Driving Miss Livvy With Requested Additions Deletions Revisions and Corrections

The road to Perdition – aka yesterday’s trip to Chicago.

It all started with a change in plan. Granddaughter Livvy, 12, stayed with us for a little extra time while her parents and brother and sisters went to Kentucky to set up housekeeping. She was supposed to stay for a few more days than she did, but she missed her family terribly. She told this to another relative, who said something like, “Honey, we’ll get you a train ticket to go and join your family.”

Knowing what we know about human trafficking and sexual slavery, you can guess what the chances are that this was going to happen. The average age (at least, the best educated guess) of girls taken into slavery: 12.8 years. Livvy’s age: 12.3 years. No way were we going to send her unaccompanied on a train ride that lasted – how long? With how many connections? With how many layovers, for how long?

Ain’t happ’nin’, Cap’n. Not to our Livvy.

So, we called her parents at Fort Knox. They went to work on reserving a seat on a flight. They made the reservation, but when they called back, they asked if we could get Livvy to O’Hare Airport the following day. The flight would be non-stop, Chicago to Louisville, departing at 1:25 PM.

Sure, we said. It’ll be fun, we said.

So, Monday morning we left Davenport at about 7:45 AM – our merry band including Livvy’s Aunt Cheryl, Livvy’s cousin Logan, and me. And merrily we traversed Illinois on I-88, the Illinois Tollway. Well, we were merry until about 10:00.

We stopped for a break at the DeKalb Oasis. I got the kids some refreshment of their choice, then Cheryl and I had the kids sit in a seating area that was within our view while we got something at Starbuck’s. I mean, how busy could a Starbuck’s at an interstate oasis be at 10:00 on a Monday morning in DeKalb when Northern Illinois University is not in session? As it turns out, plenty busy. The Starbucks was training two new employees, and the two experienced employees that were doing the training took their breaks at the same time as each other while we were waiting. The customers in front of us looked very preppy, a bit self-important, and they had a list of things to order that was only slightly shorter than a weekly supply requisition for Fort Knox. And, they made some changes on the fly. Cheryl and I looked at Logan and Livvy, and they looked at us. They got bored, and neither kid handles boredom well. We looked again and they were moving around their table. By the time we got our order it was 10:30, and when we left the kids found a trash receptacle for their long-finished refreshment containers.

It’s 10:40 by the time we pull out of the oasis. If we want to get to O’Hare two hours before departure, we have to be there at 11:25. We have to drive fast. Really fast. Fortunately, from DeKalb all the way to the Tri-State, then all the way to O’Hare, everybody drives fast. Really fast. Speed limits signs exist only as evidence of someone’s sense of humor.

O’Hare is a big place. It seems that every time it has gotten bigger, they accommodate the extra space by adding another circle to the road around the terminals. By now, it’s one thing to enter the complex. Then, you drive in a circle – then another circle. The signs keep telling us that we’re on the right way to get to hourly parking, but the circle goes on. I think we spent as much time circling O’Hare as we did getting from DeKalb to O’Hare. But, we did eventually get to a sign telling us that, to park, turn left. We did, and we were on a parking ramp. Glory be! We parked in the first available spot. As we got on the elevator, we noticed that there were six levels. Each was named after a Chicago sports team – Blackhawks level, Bulls level. We were on Level 3 – White Sox level. Of all the damn things. . .

We got to a ticket counter that said “American Airlines,” and some attendants had no customers. Explanation, provided by one of the attendants: It really wasn’t American Airlines, no matter what the sign said. It was a counter for Japan Air Lines. We went to the counters that we were told to go to. “Are you really American Airlines?” “Yes!” “Thank you!” We provided information about Livvy’s reservation, only to find out that, while she had a reservation, she had no paid ticket. Issue with the credit card. Step away, call Mom and Dad. Becky answered. Fortunately, Becky could not see the expression on my face just then. Becky called American, got the issue taken care of. We got Livvy’s boarding pass. Off to the security check.

