Twice aliens have intervened in human affairs, according to the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. Once they did it to jump-start evolution, to implant the notion in a certain famished apeman that he could weild an animal bone as a club to wallop the daylights out of a competing clan. Put to that use, the struggle to survive leapfrogged countless generations of natural selection in an instant. You might think strict evolutionists would cry foul to a meddling outside race putting its finger on the scales to overcome a hurdle and thereby deprive natural selection of the opportunity. But aliens tend also to be very popular with this bunch. So far as I know, none of them ever raised a peep of protest.
Presently the head apeman had taught all his fellows to do the same—they just watched hm swinging that bone and did it themselves. Within seconds—the movie compressed it into that short a time—they had won over the water hole and food source from the other clan that hadn’t yet figured it out. Exhilarated with victory, he hurls that thigh-bone skyward. Up and up it ascends, then—(setting change)—it falls as an orbiting spacecraft. Millions of year compressed into a split second! That tiny nudge, though cheating, was all humans needed to evolve to the point of sending craft to the moon! There, they would find another nudge from those same aliens in the form of a beacon, which would send them off to a stargate just outside of Jupiter.
Question: What if you substituted God for that early alien intervention? Would the same crowd so enthused at the first 1 x 9 x 16 dimensioned obelysk (squares of the first three integers!) upgrading that apeman be equally enthused? Of course, it wouldn’t be God nudging him on to beat up on his fellows. It would be God setting apart a certain one of them, implanting whatever he must to make that one separate and special, planting him with mate in a garden-like surrounding and a commission to spread it earth wide?
Farfetched? Absolutely. Evidence for it? None. But those drawbacks equally apply to aliens, and they are all the rage today. Nobody calls you stupid if you suggest there must be aliens out there. They are more likely to call you stupid if you suggest there are not.
What is today known as “critical thinking” is a product of the mindset that adheres to the Darwinian model. Adherents to that model all but have a patent on the phrase. Misunderstanding this, modifying the term to fit their own ends, even those taking their cues from the Bible will speak of how they, too, employ “critical thinking,” as though they are not to be outdone by skeptics using the phrase. But it is in vain. Critical thinking, by definition, totally denies miracles. The Bible records many of them. They are to be appreciated through what Paul calls “the eyes of faith.”
“Critical thinking” is not a mere modern manifestation of the “reasonableness” or “soundness of mind” that the Bible recommends for all Christians. It is the skeptic’s means of discarding faith. It is the skeptic’s way of saying those eyes of faith have cataracts in need of removal. I never use the term, though I understand how some Christians might. It becomes like the conniving doctor from The Fugitive advising detectives that they will never catch Richard Kimble because “he’s too smart.” Whereupon, one of those detectives says, “Well—we’re smart, too,” and a cacophony breaks out with his fellows declaring how smart they are. So it is with the skeptics. You don’t want to accede to them a monopoly on smarts. We’re smart, too, even if we don’t accept all of their premises.”
(From: A Workman’s Theodicy: Why Bad Things Happen)
Elsewhere in the book, there is a section discussing the difficulties in recording history, which is not objective but very subjective. The book adds that, “Historian Allan Guelzo is dubious about the saving value of critical thinking, due to its effect of “cloaking human foible beneath a veneer of science.”
But I may bang away at this too much, to the point where some all but blow a gasket. It’s just that vast swaths of the world has replaced “All You Need is Love” with “all you need is critical thinking,” and notion that CT is the secret potion that will solve all is so absurd that I just can’t restrain myself. To clarify, I’m not against it if kept in its place. It’s fine insofar as it goes. But it is not capable of going the distance. It is the repairman who shows up for the job with a toolbox stuffed with wrenches when a screwdriver is needed. Worse yet, he is unsure that screwdrivers really exist. Yes, he has heard anecdotally of such things, but how can he be sure they really are valid?
I should have inserted “in effect” to make it, critical thinking effectively denies miracles, not that it outright does. As Luke Timothy Johnson put it in a lecture regarding the historical-critical method of examining scripture:
“the historian cannot take up anything having to do with the transcendent or the supernatural. Therefore, the historian cannot talk about the miraculous birth of Jesus, his miracles, his walking on the water, his transfiguration, his resurrection from the dead and so forth. Well, fair enough, the historian can’t talk about those things, but that methodological restraint . . . very quickly becomes implicitly an epistemological denial, that is the historian can’t talk about these things, therefore they are not real.”
