In Praise of pessimism

"The pessimist sees the glass half empty; the optimist sees it as half full." Over the years this aphorism has been slung at me from the pulpit, from my mother's lips and various and sundry other optimistic sources to the point where I began to believe it. Now, being pessimistic by nature and not knowing how to see life from the "half full" perspective, this created all sorts of angst in my psyche. It's kind of like that other great story, "The Emperor's New Clothes." One's perspective dictates one's beliefs. No matter at what angle I observe the glass, I still see the empty half, not the full half. Then, yesterday it came to me: Pessimism is really the best way to view the world. And, just to justify myself and release all you fellow pessimists from that strait jacket imposed on us by all those cheery optimists, I'd like to explain my bright (or should I say "dreary") insight. My genealogy is replete with pessimists. Take my father, for example. At age 84, he says things like, "Well, Improbably won't be around next year at Christmas," or "I'm doing pretty well for an old man," or "I saw caskets on sale last week at Costco, maybe I should go buy two and put them in the workshop attic so you kids don't have to worry about that detail when the time comes." At 84, this may not be too surprising, but he has said things like this since I was six years old. He came by it quite naturally too. His mother, when taking care of us kids, would diligently inquire every morning "Have you had your bowel movement today?" You see, her pessimism was based on the wee bit of medical training she had had and somehow it either consisted mainly on the health benefits of regularity or that is the only part that stuck. Now at age six, I barely knew what my bowel was, much less if it had moved today, so the only thing that stuck in my memory was the question and the pessimistic concept of its not working every day at a very predictable interval. It's no better on my mother's side. My maternal grandmother, I have come to believe, was the original model for Chicken Little. The sky fell at her house at least twice a day, accompanied by extraordinarily well practiced hand wringing (I always thought that hand-wringing was a novelist's over-dramatization. It's not.) She could out-wail a Middle-eastern hired mourner and, I'm convinced, her hands had a well-worn sheen to them from their constant self-polishing. Anyway, you get the idea that by nature and nurture I am a deep-dyed pessimist. My own pessimism takes the form of things like: "Well, this is probably the plane that will be blown out of the sky by a terrorist-may as well resign myself to it before we take off," or "Here is the corner of 112th and market again today; It's probably the day I'll get run over. Would it be better to die or suffer all that pain for so long in the healing process?" or It doesn't matter how I invest my retirement; I know we will have a depression just before I retire and wipe it all out anyway." You get the picture. So, now, back to this great insight. I would like to rewrite that all-too-famous aphorism: "The optimist sees the glass half full; the pessimist sees it half empty-but Oh my! There is still water in the glass! Isn't a wonderful surprise!" Let me put it in terms of my own life: On Takeoff, I say:" Well, this is probably the plane that will be blown out of the sky by a terrorist." But the wonderful thing is that, when we land, I can say "Well, now it didn't happen-I prepared for it, was all ready for it to happen, but here I am safe and sound on the ground again and all in one piece-What a nice surprise!" Or, "Here is the corner of 112th and market again." Oh! I made it across safely!" In the 1960s we all fell in love with the archetypal optimist Pollyanna. Now if she had been a pessimist, the accident that laid her up and mad her so depressed and we all held our breath, fearing that depression would do her in. Now if she had been a pessimist, she would have been expecting it and, when she wasn't killed, she would have had the great joy of the survivor. She wouldn't have spent all that time wondering why things didn't turn out just the way she thought they should have to little girls who were so perkily optimistic. So, pessimists, arise! Take up your rightful place in the world; claim your heritage of the pleasure of unexpected treasure of found wealth. Let us band together against the optimists and say, "We are the ones who see reality and rejoice to see the next sunrise." We, the surprised should look for and find that joy that comes only in the unexpected pleasure of a blessing unsought. In other words, we, the pessimists of the world are the ones who can truly appreciate God's grace-we expect the worst and find, to our delight, that He gives us something so far out of our expectation that we laugh and dance and shout to the hilltops-the optimist just says, "I knew it all along." Rejoice you optimists, revel in the ultimate surprise-a Gift, unexpected optimistic, unsought is given to you this day. You'll find Him in the stable on the edge of town---which is just where a pessimist would expect to find Him. 12 23 07