What you should know about Livvy. She is whip-smart, and looks it. She has decided (for now – that’s always the case for a 12-year-old) that she wants to be an author when she grows up, and she just might have the ability to do it. She has a playful, feisty aspect, and is quite the showperson and comedienne. And she can make friends quickly. With all of that, it’s easy to forget that she is still a 12-year-old girl with a big, soft heart. In big, busy fast-moving O’Hare, she was a frightened and vulnerable 12-year-old girl. When Livvy is upset or frightened, her characteristic gesture is that she wraps her arms tightly around herself like she’s a little ball. Outside the TSA checkpoint, she wrapped. And started to cry.

Back to the American Airlines counter. It turns out that they can, if ID is provided, generate something that looks like a boarding pass, but isn’t, so if there is a minor travelling alone, a family member can accompany her into the concourse. The agent at American Airlines generated three of them, so Aunt Cheryl, Logan, and Papa (me) went into the concourse with Livvy. All is well.

UNTIL – we stopped for lunch before Livvy’s flight boarded. We went to a place called Cubs Bar and Grille. We placed our order about 12:40. The stated boarding time was 12:55, and the departure time was 1:25, so time was tight. We ordered three burgers and an order of wings. By 1:05 I knew we should get Livvy to the plane, and our food wasn’t there yet. Livvy never got her lunch. I gave her $10 and told her that if they sold food on the flight, she should get some. I walked her right up to the boarding ramp. She was OK then. She was boarding the plane; she wasn’t going to be left at O’Hare. Next stop – getting off the plane in Louisville, being greeted by Daddy.

The rest of us got our food at about 1:20 or so. Logan was in heaven. He has always had a fascination with big mechanical things – planes, trains. He has never been in an airport before, and has never even seen a plane on the ground. Now he’s sitting in a restaurant with big windows and a view of the runway at O’Hare Airport. Lots of planes on the ground, and planes taking off at the rate of about one per minute. Logan’s eyes have only now shrunk back to normal size.

When we left O’Hare, the exit to go from I-190 to the Tri-State is Exit 1D. Sorry, Livvy, that you missed it. Sorry that you missed it too, Kaitlin.

The trip home was uneventful. A flight from Chicago to Louisville is only in the air a little more than an hour, so Livvy was in Louisville and with her Daddy about the time we were passing the Sterling-Rock Falls exits. I hope it was a pleasant trip, and I know that Livvy is overjoyed to be home with family. I miss you already, and love you, and hope you always remember: We’re family too.

CORRECTON 1: I guess it was Chris who took care of the issue with the credit card company.

ADDITION 1: When Livvy got on the ground all she could talk about was the missed wings. Can no one in Kentucky do barbecue?

REVISION 1: I don't know yet if Livvy's been made aware that we took Exit 1D on the way out.

FURTHERMORE: We love you folks.

The theists and atheists debate. . .

. . .and I haven't a clue why. They really don't speak the same language.

I am in mind of a discussion between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Ken Ham is president of Answers In Genesis. He's a Young Earth Creationist. Bill Nye is, of course, the Science Guy. From their discussion it became evident that they were not speaking the same language. Nye, and science folks in general, ask the question, "What do the physical phenomena tell us? What is the best explanation for what we find?" The reply from the creationists: "We have evidence! We have Genesis!!" They sail on with this, either unaware of, or ignoring, two separate and, at some points, conflicting creation accounts in Genesis. Just to make it more interesting, there's a third creation account in the Bible, in the first chapter of the Gospel According to John.

One would think that, if the Bible were meant to present a unified idea of creation, the writers would have settled on just one. The writers of the biblical accounts were, of course, not equipped to do this. They weren't aware, as we are, of the fossil record. They did not have carbon dating available to them. So there are questions that science can examine. How to explain dinosaur fossils? How to explain that, in the fossil record, simplest organisms are the oldest, and the farthest down?

