liftthescreen

 Blog – – ironies of living and dying:

Part III—what about animals?

Let’s be clear what we mean by animals. The etymology from Merriam Webster: Latin anima means “breath” or “soul,” and animalis, the adjective that comes from it, means “having breath or soul.” We include humans as animals.

Our co-existence with animals on planet Earth  is filled with irony. Nature seems to be set upon a predatory system of natural selection, killing animals, which is very much a natural activity, deeply rooted in nature.

We kill other animals for our food; we slaughter 900,000 cattle and 202 million chickens each day.

We also perform experiments on animals and use animals to work for us. Scientific studies, on the other hand, are giving us more and more knowledge of our own place in evolution as animals, and how closely related we are to some. The genomes of humans and chimps, for example are remarkably similar. We share DNA with creatures far down the tree of evolution. Scientific study has given rise to the animal rights, movement, which includes prohibiting, experimentation of various sorts on animals, particularly higher primates. PETA and other groups are part of this movement, as is the Princeton philosopher, Peter Singer. Harvard law school offers a courses in animal rights. San Francisco, in legal documents, refers to pets as “companion animals” and their owners are termed “custodians.” We care so much thathave developed medical insurance to cover their treatment by veterinarians. Animal pets have been cloned in attempts toke them with us. There are services that provide funerals for deceased pets.

We exploit our genetic closeness to other animals by using animal parts for transplantation into humans. We go even further by genetically manipulating other animals to make their parts more friendly to humans. Genetic manipulation enables shape to give milk that is more nutritious for humans, as well as organs that are less likely to be rejected by the human recipient. We all remember the sheep that was cloned by scientist, Dolly.

In most states, cruelty to non-human animals is a punishable offense. The career of NFL quarterback, Michael Vick, was brought to an end by his conviction, on charges of promoting dog fighting. He spent 21 months in a federal prison. 

Eating other animals is controversial for many. Despite scientific evidence that meat is the soul source of some elements that we need for full nutrition, including vitamin B 12, there is a large number of vegetarians and vegans in the world. Even among those who eat meat, there are interesting taboos on eating certain animals. Just recently certain Asian countries have outlawed slaughtering dogs for food. Very few countries allow it today. In some places, horse meat is avoided, because of our affection for horses. My mother, however, in the 1930s, regularly bought horse meat for our pet dogs. In my family, the children strongly opposed eating any fish that could be related to Flipper, and eating rabbit was intolerable because of their images of Peter Cottontail. These emotional responses to eating certain animals is very interesting. In contrast, I have seen interviews with teenage farmers, who express great affection for the calves they are raising and caring for very carefully, while at the same time expressing pride at the prospect of selling those calves to a meat packer for slaughtering at a very high price.

This is the irony: at the same time that we slaughter animals for food;  we find that we are closely related to animals; we love them, and

keep them in our homes as companions. Many people consider their animal pets to be their children.

So what do we think about animals and our relationship to them? I will point to a number of issues associated with this whole issue.

Just how close to humans are animals? Many indigenous people believe that animals should be honored and allowed to perform their own rituals. At the same time, they kill animals for food, while saying prayers to honor the animals. I have a whale bone sculpture of an Inuit spearing a seal, while he carries the animal’s heart in his own heart. Native peoples are said to respect all animals, but there is archaeological evidence that they also slaughtered animals in great numbers for their food.

Marc Bekoff, retired professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado in Boulder, has written a great deal about his researches among animals. For long stretches of time, he has lived in the wild among vertebrate animals, coyotes, foxes, wolves, and the lake Bekoff argues that non-human animals demonstrate emotional and moral intelligence. He

 written about the grieving rituals of several different species and has recently written articles expressing his belief that non-human animals have spiritual experiences

Primatologist Fran de Waal has spent a lifetime studying nonhuman primates. He writes that not only do they have rich emotional lives, but that they have developed patterns of moral behavior.

30 years ago, I had the privilege of participating in a tour that da Waal gave through the primate colony in the Netherlands, where he first studied. He had not been in that colony for many years. But to our amazement chimps who had lived there when he was a student  went up to him and greeted him as an old friend.

