Dear Marion,

When, after reading your letter, I write that
there's no doubt that you are on the side of the angels,
what I have in mind are not the Rilkean angels
before whom the poet trembled when he wrote
"Ein jeder Engel ist schrecklich,"
but real angels such as Bach invoked in that
glorious chorale with which he concludes
die Johannespassion:

3. Ach, Herr, laß dein' lieb' Engelein
Am letzten End' die Seele mein
In Abrahams Schoß tragen!
Der Leib in sein'm Schlafkämmerlein
Gar sanft, ohn' ein'ge Qual und Pein,
Ruh' bis am Jüngsten Tage.
Und dann vom Tod erwecke mich
Daß meine Augen sehen dich
In aller Freud', o Gottes Sohn,
Mein Heiland und mein Gnadenthron!
Herr Jesu Christ,
Erhöre mich, erhöre mich,
Ich will dich preisen ewiglich! 

Martin Schalling c. 1567

You should listen to it some time, you might like
the music even if the theology remains strange to
you.  I found a translation on the Internet which
I thought was quite adequate, though nothing can
do justice to the original text and its music.

3. Lord, let at last Thine angels come,
To Abram's bosom bear me home,
That I may die unfearing;
And in its narrow chamber keep
My body safe in peaceful sleep
Until Thy reappearing.
And then from death awaken me
That these mine eyes with joy may see,
O Son of God, Thy glorious face,
My Savior and my Fount of grace,
Lord Jesus Christ,
My prayer attend, my prayer attend,
And I will praise Thee without end.

Thank you for your tolerance of my irony. My father would have
been offended by the fecklessness with which I espouse the 
thesis today, tomorrow the antithesis, and the synthesis the
day thereafter, whereupon I resume with a new beginning.
Dialectic is my preferred prophylaxis against hybris.
There is nothing in your letter with which I do not agree.
Far be it from me to denigrate efforts to redress the injustices
of the past. At the same time I can't overlook the circumstance
that many constructive and edifying accommodations to an imperfect
world that have been achieved by diligent individuals of good
will, are likely to be swept away by the reforms. I've emphasized
that I myself do not feel threatened by the feminist reformation,
but it seems likely to me that for some, if not for many women,
the reforms may be unexpectedly painful. Women's liberation
requires women to compete not only against men; it requires them
also to compete against each other. Under the new regime, there
will be a few, and perhaps not so few, who are unable to take
advantage of the new freedoms and who were in need of the
protection that their sisters found so oppressive and that is
now denied them. Some of these women will be destroyed by their
new freedom. When, as I often do, I ride the subway from Harvard
Square to downtown Boston, I am startled by the contrast between
the scarved and demurely attired Muslim girls, the brashly dressed
blacks with long and ornate curls dangling like decorative artwork
from their scalps, and the blondes, with unbridled hair undulating
over their shoulders onto the occupants of the seat behind them,
their low cut blouses providing optimal exposure of the underlying
assets, and thighs bared by their skimpy miniskirts for public
appraisal. As I contemplate the scene, I ask myself: Where do
I fit in. I know the answer: It is, I don't.

It doesn't seem surprising to me that the adherents of many
religions besides Judaism consider themselves God's Chosen
People. Indeed, if for me God is personal, subjective, if God
is within, as I have consistently argued, then I must assume
that there is for all other persons a similar unconditional bond
with God. To the extent that the individual merges with his people,
a similar unconditional bond between God and nation seems to me
unavoidable. Indeed I should think it would be impossible to find
a nation that did not consider itself the exclusive choice of
whatever deity it worshipped. If this is hybris, then all are
guilty.

I respect the humility that led Abraham Lincoln to require us to
be on the side of God, rather than to demand of Him that he be
on our side. Yet, as a practical matter, to determine on which
side God is to be found, each of us must inspect her or his
conscience to determine God's position. What Lincoln required
was an introspective audit, in consequence of which not God, but
the auditee would be changed so as to be "on the side of God",
therefore, automatically, to have God on his side. It was the
failure to audit ones relationship to ones God which Lincoln
protested. Yet for one who is serious about her religion, the
audit, the wrestling with God is a continuing necessity which 
should require no prompting.

As for Joseph, sashaying around in his multicolored coat, 
inviting the envy of his brothers, getting himself thrown into
the pit and sold into Egyptian slavery, I ask, did he have
a choice? Was he free to decide? Could he have conceivably
returned the coat to Jacob? I don't think the coat was
a badge of hybris.  The coat was emblematic of Joseph's being
etwas besonderes.  Being etwas besonderes was his fate which
he could not escape, which in the end, - or should I write,
in the intermediate term, led to his exalted position in Egypt.
But the glory didn't last, because in the end, there arose a
new king over Egypt who knew not Joseph....

This afternoon I helped Margrit arrange a transfer of funds from
the Scotiabank in Windsor to the Federal Credit Union of Michigan
State University. To document the bank routing number, Margrit
showed me a new checkbook, the checks in which were imprinted with
the address: Margrit Meyer, 174 School Street, Belmont MA 02478.
Who would have thought it?

Jochen