Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally) · 1 Comment

Jules or Jesus?  04-20-2026

Number 3 of God’s top ten is “do not use God’s name in vain”. That doesn’t mean cussing when you’re 5. “In vain” is using God’s seal of approval to justify what God is against. Pope Leo 14th summed it up: “Woe to those who manipulate religion in the very name of God for their own military, economic, and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth”. On the other hand, Franklin Graham grows darker with practice.

The secretary of war (a new title that has no defense) commanded worship to pray to God words he said were from God’s prophet Ezekiel. If he’d spend more time reading the Bible instead of abusing it, he’d know one line out of context was from Ezekiel 25:17. However 95% of his “prayer to God” was written by Quentin J. Tarantino for his 1994 film “Pulp Fiction.” The lines are spoken by Samuel L Jackson playing the criminal hit-man Jules whenever he murders someone in total submission to the whims of his boss (“before I pop their ass” as Jules so compassionately put it). QJT is idolized for his writing, and SLJ delivers lines as the coolest dude alive, but neither pretend to speak for God.

Whom do you follow and quote — Jesus or Jules? Jesus who full-fills the vision of trust, peace, equality, restorative justice, and love of the prophets? Jules who profits off of lying, murder, and stealing?

Number 8 of Jesus’ top 9 is: “Blessed are the Peace-makers, for they shall be called children of God.” War never leads to peace (Shalom); it always leads to a time-out until the next violent war; a pause is not peace. Peacemakers come together to live out the vision of God spoken through prophets and Jesus. 

Prophets Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 both poetically write: “God shall judge between the nations and shall arbitrate for many peoples; they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more.” Micah then adds “but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.”

Number 1 for John Lennon is the song “Imagine.” Imagine turning weapons of war into gardening tools. Imagine every person having enough and no one making us afraid. Imagine if we followed Jesus instead of Jules. Imagine spending our money, energy, and wisdom on building up instead of bombing down. What do you imagine?

Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally) · 1 Comment

Black Gold 04062026

A man found a piece of black gold in his yard. He showed it to others who had never seen anything like it. They wanted what he’d found. Fearing they might take it by force, he sold it to them, using the money to dig for more. The more he found, the more people’s addictive appetites wanted more. Stories spread of a “B. G. Disease” but the town crier said it was just a sick joke.

The man and the system prospered. Some in the village were envious that one man had all that treasure in his yard — why him? They sought to get even by taking what they deserved, but they heeded the wisdom of a voice that said, “don’t steal what you covet.”

One night, the notorious teenage “Out of Control Gang” broke into the man’s house. His fear of being robbed was happening. The man locked himself in his vault with his treasure. The gang couldn’t gain access to their desires. In a rage, they killed his family. He stayed. Frustrated, they ridiculed his belief in “finders keepers”. He stayed.  The “Out of Control Gang” controlled his necessities for life. The man controlled the black gold.

The man was willing to die for his belief and the OCG was willing to kill for entitled pride. Neither got to enjoy the black gold. The OCG gang who had never learned one lesson from consequences, learned to live without black gold. The villagers sought new objects of desire.

As the system began to repeat itself the question arose, “Might there be a better way?”

Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally) · 2 Comments

Spiritual Convergence 

I was taught that the deep wisdom of all great spiritualities converge. Before you push back, I invite you to let it sit for a while. Does the teaching mean all spiritualities are exactly the same? Why use the word “wisdom”? What changes if we substitute “religions” for spiritualities? Apparently I’m trying questions before reflections today.

Brian McLaren’s podcast from May 15th’s “Leaning How to See: Seeing the Humanity in Everyone (no exceptions)” points out:

Jesus teaches: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. For this is the Torah and the Prophets.”

Jewish law in Leviticus reads: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

In the Hadith sayings of Islam, the prophet Muhammad speaks: “as you would have people do to you, do to them. And what you dislike to be done to you, don’t do to them. None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

From Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

From Hinduism: “Do nothing to others which, if it were done to you, would cause you pain.”

From Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”

From Sikhism: “Love for people what you love for yourself, and you will be a believer.”

From the Baha’i Faith: “And if thine eyes be turned toward justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself.”

How might this deep wisdom affect a system that marginalizes, misunderstands, uses, and overlooks people? How might our eyes be opened to see the humanity in everyone? Why is this teaching often called “The Golden Rule”?

Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally)

Beadle 09192025

On a church sign in Scotland, below the minister’s name, I read Church Beagle: {name}. Church Beagle? Did the church have a mascot? Had they gone to the dogs? Was the alpha-dog bully publicly named on the sign? (In our system it might read TLG – That Little Group). It was a misread, not a misprint. The sign actually and accurately read: Church Beadle. 

For Charles Dickens’ novel “Oliver Twist”, Mr. Bumble was a Beadle who ran the orphanage workhouse outside London — “tears were not the things to find their way to Mr. Bumble’s soul; his heart was waterproof.” Wow. I cry with tears, bad beadle, bad beadle, sit, stay.

During the Scottish Reformation of the 16th century, the Beadle was “the minister’s man.” He would open the church, take care of the grounds, ring the bell, etc. As Sunday worship began, the Beadle would process in with the Bible and the Psalter, escort the preacher up to the pulpit, lock the door of the pulpit steps, and sit by the door with a mace. His actions said the preacher was called to interpret the Bible whether you liked it or not. He made sure the word was proclaimed, unhindered. (He might also waken those who had fallen asleep during a long sermon.)

I wonder if the Beadle is shown below John Knox preaching at St. Giles Cathedral. Maybe he was protecting Knox’s freedom of preach as he questioned the autocratic actions of Mary Queen of Scots who ruled from Edinburgh Castle halfway up the royal mile.

In line with the Beadle, as a Presbyterian Preacher, I can’t be silenced by “That Little Group” for what I say in a sermon. It takes a vote of the congregation AND a vote of elders and pastors from a majority of congregations in the presbytery. With wisdom from a wider witness, they might act to get me the help I need, correct my errors, or protect me as I faithfully speak truth to power — especially when it’s unpopular and thus Biblically prophetic. 

Who has been a Beadle in your life? Where might you see a need for Beadles today? What protections do you have to speak your truth to those who greedily abuse power?

Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally) · 4 Comments

What If? 09-15-2025

During 40 years of pastoral counseling and hospice chaplaincy I’ve walked with many youth and adults who were asking, “What if?” Most questions of “What if” involve life & death — what if the.…  gun, car, disease, decision, protection, other person….  Eventually an answer to the question lies in discovering there is none. After all, “control is an illusion fueled by emotion.”

Last night I returned from my 1st & 50th high school reunion in Louisville. In 7th grade I entered the competitive college-prep arena. Our all-boys school merged with an all-girls school my sophomore year which proved to be excellent timing. We mourned 4 of the 66 in my class who had died. 

I was filled with all the curiosity, emotions, baggage, and appreciation I anticipated. I was surprised that my sense of being overlooked in high school was dispelled by warm welcomes, fond memories, and new discoveries. I was grateful my quest of “do no harm” led to not needing to dodge anyone.

I found myself asking, “What if?” What if I’d dated or kept dating someone? What if I’d come home to my father’s business? What if I didn’t focus on my present and kept in touch with my past? What if I lived the life others lived? 

Driving home we listened to Sirius 7 — Casey Kasem’s “American Top 40” from 9/72 (the month the ladies arrived). I honored my wife with Garth Brook’s 1990 song, “Unanswered Prayers.” It occurred to me that “What Is!” is more important than “What if?” I can fantasize, bemoan, envy, all the ifs. I can live into, relish, be grateful for, and respond to my one life that is. Relishing the full abundant loving life that is mine to live unlocks my gratitude and service.

When have you asked “What if?” What were the circumstances? When have you been present to and aware of “What is!”? How has appreciating “what is” affected your outlook on life? 

Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally)

Building Bigger Barns 04072025

On his walk to Jerusalem to celebrate the last Passover of his life, the rabbi Jesus told this story found in Luke chapter 12.

Someone from the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Jesus said to him, “Man, who appointed me as judge or referee between you and your brother?” Then Jesus said to them, “Watch out! Guard yourself against all kinds of greed. After all, one’s life isn’t determined by one’s possessions, even when someone is very wealthy.”

As a pastor and hospice chaplain, I’m grateful for the example of Jesus not to get embroiled in a family inheritance battle. No one comes out unscathed. “Life is not determined by one’s possessions” is often ignored by religious conmen (except for relieving you of the burden of your possessions). THEN Jesus tells a parable. A parable is a story that never happened but is always true. You might notice how many times “I”,  “my”, and “self” occur after the land (not the man) produced a bountiful crop.

