Wednesday, July 7, 2010

I’m an Alcoholic. Part One



“Hello, I’m Monte, and I’m an alcoholic. It has been 20 years since my last drink.”


On June 28, 2010 I celebrated 20 years of sobriety, one day at a time. I had forgotten the date until Sue came to me and put her arms around me and said, “Congratulations. Its your anniversary.” I dug into my billfold, and pulled out a faded old wallet card from Alcoholics Anonymous of St. Louis, signed by my beloved sponsor, Jim White. Sue was right. It has been 20 years.

Jim has since passed on and I have gotten old. Old and sober. Had I not gotten sober I have no doubt alcohol would have killed me long before now. I believe in miracles and my sobriety is a miracle.

Jim White was 70 years old and 26 years sober when he took me under his wing. So I figure that after 20 years of sobriety and at the age of 71 maybe it is time to tell my story to someone other than the friends gathered around the table at the AA meetings I have attended, and the many dear friends I have sponsored, mentored, counseled and loved who also share my addiction. It is time to share it with you.

And, with the grace of God, perhaps I might reach one or more drinkers who will find something in my story that will resonate with them, something that will tell them that their kind of drinking is far more than just an occasional social indulgence, and that will encourage them to find the strength to walk away from the closest friend they have ever known: alcohol.


I would like to set the stage for my story by talking about some of the fundamental habits of my alcoholism. There is nothing particularly unique about my alcoholism. These habits, along with a string of others I could mention, are generic and are exhibited by most alcoholics. They are the habits of addiction.

Without understanding some of the basic habits of the addictive personality it is not easy to see the "logic" that we who suffer from addiction see in our actions. That those actions are not "normal" does not occur to us until after we are "clean and sober."


I started drinking when I was 15. My home life was a mess. My mother had serious mental problems and was abusive. I was nine years older than the oldest of my four brothers and I was expected to help care for them, keep the house clean, go to school, and work a full time job, turning most of the money over to my mother. Beer took me away from all of that, if only for a few stolen hours late at night. Soon it was every night.

I never met a beer I didn’t like, and I never could have only one. In beginning I never drank anything but beer. My friends who were 18 could buy beer for me, but not liquor so it was the natural choice. In those early years I seldom had hangovers, even if I drank a couple of six packs.

Later, that would change. When I turned 21 and could buy liquor, beer stopped being the drink of choice and then came headaches, hangovers, and, toward the end, severe panic attacks and the fear of spending any time in public. It was stock up on booze, stay home and drink. Alcohol was closing in for the kill and I was an active party to my own destruction.


I didn’t notice it but very early on there were habits developing that I would carry with me for the entire time I would drink.

– Lying.

Lying is essential to the alcoholic. First you lie to yourself and tell yourself that you are not drinking too much, that you deserve to drink, and that you can stop any time you want to. Then you lie to everybody else. You say that you only had two drinks when the two drinks were six ounces of scotch each with a spritz of club soda, that you have not had a drink at all when you have been drinking vodka to cover the smell, that you are sick or tired or busy or sleepy or whatever other thing you can think of to cover your drinking.

The more and longer you drink the more you tell yourself that your lies are working, and the less they actually are. In the end you are the only one who thinks that nobody knows you are a drunk.

– Protecting the supply.

From the beginning you are hooked. It is my firm belief that no one slides into alcoholism. You are born with it. What can change is that you increase your drinking to the point where you finally realize that you have a problem, thus convincing yourself that you are “becoming” an alcoholic.

And one sure sign is that you notice how you protect the supply. If you are underage that comes naturally. It did for me because my mother would physically abuse me if she knew I drank. So I hid the supply with other boys who were older and allowed to drink. It was worth sharing a few beers with them to stash my booze with them. But mostly I needed them to buy the booze for me.

Later, as an adult I would squirrel away bottles of scotch, gin and vodka around the house, in the car, and, toward the end even at work. And if it looked like I would run out and could not get any more quickly I would literally have a panic attack. The solution to that was never to wonder whether it was normal to have a panic attack over not being able to buy liquor on Sunday. Rather it was to buy my scotch by the half gallon and stock several half gallons away from sight in the basement – my liquid savings account.

– Choosing the right friends

This is seldom at first a conscious thing. But the alcoholic will soon gravitate toward other drinkers. As time goes on you become aware how uncomfortable you are if you have to spend, say, an entire afternoon or evening with people who do not drink. You are nervous and feel trapped and you know that a couple of drinks would take the edge off. So you make excuses not to go back to their place or to functions where drinks are not served.

And, if you have to go to a place where there are no drinks served, you have three or four stiff drinks before you leave, preferably vodka, brush your teeth, use mouthwash, carry a breath spray and go. And be sure to leave early.

When I was in Washington, DC I made sure that I went to lunch with friends who had two or three drinks before eating, usually martinis, and I went to happy hour with those who had a few before going home. Those turned out to be the same people, and naturally became the ones that I spent time with on weekends, going to sporting events, parties, etc.

This, in turn, led to a justification for my own drinking: “Everybody in DC drinks. I don’t drink any more than they do.” Of course not. They were mirrors of me. So you choose the friends who share the same best friend you do: alcohol.

– Blaming your problem on something and/or someone else

When you come home at night you need a strong drink because your boss or your partner or someone with whom you interact with was a real jerk, had a stupid idea that involved you, did not like your brilliant idea, did not agree with your ideas or, in your mind, otherwise disrespected you.

And you needed a second one because your wife did not understand, or agree, or wanted you to do something you did not want to do. And two drinks were not enough to take off that edge so a third made sense, then a fourth.

When you went to a party or a reception you made sure you chose a party with an open bar. If you just went to a bar to drink with your buddies everybody was drinking and they kept telling you to have “just one more” before you leave.So how could you leave? You can’t disappoint them; after all they are your friends.

– Proving to yourself that you are not what you know you are

You don’t have to drink and you can prove it. You can stop any time you want to. And you can and you do – for a few days or a week. You can’t be an alcoholic because you have proven the old saying, “Sure, I can stop drinking. I’ve done it a hundred times.” To others it’s a joke. To you it’s proof.

If, through the fog that you don’t know you are in, you realize you are drinking too much you go through elaborate ruses to prove to yourself you don’t drink too much. “I won’t drink before I get off work.” Later, “I won’t drink before noon.” Or, I will only have three drinks.” But, you don’t say how much scotch you put in each drink. So you say, “I will only have 4 jiggers tonight”, and then you choose the biggest jigger you own. Or you say, “I will only drink beer, “ or “I will only drink wine.”

