Ted Lasso, Social Justice, and the Tower of Babel

 This Medium article:

The Imperfect Politics of Ted Lasso

https://gen.medium.com/believe-ted-lasso-bro-bravado-tower-of-babel-a9d0af7c4f

contains this interesting portion about the Tower of Babel: 

"Which invites us to a quick visit to the Tower of Babel. Set in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 11:1–9), it’s the short (nine sentences long!) story of the time a bunch of (let’s say) guys tried to climb their way to heaven in response to which God says “Hell no!” and makes everyone suddenly start speaking different languages. It’s often understood as the story of an attempted human overthrow of God’s kingdom in response to which God unleashes a total communications breakdown to keep humans in their place moving forward.

But we can also read this as a timeless (and also timely) teaching about the human political condition: There is never a perfect time or place where “we all speak the same language” — which is to say, even when many of us are literally speaking a shared language, we are still never really speaking a shared language.

It brings us back to history and memory: Your neighbor’s lived experiences are filled with resonances from their own cultural or racialized or minoritized or marginalized past and present which includes the experiences of countless others in her family, community, and positionality who have suffered at the hands of hatreds you will never know, who have been subjected to structures of inequity you will never see, and who have risen up in the spirit of hopes you will never feel. To the extent that we all breathe different histories and presents, we all “speak different languages.”

Setting out to do good politics is about learning to engage with this difficult fact, not “rah-rah” our way over it. And it’s about taking up a spirit of creative political action that is hopeful in just this sense. Not “you’ll do as I expect” hopeful and not “are we having fun yet?” hopeful, but Lasso-believe, imperfect, off-kilter, hanging-on-by-a-thread hopeful. It’s a spirit that is not optimistic, not pessimistic, and certainly not perfect. It’s a kind of “difficult hope” where we sleeve-roll in the face of impossibility and forge imperfect solutions toward radical new futures that break step with the injustices we have created thus far.

Better politics requires real change, including real structural change. And it also requires difficult hope."

 The issue with this interpretation of the Tower of Babel story is that it applies current pop-culture sensibilities to a story that offers deep insights into human nature. These insights, when ignored, paradoxically lead to some of the problems our pop-culture have given us today. 

What pop culture tells us is with respect to this article is two things: 1) that we are all separated from a shared human experience by race or other categories, and, 2) that politics can be "good." 

Taking the second assertion first, politics is a human endeavor, which, in democracies concerns itself with the balancing of values. Asserting that any one priority ranking of values is "good" and any other is "bad" is a human endeavor- not a universal morality endeavor. God does not come down on the side of the conservatives or the liberals. Humans are inherently flawed, thus any kind of human ranking of values is, by its nature, flawed.

The first assertion misses the point of the Tower of Babel story by a mile. The Tower of Babel story is about the hubris of mankind. It is about humans thinking they can reach God if they build a tower tall enough. It is a metaphor- and can be very easily applied to the perpetual idea that human technology or human smarts can fix problems associated with human nature. The current pop-culture idea that humans can usher in "social justice" on Earth. That humans can fix the weather and the climate. That humans can eradicate poverty, rape, war, violence, and disease. That humans can bring an end to injustice. 

This hubris was what the Tower of Babel story was about. It was a story that should have told generations of humans that they shouldn't be hubristic. That they shouldn't think they can fix human nature. That they couldn't usher in an age of justice on Earth. 

The entire Biblical story was about the Afterlife. It emphasized that justice would never be found on Earth. Humans were inherently flawed. Only through acknowledging that failing could humans be saved. Today's pop culture- increasingly invading into today's Christian religions- preaches an opposite message: that humans can usher in justice on Earth. That humans can fix human nature and Earthly problems. That through our amazing technology and intelligence we can eradicate injustice, poverty, hunger, violence, war, and other ills. 

Paradoxically, this misunderstanding of human nature, Christianity, and the Bible's lessons will lead to more injustice, violence, and suffering. 

Jesus' Position on Nations, Borders, Politicians, and the Like

In today's environment it seems there are many in the Church willing to judge others. The President is evil. Republicans are evil. Democrats are evil (although I don't hear this one as much). Those who don't support LGBTQI+ political stances are not Christ-like. Jesus would be in support of open borders. Jesus would favor free health care. The list goes on. The Progressive Church seems bent on judging everyone outside of their political agenda- the agenda of the so-called "Left" as "not Christ-like," sinful, and even evil.

