If that Happens to Us, We Experience Grace

Our choice to obey or disobey God’s standard of morality will largely determine our happiness in life. It is almost unbelievable to think that God has given to many of His children the power that is most prized and sacred to Him—the power to create life. Because God gave most humans this power, He, and He alone, has the right to prescribe how it should be used. There is nothing negative ore restraining about God’s moral standards. Rather, they are beneficial, uplifting, and liberating. They build relationships of trust, they enhance self-esteem, they foster a clear conscience, and they invite the Spirit of the Lord to bless individual and married lives. They are the proven standards for happy marriages and stable communities. In illustrating the doctrines of practical morality (if we make allowances for some unfortunate prejudices produced or encountered by violent and oppressive systems of policy), the ancients seem to have availed themselves of every light furnished by nature to human reason; and indeed those writers who, in later times, have treated the subject with the greatest success, are they who have followed most closely the footsteps of the Greek and the Roman philosopher. The theoretical questions, too, concerning the essence of virtue, of the proper object of moral approbation, was a favourite topic of discussion in ancient schools. It was the opinion of Dr. Cudworth, and also of Dr. Clarke, that moral distinctions are perceived by that power of the mind, which distinguishes truth from falsehood. Qualities which are denominated virtuous are those that are useful either to ourselves or to others, and the pleasure of utility. As long as these are deemed righteous acts in the eyes of God and the law. #RandolphHarris 1 of 20

Our moral judgements, both with respect to our own conduct and that of others, include two distinct perceptions: first, A perception of conduct as right or wrong; and secondly, A perception of the merit or demerit of the agent. To that quality of conduct which moralist, in general, express by the word Rectitude, Mr. Adam Smith gives the name of Propriety. When we approve of any character or action, the sentiments which we feel are derived from four different sources. First, we sympathize with the motives of the agent; secondly, we enter into the gratitude of those who receive the benefit of one’s actions; thirdly, we observe that one’s conduct has been agreeable to the general rules by which tends to promote the happiness either of the individual or of society, they appear to derive a beauty from this utility, not unlike that which we ascribe to any well-contrived machine. “You Are Accepted,” portrays the experience of grace which overcome sin. Grace is neither a magical power nor is it an accumulation of gifts. Grace touched us at the deepest level of our being: Sometimes at that moment a wave of light breaks into our darkness, and it is as though a voice were saying: “You are accepted. You are accepted, accepted by that which is greater than you, and the name of which you do not know…Do not seek for anything; do not perform anything; do not intend anything. Simply accept the fact that you are accepted!” #RandolphHarris 2 of 20

If that happens to us, we experience grace. After such an experience we may not be better than before, and we may not believe more than before. However, everything is transformed. In that moment, grace conquers sin, and reconciliation bridges the gulf of estrangement. And nothing is demanded of this experience, no religious or moral or intellectual presupposition, not but acceptance. Psychically disturbed persons cannot be helped by telling them what to do, by holding up a norm to them. They can be helped only by accepting them in spite of their unacceptability. They therapy of acceptance is, in reality, a therapy of grace. What is the connection between grace as acceptance and the Gestalt of grace? Faith is the common denominator, for faith means being grasped and being transformed by grace, by the divine actions which operates through a Gestalt to effect the justification which is acceptance. Furthermore, to experience grace is to experience the New Being in Jesus the Christ who conquers estrangement and whose Cross is the ultimate norm of protest. To experience grace in any fashion is to receive the impact of the Spiritual Presence. However, grace is always a gift, the result of the divine initiative; it can never be produced by human efforts. Grace qualifies all relations between God and man in such a way that they are freely inaugurated by God and in no way dependent on anything the creature does or desires. Although in every virtuous action propriety is an essential ingredient—it is not always the sole ingredient. Beneficent actions have in them another quality, by which they appear, not only to deserve approbation, but recompense, and excite a superior degree of esteem, arising from a double sympathy with the motives of the agent, and the gratitude of those who are the object of one’s affections. #RandolphHarris 3 of 20