These tactics will work for a few days and you will “prove” you don’t drink too much. That lasts until some major stress comes along and you decide to have as much as you need to take the edge off, to avoid the stress, the pain, the disappointment. Then, when you finally mellow out you are drunk, and you are the last person on the planet to know that. The truth is there is always a good reason to have the next drink.

Most active alcoholics have never heard the old Japanese saying, “First the man takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the man.” And if they do hear it they won’t believe it has anything to do with them. They won’t understand that until they hit bottom. And that can take 35 years. I know.

To be continued.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Larry Gatlin (& the Gatlin Brothers).: Tribute Post

First posted on Open Salon, JULY 1, 2010 3:35PM

Larry  Gatlin



Larry Gatlin has been one of my favorites for almost 40 years. He was one of the so-called “countrypolitian” singers of the 70s and 80s who helped bridge the gap between country and pop. He has 33 Top 40 hit singles on the Billboard Country Charts.

What many people ignore is that he was one of the great song writers of that generation, in any genre. He wrote songs for himself and for many other country stars, particularly for his mentor and friend, Dotty West.

His pure tenor has a bell-like quality and his inflections carry a deep sincerity that few can duplicate. Most popular male country music are baritones. There are a few tenors who are exceptions, particularly Marty Robbins in the 50s, David Houston in the 60s, and Gatlin in the 70s and 80s.

While he no longer tours much, spending most of his time with family and with his shows at his Myrtle Beach theater, he can sometimes be seen on the Gaither gospel show, singing the old Southern gospel songs that he loved as a child when he and his brothers sung in the Texas church the family attended.

He also does another type of "touring": visiting schools and churches, being interviewed on TV and radio, and using other venues to tell his story about his alcohol and drug addiction, something which he personally went through with devastating effects on his own career.


As with my other tribute posts, this one shares a few representative You Tube videos. As usual, I urge you to use good earphones, earbuds, or quality external speakers to have any real idea about the talent of the artists in this Tribute Series.

Links to my other music tributes and music posts are gathered together in the left column of this blog.


So, sit back, put the headphones on, and enjoy one of the great swing, ballad and pop oriented country singers on the last 50 years.

Monte


Ten Videos:

First, a recent interview on a Christian talk show which gives you an idea of his backgound and his thoughts on writing songs, ending with a live renditon of his hit, “All the Gold in California.”



Early recording of “Broken Lady”



An upbeat swinging “crossover” hit: “Somebody’s Baby.”



A favorite of mine that never made it big, but just listen to the truth of the words. “Midnight Choir”



A Crossover hit that features great harmony. “Sure Feels Like Love”



“Sweet Becky Walker” was an early hit. This is a later re-recording. Their voices have matured and deepened on this track.



A big hit in ’80 or ’81 right before Larry’s downward spiral with alcohol and drugs. "What Are We Doin' Lonesome?”



Upbeat Texas Swing hit: “Houston.”



Larry is a lifelong Pentacostal Christian and loves to sing gospel. Here he is singing a modern gospel tune. He is often invited to sing with the with the Gaither Gospel Choir by his old friends, Bill and Gloria Gaither. "Healing Stream”



Final Video: A huge hit that features Larry at his best. “Bitter They Are, Harder They Fall”


Research Resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Gatlin

http://gatlinbrothers.musiccitynetworks.com/

http://www.cmt.com/artists/az/gatlin_larry/bio.jhtml

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0309705/bio

http://delafont.com/music_acts/larry-gatlin.htm

Friday, May 28, 2010

Memorial Day: Take Time to Remember



Bath National Cemetery, New York
Bath, NY, National Cemetery


Note: This is an edited version of a post about Memorial Day that I posted here last year. It is based on a Memorial Day address I gave in 2005 at the Dover, Ohio Memorial Day observance in 2004.

Not enough people will read this or the other Memorial Day tribute posts. Most will be out enjoying a "three day holiday weekend." And I intend to do the same. But my prayer is that at some point in this weekend we will all stop, find a quiet place, and lift a prayer of gratitude for those who made the supreme sacrifice so that we can have three day weekends knowing that we still hold our liberty as one of the highest values of this nation.

Men and women have fought and died believing that they were serving a cause far greater than themselves. Some have died in wars where the enemy was clear and they knew exactly who they were fighting and why. They knew that the people of this nation declared them to be "good" wars, wars against evil. Others have fought in wars that were not worth their sacrifice.

But we must distinguish between the morality of a war, or the lack of it, and the men and women who fight believing they are doing it for us, and for our children and our children's children. And so we should honor all who gave of themselves, their blood, and, too often, their very lives. All those we honor this day.


When I was a child we called this time Decoration Day. And we used to pick flowers and carry them to the cemetery in town and lay them on the graves of soldiers from the town who were honored on that day. But the custom of honoring those who have fallen in war began long before I was a child. It began in the Southern states immediately after the Civil War when people decorated the graves of fallen Confederate soldiers.

In 1868, General John Logan, who was then commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, named May 30, the date of discharge of the last Union soldier following the Civil War, as a day to decorate the graves of Union soldiers as well. Later the graves of all soldiers, sailors, and marines were so honored regardless of what war they fought in, or whether or not they died in combat. The date was moved from May 30 to the last Monday in May several years ago.

What we need to remember now is that, for almost a century and a half, throughout this nation, we have dedicated this time to the memory of all those who have fallen in the defense of this nation, regardless of the branch of military in which they served.

And, in more recent years, we have also taken this time to remember not only those lost in battle, but also those of our own loved ones and friends who have gone from us by accident, through tragedy, or in the normal course of life.

I am sure that many of us, and others throughout this great nation, are this day are remembering the great loss of life that we suffered on September 11, 2001, and the 5000 plus American service personnel who have since lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan these last long eight years.

For longer than anyone alive can remember, we have honored our dead by celebrating this special time. Remembering is the key to Memorial Day. Memorial Day is about is remembering. We all know too well how easy it is to forget, to take for granted, or to deliberately close our minds to the hardships and sacrifices which are sometimes difficult and painful to recall.

But there are some things we must remember. For without memory, without the history and tradition of remembrance, we cannot know the price which has been paid for our freedom. Without remembrance, we cannot know the debt that we shall always owe to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for us, sacrifices made when many of us were yet unborn.

REMEMBERING. The word is so common that we sometimes forget what it means. "RE -membering" literally means to put the members back together, to gather together what has otherwise been torn apart. We can’t do that physically in this life, for we must wait for God to provide that miracle for us and for our lost loved ones and comrades who have gone before us. But, until then we can RE-member them in our minds, and most of all, in our hearts.