Jesus, however, seemed to come down hard on those who judged:

"Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." - John 8:7

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." - Matthew 7:1

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged." - Luke 6:37 

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. " - Luke 6:41-42

 What of "nationalism"? Borders? I have heard many progressive Christians declare that Jesus would not support borders. He wouldn't support nations. Political separations.

In today's Old Testament lesson at my church, Genesis 12:1-9 was read:

The LORD had said to Abram, "Go from your country, your people and your father's household to the land I will show you. 2"I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." 4So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran. 5He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Harran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there. 6Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him. 8From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD. 9Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.

It is a curious passage. The Lord sends Abram away from his country to Canaan and  basically tells him He will give him the land that the Canaanites currently had settled. And, of course, He tells Abram that He will make Abram into a great nation. If God or Jesus were against nations and borders, why would God have promised Abram to make him into a great nation? Why give him a swath of land known as Canaan that, obviously had borders associated with it. Egypt was not a part of Canaan.

The New Testament lesson came from Matthew 28: 16-20:

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Did Jesus tell the disciples to go and undo nation-states? Did He tell them to open all the borders? No, He told them to make disciples of all nations.

I don't pretend to know the mind of Jesus or God- their thinking is beyond a mere mortal's. But, I can see what they said and what they did in the scriptures. What Jesus seemed focus on was people's souls. He didn't undo slavery, he didn't usher in democracy and women's rights. He didn't establish free health care or do away with nations, borders, and political institutions. He did not overthrow the Roman Empire.

Thus, it seems to me that the Progressive Church, bent on Earthly things, is making just as much of a mistake as those churches who attempt to manipulate the political system towards the Right. Now, I don't think churches should be banned from engaging in politics, but I do think it is disingenuous to portray one's political platform as conforming to Jesus' preferences. Jesus wasn't here to establish a Heaven on Earth. He was here to save souls. Individual souls. At least that is what His actions seem to portray to me. 

Was Jesus a Republican or a Democrat?

Today many churches are taking very political stands. This is perhaps not new, but the churches in America seem to be dividing along the dual party system of its followers. The more Liberal churches push for social justice, racial equality and civil rights, divestiture of investment from Israel, a minimum wage, gay rights, and Palestinian statehood. The more Conservative churches favor an end to abortion, prayer in schools, the death penalty, and free market Capitalism.

In the past, most of the churches I was involved in didn't talk too much about politics. There were Democrats and Republicans in the pews and matters of importance were mainly how to lead a spiritual life in the mold of Jesus. What did the scriptures say? How can we apply them today?

Lately, however, I have heard more and more preachers speaking politically. This is especially true in the more Liberal churches. Perhaps Conservative preachers have always railed away in the pulpits about Conservative causes, but I have normally attended mixed congregational churches- churches in which one's politics wasn't worn on one's sleeve.

These churches seem to be few and far between now. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is debating whether to take on the Belhar Confession as one of our statements of faith. The Belhar Confession was written in the 80s in South Africa and was meant to address that specific context. Today, applying the Belhar Confession to 2016 America seems to put American churches who adopt it squarely in the Democratic party platform. Some excerpts:

We believe

- that unity is, therefore, both a gift and an obligation for the church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God's Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously a reality which must be earnestly pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continually be built up to attain 

- that this unity must become visible so that the world may believe that separation, enmity and hatred between people and groups is sin which Christ has already conquered, and accordingly that anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted

 Therefore, we reject any doctrine

• which absolutizes either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation;
• which professes that this spiritual unity is truly being maintained in the bond of peace while believers of the same confession are in effect alienated from one another for the sake of diversity and in despair of reconciliation;
• which denies that a refusal earnestly to pursue this visible unity as a priceless gift is sin

We believe

• that God has revealed himself as the one who wishes to bring about justice and true peace among people;
• that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged;
• that God calls the church to follow him in this, for God brings justice to the oppressed and gives bread to the hungry;
• that God frees the prisoner and restores sight to the blind;
• that God supports the downtrodden, protects the stranger, helps orphans and widows and blocks the path of the ungodly;
• that for God pure and undefiled religion is to visit the orphans and the widows in their suffering;
• that the church must therefore stand by people in any form of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the church must witness against and strive against any form of injustice, so that justice may roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream;
• that the church as the possession of God must stand where the Lord stands, namely against injustice and with the wronged; that in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.

