The Amazing Gregory Boyle, S.J.

For seventeen semesters from the autumn of 2006, I had the privilege of teaching one course a semester at Rockhurst University in Kansas City, a Jesuit school founded in 1910. It was a rewarding experience for me, and I grew in appreciation for the Jesuits, whose Order was formed in 1534.

I regret that I did not know about Father Gregory Boyle back then in order to introduce him to my students. He has now been a Jesuit for 50+ years and has had a remarkable ministry in Los Angeles for 35+ years. Let me share with you some highlights about this amazing man. 

Gregory Joseph Boyle was born in Los Angeles in 1954. Upon graduating from a Jesuit high school, he joined the Society of Jesus (S.J., the Jesuits). Following his graduation from Gonzaga University, he then earned master’s degrees from three other Jesuit schools.

After being ordained as a priest in 1984, Boyle lived/served for a year in Bolivia. He then returned to LA, where he was appointed pastor of Dolores Mission Church in Boyle Heights, then the poorest Catholic parish in LA and with the highest concentration of gang activity in the city.

In 1988, Boyle began what grew into Homeboy Industries, which, according to their website “is the largest gang rehabilitation and re-entry program in the world.” They go on to say,

For over 30 years, we have stood as a beacon of hope in Los Angeles to provide training and support to formerly gang-involved and previously incarcerated people, allowing them to redirect their lives and become contributing members of our community.

Fr. Boyle has written three major books that I highly recommend. His first book, Tattoos on the Heart: The Power of Boundless Compassion (2010) became a “New York Times Bestseller.” It is a delight to read—as is his second book, Barking to the Choir: The Power of Radical Kinship (2017).*

The third of Boyle’s Power trilogy doesn’t have such a catchy title, but it is an equally engaging book. It is The Whole Language: The Power of Extravagant Tenderness (2021). Like the two predecessors, this book is also a delightful blend of theological reflections and conversations with “homies.”

Consider these key quotes from Boyle’s books:

** “Here is what we seek: a compassion that can stand in awe at what the poor have to carry rather than stand in judgment at how they carry it.” (Tattoos)

** “Compassion isn't just about feeling the pain of others; it's about bringing them in toward yourself. If we love what God loves, then, in compassion, margins get erased. 'Be compassionate as God is compassionate,' means the dismantling of barriers that exclude.” (Tattoos)

** “God, of course, is unchanging and immutable. But our sense of who God is changes as we grow and experience God, and God is constantly nudging us toward that evolution.” (Barking)

** Kinship asks us to move from blame to understanding.” (Barking)

** “It is our lifelong task … to refine our view of God. We won’t be able to speak the whole language until we know the wholeness of God” (The Whole Language, p. 12)

And then there is this quote (which is directly related to my Feb. 16 blog post): 

This is one of more than 50 Boyle quotes found at
Top 50 Gregory Boyle Quotes

I am deeply grateful to Fr. Boyle for what I have learned from him about compassion, kinship, and tenderness. But most of all I am grateful for how he has expanded my understanding of God.

The first chapter of my book Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (2018) is “God is Greater than We Think, or Even Can Think.” Reading Fr. Boyle’s books has increased my awareness of the greatness of God and God’s unconditional love (grace).

That unconditional love is personified in the life and work of Father Gregory Boyle, an amazing man, indeed.

_____

* In reading Barking, I learned that G-Dog, a nicely done documentary of Fr. Boyle, was produced in 2012, and last month June and I really enjoyed watching it (on Amazon Prime; it is also available on other streaming services.)

What about the Immigrants?

Immigration has long been a perplexing problem in this country. Tomorrow is the 140^th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first significant law restricting immigration into the U.S. But immigration continues to be a contentious and divisive issue.  

Fear of Immigrants

“Yellow Peril” is a racist term that depicted the peoples of East and Southeast Asia as an existential threat to the Western world.  

In the U.S., the racist and cultural stereotypes of the Yellow Peril originated in the 19th century, when Chinese workers, who legally entered the U.S., inadvertently provoked a racist backlash because of their work ethic and willingness to work for lower wages than did the local white populations.