Remembering is what separates us from those who don’t care, from those who are so caught up in their own importance that they have no time to think of others. Remembering is what separates us from those who are sure that what they have is what they alone have earned, and who believe that they owe no debts to anyone, past or present.

We who will bow our heads in a silent prayer or simply in remembrance on Memorial Day know better. We know that we owe our liberty, our freedom, to all those who died for the right for us to live as free people in a free land.

On this day I put away my arguments about the evil done in the last Administration and the lack of seeming purpose by the present Administration to do something to set that right. There will be many future days for me to continue that fight. Today is not one of them. Today we should be more unified than we ever are, a day when there is no right or left, no Democrat or Republican, no insiders or outsiders, but only Americans. Americans remembering.

Remembering separates us from the cold and unthinking, from those who would pay no allegiance to anyone but themselves, and who would give no honor to those who died believing that the values of this nation were worth fighting for, and, if necessary, dying for.

Patriotism is a battered concept today. For too long it was defined as those who supported the regime in power. That is changing but it will take time to replace allegiance to party with allegiance to country. In too many places in this nation we argue over even what basic human values and virtues are.

This should not really surprise us. It should not surprise us -- even though it should dismay us -- that our dead are not honored as they should be.

Community Memorial Day services are not widely attended these days. We have other things to do, or, as in my case, my health will not allow me to spend that kind of time in the heat.

But that is no justification for me not to remember. I can still think about the sacrifices made. I can still say a prayer in thanksgiving for that long line of those who put their lives on the line for me and my family, even though I know not their names, no did they know mine. But I know that many of them paid the ultimate sacrifice for the ideal that we all might be free.


For the last several days, families across America have been preparing for their Memorial Day weekend. And that is fine. I have too. I doubt that any of the honored dead for whom Memorial Day was established would begrudge American families the opportunity to have some quality time together, for people to relax and enjoy themselves.

But we must not forget what this time is really about. This is a time in which we, as a community, as a nation, gather together in groups as small as a family, or a couple newly in love looking for some time to just be together. We can gather in groups small and large, and while gathered, or even while alone, remember.

On this day we pause to remember that there are essential lessons to be learned, and re-learned; lessons for young and old alike: to remember and appreciate the blessings of freedom; to recognize the enormity of the sacrifice that has been made for us, and to pay honor and respect to those who gave everything on behalf of our common good. This day reminds us of what we can achieve when we pull together as one nation, respecting each other in spite of our differences.

And this day reminds us as well of our duty to honor not only those we lost in freedom's cause, but also, through our thoughts and our actions, to remember the service men and women who came back home from our wars, and are now our veterans. It is a day to remember, as well, the families of those who lost loved ones, and the families of those lost for whom there has never been a final accounting.

We must remember as well those who are putting their lives on the line for us in far off wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars that we may not individually support, wars that I do not personally support. But our service men and women are there. They are in harms way. And we, you and I, are not. That too is worth remembering.
There really are answers for those who think that this time is just like any other- except that we get a "long weekend"; to those who pause not an instant in their pursuit of their personal pleasures. We say “No. You are wrong.” to those who say that there is nothing worth remembering, no one worth honoring, no country worth saving.

This is not the time to lift my grievances, or for me to complain about how so much of what this nation does in the political and economic sphere makes little sense, about all the things we write about so passionately, about all that is "wrong" with America.

This is a time when I have something more important to do; a time when we look back and remember the shoulders upon which we stand as we look forward to what we hope will be a new and brighter day for this nation. There are those who will say, "Why bother?" Its past history, isn't it?" "Its time to move on, to look to the future, isn't it?"

To them we say, perhaps we will do what you suggest tomorrow. But, for today, we say that we remember. We remember. And we are thankful. And we will never forget the sacrifices made for us. Never. We shall remember.

And we shall teach our children, and our children’s children, of the great privilege and honor of being Americans, and of the great sacrifices that have been made for us.

On this Memorial Day we will pledge to carry a simple message into the future. Our message is that there were, and that there still are, those who loved this country enough to fight and to die, if necessary, to preserve the American way of life. That, my friends, we shall never forget.


May God bless each of us and our families, and may we always remember and give thanks for sacrifices made.


Monte

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Don Williams Tribute: Happy 71st Birthday!


First published, Open Salon, MAY 27, 2010 12:15AM

Don Williams has a birthday today, May 27, 2010. For 7 months he and I will be the same age, 71. For not quite a half century now he has been singing professionally and I have been listening. It has been an easy relationship that never grows old - although I can't say the same thing for us.

Don is sometimes called "Mr. Mellow" or "The Gentle Giant" by country fans. Yet many modern country fans have never heard of him, don't know that he still performs and that he routinely sells out venues in the UK, Europe and S. Africa. Now. Today. In fact, he has always been more popular overseas than here. His US heyday was from about 1970 through 1989. But during that time he built a following that has been loyal and appreciative of his art.

Don is a Texas country boy, and was one of the founders of the Pozo-Seco Singers, a favorite but short lived folk group that I enjoyed in the 60s.

Altogether 17 of his songs have been #1 Singles on the Billboard Country charts.

Wikipedia notes "His first hit, in 1973, was "The Shelter of Your Eyes." His 1974 hit, "I Wouldn't Want to Live if You Didn't Love Me," was the first of 17 No. 1 hits on Billboard's country chart. His best two known No. 1 hits were "I Believe in You" (1980) and "Lord I Hope This Day is Good" (1982).

Some of his other big No. 1 country hits included "You're My Best Friend" and "Turn Out the Light and Love Me Tonight" (1975); "Til the Rivers all Run Dry" and "Say it Again" (1976); "Some Broken Hearts Never Mend" and "I'm Just a Country Boy" (1977); "Tulsa Time" and "It Must Be Love" (1979); "Love Me Over Again" (1980); "If Hollywood Don't Need You" (1983); "Stay Young" and "That's the Thing About Love" (1984); and "Heartbeat in the Darkness" (1986). Some big No. 2 hits of his were "She Never Knew Me" (1976); "Good Ole Boys Like Me" (1980); "Walking a Broken Heart" (1985) and "Back in My Younger Days" (1990). His No. 3 hits were "Rake and Ramblin' Man" (1978); "Lay Down Beside Me" (1979); "If I Needed You" (1981, duet with Emmylou Harris); "Listen to the Radio" and "Mistakes" (1982); and "We've Got a Good Fire Goin'" (1986)."


Married to the same woman for 50 years, the laid back country balladeer made no ripples in the "bad boy" pond that so many young male country singers who came to fame in the 60s and 70s seemed compelled to jump into. His music is as mellow as the man, and the beauty of his baritone voice has always been a joy to listen to.