Therefore, we reject any ideology

• which would legitimate forms of injustice and any doctrine which is unwilling to resist such an ideology in the name of the gospel.

We believe that, in obedience to Jesus Christ, its only head, the church is called to confess and to do all these things, even though the authorities and human laws might forbid them and punishment and suffering be the consequence.

Now, some of these lines make perfect sense if they are read in light of the context in which they were written: taking a moral stand against South African apartheid and making the case that the South African Church should not split into two or disallow Blacks to join churches.

For today's American church, however, these lines take on some very different implications. For one, some church leaders have insisted this affirmation of one's faith would naturally support many political causes: gay marriage, a minimum wage, divestiture of Israeli investments, support to Palestine, the social justice agenda, and many more positions normally associated with the Democratic party.

Perhaps more troubling, the confession makes unity a goal above all other goals and categorizes a lack of supporting unity as a sin. When viewed in the sense of Black and White churches in South Africa that makes sense. When viewed in contemporary American terms, it seems to imply that anyone who would advocate breaking away from, in my case the Presbyterian Church USA, would be sinning. This is especially relevant to the case of gay marriage, since many churches are today breaking away from the main denomination in various forms in opposition to the General Assembly's support for gay rights.

What would Jesus think of all of this? If He came around today, walking among us, preaching and healing- what would he say?

I would have to conclude, based on my study of the Bible, that Jesus would not come here to overturn the current political, economic, or social systems. I think he would condemn all groups as being self-righteous and falling short of the Glory of God. I further assert that Jesus would be more concerned about how our lot in our Earthly lives were getting in the way of our spiritual life and the Afterlife. He would tell Republicans that they have become corrupted, miserly, and obtuse. He would tell the Democrats that they have become self-righteous, disingenuous, and corrupted. He would hang out with the vilified social outcasts of "both" sides: convicts and bankers; oil barons and Sean Penn; Monika Lewinsky and Darren Wilson; Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton. He wouldn't support any of these people, and each one He met would come away fundamentally changed.

I think the church is a victim of its institutionalization. It exists as an entity to support humans, and thus is corrupted. It corrupts even more by becoming supporters of political positions. For political positions are Earthly concerns. They are inherently unfair and at least amoral, if not immoral. They are meant to address practical considerations of Earthly life. They are not of concern to the likes of Jesus.

We, as Christians who strive for a better life for the next generation must confront some very troubling truths. Jesus could have fed everyone who was hungry in the world when He walked among us. He could have healed all the sick. A waive of his hand could have toppled the Roman Empire and ushered in a government that brought peace and justice to all. But, he did none of those things. And many were upset by this: they saw him as an Earthly savior.

Jesus, however, was interested in much grander things than in fixing our Earthly experiences. He was interested in our souls. For us to advocate certain political agendas or platforms from our churches would be to miss His entire point.

In Mark, Jesus makes the clearest delineation between what is in the realm of man: government, and what is in the realm of God: man's souls.

Mark 12:13-17
And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him.

In Matthew, we find that one cannot serve both God and money. Politics, of course, is the business of dividing money between different groups.

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

In Proverbs, we are cautioned to not rely on our own understanding. Politics and using the Bible to support certain political agendas is, if nothing else, relying on our own understanding of things.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

In John, Jesus states very clearly that his interest is not of the Earth and that if it was, he could easily call down his servants to fix whatever he wanted to.

John 18:36  Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

 In Mark, Jesus describes how different Godly things are, they are actually the opposite of what we value on Earth:

Mark 10:42-45 
And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

In Matthew, Jesus again points out he is not on the Earth to solve Earthly problems.

Matthew 26:52-54
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

And in Matthew he, possibly for the umpteenth time, tells the Pharisees- who were the spiritual leaders of the day- that they are hypocrites:

Matthew 15:7-9
You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

 In light of that, how could any religious leaders today be so sure that their understanding of the Bible and Jesus is any better? Surely they shouldn't be so full of hubris...

