by

Perspectives

Having entered my 78th year on May 29, I am trying to get better perspective on the barrage of sad and wonderful news of my life. Instead of whining about what’s bothering me most, I am going to list what matters most in ascending order as of today, May 31. I’m not going to attempt this every day, since one fresh perspective is to avoid re-arranging perspectives every day, thus subtracting from my productive time on earth with endless reflections.

For one thing, I have a book to finish.

So here are the sensible and senseless matters for today:

10. Someone left the federal government recently taking huge personal financial benefits with him. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html

9. The  same person gets credit for saving tax-payers billions of dollars, when he probably netted a loss.  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html

8. No one believes this man is a racist performance artist. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html

7. A man, considered the fearless opponent of enemies domestic and foreign. cowers every time the stock market has a hiccup and reverses the tariff that might have caused it. (The TACO effect) https://www.reuters.com/business/trumps-tariff-tally-34-billion-counting-global-companies-say-2025-05-29/

6. FBI agents are being removed from “terror threats and espionage cases” to seek out immigrants for possible deportation. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/thousands-agents-diverted-trump-immigration-crackdown-2025-03-22/

5. The Cardinals lost 11-1 last night to one of the worst-hitting teams in baseball. https://www.mlb.com/cardinals/scores/2025-05-30

4. “Pablo Torre Finds Out” finds unique, socially-important sports stories. Pablo is also a great MSNBC commentator.   https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6329507/2025/05/30/pablo-torre-finds-out-podcast-bill-belichick/campaign=13719889&source=athletic_targeted_email&userId=1152639

3. Our favorite doe, “Gimpy,” has a new fawn with fresh legs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.  I have finished all but the thematic frosting on my memoir:

Signs and Wonders.

1.  Jason, Victoria’s, oldest grandson, is graduating from high school and heading for Davidson College.

by

Egos Abroad

With all concession to collaborations and conciliation, don’t underestimate the influence of egos on the world stage.Two of the biggest failed to show up at Istanbul on Friday, while the fate of a nation, Ukraine, hung in the balance.

“He and I will meet, and I think we’ll solve it or maybe not,” Mr. Trump said. “At least we’ll know. And if we don’t solve it, it’ll be very interesting.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-putin-russia-ukraine-war-meeting-proposal/ The egos in this case, President Donald Trump and President Vladimir Putin. The “it” referenced by Mr. Trump, the fate of  38 million people in Ukraine waiting for the two Presidents to fit peace talks into their busy calendars.

The height and breadth of the ego of President Trump can be judged by his absolute conviction that he and President Putin are the answer to a generational struggle across the eastern Ukrainian border and, that the failure to resolve that struggle will be “interesting” to him, not ultimately consequential to 38 million people.

As egotistic as the Presidents might be, it is true that powerful nations have used their influence to broker peace talks for many generations. Often the big stick keeps the warring parties honest. So, point taken, President Trump.

Therefore, why are both Presidents no-shows at Istanbul? It appeared at first Putin would attend along with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  Then Putin decided to send his representative, Vladimir Medinsky, guaranteeing that nothing would be accomplished at the talks.  With the border war progressing to Putin’s advantage, it appeared he had no incentive to come to the peace table–unless for—but certainly not for—peace?

If these two towering egos are key to peace-keeping in Ukraine, then they are allowing death and destruction to await their pleasure. Nothing these world-shakers have said suggests they care about the fate of war victims, whether Russian or Ukrainian. President Putin shows every interest in reviving the Russian Empire with generous western boundaries. The grandeur of ascending to an Emperor’s throne holds him in thrall.  If he delays the talks long enough he could collect the entire prize for his European collection.

President Trump, having abdicated the role of NATO alliance leader, still longs to be a power  broker. We have seen him bully Zelensky on live television to demonstrate his power, but he ultimately wants to make him  a vassal by mediating the peace treaty. He wants the world to consider him the master of the apprentices of the foreign stage.

So we are witnessing the embarrassing spectacle of two out-sized egos using a small nation as the extension of their egotism.  Neither cares about peace except to advance their reputations as grandmasters on the chessboard of Europe. Where are a couple of International Masters to checkmate these blowhards when you need them?

by

What’s That?

