Category Archives: Issue 1

The Real Relationship Between Christianity and Faith

Tanner Rotering

In Western culture, science is often viewed as the most authoritative standard for determining truth available to mankind.  According to some modern scientists, reality is that which can be perceived, that which is tangible and material, and nothing else.  Experimentation and “objective” observation, they will say, is the only way that we can appropriately perceive reality; human reason is the only tool for interpreting such perceptions.  A Christian, however, knows that such claims are not accurate.  Science is not the Christian’s only tool for determining truth, and human reasoning is not as reliable as some would like to think that it is.  The foundation upon which Christianity stands is a strong faith in God as understood through His inerrant word, the Bible.  In order for a Christian to appropriately discern between truth and falsehood, he must understand what role science plays in his life in relation to his faith.  If he does not understand this delicate relationship, he will easily waver in his faith and fall into many snares, giving the devil a foothold in his heart and in his mind.

So, what role should science play in the mind of the modern-day Christian?  In order to answer this question, one must understand what science is and how it should be used.  Merriam-Webster’’ Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition defines science as “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method” or as “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.”1  Because the physical world was created by God and because God set its phenomena into place, science can help us gain a better appreciation for the majesty and divine attributes of God.  Romans 1: 20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”  Psalm 19:1-2 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands.  Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”  These verses clearly show how the natural world is evidence of the creator and how the natural world tells us about his “invisible qualities.”

Science is not just a tool for providing evidence of the supernatural, however.  Because God created the world with order, a systematic study of His creation can lead to a deeper understanding of how to utilize the natural order to help improve the quality of life for mankind.  Genesis 1:14-15 is one example of how God created the natural world with order.  “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.’  And it was so.”  God clearly intended for man to understand the world around him as is evidenced by this reference to the lights in the expanse of the sky.  By studying the world around them, men can improve the quality of life for all of mankind.  Technology has been used in the past to drastically improve quality of life in countless ways.  Technology is not inherently beneficial, but if used wisely for the benefit of mankind, it is a gift from God.

In addition to understanding what science is, a Christian must also have a firm understanding of what the Bible is, and what it means to have faith in God.  The Bible is a compilation of inspired books concerning God and His relationship to mankind.  The Bible relates the story of the Creation of the universe; the fall of man; the promise of the Savior; the history of Israel; the Prophecies about the Savior; Jesus’ birth, life, teachings, death, resurrection, and ascension; records of the early church; epistles from the apostles; and many other things.  All of this is not simply a compilation of things written by men, but a book written by God.  2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  2 Peter 1:21 says, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  Because Scripture is inspired by God, the omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient creator of the universe, it is infallible.  Nothing in the scriptures is deceptive, incorrect, or inaccurate, because God is never deceptive, incorrect, or inaccurate.  Because the Bible is God’s word, it is the ultimate authority, and the Christian must treat it as such.

Many critics will claim that the Bible as we know it today is a corrupted version of the original manuscripts.  This claim, however, is completely false.  Throughout the centuries, tedious care has been put into the transmission of the Bible.  The amount of textual variance between different manuscripts is extremely small and the variations are relatively insignificant.  In fact, no doctrinal issues arise from such minor variances.  The “Dead Sea Scrolls” is one unique piece of evidence for the faithful transmission of the Word of God.  These ancient Biblical manuscripts affirm that almost nothing has changed over the years concerning the content of the Bible.  We must trust God to preserve his Word for us, and we can see that he has faithfully done so in the past.

One final key premise to determining the relationship between faith and reason concerns what it means to have faith.  Hebrews 11:1-2 says, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.  This is what the ancients were commended for.”  Throughout Hebrews 11, various heroes of the faith are mentioned and elaborated upon.  It is clearly shown that, though their faith was not “blind,” it did contradict human reason and understanding.  In other words, faith is believing something even if it doesn’t make sense to one’s self and even if one doesn’t understand how it works.  The reason a Christian has faith is because God gave it to him, and the only reasoning that should be in involved in spiritual matters is reasoning based upon faith.  Even then, one must also be careful not to rely too much on one’s reason because all of man’s faculties have been corrupted by the fall.  While reason can be used to support one’s faith, one should not rely too heavily on it.  After all, a Christian does not reason his way to faith; faith is a gift of God (see Ephesians 2:8).

So, in light of all of this, how should science interact with a Christian’s faith?  As stated above, science can be used to improve the quality of life for man and to support the Christian faith.  But what about when science appears to contradict the Bible?  What then?  The Bible is God’s Word and thus, infallible, while science is man-made and fallible.  Thus, when the two appear to contradict, one must always side with the more reliable source.

There are several explanations for how science could point one way while God’s Word could point another.  Either, A) the natural order could really point in the wrong direction, B) man’s observation of creation could be flawed, or C), man’s interpretation of what he observes could be flawed.  The plausibility of the first scenario is debatable, but regardless of whether a reasonable interpretation of the natural order could lead to an incorrect conclusion, we must still side with the Bible.  If it is possible for nature to point us in the wrong direction, and if our conclusion contradicts the Bible, then we must side with the Bible, for either nature itself may be pointing us in the wrong direction or our observation/interpretation may be flawed.2  If it is not possible for nature to point us in the wrong direction, and if our conclusion contradicts with the Bible, then we still must assume that either our observation or our interpretation was flawed.  Because man is fallen and sinful, our faculties are corrupted.  Both our physical senses (sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing) as well as our mental faculties (such as emotions, reasoning, and decision-making) cannot be trusted unquestionably.  Sin has corrupted us and our “glasses” are cracked and tinted by sin.  1 Corinthians 1: 18-25 says the following:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”  Where is the wise man?  Where is the scholar?  Where is the philosopher of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.  Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

In addition to our fallen human nature, another inhibiting force upon the powers of science is the nature of science itself.  Because science is “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena,”3 strictly speaking, raw science does not take the supernatural into account.  Science cannot prove the existence of angels and demons.  It cannot explain the miracles of Jesus.  It cannot explain the creation of the world.  Because reality is composed of both the natural and the supernatural, science is missing half of the story.  The Bible, on the other hand, as the Word of God, is perfect and takes into account both the natural and the supernatural.  While the scope of science is limited, God’s word is not.  Christians must always supplement (and sometimes temper) their science with their knowledge of the supernatural which they glean from the Bible.

