists say. They preach that you are rich because you are blessed and chosen. They include those who earned their riches by having the doctor slap them on their butt. In fact, they don't put many limitations on how the riches got there. I think the Galilean may have been talking about the child in the Arkansas Delta sitting on a cold, filthy floor with a bloated stomach and dirty diapers. Franklin Graham, from a warm room on a full stomach, is talking about the Trump kids.

Sometimes a person just doesn’t know whom to believe.

Nah. Just kidding. Merry Christmas.

Discordance

Perhaps the most interesting thing in The Bible is the what one might call its “Uniform Confirmation Principle.” This states that, whatever your personal and mental inclinations, a passage exists, or multiple passages exist, to confirm them. In today’s world, one can be religious within the perimeter of one’s own personal biases. (Editor’s note: “perimeter” instead of “parameter.” A perimeter is the continuous line forming the boundary of a closed geometric figure or metaphor. A parameter is a mathematical term meaning the attribute of a variable.)

Consider the opportunities.

Want to make a hedonist, multiple divorcee, sadly lacking in moral scruples when pursuing his wants, your new Messiah? Read Second Samuel.

Want to be rich, lose it, and gain it back? Read the Book of Job.

Want to be a sociopath but obtain salvation at the last minute? Read Luke’s account of the crucifixion.

Want to treat your opponents and their children without mercy and be blessed doing it? Read about Moses and the Midianites in the Book of Numbers.

Want to use your vast wealth and power to destroy the public school system? Just check out what the writer of the Book of Genesis or the Apostle Paul had to say about acquiring knowledge. 

Want to go crazy from disappointment and make up a new version of what Christianity is coming to? Read the Book of Revelations.

Exceptions exist in the Sermon On The Mount.

Oh, there is a bit of discordance in the matter of either fulfilling “The Law” or destroying it. There is so much, however, that is in accordance with the life of the Galilean.  We can rely on the vast bulk of the Sermon as a “Constitution for Righteousness.”

The sad thing is that this bulk of The Sermon is in such strong discordance with American life as so many choose to live it these days. 

Codes

People love to put words into the mouth of the Galilean. Some say, after reading the Sermon on the Mount, that he “couldn’t have meant all those things he said. Others say, “well it’s all taken out of context these days.” Still others claim some metaphorical existentialism that shouldn’t be taken literally but maybe as a guide, particularly if you aren’t a Jew.

But anyone would agree that strict adherence to the message of The Sermon would, as they say in the South, be a tough row to hoe.”

So much has been written about what the Galilean said, or meant on that hilltop, that our paltry efforts couldn’t add a scintilla of light on the matter. It may be of interest, though, to note a few things he didn’t mention.

He didn’t say a thing about a man holding hands with another man.

He didn’t say a word about the blessing of hating the same people he hated, nor did he even hint at who that might be.

He didn’t mention any sin associated with caring for others. In fact, he seemed to sanction it.

He didn’t say a thing about blessings that might accrue to those in the crowd if they gave him a denarius or two.

A new jet with which to tool around Judea? Nope

A mansion or two?

Some thousand-denarii suits and matching ties? Nope.

Access to the Emperor? Nope

Well then there now. Which of those modern evangelicals deserves to put words into His Mouth?

Joel Osteen's House.
Better than the Galilean's?

'

Striving

It’s hard to read the Sermon on the Mount these days without feeling that it sets almost impossible standards for modern Americans. Much has been written about the Galilean’s claim that he has come not to abolish but to fulfill the law (Mt 5:17). In fact, some scholars interpret what is meant by “fulfillment of the law” is not the demand to keep it exactly as it stood before, but rather as a new expression of the will of God. Is it possible that he meant that some things in “The Law” might pass away and be replaced by more exacting standards of righteousness?

What might the strictures of The Beatitudes replace? Could the list include the laws against eating shellfish, adorning the body with tattoos, executing misbehaving children, obtaining knowledge, a man’s having a relationship with … oh, let’s not give Franklin Graham a heart attack.