Lastly, in Matthew 4, verses 1-25, we read about the temptation of Christ. Satan offers Jesus everything: food, rescuing by angels, and all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus answers him with scripture. He doesn't succumb to the temptations of the world- He is after something far greater.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't feed the poor or help the needy. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't vote Democrat (or Republican). But what it strongly suggests is that Jesus was not concerned with our Earthly systems of government, our destined-to-fail attempts to divide up the spoils and rule over ourselves. He wasn't concerned with His church taking sides for certain political platforms. He was only concerned with saving our souls and those individual Earthly choices we make that could get in the way of our souls being united with Him in Heaven.

What is Heaven like?

What is heaven like?

Four people bowed their heads in silent meditation for a minute, attempting to envision the impossible. What went through our heads?

This question resulted in several thoughts: the usual stuff like clouds and nature, peace, and light. A few comments noted the idea of complete knowledge. Full consciousness, perhaps, a la Caddyshack and the Dalai Lama?

Some folks thought of their struggles with imagining God to begin with. It was hard for all of us to stay within an "envisioning" task.

My own vision was of a journey- hyper fast and starting over clouds, then amongst the stars. At one point my own perspective stopped and reversed- I seemed to see things from a different perspective- not from my own as I seemed to come out from my own perspective and "see" things from- not just another perspective, but from all perspectives. But, suddenly things started to "break down" as my five human senses ended and I took on a new perspective. At that point I was unable to hold the "vision".

What struck me, however, was not all of our descriptions- it was that very few of us could imagine anything that was truly "heavenly". Most, if not all, were actually frustrated or even negative. What is wrong with us that we can't imagine heaven?

I would like to say that we Americans have reached a state wherein we know what it is like to have extended comfort. We don't go hungry- at least not those in my Sunday School. We are rarely cold or too hot. Our lives are not in danger. I wonder if it was easier for past groups of humans to imagine heaven because life was so thoroughly infused with suffering. I bet if we were all living in an Islamic State prison we'd probably have a very clear picture of what heaven was: anywhere but there.

On the other hand, we are humans. All humans must inherently have an issue with imagining the spiritual world, since we so rarely are- if ever- able to experience it. Our physical senses overpower us and leave us blind to the reality of "the spiritual"- hinted about in the Bible and ever-present all-around us, but unable to be "scientifically" proven. How do you test something if the only tools available to you to test things can't test outside of their nature?

And maybe, like many things, its a little bit of both. Rich people, it goes, have a harder time getting into heaven ("Eye of the Needle"). The beatitudes seem to hint at Heaven being reversed from what is important on Earth:

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

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

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

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

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

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

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 

But, of course, we cannot imagine for a moment what something that is beyond us must be like. And so we rely on metaphor. Peaceful looking father figures with white beards. Clouds. Angels with wings. Light. Heavenly mansions. Pearly gates. A banquet.

I'd like to think I'll someday know what all of this is for. What the purpose of it all is. And maybe it will be so powerful and amazing that it will be Heaven- and it will be beyond all current imagination. Hope in that keeps me going. It is, as someone said, all we have.

Should Christians concern themselves with the politics of the day?

What if you could solve the most prescient and important issue of the day with a compromise? Do the ends ever justify the means? I asked this question today during Sunday School: "if you could solve THE most important issue of the day that you felt was the most pressing and all you had to do was to agree to carry out drone strikes against terrorists that would kill about 100 really nasty terrorists a year and the only "collateral damage" would be about 20 of their family members- would you do it?" The scenario assumed that without authorizing the strikes, you wouldn't have enough political capital to push through legislation to solve the very important issue.

Some of the issues: education, healthcare, spiritual health, and government gridlock. Others could have included the economy, the gap between the poor and the rich, crime, racism, Global Warming. Some of the class were okay with drone strikes regardless- so it wasn't much of a choice for them. Others were okay with drone strikes if it solved their identified "prime problem". Some were not okay with drone strikes or any kind of killing of innocents- no matter the cause. One person remarked that this kind of compromise issue was why they didn't vote and they further remarked that Jesus would not have used drone warfare.

And that last comment is a very important one: politicians, by design, have to make compromises. At some level the ends DO justify the means for them, or nothing gets done. In fact, some would argue the current problem is that the extremes of the two parties in the U.S. rarely can justify the means any longer- and thus compromise is impossible.