Construction of the first transcontinental railroad in the U.S. began in 1863—in the middle of the Civil War. The completion of that challenging endeavor was celebrated with the driving of the “golden spike” on May 10, 1869, an event captured in this much-publicized photograph: 

Photo by Andrew J. Russell

What is missing in the image is even one Chinese worker, although some 15,000 Chinese laborers helped build the western part of that railroad (see this informative July 2019 article from The Guardian)—and 1,200 died in the process.

In the following decade, resentment against Chinese laborers in the U.S. bloated, especially in California, and President Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act on May 6, 1882. Seeking to stem the Yellow Peril, that Act prohibited the immigration of any more Chinese laborers.

Exploitation of Immigrants

There has long been exploitation of immigrants by capitalists. The treatment of the Chinese railroad laborers is one of the first clear examples. Even after 1882, though, throngs of European immigrants came to this country to work in hard jobs with minimal pay and harsh living conditions.

Some bestselling novels depicted the exploitation of such immigrants. For example, Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle featured the plight of immigrants in the Chicago stockyards and meat-packing industry.

The hard lot of European immigrants working in the Michigan copper mines in 1913-14 are depicted in Mary Doria Russell’s captivating novel The Women of Copper Country (2019). (This was the first and the best of the twelve novels I have read so far this year.)

And while John Steinbeck’s powerful novel The Grapes of Wrath (1939) is mostly about domestic migrants, the “Okies” who went to California in the 1930s, in the 19^th chapter he wrote the following about the capitalists engaged in agribusiness:

Now farming became industry . . . . They imported slaves, although they did not call them slaves: Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Filipinos. . . . [The businessmen said,] They don’t need much. They wouldn’t know what to do with good wages. Why, look how they live. Why, look what they eat. And if they get funny—deport them.

Fear of Immigrants Again

And now in 2022 there is considerable opposition to—and latent fear of—immigrants coming across the southern border of the United States.

Granted, the present opposition is ostensibly because such immigrants are “illegal,” but many are coming for the same reason so many Europeans came in the past: the hope for a better standard of living—and until 1924 there was little legal restriction except for Chinese laborers.

The current immigration debate in the U.S. (and many European countries) is between the liberal globalists and the conservative/populist nationalists. The former want a liberal immigration policy partly out of compassion for the needy and partly to promote a multi-cultural, interdependent world.

On the other hand, the nationalists want to protect the well-being of the people of their own country, but often with callous disregard for the needs of those desperate to find safer places to live and a place with better economic conditions.

There are certainly many in this country who strongly side with the nationalists, and Donald Trump’s appeal to them was one of the reasons he was elected President in 2016.*

But as a Christian, I can’t help but side with those showing the most compassion for the immigrants. After all, in Matthew 25:35 Jesus said, “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”**

_____

* In October 2019, PBS aired Zero Tolerance, a documentary about how Steve Bannon used the immigration issue to help get Trump the nomination for the presidency in 2016 and how Trump used that as part of his MAGA appeal that resulted in his election.

** The Greek word translated here as “stranger” is ξένος (xenos), from which the English word xenophobia (=fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners) comes.

“The Return of the Prodigal Son”: A Tribute to Henri Nouwen

Henri Nouwen was an internationally renowned priest and writer. He died 25 years ago, on September 21, 1996. Fr. Nouwen authored 39 books, and his personal favorite was The Return of the Prodigal Son. I have read only a few of his books, but The Return is my favorite also. 

"The Prodigal Son" by Rembrandt

A Bit about Nouwen

Henri Nouwen was born in Holland in January 1932. He was ordained in 1957, and then after studying psychology at a Catholic university in Holland he moved to the U.S. in 1964 to study at the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kansas.

Nouwen went on to teach at the University of Notre Dame and at the divinity schools at both Yale and Harvard. But as an advocate of “downward mobility,” in the early 1980s he lived and worked with the poor in Peru, and then in 1985 he joined the first L’Arche community, which was in France.**

In 1986 Nouwen visited the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, Russia, and spent hours and hours looking at and meditating on Rembrandt’s 1669 painting titled “The Prodigal Son.” In the Prologue of his book, he describes that encounter with Rembrandt’s famous painting.