So the method embracing critical thinking is okay so long as someone does not suppose their critical thinking is the be-all and the end-all, that it’s fine as far as it goes but it doesn’t go everywhere. But if they DO think critical thinking is the be-all and end-all, then the statement of the book is true as-is: ‘critical thinking denies miracles.’
…It only becomes a problem when people begin to suppose anything other than critical thinking is not thinking at all. Alas, during these days of exalting science, many people DO suppose that. Elsewhere in that lecture, Johnson likens that historical critical method to a Trojan horse. It is eagerly accepted by schools of theology, for who wants to disdain history? and who wants to be thought uncritical? But once wheeled inside, it releases the troops of faith’s destruction.
…..I think there are many ways of evaluating information. Who can say the process through which one triumphs over the other in a given situation. There is a character in a certain John LeCarre novel who “believed that facts were the only kind of information and he despised whoever was not ruled by them.” I never want to be that character and I think to restrict oneself to any one way of analyzing information assures that one will be. To that character, “human nature was one vast unsavory quagmire.” At the very least, that statement verifies what I have found in life, that critical thinking is not the optimal tool for comprehending human nature.
There are plenty of passages to show that ‘the wicked’ (the Bible’s terminology, not mine) do just fine these days, so that one must serve God through love for his ways, not through thinking it will set one up pretty in the short term. For example, Job’s complaint:
Why do the wicked live on, Grow old, and become wealthy? Their children are always in their presence, And they get to see their descendants. Their houses are secure, they are free from fear, And God does not punish them with his rod. Their bulls breed without failure; Their cows give birth and do not miscarry. Their boys run outside just like a flock, And their children skip about. They sing accompanied by tambourine and harp And rejoice at the sound of the flute. They spend their days in contentment And go down peacefully to the Grave [at least they do not escape THAT bit of inconvenience\]. But they say to the true God, ‘Leave us alone! We have no desire to know your ways. Who is the Almighty, that we should serve him? What would we gain by being acquainted with him? (21:7-15)
Or Psalm 73, where the carefree ways of those ignoring God almost made the writer stumble:
As for me, my feet had almost strayed; My steps had nearly slipped. For I became envious of the arrogant When I would see the peace of the wicked. For they have no pain in their death; Their bodies are healthy. They are not troubled like other humans, Nor do they suffer like other men. Therefore, haughtiness is their necklace; Violence clothes them as a garment. Their prosperity makes their eyes bulge; They have exceeded the imaginations of the heart. They scoff and say evil things. They arrogantly threaten oppression. They speak as if they were as high as heaven, And their tongues swagger about in the earth. So his people turn aside to them, And they drink from their abundant water. They say: “How does God know? Does the Most High really have knowledge?” Yes, these are the wicked, who always have it easy. They keep increasing their wealth. Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence. And I was troubled all day long; (73:2-14)
Sharing in the ministry helps, I think, for that is where you can showcase what you have to offer. It builds your own faith as you see how people respond. Here in the Bible are answers to the deep questions of life. Some thirst for such answers. Others do not. A statement in the 1968 book ‘The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life’ reads just as true to today as it did then: True, there has been progress in a materialistic way. But is it really progress when men send rockets to the moon, and yet cannot live together in peace on earth?” Some people think it is. Witnesses look for people who don’t. There is even a difference between those who “sigh and groan” over all the “detestable things” and those who bitch and complain because the politicians they don’t like presently have the upper hand.
I highly recommend an offer to read a scripture and see if the person has any interest in discussing it. Some will. Often, I start out with an observation that ‘the world is crazy [which nobody disputes in my part of it] and we are people who think the Bible helps: why is it crazy, what hope for the future, how to live in the meantime. I want to read you a scripture, you tell me what you think, and I am gone.’ This way they know immediately the two things Westerners must know: What does this visitor want? and How long will this take?