It would be hard enough simply to abide by The Beatitudes in modern America. Many politicians seem to despise the poor in spirit. Those who mourn for their children who were taken from them at our border receive particular spite and wrath in social media. Those who are merciful and forgiving receive ridicule and condemnation. The supporters of our current president say he may not be pure in heart, but at least he hates the same people we do. Try hungering and thirsting for righteousness and see where it gets you with Fox News. Peacemakers? Forget it.

If the Sermon on the Mount contains the roots from which righteousness grows, folks in our land will say it’s a hard row to hoe.

Theology Time

After a week off, we return to that little hill in Judea. Let us recall something the Galilean said, sort of slipped it in actually, early in his immortal Sermon on the Mount. I refer to the Gospel of Matthew 5:17-18 in which he said

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

“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.” (KJV)

His audience at the time surely knew about “The Law” to which he referred. One hopes that the body of law didn’t include the instructions by Moses concerning the fate of the Midianites. No, he doubtless meant the laws written by God upon two tablets of stone and then given to Moses on Mount Sinai. That clears that up, right?

Not exactly. We remember of course that Moses got pissed and broke the first set that he delivered. As the late Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. would put it, “Here’s what they said:”

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

(KJV)

That’s a pretty high standard, despite the fact that our sisters fall into the same ownership group as servants, oxen and asses. One assumes it would even include a man’s bass boat. That inclusion must hurt. At any rate, it is not a standard by which many who claim today to be followers of the Galilean judge our modern president. He’s broken them all except may the killing part and if we accept the Galilean’s “thinking is as bad as doing” test, he’s not only done it but bragged that he could do it, and get away with it.

Maybe that’s why some followers might accept the revised edition that God gave Moses on his second trip. Here’s what it said:

1.Thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.

5. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

(KJV)

That’s a bit easier. Maybe we could just call him “The Second-Set President” and ease him through. Most of the editors I know tend to accept a final published version as the authoritative one, so even the industry he despises so much might offer some solace. Mission accomplished?

No, there’s still those first two. Drats. Have faith though. Franklin Graham will figure out a way. He always does. He leaves no stone of sin unpolished while the Galilean continues to weep. I hope he's not watching us now.

Forgiveness

It gets harder, this Sermon on the Mount. We have to remember that the Galilean wasn’t speaking to his “Base” out there in Judea. These were strangers. Most were there, probably, because they had heard of the miracles. They may have shown up for personal reasons. Then this dude springs the following on them.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 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.” Matthew 5:43-44 (KJV)

If you wonder how Franklin Graham can stand to look at himself in the mirror each morning, join the crowd.

I’m not sure what he, the Galilean, not Franklin, would have done if a bunch of bandits had attacked just then. Maybe he was talking just about the normal kind of enemies, say the kind that run against you for political office. Such an “enemy” is not really out to do us either physical or lasting harm. They are, shall we say, “competitors” more than enemies. When did we begin to think of them as enemies and treat them as such?

If we want better to understand the current plight of our country, we don’t have to listen to an endless parade of pundits. Just consider Ruby Bridges. Whether one remembers or not, Ruby was a six-year old child who was the first black student to attend a previously segregated white school in New Orleans in 1960. It is at once a terrifying, cringe-worthy, and uplifting story about a young girl who marched among federal marshals and before a sweating crowd of people screaming obscenities and curses each morning and afternoon. On some days, they even carried a child’s coffin with an African-American doll in it.

Some so-called “mothers” led the crowd. They soon gained the nickname, “The Cheerleaders” and John Steinbeck, who made a special detour to watch them, reported that some of the crowd came just to watch the women in action. Their hatred had created a national following. Norman Rockwell even captured the time in a painting.

Throughout it all, little Ruby just marched by to her schooling. At first, she was the only child in the class, the white students refusing to attend. People saw her praying as she walked by. This, a grown Ruby now attests to. What was she praying for, or whom? The narrator in this video says that she told him she was praying for her tormentors. It may sound a bit convenient to our cynical ears, but if it is true, The Galilean has at least one victor in America’s recent history.