As to “guidance,” the believer should understand that when there is no action in one’s spirit, one should use one’s mind. If in everything there must be the “Amen” in the spirit, there is no use for the brain at all, but the spirit does not always speak. There are times when it should be left in abeyance. In all guidance the mind decides the course of action—not only from the feeling in the spirit but by the light in the mind. In coming to a decision, the deciding is an act of mind and will, based upon either the mental process of reasoning or the sense of the spirit, or both, id est: Decision by mental process, reasoning, or decision by sense of the spirit; id est, movement, impelling; drawing or restraint; spirit as if “dead”—no response; contraction of spirit; openness of spirit; fullness of spirit; compression of spirit; burden on spirit; wrestling in spirit; resisting in spirit. Passivity can be produced by seeking for a “leading” in spirit all day, when there may be no action in the spirit to go by. When there is no movement, or “draw,” or “leading” in the spirit, then the mind should be used in reliance upon the promise of God: “The meek will He guide in judgement,” reports Psalms 25.9. An example of this use of his mind when Paul had no consciousness in his spirit of any special guidance from God is clearly given by him when he wrote to the Corinthians that in one matter he had commandment (1 Corinthians 7.10), but in another he said, “I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my judgment,” reports 1 Corinthians 7.25. In the one case he had the guidance through his spirit; in the other he used his mind, and clearly said so—see verse 40: “after my judgment.” #RandolphHarris 4 of 20

Through ignorance a large majority of believers walk “after the soul,” id est, their mind and emotions, and think they are “walking after the spirit.” The satanic forces know this right well, and use all their wiles to draw the believer to live in one’s soul or body, sometimes flashing visions to the mind, or giving exquisite sensations of joy, buoyancy of life, et cetera, to the body—and the believer “walks after the soul” and “after the body” as one follows these things, believing that one is following he Spirit of God. Depending upon supernatural things given from outside or on spiritual experiences in the sense realm checks the inward spiritual life through the spirit. By these experiences of the senses, instead of living in the true sphere of the spirit the believer is drawn out to live in the outer man of one’s body; and ceasing to act from one’s center, one is caught by the outer workings of the supernatural in one’s environment and loses the inner cooperation with God. The devil’s scheme is therefore to make the believer cease walking after the spirit, and to draw one out into the realm of soul or body. Then the spirit, which is the organ of the Holy Spirit in conflict against a spiritual foe, drops into abeyance and is ignored, because the believer is occupied with the sense-experience. It is then practically out of action, either for guidance, or power in service, or conflict. Prophets appear only at intervals in this history of humanity. They die and leave their message. The message is accepted by million, it becomes dear to them. This is precisely the reason why the idea becomes exploitable for others who can make use of the attachment of the people to these ideas, for their own purposes—those of ruling and controlling. #RandolphHarris 5 of 20

Let us call the men who make use of the idea the prophets have announced the priests. The prophets live their ideas. The priests administer them to the people who are attached to the idea. The idea has lost its vitality. It has become a formula. The priests declare that it is very important how the idea is formulated; naturally the formulation becomes always important after the experience is dead; how else could one control people by controlling their thoughts, unless there is the “correct” formulation? The priests use the idea to organize humans, to control them through controlling the proper expression of the idea, and when they have anesthetized humans enough they declare that humans are not capable of being awake and of directing their own lives, and that they, the priests, act out of duty, or even compassion, when they fulfill the function of directing humans who, if left to themselves, are afraid of freedom. It is true not all priests have acted that way, but mot of the have, especially those who wielded power. There are priests not only in religion. There are priests in philosophy and priests in politics. Every philosophical school has its priests. Often they are very learned; it is their business to administer the idea of the original thinker, to impart it, to interpret it, to make it into a museum object and thus to guard it. Then there are the political priests; we have seen enough of them in the last 150 years. They have administered the idea of freedom to protect the economic interests of their social class. In the twenty-first century the priests have taken over the administration of the ideas of socialism. #RandolphHarris 6 of 20