How do you have a discussion when the people discussing aren't speaking the same language? Ken Ham says his evidence is Genesis. That, however, is not evidence. It was a result of a tradition that did not have the scientific tools to explain creation.

Where a I in all this?

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth,

Of all things visible and invisible.

I do believe. Since the God in whom I believe is eternal, it matters not at all to me if God chose to use a Big Bang to start it all, if God chose to use geological processes that required billions of years, if life as we know it involved evolutionary processes. I'm not bothered at all by that. And this would imply the existence of an intelligent Designer. But I am fully aware that one cannot teach creationism, or its disguised cousin, intelligent design, as science. There's no science in them.

I believe in the existence of God. But neither I nor anyone else can prove such existence. On this topic I've said that I am far more Kierkegaard than I am Thomist. (Gee, I must be a terrible Catholic.)

Centuries ago St. Thomas Aquinas proposed five proofs for the existence of God. The best known is probably the Prime Mover argument. It sees creation as a chain of causes and effects, of movements thus created. Because this chain cannot be infinite, it has to have a beginning, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. That is God. The fallacy: what if the unmoved mover was a tiny particle of infinite heat and pressure that exploded? Is that particle God?

The evidence I see of God's existence are in nature, in the trees and flowers right around the house; in any AA meeting; in Church (when it's at its best. It's at its best often enough to keep my attention. It's not there all the time, though.) When I walk into any AA or NA meeting, I can point to a dozen walking, talking miracles, people who no longer had a life to speak of, and who have been given their lives back. I can't attribute that to a particle.

Be still, and know that I am God.

I pray daily. Sometimes, in the early morning silence of my front porch, I can almost hear, I can feel the interior movement.

Still, I can't prove in any scientific way the existence of God. The issue for those who would argue against the existence of God is, you can't prove your position, either.

For me, this is where Kierkegaard enters. He maintained that one can't prove the existence or non-existence of God. No matter how much evidence you compile for either position, it does not constitute proof.

Yes, there was a Mother Theresa, a Thomas Merton, a Daniel Berrigan, a Dorothy Day. Does this prove the existence of a God that intervenes for good in human life? No.

Yes, there was a Spanish Inquisition, and the Papacy was so degraded in the 9th century that it was referred to as a pornocracy, and the sexual abuse of children by priests was real. Yes, believers have insulted and dehumanized and demonized all who are not exactly the same way they are. Does this prove the non-existence of God? No.

There is a term, "Leap of faith." It's a Kierkegaard term. At some point one runs into the limits of what reason and evidence can provide. Eventually, one must make a decision - the decision is inescapable - and everyone faces that decision based on incomplete information. You decide t believe, and it's a decision of faith, and you know that. Or, you decide there is no God. That decision is also based on incomplete evidence, and it's also a decision of faith, although the atheists seem less aware that they have made such a decision.

I've made my decision:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,

Maker of heaven and earth,

Of all things visible and invisible.

 

Thanks for hanging out.

 

 

 

Addiction - Alcoholism II

In a previous post I wrote about the starting points of addiction. One who has a genetic predisposition, combined with some form of mental or emotional issue, is a prime candidate. There are those in the field who have gone so far as to say, "No genetics - no addiction."

With all of this, a working definition of addiction may be something like, "Use of a substance or behavior in the face of negative consequences." If there are no negative consequences, then there is no addiction. But, be careful here. Denial is a big part of addictive behavior, so the addict is not usually aware of the negative consequences, even as said consequences are destroying their lives.

It should be noted that the addiction process plays out in different ways in individuals. Those who work in the field view addictions through a number of prisms.

SUBSTANCE ADDICTION v. PROCESS ADDICTION

The nature of substance addiction would seem to be obvious: it's an addiction to some chemical. Alcohol and tobacco are probably the most common, and for adults they are legal and easy to obtain. Meth is not legal, but it is fairly easy to obtain. Heroin - cocaine - chocolate. Chocolate, y'say? If one has a compulsion to use it, and that one is diabetic, and that one can't stop it even in the face of escalating negative health consequences, then there is an addiction.