I had not seen deer on our property for almost a week, when these ladies turned up. Normally deer pass through our yard  in twos and fours and sixes almost like clockwork between 5 and 6 p.m. They migrate from one side of the neighborhood to the other, crossing the street in front of our house, passing along the eastern boundary with our neighbors toward the wooded area in our backyard, rising from south to north. It’s the path the deer usually take to enter and exit our yard. I  love sharing this space with them, despite their appetite for hostas and sprouting plants. Mostly they feed on seed pods and fresh growth in the woods. They occasionally come to drink from our bird baths, which I keep brimming with water to encourage rest stops.

They can see us through the sliding glass door at the back of the house. If I needed any evidence of that, I had it at the moment this picture was taken.They looked up from their early feed and stared directly at me for at least two minutes, not moving a foot, a tail or the sensitive ears that turn like radar when they lift their heads.  They absorbed and were absorbed by the sight of a human intruder at their customary hors d’oeuvres. 

I wondered: Had they noticed me before,  as I stared impolitely, occasionally raising an implement of intrusion to get a closer look? Did they feel exposed by a curious homo sapiens with his territorial claims by the installation of the bird house and bird feeders scattered around the yard? To add insult to injury the same  alleged owner had enshrouded one tree with this ugly green mesh, making it impossible to rub against the trunk.

This enduring (en-deering?) encounter was a sacred moment.  I had never been granted the full attention of our dinner guests for so long an interval. I was briefly more important than the green salad scattered over the yard. Briefly more important than the sounds of danger they never missed when they raised their heads from dining. More important than the evening  stroll up the ravine along our back yard.  I was the focus of attention for longer than it takes to browse one corner and move on to another.

I wondered then: Were we now friends or familiar neighbors or intruders on their property? What were they contemplating when they took in the curious stranger who locked eyes for lingering seconds with the most unabashed, snooping stare? Was the barrier between homo sapiens and deer lifted for a moment? Did they feel threatened or welcomed  in the yard we thought we purchased and owned, because we wanted to live in their neighborhood?

I have given a lot of thought to what this feeding ground looked like when deer thought they owned it. To the unsolicited construction of giant shelters across the verdant slopes, the provisions of the larger mammals. To the assembly of impermeable slabs of concrete that endangered deer migration by creating a highway for deadly hard-shelled monsters.  How did they adjust to the swarm of humanity, their over-sized homes, their terrifying means of travel, their closing off trails with their  boundary markers, their sheer hostility when the alleged sub-species grazed on their private vegetation? What did they intuit about the invaders, because the original owners had to share their feeding ground with them?

Because they have shared and tolerated and learned to negotiate I hoped for kinship. Our extended meeting at the neutral territory of house and yard made me optimistic to be cordial neighbors.  Rather than a rude busybody, I would like to be considered a benefactor with daffodills and bird seed. My seasonal leaf blankets a convenient resting place. My freshly-mowed lawn exposing seed pods and tender shoots.

That’s a lot to surmise from a chance meeting of  three curious mammals. The wide brown eyes convey nothing but a self-protective stare. Maybe a guarded acceptance of the nosy creature who lives in the giant shelter. Maybe curiosity that meets curiosity at the firm barrier between two species that co-habit the land. Maybe just a few minutes to feel connected, hoping for more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

The Renewing of the Mind

More from my reflective memoir:  The Sign of Jonah: Faith and Doubt.

When I had to decide whether to go to Wheaton College or Hamilton College, I was sure God would give me a sign about this critical decision. It was a straight-forward choice: the sectarian vs. the secular school, but I felt torn. I did not want to choose Wheaton just because it was sectarian, but I did not want to choose against it because it was sectarian.

Wheaton typified the purity approach to education. On the campus there would be no smoking, drinking, dancing or going to the movies. Their approach to a liberal education was separation from the world to avoid the temptation.

Hamilton had few restrictions except academic integrity. Every written work, papers and exams, had to be signed with, “This is my own work, unless otherwise indicated.” There was an Honor Court, consisting of peers, to consider violations of the pledge. I forget the consequences for conviction. I never consciously violated the pledge.

Hamilton did have a pub significant enough to be included on my campus tour. New York had a drinking age of 18, so not many freshmen had to be carded.

My choice came down to the last day before the commitment was due. Still, I had not received the expected sign. My mother told me, “You’re going to stay home from school today, and we’ll pray and decide which way to go.” I was impressed by her faith. God would surely speak.

