GETHSEMANE

 Last week I travelled through the forgotten part of our state, the Arkansas Delta. I passed through a community named, of all things, Gethsemane. Folks there pronounced it “Gessymane,” as in, “He’s from over ‘bout Gessymane.”

Years ago while travelling through I would see homes scattered around and even two grocery stores. One would see neighbors visiting, children playing, and machinery serving family farms. Over the years the stores disappeared, then the homes and people, and then the farm equipment as corporate farming reduced the work force and equipment required to feed the world. Eventually, all that was left was a road sign noting “Gethsemane.” On this trip through, the sign had disappeared.

The Garden of Gethsemane holds deep significance in the Christian religion as the place where Jesus Christ experienced profound emotional and spiritual struggle.

It is important in the Christian religion as it represents anguish, sorrow, resolve, human weakness, but spiritual resolve.

For Christians, Gethsemane serves as a powerful symbol of prayer, obedience, and perseverance in times of trial.

It dawned on me as I travelled that lonely stretch of highway, that my America has lost, sadly, the physical reality of Gessymane and now seems bent on abandoning the spiritual value of Gethsemane.

DEFEAT FASCISM: READ REBUKE RESIST

 I'm not the best or most decent person, so don't take this as so-called "virtue signaling." Back during the Covid 19 crisis, though, when they sent us all money, I was afraid to go out and spend mine. Instead, I sent it to a nonprofit here that I know serves "the least of those among us."

I did profit though. I sat down and got to thinking. I decided there were a lot of people who were, in fact, gonna go out and spend theirs. I started researching retail outlets and made a list of those who were solid but whose stock was temporarily undervalued. I concluded that a little bump in America's spending habits had the potential for making money.

In short, I did some day trading. Made nearly $30,000 ere things started cooling off. We're living comfortably now, partly assisted by that windfall. Periodically I send part of it to that same nonprofit.

How come I trust it? I first saw the man who created it years ago at a festival walking around with a basket attached with a sign asking for money for the poor. Later, I decided that an organization founded by such a man could be trusted.

Now a majority of Americans place that kind of trust in people who inherited their money, not the ones who walked the streets like the Galilean asking us to remember the needy. It has brought America to an ugly place.

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. 

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

Decisions

As our public schools crumble, our planet fries, our poor sleep on the streets, our children are trained (once again) to hide beneath their school desks, and our country becomes increasingly aligned with the most wicked institutions of the planet, do we pause to wonder? Why do those with the most unworthy intents possess the most wealth to carry out those intents. Why are the truly righteous silent? Why do the godly perish while the wicked run free?

We have, over the years, printed untold tons of literature aimed at answering the simple question of why bad things happen to good people. Each time we bury someone who died of cancer too early in life, or see the newsreel shot of a casket bearing a young child slaughtered at her school, or witness an innocent neighborhood destroyed by drugs or a tornado, we ask why a merciful deity allowed it.

“His ways ain’t our ways,” a film character answers. The Galilean phrased it more eloquently in the Gospel of Matthew 5:45 as the spoke it from the sermon on the Mount.

“[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.” (KJV)

Well there you have it. A city in Texas receives more than 40 inches of rain while people die of thirst and hunger in Asia. “His ways ain’t our ways,” say those from dry, clean rooms on full stomachs. What then, was the Galilean doing from that immortal spot in Judea? Was he just fooling with us? His ways, after all, ain’t our ways, are they? Don’t we identify more with the voice from Proverbs 11:10, where the elders say, “When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth; and when the wicked perish, there is shouting?”

Sometimes, these days, all we have to do is turn on the TV and we can watch portions of America shouting with unrestrained joy when things go well with the wicked while the righteous, along with our beloved planet, face perishing.

Maybe the Galilean wasn’t simply saying, “his ways ain’t our ways.” Perhaps the most famous sermon ever uttered was all about decisions.

Yes, it might have been about making up our minds to do right. There are what we tend to call “decision points” all through the sermon. Some are transcendent in their pure beauty, like when he tells is who is blessed. Some make us uneasy, like the expanded definition of adultery, broadened to include our very thoughts. (So long, Scarlett.) Some are fairly simple: “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) Yes, it would be nigh onto impossible not to exceed the righteousness of a Joel Osteen, wouldn’t it?