While socialism is an idea aimed at the liberation and independence of humans, the priests declared in one way or another that humans are not capable of being free, or at least that they would not be for a long time. Until then they were obliged to take over, and to decide how the idea was to be formulated, and who was a faithful believer and who was not. The priests usually confuse the people because they claim that they are the successors of the prophet, and that they live with they preach. Yet, while a child could see that they live precisely the opposite of what they teach, the great mass of the people are socially engineered effectively, and eventually they come to believe that if the priests live in splendor they do so as a sacrifice, because they have to represent the great idea; or if they kill ruthlessly they only do so out of revolutionary faith. No historical situation could be more conducive to the emergence of prophets than ours. The existence of the entire human race is threatened by the madness of preparing nuclear war. Stone-age mentality and blindness have led to the point where the human race seems to be moving rapidly toward the tragic end of its history at the very moment when it is near to its greatest achievement. At this point humanity needs prophets, even though it is doubtful whether their voices will prevail against that of the priest. Among the few in whom the idea had become manifest in the flesh, and whom the historical situation of humankind has transformed from teachers into prophets, is Bertran Russell. He happens to be a great thinker, but that is not really essential to his being a prophet. #RandolphHarris 7 of 20

Mr. Betran, together with Mr. Einstein and Mr. Schweitzer, represents the answer of Western humanity to the threat to its existence, because all three of them have spoken up, have warned, and have pointed out the alternatives. Mr. Schweitzer lived the idea of Christianity by working in Lambarene. Mr. Einstein lived the idea of reason and humanism by refusing to join the hysterical voices of nationalism of the German intelligentsia in 1914 and many times after that. Bertrand Russell for many decades expressed his ideas on rationality and humanism in his books; but in recent years he has gone out to the marketplace to show all humans that when the laws of the country contradict the laws of humanity, a true human must choose the laws of humanity. Bertrand Russell has recognized that the idea, even if embodied in one person, gains social significance only if it is embodied in a group. When Abraham argued with God about Sodom’s fate, and challenged God’s justice, he asked that Sodom be spared if there were only ten just men, but not less. If there were less than ten, that is to say, if there were not even the smallest group in which the idea of justice had become embodied, even Abraham could not expect the city to be saved. Bertrand Russell tries to prove that there are the ten who can save the city. That is why he had organized people, has marched with them, and has sat down with them and been carried off with them in police van. While his voice is a voice in the wilderness it is, nevertheless, not an isolated voice. It is the leader of a chorus; whether it is the chorus of a Greek tragedy or that of Mr. Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony only the history of the next few years will reveal. #RandolphHarris 8 of 20

Laws have originated chiefly from the circumstances of society; and attempt to account, from the changes in the condition of humankind, which take place in the different stages of their progress, for the corresponding alterations which their institutions undergo. When there is no outside enforcement, the protector’s honesty is not guaranteed. When one person buys specialized private protection, some bandits shift from protected to unprotected (or self-protected) property. A government concerned with social welfare will internalize this externality, and may in addition apply a higher weight to the welfare of the poorer owners. However, the rich may then prefer private protection. This may lead to cream-skimming, and the political economy of the situation may even defeat any attempts to institute a formal legal system of protection. When some people buy protection, the predators’ attention shifts to the rest, who then need protection more. The owners of smaller or lower-value properties are the ones who suffer more from this externality. Security of property rights depends on government protection, private protection, the efforts made by other people to capture one’s property. All these are costly in different ways; therefore rights are generally not complete. When transacting is costly, all contract forms are costly, so choice of governance form is a constrained optimum (at best). The balance between these forces depends on the underlying parameters. It is often assumed that producers, protectors, and predators come from entirely different populations with entirely different outside opportunities. In reality there is considerable mobility and choice across these occupations; therefore analysis of occupation choice under anarchy has considerable interest. Second, it is also assumed that the protectors will not themselves become predators; the necessary repeated relationships are kept implicit, but they may interact in important ways with the included features. #RandolphHarris 9 of 20

Frequently, we also see that other subtleties that arise in defining and enforcing property rights are ignored. For example, there is an importance of multiple dimensions and heterogeneous interests; there is a political process of adaptation of property rights to changing circumstances. Study of traditional systems of defining and enforcing property rights also brings out the multidimension, multistakeholder nature of the problem, and we should be warned that attempts to impose modern systems of formal laws on such societies can cause more harm than good. Many and rich possibilities remain open for theoretical analyses of these issues. The growth of competence is not separable from the elaboration of identity. In America, the rapid evolution of agencies for concerted action has coincided with remarkable progress in social science. Each development has long roots into the past and strong claims to legitimacy in American public opinion. Current planning agencies trace back to the many types of voluntary mutual assistance associations which have always distinguished this society, and social science in turn professes to be the offspring of natural science, the most potent canon of truth in modern times. Administrators of action agencies seek professional status for themselves and scientific guidance for their policies; social scientist seek public recognition by administrators and expanded use of the research findings; and the future bodes their co-operation. Not only have social science and social planning acted on each other, but each development has had its opponents, who have also interacted. #RandolphHarris 10 of 20