Again, if one wants to know what’s wrong with America now, watch a film of Ruby walking by the crowd. Those kids hanging with their parents in the mob are in their sixties now, or beyond. They have had a lifetime to teach their children who are now teaching their children.

What, exactly, are they teaching? Well you can bet your sweet buttooty it ain’t always The Sermon on The Mount.

Oh, and a brave parent of a white child eventually brought his son to join Ruby, then another, and another. Someone had heard of The Sermon. The crowd finally lost the battle, but judging from current headlines, not the war. But we press on, despite being called names ourselves. I like “Libtard” the best. Some of my friends prefer “Snowflake.” We keep on, though. With the image of Ruby Bridges in our minds, and the words from that Judean hill, it should be a litter easier. The Galilean would have it no other way.

Who was this man who broke the pattern? A Catholic? A Baptist? A Pentecostal? A Church of Christer?

No. He was a Methodist minister.

Peace

After the national and international news of the week, I propose we return and re-visit an item that we covered in our tour of The Beatitudes. I refer to the seventh one, to wit:

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

Have you noticed how the Galilean posits a reward for each of the announced traits? The merciful shall obtain mercy. Those “persecuted for righteousness' sake” shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” shall be filled. The “pure in heart” shall see God. And so forth.

But to be called a child of God, one must be a peacemaker.

That would likely come as a surprise to the current occupant of our nation’s office. He’s been in office going on a year, and never once has he

- Called for a unified America

- Called for peace among those of differing faiths

- Called for a truce in our war against God’s planet

- Called for a truce with those who criticize him for the most apparent mistake

- Called for peace between his base and other Americans

- Called for peace among nations

One can hear a diehard supporter respond, No problem. We’ve had presidents before who chose not to wear religion on their sleeve. Abraham Lincoln never made a public confession of a religious belief. Neither Thomas Jefferson nor Andrew Johnson professed any religious affiliation. George Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Tyler are often identified as having some degree of deistic beliefs. Most presidents attended church, but none as sincerely and devoid of guile as Jimmy Carter.

So, they would assert, Americans have a First American right to worship, or not worship, within or without any religious belief. This right even extends to the President of the United States. The current occupant has no legal stricture to follow a Beatitude or any other of the Galilean’s teachings. There you go. Peacemaker? Forget it. We like him just as he is, free not only from human restraints, but religious ones as well.

A true believer might observe that the Galilean is watching.

Artwork by Lisa Casey

Redemption

Words matter. Sometimes they matter in a sad way. Sometimes they matter in another way. Sometimes their impact is predictable. Sometimes their impact is not. One person reads the immortal Sermon on the Mount and believes it carries a redemptive message of grace and righteousness. Another reads it and believes it carries a direct message to eliminate the tax on inherited wealth, punish immigrants, or despise those who are born with different sexual orientations.

Unlike water, words don’t remain the same after they are poured into a container. Consider, for example, a politician we all know. While running for office, he said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?” He then mimicked firing a gun with his fingers, adding. “It’s, like, incredible.” For these words, he was elected president of the United States of America, albeit by the Electoral College and not by popular vote. Nonetheless, he now occupies the same White House where Abraham Lincoln, the two Roosevelts, Dwight David Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and others once slept.

Having arrived there, this politician used words to dishonor the military sacrifice of a man who served six years in a brutal prisoner of war camp on behalf of our country. He used words, with the assistance of gestures, to mock the speech and movements of a disabled man. He later used words to describe a group containing Neo-Nazis as having some “very fine people.” He used words to mock the family of a soldier killed in war in the service of our country.

His base supporters lauded and approved these and other words, solidifying even more tightly around him.

The sad thing is: consider what might happen if this politician were to request TV time tonight to make the following speech.

“My fellow Americans, we have become a divided nation and we must heal ourselves. We are all in this together, and face a highly complex and sometimes terrifying future. May I suggest that we face it together as friends, not foes? Our patriots faced a harsh future at Valley Forge. Our brave soldiers and sailors, men of every color, race, religion, and orientation, faced and conquered fear on the shores of Normandy. Our grandparents faced hunger and desolation, along with fear, during the Great Depression. Our heroes of the Civil Rights movement faced dogs and clubs on the streets, highways, and bridges of our nation in their fight for freedom.