A few theologians have pondered whether animals have an afterlife. Will they go to heaven? So far, their thinking is not very persuasive. One of them, John Polkinhorne, who, before he was a theologian, was a noted British physicist – – a fellow of the Royal Society, head of the famous Cavendish lab at Cambridge, and knighted by Queen Elizabeth. He wrote, for example, that God will preserve a representative selection, much like the animals that entered Noah’s Ark, and these representatives will be in heaven. Not a great argument, but we will probably see more of this thinking from philosophers and theologians in the decades ahead. Of course, there are individuals who believe very firmly that their pet animals will be with them in the afterlife.

What about animals? That is not a simple question, and it provokes much thinking. Questions of whether we should be vegetarians to questions of the legal and moral rights of animals, to the question of whether we shall meet them in the afterlife. Where do you stand?

The Bible is relevant to this issue. Here are t examples:

Genesis 9, to Noah, God says–I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.  Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”

Zephaniah 14—The Lord will become king over all the earth, and on that day, the Lord will be one; on that day, there shall be inscribed on the bells of the horses, “Holy to the Lord” and the cooking pots in the house of the9 Lord shall be as holy as the bowls in front of the altar, and every cooking pot in Jerusalem Shall be sacred to the Lord of hosts.

Everything is holy to God; a all people and things are vessels of your presence 

(c) Phil Hefner 4 February 2024

Language, stories, songs.

I know the words 

I use them all the time 

right out of the dictionary

but I don’t know your language 

why you use this word not that one

what your words mean and 

for that matter what my words mean

We have to school each other

to grasp the language—yours and mine.

We have to tell our stories else

they will lie unheard in our hearts

they won’t be known 

sometimes we tell our stories

only to ourselves

Songs tell us what the stories mean

but we must go where songs are sung—

to the feasts and funerals 

the weddings and the long night vigils.

Until we learn the languages

hear the stories

sing the songs 

we don’t

know much 

Body Parts

They say mothers and fathers

with shopping bags on their arms

search the rubble 

to find their children’s body parts.

That’s our history—walking the

corridors of time looking for

the hearts and minds

arms and legs

of those blown apart.

Where is this?

It is everywhere—

What blows the bodies to shreds?

We do

Our city streets do

Our nations, under God kill

Money, our highest God,

leave body parts

strewn like dry leaves

after their colors are gone.

Mother and fathers

searching for body parts

a metaphor for our days,

all days since 

Phil Hefner November 2023

Four walls, six weeks – –

It all started with a spider bite. The bike itself was not so bad, but it made a hole in my skin, through which medically resistant Streptococcus (MRSA) could enter my body. MRSA is always on our skin, but does us no harm, unless it enters our system.

Since it is a very dangerous infection, I was pumped with massive amounts of antibiotics by IV.  On one day, I received three different antibiotics. Large doses of antibiotic also kill off good bacteria.

That is when c.diff, which is also commonly present in the gut, takes over.

I knew about Covid isolation – – five days or even 12 days. But isolation for c.diff is another matter. Covid isolation typically takes place in your home. My isolation was in one room in the skilled nursing section of my retirement community. Covid is passed on by particles in the air, so a mask, or a face shield gives protection. C.diff is passed on by touching, and  requires protective garb. Hence

it awakens more caution, even fear. Assigned caregivers brought meals—always in disposable bowls and utensils. It is very difficult to do the isolation outside an institution. The isolation typically lasts for months. I was lucky, mine was six weeks.

I was not aware until two days after my release how four walls for six weeks messed with my mind. On the first day, I noticed that being with other people felt uncomfortable—and there was so much noise!  Since I am by nature gregarious, I forced myself to leave my apartment for socializing. I reacted viscerally against any meals served in disposable dishes with plastic silverware!

It dawned on me gradually that for six weeks I experienced “sensory deprivation (SD).”  Although in my case SD was part of my healing processand administered by friendly caregivers, SD is also a basic tool when interrogating and torturing captives. SD fosters passivity, much TV watching, and intense longing for visitors and word from the doctors on my treatment and progress. I knew what cease-fire bodily signals would mark my improvement. On some days I prayed that the signals would come through to me.  Forty days passed with only negative signals.