The most severe critics of the administrators of action agencies have charged that, far from implementing the principle of voluntary association and increasing the power of the citizen over one’s destiny, they are destroying it through bureaucratic centralization of power. The most severe critics of social science have denied that social science is or ever can be a science at all. Other critics have condemned social science as a sinister technique for the manipulation of the majority by a self-interested elite of experts and administrators. We call attention to these contemporary clashes of opinion not for the purpose of intensifying them, but only to record in general terms the existence of a controversy which could be documented by numberless references. The current context of discussion into which any proposals for scientific action upon any problems of personality or social organization must plunge is thus highly polarized. This context is not static, however; the controversy does not simply revolve in fixed channels. Out of the dialectical interplay of thought and action, of creation and criticism, some synthesis is emerging. This synthesis can appropriately be named participant experimentation. This concept brings research and planning into an integral relation, closer than they are generally thought to be at present. By deriving future proposals for research and planning from this synthesis, for force of current opposition may be gradually dissolved, and the terms of previous controverses be made obsolete. Furthermore, if the synthesis is real, it will release motivation for carrying forward a movement of research and action suitable for the next few decades. #RandolphHarris 11 of 20

Research of one kind or another has been applied already in every phase of the planning process—in defining the scope of the problem, in calculating the goals and resources for each alternative proposal, in canvassing the views and values of each interest group concerned in a policy decision, in translating the broad program adopted into specific tasks, and in reporting progress periodically through the application of vali indices. The reflexive consequences of proper reporting of progress by agencies need to be restated for special stress: the clarification of an agency’s identity by the mirror of its recent history, the motivating effects of comparing its present achievement with that of past and projected periods, and the involvement effected by avoiding absolute commitments and encouraging the exploration of creation of new values. It is in the appraisal phase of the planning process—the measurement of change and the evaluation of progress—that the nexus between research and planning becomes most clear. In the spread of group work among social workers—a sort of transitional step along the way from the therapeutic to the planning approach in community action—one of the most effective techniques for stimulating action by a community has been the community self-survey. The social worker employing this technique begins dealing with a problem, interracial tension, for example, by organizing a study committee of interested and affected citizens. This group itself carries on the work of obtaining facts and figures about the problem. #RandolphHarris 12 of 20

In the course of meeting together, this committee usually irons our personal and group differences, educates its members and gets them working together in such a way that they are far more ready to take action on their own recommendations than they would have been had the same recommendations been made by the social worker at the outset. Extension workers in agriculture and home economics are now moving beyond their older demonstration methods toward the same group-decision technique. Of course, the community self-survey, promising as it is when properly employed, does not always lead to sufficient action nor can it guarantee the success of a program. Nevertheless, as a transitional development, it has already pointed the way to adoption of the full-scale model of planning. In provides empirical evidence of the motivating effects to be derived from the self-analysis of a group. The main concern of Mr. Marx was, as was Mr. Hegel’s, the full development of human’s potentialities, the subject, as Mr. Hegel put it, “translating itself from the night of possibility into the day of actuality.” Humans, so Mr. Max taught, develop their potentialities in the process of history. He or she ought to be that which one could be, yet which one not yet is. In modern industrial society, humans, according to Mr. Marx, have reached the peak of alienation. In the act of production, the relationship of the worker to one’s own activity is experienced as something “not belonging to him.” While man thus becomes alienated from himself, the product of labour becomes “an alien object which dominates him. The labourer exists for the process of production, and not the process of production for the labourer.” #RandolphHarris 13 of 20