Here are some of his biggest hits, and a few others that I have thrown in just because I like them. In addition to the YouTube videos I have included a Playlist that has a few songs on it that are not available on YouTube. While he has never sought to sing duets with other country artists he did have one hit with Emmylou Harris that I have included on the Playlist.

Don Williams was finally recognized for what he has always been, a giant of country music, when he was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame this year.

Happy Birthday, Don. Thanks for all of your wonderful music that I have been listening to since the late 60s.


You're My Best Friend



Good Ole Boys Like Me



Some Broken Hearts Never Mend



Amanda



Lord, I Hope This Day is Good



I Believe in You



Lay Down Beside Me



Gypsy Woman



Love Me Tonight



The Rose



'Til The Rivers All Run Dry



Shelter of Your Eyes



We Should Be Together



Love Me Over Against



Playlist


Get a  playlist! Standalone player Get  Ringtones

Relax, enjoy the smoothest male vocalist to ever hit the country scene.

Monte

Sunday, May 23, 2010

When the world presses in, to whom do we turn?

First published, Open Salon,Tuesday, May 11, 2010


depression


Anne Cutri produced one of her best psalms today. You can read it here:

http://open.salon.com/blog/anne_cutri/2010/05/11/hold_fast_the_words_of_saint_clare_of_assisi

I commented, "Indeed, Anne. Indeed. This is one of your best. I have read it a dozen times and each time I find more meaning hidden in it. I am not sure, but I believe because it has happened to me, that at times when we are pressed the most we do our best work. We have to dig down for our best thoughts and intentions, if for no other reason than to avoid spiraling into the darkness and out of His light -- and ultimately in so doing we come close to the core that holds us together; to the values that anchor our reality. You are doing that. I am proud of you."

I have been spending a bit more time here lately, reading, not doing any original writing. And I have watched more than a few of you dear friends struggle with the burdens of life as they bear down on your shoulders. Many of you have shared those burdens, and I hope that in so doing you have found some succor in the kind comments of those of us who care enough to say that we care.

What I have noticed is that in the midst of the pain, whatever the source, most of the writers have reached down into a place in themselves where their basic values lie. The pain is a great enemy, and great enemies cannot be fought with commonplace platitudes, or shrugged off as just another headache. When it threatens to force is into a fetal position in bed, bereft of any relief, then we must fight it with our core beliefs.

Those who succeed are those who have those values in the first place, no matter how far they may have strayed from them since they learned them. They are those who have already answered the question "To whom can I turn now?" And the answer is that we turn to someone beyond the pain, someone who has mastered it and who understands it.

We turn to God, or Allah, or a higher power, the life force, the universe, the One, or, in Otto's wonderful phrase, the "Other." It matters not what we call that force, that power, that One in whom we move and have our being. What matters is that we HAVE the Other to whom we turn.

And in that turning, it seems clear to me, we do two important things.

First, we realize that the answers are not to be found in consulting ourselves. We are out of answers. If we were not, we would not make that turn. We do not do it casually. We do it because there is no where else to turn.

Second, we realize that we cannot create our own future. Like Sarah, we are now barren, beaten down, our dreams shattered. And we cannot even imagine a future for ourselves worth living. Without answers we do a wondrous thing: we admit our powerlessness. We surrender.

And, ironically, it is in the surrender that we find strength and peace. In the surrender we find the One who cares, the One who offers love and hope where we before had none.

I do not know why that works. But I know that it does. I also know that when we finally crawl out from the darkness we have pulled over our heads we may quickly forget how we got out. We may even think that "we did it ourselves."

We are vain creatures, we humans, and love to take credit for our own lives. Like Abraham and Sarah we are quick to prove that we are really in control and we forget the Promise, forget who got us out of the darkness, who gave us those values that allowed us to survive our toughest tests.

The wonder of it all is that the One will be there for us over and over as we stumble our way through life. The One will never say, "Well, I helped you before and you gave me no credit, so the next time you are on your own."

No. The One will say, "You are my beloved, my child, the love of my being, and I will always be with you, ready to hold you to my breast and stroke your hair, to let you know in your darkest nights that nothing you do can separate you from my love for you."

There is pain all around us. The imperfect world bears in on us and brings us troubles we believe are beyond the bearing. But as I watch and read and pray for you I see brighter days ahead for those who look beyond yourselves for the answers that we do not have within us.

St. Augustine wrote:

"Great art thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is thy power, and infinite is thy wisdom." And man desires to praise thee, for he is a part of thy creation; he bears his mortality about with him and carries the evidence of his sin and the proof that thou dost resist the proud. Still he desires to praise thee, this man who is only a small part of thy creation. Thou hast prompted him, that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee."

Monte


Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Appearances of the Risen Christ (5 of 5); Luke; 2010



resurrectionappearance3



Related posts in this series on Resurrection Faith may be found in the column to the left of this page under The Christian Calendar Series. This essay originally appeared here in May, 2009 and has been edited for 2010.

Introduction to this Final Post in this Series

When we complete this look at Luke's account we will have studied is some detail all three of the accounts of the resurrection appearances in the synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. Synoptic means that they can be "viewed together." This is because both Matthew and Luke use Mark's earlier written Gospel as the foundation of their Gospels.

An Overview of Luke's Gospel Account

Like Matthew, Luke relies partly on Mark's account, but not as much as does Matthew. While Matthew basically expanded upon Mark's resurrection story, Luke shortens some of Mark's details, probably to make room for more of his own. Luke has stories that appear only in his Gospel and stories that appear in his Gospel and in Matthew's, but not in Mark..

Luke includes the story of the empty tomb, but modifies it substantially. He also adds an appearance by Jesus to the assembled disciples, along with some very tangible testimony that Jesus is indeed alive. But, unlike Matthew, he includes no appearance to the women near the tomb. Like Matthew, Luke includes a commissioning of the disciples for mission, but not so specific a one as in Matthew; and he completes his story with the ascension of Jesus into heaven, something we find only in Luke.

We also find, only in Luke, an enchanting and theologically significant encounter between the Lord and two dejected disciples on the road to Emmaus. This beautiful little novella is full of insight and heavily freighted with meaning, adding a dimension to the meaning of the "breaking of the bread" that has profound implications for the meaning of the Eucharist (Holy Communion).

Luke also does something else that is unique to his Gospel. All of the appearances, and even the Ascension, take place in and around Jerusalem, and nothing happens in Galilee. For Luke, Galilee was where Jesus began His work, but Jerusalem is where he finished it.