In the Womb

Throughout the New Testament the word "in", small though it is, reveals a tremendous truth: Christ in us; us in Christ. Jesus said, "I in you and you in Me." Malcolm Smith used the illustration of an embryo: The new life is within its mother; the mother's life flows through the embryo. What she eats nourishes; what she drinks gives the water of life. The infant grows and develops within the protective fluid of its mother's womb. What a beautiful illustration of Us in Him, Him in us-We, enclosed in the womb of God, nourished, bathed in protective water of the Spirit, nourished by the Spirit, connected by the Spirit to the Source of all things. The only difference is that we never leave that womb-we are always there, cared for and protected. Were we to leave, we would be independent and separate from the Source of that which we need to truly alive. In this sense, then, being born again is to return to the womb and to stay there-contrary to nature-in the atmosphere of God Himself, to live an move and have our being. Perhaps Nicodemus’s question “How then can a man enter again into his mother’s womb” is answered in the affirmative: we do re-enter the womb of God to be nourished and nurtured throughout all of life. And, we are twins, triplets, millionets-for we, the Church are here together, aided by one another but connected to our "Mother" He who is our womb and all else besides. 4.20.08

Independence Day

Independence Day-- Two-hundred thirty-three years ago, we declared our independence from our mother country, Britain. The boldly defiant words of Thomas Jefferson still ring in our ears from that childhood time when we had to memorize them: When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. (from the Preamble) When the Constitution of these United States was written it stated in those famous words: "We, the people of these United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." In these two documents we have the two opposites of independence and dependence: independence from those considered tyrannical, arbitrary and neglectful and a new dependence on those more closely allied in location, culture and interest. Today is the celebration of the first of these, the RATIFICATION OF THE declaration of our severing of our dependence on Great Britain. Many and bloody are the declarations of independences that preceded and followed our own separation from Mother Country. The entire history of mankind is one long battle of that seeking after independence from or the resistance of its imposition, of one government or another. Every government resists those who wish to be independent from it. Our own Civil War was a shining example of this. We, as a nation, pride ourselves on our independent individualism. It is a prime strength of our nation. We can think out of the box; we act with initiative when confronted with problems; we don't go with the pack when a difficult choice confronts us; we consider the rights and feelings of minorities and individuals. Much of this comes from our declaration, so many scores of decades ago. It is our strength; it is our weakness. As I thought on the act of declaring independence from one government, it dawned on me that one could carry the same process down to the level of the individual and beyond. After the establishment of the mutuality of these united States, there was a time when it was not absolutely clear that the new union would stand. Each State wanted its rights and for a time it seemed that another series of disintegrations would occur with the result of 13 tiny independent nations as a result. To this day, the debate over States' rights versus the role of the Federal government divides us. Ultimate States' rights would be complete autonomy from centralized government; a State could close its borders and refuse the assistance of and loyalty to the other States. The counties within a State could do the same, followed by the rebellion of cities and towns, of neighborhoods and families. Finally, each individual could declare her and his independence from anyone else; the ultimate rugged individualist. It is when we come to the next level of independence, that the weakness of individual action reveals itself. A bodily organ that becomes independent jeopardizes its own welfare; cell becoming independent of the organ forfeits its existence. Finally, with the rebellion of a key organ or the defection of enough cells, the body itself dies. It is interesting to note that, in all of Paul's illustrations of the ecclesia, the church, independence and individuality have no place. Body, building, homes, bride; each word is the kernel of a corporate idea. We have lost the concept of clan, tribe and family in this headlong search for autonomy. Covenant is degraded to contract which no longer holds even the slightest tinge of its original vow of unity to the death. Mutuality, unity, communion, in our culture are all filtered through the lenses of individuality. So perhaps,, though I value the freedom and even the independence of this great nation, we have been robbed of a sense of a deeper truth, a deeper necessity-dependence. Most Christians would say that dependence on God is a strong part of their belief system (though rarely of our practice). But few there are who understand and fewer still live in the experience of mutual human dependency. What a lofty ideal and how few find it even among those few who seek it. I pledge myself, in a new allegiance to a deeper and broader dependence on you, my sisters and brothers and to a more open willingness to being a supportive member of our portion of the Body. 7 4 09