Ecstasy is one of the "club drugs", and the question about whether it is addictive is still out. Marijuana seems to have no inherent addictive qualities, but now we move to the second of these categories, "process addiction."

Process addiction is habitual repetition of some action. The action ay involve a substance, or it may not, but the substance is not the point of the addiction. While marijuana has no inherently narcotic chemical, if one is in the habit of firing up some herb at, say, two in the afternoon, and starts blowing off appointments and putting relationships at risk to light up at two every afternoon, then, although there is no chemical addiction, there is, most certainly, an addiction.

Running? Jogging? It is, to be sure, a process. Can it be addictive? If so, could we argue that there is such a thing as a good addiction? My answer would be yes, and no.

Running, or other types of exercise, is not inherently addictive. It would be difficult to think of a negative health consequence that comes from running. But, there is a type of runner, and I'm guessing you've seen them. They're everywhere. If it's a nice, 55 degree day, they're out in their Spandex and running shoes on their route. If it's 35 degrees and there is a wind-driven rain, they're still out on the same route, same Spandex. . .if it's 95 degrees, same route, same Spandex. No trainer in the world, no doctor around would recommend running is such adverse conditions. Maybe Stephen Covey would, but he wrote a lot of stuff on subjects about which he knew nothing. There are indoor tracks around, there are indoor malls to walk, but not for these people. They must do the same route same time every day, or they think their day is a failure, despite the obvious health risk to which they subject themselves. That's addiction.

Eating disorders present special issues. Those addicted to alcohol or meth can quit, and if they would control their addiction, they must quit. But no one can just stop eating. Rethinking one's relationship with food is critical.

And, no, there is no good addiction. The reason is that addicts cross the line into addiction at the point where they have surrendered their freedom to do something or to  not do it.

More on the subject later. A second prism is attraction v. aversion addictions. Thanks for hanging out!

There are rules written, and rules uwritten. . .

Continuing the theme from yesterday, from John Lennon's Imagine:

. . .and no religion, too.

Lennon's position on the existence of God would have been either agnostic or atheist, depending on which day he was asked. (I think his view would be "agnostic, leaning toward atheist," but any summary of an individual as complex as Lennon risks oversimplification.) In this passage, I think he was presenting a view of a world in which religion is not used as an excuse or a tool for one person or group killing another person or group. In Lennon's time, that would have included Protestants vs. Catholics in Northern Ireland, Muslims vs. Jews in the Middle East, among others. In almost every instance, religion has been used as an excuse - a chosen mask for the real reason for the killing, which is more material - a fight for land, or for oil, or money. Consider the persecutions of the Latter-day Saints in Missouri and Illinois - was it because of the religious differences, or because, in each instance, the Mormons had become large landholders and vulnerable targets? The Jewish view of Christians is varied. Some Jews are rather proud that Jesus was one of them. Others hold to the view that Jesus' followers have spilled more innocent Jewish blood than any other group or individual.


Are they wrong in saying that? Sadly. . .


There's another interpretation of this. The word "religion" means rules. Imagine there are no religious rules.


That's a bit hard to deal with. I had a friend who made a statement: "Love Jesus. Hate religion" - i.e., hate rules. I think this person was referring to all the nonsense rules that some folks would impose. I'm not fond of those, either. But you can't separate Jesus from rules. Jesus was a Jew, and from a family that was quite observant. And Judaism, in the Torah, has rules. Lots of rules. Jesus reinterpreted many, butt he ditched none. There are rules about what you may and may not eat. There are rules about how priests are to dress when presiding over ceremonies. There are rules about sex and divorce. There are rules about how to handle it when you have to urinate or defecate in the middle of the night.