Also a Dutchman, Rembrandt died at age 63. Nouwen died at age 64, four years after his book The Return of the Prodigal Son was published in 1992.

A Bit about Jesus’ Parable

There are three main parts in Nouwen’s engrossing book: The Younger Son, The Elder Son, and The Father. Those of us who grew up in evangelical churches have heard most about the younger son: after all, he was the “prodigal” in the usual title of Jesus’ parable recorded in Luke 15:11~32.

Evangelistic sermons on that parable usually concluded with an “invitation” that sometimes included singing the hymn “Softly and Tenderly” with this refrain,

Come home, come home,
Ye who are weary, come home;
Earnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling,
Calling, O sinner, come home!

Jesus’ point in his parable, though, was about the elder son. Luke 15 begins, “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, ‘This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them’” (vv. 1-2, NRSV).

So Jesus told the parable to liken the Pharisees and scribes to the elder son, whom the father also dearly loved.

The parable also is about the father, who sometimes (such as by Michael Denk, here), is referred to as the “prodigal father.”

Fr. Denk points out that prodigal can mean lavish and Jesus’ parable teaches that “all it takes is one step towards Him and The Prodigal Father will lavish you with His grace, tenderness, and unconditional love.”

The Point of Nouwen’s Book

Currently, one of the major criticisms of traditional Christianity by the younger generation is that it is too judgmental. So now, even more than thirty years ago when it was first written, Christians need to take to heart Nouwen’s main point: we need to be more like the compassionate father.

Nouwen puts considerable emphasis on the father’s hands in Rembrandt’s painting. The two hands on the kneeling younger son are different: one is a strong masculine hand but the other is a tender feminine hand. Nouwen declares that this depicts the “love of God who is Father as well as Mother.”

In his concluding chapter, Nouwen asserts, “Becoming like the heavenly Father is not just one important aspect of Jesus’ teaching, it is the very heart of his message”—and the key characteristic of the heavenly Father/Mother is not judgment, it is compassion.

Nouwen writes, “Looking at Rembrandt’s painting of the father, I can see three ways to a truly compassionate fatherhood: grief, forgiveness, and generosity.” And he concludes his book with these words:

As I look at my own aging hands, I know that they have been given to me to stretch out toward all who suffer, to rest upon the shoulders of all who come, and to offer the blessing that emerges from the immensity of God’s love.

May we all become more like the compassionate father—and like Henri Nouwen.

_____

** In January, I read Nouwen’s small book The Selfless Way of Christ: Downward Mobility and the Spiritual Life (2007). I noted, This was a small but quite profound book that could/should be read often.

There, But for the Grace of God . . .

The last somewhat personal blog post I made (here on July 26), was not widely read, but today I am sharing more personal reflections indirectly related to that post—and to my 83^rd birthday, which is tomorrow (Aug. 15).

A Wonderful Life

Although I am experiencing a definite decline in physical energy and the need for multiple 10-minute naps every day, I am happy to say that at the end of my 83^rd year I am basically healthy. (Yes, the birthday number marks the end of that year.)

Moreover, I am also basically happy. Last year I published a book mainly for my children and grandchildren. The subtitle of that 186-page book is The Story of My Life from Birth until my 82^nd Birthday (1938~2020). But the main title, A Wonderful Life, is problematic. 

I wrote in the book’s conclusion that “to this point I can honestly say that it has been a wonderful life—and I don’t mean wonderful in the sense that I should be praised for it, but wonderful in the sense that I have for the most part enjoyed the last nearly 80 years that I can remember.”

I can, thankfully, say the same thing now, a year later.

In the book’s brief conclusion, which I finished exactly one year ago today, I wrote, “I thank God for blessing me with a wonderful life. I have received God’s grace (unmerited favor) in manifold ways, and I am deeply thankful for those blessings.”

I fully agree with that statement now, a year later. But what can I say to those who have not been blessed so bountifully? I am more and more seeing this as problematic.