Law

Law Three kinds of law 1. Specific 2. General 3. Heart Specific tries to name every possible infraction. For example, “Don’t throw spit wads in the classroom.” “Don’t hit the girls.” Throw your trash in the trashcan, not on the floor.” “Walk in single file.” “Line up quietly.” The trouble with naming infractions is that there are an infinite number of possible disruptions and infractions and one can always do or not do something that isn’t named. General rules are rules like: “Don’t disrupt the classroom.” “treat one another with respect.” “The teacher has the floor at all times.” This makes the number of rules more manageable, since each rule can cover a wide range of actions. For example, hitting someone is not respecting them; throwing spit wads is disruptive to the classroom; Talking when the teacher is talking is not giving the attention to the teacher. The drawbacks are that there are many ways to argue whether or not a particular action is covered by one of the laws. For example, Is shooting s spit wad truly disruptive or not? Is hitting back covered under hitting or is it self-defense and therefore acceptable. The heart rules are a teacher’s dream. When the rules are internalized, when true respect for one another and the teacher finally dawns, when learning becomes a desire and not forced, then rules are not even necessary. The heart, the spirit of the child is ruling. It is natural, unforced and no argument or coercion is necessary. In kindergarten, rules need to be clear and specific. Later, in junior and senior high school, at least some of the children catch on that education is important and that their peers and instructors deserve respect. Still later, in college, maturity has ingrained the lessons learned; rules, for most students, are no longer needed. Behavior is self-regulated and automatic. Exceptions to this reveal the immaturity or self-centeredness of the individual and require a return to a more specific-rule basis. These three rule types are exhibited in scripture. Moses laid down the law: “Do this, don’t do that.” It was codified into 10 commands and expanded into dozens of religious, social and national rule. Specific rules included, “Thou shalt not kill.” The expansion of this rule said that, if a person were killed on purpose, two witnesses were required to punish the perpetrator by death. In an accidental killing, cities of refuge were established, giving safety from revenge killings. In all of the law portion of the Old Testament, rules fell under the specific type: a named rule. This led, eventually, to the establishment of many other rules; interpretations of the rules by groups like the Pharisees. For example, over 600 rules were established for the keeping of the fourth commandment. From my own childhood, I was told that, on the Sabbath (Saturday), , when walking on the beach, “You can wade up to your ankles.” In other words, if I waded any deeper, I would be breaking the Sabbath. Orthodox Jews today do not turn on light switches or a stove burner, which are considered work. When Jesus came, He introduced a new way of thinking. He attempted to move the Jewish nation from specific rule keeping to a general rule: hatred is murder, lust is adultery, envy is theft. He tried to bring them along to the next step, to help them see that love for God and man are the outworking, the true keeping of Moses’ commandments. They killed Him for His attempt. They liked the rules; it was easier to judge others and to make one appear pious. Jesus commented on this a number of times, saying, “You tithe your tiniest of seeds, counting everyone, but do not the true meaning of the law;” “You devour widows houses and make long prayers to impress others;” You clean the outside of the cup, but inside it is full of robbery and self-indulgence.” He advocated for a more general application of law: Give rather than just not stealing; Bless rather than murder your enemies; Divorce demeans women. By example, He repeatedly demonstrated how women were to be treated: His mother, Mary Magdalene, the unnamed woman who anointed His feet. He sought to draw them to a deeper, less rule-bound keeping of the law. Then He rose from the dead and the Holy Spirit came, flooding the disciples with power and showering gifts on them. Their words converted thousands, they lived in mutual harmony, they shared their resources, they gave all they had to the poor among them. Suddenly they were living the law. It was no longer external, a code to which to refer. It was not even a more general law, love for God and man; it was not external but internal. It flowed out of them in acts of generosity and love. No Pharisee was necessary to interpret Sabbath keeping. They were living the Sabbath. They rested continuously in Jesus, their true Sabbath. They did not swear, for their mouth was full of praise and prayer. They did not murder, for they loved and sought the best for their enemies. They didn’t steal, for their hands gave away their excess. They didn’t lie, for Truth dwelt within and their tongue wouldn’t say a lie. They couldn’t covet for they desired only the One Gift which brought all else in Its train. They truly fulfilled Jeremiah 31 31-35: Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,´ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Paul makes it clear that our relationship to the law has fundamentally changed in Galatians 5:18: But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. And in Romans 7:6 he says: Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. He is equally clear that law still exists: we are not living lawlessly in the age of the Spirit: Romans 7:7, 12 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET. 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. But even living in the Spirit, the law has only one function: Romans 3:20 “…because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” The function of law, whether of a specific type, like the Decalogue, or the Spirit-breathed laws of the heart has only the function of revealing that which is detrimental, destructive; that which the New Testament calls “missing the mark” or sin. Isaiah saw the time of living in the Spirit when he said, “Your ears will hear a word behind you, "This is the way, walk in it," whenever you turn to the right or to the left.” (Isaiah 30:21). Rather than the law being the source of salvation, faith is now that source: Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. In summary, law still exists, it is not replaced with something else or nothing else. It has become larger, covers more, but is acknowledged and kept by the indwelling Spirit rather than by an act of will: Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Law points out sin, faith grasps hold of the promises and salvation is ours. We are saved by grace, through faith: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus…” Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no `one may boast. Beyond law and The Law, is relationship. A couple in love needs no law; they have relationship. Each seeks the best for the other, each desires to please the other, each gives sacrificially for the other. They rest in one another’s love, having no need for a rule to guide them, for they are in relationship one with the other. Loves displays itself in placing other before self. Love supersedes law as universe is greater than atom. God uses law in our immaturity to guide us to faith; faith grows into love which, when it is mature, produces the fruit of relationship. This is what we are called to; this is what we are being led into. God does not want our obedience to a set of rules-they are there only to hedge us in from self-destruction-He wants to sit and eat with us, talk on the back porch with us, take a ride with us, chat over the back fence with us, play a game of cards with us, water the glowers with us, build a shed with us, sink a well with us, ski Mt. Hood with us, hike the Pacific Crest Trail with us, dig thunder eggs with us, bake bread with us, repair a toy with us, wash clothes with us, shop with us, fly a kite with us, cut a Christmas tree with us, pick tomatoes with us, sit behind a desk with us, teach with us, sleep with us, write with us, live with us. We are His family; He longs for that closeness, that intimacy. He calls Himself “Father” for good reason. He desires this with all the ardor of an infinite love which cannot be denied. His love knows no boundary and has no limit. It can and will exceed all objection, all rebellion, all resistance. All will yield to it now or then, not in a reluctant or begrudging surrender, but in rapturous recognition that that is what we have been looking for all our lives in all our meanderings and fruitless endeavors. All of our greed and lusts have been but mocking substitute shadows for the reality of family relationship with Him who made and has sustained us all our lives. To find Him, we need but to turn our attention to Him. He is right there waiting for us. 8/6/13