We prayed together, and I waited. No sign.  We prayed some more. Still no sign. Finally, my mother said, “How do you feel? Are you leaning one way or the other?” I realized there was no sign coming. It was up to me. I went with Hamilton. It eventually seemed like a good fit for me, so I concluded my prayer was answered, just not the way I expected. Rather than a sign, I had decided for myself. I think the way my mother handled it was an act of faith, but at that time I supposed faith was based on special indicators. I never experienced such indicators.

Although I opted to go to Hamilton, I kept my distance from the world by moderate drinking, no drugs, and careful relationships with women.  I did not elect Religion 11-12, because I was sure I would be introduced to “liberal thinking” about faith. I attended church off campus regularly, rather than attend the college’s inter-denominational services. I lived by the principle of “Do not be conformed to this world,” rather than the advice to “be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Romans 12:3).

In secular institutions students and faculty practiced the principle of academic inquiry in 1966; it was never necessary to mention it.  Inquiry supplemented faith with learning, including a variety of perspectives.

However, in 2019, free inquiry was not assumed as such. Hamilton made it more explicit with this definition that distinguished it from less eclectic institutions:

Intellectual Curiosity and Flexibility — examining facts, phenomena and issues in depth, and from a variety of perspectives, and having the courage to revise beliefs and outlooks in light of new evidence. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education (Rev. November 4, 2019).

The dogmatic thinker of the 1960’s was not very different from the dogmatic thinker of 2025. There was no “variety of perspectives.” There was either faith or skepticism. All evidence must be sifted as “worldly” or “spiritual.” This was why my choice to go to a secular college was fraught with danger. The courage to revise beliefs and outlooks in light of new evidence could lead to doubt or skepticism.

What I learned at Hamilton, which I might not have learned at Wheaton, was the value of inquiry, the inspiration of the natural world  (Romantic and Modern English and German writers), the overlap between Christianity and social reformers Jane Addams, Dorothy Day and Hannah Arendt (Sociology). Under Alex Haley, the author of Roots, I learned about a quest for identity beyond the words of scripture. I was surprised and perplexed by how much the spiritual and the material world intersected.

I left Hamilton with many questions. When I had arrived as a freshman, I had all the answers.

by

The Rise of the Acronym

DEI is no longer an acronym. It is a noun (“That  program is DEI”), an adjective (“She’s a DEI hire), and I expect it will soon be a verb. “He DEI’d his way into a job.” But it is not  a word; it is three words: “Diversity, Equity,  and Inclusion.” Which of these is offensive: “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion”?    Doesn’t everyone want the spouse their kid married to be accepted by their social club? Doesn’t everyone want to be treated like the boss’s son is? Doesn’t everyone want to be considered an American, not some hyphenated-American? There you have it: diversity, equity, and inclusion.

“Diversity, Equality and Inclusion” is really about fairness. When the President complains he has been unfairly treated  by the news media, what is he asking for? “Equity,” the right to be treated by the same standards as others.

When a controversial right wing speaker gets barred from a college campus, why do we think the college is violating free speech? Isn’t it for the sake of diversity and equity that the college  should permit that person to address its students? You can call it “cancel culture,” if you want, but that is just another way to say “unfair,” which is another way to say “inequitable,” which means you want equity. 

Don’t we expect fair treatment for billionaires, as well as the poor? Is it fair to say “tax cuts for billionaires,” when some billionaires respect the tax laws and give generously to civil rights groups or medical research?  Billionaires deserve fairness, which means they they are entitled to equity. People should not be judged on their wealth or lack of it.

Shouldn’t we ask how the rich earned their wealth or how the poor fell into poverty before we attack them as classes of people? Is it fair to say “handouts for welfare queens,” when we know that most who benefit from Medicaid or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) are truly poor? Everyone should get an entitled government benefit, whether tax deductions for buying from local farmers  or supplemental aid for needed groceries.

There are some who game the system, whether through tax loopholes or obtaining benefits from deceased beneficiaries. That’s not fair. Many others are blamed for cheating, when they are complying with the law. That means the honest should be included, the cheaters excluded. Good example of inclusion and equity.

The so-called “chainsaw” approach to cutting waste and fraud gives no attention  to indiscriminate use of funds that deserve cutting, but demolishes programs by their unfortunate mention of one of the suspicious three words. If investigations take place they should  identify a real problem with how the money was expended, not just yell “DEI!”  and expect taxpayers to get riled. “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” are not toxic words that should be identified by a word search program.