Miserable Lives

We have all heard the words, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” Those words are generally spoken as an expression of humility, acknowledging that the good fortune one enjoys is due to God’s grace rather than to one’s own ability or goodness.

That is all well and good. But here’s the problem: why isn’t God’s grace more available for all the many people who are suffering so miserably?

Certainly, we must recognize that some people have miserable lives because of bad choices they have made in the distant or recent past. For example, more and more people are suffering right now because they spurned covid-19 vaccinations.

However, many suffer through no fault of their own. The miserable life of some people is directly linked to having been born into a dysfunctional or an economically poor family.

Or they haven’t experienced what I have because of my white privilege, male privilege, Christian privilege, and straight/cis privilege, etc. (This is in no way meant to demean BIPOC, females, non-Christians, or LBGTQ people; rather, it recognizes that many such persons lack advantages I have had.)

Compassionate Lives

Perhaps we hurt others unintentionally when we “brag” about what we have received “by the grace of God.” Instead of thinking about ourselves and how well off we are, we need to think more about the needs of others—and work to help disadvantaged people experience more of God’s grace.

That is, many of us need to talk less about our blessings and listen more compassionately to others talk about their needs.

I have a couple of cousins who regularly post Christian content (memes) on Facebook. Last week they both posted about how good God has been to them—and I am truly happy that they are experiencing and acknowledging God’s blessings.

But one of those cousins also often posts negative things about “illegal aliens” and the problems they cause in the U.S. Most of those she criticizes, though, are desperately seeking to improve their misfortunate lives.

Why isn’t God good to them also? Why does my cousin experience God’s grace so much more than the suffering refugees and immigrants from south-of-the-border?

And shouldn’t being graced by God make us more gracious?

So, I’m suggesting we change the old saying: There but for because of the grace of God, go I will . . . .

Can There Be a Radiant Center in Politics?

“Republicans are moving further Right and Democrats are moving further Left. NEITHER situation makes for a unified country.” That comment on my Jan. 25 blog article was posted by Easel Roberts, a Thinking Friend (TF) with whom I used to attend the same Sunday School class here in Liberty but who now lives in South Carolina.

COMPELLING COMMENTS

Easel is a P.E. (Professional Engineer) who works at GE Renewable Energy, and I value his viewpoint, partly because few of my TFs have the educational background and occupational experience that he has.

In a follow-up email, Easel wrote,

“It is, as if, some cosmic force (media, Facebook, politics, social issues) has put us all on a kid’s merry-go-round. The only answer is ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ and vice versa. There is no meaningful dialogue or debate.

“The ‘forces’ are making the merry-go-round go faster and faster. We are fighting desperately to hold on for dear life to keep from being thrown off. IF we could only get to the center, we could relax because there would be no forces throwing us toward the edge. 

“While certainly not human nature, we need to lead people to the middle OR . . . we will destroy the country by trying to WIN. If Christians, and by extension the church, cannot figure this out, then we truly have no hope.” 

AN AFFIRMING RESPONSE

In my response to Easel’s thought-provoking comments, I said, “In my book The Limits of Liberalism I wrote about the need for a ‘radiant center’ regarding theological issues. Perhaps that is one of the biggest needs politically also.”

Finding such a radiant center, however, is probably more difficult, more elusive, and more unlikely in the political world than in the theological world. Yet perhaps that is a goal, an intention, an aspiration that needs to be given the highest priority.

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard mention of a possible civil war ensuing in the near future. Finding the center is not only essential for Christians (the church) as Easel emphasized, it is essential for the United States as a whole.

THE PERSISTING PROBLEM

The ongoing, persistent problem, though, is this: How could a radiant center ever be formed?

For example, what would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider all abortion the same as murder and others see abortion as an essential part of “women’s reproductive rights”?

What would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider same-sex marriage as an abomination contrary to the clear teachings of the Bible and others see it as a necessary part of some people’s civil rights?

What would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider “illegal aliens,” visitors from Near Eastern countries, and refugees from Syria to be serious threats to the safety and wellbeing of U.S. citizens and others see the welcoming of strangers and suffering people to be an indispensable expression of Christian love or even of human decency?