I am grateful my sensory deprivation was only partial, not total. Total SD is also imposed in prisons as solitary captivity. My experience of partial SD demonstrated to Mr why solitary captivity is inhuman and should be abandoned. Long term “solitary” would certainly make it impossible for a prisoner to return to normal life.

I am still reflecting on my experience, and thinking about what lessons it taught me.

The first thing I learned is that the effects of sensory deprivation are not immediately apparent. They seem to soak in to the body and mind, and a male themselves without conscious awareness. It became very clear to me how important other people are, and how important it is to live in community. I was overwhelmed by the welcome I received from people here at Montgomery Place when I returned from isolation. It became clear in a moment what O had been missing. 

I see even more clearly now how important it is to stay in touch with people who are hospitalized, or otherwise confined, as on our second floor. Most hospitals, these days, have private rooms, which is a mixed blessing, because it turns every room into a space of sensory deprivation. Visiting people in the hospital or keeping in touch by phone or by email is not only a welcome break, it is a necessity for life. It is no coincidence for that religious traditions  so  frequently emphasize visiting the sick and imprisoned.

Phil Hefner 28 October 2023

Blog – –The irony is of life and death

Part 2–life, death, and medicine

In thinking about the contemporary practice of medicine, it is helpful to understand that it is a breathtaking human project in which we aim to thwart, or at least bend, the processes of natural selection (which are the processes of life) that otherwise would debilitate us or cause our death. For this spectacular project we spend many billions of dollars, carry on unimaginably sophisticated research, and train physicians and other staff to apply that research. Irony is baked into our medical project in the fact of our attempting to redesign evolutionary processes that have made us and constitute the processes of life.

When the work of the doctor brings about healing, or possibly even a miraculous cure, we often say that God was working through the doctor. If a doctor  assist us in bringing our life to an end, we might very well charge that doctor with murder. Thereby, we are confronted with an irony.

The issue of medically assisted death (MAD—also known as death with dignity) raises profound and complex questions. It is frequently asserted that we should not take our own lives, because God is the Lord over life and death. Only God can bring life to an end. Those who do not believe in Hod have a secular version of this position.  When a person is ill or suffers from a serious health issue, however, we believe that it is quite proper and even obligatory to call for a doctor’s intervention. When someone is diagnosed with serious cancer, we do not say, “I guess God is taking this person away.” At least, not before we have said, “Employ every medical means available to defeat the cancer.”

Why is it permissible to intervene in natural processes when it serves healing, while it is criminal to intervene in a way that will ease the passage of an elderly or grievously ill person into death? Why can we not say that the medical means of terminating life is also part of God’s action?

The answer to these questions most likely lies in the belief in the sacrality of life and that God creates life. Albert Schweitzer considered “will to live” to be the most fundamental principle of reality, and he based his philosophy on it. Promoting human life when we ought not, is less likely to have tragic consequences than erroneously terminating life. Promoting life is safer than terminating life. A doctor may ne charged with malpractice in the act of furthering life, for which malpractice insurance is available. Terminating life brings criminal charges.

Ten states have some provision for medically  assisted death. Requirements are stringent: the patient must be a citizen of the state, within six months of death, and able to understand the situation, give written and oral consent, and administer the necessary drugs. Excruciating pain is also a factor. Dementia—which many people wish to avoid—is excluded.

Several other countries provide for MAD, some with even more stringent requirements. In other times and places, attitudes have been different. The Japanese samurai practiced a ritual suicide that was considered honorable, preferred over disgrace or execution. The ritual—hara kiri—is still used today, in very limited numbers. The Stoics of Ancient Rome counseled suicide preferable to life under certain circumstanves: falling into disgrace, losing one’s wealth, and grave illness. In the United States, in 2022, around 49,500 people died by suicide according to the CDC, which classifies suicide as “death of despair.” Many of these deaths are by guns, but many more involve lethal drugs, some medically  prescribed.

In the present time, life and death are intricately and inextricably interwoven with the healthcare system – – physicians, nurses, researchers, and other staff. So closely intertwined that medicine shares fully in the ironies of human life and death and carries a great burden as a result.

Although it is not the only factor, medical practice today is a major enabler of the longevity that we enjoy. The spectacular accomplishments of medical practice beggar the imagination. But irony is also woven into those accomplishments and the longevity they allow. 