Many people will often try to “reinterpret” the Bible in light of modern scientific discoveries.  This also is very dangerous since it is often trying to explain the supernatural in terms of the natural.  One still risks compromising the meaning of the Bible when one tries to “interpret” the Bible based off of science.  To compromise in such a way in order to get science and the Bible to agree is placing science equal to the Bible.  Instead, a Christian should interpret his science with the Word of God.  Earthly reason can be ever so dangerous to one’s faith, and thus interpretation of scripture should be limited strictly to textual analysis.  We require reason to understand what we read and to interpret the effects of context, translation, etc., but to go beyond this is dangerous.  One needs to limit the external sources used to “interpret” scripture in order to avoid faulty interpretation or the corruption of its meaning.

Macroevolution is one such scientific theory concerning which a Christian can encounter this dilemma if he places too much weight on science.  Strict Macroevolution not only denies the existence of God and of a seven day creation, but it in turn denies that man has a purpose, that there is such a thing as sin, and that Jesus was the son of God.  While many Evolutionists will back up their claims with what appears to be sound reasoning, we must always view such a theory in light of what the Bible says.  Thus, Christians must utterly reject the theory of evolution because it contradicts with what God’s word tells us, not to mention the fact that it is very poorly supported.  As soon as one begins to “interpret” scripture based on external sources, one risks corrupting one’s faith.  It is a dangerous path to take.

Thus, one must be very careful how one uses science in relation to God’s Word.  While science can be useful to the Christian, he must always place God’s Word as superior to the fallen wisdom of this world.  “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5-6).

End Notes

1Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Eleventh Edition.  Springfield: Merriam-Webster Incorporated, 2003, p1112.

2Many will claim that it is impossible for nature to point in a direction opposite that which is true because God is an orderly God and He displays himself through nature.  They will claim that if God were to have nature point in the wrong direction, then God would be deceiving us.  Nowhere, however, does the Bible say that everything in nature is understandable.  If God tells us in a special revelation what is true, how can we say that if we see something different in nature, then for nature to be incorrect, God would be deceiving us; God is telling us what is true.  He may have even included specific information in order that we are not deceived by the way things appear.

3http://www.biblegateway.com

Narrative Structure in “Dear Peggy”

Christopher Rush

The narrative structure of “Dear Peggy,” the tenth episode of M*A*S*H’s remarkable and crucial transitioning fourth season, is a complicated series of flashbacks and imbricated scenes held together by one of the series’ most enjoyable and popular narrative devices: the epistolary frame story.  After the pilot episode’s extended opening minute and main titles, the series itself begins with Dr. Benjamin Franklin “Hawkeye” Pierce narrating over the action as if he is writing a letter to his father.  Many other episodes in the early seasons are initially narrated as if they are letters, but it is not until the first season episode “Dear Dad” (the first of the series’ Christmas-themed episodes) that the epistolary frame story technique is used as the guiding and thorough narrative structure for the entire episode.  The great advantage of such structured episodes is that the device allows for character-driven episodes without the need for a consistent, unified plot.  The letter-writing episodes are usually “day in the life” episodes, in which the audience is shown diverse, brief character sketches of the 4077 gang involved in their own daily lives and experiences – and that is fundamentally what M*A*S*H (as with most successful television shows) is about: characters we come to know and love.  We don’t care so much about what they do; we just want to spend some time with them, hanging out and enjoying ourselves, and that is what the epistolary frame stories and similarly-structured “mail call” episodes (in which we see various characters responding to mail they receive) of the series provide.

Most of these letter-writing episodes follow a non-linear re-telling of recent events or character moments, primarily through flashbacks.  The discrete nature of the character moments affords a timeless quality (very useful in an eleven-season show about a three-year police action): because there is no cause-and-effect aspect to what each character is up to, when these character moments takes place is irrelevant.  They are all, more or less, simultaneous occurrences (later honed by the “mail call” themed episodes).  However, in season four’s “Dear Peggy,” the events that recent arrival Dr. B.J. Hunnicut describes are more interconnected and overlapping than most of the other letter-writing episodes, and thus the chronological order of events B.J. describes (and when he is actually writing about them, especially) becomes a necessary component to the storytelling itself.

Season four was, as mentioned above, a crucial season for the series.  At the end of season three, Dr. Henry Blake was reportedly killed while flying back home after being discharged in one of television’s most shocking moments ever (the sound of the dropped surgical instrument, an accident, is one of television’s most memorable sound effects).  When the fourth season begins, the audience, along with the series’ main character Hawkeye, soon learns that another mainstay of the show, Dr. “Trapper” John F.X. McIntyre has also been discharged and has gone home.  Within fifteen minutes of programming, the series lost over 30% of its original cast.  This new season, with two new characters replacing seemingly un-replaceable characters, would have to be an impressive mixture of new and old elements to keep the growing M*A*S*H phenomena alive.  Fortunately, the creative behind-the-scenes team intentionally replaced the characters with opposing personalities, forever changing the make-up of the 4077 as we knew it – and it worked completely.  Henry was replaced by Col. Sherman T. Potter, regular army and experienced leader.  Trapper John was replaced by fun-loving yet family-oriented Dr. B.J. Hunnicut, fresh out of residency and ready to out-joke anyone in the camp.  The new character types, as well as more serious plotlines and unique narrative techniques (such as Hawkeye’s solo episode “Hawkeye,” the classic newsreel footage interspersed “Deluge,” and the interview-driven season finale “The Interview”) propelled the series through many seasons and more cast changes.

It is easy for us today, over thirty years later, with the benefit of DVDs to take the direction of the series and, particularly for our purposes here, season four for granted.  For the original audience, creative crew, and cast, however, they did not have such hindsight-laden advantages.  “Dear Peggy” is the middle of three epistolary-framed episodes of the season (“Dear Mildred,” “Dear Peggy,” and “Dear Ma”), and, as noted above, is the most ambiguously ordered episode as far as the discrete plot elements are concerned.  Coming half-way through the unusual season, the audience and all involved needed an episode to get to know B.J. Hunnicut better.  Let us attempt to unravel the order of events both within the frame stories and B.J.’s letter-writing frame itself.