You shall have a  designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. (Dt. 23:12-13)


Because the Lord your God travels with you, and you wouldn't want him stepping in it. Funny - I've never heard a sermon preached on that passage. If someone mentions that we are to observe every word of the Hebrew Scriptures as written, you may want to mention this. "Hey, man, you have a trowel, and when you have to go in the middle of the night you drive out of town, dig a hole. . .?"


And why the observance of the rules? It wasn't for health reasons. They knew nothing of the dangers of undercooked pork. If they did, they wouldn't have been big on beef or chicken, either. No - the reasons that the rules are observed is because that's what God said. That's it, and that's all. God said, and that's what you need to know.


In the Catholic church we have our rules and regs too. And sometimes, rules and regs lead us into legalisms. Example: When we attend Mass and take the Body and Blood of Christ (and if you don't think that the  wafer of unleavened bread and that cup of wine are the actual Body and Blood of Christ, why would you be Catholic?), it should be the first thing in your stomach that day. If you attend a Sunday morning Mass, no problem. In fact, society largely owes the delight of the Sunday brunch to our observing this. But, at some point we started having a vigil Mass on Saturday afternoon, late in the afternoon. Would this mean that you couldn't eat anything all day Saturday until the Mass at 5:00? The rule was adapted to the circumstance. Now, it's "Don't eat within an hour of the Mass." But there are legalisms with that, too. If Mass is at 5:00, the Eucharist isn't usually distributed right at 5:00; it would be about 5:35 or 5:40 before you receive the Host. So, can you eat right up until the time you leave home? This is the sort of thing that happens when you take a good rule and get legalistic in a detailed way. Most of us just don't eat within an hour of the scheduled Mass start time, but that's not written anywhere.


Many of our Protestant friends adhere to a saying Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the only normative source of truth. The problems with this position: 1) It discounts the role of the Holy Spirit and turns Scripture into a "paper Pope"; 2) the Scriptures themselves never say Sola Scriptura; this expression imposes an extra-Scriptural standard on the Scriptures.


I wear, usually, a polo shirt to church, with either jeans or a pair of semi-dressy slacks. The kids in my classes have noted that I'm kind of casual about this. I wore a suit and tie to their Confirmation Mass last spring, but they know that that's not me. One of them asked, "So next week you'll be back in jeans and Converse?" Yep. But there are churches I could go to that have no written dress code, but if I showed up there in my jeans and Converse and polo shirt, soon enough someone would feel obligated to advise me that the normal attire is shirt and tie, in honor to the Lord.


Many churches and denominations forbid the use of alcohol. When asked about Jesus' use of wine, their reply is, "It was grape juice." Grape juice? Where do you get that?


Rabbi Hillel, who lived during a time of conflict between Hellenistic Jews and Hebraic Jews, had a conversation with one of the Hellenists. The student posed what he thought was an insurmountable challenge to the Rabbi: "If you can recite the entire Torah while standing on one foot, I will study Torah." I can only imagine the student's shock when Rabbi Hillel stood on one foot. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to others. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary.


"Now go study."


There's the rule and reg.

The children displaced

Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do.

I saw an almost miraculous change last week. A good friend of mine, in answer to a question that I posed about immigration reform, asked a question: "What if we just quit worrying about nationalism and borders? Free access!" (I'm paraphrasing.) That was quite a change from where she was some years ago when, as part of a discussion she asked her uncle, who had been in law enforcement in Arizona for a lot of years, what he thought should be done with "illegal aliens": "Give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em high!" And she wasn't out of sympathy with that. Now, it's "Let's not worry about borders so much."






I agree. She has always stated that she's a libertarian. I have always maintained that, no matter how libertarian one claims to be, there are always holes in one's libertarianism. That was hers, and she has done nicely about fixing it. No borders. . .hmmmmm. . .




Even with all that, we are and have been good friends. We disagree on much, but it is always civil, always issue-oriented, and never personal. For both of us the touchstones - the motivators - of our lives are faith and family, and that makes it all cool.






I'm not quite ready for the "no borders" thing, and it's really just a thought experiment. This whole discussion leads to thoughts about all those kids that have come across the border.