“We survived these struggles through unity, not divisiveness. We joined hands as Americans and do what American do best, prevailing against the forces of hate and disparagement. In short, we faced the future as a united nation. That’s what I’m asking you to do tonight. I’m extending my hand in this symbolic gesture, and asking you, if you are physically able to move yours, to extend your hand toward my voice and join me in an oath of unity. If, because of infirmity or disability, you cannot extend a hand, simply smile as best you can and know that we stand with you and that we all stand together.

“The main religious figure for many of you charged us to care for the least of those among us. Another religious leader commanded that we care for the poor. I pledge to orient my administration to that charge. Starting tomorrow, I will not post my thoughts on the Internet. Instead, I will post my thoughts through action. Join me and let us persevere, as did our ancestors at Valley Forge. Let us charge into the Valley of the Shadow of Death as did those brave men in France. Let us welcome sacrifice in the name of justice as did my brother John Lewis and the brave women and men who fell underneath the horses and clubs at Selma. Let us be Americans, and show the world what that means, and may whatever God we each worship, including an inner-spiritual one who dwells in our own heart, bless us.”

Well. You and I both know what would happen. He would lose half his base overnight. Franklin Graham would never speak to him again. Stephen Miller would melt into a blubbering mass. Vladimir Putin would be shocked into silence. Fox “news” would shut down for emergency repairs, and five members of the United States Supreme Court would start wearing Groucho Marx disguises when leaving the building          .

Know what though? I think the Galilean would be smiling.

Many have given.
Many haven't.
 Some gave all.

Reflection

People ask why I’m so obsessed with the Sermon on the Mount. I answer, “Everyone is obsessed with something. Why not let it be something beautiful and timeless?

Timeless it is, and beautiful. It would be hard to find something so profoundly and exquisitely expressed as The Beatitudes. Let is talk today about the timeless nature of those wondrous thoughts, and others from that famous sermon.

General Omar Bradley expressed it this way after being exposed to the horrors of World War Two: “We have too many men of science; too few men of God. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the message of the Sermon on the Mount. Man is stumbling blindly through a spiritual darkness while toying with the precarious secrets of life and death. The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.”

We would move to question his seemingly unfair comparison to “men of God,” and “men of science,” unless we considered the general’s temporal setting. He was speaking in an age in which true people of God sought love and grace, while people of science created the atomic bomb. What would he have thought of the so-called “religious leaders” of today who stand on piles of cash conned from gullible victims or well-funded political platforms and preach an anti-education message designed to inflame and separate the masses and make us discriminate against our LGBT brothers and sisters? Perhaps he would have cautioned, as did the Galilean, “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.” Matthew 5:20 (KJV)

One of the main themes of the sermon is, to me, the need for reflection, in this case the need to reflect on how to achieve righteousness. The timeless nature of the sermon, again in my opinion, is that we so badly need to stop and reflect on the gains in science. This would include the need to reflect on how science and technology could lead us to a more benign treatment of those around us, others in the world, and our planet. We seem in a headlong rush to utilize the miracles of science to demean and divide ourselves from one another. Surely, we could conceive better use of the Internet if we took time to contemplate, truly contemplate, the miracles it offers.

John Steinbeck had a similar thought in one of his reflective observations in his marvelous work Travels With Charlie, published in 1962 and documenting a 1960 road trip around the United States. He noted, "The free exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world."

George Orwell had his protagonist in 1984, Winston Smith, feel the pure joy of reflection, prohibited in his time,  in this manner:

“Winston stopped reading, chiefly in order to appreciate the fact that he was reading, in comfort and safety. He was alone: no telescreen, no ear at the keyhole, no nervous impulse to glance over his shoulder or cover the page with his hand. The sweet summer air played against his cheek. From somewhere far away there floated the faint shouts of children: in the room itself there was no sound except the insect voice of the clock. He settled deeper into the arm-chair and put his feet up on the fender. It was bliss, it was eternity.”