Rivers of Love

There was a time, not too long ago, when I finally recognized my lack of love for my fellow man. Earthquakes and tsunamis, murders and rapes came and went and I was untouched by them. Nothing stirred within me to respond with money or myself. At the same time, I recognized that, on the individual level, I had the same lack of compassion. I don't respond with caring to those who are close to me and those I happen to meet in life's days. I read in 1 John so much about love: "He that loves not, knows not God, for God is love;" "If God so loved us, then we ought to love one another;" "God is love and he who abides in love, abides in God and God abides in him." These scriptures pushed me toward trying to love. "I must love this unloving person." But I could not find the sense of love at all within myself. So I prayed, "Lord, give me love, give me compassionate feelings for my fellow man. You command me to love; it is in your Word, so please give me the feeling of love for those around me." Nothing changed. Then a new thought dawned: It is not a feeling of love but the reality of love that He is asking from us. So now I prayed, "Lord give me love for my fellow man. It's in the Word that you want me to love; I don't have love, You are the source of love, please give me Your love." Nothing happened. then, last night, I was meditating on 1 Corinthians 13, specifically on the phrase "Love is patient." In studying the verse, I reinterpreted it something like this: "Love endures past all anger and hatred." But that's not the main point of this. Suddenly it dawned on me: God, Himself; He Himself, is love. How could I have missed it? In having Him, in His indwelling, I have love, for He Himself is love. John is not saying, "Here, have some love provided by God," but, "Have God and you will have love, the very source and essence of love, the wellspring of love, dwelling in you. His love will overwhelm and flow out of you in a never-ending spring that refreshes and feeds those around you. You will become loving, not because you have received the feeling of love, nor the portion of love. You will be love." So now my prayer is this, "Lord, you indwell me. I open my heart, my mouth, myself to be the channel of your love to this world of Yours." 1.17.10