It goes on and on, this sermon, exhorting us at each step to face and make decisions some of which include, in equal portions, discomfort and righteousness. Perhaps we might better understand if we included one last phrase. How about the following?

“His ways ain’t easy, are they?”

“The day when rain falls is as great

 as he day on which heaven and

earth were created” – The Talmud

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: “Don’t waste your breath.” I heard my Sainted Mother say that time and time again. She was more or less telling me to shut up. I think the Galilean told his listeners that during the Sermon on the Mount. Remember Chapter Seven, Verse Six? I’m sure you do. That’s when he told the crowd, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

Ah well, that’s a little more than “save your breath,” now isn’t it? Oh, and we’ll stick with the King James Version again this week. We don’t want to stray away from the scriptures in the original English. As Granny would say, “Taint fittin.”

No, it’s always amazing how the Galilean could talk about so many possible things at once. Let’s look at some things one at a time. Swine—pigs if you will—caught hell in the Bible. The Jews wouldn’t touch them, despite the smell of bacon frying. Pigs even got loaded up with unclean spirits on one occasion and had to go drown themselves to cleanse things. Now here same swine are, trampling on our values, or at least our valuables. You might say that those Judeans looked on pigs the way some of their modern counterparts look on immigrant families fleeing death and destruction.

So, what is this most valuable thing that we ought not let those swine do the “Pig Polka” on while the world watches? The metaphor used here is pearls. One must assume that everyone in the crowd viewed pearls as something of value, perhaps a most valuable possession. Today, he might have said, oh, I don’t know … “cell phones?”

Anyway. It’s popular today to claim he was talking about wisdom, the wisdom of righteousness, holiness, or understanding of “The Law,” that Trumpian thing that one moment was to be fulfilled and the next abolished.

As one writer has said, “If we take our wisdom (like precious pearls) and throw it all around without knowing whether it might fall before dogs (an impure or self-righteous heart) or swine (someone who is considered unclean), Jesus warns us that they will likely tear us to pieces. This means they will twist and distort what is said and then come after us!”

Yeah. That seems to make sense. But wait just a moment, as “Rabbi Columbo” might say. Doesn’t wisdom and learning sort of catch hell in the Bible, along with our piglets? Paul was an educated man. In fact, he tells us so in Acts 22:3. He is not above chiding his followers in Corinth though, with," For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face." (2 Corinthians 11:19 - 20, KJV).

Going back a bit further, perhaps the earliest stricture in Judeo-Christian theology warns us that we must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil … .”

What might be our “pearls” then? Maybe the Galilean just wanted to create a mind picture of our taking what is most valuable to us and wasting its importance by casting it meaninglessly into the mud at the feet of evil forces. Let us all think, then, of what is most valuable to us. What would we fight for? What would we die for, it need be? What is that for which we would face the forces of mighty nations?

I think I might stick with wisdom, the right to study and learn. Didn’t someone say, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth?” 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)

Yours may be different. For some, it might be the right to vote in a free election. Would we ever wish to cast that precious pearl before swine?

Some have paid the
price for their pearls.

Ends and Means

Reading the Sermon on the Mount these days will make the synapses in your brain sizzle if you let it. I tried reading it again and got stuck on the passages contained in Chapter 7, verses 1-6 of the Gospel of Matthew. I’ve mentioned it before, but this time it stuck to me like some sort of theological super-glue.

Consider the part about judging others. Oh boy. We might call it the “Anti-Facebook” gospel. Let’s look at the section in its entirety.

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 

I present this in the KJV in honor of the FB poster who said she only read her Bible in the original English.

Some (I won’t call them scholars as most, like me, aren’t’) say he is laying a can of “whup-ass” (I do couch my analysis in strictest of scholarly styles, however,) on the scribes and Pharisees. I tend to see them as “deacons on steroids” so to speak. But he seems to broaden his rebuke to all his listeners and the first verses must make us think. Is he telling us not to judge the actions of the unholy? Is he telling us not eschew the actions of the unholy? Is he actually implying that we might actually use the actions of the unholy for our own purposes?

I think not. Think whatever you wish. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that allows us that religious privilege—though under severe attack—still stood “by the dawn’s early light” this morning. I think, getting back to the point, that it is the act of judging those whom we decide are sinners, that galls him.