Scene 1 (S1) opens with the sounds of Father Mulcahy playing the piano, a rather jaunty tune; when we see him, he is clearly enjoying what he is doing.  This may not seem like much at the time, but it could actually be crucial in determining the narrative order.  Similarly, Klinger seems relaxed but tired, as evidenced by his attitude and sound of his voice when responding to Hawkeye’s initial jibe.  Hawkeye is also tired and quite bored, not lugubriously so, but more so than usual.  When B.J. first writes on screen, he quickly rubs his eyes, blinks, and stops writing, indicating how tired he is as well.  After his tour around the room, Hawkeye approaches B.J. with an accusative “Writing home again?  That’s your third letter this week.”  B.J. does not correct him, indicating that during S1 B.J. is writing his third letter of the week – though “this week” seems more generalized, not directly per the calendar, since S1 is most likely a late Monday night.  Hawk seems opposed both to B.J.’s letters and his stated reason for writing them (they are “the only way [he] can keep his sanity,” says B.J.), offering his own sanity as a substitute since he isn’t using it (“God knows” this, says Hawk, though Mulcahy calls him a “crazy agnostic” later in the episode).

S1 then focuses on B.J. again once Hawkeye makes his mildly theatrical departure, a somewhat symbolic representation of the entire season in microcosm.  Believing Hawkeye’s accusation and B.J.’s lack of a correction, he is, indeed, writing his third letter of the week.  However, the only written contribution to letter three (L3) he makes is his first line: “You can really go out of your mind here, Peg.  There’s just nothing to do when you’re not working.”  After he pens these sentences, he momentarily gives in to his tiredness.  He stops writing, rubs his eyes and face, blinks, and stares off more or less at Radar and Nurse Kellye dancing.  The rest of his thoughts are actually him remembering what he wrote in a previous letter, most likely the first of the week (L1).  He is so tired he has to recall what he has already written so he does not repeat himself to his wife.  In doing so, the audience learns snippets of his previous two letters.  He recalls his reading of Justice Holmes, which leads him to think of Frank Burns, which then leads him to recall the first operation on Private Davis.  His wording is crucial (as it is during the entire episode): “this morning,” says B.J., was the operation.  It could not have been the morning of S1, clearly, and B.J. would not write that no matter how tired he is, so he can’t be internally writing L3 with these lines – he must be remembering a prior letter.  The morning of the first Davis operation has to be at least 2 days before S1, as we shall see.

Scene 2 (S2) is the referenced morning of the first Davis operation.  Hawkeye is operating one table over and seems tired already, but in a different way than in S1.  B.J. is not noticeably tired, though undoubtedly his adrenaline kicks in as soon as he starts working on Davis as aggressively as he does.  Frank gives up on Davis at the first loss of his pulse, though B.J. is unwilling to and saves him, using closed-chest massage he saw recently back in the States.  Though B.J.’s voiceover disappears early in the scene, we must believe we are seeing what he writes about in L1, though he recalls it chronologically during the writing of L3.

Scene 3 (S3) begins with B.J.’s letter-writing voiceover telling Peg (and us) it is now “five in the morning.”  He is sitting by Davis’s bedside, not on duty though in his coat, not able to sleep over the condition of Davis.  Thus, S3 is a different day from S2 and S1, occurring between S2 and S1.  During the rest of the day of which S2 was the morning, Klinger and Mulcahy learned about Davis, how tricky and unusual the operation was, and how little Davis has responded to both Frank’s half-hearted surgery and B.J.’s vociferous resuscitation.  No doubt part of B.J.’s inability to sleep mixed with his tiredness is the loss of adrenaline working its way out of his system between S2 and S3.  Because it is five in the morning, we may be able to assume the letter he is holding and writing is L1, since not enough time has passed between the remembered lines about Frank Burns and the Davis operation for B.J. to have finished a letter and begun a new letter with enough content for the “now” he writes (“It’s five in the morning now, Peg,” says B.J.) to make sense.  The “now” clearly indicates a connection to the lines about the operation, making this still L1, though the first time we have actually seen it.  B.J.’s ability to sit by Davis’s bedside helps prove his forthcoming statement “there’s just nothing to do when you’re not working,” though it is has already been spoken in the episode.  Hawkeye wrote a similar idea to his father in an earlier episode, declaring their “greatest enemy is boredom.”  When B.J. says he “was” worried about Davis in the past tense, he is only talking about his emotional state that motivated him to go to his bedside, not a temporal connection between the time he did it and time he wrote it to Peg.

Klinger’s dialogue helps place the position of S3.  If, as is sometimes thought, S3 occurs after S1, and the letter B.J. is writing in S3 is a continuation of the letter he is writing in S1, how could Klinger have had time to not only win an egg in a poker game “last night” (considering how late and tired everyone is in S1)?  Perhaps he could have had time for the dream of going home with Major Houlihan, but since Klinger also seems to be volunteering this early in the morning (considering he says he is about to go eat his egg for breakfast) and is rather cheerful and active, it is highly doubtful he is so filled with vigor and can remember a dream he had in so little time between S1 and S3.  Klinger may be on duty, though, and just telling Mulcahy and B.J. what he is planning on doing later, considering how much time passes between S3 and S4.