First of all, the aging population must be cared for. Furthermore, aging is accompanied by frailty, disability, and ever increasing need for medical interventions. And entire industry has grown up, to devote itself to the care and maintenance of the elderly. This industry creates jobs, many of whose employees who are overworked and underpaid.

Irony is ubiquitous and not without a tragic element.

Medical practice is deeply committed to life, and includes an oath to do no harm. However, aging brings many sorrows, and not a little suffering. As it is institutionalized, the community of aging persons and caregivers experiences the dislocations, as well as the benefits, of institutionalization.

Our human project to turn back the processes of natural selection through the practice of medicine is breathtaking, but as we experience the ironies of life and death, we are learning that while this project has transient successes, nature has the last word. Stewart Herman has summarized the ironies thus:, “We have been so successful in extending human life beyond natural limits that we now prolong human life beyond our desire to live—where natural limits begin to look like a blessing.”

(c) Phil Hefner. 8/19/2023

Part I—Who Stands for Life?

Most of us would say we stand for life. Standing for life figures in the public discussion of abortion, nuclear weapons, the death penalty, and the practice of medicine. “Flourishing”  is prominent in religious traditions. Recently, I prayed Psalm 145– “You open your hands and satisfy the desires of every living thing.” 

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) stood for life. His philosophy is known as, “reverence for life.”  Although he lived in equatorial Africa—where he established a hospital—where insects abound, he would not kill  them unnecessarily. From 1952 until his death he worked against nuclear tests and nuclear weapons with Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell. 

Peter Singer (1946-), a  Princeton philosopher, also stands for life. He calls his position, 

Effective altruism.”  “Animal liberation” and global poverty are two of his major concerns. Singer allocates  a certain percentage of his income to efforts to ameliorate poverty. Believing that all life has value, he ranks creatures according to their level of sentience. Those closest to us on the evolutionary scale are assigned  a value comparable to humans.

Schweitzer and Singer, though brilliant and widely acclaimed (Schweitzer won a Nobel  Peace Prize), are outliers. Although most people would say that they stand for life, it is mainly human life they are concerned about. Schweitzer’s reverence for life was considered lovely, but outlandish. Singer’s valuing chimpanzees on a level with humans, infuriates and offends many  people.

When it becomes necessary to defend our species from others, we act decisively and effectively to eliminate threatening life. It is well documented that when humans move into an ecosystem, a large number of other species go extinct. Protecting endangered species is a politically hot topic, and it is often defended on the grounds that a more diverse ecosystem benefits humans.

We are definitely partisan when it comes to standing for life—self-interested and self-protective. I am reminded of a scientist, a Nobel prize winner in medicine, who summarized his accomplishment by saying, “There  are critters who are for us, and critters who are ag’in us, and I fight the who are ag’in us.”

And why shouldn’t we be? After all, it is a jungle out there, and many forms of life seem to be our enemies. Public health and the practice of medicine are two of the most impressive established activities in the history of humanity. Both of these cost many billions of dollars to support. Unbelievably sophisticated research has produced astonishing results in protecting us from bacteria and viruses and diseases that threaten to decimate the human population. Researchers are even exploring jungles and rain forests to examine animals that might bear the bacteria or viruses that will lead to the next pandemics.

Darwinian evolutionary theories describe the processes of every living being. Evolution is the dominant image in our worldview today. Human disease is part of the evolutionary story, the story of life.

Our public health and medical practice aim at bending or even stopping the evolution of certain life forms in the interest of our health and survival. At this point, the irony of standing for life is clear: standing for some life by destroying other life.

Complexities abound. Schweitzer acknowledged this. He wrote: “True philosophy must start from the most immediate and comprehensive fact of consciousness, and this may be formulated as follows: ‘I am life which wills to live, and I exist in the midst of life which wills to live.’ In nature one form of life must always prey upon another. However, human consciousness holds an awareness of, and sympathy for, the will of other beings to live. An ethical human strives to escape from this contradiction so far as possible.” As a physician, he destroyed living organisms that caused sickness, and for most of his life, he did not espouse vegetarianism. He believes humans must atone for their disrespect for other forms of life. In other words, since disrespect of other life forms is unavoidable, we must lament our action and atone for it.