My Sainted Mother used to paraphrase it as “Sweep around your own door first.”

In a secular example, it’s like some man with a pot belly that hangs over his belt like dough spilling from a skillet referring, in public, to someone else as “fat,”

Some refer to Matthew 7:1-6 as the “most misunderstood portions of scripture.” Again, think what you wish, but, in my experience, this statement (about scripture) almost always leads to a justification of perfidy on the part of the writer. Just ask Joyce Meyer about rich people. I don’t think it is my role to judge what the Galilean wrote. I’m not a “taken out of context” person. I think it is my role to try and figure out what the hell he was talking about.

So I must ask the question, could we take the opening verses of today’s section too far? I ask this after reading and watching about the so-called “Family,” based in Washington D.C. and formerly controlled by a shadowy figure named Doug Coe who seemed bent on adding the coup de grâce to that fragile First Amendment I mentioned earlier.’

This secret organization avowedly believes that it is fine to use “political monsters” to promote their brand of religion, which is a severe, right-wing, fundamentalist worship of their concept of Jesus and to influence both our national, and international, politics. This has brought them into partnerships with political monsters such as Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi and others. “The more horrible the monster, the more useful he is to us,” is their mantra.

Don’t you think that’s carrying this “Do not judge” thing a little too far? I do. That will bring us next to a metaphor I love, and that’s the “pearls before swine” part. Stay tuned.

The Shining

Theology Time: This week, let us consider, from The Sermon on the Mount, Chapter 5, verse 16, of the Gospel of Matthew:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Do we really, as Americans, want the world to see our works at this moment in history? One wonders. Some thoughts:

For those of us who may have wondered about the line "the oranges are packed in their creosote dumps" from the Woody Guthrie classic "Deportee," may I offer this? I read recently that the orchard owners used to make the migrant workers throw damaged fruit into creosote-filled tanks so they couldn't eat them or take them to their families.

In light of this week’s news, I thought about that song, the Sermon on the Mount, shining lights, and oranges. In case one has been hiding under a bushel with her or his light, last week in Mississippi, federal agents stormed workplaces in seven cities in that state, and loaded up about 680 employees whom they claimed were undocumented immigrants. The agents arrested and tased at least one US citizen.

The raids occurred on Wednesday, less than a week after a white supremacist, targeting “Mexicans,” killed 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas.

I won’t mention that over 300 workers in Mississippi have been released as they were citizens or documented workers. This probably won’t help them according to The Guardian newspaper.

Citing a spokesman, The Guardian reported, “But even if they have been released, they cannot go back to work because the plant is going to say, ‘No. We don’t want any problems any more.’”

Even if they could, the parents who were not at work at the time of the raids are afraid of going back to work. Not all parents were released, and if another raid happened at the facility, or another workplace, it could leave more children with neither parent.

What we may find amazing, in light of the Galilean’s teachings, is that none of the employers of these supposedly illegal workers was arrested for illegally hiring them.

“Say what?” I can almost hear the Galilean asking. “Doesn’t America know that I am shining my light on it?”

See, sometimes the most frightening thing happens. That is when the far left and the far right of the political spectrum join forces.

Holy teamwork.

It happened with mental patients, the ones roaming our nation’s streets homeless and, sometimes, violent. The far right wanted to close the mental institutions, perhaps to have more money to spend on wars. My friends at the ACLU, in their zeal, made it legally impossible to retain folks in mental institutions if they were stable when medicated.

Oh brother. Unfortunately, no one is available on our streets to make sure the medications are taken. When the light of the world shines on the huddled and hungry, we exonerate ourselves by saying, “Oh, they are just homeless veterans.”

Groan. The Galilean knows the truth.

Now, about those who knowingly employ undocumented workers. It seems that politicians on the Left don’t want putative laws passed because it would make in harder for immigrants to find employment.

Politicians on the Right don’t want laws that would affect owners who illegally hire undocumented workers because the owners …well … because the owners support right-wing politicians who block laws that might hurt profits, even for some owners high in the political food chain.

What does it have to do with the Galilean? I repeat: Didn’t he say:

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.

What does it have to do with oranges? Oh, it just made me think of how much the inhabitants of the village next to our base in Da Nang craved oranges for their children.

It made me think of how our mess hall provided all the oranges we wanted, shipped in through our ports.