Politicians or DEI investigators avoid using the actual words “diversity, equality, or inclusion”, because someone might notice that a legitimate program is being cut. They say, “This program’s DEI is under investigation, ” and  everyone thinks “favoritism” instead of “fairness.” It is so much easier to word search government grants, loans, and hiring policies and slash them for using forbidden language or its equivalent language.

In some cases, photos seemed to be flagged for removal simply because their file included the word “gay,” including service members with that last name and an image of the B-29 aircraft Enola Gay, which dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/war-heroes-gay-plane-images-flagged-removal-pentagons-dei-purge-rcna195344

Even the President’s favorite decade could be under investigation, since it has been called “the gay nineties.”

There should be a law forbidding the acronym “DEI” as a noun, adjective or verb.  It disparages something we all want: “Diversity, Equity, and  Inclusion.”  “Equity” demands that the people we don’t favor should get the same treatment as our friends. Isn’t that what “fairness” means? We all expect fairness.  Let’s just call DEI what it is. By now you should know what those letters mean.

Aren’t there more than a few people who are tired of hearing “WASP” like it was something dirty? That’s the destructive power of acronyms.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

She Treasured All These Words

More excerpts from my longer work: The Sign of Jonah: Doubts and Convictions

Dogmatism in faith leaves no space for pondering, for thinking, “What just happened here? Am I o.k. or adrift? “Now, we see in a mirror dimly,” is what the Apostle Paul says of our faith in I Corinthians 13: 12

Do we pay attention to the paralyzing questions of the Christian Bible? Protestants especially miss the example of Mary. Over and over, she pondered the inexplicable.

After the visitation of the shepherds who reported the angels’ announcement: “to you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior who is the Messiah” and their sign “you will find a child wrapped in bands of cloth and lying in a manger” (Luke 2:12). As the shepherds told this story, it was too much for a mother to take in.

19 But Mary ·treasured [kept; preserved] these things and ·continued to think about them [L pondered/considered them in her heart] Luke 2:19 (EXB) (Expanded Bible)

More imponderables emerged from the dedication of Jesus at the Temple. A prophet, a man named Simeon, spontaneously praised God at the sight of Jesus. Then he prophesied “This child is destined for the falling and rising of many in Israel and to be a sign that will be opposed” and then most ominously 35 so that the thoughts of many [L hearts] will be made known. And ·the things that will happen will make your heart sad, too [L a sword will pierce your own soul;”  (2:34-35).

The fulfillment of the Simeon’s final prophecy came finally at the foot of the cross, some thirty years later. Did Mary remember the prophecy?       “ . . . and a sword will pierce your own soul, too” (2:34-35).

When Jesus as a teenager was found teaching the teachers in the Temple, he told his parents, “’Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’ “His mother treasured all these things in her heart.”

51 Jesus went with them to Nazareth and ·was obedient to them [lived under their authority]. But his mother ·kept in her mind all that had happened [L kept/treasured all these things/words in her heart].

What does it mean to reflect on events of your life?

continued to think about them

experience deep sorrow over the death of Jesus

kept/treasured all these things/words in her heart

This sequence of events revealed the signs of the Messiah: his birth, the significance of his life, and the pondering of his mother, which went on for a lifetime. How could a baby from her womb become the Savior of the world? How do you process the revelation of Incarnation, a moment of eternal significance? How could she comprehend the arc of Jesus’s life from the heralded birth to the brutal end at the cross? She “treasured them.”

Mary is our model of reflection/ contemplation, because her life was rich with wonders and questions. She did not say, “Oh, well. Who knows?” She “continued to think about them,” “kept these words in her heart.”  She never forgot the puzzling, astounding moments, but tried to comprehend, even to the end of her son’s life.

 

by

Literalism

More excerpts from my longer work: The Sign of Jonah: Doubts and Convictions

How do we read sacred texts?

My father and mother loved the Bible, and I inherited their passion. Dad loved to read Revelation and other references to the Return of Christ. He would invite canvassing Jehovah’s Witnesses into our home, so he could debate with them about the book of Revelation.   He believed Jesus would return in his lifetime, and on his deathbed assured us it would be soon. The highest praise he could give a minister was that he was “biblical.” We chose our churches, not by denomination, but if the preachers were “biblical.”

What did he mean by “biblical” ?

The Bible, both Hebrew and Christian,

  1. should be read literally
  2. should be relevant for every time and place
  3. should be viewed from the perspective of the risen Christ
  4. should be faithfully practiced

He and I affirmed this view in the 1960’s and early ‘70’s, until my graduation from formal schooling.