If you want to play the blame game there's lots to go around. As usual, the right wing talking heads get it wrong. To them, it's about the open door that the Obama administration has created and encouraged. They say this, innocent of any data, law or information, even anecdotal, and my response to this was a wide-eyed, "Really? You actually seriously think this? " I think they are saying this because of a mindset that everything can be blamed on Obama. "It's a rainy day in Seattle? Obama's fault!" There is some blame to be fixed on the administration for this - more later - but you can't say that the man called "The Deporter In Chief" has an open-door policy.




And, really, what does the blame game have to do with these kids?




One item where the blame belongs with the U.S. Administration: in 2009 there was a coup in Honduras. The government removed was a left-wing administration, and the coup had the (at least tacit) support of the U.S. administration which was, apparently afraid of another Hugo Chavez. So we supported a coup that removed an established, functioning government with - well, nothing really. There was a vacuum, and gang filled it. Gangs pressure these kids: "We know where you live, and you will do (whatever) for us. If you don't, we will kill your brother and father. Your sister looks like she'll be fun, and your mom just might be. Then we kill your mother, sell your sister." And the gangs could well do all this. Want to report to the police? The gangs own the police.




The gang violence has no limit, really; businesses pay tribute, and the gangs really don't care if your business has made money - you have to come up with their protection money or (see the threats of violence mentioned earlier.) Even city bus drivers have to pay tribute.




And so, folk in Honduras - and a couple of other Central American countries - make an incredibly difficult decision. They decide that the children have a better chance at a decent life by sending them to El Norte - the U.S. Surely those kids would be safer here, no? But Central America isn't on the U.S. border. The youngsters have to cross the length of Mexico to get here. Often the journey is on the tops of railroad cars, and gangs take over the railroad cars. Boys who don't comply risk being sliced and diced and dumped. Girls, compliant or not, risk being raped and or sold into sex slavery. The lucky ones who get to the U.S. are transported. The housing available is deplorable, but in fairness, we've been caught off guard by all of this. We have this huge influx, and no clue what to do with it.

Nothing to kill or die for. . .

Send them back? Just keep them in these putrid conditions?




I had thought and hoped that our hearts were bigger than that. Do you want to be the one who sends a 12-year-old girl into slavery? Do you want to send a 7-year-old boy to certain death?




I would love to say I have a solution. A real solution would involve expense, work and time. Since we are dealing with children, that last commodity is sorely lacking.




Most of all, it will involve us digging into our hearts more than we have before. We can solve this, and we can be an enormous - even life-saving - help. But we gotta wanna.

And no religion, too.

More about that tomorrow.

Who IS this Jesus?

During the school year I have been teaching a Christian Education class at St. Mary's. My classes have consisted of middle schoolers (most of my 2012-13 class were seventh and eighth graders) and high schoolers (all of my 2013-14 class.) I have no clue who I'll be teaching next year, and I won't know until, probably, the week before class starts. It requires a lot of energy and preparation to teach, and my reading slows during the school year. I use summers to do some intellectual and spiritual restocking. I pray daily all year long. I say a Rosary daily, I say the Liturgy of the Hours, and I pray for the needs of friends and family. I do some reading during the school year, but not as much as I do during the summer.

Last year I frequently asked the class the question that is the title of this post: "Who IS this Jesus Christ?" One of the messages I left my students with was that we should all ask ourselves this question every day, and that we should not settle for the formulaic answers. "Son of God and Son of Man". . ."Truly God, fully human". . .we know all that. What we should ask is, "Who is this Jesus Christ TO ME?"

Just a (not-so-side) note: A faith that cannot withstand, and/or will not tolerate questioning or doubts, is no faith at all. A comprehended God is no God.