It made me think of how some sailors would bring a blouse full of oranges, after breakfast or lunch, to the towers where they stood guard across from the village.

It made me think of how the sailors would tease the mothers by holding up an orange and then sailing it bursting onto the ground.

It made me think of how the mothers would gather up the scraps of oranges and go back into the villages to their families.

It made me think of how cruelty and bigotry are not individual weakness among a percentage of Americans. They are systemic and passed through generations. That percentage seems to be growing. It makes me think of how the light of the world is shining now as others watch us, and we watch ourselves.

If we stay still, and listen as well as see, we might hear the Galilean weep.

Will it shine again?

Curve balls and Changing Times

It’s Theology Time and back to the Sermon on the Mount. If we read down to about Matthew 7:1-3, the Galilean seems to quit preaching and starts to meddle. Just listen to this:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye

That’s a bit of a speck itself. Isn’t the Book of Leviticus all about judgements? And didn’t our speaker tell us, in Matthew 5:17-20 (KJV):

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

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.

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.

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.

Once again, he’s throwing us curve balls and low sliders. I think he likes to do that. Some writers on the subject dwell on the word “fulfill.” Most modern definitions circle around the word as meaning “ … to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.) Some writers grant the Galilean some flexibility in squeezing terms like “completing, finalizing, updating. They are the same ones who say “an eye for and eye” really doesn’t mean an “eye for an eye” but is really an extremely humane form of legal compensation.

Whatever.

I like to think about what the Galilean is actually reported to have said. You can sure get some different interpretations otherwise. Was he purposefully trying to mess with our minds? Or was he, as some seem to think, making us learn to hit the hard pitches if we really want to be “Sluggers for Jesus.”

Maybe, just maybe, it gets real complicated here, difficult to explain. I think, though, that I’ll just jump off the diving board at the deep end and hope there is water in the pool. Jesus appeared, if we are to believe what the Gospels tell us, only 200 years after the stabilization of the so-called “Axial Age,” as discussed by Karen Armstrong and other writers. That’s a complicated era to discuss. The “school” definition from The Human Journey runs something like this:

From 900–200 BCE a new mode of thinking developed almost simultaneously in four distinct areas of the world. In each area this was a time of change, social unrest, and political upheaval. People began to question their own beliefs once they came into contact with others whose beliefs were different. In the face of crisis and change, they were challenged to look at themselves in different ways and entertain new ideas or cling steadfastly to their old ones.

A more prosaic writer described it as an era when “The old paradigm was gone and the new paradigm hadn’t appeared.” As an urban planner, I like to think of it as the age in which tribalism waned, people traveled and traded, and it became necessary for humans to rid themselves of some of the fears and mistrusts that had protected them on the Savanna. In other words. we had to start getting along better with one another.

So here we have a Savior, seeking help humankind evolve from the jealous, violent, cruel, tribal, and morally frivolous god of the Old Testament into a more loving and universal figurehead. It’s a tough challenge, but one that he was perhaps trying to tackle.

In this month’s reading, shall we try to contemplate the Sermon on the Mount from this perspective?

The Agora.
When people started trading,
things changed. Even religion.

Theology Time

Sunday Theology Time. “… when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.” That was my Sainted Mother’s favorite verse of the Bible, I think. It may have been a close second to Verse 35 of the Gospel of John, Chapter 11: “Jesus wept.” Of course, she had a funny story that went with that, but let’s wait for another day.

Right now, let’s continue with our consideration of The Sermon on the Mount. The Galilean was beginning to “shuck the corn” when he got down to the hypocrites. He offered some pretty strong words in Verse Five of Chapter Six: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.”

Then he gets into to Sainted Mother’s line about praying in closets. If there was one thing she shared with the Galilean, it was a wariness about hypocrites. She called them “religious fanatics,” which broadened the definition a bit. I hate to think how she would feel about the hypocrisy that drips from our nation’s capital now.

“Oh my goodness,” I can just hear her say. “They’re calling that man a Christian?” Sainted Mother would have had what she called a, well I can’t say what she would have called it but it involved, among others, a euphemism for excrement, and the words “hemorrhage” and “fit.” Enough said about that. She had a most colorful command of our language, especially when she referred to hypocrites. They seemed to bring out the most erudite in her.