Mulcahy also helps place the position of S3.  In S1, he seems rather care-free.  Knowing what we do about Mulcahy taking his character from multiple seasons, he is a bit of a worrier – he’s no Piglet, and he’s a fine priest to be sure (his doctrinal purity needs exploring another time, though), but it seems quite unlikely that if Mulcahy knew he was about to be visited and observed the next day by Colonel Maurice Hollister, Divisional Chaplain, he would not be up late, smiling and playing a merry tune, enjoying some harmless banter with Hawkeye.  Also, since S1 seems to be a Monday or Tuesday, B.J.’s line in S3 about not needing Mulcahy “’til Sunday” would make more sense if it were closer to an upcoming Sunday, and we are positing S3 as early Saturday morning.  (Of course, this is rather tenuous, considering Sundays occur with great regularity, even in Korea.)  B.J. might have said “not until tomorrow,” if Sunday was the next day, but since it is only five in the morning and B.J. hasn’t gotten much sleep, his seeming stock response is acceptable (his rather knee-jerk offering to prescribe some drugs for Mulcahy’s nerves may be due to his tiredness, but it is somewhat worrisome, though fortunately never repeated).  Some might argue the reason Mulcahy is also awake at five in the morning is because he is already nervous about Hollister’s impending visit (“this afternoon” he says) – this is rather likely, but it is doubtful still that he would be playing the piano and smiling only a few hours earlier then suddenly get nervous when Saturday begins.  Thus, S3 takes place before S1, making the letter B.J. is holding in S3 different from the letter he barely works on in S1, thanks to Hawkeye’s reaction.

S4 clearly takes place later the morning of S3.  Hawkeye enters the Swamp (B.O.Q. 6, though two-thirds of the residents in that tent are married), mildly disgusted with the noise and crowd that had gathered to see Klinger eat his fresh egg.  The PA announcement then heralds a forthcoming cockroach time trials final at 1330 hours, thus S4 occurs between 0500 and 1330 hours – granted, eight hours is a fairly broad span of time in which to locate a brief scene, but other indicators might help specify its position.  In response to Hawkeye’s announcement of Klinger’s crowd-observed egg eating, B.J. says he “just wrote that to Peg” in L1, assuming he is still working on L1, since it has only been a couple of hours from his earlier contributions to that letter.  Since he is already in the Swamp, having opened Peg’s package, he seems fairly entrenched in his work, so B.J. probably wrote the content of S3, that Klinger told him he won the egg, not that he ate it.  Hawk’s general tiredness continues as he takes a nap shortly after being introduced to the contents of Peg’s first overseas package.  B.J. then relates to Peg that Hawkeye had read in Life magazine “that morning” about the world record for people stuffed in an automobile.  Thus, Hawk’s reading took place between S3 and S4, and when B.J. says Hawkeye “thought” (past tense) they could beat the record, he is only referring to Hawk’s initial reaction of reading the article, not referring to their actual fulfillment of that, since the jeep-stuffing scene could not have yet happened when B.J. writes to Peg here in S4.  Since Hawkeye had the idea “that morning,” S4 clearly is a different day from S1 and S2.  It is logical to assume Hawkeye came directly from the crowd that gathered to see Klinger eat his fresh egg, but since B.J. needed time to go through Peg’s package, Hawkeye needed time to have read his magazine, leave the Swamp, get annoyed by the crowd, then come back to the Swamp “starved,” already aware that Peg had sent B.J. a cake in that package, it seems Klinger did not get the chance to eat his egg until lunch – perhaps that adds to his motivation to try to escape the Army so many times in the next couple of days.  This places S4 after lunch but before 1330 hours.  Why Hawkeye is starved after lunch is uncertain, though his frustration with the lack of sleep, lack of things to do, and the noisy crowd may have made him lose his appetite – though it becomes a trope in later seasons of M*A*S*H that they never got much good food at all (which is why Klinger makes such a big deal over a fresh egg).

Hawkeye’s nap must have helped his tiredness and frustration, since he is very enthusiastic for the jeep-stuffing in S5a.  Scene 5a has to be the same day shortly after S4, since Hollister arrives at the conclusion of the photograph, and S4 is the same day as S3, when Mulcahy says Hollister is coming later that afternoon.  It is likely after 1330 hours: even though Hawkeye had no interest in the cockroach time trials, he wouldn’t compete with that, especially to get so many people to squeeze into the jeep, and he needed time to get a camera and a crowd after his nap.  Also, based on later information from season five’s opener “Bug Out,” B.J. has a vested interest in the 4077’s cockroach race system – potentially, his involvement with Blue Velvet, his racing cockroach, begins this episode, but it’s understandable he wouldn’t write that to his wife.  Some might argue that because B.J. is not around when the jeep-stuffing camera shot occurs, it is happening the same time as the cockroach trials, but that is still unlikely for the reasons given above.  When does the recounting of this story occur?  Most likely in L2, with the majority of the Col. Hollister information, which B.J. has begun by the time of scene 7a.  L1 seems to have been written during the Friday and Saturday of S2-5c; L2 the Sunday-Monday of S6-10.

S5b, the first of two mini-scenes of Colonel Potter confronting Klinger, clearly takes place concomitantly with the jeep scenes 5a and 5c.  Season 4 of M*A*S*H uses a few tropes to help the audience acclimate to the major changes, as highlighted above.  Various incidents of Col. Potter confronting Klinger over his attempts to escape from the army are one such trope, though it continues a tradition begun with Klinger and Henry Blake.  That Col. Potter is ordering medical films with Col. Hollister’s arrival imminent leads one to suspect that only Mulcahy and B.J. know he is on his way.  Additionally, Frank and Margaret do not object to Hawkeye’s jeep-stuffing on the grounds a VIP is coming – they, too, seem unaware of that.  Knowing as the audience does how infatuated they are with big brass and VIPs, Margaret and Frank would have used that as a major argument (if you will pardon the Hawkeye-like expression).  When Hollister arrives in S5c, Margaret recognizes him though she seems surprised he is there.

Based on the observation that the 4077 all go to a church service to support Father Mulcahy when he is being observed, it is possible to deduce that they would not hold cockroach time trial races (even the finals) when Hollister was there.  Assuming, then, that the time trials occurred at its scheduled time of 1330 hours, it would not be possible for Mulcahy to go through a whole sermon and then spend time with Hollister before the 1400 hours mark in S7d; thus, the service Mulcahy conducts for everyone, most likely during a mid- to late morning (considering Radar still has fresh shaving nicks), in S6 takes place the day after S5a-c, most likely making it, appropriately, Sunday.  Ironically, then, it wasn’t really B.J. who needed Mulcahy on Sunday, but Mulcahy who needed B.J. (and everyone else) to support him in front of Hollister, which they do (in a very over-the-top fashion).  Considering this entire episode is a series of events B.J. relates to his wife Peggy (from various letters), one must ask how B.J. then knows about this post-service conversation between Hollister and Mulcahy.  The best answer is that Mulcahy tells him after S1 ends, when B.J., Klinger, Radar, and Mulcahy are alone (with Kellye) in the Officer’s Club.  Considering those three are in all the scenes in which B.J. is not (except for the first scene of Frank and Hawkeye teaching the Koreans English), clearly they tell B.J. about those episodes, either after Hawkeye makes his departure in S1 or some other time, though post-S1 is most likely.