Perhaps there is no center position on such issues. Perhaps it illusionary to think that there could be a center embracing both “pro-life” and “pro-choice”—although there are those now who are emphasizing that “pro-life” means far more than anti-abortion, and most on the left can agree with that emphasis.

Maybe, though, with a constant emphasis on such things as freedom with responsibility, full acceptance of those who are “different,” justice, compassion, etc., there can gradually be, even in politics, the growth and expansion of a much-needed radiant center.

“Jesus was a Refugee”: An Irrelevant Argument

The massive right-wing opposition to the U.S. receiving Syrian refugees is deplorable, and those speaking out in favor of showing compassion for such refugees are to be commended. It is also praiseworthy that many of the latter are Christians, even though there are plenty of conservative Christians on the other side.

 However, the use of “Jesus was a refugee” memes is of dubious value in promoting acceptance of Syrian refugees. Jesus and his parents were not from a country that posed a terrorist threat to Egypt, nor were they among tens of thousands who were seeking refuge in Egypt.

 There are plenty of Christian motives for helping the Syrian refugees, though, the primary one being neighbor-love. Reaching out in compassion to those needing help is to be faithful to the teaching of Jesus. Shouldn’t it be far more effective to stress that teaching rather than talking about Jesus being a refugee?

The fears of the conservatives need to be taken seriously, and making fun of their xenophobia will have little positive value. The terrorist activity of ISIS and Al-Qaeda has been atrocious, and we certainly don’t want people associated with them or other similarly heinous groups to enter our country.

 But rather than trying to shame people wanting to reject Syrian refugees by pointing out that Jesus was a refugee, it would surely be more effective to help people understand how difficult and time consuming it is for refugees, especially those from Syria and other Near Eastern countries, to get permission to reside in this country.

 It would be far easier, and much quicker, for terrorists to enter the country on a tourist visa (perhaps with a counterfeit passport) than to locate here as a refugee. Here is how a recent article puts it:

Non-refugees have carried out all terrorist attacks over the past 35 years. That means they used other means to arrive in the U.S. All of the 9/11 hijackers used student or tourist visas. These visas are much easier and faster to obtain than refugee status, which takes up to two years and requires a multi-stage vetting process and U.N. referral. Refugee status is the single most difficult way to come to the U.S. It makes no sense for a terrorist to try to use the resettlement process for an attack.

The article cited is titled “Six Reasons to Welcome Syrian Refugees After Paris,” and it is worth reading in its entirety. (It surprising that this is on the website of the libertarian Niskanen Center, named after William (Bill) Niskanen, who served from 1985 to 2008 as chairman of the Cato Institute founded by Charles Koch.)

 One can’t help but think that much of the anti-refugee rhetoric and action is primarily because of anti-Obama sentiment. Still, the statements by Republican governors, and other GOP leaders, tend to have considerable influence upon conservative Christians, especially in the South.

 But, thankfully, some conservative Christians have spoken up in favor of compassionate acceptance of refugees. Among them are Russell Moore (in this 11/19 Washington Post article), with whom I have disagreed in previous blog articles. (For example, see this link.)

 Yes, there are plenty of reasons why we in the U.S. should be compassion toward, and accepting of, Syrian refugees. Pointing out that Jesus was a refugee is not one of them.

“Get the Government Off Our Backs!”

The separation of church and state is a long-standing and much-appreciated (by many, including me) principle in the United States. To be sure, there are some who criticize that principle, often because they don’t understand its true meaning.

Recently I learned that there are also people who advocate the separation of economics and state. Just as the principle of separation of church and state means, among other things, that the state should have no control over religious institutions and activities, the separation of economics and state means primarily that the state should have no control over economic/financial activities.

This seems to be the position of the people in our society, most clearly represented by the Tea Party, who keep exclaiming “get the government off our backs!” It is mainly the federal government they are talking about, and their specific opposition is to taxes and government controls/regulations on anything related to economic matters.