Forget Her for a second and consider Him. Why was the Galilean so upset about hypocrites? I mean, he was lumping them in with murderers, adulterers, thieves, and the greedy. Hypocrites? Well he certainly didn’t include them on the list of those who were blessed. He didn’t “cut them much slack” as they used to say in the Navy. He reminds us that “Your Father, … sees what is done in secret.” Oh dear. That’s got to scare the hell out of some folks while comforting others.

Is he telling those now in power that when they refuse to provide succor to those who are poor in spirit, who mourn, who are meek, who hunger and thirst for righteousness, who are merciful, are pure in heart, who are  peacemakers, or who are persecuted because of righteousness that they be in some serious trouble if they don’t change their ways? See Franklin Graham run.

Perhaps the most notable band of hypocrites are those shouting the loudest about this being a “Christian Nation.” The Galilean laughed about it last time we spoke. He almost guffawed when he said, “Verily I say unto you (he does that as an inside joke) … I say unto you: Were my Beatitudes to be flashed up in bright lights on the wall of the U.S. Senate chamber, there would be a great rushing to dark places by those who use my name for that which is cruel and greedy.”

Wow. He’s worse than Sainted Mother.

He sets a pretty high standard, that Galilean. What in the world would happen, you think, if he’s watching America now?

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.

Belief Bridges

Theology Time: In an America desperately in need of what I call “belief bridges,” I find the Sermon on the Mount particularly compelling. By “belief bridges,” I mean things that may create harmony between people of differing worldviews, even for a short time.

We have covered the opening “blessings” previously. Though you could, as I have pointed out, chase some of those who today claim to be “Christian Leaders” with a copy of the Beatitudes, most thinking people would regard them as a guide to those whom the Galilean deemed happy. Why? Because, though they are set upon today, a better world awaits them. Others view them as a guide to fulfilling a Christian life. Others simply say, “Those are my brothers and sisters with special needs, and I am their keeper.” Whatever. They, these simple blessings, still have the power to shake the foundations of rational belief as part of the immortal Sermon on the Mount.

Summarizing this wondrous work in a few words is impossible. Simply consider some of the more well-known passages.

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. 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).

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 (5:38-39).

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (6:19-21).

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money (6:24).

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you (7:7).

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 (7:13-14).

Consider how “The Sermon” has been cited by both real and fictional personages. At one end of the belief spectrum, Jonathan Pennington, associate professor of New Testament interpretation and director of research doctoral studies at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, said this about the Sermon on the Mount, “… it’s wisdom from God, inviting us through faith to re-orient our values, vision, and habits from the ways of external righteousness to whole-heartedness toward God. This isn’t ‘law’ but ‘gospel.’ Jesus is inviting us into life in God’s kingdom both now and in the future age. This is grace.”

At the far end of the spectrum, that of non-belief, scientist and writer Carl Sagan says this of his atheist protagonist of the novel Contact, “Ellie, was deeply moved by the Sermon on the Mount.”

This concept of religious writing, one that serves to unite us, build bridges between us, and open the narrow gate to an exalted life, may seem strange to many in today’s America. I suppose that’s why we don’t hear much—even from those who claim to love the Galilean—about The Sermon on the Mount.

Too bad for us.

Theology Time

I suspect that you could chase a die-hard fundamentalist with a copy of The Beatitudes. I doubt that many would even believe that it was taken from the Bible they claim to love so well. In short, those teachings lie far from accepted Christian dogma for many, some quite prominent, Americans. As the book in question also warns against the futility of serving two masters, one cannot serve the Galilean of The Sermon on the Mount and Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, the modern guide for many conservative brothers and sisters.

This brings us to the study of the next of the “blessings” as espoused on that mount: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

To grasp fully the importance of this, the eighth on the list, it would be instructive to review the past seven. If you remember, the Galilean is reported to have said

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

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted;

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth;

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied;

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy;

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; and

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

So far.

As we contemplate the first seven “blessings,” let’s just imagine what the followers of the current American president would call those who make an honest effort, in their daily lives, to adhere to the words of our beloved Rabbi. Some terms come to mind.