Scenes 7a-7d must be later that morning or early afternoon, still most likely Sunday.  Aside from the unfortunate fact that most visiting generals or VIPs to the 4077th either die or lose their rank and so Hollister is making a wise decision is leaving fairly soon, he has already spent most likely a day observing Mulcahy, so the time he spends “running [him] ragged” as B.J. calls it, is, ironically, on the Sabbath day, on which Frank and Margaret had to apologize to Hollister for working.  The letter B.J. is now writing in the warm Sunday sun, observing Hollister and Mulcahy, is most likely L2.  His attitude is different, the tone by which he writes is more upbeat, and the content is slightly different.  He is reminded that Colonel Potter wanted to train Koreans to “work in the wards” so the “first step was to teach them English,” he tells Peg.  The past tense “was” indicates that at the time B.J. writes this in S7a, not only the idea of teaching them English had occurred but also S7b, an evening time scene of Frank then Hawkeye trying to teach English to a handful of young Korean men.  Frank, after a futile hour, finds some success teaching them Republican-sounding political cries; Hawkeye comes in and relieves Frank, though he quickly gives up the ward-related language in favor of verbal insults of Frank (most likely the “Frank Burns eats worms” expression is taught shortly after S7b ends).  Because we only see the end of Frank’s time with the Koreans, most likely B.J. knows about it through Hawkeye, who tells him what he overheard Frank say and then what he “teaches” the Koreans.  Remembering that the entire episode is predicated on what B.J. is writing Peggy, B.J. must have learned about the event himself, most likely from Hawkeye.  When does S7b occur?  Because the Koreans are in the night scene of S9c, the late night after the afternoon of S7a when B.J. is writing about it to Peg, S7b most likely happened quite recently, probably the night before, thus the Saturday night after S5c.  If it was the night before, that could add to the supposition that B.J. is writing a new letter here in S7a.  Since B.J. is wondering if he told Peg about the Koreans and doesn’t (or can’t) check back in the letter (which is something he immediately does in S7c), he is most likely telling her an event that occurred between the completion of L1 and the beginning of L2, its nearness in time suddenly coming back to his memory, unless he was prompted seeing Mulcahy and Hollister running around the compound, which would be an odd association.

S7c, back to B.J. in the warm Sunday afternoon sun, begins with B.J. reflecting that it has been two pages of L2 since he told Peggy how much he loved her.  Why would two pages of telling his wife about Frank and Hawkeye teaching Koreans to speak English cause him to love Peg even more?  Most likely it is because the teaching people to speak English reminds him of his daughter Erin, how he is looking forward to being with them again, teaching his daughter to speak and read, remembering how she is doing all of the rearing of their daughter alone, and thus leading him to love her even more.  B.J. is, after all, predominantly the ideal family man character, in contrast to Trapper John.

S7d is predominately from Mulcahy’s perspective, again a scene he most likely related to B.J. after S1, when B.J. is eager to write something new to Peggy (thus he may have asked the other men in the Officers Club for details or perspectives on the recent days).  In an episode built on letter writing, Mulcahy’s reticence to write a letter to Private Davis’s parents too soon is interesting.  Adding to the multiple parallels, Hollister’s comments about “a strong, affirmative letter” being just what the Davis family needs is essentially what B.J. is doing with his letters to Peggy in order to keep his sanity, and Hawkeye and Mulcahy both play the part of the cynics who need to learn the lesson of positive thinking (adding to the great irony of the episode, considering they are usually the two characters who try to keep everyone else positive).

S8 is an anomaly, having no tangible connection to any other scene or event in the episode, other than its obvious parallel to S5b and S10.  In S8, Klinger is captured once again by the MPs and brought into Potter’s office, this time with his bizarre inflatable raft plan.  Klinger’s indifferent response to the havoc caused by his inflation of the raft, even knocking over his own commanding officer, may indicate his bitterness with the way Potter treated him the previous day in S5b (Klinger did storm out in S5b).  His growing dissatisfaction and general tiredness demonstrated in S1 probably grew out of these two scenes and S10.

S9a takes place at 1800 hours, four hours after S7a-d, thus the same day since S6.  Hollister’s final message is, in keeping with his character, “It’s your straggler who misses the Lord’s streetcar.  ¡Vaya con Dios!”  Mulcahy, keeping with his character, is not reassured by this, primarily because he is still nervous about Private Davis and his lack of desire to give false hope.  Radar’s frantic message about Davis’s condition only appears to give credence to Mulcahy’s reticence.  Klinger’s effort in S9b in getting Davis’s new x-ray belies his growing lackadaisical attitude to his role in the army.  All sub-threads of the episode come together in S9b, as Mulcahy, Klinger, and the Korean ward people are all there to watch Hawkeye and B.J. fix what Frank refused to do in S2.  S9c, later that night or early Monday morning, Mulcahy learns that B.J. and Hawk saved Davis’s life.  This is another good scene about Mulcahy’s interesting behavior as a priest, though that will require a more specific examination at another time, considering it appears he doesn’t think of praying until hours into the operation.  Mulcahy’s inspiration from Hollister in their private conversation at the end of S6 is incredibly short-lived, primarily because his own cautious nature overrides his temporary enthusiasm.  Also, B.J.’s reaction to the Korean ward people saying “You tell ’em ferret face” indicates he knew about S7b prior to the occurrence of S9c.