The call for separation of economics and state was a strongly-held position of Russian-American novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, who has gained a remarkable number of followers through the years. Her name has been heard often this year.

Rand is well known partly because of her two bestselling novels The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957) and for the philosophical system she called Objectivism.

I have to admit that I have not read Rand’s novels, and I certainly have not taken the time to listen to the 63-hour (!) “audible audio edition” of her 1957 novel.

But I have read enough about them, and her philosophy, to know her key ideas. And recently June and I watched the movie “The Fountainhead” (1949), for which Rand wrote the screenplay. The next evening we watched the biographical documentary “Ayn Rand: In Her Own Words” (2011).

And then we watched the movie “The Passion of Ayn Rand”(1999), featuring Helen Mirren as Rand and based on the book by Barbara Branden, wife of the young man with whom Rand had a lengthy affair.

The Ayn Rand Center (ARC) is the public policy and outreach division of the Ayn Rand Institute. According to their website, “The Center’s mission is to advance individual rights (the rights of each person to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) as the moral basis for a fully free, laissez-faire capitalist society.”

This idea of “a fully free, laissez-faire capitalist society” necessitates the separation of economics and the state (government). Such separation may be good (financially beneficial) for people in business and for those who have money (capital). It is not so good for people who are poor, needing help in securing the basic necessities of life.

Since Ayn Rand was an outspoken advocate of selfishness and opponent of altruism, it is disheartening to see how now there are so many, including some top politicians (Congresspersons), who openly advocate her philosophy.

For example, Representative Paul Ryan reportedly requires his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged and calls Rand “the reason I got involved in public service.”

Doesn’t that kind of thinking lead not only to the separation of economics and state but also, sadly, to the separation of compassion and state?

“Charter for Compassion”

Karen Armstrong, an Englishwoman who was once a Roman Catholic nun, first rose to prominence in 1993 with her book, A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, an international best seller. She has written several widely-read books since then.

In 2008 Armstrong (b. 1944) received the $100,000 TED Prize. She used that windfall to call for the creation of a Charter for Compassion, which was unveiled the following year. (TED, Technology Entertainment and Design, is a global set of conferences owned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, formed to disseminate “ideas worth spreading.”)

The Charter for Compassion was created online by the general public and crafted by leading thinkers in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. In November 2009 it was signed by a thousand religious and secular leaders—and now by over 75,000 more people, including me. The charter has been translated into more than thirty languages.

 The Charter’s first (of four) paragraph states:

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honor the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

That statement, and the paragraphs that follow it, express noble sentiments, indeed. (You can read the whole charter by clicking on this link.)

Armstrong’s most recent book is Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life (2010). On the first page of the Preface, she declares, “One of the chief tasks of our time must surely be to build a global community in which all peoples can live together in mutual respect.” I certainly agree.

But I also wonder why no mention is made of the Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, about which I posted last time. (Did she need to “re-invent the wheel”?)

Unfortunately, some in our society don’t seem to be much in favor of compassion, including some political leaders. Gov. Perry, for example, criticizes liberals who seek to advance “a radical secular agenda in the name of compassion” (Fed Up! p. 13). Later in the same book he strongly criticizes President Bush’s (W’s) “Compassionate Conservatism” (p. 143).

Ayn Rand, the darling of some prominent politicians today, was no supporter of compassion. And back in 2004, the president of the Ayn Rand Center of Individual Rights, railed against the Bush Administration's war in Iraq for embracing compassion (You can read the article here.)

Armstrong, though, contends that “to wish for your enemy’s well-being and happiness” is “the supreme test of compassion” (p. 185). Loving one’s enemies as one loves oneself sounds like something I have heard somewhere else.

Do those words not apply to nations or to politicians?

Note: For you in the D.C. area, Dr. Armstrong will lead a forum on compassion at Washington National Cathedral on the morning of September 11. For you who live in the (north) Kansas City area, the Vital Conversations book discussion group will be discussing the last half of Dr. Armstrong’s book at their regular monthly meeting (at the Mid-Continent Public Library in Gladstone), from 1:00 to 2:30 on Wednesday, September 14.