Since for Luke everything significant in the story of Jesus centers in Jerusalem, it is not surprising that, in the end, we find the disciples together, in Jerusalem, praying in the Temple continually and awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus has promised to send to them.

One final note on what you are going to read from now on. Luke is the most Christocentric (centered on Jesus) and theologically demanding of the three synoptic Gospels. Therefore there will be more discussion about how Luke's Gospel speaks to Christians. I will be talking about what Christians need to know and do once they understand what Luke is saying. In sum, I will be speaking more as a Christian theologian in this essay.

Luke's Account in Some Detail

With that background, let's look at Luke's account in a little more detail. Like the others, Luke begins at the empty tomb. Christian hope always begins at the empty tomb. Not that it "proves" anything of and by itself. After all, Matthew sought mightily to prove that there was no hoax and that the body was not stolen.

But the empty tomb was what the first witnesses saw. And what they saw they would later realize was the result of the resurrection. They saw that the tomb was empty, and they did not know why. The angels told them why, and Christian hope began right there, at the empty tomb; began as a simple hope that said, "Could it be true? O God, let it be true!"

And so, in Luke we see the women hurrying to the tomb on the third day, a larger group of women than reported in Mark and Matthew, but with the same principal woman, Mary Magdalene. And it is here, at the very beginning of Luke's account, that we see that the details among the Gospels continue to differ.

Luke says that the stone was already rolled away and that they actually go into the tomb, but do not find the body. It is only then, after they make this discovery for themselves, that the angels - yes, two angels, not one - appear and explain to them what happened.

And their explanation is different as well. The angels ask the women why they are looking for the living among the dead, and then state bluntly, "He is not here, He is risen." Then, rather than telling them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee as do the other Gospels, the angels say that they are to remember what Jesus told them while in Galilee: That he was to be handed over, be crucified, and on the third day to rise again.

Although they were terrified, this instruction to "remember" is followed, and they do remember. And, while unstated in the text, it is in the remembering of Jesus' promise that they gain self control and return to tell the disciples, and "all the rest."

The Reaction of the Other Followers to
the Report of the Women

Luke reports a larger group of followers; followers who are gathered, not scattered, after the crucifixion. These are followers who have remained in Jerusalem, and who will remain in Jerusalem throughout the initial post-resurrection period, well beyond the Ascension. This is markedly different than in either Mark or Matthew.

Also of interest is that the gathered followers did not believe the women. They thought the women's testimony to be "an idle tale." But Peter must have heard some truth in their witness, for Luke tells us that Peter, alone, ran back to the tomb, stooped and looked in, seeing only the clothes.

It does not lead Peter to immediate faith, but it does lead him to amazement. Later we hear that the Lord appeared personally to Peter; no doubt dispelling any doubt he had; and still later we have to assume that Peter was once again with the large assembled group to which the Lord appeared, but only after Christ appeared to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Thus Peter likely saw the Risen Lord on at least two separate occasions.

Think about Peter for a moment. He goes from faithful disciple to denial, to guilt and sorrow, to doubt, to hope, to believing witness, all in a matter of days. His faith journey is a microcosm of that of many of us.

The Story of the Two Disciples on the Road to Emmaus

Luke then moves from the empty tomb to the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. Most of you already know this story. It is one of the most beloved Christian Bible stories.

You will notice first that the two dejected disciples do not recognize Jesus right away. We are often like that. Jesus comes to us in many guises, but we do not often recognize him. We don't expect him and so we don't see him. I encourage Christians to open your eyes to the possibility that he is actually among you in your daily lives.

Second, Jesus tells them that they are foolish; not because they grieve his loss, or because they are slow to believe that he is risen, for they have little evidence of that at this point in the story. But he says that they are foolish for not believing what the prophets have already declared. In other words there was already all the information they needed in the Bible to understand Jesus' fate, had they only chosen to believe it.

Later, after Jesus removed himself from their midst, the Emmaus disciples realized the importance of what he had done in revealing the Scriptures to them. They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us."

Do we Christians burn with passion when we hear the Scriptures revealed? Or do we need signs and wonders? Perhaps we would do better by getting back to basics and learning what has lain in front of us for thousands of years: the word of God, his promises to us as laid out in the Bible. That issue is implicit in what Jesus says to these two dejected disciples. If a Christian would quench his or her thirst for faith, then each must spend time at the well. Yet most of us don't bother; and then we wonder why our faith fails us in times of trial.

So, what exactly did Jesus do with these two of small faith? He took them back to the basics, back to the source of truth. Listen: "Then, beginning with Moses and the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures." So too with Christians today. We need to hear the truth about Christ in the Scriptures if we have any hope of really understanding God's message to us.

How the story of Emmaus ties directly into
the liturgy of Holy Communion

Luke tells us that the identity of Jesus was finally realized by them in the breaking of the bread. "When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him."

While this scene is not as dramatic as the Last Supper in the Upper Room, it clearly has deep Eucharistic overtones and speaks directly to what can happen to Christians when we take Holy Communion together.

What Luke does with this story is to build a bridge between the command to "remember" Jesus in the bread and the wine of the Last Supper, and the possibility for us to "see" the Risen Christ in the breaking of the bread.

In other words, when Christians participate with open hearts in Holy Communion we have the opportunity to witness the Risen Christ in our midst; to be witnesses to him as the Son of the Living God without our having been one of the original witnesses to his appearances.

After Jesus leaves them, they return in excitement to Jerusalem and tell the others their extraordinary story, only to learn that the Lord had also appeared to Peter. And this beautiful little novella of faith ends on the note: "Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread."

The Risen Christ Appears to a Much Larger Group of Disciples

As the larger group is discussing these things, Jesus appears among them, saying "Peace be with you." Not surprisingly, they are startled and terrified, thinking he is a ghost. He asks them bluntly why are they frightened and why are they doubting! And then, with compassion on their doubting hearts, he tells them to look at his wounds, and even to touch him. And he reminds them that it is he himself and not a ghost.

Their reaction is one of joy and yet still of doubt; of disbelief and yet of wonder. Jesus recognizes their befuddlement and does yet another remarkable thing: He asks for something to eat! They give him a piece of fish and he eats it while they watch.

All of this detail is only in Luke's Gospel. These things are intended as Luke's testimony to both the witness of those original followers and to us, that Jesus was real, alive and resurrected. Apparently it worked for those original followers, because he now has their attention. And, as with the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus goes back to the basics, reminding them of what he told them before he died: that the Biblical prophecies about him had to be fulfilled.

Then, like on the road to Emmaus, He "opened their minds" and taught them, saying: "Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem."