Peter Singer’s position deals with the complexities of his thinking in the way he employs the concept of sentience. Thus, he can value higher primates over insects. He even holds that experiments on animals may be permissible if they involve healing disease, rather than testing products so as to inflict pain, injury, or death. He is a vegan and opposes “inhumane” livestock  management. 

Standing for life rather than death is not as simple as we often think. In my next installment, I will explore further the ironies of living/dying. 

(c). Phil Hefner  8/9/2023

Blog—qWho do you want to be?  REVISED

I watch PBS Create channel regularly—for its travel and cooking shows, mainly. The channel’s motto, repeated hourly, is “It’s not who you are, but who you want to be today.” We are shown some options:  being a woodworker, a home remodeler, a gardener, a flower arranger, a cook, a quilter, a seamstress, a painter, or a world traveler. The channel’s broadcasting each day consists of programs featuring these options.

My mind goes back some decades to the slogan featured in TV commercials for the United States Army: “Be all that you can be”—by enlisting in the army, of course. It is frequently asserted that we are the most devoted “self-help” culture in the entire world. Airport book stores are filled with titles like, “Seven Habits of Highly Successful People.” At one point you could take a series of workshops on the Seven Habits and receive a certificate confirming  your attendance. “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” was another big seller—it improved interpersonal relation. “How to Win Friends and Influence People” is one of the all-time bestsellers and a classic self-improvement text. First appearing in 1936, it is still available on Amazon, along with “The 31 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership.”

When I was a kid, comic books ran Charles Atlas ads—“I was a 97-pound weakling,” but look at my bulging biceps today! I never sent in the coupon to get the book. Commercials for cosmetic surgery emphasize remaking your body. Any number of dentist commercials talk about improving your life with perfect smile.

What  underlies this idea of creating yourself anew as you want to be, every day? Why this passion for self-improvement? I believe it may be rooted deeply in the human psyche. Some expressions of this passion are superficial, but some are profound and defy easy commercialization.

Is this a quasi—religious matter? This channel also boasts that public television makes us better persons—broadening our vision of the world; we become “builders of bridges, not walls.” A recent New York  Times Magazine article on travel guru Rick Steves, who is a major figure on the create  channel, emphasizes his passion for travel as a way to become better persons.

The streams of religion do not always flow into explicitly “religious” forms. Anything that concerns us deep, even ultimately, can function as a  religion. It may be a passion for social reform, the arts, or even sports (Super Bowl Sunday has been termed the most important American religious holiday). Marxism and Capitalism often function as de facto religions.

Self-improvement may  flower in our attempts to cook a dinner or knit a sweater—or it may take us to a psychoanalyst or a priest. Many people simply want to become better people. Some follow the spirituality of St Francis or St. Ignatius, or Julian of Norwich. There are many voices in our society that call out “Be like us.” In any case, the desire to remake ourselves runs deep within us.

Efforts to “become all the you can be,” especially in a quasi-religious form can ne quite dangerous and even frightening. They cam be easily  manipulated. An example is sports religiosity linked to online gambling.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe all people are created in the image of God and that we aspire to actualized the presence of God in the world. That sets the bar rather high. Several TV dramas have actually dealt with this theme, including, “Joan of Arcadia” and “Touched by an Angel.”

Who do you want to be today? Ah, that is the question.

Phil Hefner. 7/16/2023

Might-have-beens are common in our experience. We cause some m-h-bs when we make choices. What might have been different had we chosen a different college, or married  a different partner?

Some m-h-bs are rooted in other people’s decision. When I was twelve years old, my dad had a chance to transfer from Denver to a position in Arkansas. What might have been, had my family made that mone?

Other might-havre-beens are beyond our experience, they can never happen. Recently, my eye doctor confronted me with  one of these mhbs. A new treatment had become available for my macular degeneration, “dry” version. After an examination, came the mhb—“Your eyes are too far gone for the therapy. Five years ago, it could have worked.” Five years ago, my eyes were fine, but the therapy had not even been developed. A mhb only in fantasy.