Many years ago my wife and I, for our anniversary, attended a high-class cultural function in which everyone was dressed to the nines—impeccably. During intermission, as they were all sipping wine and mixed drinks, I said to her: “Here’s people we don’t hang out with too often: the wicked!” drawing on the phraseology of Psalm 73. I know, I know, completely unfair. No doubt most of them were nice. My wife, who did not yet savor all my sense of humor, looked at me oddly.
We do ourselves a disservice when we allow ourselves to be driven into dead ends, even if it is the name of education. Humans vastly overstate their conclusions with a confidence often unjustified by the underlying facts. Even “settled science” often turns out to be settled by decree. Conclusions tried and true may turn out to be up for grabs, as in this video someone pitched my way as to how “some leading scientists are questioning Darwin’s theory.”
I shy from things like this, for some degree of natural selection is surely built into the fabric of life. The question is: How much? Fight battles more consequential. These days, that is abiogenesis (life arising completely through natural processes). There is no evidence whatsoever that this has occurred. Incredibly, the confidence of those who state life arose in this manner simply derives from a refusal to consider anything else. Ditto with our knowledge of the universe itself. We know almost nothing about “dark matter” and “dark energy” other than that they must exist, otherwise much of which we have already concluded about the universe is invalid.
Assessing evidence and gaining knowledge is a plus, but it shouldn’t be made a sacred quest. “We don’t have to know everything” makes for a more appropriate human mantra. It is even shortsighted to argue “evidence” with unbelievers, because the Bible makes clear that evidence is not what it’s all about. “Abundant peace belongs to those who love your law; Nothing can make them stumble,” says Psalm 119:165. Does one love that law or not? It has nothing to do with “evidence.” Nor does Psalm 34:8: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good; Happy is the man who takes refuge in him.” If you don’t like broccoli, will “evidence” convince you that it tastes good? “No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him,” Jesus says. (John 6:44) Does he draw them because they have gathered evidence?
People are so poor at processing evidence that it ought not be one’s guiding light; half the time they get it wrong. Systems of faith recognize that basic human flaw to a much greater degree than systems of non-faith. Nothing wrong with evidence in itself. Pour me a double-shot of the stuff. But don’t make it your sole criteria. Faith is less dependent on processing evidence than is science. The latter totally depends upon it—the former, not so much. Faith helps us overcome the blind spots we impose upon ourselves when we adopt the prerequisite that we must know everything.
Instead, scriptures continually speak of “preparing” or “softening” one’s heart as a prerequisite to seeking God. It is best to adapt to God’s point of view rather than our own. “Heart” incorporates intellect but is not confined to it. It includes emotion, appreciation, motivation. Here, from the scheduled Bible reading for this week, is a people seeking God while he hides from them. The problem is not that they have neglected to gather evidence. The problem is one of heart, that they don’t act on what they know, and they aren’t much interested in being readjusted:
“They seek me day after day, And they express delight to know my ways, As if they were a nation that had practiced righteousness And had not abandoned the justice of their God.” (Isaiah 58:2) It matters whether one “practices righteousness,” and of course, it will not be our own righteousness to conform to. It will be his. He is the one “teaching you to benefit yourself,” (Isaiah 48:17) so it’s a deal for us as well.
“Why do you not see when we fast?” the Isaelites plaintively ask in the next verse. “‘And why do you not notice when we afflict ourselves?’ Because on the day of your fast, you pursue your own interests.” They either ignore God’s requirements completely or pursue them so half-heartedly that it doesn’t count, like the Christians of Revelation 3:16 who deliberately stayed lukewarm.
God lays down a few conditions for them, then says (verse 9): “Then you will call, and Jehovah will answer; You will cry for help, and he will say, ‘Here I am!’” But it is easier said than done, for they must desist from that most cherished of human activity: “Stop pointing your finger and speaking maliciously.” (also verse 9) Pay attention to your mother, who said when you point your finger at someone, three fingers point back at you.