Read literally

My father believed we should take scripture literally, since it was God-inspired. I never heard him deny that the Psalms were poetry or claim the parables were true stories, but he would chafe at understanding the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah as myths or symbolic stories. He always argued that interpreting these as mythological stories made them less than the word of God. He felt the same about the Book of Job and Jonah. He thought of them as biographies of ancient men.

Dad’s most-quoted verse about the interpretation of scriptures was:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. “(II Timothy 3:16-17).

Nothing here suggests a literal reading of the Bible. In fact, the method of reading corresponds to what I would consider a “critical literacy” theory, because interpretation is only complete through action. In the above epistle to Timothy, Paul says scripture is

  1. Dynamic, organic (“God breathed”)
  2. Useful (for teaching, rebuking, training in righteousness)
  3. Culminating in action (equipped for every good work)

The typical argument that scripture should be read literally comes from the first part of Paul’s guidelines. If God said it, it should not be ambiguous or figurative. And yet “God-breathed” suggests anything but literal interpretation.

By “God-breathed” I suppose Paul meant that it was imparted by the Holy Spirit, but everything Jesus said about the Spirit indicated (he, she, it) was mysterious and dynamic. For example, in John 3:8, “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This is not a static, boxed-up Spirit.

The analogy of the Spirit to the wind comes from the Hebrew word “ruach,” which is translated as “wind, breath, mind, spirit.” The same word is applied to the active presence of God 400 times in the Bible, beginning with Creation, when the “ruach” of God “swept over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). From the beginning, the Spirit was a creative, not a limited force. https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Spirit_of_God/spirit_of_god.html,

Yet, my father and many fellow-believers felt that God spoke in literal, unambiguous language, and they would read the book of Jonah as an historical event, with reference to the Christian life and the exhortation to be faithful to God’s call.  To see Jonah as fiction was to compromise its truth. The literal was a singular, transparent way to read.

Literal reading is a stumbling block for both the dogmatic and the skeptic. There are plenty of non-literal passages in the Christian Bible, such as Matthew 5:29: “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.”  Even staunch literalists will admit Jesus did not mean this as a literal commandment. The Christian Bible has dozens of passages like this, which will make the most ardent literalist back off.

Or how do we measure faith by the standards of the Christian Bible? “if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain,’Move from here to there ‘ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you”[Matt 17:  21-22].  Since that standard was set, there is no record of someone moving a mountain by faith.  Have we all failed to demonstrate our faith by Jesus’ standard?

Or how about this famous simile? Could it be a literal statement?

24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Mark 10: 24

Wow,  no camel can do that Jesus! You don’t mean that literally do you?

26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” (10:27)

For the literal reader this camel simile is truly terrifying. Like the disciples, the literalist will reply, “Who, then, can be saved?” And Jesus does not say, “Don’t worry. It’s only a simile.”

Instead, he says, “With man this is impossible . . .” Not terribly reassuring for the literalists, even when he says, “all things are possible with God.” That leaves salvation entirely in God’s hands. The literal reader is not reassured, because, after all, literal readings were supposed to clear up mysteries, not complicate them.

As long as I have hung on to literal reading of the Bible, I have obviously turned my back on it. I realize, not only is it a very limited view of holy scripture, it creates way more problems than it solves.

 

by

Slip-Sliding with Paul Simon

Anticipating my first Paul Simon concert on April 29.

I was excited to hear Paul Simon had composed  a new album called 7 Psalms. It was as if this Jewish kid I knew in college had come full circle and finally tapped into my version of God. Ever since “the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls,” I’ve been a fan. He was so reflective and a bit of a wise-ass–a lonely poet, longing for friendship, as I was in  1964.  He wrote amazing music, but the lyrics! They were really poetry, almost too good to waste on a melody.

Apparently “A vision softly creeping/ left its seeds while I was sleeping” actually happened! In the new documentary “In Restless Dreams: The Music of Paul Simon” he says  he heard a voice telling him in a dream: “You’re working on a piece called Seven Psalms.” It was no coincidence that the beginning section of the album The Lord sounds like the “23rd Psalm”.