But, the reason that last comment is important is because Jesus was not interested in political change. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" has long separated the two worlds for most of the West and allowed political life to largely exist outside of one religious dogma. Unlike Islam, which describes political life as part of one's religious life, Christianity separated the two. Jesus was interested in saving souls- he was not interested in solving political problems. He did not overthrow the emperor or the king. He did not fix the gap between the rich and the poor. He even advised slaves on how to be good slaves.

And, thus, one must ask whether churches and Christians in general should be "political"- and, if so, how. Should churches take up positions against or for homosexual marriage? Should churches advise people how to vote? Should churches push for more (or less) taxes or free healthcare?

I personally think that churches are in a rough position. Churches to a large extent exist to offer things to their community. Some give food to the poor. Most have ceremonial functions that tie people together, remind others of the past, or bring others spiritual comfort. Many, if not most, assist their members in rough times. And many- if not all- send out emissaries to spread the message and bring in converts. All of these activities and more can lead an institution like a church to favor certain political positions. Some may even think that their political positions are backed by- if not specific Gospel passages- at least some implied ones.

But I do also think that churches have to be careful. Jesus was under no mission to make Earthly life better for Christians or those who were suffering. His focus was on the Afterlife. He seemed to take for granted that "the human condition" was something necessary, something inherently "not fixable", or something that was beyond what He was called on to accomplish.

I often think that systemic problems are not "fixable" by humans. That the nature of humans and life creates problems inherently and thus most solutions will either make things worse or create more problems. Feeding starving children in Africa, for instance, while a noble endeavor, can lead to increased diseases, war, births, and even more starvation. Some have argued that by our own charity we arrest the development of homegrown solutions- something that guarantees more suffering in the long-term. Because we cannot easily trace these kinds of causes, it is easier for us to just give money and hope for the best, feeling good because we "did something".

If human nature and life itself is full of these intractable systemic problems that are only "fixable" through pain, time, and internal development- oftentimes 2.9 steps back for every 3 steps forward (or maybe its 1 step forward and 1 step back- we just think things are "progressing"...)- then maybe church folk should be more wary about approaching political problems from a Christian position. And maybe all Christians should be at least as worried- if not much more- about folks' spiritual needs than they are their Earthly needs. This would get Christians- and possibly churches- out of the business of politics and more in the business of saving souls.

Of course, that begs the question- "what is 'saving souls'"? ....

Some thoughts on handling church controversies

From a friend:

"As I look back on my life today I am able to see things differently in hindsight, things that at the time seemed to be tragedies- today appear in a different light. Not good or bad, but necessary; necessary towards learning about myself, others, and the world around me. With the benefit of age and wisdom I don’t see myself as much as an individual as I once did, today I appreciate the connections between myself as an individual and between myself and the world in a way in which I was unable to as a youth. Today I value nuance, life, and the small, sweet smells of spring, the clearness of winter, the depth of summer, and the earthiness of fall.

As Tom T Hall once sang:

I love little baby ducks,

Old pick-up trucks,

Slow movin trains, and rain.

I love little country streams,

Sleep without dreams,

Sunday school in May, and hay.

I love honest open smiles,

Kisses from a child,

Tomatoes on a vine, and onions.

I realize that, today, though obviously still a child in the eyes of God, I am no longer a mere infant. I am reminded of the third chapter in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians as they struggled internally as all human institutions do:

“Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ.  I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.  You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?

And so, as I approach the time in my life in which I will be reunited with my maker, I realize that, although I am just now becoming more than a “mere infant”, I am able for the first time to start to break away from the worldly and see things spiritually. I don’t see bad times as I once did: as bad in and of themselves, but as necessary experiences that can be embraced for all of their uncertainty, their pain, their passion, and their disappointment. For what good am I if I cannot share with the less experienced the fact that life has always been about human suffering and human triumph, and not necessarily in that order? Again, turning to Paul and chapter 13 of his first epistle:

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal...  ...Love is patient, love is kind...  ...It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child…  …For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

...And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

 

And as Tom T Hall closes:

            I love winners when they cry,

            Losers when they try,

            Music when it's good, and life.

I love life. Even with all its trials and tribulations- which are necessary. They make life rich and meaningful. Bring on the bad times. I can only hope that all people will be able at some point to appreciate the gift of trying times. It is in these trying times that our spirits are most tested, useful, and needed. May God bless us all with and during trying times.