Not only do the things that humans produce become one’s rulers, so do the social and political circumstances which one creates. “This consolidation of what we ourselves produce which turns into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up to now.” That man, the fully developed, productive human has become the subject and not the object of history, that humans have ceased to be “a crippled monstrosity and becomes a fully developed human being” is, according to Mr. Marx, the aim of socialism. Human’s aim, in Mr. Marx’s concept, is independence and freedom. “A being,” he says, “does not regard himself as independent unless he is his own master and he is only his own master when he owes his existence to himself. A man who lives by the favor of another considers himself a dependent being.” As Mr. Marx put it, man is independent only if he “appropriates his manifold being in an all-inclusive way, and thus as a whole man. All his human relations to the World-seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, observing, feeling, desiring, acting, loving—in short, all the organs of his individuality…are…the appropriation of human reality…Private Property has made us so stupid and partial that an object is only ours when we have it, when it exists for us as capital or when it is directly eaten, drunk, worn, inhabited, et cetera, in short, utilized in some way;…Thus all the physical and intellectual senses have been replaced by the simple alienation of all these senses; the sense of having. The human being had to be reduced to this absolute poverty in order to be able to give birth to all his inner wealth.” #RandolphHarris 14 of 20

Mr. Marx’s idea of the full self-realization of man implies that this self-realization can occur only in human’s relatedness to the World, to nature, to one’s fellow human and in the relationship of men to women. That socialism was, for Mr. Marx, as Paul Tillich has put it “a resistance movement against the destruction of love in social reality,” becomes very evident from the following passage: “Let us assume man and his relation to the World to be a human one. Then love can only be exchanged for love, trust for trust, et cetera. If you wish to influence other people, you must be a person who really has a stimulating and encouraging effect upon others. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return, id est, if you are not able by the manifestation of yourself as a loving person, to make yourself a beloved person, then your love is impotent, a misfortune.” The productive, free, independent, loving individual—this was Mr. Marx’s vision of humans. He was not concerned with maximum production and consumption, although he was in favour of making possible for everybody the attainment of an economic level that is the basis of a humanly dignified life. He was also not primarily concerned with the equalization of income, although he would have been opposed to such inequality as prevents humans from sharing the same basic experiences of life. Mr. Marx’s central concern was with the liberation of humans from the kind of work which destroys one’s individuality, transforms one into a thing, and enslaves one to the things of one’s own creation. #RandolphHarris 15 of 20

A man dreams that he is back with the A.E.F. in the war. He has received orders to get through the opposite lines into enemy headquarters. He dons an officer’s uniform, which seems to be German, and suddenly finds himself among a group of German officers. He is surprised that the headquarters are so comfortable and that everyone is so friendly to him, but he gets more and more frightened that they will find out that he is a spy. One of the younger officers for whom he feels a particular liking approached him and says “I know who you are. There is only one way for you to escape. Start telling jokes, laugh and make them laugh so much that they are diverted by your jokes from paying any attention to you.” He is very grateful for this advice and starts making jokes and laughing. Eventually his joking increases to such an extent that the other officers get suspicious, and the greater their suspicions the more forced his jokes appear to be. At last such a feeling of terror fills him that he cannot bear to stay any longer; he suddenly jumps up from his chair and they all run after him. Then the scene changes, and he is sitting in a streetcar which stops just in front of his house. He wears a business suit and has a feeling of relief at the thought that the way is over. Let us assumes that we are in a position to ask him the next day what occurs to him in connection with the individual elements of the dream. We record here only a few associations which are particularly significant for understanding the main point we are interested in. The German uniform reminds him that there was on guest at the party on the previous evening who spoke with a heavy German accent. He remembered having been annoyed by this man because had had not paid much attention to him, although he (our dreamer) had gone out of his way to make a good impression. #RandolphHarris 16 of 20

While rambling along with these thoughts he recalls that for a moment at the party he had had the feeling that this man with the German accent had actually made fun of hum and smiled impertinently at some statement he had made. Thinking about the comfortable room in which the headquarters were, it occurs to him that it looked like the room in which he had once failed in an examination. Surprised at this association, he went on to recall that before going to the party he was somewhat concerned about the impression he would make, partly because one of the guests was the brother of a girl whose interest he wanted to win, and partly because the host had much influence with a superior on whose opinion about him much depended for his professional success. Speaking about this superior he had felt some dislike for his host too, although he was not aware of if at all. Another of his associations is that he had told a funny incident about a bald man and then was slightly apprehensive lest he might have hurt his host who happened to be almost bald too. The streetcar struck him as strange since there did not seem to be any tracks. While talking about it, he remembers the streetcar he was riding on as a boy on his way to school, and further detail occurs to him, namely, that he had thought that driving a streetcar was astonishingly little different from driving an automobile. It is evident that the streetcar stands for his own car in which he had driven home, and that his returning home reminded him of going home from school. #RandolphHarris 17 of 20