Jehovah summarizes all in next chapter: It’s not that he can’t deliver. “No, your own errors have separated you from your God. Your sins have made him hide his face from you.” That is why “he refuses to hear you.” Plus, it’s not just an OT thing, something unique to Isaiah. Jesus fully endorses that one must walk the walk, rather than devote themselves instead to collecting evidence:
“Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:21-23)
There are many (though the ones obsessed with “evidence” are not necessarily among them) who love the scriptures. But try to get them to live by them? Forget about it. Says Ezekiel, another prophet: “Look! You are to them like a romantic love song, sung with a beautiful voice and skillfully played on a stringed instrument. They will hear your words, but no one will act on them.” (Ezekiel 33:32)
Now, not to be too hard on the rank-and-file. Most people don’t fit the successive verses of Isaiah 59: “For your palms are polluted with blood And your fingers with error. Your lips speak lies, and your tongue mutters unrighteousness. No one calls out for righteousness, And no one goes to court in truthfulness.” (59:3-4) But they trust in the “unrealities” (vs 5) that enable all of it, the unrealities of trusting in humans, including the unrealities of self-rule. Through sheer incompetence, even when not augmented by deliberate misconduct, human rulership based upon self-interest results in every sort of abuse.
It may be the “unreality” of dominant human teachings. As to how God can exist without a creator, that will be among the things beyond our comprehension. But as to anything else that exists, the simple principle of Hebrews 3:4 applies: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.” This instantly resonates with the person whose mind has not been messed with. It is validated in everything he sees. He knows of no exceptions. It really takes a colossal and relentless degree of “education” to knock this bit of common sense out of him. Such education is undertaken, however, from kindergarten and on.
One ought not get complicit with such “unrealities” of human self-rule. For “they hatch the eggs of a poisonous snake, And they weave the cobweb of a spider. Anyone who eats their eggs would die, And the egg that is crushed hatches a viper.” (vs 5) Think a cobweb makes good cover? It doesn’t. “Their cobweb will not serve as a garment, Nor will they cover themselves with what they make.” (vs 6)
Of those unrealities (and of you, if you are complicit with them):”Their works are harmful, And deeds of violence are in their hands. Their feet run to do evil, And they hurry to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are harmful thoughts; Ruin and misery are in their ways.” Sometimes it’s ruin and misery for the subjects of other human governments, preferably those far away that no one sees. Other times it’s ruin and misery for their own subjects. Indeed, “they have not known the way of peace, And there is no justice in their tracks. They make their roadways crooked; No one treading on them will know peace.” (vs 8)
The scriptures become very graphic, likening human “righteousness” to a menstrual cloth. It’s sort of like how the way you embarrass an archeologist is to hand him a used tampon and ask them what period is it from. Where is one’s reverence for science to say such a thing? It’s too much. It ought be simply rephrased that science is not absolute, therefore, while one ought not sneer at its conclusions, it is fair to regard them always as tentative, subject to future revision. When cheerleaders of science say ‘Jump!’ there is no need to respond ‘How high.’
How can it be that evangelizing atheists praise to the stars the wonderful human accomplishments AND my neighbor describes the news as “like a bad accident—you know you should look away, but you can’t”? In some cases, I don’t even think they believe it themselves, but they take the position because their adversaries take the opposite one. At any rate, Isaiah does not shy from the tampon analogy:
“And we have all become like someone unclean, And all our acts of righteousness are like a menstrual cloth. We will all wither like a leaf, And our errors will carry us off like the wind.” (Isaiah 64:4)
Notice how there’s a change of narration starting with verse 9. The “they” changes to “we.” Someone has gotten the point. Someone has taken it to heart: “That is why justice is far away from us, And righteousness does not overtake us. We keep hoping for light, but look! there is darkness; For brightness, but we keep walking in gloom” and so forth, for several verses. You always hope for people to turn around. But it doesn’t happen that often.
Favorable government treatment of religion was originally based upon the premise that religion does the government’s legitimate work for them. It improves the calibre of the people, making them easier to govern and more of a national asset. Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the few still fulfilling this premise. As a people, they pay more than their share into the national treasury, since they are honest, hard-working, not given to cheating on taxes. Yet they draw on that treasury less, by not abusing government programs and almost never requiring policing. They are a bargain for any country.