The final scene, S10, opens with the sounds of Mulcahy playing the same song first heard in S1, though this scene takes place outside the Swamp, with B.J. and Hawk playing chess.  It is another late morning or afternoon scene, most likely either the day that ends with S1 or a day or two before S1.  B.J. is working on the end of L2.  This is based on the fact Hawkeye is not mad that B.J. is writing this letter (though he is somewhat miffed at the third letter in S1).  Again, B.J.’s language and tenses indicate the passage of time: “Things are pretty quiet right now,” he says to Peg, in preparation for S1.  Private Davis pulled through (past tense), was shipped stateside (past tense), and Potter doubled the guard on Klinger who isn’t (present tense) giving him any trouble.  Yet right after he writes that to Peg, Klinger is brought along by two MPs, disguised as a bush.  This discredits B.J.’s statement and adds to everyone’s general downtrodden attitude in S1.  Klinger’s reaction is the most angered of the three scenes of his escape attempts; by the end of the day, Klinger’s anger has dissipated to the quiet, mildly forlorn attitude of S1.  Assuming that Mulcahy’s song can be heard because he is happy Davis pulled through (and is actually being played during this scene), S10 is the morning of S1, whether it is the day after S6-9 or multiple days later.  The final capture of Klinger and the absence of anything going on (other than their chess game) wear on Hawkeye and B.J. until they are as despondent and tired as they are in S1.  It is most likely afternoon, since Davis would have needed some time to pull through and get shipped out.  That might require more time than just a morning, but they have shipped out patients with shorter turnaround time.  Underscoring the general chronological disjuncture of the episode are the two chess moves B.J. and Hawkeye use in their game: B.J. opens with the 1910 Zuckertorts attack; Hawkeye follows it up with the 1906 Lapinsky move, an earlier move to counter a later move.  As the episode closes, we have learned what brought the main characters to their states in S1, and that B.J.’s line “there’s just nothing to do when you’re not working” is, in fact, the last thing that happens in the episode chronologically.  Here, then, is the episode in proposed chronological scene order:

S2: Friday morning, first operation on Private Davis

S3: Saturday morning, 0500 hours (L1)

S4: Saturday morning, c. 1200-1300 hours (L1)

S5a-c: Saturday afternoon, after 1330 hours, jeep scenes and Klinger’s 1st escape attempt

S7b: Saturday evening, training Koreans to speak English

S6: Sunday morning, Mulcahy’s service

S7a, c, d: Sunday afternoon, 1400 hours (L2)

S8: Sunday afternoon, c. 1400-1800 hours

S9a-b: Sunday afternoon: 1800 hours

S9c: Late Sunday night/early Monday morning

S10: Monday or Tuesday afternoon, chess game, depending on how long Davis took to recover (L2)

S1: Late Monday or Tuesday night (L3), with memories of (L1)

The theme of “Dear Peggy” is communication: B.J. writes three letters (of which we learn only parts); Col. Potter desires to train Koreans to speak English; Col. Hollister tells Mulcahy he is God’s “messenger” to these people at the 4077; Hollister convinces Father Mulcahy to write an affirmative letter (perhaps prematurely) to Private Davis’s parents; Klinger asks B.J. to interpret his dream for him; Radar brings news of Davis’s condition to Mulcahy and Hawkeye; Hawkeye tries to tell the world that the 4077th can break the world’s record for the number of people in an automobile at one time.  Mulcahy learns that his lack of faith and reticence to communicate not only through prayer but also letter writing gave him nothing but unnecessary worry, so he is finally free to relax with happy music on the piano.  Had he been God’s messenger like he should have, he would not have kept Hollister’s arrival a secret or hesitate to write Davis’s parents.  Klinger learns (albeit temporarily) that his escape attempts are always futile, so he resigns himself to wearing a dress and hanging out in the Officers Club.  Hawkeye doesn’t learn anything much, though he is reminded that momentary excitements such as stuffing more than thirty people into a jeep brings transitory happiness at best (in a way punished for trying to prevent B.J. from communicating – enjoining B.J. not to tell Peg about Klinger’s egg lest it get lost “in translation” and berating him for trying to keep his sanity by writing so many letters).  B.J. learns the key lesson of the Korean War: there’s fundamentally nothing for a M*A*S*H doctor to do when he’s not working.  The great irony of the episode (noted, as we’ve seen, laden with several ironies and parallelisms) is that it presents this theme of communication in the most structurally convoluted way any M*A*S*H episode presents its narrative: flashbacks within flashbacks, narrative imbrications, multiple letter writings, central character focus shifts, a non-linear narrative, a disjointed frame structure, and opening the episode with the chronologically last scene of the episode in a kind of inverse chiastic composition.

Even with all that confusion, “Dear Peggy” is a very enjoyable episode from one of the finest television series of all time.  Season four does a remarkable job of adapting to the changes brought by actor departures and transforms the show from a generally light-hearted, hilarious, mildly risqué yet conventional program to a topical, narratively-diverse series.  The complex narrative structure of “Dear Peggy,” once understood, only adds to the enjoyment and appreciation of this fine program.  Finest kind, as Hawkeye says.

What I’ve Learned

Alice Minium

In twenty-first-century America, most children don’t see education as a privilege, an honor, and a freedom.  They do not see education as the trapdoor of escape from a life of ignorance, the chisel to articulate one’s decisions, desires, perspective, and dreams, or the pathway to behold a colorful, complex, mysterious world of adventure.

 Children don’t see the bland pages of their mass-produced history textbook as a passageway into anything.  The term “education” no longer describes a journey of stimulating discovery and enrichment of one’s perception.  Instead, what comes to mind is a seven-hour school day in a desk chair, thick textbooks nobody wants to read, and at last the shrill bell of sweet relief.  Ask a student to define learning, and listen carefully to the response.

An anonymous junior high student, when asked, defined learning as “when you know stuff, and get good grades, and know all the answers on a test.”  A high school student, who also wished to remain anonymous, insisted that “Learning is what we’re supposed to do at school.  When you remember something even after you turned in your homework, then you’ve learned it.  People always think about grades, but learning is supposed to be more than that.”