Not this but That

It’s not what you know but Who you know. It’s not what you believe but Who you believe. It’s not what or how much you do but to Whom you do it. It’s not what you hear or see but Who you see and hear. It’s not what you say but why and the One to whom you speak. It’s not how much you give but to Whom and why you give. It’s not where or how you worship, but Whom you worship. It’s not what you look like but who you are. It’s not where you are but why you are there. It’s not who you are with, but why you are with. It is not a technique or program or process but a giving and sharing and living. It’s not in judging but in loving. It’s not in performing but in compassion. It is not in law but in believing. It’s not in how but Who. 9.5.13

Pearl Merchant

"I am going away," he said one morning to his wife. "Again." She sighed, reliving long months of uncertainty. "Yes," he said, not hearing the loneliness in her voice. "And I've made some arrangements for you while I'm gone." "Arrangements?" anxiety welled up within her. "You'll be staying with your parents this time. I…er..." he paused. "I've sold everything." The silence stretched out between them; a long dark road. "Everything?" she said, waving her hand in an all-inclusive gesture. "Everything." "Are you coming back?" "Yes, and we'll be richer than anyone in the city. Richer than anyone in the province." the pitch of his voice rose with his excitement. "The king will invite us to dinner. You'll be the social center of the nation. We'll have everything we have an more." "You sold everything?" "Yes, yes, now let me explain." His voice droned on but she did not hear. Her anger boiled over. "You sold everything? Why, why? If you get..." her voice trailed off. "We'll have nothing." "But I tell you we will have everything." "You've said that before.” "Well, I admit my plans have been thwarted in the past. But that was not my fault. I got cheated last time. The time before..." "....someone robbed you." she finished for him. "Go." she said, her voice flat with resignation. *** He stood in the doorway of her parent's home; His face caked with road dust; his hair was matted and greasy. stains on his robe marked the myriad roadside inn meals. There was no sign of his camel. "I'm back." he said. "I see that," she said, trying to keep the sarcasm from her voice. "And...?" she left the single word hang in the air. "And we're rich beyond measure." he said. "But...." From under his cloak he withdrew a small bag. He opened it and motioned for her to hold out her hand. He tilted the bag and into her palm rolled a pearl. It was not large, but sunlight from the window melted into a delicate iridescence; a dream of a rainbow. On its shaded side, it glowed with a warm translucent halo of diffused sunlight. "It's beautiful." she breathed. "It took all we had." he said. Its name is "the Pearl That Costs Everything." "it is that well known?" "Yes, among the pearl merchants." "But what good will it do us?" she said. You've sold everything we have. Selling this will only get us back what we had before. I don't see the gain in that." "Ah, but this pearl is not meant to be sold again." "Kept?" she looked into his face, puzzled. "But if we keep it, it won't do us any good either. We can't eat it. We can't wear it. We can't live in it." "That's where you're wrong. You can eat it-it is food indeed. You can wear it-it is clothing beyond anything you can imagine. It is the largest palace you can ever think of and ten times more." "I don't understand," she said. "The Pearl is all." he said, reaching to take it from her cupped palm. "The Pearl is all. It is, itself, all we will ever need." *** God is not just loving; He IS love. God not only gives mercy; He IS mercy. God is not only good; He IS goodness itself. He not only gives good gifts; He IS very Gift. God not only gives salvation; He IS salvation. God is more than gracious; he IS grace. God is not only...but IS… Whatever the need, He does not just give the antidote; he IS the antidote. 8 26 09