Witnesses think it well when this original “contract” is remembered and not superseded by the modern demand of “inclusion.” While they include races, ethnicities, classes, etc to a greater degree than most (in the US, according to Pew Research, they are comprised of almost exactly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 Hispanic, with about 5% Asian added) they do not include within themselves persons refusing to live by Bible principles—though they respect the right of people to live as they choose, just so long as it is not within the congregation.
They have lately made some legitimate tweaks to address the issues of minors straying from the Christian course, a matter of concern to the government. And, as for those who, after help, manifestly refuse to abide by Bible principles, they have replaced a word that is not found in the Bible (disfellowshipping) with a phrase that is (remove from the congregation). Thus, it becomes a matter of whether a government recognizes a people’s right to live by the Bible. A distracting term that is not found in the Bible has been dropped. Real changes have been made to address any perception that elders are “trigger-happy” toward those straying from Bible values, but the basic thought expressed at 1 Corinthians 5 still holds:
“In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” (1 Cor 5:9–13)
With a single exception, all instances of “hell” stem from only one of three original language words. Find the meaning of those words, and you’ve found the meaning of hell. Two of those words are Hebrew-Greek equivalents: sheol and hades. They refer to “the place of the dead.” Bad people are said to go there, but so are good people. When the patriarch Jacob was told his son Joseph had died, for example, he “kept refusing to take comfort and [was] saying: “For I shall go down mourning to my son into Sheol!” Did he really expect to burn in hell someday, or did he figure on dying and going to the grave? (Gen 37:35) Or Job, who, amidst great suffering, prayed “O that in Sheol you would conceal me, that you would keep me secret until your anger turns back” (Job 14:13) A sensible request if sheol is the grave. Not so bright, though, if it is a burning place of torture.
The third word translated ‘hell’ is gehenna. Every instance of hellfire is ‘gehenna.’ The term refers to the valley of Hinnom outside the walls of Jerusalem. It served as the municipal garbage dump and fires were kept burning continually to consume the refuse. Carcasses of criminals and those not thought worthy of decent burial might be tossed over the wall into gehenna below. It even became symbolic. Giving one a proper burial presupposed they were worthy of future resurrection. Heaving someone into gehenna presupposed their death would be permanent. Thus, when Jesus denounced religious hypocrites: “Serpents, offspring of vipers, how are you to flee from the judgment of Gehenna?” he was suggesting they merited no future resurrection, not that they deserved everlasting torture.
The New World Translation declines to translate the three words into English. Instead, it transliterates sheol, hades, and gehenna directly from the original language into the English. This is an invaluable aid for students in uncovering what these words actually mean.
On the cruise ship vacation not so long ago, a makeshift chorale of passengers sung ‘Imagine’ as melodically as a church choir. Only, it was a chorale extolling the virtues of there being “above us only sky” and “no religion, too”—as though they might sing it in a hospital terminal word with the assurance it would bring comfort to ones in their final hours. I mean, only atheists can be so oblivious to what is meaningful in life.
Then there was the frustrated foreign ticket taker who kept saying “Turn, please. Turn. Excuse me, turn!!” and I did keep turning the ticket, but it made no difference to the stupid machine. Now, had she said “Turn over” or “flip” I would have known that I had to do it opposite to the last scanner encountered. (Alas, I snapped at her a little, a rare lapse of politeness that suggests it is back to Bible 101 for me.)
I’ll tell you one thing. I’d rather look out my airplane windows and see the Twilight Zone monster that terrified young William Shatner than I would seeing the horrific (but necessary) labyrinth of lines and security personnel and scanners one must navigate at international airports.
It’s a little gimmicky, but you can walk into a Bethel and someone may ask you what you notice about the world map displayed overhead. Or the globe in the lobby, should there be one. The answer is that there are no borders, a fore-glimmer of the new system to come. Add to the signs of the times that scream “Last Days!!!” the fact that when I was a boy, you could board a plane with no more fuss than boarding a train. Buy a ticket and hop onboard.
We had many adventures during that cruise. Chief of all takeaways is the realization that, while the earth is round, it shouldn’t be. I know very well that the earth is round. I know it. At no time have Jehovah’s Witnesses been among the intelligentsia who supposed it was flat. But it should be flat! What was God thinking? It should be flat with all sunlight illuminating all surfaces at once. That way there’d be no such thing as jet lag.