“A certain rich man’s land produced a bountiful crop. He said to himself, What will I do? I have no place to store my harvest! Then he thought, Here’s what I’ll do. I’ll tear down my barns and build bigger ones. That’s where I’ll store all my grain and goods.  I’ll say to myself, You have stored up plenty of goods, enough for several years. Take it easy! Eat, drink, and enjoy yourself. But God said to him, ‘Fool, tonight you will die. Now who will get the things you have prepared for yourself?”

What is the lasting truth from this ancient story? Where is the joy of love, inclusion, peace, and community for a fool who dies alone — save for his selfish possessions? If life isn’t about possessions what might life be about?

Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally) · 3 Comments

Moby Dick 03122025

I don’t recall reading every word of Moby Dick after “Call me Ishmael”, but I do remember my high school classmates calling the book “The Biggest Dick”. Maybe it was the size of the tome or a synopsis of Captain Ahab. Melville scholars say the original title was “Mocha Dick — the White Whale.” Today a small cell phone is a “Moby” and a “Trenta” is the biggest Iced Mocha at Starbucks.

Speaking of Starbucks…. my favorite character in the 1851 novel is the first mate “Starbuck”. He repeatedly warns Ahab that his egotistical maniacal quest is suicidal for the ship’s crew, immoral for humanity, and against the laws of nature. Seeing the captain has no well-reasoned pragmatic plan, no boundaries on his narcissism, no sense of morality, no limit to his prideful retaliatory vengeance, no compassion for the crew, Starbuck contemplates ever more drastic actions to stop him before it’s too late.

Even though he’s their first mate, the crew chooses to remain loyal to Ahab’s powerful personality. Over against the crew’s increasing unease and fear throughout their erratic voyage, the captain’s charisma and his promise of a fleeting future financial reward keep them cowardly conspiring to sail the ship to its destruction. 

Like the captain and crew, Starbuck suffers the consequences he tried to prevent. The sole survivor is Ishmael, rescued by another ship while floating on the coffin of his best friend, Queequeg, a skilled harpooner from a different race and culture.

Fourscore minus seven years ago, and a century after the novel, the film starring Gregory Peck, and directed by John Houston was released. If you watch it or read it, what are your reactions to this work of fiction?

Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally)

Ich und Du… I and Thou 02252025

Within the safe walls of seminary I read Martin Buber’s book “I-Thou”. I don’t recall all the nuances but the basic idea that called me into a new life can be shared briefly. We treat other people as an I-IT or an I-THOU. I tried to image all the preventable suffering between his writing the book in German in 1923 and the translation I had from 1970.

My attitude towards an IT is transactional —how I can experience, use, manipulate, control…. another as an IT. When I dehumanize, categorize, judge, hate, exploit, define another, I am treating someone as an IT. Joseph Stalin was born a year after Buber’s book. His quote in the Washington Post January 20, 1947 illustrates I-IT: “If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”

An I-THOU is a relationship that does not objectify another but lives in a fully present relationship. When I treat others as a THOU not an it, they in turn are drawn in relationship to me. God always relates to us as I-THOU and invites into relationship. We can turn our relationship with God into an I-IT when we talk about God instead of talking to God.

Writing clergy in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” April 16, 1963 the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. writes: “Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful.”

What I-IT treatments of people do you see today that are not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, but morally wrong and sinful? When have you experienced a profound I-THOU relationship with God, a human being or nature? How does technology impact how you relate to others?

Posted on by Wallis Landrum (Wally)

Martin Niemöller 02182025

The Stuttgart declaration of guilt was signed by leaders of the Protestant Church in Germany in October 1945. It confesses in part: “That which we often testified to in our communities, we express now in the name of the whole church: We did fight for long years in the name of Jesus Christ against the mentality that found its awful expression in the National Socialist regime of violence; but we accuse ourselves for not standing to our beliefs more courageously, for not praying more faithfully, for not believing more joyously, and for not loving more ardently.” It’s not too late to admit you’re mistakes.

An instigator and signer of that declaration was Martin Niemöller who had initially supported Adolph Hitler as an anti-semite. When Hitler ordered protestant churches to preach Nazi doctrine, Martin became one of the founders of the Confessing Church that said we will follow Jesus’ rather than the state. He spent 8 years in concentration camps where his views changed. When he barely survived, he became a famous speaker for protecting human rights. It’s not too late to change your mind.

As a teenager one of the posters on my bedroom was this quote from Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.” Sometimes it’s too late.

You can’t see the poster on my bedroom wall anymore, but you’ll find the quote at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. 

What is yours to do?