That's been the focus of my reading this summer. The book I started with was published this year: Jesus, a Pilgrimage, by James Martin, S.J. The book discusses Martin's thought about Jesus as it developed from his trip to the Holy Land. It's well worth the time it takes to read it. Most of the material in this post is from this book. Martin refers to other works, and I am now reading one of these: A Marginal Jew, by John P. Meier. I am reading Volume 1. Characteristic of literature with this academic orientation, the first part of the work is largely taken up with source material and methodology, and I'm still in that material.

I have purchased two other books: Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, and The Historical Jesus, by Crossan. I will be reading The New Testament World: Insights From Cultural Anthropology by Bruce Malina. I will also be studying The Gospel According to Mark fairly intensely. When I introduce students to The Bible, Mark is always my starting point, and when we look at pericopes in Mark, it's always with the question, "Who is this Jesus Christ?" in mind.

Who is this Jesus Christ?

Martin has an interest in the part of Jesus' life that is not presented in the Gospels. Luke devotes much space to the birth of Jesus, mostly from Mary's point of view. Matthew gives the birth of Jesus some space, and mostly from Joseph's viewpoint. Mark says nothing about it at all. Luke presents some events that are not mentioned in the other Gospels. One is the presentation of the infant Jesus to the Lord in the temple in Jerusalem. Subsequently it is said that Joseph, Mary and Jesus went to the temple every year. This would mark them as being very observant of their Jewish faith. Nazareth is not particularly close to Jerusalem; there were no highways, both Nazareth and Jerusalem are in hilly country, and much of the journey was on foot. It would not have been by the shortest available route (probably). Between Nazareth and Jerusalem was Samaria, and Jews of the time would travel a considerable distance out of their way to avoid going through Samaria (in later life Jesus showed none of the cultural animus toward Samaritans. Jesus' talking to a Samaritan woman at the well would have been utterly shocking at the time, both because she was a woman, and because she was a Samaritan. But then Jesus spoke to women with respect. Unheard of.)   Not everyone made that trip every year, but Mary and Joseph did.

On one of those journeys, when Jesus was twelve, when Mary and Joseph left Jerusalem to go home, they were a day into their journey when they discovered that they'd forgotten something: Jesus. This was not as shocking as it might seem. The travel would have been in a group, and they may well have thought that their son was with other family members in the caravan. They had to retrace their steps, and found their son in the temple.

All sources are silent about Jesus' life between infancy narratives and the incident at the temple. They are almost completely silent from the incident at age twelve to the beginning of his public ministry at about age thirty. For the interim period, only Luke has anything to say, and it's not much: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor."

What would his teenage and early adult years have been like? Nazareth was in Galilee (think of Galilee as the state, Nazareth as the town.) The record indicates that Joseph was a carpenter, but it would not have been a carpenter that builds houses. Wood houses would have been all but nonexistent; there would not have been enough trees, and wood would have been much too expensive for most. The houses were small, built of stone or brick, with thatched roofs and floors of packed earth. Wood would have been used for the beams. The houses would have been organized as pods, a few of the houses arranged around a courtyard that would have been used for common usage - cooking, among other things. The town would consist of a number of these pods. While Galilee wasn't a backwater sort of province - just a few miles from Nazareth was a major city, Sepphoris - Nazareth was certainly a backwater town, with a population of maybe 200. Sepphoris was a major city of, maybe, 30,000. That city, and a lot of the rest of Galilee, had some significant building going on. It's not hard to conclude that Joseph found much of his work in those projects and, society being what it was, soon enough Jesus would have accompanied Joseph, and thus learned the craft.

And then the day came that Jesus, after his baptism, after his temptation, returned to Nazareth He went to the synagogue, and opened the scroll and began to read. There is considerable doubt that Nazareth, a poor town of maybe 200 people, could have afforded a building for their synagogue - very likely, they met in the open air - and it's doubtful that they could have afforded a scroll of the Tanakh. Jesus may have been reading off a piece of paper. His being able to read at all would have been surprising. But, no matter. The text he read was about the deliverance of the Lord, and he then threw a grenade into the assembly: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

Do what?