In the 1970s, I had my first MRI, which revealed that I had been born with spina bifida, with a tethered spinal cord. I was in my 40s, and was suffering no ill effects, so the doctors suggested that I do nothing until I had difficulties. Around 2005, difficulties began to appear. I had 75 years of a very active life, playing several sports, earning a letter in tennis. It was clear that something was wrong with my spine, but I had no ill effects whatsoever. It could not be diagnosed until MRIs came into use, which was in the early 1970s. At that time I was diagnosed as having a moderately severe case of spina bifida. That diagnosis was in the middle between a light case and a severe case. In 2007, a pediatric neurosurgeon suggested that I undergo the surgery that is usually done on young children and infants. He made no guarantees, and told me that I was the oldest person ever to undergo the surgery. The operation lasted six hours, and I walked pretty well afterwards, for about a month. Then the difficulties became worse, and in two or three years I was in a wheelchair. The surgeon told me,”If we only had been able to do the surgery in your first year of life, you would have had no difficulties whatsoever.” But the MRIs, which enabled diagnosis, were not even thought of in my first year of life, 1932. Here was another mhb that would have changed my life significantly, but it was sheer fantasy.

Neither of these mhbs could have become real for me. They were both in the realm of fantasy. But even though they could not be actual in my life, they had a significant impact on me, chiefly on my attitude towards life. The spina bifida caused me to look at my life quite differently. I thought of Psalm 139, which reads, “you have knit me together in my mother’s womb and watched every part take shape.” I marveled at the fact that the Knitter made some mistakes in my case, and yet my flawed body served me very well until I was in my late 70s. In fact, I wrote a series of poems addressed to the Knitter and imagining the response of the Knitter to me. An attitude of gratitude, for my life was a direct result, and, even as I  have spent these years in a wheelchair, I often reminisce about the wonderful life that I have had. Attributing my physical birth to the work of God only deepens my reflection and appreciation.

These two medical  mhbs provoke a great deal more reflection. People my age came to adulthood before some of the greatest discoveries in medical science were available for our medical care. Having lived to be age 90, I have seen how the tremendous advances in medical science are really changing people’s lives. Of course these changes are always ambiguous, but they mean real liberation for many people. But at my age I was born a too early for these spectacular advances to make a real difference in my life.

These reflections give me a definite perspective on my life, which I would not have, had it not been for those two might-have-berms. I am aware of two things in particular: on the one hand maintaining my life has become a very expensive matter. Society, through insurance companies, pension plans and other means has supported me financially, in a way that really is beyond imagination. On the other hand, my last 10 years are years of extreme dependence. Every day that I live, my life is enabled by other people, taking care of me and supplying my basic needs. Dependence has taken on new and deeper meanings for me, as I gain insight into the character of my life. Ideas of autonomy and agency, which are so much talked about today, have taken on quite a different meaning for me.

But, of course, there are many other people, millions of us, whose lives are maintained in old age at a very high cost for society, and all of us are quite dependent. One has  to be very grateful,  and also a bit awe-struck, to think of the burden that society assumes  for us, in order to maintain this population of elderly people. Sometimes society is manifested in impersonal governmental and business procedures. On a day-to-day basis, however, society appears in the form of individual men and women, often overworked and underpaid, who are willing to care for dependent people. Some of them do it because it is a job, but many others do it, because they take genuine pleasure in helping less fortunate people.

All might-have-beens may be some meaning. They all reveal something of the character of our lives, even though they exist now only in our fantasies. Most of them pass away with the years. Strangely, for me, two mhbs, that could never be actual, but exist only in the realm of complete fantasy, may have made the most impact on my later life.

How do you reflect on the might-have-beens of your life? How do they reveal the character of your life?

(c) Phil Hefner 6/30/2023

I have noted before that poverty figures large in the Bible. Again, and again, from the Psalms to the Sermon on the Mount, we read that God hears the cries of the poor and reaches out to them, feeding the hungry, curing the sick, releasing the prisoners, placing the humble ones on the same level with the rich and powerful. 

A typical theme is expressed in Psalm 12:

Then the Lord speaks out.

I will act now.

For the poor are broken.

And the needy groan.

When they call out

I will protect them.”

In the Magnificat, we hear that God will feed the hungry and let the rich starve.