And then he gave them the commission to do exactly that, telling them that they are witnesses to these things. In other words, their job is to testify to the truth that he is the Messiah, and to preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins. The mandate here in Luke is slightly different than the Great Commission in Matthew. Yet it covers much of the same ground. The point of both scenes is that Jesus appears to His followers and gives them a purpose, commissioning them to proclaim the Good News to the world!

He then instructs them to remain in Jerusalem and await the anointing of the Holy Spirit which He will send to them. Then, having completed His instructions to them, He leads them out to Bethany and blesses them. And, while He is blessing them, He is ascends into heaven. Luke is the only Gospel writer to describe the Ascension.

Concluding Thoughts on the Resurrection Appearances

And so we complete our look at the resurrection appearances in Mark, Matthew and Luke. While there are details that are different, there are more important similarities.

In all of the narratives someone is present who is described in very personal language as the Risen Christ, and that person is clearly the same Jesus of Nazareth who died on the Cross.

Further, that person is never described as a vision or as a dream, as something happening internal to the witness. Rather, the Risen Christ is always described as a being external to the witness; as an objective external reality, never as a subjective internal feeling.

In some cases the Risen Christ is not immediately identifiable to the witnesses. The Risen Christ is more than merely human, and clearly has powers far beyond those of mere mortals. Yet, the Risen Christ is always correctly identified as Jesus; is called "Lord;" and is worshiped.

And finally, the Risen Christ always issues a commission to discipleship and mission. And that mission is always universal in scope and clear in mission: to call people to faith.

The Abuse of the Christian Mission

The abuse of the commission to call people to faith in his name has caused much trouble through the centuries, when zealots have used that call to bludgeon those who did not answer that call. Christianity has much to account for and to ask forgiveness for, when the name of Christ has been used as an excuse for evil.

But there is nothing in the words of Christ or in the Bible describing a Christ that tells his followers to use his name to commit evil upon others. That his name has been used as an excuse for inflicting pain and death on others cannot and should not be denied. But that Jesus always spoke first of peace, brotherhood, hope, love, charity and sacrifice as the correct call for his disciples cannot be denied either.

Nor should we deny that throughout history there have been Christians who have spoken the truth to those who have abused Christ's name and his commandments, both within and without the Church. Many of those good Christians paid the highest price for that speaking of the truth to assembled Christian power.

And those of us who believe that Christ abhors the abuse of his name and speak out against such abuse now and in the future may well have to pay for speaking out. But the Gospel flame will forever burn in the hearts of those who know that Jesus intended his followers to witness to his love.

For, most of all, in all of the Gospels the Risen Lord always offers a promise of hope and love to others far removed from the original disciples and witnesses. That is the very essence of the witness that his followers are to share with others, even to the ends of the earth and to the end of the age.

May God bless you all.

Monte

Original post: 1145 page views 2010 01 18


Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Appearances of the Risen Christ (4 of 5); Matthew; 2010

Originally published on Open Salon, MAY 3, 2010 2:31PM

resurrectionappearance3

This essay originally appeared here in May, 2009 and has been extensively edited for 2010.

A Review of Mark's Handling of the Resurrection Appearances

Mark says nothing about specific resurrection appearances. Instead, he essentially repeats the kerygma, the proclamation, of the earliest Church, as first recorded by St. Paul in First Corinthians 15: 1-11.

In Mark a proclamation of resurrection faith is stated within the empty tomb. There, an angel says that Jesus is not in the tomb; that he has been raised, and is going ahead of Peter and the disciples to Galilee where they will see him.

This speech by the angel is a divine explanation of the meaning of the empty tomb. But angels aren't humans and and human reaction is not necessarily one of casual acceptance. Rather, Mark records that the women to whom the angel speaks are simply terrified and flee from the tomb in amazement, and tell no one!

There, on that strange note, Mark ends his Gospel!

I believe that Mark intentionally ends his Gospel this way. Mark wants each individual reader to make his or her own decision about who Jesus is. Mark would have us look at the evidence He provides in his Gospel and decide without the comfort of human testimony. Mark demands that we have faith based on the word of Jesus, and that of an angel after he had risen.

But not many are blessed with such trusting faith. And so, without realizing it, Mark lays the groundwork, via the statement of the angel in the empty tomb, for the later Gospel writers, who do include specific descriptions by eye-witnesses to the appearances of the Risen Lord. The three later Gospel writers tell us "what happened" after Mark's gospel ends.

Matthew's Account Differs Greatly from Mark's

Matthew, who wrote decades after Mark, is the Gospel writer who adheres closest to Mark's story, building his entire narrative on Mark's Gospel, but expanding it greatly and adding a lot of other material as well.

Mark wrote primarily for a gentile audience. Matthew, on the other hand, is the most "Jewish" of the Gospel writers and his small church was a Jewish sect within a Jewish world. As such, Matthew knew first hand the harsh accusations of the Jewish leadership and the condemnations of orthodox Jews against the upstart Christian sect within Judaism.

The hardest accusation of all was that the resurrection was faked by the disciples. Thus Matthew is interested in telling details of the story that Mark chose not to tell; or, perhaps, did not even know.

In any case, Matthew reports two separate appearances by the Risen Lord, the first immediately outside of the tomb in Jerusalem and the second later appearance on the mountain in Galilee, where the disciples worship him, yet some doubt.

It is there on that mountain in Galilee where the Risen Christ gives them what we know as "The Great Commission." We'll come back to these two scenes in a moment, but first, let's look at something else that Matthew reports of which that Mark says nothing.

Matthew tells the story of what happened at the tomb quite differently than does Mark. Matthew weaves into the story of the death of Jesus the undoubtedly true idea that the Jewish leaders were afraid that Jesus' followers would fake his resurrection.

Thus in Matthew we learn that the Chief Priests and the Pharisees go to Pilot and tell of an alleged plot by the Christians to steal the body and to claim that Jesus was raised. Pilate, in turn, tells them to place guards at the tomb to keep that from happening and to "secure" the tomb.

They do; and we are told that the guards "seal" the tomb. This extra caution is to no avail, and Matthew describes a far more dramatic scene at the time of the resurrection than Mark reported. Matthew tells us that the two Marys go to the tomb at dawn on Sunday - and everything goes crazy!

There is an earthquake; an angel descends from heaven and rolls away the stone and sits on it! The guards shake in fear and then go catatonic. And, in typical angelic fashion the angel tells the women not to be afraid!

Then the angel proceeds to tell them exactly what the angel in Mark told them. And, the women do not run away in terror, although this scene is far more terrifying than that depicted by Mark, but leave in both fear and "great joy", running to tell the disciples!