Isn't this Joseph's kid? Isn't this the guy we'd see every morning, trudging off with his dad and his tools in a bag, trudging off to wherever? And he'd always come trudging back at night, bone tired? And he's the fulfillment of this scripture? Seriously?

And the question: Who IS this Jesus? This carpenter, son of a carpenter, who claims - THIS?!

Addiction, alcoholism - "I can quit anytime I want to"

There was a fellow in his 60s. He lay dying in a hospital bed. He maintained vehemently that he was no alcoholic - that he could have quit anytime he wanted.

He had gone through three families. But, he saw no reason to think that his drinking had interfered with his family relationships.

He had lost numerous jobs. He had started a business, and experienced some success. But that, too - gone. But - no, boozing was not an issue.

And, even in his hospital bed, he continued to deny that drinking was a problem - as he lay dying of cirrhosis. OK, drinking wasn't a problem for you. Staying sober was.

STEP ONE: Admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.

I'm Rick, and I'm alcoholic. I've heard the stories, and met some of the people. I have more familiarity with addiction than I ever wanted to have. I've lost friends. One of my alcoholic friends that is no longer with us died of AIDS. What - AIDS? The virus isn't transmitted by a bottle or glass? It is, however, transmitted by unprotected sex, and alcohol lowers inhibitions like few other things.

I'm limiting myself to alcohol in this post because it's the form of addiction with which I'm most familiar. It's been my battle. But the addictive process is the same, whatever the chosen addiction is - heroin, meth, tobacco.

The starting point is genetics. There remains little doubt that there is a genetic component in addiction. This shows in any number of types of studies, including separated twin studies. However, we really have not identified the gene, or the type of deficiency of that gene. Some studies seem to have gotten close. The genetic tie is strong enough that doctors have said "No genetics - no addiction."

If I were talking to someone who was considering that they may have an issue, I wouldn't bring this up. If the person with whom I was speaking could not think of any relative that showed the signs, I have provided a rationalization for their thinking that they do not really have a problem. But, they may think they have no family issues when, in fact, their family is shot through. This is a subject that, even within family, is often just not talked about. Just. Not. Talked. About. Seems odd - alcoholism is a condition, just like cancer is a condition, just as diabetes is a condition. But, if Uncle Bob dies of cancer, hiss family will discuss all the gruesome details of the treatment, and will freely discuss the cause: "You know, all those years he smoked like a potbelly stove." (Never mind that smoking is an addiction, too.) But, if Uncle Charlie dies of cirrhosis:"Well, you know he was really sick."

Genetics is the one factor no one can change, and if the alcoholism of family members is off-limits, then anyone in the family is defenseless.

If there is a genetic predisposition (and, remember, genetics is not destiny), then frequently item number two is some sort of mental illness. Counselors and treatment facilities often refer to "dual diagnosis" - the discussion of what issues confront the patient besides alcoholism. My issue is depression. I know well the feeling of being sucked into a black hole from which I see no escape. A lot of alcoholics don't even like the taste of the stuff, but we think that, at first, the booze served a useful purpose. It was anesthetic.

Depression is not the only condition that can lead to seeking some sort of chemical relief. We have a lot of bipolars among us, and quite a few social anxiety disorders. PTSD is not an area of my expertise, but I would not be surprised to find out there's a link between somebody's being a combat veteran and that person's being an addict.

I don't want these posts to get too long, so I'll resume the topic in subsequent posts. But there are two points that I would stress if I were making public presentations about this (and I have):

• If you are a youngster, the only drink that you can be sure that you can control is your first one. After that, who knows? Some alcoholics develop their addiction over years. Others are gone with the first drink. You don't know which one you are.

• If you already have this issue, DO NOT SURRENDER. Alcoholics have a huge suicide rate. So do their families. But - THERE IS HELP, AND THERE IS HOPE. But you have to accept it.

And make as your mantra: One Day At a Time.

STEP TWO: Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.