Seems a worthwhile endeavor to me, to satisfy our need for reflection. Didn’t the Galilean himself say, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 7:7-8 (KJV)

Maybe it would make him happy if, just for today, if Americans ask more and speak less.

Artwork by my friend Lisa Casey

Armies for God or Armies for Good?

“A riot is an ugly thing. But I think it is just about time that we had one!” That’s just a line from a 1974 film by Mel Brooks. What on earth does it have to do with the Sermon on the Mount?

Nothing probably. But in a strange way of thinking, maybe the Galilean was suggesting a riot, not a violent mob-led wave of destruction, oh no. Perhaps what he had in mind was a “riot of righteousness.” Now wouldn’t that be a hoot, these days?

Notice how he uses some of his most sensory metaphors for urging his listeners, including his disciples, to follow him and do good things?

He evokes a sense taste when he says, in Matthew 5:13 “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ah yes, without the salt of righteousness, we shall be stomped into the ground.” (KJV)

How about a sense of sight? “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (5:14-16)

Doesn’t he then extol the crowd to use their sense of hearing and gift of speech for righteousness sake? “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. (5:19)

Surely the bit about the pearls and the pigs can stir our senses of touch and smell.

Oh yes. I don’t think he was merely preaching that day, as the scriptures present him. He was raising an army, an army of the righteous. Wouldn’t it be nice if Americans heeded his words today? We need them in a time in which our social-reward system is so heavily oriented toward greed, avarice, cruelty, force, power, hatred, falsehood, and disrespect of others.

Wow. What would Franklin Graham and the other harbingers of hate think if they say an army of Americans coming toward them with stone copies of the The Beatitudes in their hands?

The Galilean foresaw this when he said, “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.” (5:20)

You know, that’s why “The Sermon” obsesses me so. Whether one is “born again,” a cultural Christion, a doubter, a disbeliever, or simply a “goodness-seeker,” the Galilean’s words serve as a universal guide to a good life and a powerful warning against a bad one.

We seem to be so divided these days in our country. Divisiveness and the reward system described above seem destined to destroy us. A powerful group thinks guns will save us. Another powerful group thinks that unbridled license is the answer. Another powerful group thinks that better access to drugs will serve as our salvation. Then comes the “Thought Control Police.” Of course, there are those who trust Twitter, cell phones, more cars, bigger houses, social insulation, racial purity, war, or wealth.

I think maybe reading the words ascribed to the Galilean from on that lonely Judean hill each morning before setting forth might be worth a try. At the very least, it would scare hell out of the pharisees.

What we value

 If things work out, I hope to have a few good years left as an urban planner. Continuing to work at it remains more fulfilling than, say, trying to learn to play golf. I’m afraid, though, that I’m beginning to be known as a bit of an old curmudgeon. I’ve even developed a rep as hating the latest fad in my profession: vehicular roundabouts. May I set the record straight?

I don’t hate them. I think they work well. I think they meet their purpose in an excellent fashion. They are fine devices for moving traffic, if that’s the reason that urban planners were placed on Earth.

So, what’s the rub?

 I’m just tired of our spending so much public money to feed the insatiable demands of the automobile. If history tells us one thing, it’s that the demands of the automobile can never be met, nor can that monster ever be satiated. Someday we will know that. Drive slowly and sneak a look next time you cross over Interstate 40. What you’ll see now is the scene of a variety of cars sandwiched in between miles of 18-wheelers, resembling long trains with rubber wheels on concrete tracks.

What you’ll see in maybe five more years is a parking lot stretching from Wilmington, North Carolina to Barstow, California. Our state highway department will then tell us that it needs several trillions of dollars to fix the problem. Oh, and they won’t have a cent left for those kids I see sometimes walking several miles in the summer heat to their first job at a fast-food franchise.

I’m hoping our cities will decide to spend more on their people and less on cars. I don’t really care if someone gets their car from point A to point B faster. What I care about is how fast we can get that kid in dirty diapers off the front porch of that shack in the Arkansas Delta and into an education, a decent home, and a life with a future. He’s waiting for us to help, while his mother is inside earning enough for the next meal or the next hit of methamphetamine, whichever she needs first. Our fundamentalist “Christian” friends say, “Hey, no problem. He’s born now so all is well. Don’t worry, be happy, and just hope he doesn’t decide to be gay.”