Libtard

Snowflake

Taker

Bleeding heart

Socialist

Do-gooder

Peace dove

Of course, in direct opposition to the current popular term “nationalists,” there is an overarching term for our Beatitudinists. That would be “humanists.” Franklin Graham once said that they are “worse than Communists.” There is a wall somewhere that bears the names of 57,939 Americans who might disagree. They rest in peace among others that we honor this weekend as we hope for no more wars. Yes, the peacemakers these days run the risk of being called “surrender monkeys,” but we accept it. The Galilean would not have it otherwise.

So there we are. Of course, being called names is in no way comparable to being marched off to gas chambers. As we are told from birth, though, mighty oaks from little acorns grow. Maybe the Galilean remembered that long ago on that hill surrounded by crowds of followers. Mighty Oaks are mighty trees that know nothing of their final purpose. Mighty evil is mighty evil. Mighty good is mighty good, even if we receive the condemnation of others for pursuing it.

Maybe this came to mind in a later moment described by Matthew, when a disciple asked the Galilean, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” 22:36-40 ESV

I don’t think we’ll see that on Twitter this Memorial Day weekend.

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.

Pure of heart ... ?

Theology Time: Still stuck on the Beatitudes I am. I suppose it’s because they suffer these days from being so “bigly” ignored. I can’t turn anywhere without having the stricture from Leviticus against homosexuality thrust in my face. Pretty explicit it is. The writer called it, a man laying with another man as with a woman that is, “an abomination.”

The writer was from a group just emerging from the Stone Age, so he wrote without the scientific knowledge of biological descent through modification, or of genomic organization and the modifications possible. Still, he allowed his strictures to be quite explicit.

But so were the commands by Moses concerning the fate of the Midianite women and children captured in war—explicit that is. Seems he commanded his victorious soldiers, “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” - Numbers 31 (NIV)

How can we, if we are to accept every sentence in the Old Testament as coming directly from the mouth of the Almighty, supposed to reconcile all this? Last time I visited a church full of evangelicals (the ones who hate the differently genomed the most), about half those under 40 years of age had violated a direct command from Himself. In Leviticus 19:28, the Bible says, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am Lord."

I am sure that he didn’t mean to include faded nautical tattoos on the shoulders of aging vets, just the flowers and snakes crawling from the bodices of beautiful young women and the hateful sayings on the arms of swaggering young men. But, anyway …

Do I stand as the only confused one? I fear that many (so-called) Christians seem to have abandoned the words of Yahweh and, instead, follow the words, written by poet Paul Simon, and sung with his pal Art Garfunkel, “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.” How are we supposed to maintain a purity of heart in these times?

That brings us to today’s Beatitude, the sixth: “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.”

Oh dear.

Are you afraid, dear reader, as am I, that our national leaders of today would consider the act of striving to be pure of heart as a sign of weakness? If you aren’t, carry a person who is dying of a curable disease to one of our leaders and seek succor for this example of the least of those among us. You’ll find out real fast (dare I say “bigly”) who shall see God and who won’t, at least according to the Galilean. (Someday, we’ll get back to what he had to say about divorce. That’s a real hoot).

The Sermon on the Mount is a marvelous account of purity in thought and heart. I only wish someone could get the haters to read it. Maybe some have. That possibility makes me think of Exodus 9-12, (NIV) “But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen … .” The Lord? Surely not. That makes me think of a college experience. A nationally-known sociologist, Dr. Grant Bogue, assigned me a reading back in the 1960s called Our Schizophrenic Society. It as all about how the disparity between the teachings of adults and their actions must have been adversely affecting the minds of the young.

If that was true in the 1960s, what would we make of it today? Pure of heart? Give me a break.

Righteousness ...

Righteous. Now there is a word that can kick your butt early in the morning. I’ve heard it used to describe everything from a good person to a guitar lick to sect-approved behavior to a “Bogarted” joint. Seems like beauty is in the ear of the listener.

It seems understandable, then, that the writer Matthew used it, in some form, for the words of the Galilean while preaching on the Mount. He said, in the fourth of his so-called “Beatitudes:

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied” (ESV, Matthew 5:6).

In some religious congregations, you are declared righteous because you have had your sins cleansed by Jesus.

In others, it means you are capable of sublime actions, as when the modern Jews proclaimed Oskar Schindler a “Righteous Person” for being credited with saving the lives of 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust by employing them in his enamelware and ammunition factories in occupied Poland and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

Yeah. That makes sense.