There is no huge significance that the Doomsday Clock stands at 85 seconds to midnight instead of a minute or two either way. But there is significance for it to stand in any of those spots instead of 10:30 AM or even high noon. That’s probably the way to gauge a verse like Isaiah 57:1:
“The righteous one has perished, But no one takes it to heart. Loyal men are taken away, With no one discerning that the righteous one has been taken away Because of the calamity.”
It’s not a call to identify any specific “righteous ones” who have perished. It is not to be applied to that actor who passed away a few years ago, an actor who had garnered more good press and than bad press, so that a certain romantic chum of mine mused that his demise satisfied that verse—just like Dick Van Dyke’s death, when it finally occurs (Lord knows, having topped 100, he’s old enough) might also have made him think of the verse, had he not died first.
No, you don’t focus on individuals. It is the times you focus on that make such a verse meaningful. The ones who perish don’t perish during glorious times so that you’re saddened they’ve missed the fun. They perish during times so perilous that you say ‘It’s just as well. Now they can sleep through the wreckage and awaken in the resurrection.’
Incidentally, that Clock, a contrivance of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, was advanced four more seconds as of January 27, 2026. The Clock is symbolic, you understand. it is not a literal prediction of just 85 seconds left. Rather, it is an assessment of the mess humanity is in, and whether they are worse off or better off than the times just before. They are worse off, was the assignment of those Atomic Scientists, by four whole seconds.
Whereas last year we were a refreshing safe .0001029615916 percentage distance away from total annihilation, this year we have gotten alarmingly close: only 0009837962963% distance away! The problems those scientists fret over include a failure of leadership to tackle worsening global risks like nuclear threats and record-breaking climate change, biological threats and pandemics. AI misuse and cyber risks add to the chaos. Clearly, these scientists aren’t cheerleading over the incredible successes of science. They are lamenting its redirection to evil.
Science is a tool only as good as the ones wielding it, and the ones wielding it are not too good. The “broken-hearted ones living in the world” are not coming to any “agreement” as the ‘Let it Be’ song predicts. Nor does it comfort anyone to ‘Imagine’ that there is “above us only sky” and “no religion, too.” Very few world leaders have any use for religion today, The ones that do accept only the brand that “knows its place” (last place) and defers to human models of rulership.
It’s a little like when I had a lengthy discussion with a man at the door over abiogenesis (origin of life) versus creation and he at last asked what difference did it make? Either way, we are here, so who cares how it happened? I answered that if God created life, it is just possible that he did not create it for nothing, that he has some purpose for it, and will not stand idly to see it all destroyed. But if we got here through abiogenesis, then any hope for humankind depends solely upon human efforts, and “they’re not doing too well.” The man’s wife, who had remained silent during our 45 minute discussion, spoke for the first time: “That’s a good point,” she said.
It’s also a little like Timothée Chalamet, playing Bob Dylan in A Complete Unknown, pushing back at the incessant demand he keep cranking out more peace, love, and cumbaya songs that transformed the genre as it marked his musical debut. ‘Well, they’re not exactly doing the trick now, are they?’ someone else observed. JFK had just been murdered, then Malcolm X. Robert F Kennedy and Martin Luther King would soon follow. The Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world inches from World War III.
At the Newport Folk Festival, he didn’t sing ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing,’ or even his own ‘Blowing in the Wind’ type songs. He sang ‘It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue’ to mark the end of an era. It was all over. Furthermore: “Well, I try my best to be just like I am, But everybody wants you to be just like them, They say, ‘Sing while you slave’ and I just get bored. I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more.” Problem was, he “had a head full of ideas that were driving him insane” and it was “a shame how they made him mop the floor” instead.
There was lots of insanity making the rounds about then with those four icons killed in just five years, with nukes to the U.S. only spared because one of the three Russian shipboard commandants refused the order to launch. (It had to be unanimous for go-ahead). With that backdrop, you can almost see why a guy might get all excited that 1975 might mark the end, given that 6000 years of biblical history was to end just then.