Yesterday I visited the site of a memorial to a beloved niece whom I hired for her first job as a grant writer and grant administrator. After a long career, and a losing bout with cancer, she received, posthumously, a monument for procuring a grant to help a city build a splash pad for its youth. It stands as a fitting and well-deserved honor.

What she should receive a monument for, although she won’t, is for the many hot summer evenings she spent in small, frame, often unpainted, churches in the Arkansas Delta, one of the most neglected sections of our country. She’d be meeting, in the stifling heat and the hordes of mosquitoes with a group of poverty-stricken brothers and sisters trying to secure safe drinking water for their families, just drinking water is all.

It’s all a matter of priorities. Our priorities. It reminds me of a call I received in the late 1990s. I was enjoying a limited, but not particularly lucrative, success as a planning consultant. A friend, an attorney with whom I had done some work, was the caller. He had left his job in Little Rock and moved to Northwest Arkansas, a region richly blessed by the whims of modern history.

“You need to move up here,” he said. “There’s money to be made.”

I supposed that there was, but said, “No, I’ll stay down here.”

“Why? Don’t you want to be where the action is happening?”

I thought for a moment. “No,” I said again.

“Why?” he said again.

“Oh,” I said, “I think the Galilean would have me stay where the action isn’t happening.”

The Libertarian Roundabout

Reconciliation

You could chase away many modern Americans with a copy of Chapter 5, verses 25-26 from the subject of our study these last months. The King James version (yes, the one from the original English, so don’t get alarmed) quotes the words from The Sermon On The Mount simply as

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

The passage is taken to refer to litigation before the court. Modern versions, such as the International Standard Version (ISV) are more specific, to wit:

25 Come to terms quickly with your opponent while you are on the way to court, or your opponent may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.

26 I tell you with certainty, you will not get out of there until you pay back the last dollar!”

I maintain that a copy of these words would frighten many Americans today simply because we love to disagree, and are being taught through politics and social media to hate those with whom we disagree. As an old friend of mine used to say, “There are too many of us who would rather be right than win.”

The Galilean’s advice, as quoted above reads as a quite simple bit of advice. In fact, the two verses in today’s study (KJV) contain only 58 words. In contrast, consider this from the Law Library of Louisiana:

“Myra Clark Gaines' 19th century fight over an enormous inheritance is still the longest-running civil lawsuit in American history, taking over 60 years to finally find some kind of resolution. The United States Supreme Court called her case "the most remarkable in the records."

One of the most bizarre lines in modern television is frequently uttered by the main protagonist of a popular crime show who says, “Never apologize. It’s a sign of weakness.” It was, apparently borrowed from an old John Wayne western, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. In any event, it would possibly come as a hell of a shock to Robert E. Lee, who reportedly met the survivors of the suicidal assault on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg with a sobbing apology for the blunder he had just created.

But let’s leave Bobby Lee and return to a greater figure. Why was the Galilean so in favor of reconciliation that involves all of life, not just the "religious part?" He certainly seemed serious about such reconciliation—along with forgiveness, and mercy—as the path to righteous living.

Why are so many of our political leaders, and their supporters from the conservative fundamentalist congregations, so diametrically opposed in their thinking to that of our simple rabbi? Why do so many, otherwise kind and gentle, people follow such teachings with pitchforks, torches, and vitriol? What on Earth would our leader say?

Those are thoughts that will require greater minds than mine to untangle. Maybe he would just say, “How blessed are those who make peace.” Oh, I think he did say that.

          

Theology Time

We are, as Americans, a dependent society. A study of the Sermon on the Mount should address that. One of the things it does is to teach us who and what to depend upon as we struggle through the “many dangers, toils, and snares” of this tedious life.

Dependent we are. I’m amazed each day at the number of people who now admit openly to employing marijuana to relax them from the cares of the world when everyone knows that alcohol does it just as well, or a Mozart piano concerto, or a Chapter of Proust, whittling, playing an instrument, or, truth be known, the Book of Psalms.