On the other hand, there are people like Franklin Graham who seek righteousness by preaching hatred against those whom the process of natural selection made different. So it’s a slippery word at best, this “righteousness.” Who knows how the Galilean would have interpreted it? It’s my guess that it would have been a lot closer to Schindler than to Graham. That’s just my opinion.

Perhaps the more understandable words, though, are “hunger and thirst.” The Galilean didn’t make it easy. I’ve been lucky in my life. I’ve only hungered and thirsted for short periods unless you discount high school, and … well let’s leave that topic for, as H.L. Mencken put it, “future biographers.”

Once, though, I hungered and thirsted pretty darned bad. That was during SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training provided at no cost to me by the United States government. They took us outside Warner Springs, CA to that desert where, if you remember your grade school geography films, you can fry an egg on a rock at high noon and freeze water in a glass overnight. They starved us for several days in that dreadful environment. They also drove us into a fake prisoner-of-war camp and beat the crap out of us, but that is a story for another day.

The point is: by the time they brought us back, I had commenced to hunger and thirst most righteously.

I think that was the sort of state the Galilean advocated for those who seek righteousness. You have to put yourself in a state of high-hankering.

And I don’t care what Franklin Graham says, I don’t think a person can reach that state in a Manhattan skyscraper on a full stomach.

The Dark Side of Righteousness. 

Hard times ...

Theology Time: I’m still stuck on the Beatitudes. I skipped the Second last week for some reason or other. Maybe it’s because this year so far has involved so much mourning for me and my family. Back to it though, on the Mount, the Galilean sought to comfort us:

“Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”

Taken out of what seem to be the conventional context, we might expect to be comforted when we have cause to mourn. In this context, we might withstand horrible sadness in anticipation of earthly comfort. This comfort will be all the more soothing and wonderful because we have known the hard times and they are past. The winds of fortune blow from all directions. Wait for a better day. Help is coming. This [sadness] too shall pass. A better day is coming. Happy days will be here again.

We know that it isn’t true. Even when we pray in song, the way Stephen Foster did, imploring “Hard times, come around no more.”

Times don’t always get better. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don’t. Sometimes it just keeps piling on. That’s why the conventional interpretation for the word “blessed” in the Beatitudes is “happy.”

No, we don’t accept hard times because they will end. We don’t mourn because our troubles on Earth will end.

We mourn because we anticipate a place  beyond Earthly life where mourning will end and those who have borne it the most will be the happiest to get shed of it. The Galilean was promising us a better home, a heavenly home, where troubles will be no more.

That’s not much comfort for those who harbor doubts instead of faith. Even those who aren’t affected by personal troubles must tremble at the condition of our country and the world. We recall the words of Matthew Arnold perhaps, in his poem Lines Written in Kensington Gardens:

I, on men’s impious uproar hurled,

Think often, as I hear them rave,       

That peace has left the upper world, 

And now keeps only in the grave.

Arnold found peace in quiet garden. Many find peace in the words of the Galilean, and bless him for it. A friend of mine from years ago during my time in the United States Navy, found it another way. We were in temporary duty at a base in Monterey, California. I had already received orders for Naval Security Forces at Da Nang. He had no idea where he would go. It didn’t matter. He hated every aspect of military life. Location made no difference.

His name was Robert and he carried around a number of problems, some social, some political, some romantic, some internal, and some external. One day, as we walked through a then-deserted Cannery Row, he looked at me with sad eyes and said, “You know, when a child is born, they give him a bucket, and as he goes through life, they shovel crap into it, and he has to carry it with him through life while it gets heavier and heavier.”

It was somber thought and I remember wondering, at the time, what John Steinbeck and Ed Ricketts would have thought of it. I didn’t think long on it. One morning, Robert failed to appear at muster. I figured his assignment had come through.

About two weeks later, shortly before I was to leave, a call came my work place. Personal calls didn’t pass muster, but they let me take it out of sorrow for my future, I suppose. A happy voice greeted me. It was Robert.

“Where are you?”

“At the nut-ward at the Treasure Island base in San Francisco,” he said.

“How did you get there?”

“I told them I was giving up my bucket of crap and the Navy could do what they wanted to with it.” Then the phone went dead.

I never heard from him again.

Comfort them?
Or test them for drugs?