The Lord is my shepherd = The Lord is my engineer

He makes me lie down in green pastures=The Lord is the face in the atmosphere

Even though I walk through the darkest valley= The path I slip and slide on

I’ll admit I’ve always appropriated Paul’s music for my own spiritual satisfaction. He was what my mother used to call “a seeker.” That meant he was on the way to being a Christian. I told her Paul Simon was Jewish. Maybe she was right? In those days I believed everyone was destined to become a Christian, and Paul was like the brilliant friend who was “almost there.”

He was a prophet In “The Sounds of Silence,” preaching against the materialism of society: And the people bowed and prayed/ To the neon god they made. 

In “I am a Rock” he touched chronic loneliness. I won’t disturb the slumber of feelings that have died/ If I never loved I never would have cried/ I am a rock I am an island. In “America” he tapped the isolation of a generation: I’m empty and aching and I don’t know why.  I harbored the illusion that Simon was on the edge of  a faith like mine.

The illusion vanished when the very carnal music of The Graduate came out, an Academy Award winning movie. Everyone was singing:

And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know
Whoa, whoa, whoa
God bless you, please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
Hey, hey, hey
Hey, hey, hey

Mrs. Robinson was the hopeless, slutty housewife. Dustin Hoffman was the clueless graduate just a little older than I. Paul’s “faith” took a nosedive as the song/movie rose in the charts. Religion had been treated cynically.  I was disappointed with my lyrical hero, who had the meditative sound of the spirit, but carnal messages in the lyrics. Paul and I were stuck in a dualism: he — the carnal; I — the spiritual.

Then there was the breakup of Simon and Garfunkel.  I found out it was partly due to Simon’s jealousy over the glory heaped on Art Garfunkel for his crystal-clear tenor in “Bridge Over Troubled Water.” It was an epic song of love. Such irony that the song brought them their widest attention, then their break-up.  They say some people can’t stand success.

Later came a very singable “Slip Sliding Away.” It had both the humor and disappointment of failing to reach your goals.  The carnal face: We’re working our jobs/ collect our pay/ then the spiritual revelation: Believe we’re gliding down the highway/ When in fact we’re slip slidin’ away.

It also turned out to be my story in the 1980’s:  I had walked into  spiritual delusion, fully believing I had climbed a spiritual ladder.  Paul and I were suddenly on the same page: slip-sliding away. The spiritual and the carnal blended.

After a year of disillusionment, I began to claw back some of my faith, and I saw Paul in a different way, a man expecting to believe, but always “slip sliding away.” And his story was in his music–honest about successes and failures, excellent at portraying struggling souls and the oppressed. I was less inclined to judge him for his spiritual wisecracks.

Today Paul, the Psalmist. In this album I see vulnerability, perhaps brought on by his progressing deafness. Simon was filmed in his studio, with his music woven into his recollections (Restless Dreams).  I was moved by his reflections about the temporary loss of hearing in his left ear, the fear of losing connection with music.  “You saw a guy who was used to being extremely healthy and athletic for most of his life, and now, suddenly, things were happening that he couldn’t control,” said Alex Gibney, the filmmaker.

From 7 Psalms

Tears and flowers

dry over time

Memory leaves us

Memory leaves us melody and rhyme

When the cold wind blows

 the seeds we gather

From the gardener’s glove

Nothing dies of too much love.

 

Now the spiritual face of Simon is shining. In the “tears” I sense his grief over deafness and the “flowers”  are his music. Memory leaves us melody and rhyme —the residue of sound after near deafness. It is hard to read the gardener’s glove without thinking of God, the source of seeds and love.  “Seeds” suggests the poet’s inspiration; the pleasure of gathering those seeds in the wistful: Nothing dies of too much love.  My spiritual bias wants to believe the seeds and the love are gratitude to the gardener.

We have come a long way from the bluster of “Mrs. Robinson” to the wistful  “7 Psalms.” Paul has become more meditative, and I less judgmental.  A coda from the two famous psalms:

The Lord is a meal for the poorest/ A welcome door to the stranger. (7 Psalms)

He restores my soul (Psalm 23:3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

Faith and Doubt

I am going to post excerpts of my reflections under the title The Sign of Jonah: Doubts and Convictions as a work  in progress. I hope it will give readers some thoughts to whet their appetites and make me more aware or my audience before I attempt to  publish. Feel free to comment about how these excerpts are working for you.

If you know anything about Jonah, you probably know he was swallowed by a whale. Sounds like a fish story, a child’s story.

Maybe you know he was running from God, and he finally saw the light and did his job preaching to the city of Nineveh.That sounds like a parable of repentance.