“Aw, you don’t believe we’re on the Eve of Destruction?” (P.F. Sloan – 1965)
Looks like it was just a head fake, a dry run for the real thing to come shortly. It is just around the corner. To be sure, it is one heckuva corner. But it is just around it.
Pop’s friends were invariably those on his bowling team. Or golf. Or the husbands of Mom’s friends. He was amiable and would get along with most anyone. One of his pals had always been controlling of his wife. After she died, he was wracked with guilt. She had wanted a computer when the devices were new. He flat out refused her. Not for any good reason. He just didn’t want her to have one. “If your mom had wanted a computer,” Pop said to me, retelling the story, “the first thing I would know about it would be to see it sitting here on this table.”
Maybe it’s Pop’s story that recall two movies for me, both ranking quite high. In both, the husband is initially presented as the seeming star. In both, the facade is little-by-little stripped away to reveal the frauds they are underneath. In both, it is the woman who propped them up and convinced them they were better than they were. In both, those women were taken for granted, sometimes with disdain. Why do I think of that truism made many times in Witness literature that putting another down is the same as boasting, even if it presents differently? In both cases, the relative positions shift the same.
‘About Schmidt’ was one of those films. Jack Nicholson played the husband, a big dog at his firm as the top insurance salesman, many awards to his credit. Everyone gladhands him, looks up to him. His retirement looms. He has purchased a gigantic RV in which he and his wife plan to roam the country thereafter. He dreads it. How will he ever be able to put up with the inane woman? Turns out he doesn’t have to. She dies unexpectedly. Perhaps it was a heart attack; at any rate, it was sudden.
Thereafter, all his assumptions begin to unravel. Turns out that no one really liked him at the workplace. They tolerated him. He had a certain knack for the job, and so they stoked his ego throughout his working life. His usefulness over, they were all glad to bury his memory and move on.
Then, it turned out that his wife, a seeming dingbat he treated with familiar contempt, had been seduced by his best friend at work. Only once. Fists flew briefly when he finds out, but in the end it dawns on him, ever so slowly, that ‘Duh! What did he expect?’ He had treated her as a non-entity. Someone paid her a little attention and it was too new an experience for her to resist.
Such is the thread of the movie, as Schmidt’s pure ordinariness is revealed. Aimless, he pilots the huge RV around all by himself to the destinations he dreaded to go with his wife, only now he misses her. Now, he is likewise consumed with guilt. ‘Was I really that bad of a husband?’ he asks of her, atop the parked RV, looking up at the stars. He asks her forgiveness. He takes a falling star as a sign that forgiveness has been granted. It had been granted throughout his life. Now, at long last, a wiser man, it was again granted him via meteorite.
The theme pops up in many films. It as so in ‘One True Thing,’ with the added ingredient of a daughter who initially idolizes college professor father, despises her mother, but by degrees comes to think she has had it entirely backwards. He would agree. As she deteriorates with terminal cancer, he despairs and repents. She has been the “one true thing” of his life, he realizes too late. He, the revered professor, always in demand, who may even have had a fling or two with some undergrads (roundly condemned today but it was a thing back then), comes to appreciate that he has really just been an empty bag of wind. Like Schmidt, he becomes full of remorse for how he took her for granted.
Any student of the Bible knows there are four Greek words for love and that ‘agape’ is the highest one, but it is the one not every marriage comes around to, and some do it too late. Agape is the principled form of love, the one applied to how God loves his people. It is a love that attaches itself to its object and does not let go until it has achieved its aim. Somewhere along the line, marriage has to incorporate this sort of love if it is to weather the decades. It can’t be self-centered. Unlike how God loves his people and stays the course until they come around, marriage incorporates the added ingredient of coming around oneself. It carries the added ingredient of molding two persons, not just one.
Eventually, Pop’s bowling mate overcame his guilt and grief. He started crooning about this beautiful woman he had recently met and aimed to marry. “How beautiful can she be?” Pop mused. “She’s seventy-something years old.” All very fine, I guess, and much better than the Rod Stewart joke I recently heard. A beautiful and touching experience had happened to him just recently, the jokester related. He was there at the hospital to witness the birth of his next wife.