The Galilean gave us some other options on that famous spot on the southern slopes of the Korazim Plateau. From the beginning, in my beloved Beatitudes, he teaches dependency on patience and remaining stoic in the face of adversity, ending with, “Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” (5:12 KJV)

Yes, that’s about as far from the modern “Prosperity Gospel” as we can get. Yes, you could chase Franklin Graham with a copy of “The Sermon.” He represents another case of dependency in our modern world, that of dependency on politics to achieve our religious aims. I’ve nothing against democracies, but the political arena might not be the best place in the world to look for moral or ethical salvation. It’s obvious that the Galilean thought along these lines.

For example, farther down a few verses in the Gospel of Matthew, in 5:16, he exhorts us to, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Are we then to depend upon our reflected light to glorify the Father? It would appear so. Oh my.

He even commands us to depend upon accomplishing the impossible. I mean, turning the other cheek? Don’t think impure thoughts on those bikini ads? Don’t divorce your wife for a younger woman? Twice? “Swear not at all? Love your enemies? Bless them that curse you? Do good to them that hate you? Pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you?

Give me a break. Facebook would dry up. Much of modern American Christianity would crumble like foundations made of sand. He must be joking.

No, in fact, going further, he commands, in verse 48, perfection: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Now ain’t that a fine howdy-do?

We could go on and on. May we find it sufficient to say that the Galilean, before that diverse crowd of individuals, outlined a different dependency paradigm? May we also point out that nowhere did he say, “Depend on me and send money?” Nor did he recommend dependency upon chants, incantations, or slavish attention to rituals. He didn’t mention that we should run after every false prophet we saw. He didn’t even mention his need for a new, expensive, state-of-the-art boat with which to spread the Gospel. Perhaps he was telling us that if we want to depend upon something, we’d best make it high, holy, and housed within our hearts.

He sure as hell didn’t tell us to depend on politicians.

A Day For Reflection

Perhaps, in light of the dreadful new of yesterday, it’s time to take a moment from our review of The Sermon on the Mount and think about the possible lessons it may teach us. In the early hours this morning, I developed a few. Perhaps the Galilean would approve.

I think that it is time for me first to contemplate why friends whom I consider decent, caring, hardworking, thoughtful, and educated people, currently view America along with me, and yet come to political opinions that are the exact opposite of mine. Where was the crossroad that separated us, and how might our paths join once more? Could the Galilean's most famous sermon help?

That  having been said, I think it is past time for the President of the United States of America to moderate his inflammatory rhetoric and cease using a “minimum-word” format to voice opinions about topics so deep and complicated that they have puzzled far deeper thinkers for centuries.

I think that it is time for parents to start teaching their children that science and education will save our planet, not mythology.

I think that someone should force Franklin Graham and his cult of manic-evangelists to read The Sermon on the Mount. It couldn’t hurt. It might help. It will surely surprise.

I think that if political leaders truly believed in the words of the Galilean, we would be governed differently. Consider: “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”

I think that it is time that people who become fabulously wealthy start contributing to higher-order endeavors than destroying our public schools or persecuting our brothers and sisters whom nature has provided sexual orientations that differ from theirs.

I think that it is time for religious leader to confine their teachings to the better angels of their belief system and not to twisted political dogmas that preach annihilation of those with differing beliefs.

I think it is time we understood that guns are not the only cause of violence. Gun worship, social animosity, personal hopelessness, and a society that teaches its young that violence is the final solution to any problem fuel rampages.

I think that we first learn to control our own rhetoric and to understand that good people sometimes reach opposite conclusions after studying the same set of facts. Then we may discuss ways to calm our violent impulses.

I think we pay way too much attention to military solutions in resolving social or religious differences.

I think it is time to cease suffering fools, even lightly.

I think it is time for me to understand my own heart better.

I think I’ll start by reading The Sermon on The Mount again.

Won't you join me? Let's hold hands while we read together.

They say the Galilean wept once.
Why make him do so again?