Maybe you know that the whole city repented of their ruthless rejection of God. That sounds like the greatest evangelical rally of all time. A hundred and twenty thousand repentant sinners, by God’s reckoning.

But did you know that God patiently instructed Jonah, first by an appeal to mercy on a pagan people, then by a parable, using a bush that protected Jonah from the blazing sun?

Most people haven’t read this part of the story. It’s not as interesting.

Did you know that the conclusion of this story shows God’s mercy on all people, not only the Chosen ones? This is the critical point of the narrative, but the one most neglected.

In these Reflections I want to show how Jonah and I have missed God’s message multiple times in our lives. I hope I can show I have learned from Jonah and avoided some of his mistakes. For Jonah is the story of tribalism and futility. Jonah, himself, is a poster child for intolerance and stubbornness. He is not just the guy who spent time “in the belly of the beast.” I hope I can say I, too, have outlived the belly of the beast.

Ultimately my story is about faith and doubt. Does faith allow room for doubt? Can we learn from doubting? Can faith and doubt co-exist? Can we live with unanswered questions?

If these sound like rhetorical questions, I encourage you to consider how faith and doubt have worked in your life, regardless of your beliefs. If you believe anything, are you challenged to re-think your beliefs? How do your beliefs deal with unanswered questions? Are you content or still struggling? Can you struggle and be content at the same time?

Jonah has much to teach us.  We may live in the belly of the beast. We may be dealing with the cruelty of  intolerant rivals. We may be questioning the mercy of God. These are modern reflections, not limited to the sixth century BCE. So, let’s venture into the whale and beyond.

by

Witch Hunt!

Never trust anyone who never admits a mistake.

We should have known this about Donald Trump when he was asked if he ever asked God for forgiveness. He told the interviewer, “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.” https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/trump-has-never-sought-forgiveness/index.html

That was the most honest comment on making mistakes that Donald Trump ever made. We should have realized that this was a man who would never admit a mistake—to God or to anyone else. “I just try and make it right.”  That could be said by a kid who stole something from a store, never admitted it, but the next time he paid for his purchase. You’d never know he had stolen anything, because he didn’t admit it to you—or to God. Next year, he might steal a car, and cover that up.

We should have known that Donald Trump would never be transparent about questionable actions. We would never know how he failed or caused harm or said things he should have regretted, because he would always deny it and then do whatever he can to conceal it.  Never give up . . . the truth!

So, it should have been no surprise that, in response to the shocking security breach about the bombing of Yemen on Monday, that on Wednesday the President, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard denied that anything communicated on the Signal conversation of Cabinet leaders had revealed classified information.

Those dismissals confused us.  We wondered: Why wouldn’t the time and place of an air attack on a terrorist nation be classified? We might have thought, Well, the President says it was not classified, so why should I worry? The fake news media is probably trying to make him look bad. And that is how President Trump gets away with lie after lie. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me hundreds of times, shame on me a hundred times.

Since he was President in 2016 and now in 2025, President Trump has systematically discredited every source, e.g. news medium, federal judge, prosecutor, whistle-blower, U.S. Senator, defense attorney, Episcopal priest,  meteorologist, public health expert, foreign policy specialist—anyone who contradicts him. At some point honest people should ask,” Could all these people be consistently wrong, and Trump be consistently right?”

When someone backs him into a corner, he just cries “Witch Hunt!” as if that explains every allegation, contradiction or revelation made against him. Yet he has convinced too many Americans that any questioning of his honesty must be a personal attack.

Suppose your son or daughter is accused of cheating on an exam in school. Of course you come to their defense, because you love them and want to trust them. Then another teacher reports the same offense. Then a classmate confides the same thing. Finally, the guidance counsellor calls you to a meeting of several teachers, who say they have evidence that your child had cheated on an exam, a paper, or a homework assignment. Now what do you say? “My child would never do any such thing. This is a witch hunt!” If you do, then shame on you. You are no friend of accountability or justice. Your kid will grow up to be a pathological liar.

When you dismiss a few accusations, a few inconsistencies, some  suspicious activities, pretty soon everything someone says about your child, your paranoid friend, your shifty President  means nothing. You become immune to the truth.  You will always cry “witch hunt.”

If someone is never wrong maybe that someone is not to be trusted. Start listening for the truth and call a witch hunt that which it is—a pathetic distraction, the knee-jerk reaction of a liar.