To anyone accustomed to understand the meaning of dreams, the implication of the dream and the accompanying associations will clearly by now, although only part of his associations have been mentioned and practically nothing has been said about the personality structure, the past and the present situation of the man. The dream reveals what his real feeling was at the previous night’s party. He was anxious, afraid of failing to make the impression he wanted to make, angry at several persons by whom he felt ridiculed and not sufficiently liked. The dream shows that his gaiety was a means of concealing his anxiety and his anger, and at the same time of pacifying those at whom he was angry. All his gaiety was a mask; it did not originate in himself, but covered what “he” really felt: fear and anger. This also made his whole position insecure, so that he felt like a spy in an enemy camp who might be found out any moment. The fleeting expression of sadness and desperation we noticed on him just when he was leaving, now finds its affirmation and also its explanation: at that moment his face expressed what “he” really felt, although it was something “he” was not really aware of feeling. In the dream, the feeling is described in a dramatic and explicit way, although it does not overtly refer to the people toward whom his feelings were directed. This man is not neurotic, nor was he under a hypnotic spell; he is a rather normal individual with the same anxiety and need for approval as are customary in modern man. #RandolphHarris 18 of 20

He was not aware of the fact that his gaiety was not “his,” since he is so accustomed to feel what he is supposed to feel in a particular situation, that it would be the exception rather than the rile which would make him aware of anything being “strange.” What holds true of thinking and feeling holds also true of willing. Most people are convinced that as long as they are not overtly forced to do something by an outside power, their decisions are theirs, and that if they want something, it is they who want it. However, this is one of the great illusions we have about ourselves. A great number of our decisions are not really our own but are suggested to us from the outside; we have succeeded in persuading ourselves that it is we who have made the decision, whereas we have actually conformed with expectations of others, driven by the fear of isolation and by more direct threats to out life, freedom, and comfort. When children are asked whether they want to go to school every day, and their answer is, “Of course, I do,” is the answer true? In many cases certainly not. The child may want to go to school quite frequently, yet very often would like to play or do something else instead. If he feels, “I want to go to school every day,” he may repress his disinclination for the regularity of schoolwork. He feels that he is expected to want to go to school every day, and this pressure is strong enough to submerge the feeling that he goes so often only because he has to. If he could be aware of the fact that sometimes he wants to go and sometime he only foes because he has to go, the child might feel happier. Yet the pressure of the sense of duty is great enough to give him the feeling that “he” wants what he is supposed to want. #RandolphHarris 19 of 20

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. “Seek good and not evil, that you may live; then I the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you. Hate evil and love what is Good, yea, establish justice in the land. Let justice well up as the water, and righteousness as a mighty stream. For righteousness and justice are the foundation of God’s throne. For the Lord of Hosts is exalted through righteousness, and God, the Holy One, is sanctified through justice.” Speak not against the truth; and when you lack knowledge, keep silent. Keep your tongue from speaking falsehood; whoever speaks falsely will oneself be maligned. Be steadfast in your conviction, and let your speech be true to it. Speakers of falsehood are despised by all, but the faithful are honoured in the sight of man. Be rulers over your speech, and have control over your words. Utter no falsehood, for the habit of it leads to evil. He who strives for truth and speaks it, is worthy in the sight of man. Falsehood is common, truth is rare; yet truth endures while falsehood comes to an evil end. Oppression and injustice shall be destroyed, but true dealings shall endure forever. Do not hesitate to speak the truth when you should speak, and do not hide your wisdom as a treasure. Contend for the truth unto death, and the Lord will establish your cause. Truth is the bridge between Earth and Heaven, the brightest jewel in the crown of virtue. Truth is the seal of God; one who has truth in one’s heart has God for one’s guide. And please be sure to donate to the Sacramento Fire Depart, for they are not receiving all of their resources. #RandolphHarris 20 of 20