Ask a few of the greats from several thousand years ago.  According to Plato427-327 BC, “The object of education is to teach us love of beauty.”  Ask Aristotle384-322 BC, “Education is an ornament in prosperity and a refuge in adversity.”  Or, in the words of Socrates469-399 BC, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.”  Needless to say, these men saw education as a beautiful, precious privilege, not a dull chore.

Back in the days of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, education was primarily available only to upper-class males, sometimes in a schoolhouse and sometimes through a private tutor.  Up until the age of seven, children were taught basic morals in the home, and then they would begin instruction in letters and syllables, followed by words and sentences, finally leading up to reading and writing.  Women, slaves, and the very poor usually did not receive a formal education.  The Greeks saw education an invaluable pursuit, and it was the key foundation to the intellectual progressions that distinguish ancient Greek society.

The early American fathers shared a similar attitude with the Greeks.  They saw education as the soil that nurtured America’s growth, and Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill in 1791 for the institution of a public education system.  In his own words, “The object [of my education bill was] to bring into action that mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every country for want of the means of development, and thus give activity to a mass of mind which in proportion to our population shall be the double or treble of what it is in most countries.”  However, until the mid-nineteenth century, education in America was still highly localized and not available to the very poor.  The first law to require school attendance was passed by Massachusetts in 1852, and by 1918 underage education was required in every state and available to all children without charge (excluding the inevitable tax).  In the words of early American education activist Horace Mann, “The common-school reformers argue for the case of a public education system on the belief that common schooling will create good citizens, unite society, and prevent crime and poverty.”

This is, without a doubt, one of the greatest beauties of America.  Every child born in America today grows up with the privilege and the right to attend school, which for millennia beforehand has been largely unheard of.  However, as any individual with a basic knowledge of economics would know, the easier the access to a product, the lower the value and appreciation for it.  This is applicable to the current education situation.  The byproduct of children raised with schooling as a granted, disposable institution, is generations of children that do not appreciate it whatsoever.  School has become a chore, a necessary evil of adolescent life, and an object for widespread apathy.  The fact that the education system has become lax, haphazard in its ways, and overlooked by government funds does not help improve this attitude.  Our founding fathers would be appalled at the current state of our education, and children from centuries gone by would be awestruck by our nonchalant, obligatory-like attitude.

Junior high and high school students are especially guilty of a lack of interest and passion for their education.  To truly learn, one must possess a personal thirst for knowledge that drives you to work on your schoolwork, read your reading assignments, and excel on your exams.  Too often it is about grades, and too often it is about revulsion and torpidity to the general idea.  It is too easy for the methodical “busy work” to seem non-beneficial and generally less important than one’s personal life.  I cannot deny that I shared this attitude and slipped into the apathy of the majority.  Years in hindsight, I have no greater regret.  My lack of appreciation for the privilege of a fine education resulted in low grades, which are now on my transcript forever.  I was told by people that my early years of high school were not that important, but the bottom line is that those years were when I formed my study habits and when I dug the foundation for the rest of my intellectual life.  I’ve reached the end of the road and the days of being prodded toward and guided through my education have come to an end.  It is up to me and only me to ensure that I have a plan for my future and means of consummating that plan.  At the finish line, you may have the support of parents and teachers, but there is no one to guide you anymore.  The responsibility belongs to you and you alone.  Now, I’m having to work twice as hard to pull loose ends together and ensure that I will be prepared.

Do not make the mistake of trivializing your schooling.  Let your schooling truly be your education.  Develop a craving for education, and success in your schooling will inevitably follow.  Seize advantage of your rare blessing and enumerated right.  Don’t sigh the next time you get assigned a five-page paper; instead, close your eyes, take a deep breath, and thank God for the privilege you have that so many other people would have died for.

An Exegesis of Ephesians 2:8-10

Seraphim Hamilton

This text is one of the most critical texts for defending the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, that is, salvation by grace through faith alone. It reads as follows:

(Ephesians 2:8-10) For by grace you have been saved through faith.  And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (ESV).

Thus, let us take this passage one piece at a time. The Orthodox Catholic doctrine of salvation is that salvation comes by grace alone, but this grace is appropriated by both lifelong faith (initiated in the mystery of Baptism, see Galatians 3:27), and also works done by the grace of God. Works done apart from the grace of God (often called works of the law), are absolutely worthless and are a “filthy rag” as Isaiah the prophet says.

 For by grace you have been saved

Our salvation comes by grace. Many protestant commentators focus on the faith in Ephesians 2 to demonstrate Sola Fide. St. Paul is focusing on the grace, and that is where our focus should be as well.

through faith.

What is the meaning of “through faith”? Most lay readers see the faith here as our faith, which we exercise to appropriate the saving grace of God. Actually, this is likely not the intended meaning. We must view Paul’s doctrine of salvation as a client-patron relationship. In such a relationship, the patron would exercise an act of favor toward the client, and the client would be expected to respond positively. Upon positive response, the patron would exercise greater favor toward the client, and the client would again be expected to respond positively. Contingent upon this relationship was the pistis of the patron. That is, the patron must be trustworthy. Thus, St. Paul is saying that we have been saved by grace, through God’s faithfulness. While faith is certainly one of the positive responses we give to God our patron, this is not what is in view here.

And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

The client could not take or demand anything from the patron. It was given freely, out of the goodness and mercy of the patron. It was completely and totally his gift. This does not exclude works (or positive feedback in a patronal context), but necessarily includes them, for a client-patron relationship is unquestionably synergistic, to the chagrin of Calvinists everywhere.

not a result of works

How then can I say that works are a part of salvation? It is important to understand what type of works Paul is discussing here. Note the contrast:

v.8 by grace we have been saved…

v.9 not a result of works…

The works of Ephesians 2:9 are specifically contrasted with the grace of Ephesians 2:8. That is, St. Paul is teaching that works done apart from the grace of God are absolutely non-salvific. In the context of a client-patron relationship, doing works apart from grace would be akin to responding positively to the patron and saying “See? Look how positively I responded! More favor please!” A work must be done by and in view of God’s grace.

so that no one may boast.