To say the least, that is different than Mark's report. But then it gets even more different, for Jesus suddenly appears before them, saying simply, "Greetings!" Matthew tells us that they are not afraid of him, or of him having appeared to them; but rather, that they come to him; fall at his feet, worshiping him.

He, like the angel, tells them not to be afraid, but to go tell the brothers to meet him in Galilee. Thus, in Matthew, we see not only that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee, as he promised, but that he first meets the women in Jerusalem, reassuring them of the truth of what the angel had spoken.

Why does Matthew Expand on Mark and add new material?

In the first place Matthew's community has entirely different stories that have been handed down within it than the stories told in Mark's community. In addition, Matthew is determined to undermine any idea that the followers of Jesus had stolen the body. Matthew highlights God's heavenly power: the earthquake, the angel, the angelic rolling away of the sealed stone from the tomb, and the trance placed on the guards. All of these actions are to indicate that Jesus being gone from the tomb has nothing whatsoever to do with human mischief, and everything to do with God's divine intervention.

And, to top it off, in case there are any who still think that the dead Jesus has been carried off; we see a very alive Jesus who is actually called "Jesus" not "Lord." In other words Matthew makes it clear that this is the same Jesus who was dead that we now see speaking calmly to the women.

Whatever lapses Matthew found in Mark's account which he thought would allow the claim of the Jewish leadership that the body was stolen, are completely covered here by Matthew's detailed defense of what happened.

What Matthew is doing here is trying to turn the tables on the accusers: arguing, in effect, that the hoax is not the resurrection, but rather the real hoax is the attempt by the Jewish leadership to cover up the resurrection!

So Matthew reports that the guards awakened from their catatonic state and went to the chief priests and told them what happened. Not content to let the truth prevail, the priests then bribed the guards with a large sum of money and told them to lie about what really happened! Listen: "You must say, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.'"

Matthew says that the guards agreed, and took the money; and that "to this day" -- meaning when Matthew was writing his Gospel some 30 years later -- this lie still was circulating among the Jewish leadership.

Thus we see Matthew taking head-on the argument against the truth of the resurrection. Matthew becomes then the first great Gospel apologist (defender) for the Good News of Christ.

Why Matthew Admits that "Some Doubted"

Matthew ends his Gospel on a much more positive note. The eleven remaining disciples, less Judas, go to the mountain in Galilee to which Jesus directed them. Matthew is unclear here as he never says when or how Jesus told them to go to a mountain, rather than just to go to Galilee. In any case they go there and see him and they worship him.

Interestingly, Matthew admits that "some doubted." This is undoubtedly reported correctly because Matthew would be very reluctant to put that in had it not been a key part of the testimony that was passed forward to him. Our text implies that some of Jesus' own disciples doubted, even after seeing him, since there is no indication that anyone other than the disciples was on the mountain top, although "disciples" can include many followers other than the original twelve, and we know that Jesus had a large group of followers when he entered Jerusalem.

This idea was so repugnant to later redactors that some translations say that "others" doubted, implying that there were others on the mountain who saw Jesus, and those who doubted were not followers. Which may be true, but the text does not support it. The harder translation to swallow, that even after seeing him some of his own disciples doubted, is more likely correct.

Both Mark's and Matthew's Gospels are full of times when the disciples did not understand, and often doubted, both what Jesus was doing and what he said, including that he must die and be raised.


While we might wish that all of us were of one convinced mind on all important matters of the faith, the truth is that we are not. We are all individuals and are at different places in our own faith journeys. And each of us go through personal periods of doubt. I am comfortable with that as you know. I believe that doubt is a normal experience of faith development.

But many people are not comfortable with any doubt, including their own. You will have to make up your own minds, however, because there is no way to confirm the text.

What is clear is that when you read differing accounts of things that happened long ago, the logical thing to do is to accept the account that would be the hardest for the writer to accept, but could not leave out since it was part of the story as handed down.

Matthew's Account of the Giving of the "Great Commission"

What is far more important, however, than the question of who doubted that the Risen Lord was indeed risen was the instruction he gave them. We now call that instruction "The Great Commission."

The Great Commission is the basis for the mission of the Church, and is literally Christ's own instruction about what his disciples are to be doing with our lives. The fact that lay Christians most often do not do what he instructs us can be disheartening to those of us who like to think that we all should be trying to live as Christ would have us live. Regardless of how we respond to it, his message is clear and unequivocal.

Jesus' last words before his ascension are:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Christ is clear. And it is equally clear that his resurrection was for the purpose of reestablishing relationship with us, and, through Christian ministry, with all humankind.

After he was risen Jesus said very little to us that is recorded in the Bible. This is by far the clearest message that the Risen Christ sends to those who call themselves Christians.

Sadly, very few lay people in the Church pay much attention to me when I tell them that the Great Commission is what we should be doing with our lives. It is, they tell me, what we hire pastors and missionaries to do. But that is only partly true.

When I was a pastor I hated to be the one to tell them, they were wrong to think that the commandment of Great Commission could be foisted off on paid staff. The truth is that there is nothing a Christian can do in his or her day to day life that is more important than trying to fulfill the Great Commission.

The Abuse of the Great Commission
and What Christians Should be Doing Instead

I am painfully aware of the fact that the Great Commission has been abused countless times when Christians have tried to cram their faith down people's throats. But the mission is to create disciples, then to teach those disciples to obey the teachings of Christ. It is not to force, coerce, intimidate or insist upon making disciples of people who have no interest in the Christian message.

Christians are to offer the message of Jesus by teaching; offering what Jesus said and did during his ministry on earth as an example for all humanity. That is a far cry from the fervent proselytizing and "in your face" demanding of faith that has gone on over the centuries, and continues to this day.

Yet, ironically, that Christ wants lay people to do anything at all about sharing the faith is not a comfortable idea to most modern Christians. But at the very least Christians can show the way to Christ by the examples of how they live their lives. The best evangelism is living a godly life.

They can invite people to "come and see" what Christians do, how they worship, what they get out of being followers of the Way, which is what Jesus did at the beginning of his ministry. They can be warm, open, friendly and loving to those who do come and see. Perhaps those seekers will decide that they want some of that love, compassion, caring and learning that they see when they visit our churches.


Next, in the final post in this series, we'll look at Luke's story of the resurrection appearances.

God bless you.

Monte

Original post: 1312 page views as of 2010 05 02

Contrarian Thoughts about Mother's Day

I first posted a version of this essay on May 9, 2009. The response was large and quite a bit of previously layered over feeling was shared by the commenters. I think that is all to the good. Sometimes we stuff in things that we do not want to deal with, and while not always so, bringing them to the light can be an important, if difficult, way of finally sorting out some issues that have haunted us.