Until recently, I was perplexed, because the poor are always present in the Bible. As Jesus says, the poor you will always have with you. And the poor are ever-present with us today. 

It seems that no matter how frequently or how empathetically the call goes out to eliminate poverty, it is never successful. The same can be said of our public political life. We have legislated the Great Society, we have waged a War on Poverty, we have organized Poor People’s Campaigns—but poverty and inequality remain.

Recently it occurred to me that the biblical call is not to eliminate poverty—that will happen only at the end of history.  Rather, the poor are to be respected and cared for. Respect and care—we may be more ready to work for eliminating poverty than to respect poor people as they are. We seem to believe that poor people have to change before we can grant them respect. Does economic and social status affect our status as persons to be respected? Does poverty deprive a person of personhood? Similarly, does greedy bourgeois capitalism deprive a person of personhood?

The point here is that one’s personhood is to be respected no matter what its socio-economic garb. We are most likely to disrespect the least among us, especially the poor—hence the biblical emphasis on hearing their cries, as well as the claim they will sit with kings. The poor do not have to earn respect by changing their socio-economic status. After all, society assigns status, but our dignity as persons is inherent  in our very existence.

Caring for the poor is also mandated. They may never go away, never escape poverty, but they must be cared for whatever their status. Social democracies— which includes most industrialized nations, particularly those in Europe – – have rather well developed social welfare nets that provide care for the poor and other marginalize groups. The United States is more likely to stigmatize poverty and to leave children, and disabled persons to get by on their own. Our understanding of capitalism is such that it considers dependence on social welfare to be morally reprehensible

On the whole, it would seem that it is easier to care for the poor, grant them social welfare, then it is to respect their dignity as persons. Traditionally, the United States has had difficulty dealing with either of these.

The biblical approach to poverty seems quite straightforward, and rather simple to translate into social policy. The inability of our American society to make this translation is a matter, worthy of reflection and understanding.

Phil Hefner, 12 May 2023 

I am not one who talks glibly about miracles. In the April 30, 2000 issue of Newsweek magazine, I published an article entitled, “Why I don’t believe in miracles.” I don’t believe God zaps into our world to intervene and redirect the processes of nature. I do believe in blessings.  Generally, however, you’ll hear a lot of miracle-talk today.

Of course, medical science and engineering are dedicated to intervening in natural processes and redirecting them—but that’s another matter.

The day of Neva’s funeral, Saturday, March 25th, brought anxieties. First, the weather—a rain/snow forecast. I wondered whether my power chair could make it, and scattering of her ashes in the church garden would be difficult. By mid-morning, it seemed that we had dodged the weather bullet. That was the first “miracle” on 56th street, the address of Montgomery Place, my residence.

Transportation, however, was another matter. Since Montgomery Place’s weekend transportation vendor does not have buses that accommodate wheelchairs, one must request their wheelchair van a few days ahead. That was my mistake—I waited until Saturday morning to put in the order.

I was told the van was on its way. Forty-five minutes later, there was no van. I called my pastor to say I would be late to the funeral—perhaps even an hour late. In desperation, I called Curb Cab, a Chicago wheelchair taxi company, that usually takes up to an hour. There are only 300 wheelchair taxis in the city, so at any given moment, it may take a while to get one.

After making arrangements, I no sooner ended the call, and I received a text: “ETA 4 minutes.” I didn’t believe it, but, astonishingly, the cab pulled up by the time I made it to the front door. I made it to the service well before the scheduled time. The second “miracle” on 56th street.

So, what about miracles? I really cannot believe in miracles in any conventional sense, but miracle-talk serves me well when I talk about that Saturday in March.

God certainly could have rearranged traffic patterns that day, cleared the cab company’s schedule, and reconfigured a cab driver’s brain  processes—but that is not credible to me. I preferred to take a deep breath, and say, not only a blessing, “It’s  a miracle.”

(c)Phil Hefner

The story

that is my story

my restoring

the acting out

that is my enactment 

Yielding of bread 

that is soft tissue 

of a body 

dying

bitter wine 

bitterness 

of blood spilt

the enacting

that establishes the world

my world

In eating

there is dying

In dying  there is living

The story 

that re-stores

begins 

in night

ends 

in day 

(c) Phil Hefner 3/22/2023