Because it is only out of the goodness and mercy of God that He responds to our works done by grace with favor, no boasting may be made, because all salvation is the work of God.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works

Note the subtle contrast between this and verse 9.  Why does Paul refute works and then say “for we are…”  The “for” here suggests that this is the logical conclusion.  This is because we are not saved by works done apart from grace, but by good works.  The good works of Ephesians 2:10 are specifically contrasted with the works done apart from grace of Ephesians 2:9.  Again, the flow of the argument:

v.8 by grace we have been saved…

v.9 not a result of works…

v.10 For we are…created in Christ Jesus for good works…

which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

The patron, in providing us with grace, prepares us for a response of gratitude and good works. Thus, if we choose to walk in them, by the power of the grace provided, the Lord provides more grace.

Thus, Ephesians 2:8-10 is far from an exposition on Sola Fide. Rather, it teaches the great and transformative power of God’s grace, which takes us and transforms us into His likeness throughout our lives, but only if we respond to His grace with works done by grace.

Perfection

Emily Grant Privett

Perfection is achieved when something is excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement and without any flaws, shortcomings, or defects.  It is widely known that only one has achieved true perfection.  That one man is Jesus.  The only reason this was completed was because he was fully God as well.  Ultimate perfection is unattainable.  If this is the case, then why does man in our society attempt to defy his nature and attain perfection?

It is universally known that everyone desires to do everything to perfection.  But it is also universally known that man is always unable to reach that true perfection.  By doing this, man is intentionally trying to become something that he is not.  Only Christ can say with confidence that He is perfect at all things, at all times, and in all places.  No one can live up to the standard he set.

It is important to point out the difference between doing one’s best and trying to attain perfection.  Trying to do one’s best and being one’s best is different from being perfect.  Doing and being one’s best is doing absolutely as well as one can possibly do, whenever one can, all for the glory of God.  As previously stated achieving perfection is making oneself excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement and being entirely without any flaws, shortcomings, or defects.

Each has his or her own special talents, gifts, and abilities.  This fact is common among all people.  No one can be good at everything.  Romans 12:6 says, “We have different gifts, according to the grace given us.”  Clearly not everyone is good at the same things.  If this is so, then why are people criticized because their best isn’t good enough?  Those criticizing others are not perfect at the task at hand either.  Unless they themselves had reached perfection, then they should not make criticisms about others. As earlier established, none can reach perfection in any field, but Christ.

Each must learn his or her boundaries in their particular field of expertise.  Even one who may be considered a master at his/her field has not reached true perfection.  Each person must learn where he or she has a talent or skill.  One cannot expect to be amazing at something that he has no experience in.  For example, a professional athlete would not be expected to do well at being a hairstylist.  However, he would be expected to show tremendous skill at whatever sport he played.  When dealing with hair, the customer would most likely be extremely unhappy with the outcome, but when playing his particular sport of expertise, audiences would most likely enjoy watching the player.

Having already established that one cannot reach true perfection, it must be pointed out that much of society has a different definition of perfection than the dictionary.  The dictionary definition is long term, being perfect at all times in all places.  The societal definition generally consists of temporary greatness.  One can be good at one thing but is definitely not so in other fields.  Athletes experience this.  In the game of volleyball are several types of maneuvers.  Passing, setting, hitting, and serving are considered the major ones.  One can be an excellent passer, but that has nothing to do with one’s skill in hitting, setting, or serving.  “Perfection” in one field, generally has nothing to do with “perfection” in another field.  Therefore, even the societal definition of perfection wouldn’t consider this perfect.  One may be a “perfect” passer, but perfection in one field isn’t the item in question.  It is like saying one has a perfect report card.  Unless one has reached perfection in each and every class, a report card cannot be perfect.

Another example of this would be taking the SATs.  One can take the test several times and at one point, get a “perfect” score.  The word “perfect” here is taken very loosely.  Do the makers and graders of this test mean that the taker of the test is perfect at everything he/she was tested on? Absolutely not.  The score has nothing to do with the actual person.  It may be a partial reflection of the person taking the test, but the fact that he/she achieved a perfect score has nothing to do with the fact that he/she may have guessed on a few questions, or in the future, may get a question or two wrong.  The SAT is not a test of perfection of the student but perfection of the answers they record.  The answers may all be correct, but that does not mean that the student is perfect in every Math and English subject.

There is no possible way that one can become perfect.  There is no such thing as a perfect athlete, friend, student, parent, family member, etc.  We were all born into a fallen world, and there is nothing we can do to change that.

There is no possible way that one can become perfect.  There is no such thing as a perfect athlete, friend, student, parent, family member, etc.  We were all born into a fallen world, and there is nothing we can do to change that.  We all make mistakes.  If this is a commonly known subject then, why does society push perfection on us? Are they trying to deny our human nature?

The subject of this question is not perfection itself but the definition of perfection.  Society’s view of perfection is doing ones best and trying to do everything the best that it can be possibly done, where the dictionary says that perfection is having no flaws, shortcomings, or defects.  There is no possible better way to do it.  Society mixes the two definitions.  According to society, man can achieve perfection in certain fields, but it is only a temporary thing.  One may get every question correct on a test.  Technically, he achieved perfection, but in the long run he missed several questions over the semester.  The perfection of the student was only temporary.  The possibility of a student being “perfect” in the class is highly unlikely.  The idea of a human, having a perfect existence, is impossible!

Society only looks for the temporary perfection.  They don’t expect true flawlessness in everything, just the issue at hand.  Society only has an interest in the here and now.  The people involved in the situation only desire one to attain perfection at the given time.  They don’t expect one to go home and still be “perfect.”

Now it is time to get down to the final question.  Why do others seek perfection out of us?  It all comes down to each person’s understanding of perfection.  When most people think of perfection, they believe that it means making no mistakes after doing one’s best.  These people seek perfection in other people, because they themselves know that they are incapable of it.  They want to believe perfection is possible.  Striving for perfection and attaining perfection are different.  What they really want is people to strive for perfection, with little intention of the actual attainment of that perfection.  Society is not willing to accept the imperfection in our lives and causes people to seek for perfection in others, what they can’t find in themselves.