For many of us Mother's day, and Father's Day for that matter, are difficult times. And, far too often, they are times when the society, our families, and, yes, our churches, are blissfully unaware of the problems our "celebration" of these days cause for people we otherwise love and would never think of hurting.

This post has been extensively edited for this year to take into account the comments on it posted last year. If you have not yet read it I urge you to do so. If you read it last year I urge you to read it again to remind yourself of the need to be aware of and sensitive to the feelings of those who do not fit the stereotype of those who see Mother's Day as a time of great joy.

Your feedback and comments are welcomed, and can be an important part of the discussion I think that we owe ourselves as we seek to sort out the issues these "holidays" raise.


As is her habit, on Friday Sue will fly out to St. Louis to see her Mom and siblings on Mother's Day. I will be a bachelor with three "cat kids" for three long days and nights, which will seen like an eternity after a few hours. I can't figure out who will be happier when she returns, me or the cats.

Since Sue is the glue that holds things together around here she is missed as soon as I can't find something that "goes missing." It really isn't missing, of course. It is just filed away in some code that I can't break. Its a man thing.

She loves to see her Mom and her sisters and she has a good time every time she goes. And I am very glad that she does it.

Sue and I don't have any children together. She can't, and I already had three grown children when we married. So the cats are our "kids." That works out well for us, but is not everybody's cup of tea. I always figure that Sue deserves some special attention at Mother's Day and so I am really happy that she spends it with her mother.

In the past, before she started the ritual of going to visit her mother in St. Louis on Mother's Day, I was also happy when she has picked an older friend to be her companion at the "Mother-Daughter" or "Mother's Day" banquets at the churches we served. She always picked someone who did not have any children, or whose children could not visit their mother.

Not many women are as courageous as my wife and would not feel comfortable "crashing" the banquet. I am not so sure how comfortable Sue was doing so, but I know she was trying to make a point about the day, without saying a word.

As a pastor I always insisted that the Mother's Day recognition in church be about all the women in the church, not just the ones who were actually mothers. That made sense to me. Why should the women without children be left out of the recognition and the small gifts that the children hand out to the "mothers" in the congregation?

Many of the single women or married childless women would come and thank me for including them. But you would be surprised, at least I was, at how many people would come to me and tell me that they resented extending the Mother's Day recognition to those who were not mothers.

I was always miffed at their insensitivity. I often looked them straight in the eye and said something like, "You know, don't you, Harriet, that Mother's Day is not a church related event? In some churches they ignore it."

And there are always small children and teenagers at such communal celebrations who have no mothers, whose mothers have died, or have left the home, and will not visit them, who want nothing to do with their children. And there are children there whose mothers treat them terribly. What about the feelings of those children?

So if we are going to celebrate Mother's Day we should recognize all women and not be so insensitive that we exclude women who have not had children. Ditto with Father's Day. And we should be sensitive to the feelings of the children who are not having a joyous childhood. It is easy to see who we honor and why, all the while forgetting who we ignore and hurt unintentionally.


The truth is that there will be a lot of people reading this post, and the many Mother's Day tribute posts which will show up here in the coming days, who have very bad memories of the way they were treated by their mothers and/or fathers. I happen to be one who has very mixed memories of my mother, and they are mostly negative.

I would be lying if I said that I loved her in the way that I know many of you love your moms. For decades I tried to pretend that I loved her like that, wondered what was wrong with me when I didn't, and kept trying to rewrite history to make her fit into the idealized mother that we are supposed to have.

The truth is that my mother, on occasion, could and did smother me with love. But many more times she beat me, hit me with any weapon that was close, pulled my hair, washed my mouth out with soap, grounded me for weeks on end for the slightest reason, knocked me down, and locked me in my bedroom.

More times than I can count she grabbed me by the hair, pulled me into my bedroom, slammed the door and made me suffer by saying "Wait 'til your Dad gets home and he will show you that I mean what I say!" And in terror I would wait until Dad came home, be called into the living room and she would scream at him about all the evil things I had done that day. Dad would try to talk her out of the spanking but she would insist that he take off his belt and spank me with it.

So I would have to lean over a chair and he would hit me with his belt until she said to stop. And if he didn't hit hard enough or long enough to satisfy her she would scream at him to hit me harder. If that didn't work she would rip the belt out of his hands and do it herself. I have always loved my step Dad. But, as a child growing up, I hated that he always gave in to her.

And there were many, many more ways that she manipulated the family and kept us all in fear. But as the oldest son by nine years I was the one she hurt the most.

I did not defend myself until the day she hit me in the face with a wooden coat hanger, cracked it, and went to hit me again. I grabbed her wrist and said, "never again." I was 17, and was thrown out the next day, but the damage was done during the time between my 6th year when she took me from my grandmother and my 17th year when I left.


It was not until just before my mother died, when she was 59, that I came to grips with my relationship with her. I finally recognized that she had her own demons to wrestle with and that she did the best she could given who she was.

Her best was not good enough, but I could not change that and finally accepted that fact and forgave her in my heart. So my personal devils were finally exorcized, at the age of 43. I wish I could have done it sooner, but at least I did it.

So, and this is important, this post is not about my continuing issues. It is about what I had to learn the hard way about closure and forgiveness. And it is in recognition that many people that we care about have not come to resolution and still have to deal with the pain they still feel on Mother's Day.

How do people who have little love for their mothers deal with this day, people who desperately want to remember shreds of the good times, because they are elusive in their memories, overwhelmed by the bad memories which are vivid to this day?

One thing I know is that for those who have few good memories of our mothers, or of our fathers, those who struggle to find some small remembrances of love and good times as we read all the really wonderful tribute pieces that are posted here about our mothers; well, for them it is hard to do.

They are happy that so many of their friends had good childhoods. They rejoice in that happiness. And, yes, they know that there were good things about their mothers. There really were. But when they are honest with themselves they would have to say that, on balance, the scales tip clearly toward the negative.

Most of these people are not jealous. Most are no longer wounded. Most are not frightened. We were all of those things during our childhood. And, yes, some are still. But even those of us who have made peace with our past, have come accept the reality of our childhood, and have moved on, are keenly aware that many have not yet been able to do that.

And that means that we are simply not part of the Mother's Day outpouring of love, and we will never be. The truth is that to say that we cherish our mothers would be lying.

So when some of your friends don't post tributes to their mothers this week, please try not to wonder why, or judge them. Be patient with them because none of us can get inside another person's mind. And the truth may be that they simply may have had a very different childhood that you had.

God bless the child, regardless of the memories.

Monte

Original posting: 1556 page views 2010 05 05