Talent

For years I have puzzled over Jesus’ parable of the talents found in Matthew 25. In the parable, the master of the house is leaving on a trip. He calls his three slaves and entrusts each with a portion of his wealth. Each receives a portion based on his ability: the first receives five talents, the second two and the third only one. The first two invest their talents and double their investment while the master is gone. The third hides his talent and receives no gain. When the master returns, the first two are rewarded with the pleasure of their master; the third receives his condemnation which is to be cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and grinding of teeth. His talent is removed from him and given to the one with the most talents. First, a clarification: Talents in this context are not abilities. A talent, in scripture is a specific weight of a metal, particularly of precious metals like gold, silver and brass. The English word “talent” was translated from the Greek and eventually came to mean ability or skill as in “She has a wonderful talent for playing the violin. ”I have heard many a sermon preached on the development of talents, particularly when the church needed people to fill in positions of leadership or drudgery. It was often tied to the phrase from Jesus’ sermon on the mountain “Men do not hide their candle under a basket, do they?” The inference, not very subtle, was that, if you don’t use your talents, your gifts, for the church, then you will be condemned by Jesus. Deciding to read it again, this morning, I read past the end of the parable and ran into the famous “sheep and goats” narrative. The two passages are tied together with a “But when” which begins the sheep/goats story, which indicates that the two stories are part and parcel of one another. In this second part of the lesson, Jesus says that the righteous will, unknowingly care for Him in the person of those who are needy. The unrighteous will not care for Him in the person of the same group; they will not recognize Him in their fellow man; they will not give what they have been given. Following the logic of the two stories, then, the talent given is the ability to recognize, in our fellow human travelers, Jesus Himself and the “putting out to lending” of the King James version is nothing less than giving away what has been given us to benefit those around us. In the poor, naked, imprisoned the righteous see their Lord Himself and act toward them as they would toward Him. The unrighteous, do not give away their gift, but hide it, hoard it, keep it against the day of their master’s return. With this in mind, the parable of the talents becomes clear: We are given the ability to see our Lord in others’ needs. Responding to this, we are doing or not doing to Him in the person of the needy ones. As is often the case, though, we think only in concrete terms: money, possessions, time, actions. But Jesus usually spoke on both the literal and figurative planes at the same time. No doubt He meant to share what we have with others in the physical realm, but also to share the wealth of our knowledge and relationship with Him as well. As a side note, it is interesting that neither those who give nor those who withhold recognize Jesus in the poor. They consciously see only humankind, but treat them in very different ways. This raises the issue of even writing this essay. If our doing the “right” thing is unconscious, raising consciousness is not His aim. Perhaps He is not saying “Do this,” but “This is what you will do.” In the book of John, Jesus says, “He who believes on Me, out of his inmost being will flow rivers of living water.” (7:32) Those around us will be blessed by our very presence, for He flows from within us and we unknowingly spread Him wherever we go; a divine pollination, a spiritual sprinkler system blessing all around us. We then give without thinking, share without logic, bless without forethought. May it be so. 9/28/13

The Emperor's New Clothes

“Humpty Dumpty Magazine” was (and still may be) a children’s magazine which I read many years ago. It presented simple stories, poems and other reading material for young children. One continuing story was of a monkey who was always into mischief. One episode featured him eating too much and exclaiming “My eyes were bigger than my stomach!” Looking at the picture, my six-year-old mind didn’t see eyes larger than stomach and I questioned the meaning of the sentence. It puzzled me for some time and only later did it dawn on me that it was a metaphor-my first such recognition. Another edition retold the story of the emperor taken in by crafty weavers, who informed him that they would weave a garment which would tell him who was worthy among his courtiers. The picture showed the emperor in a “union” suit-full body long underwear-for propriety’s sake, I suppose. The emperor, as you remember, went on full dress parade before his subjects, all of whom exclaimed over the beauty of the garments, not wanting to be seen as unfit, but who could barely contain their laughter at the sight of the nude emperor. This was true, until somewhere along the parade route, a little boy exclaimed, “But the emperor has no clothes!” Now no one can be unfit to be a child, so the truth was out, the emperor was made out to be the butt of a scam and the people were revealed to be the sycophants they truly were (and are). But what about the little boy. His honesty, his childish naiveté are honored as being untouched by the social climbing and artificiality of those seeking the approval of those in power. He had no ladder to climb; he was already at the top from which he could see clearly. While we were wrestling on the floor, my four-year-old grandson recently exclaimed “Grandpa you stink! You need to take a shower.” Such is the pure and uninhibited nature of childhood, unbounded by society’s social amenities, they speak the truth (and he was right-grandpa did need a shower!). This morning, talking with my wife, we discussed various individuals (not you) and pointed out their various flaws. It dawned on me that we were claiming to have the insight, the wisdom of that child, “but he/she has no clothes!” Dissecting their lacks and wants, we revealed to each other how their clothes were invisible and we could truly discern the motives for their actions. But wait just a minute! The emperor’s critic and my grandson spoke the clear-eyed truth. I may have been telling the truth when pointing out the flaws in others. But a child’s motive is observation; mine was judging. I took the position of judge, jury and executioner onto myself. Why do I do that? Is it perhaps to make me feel better? Superior? In comparison, are my faults minimized when portrayed against someone else’s? Is my log somehow diminished, at least in my own eyes, when I point out or maximize another’s dust mote? I don’t’ have the answer, but would that I might have the child’s clarity of vision to see my own embarrassing state of undress before I walk out the door into the parade of life. 8/10/13