As Remembered by Jim Mitulski
I was quoted in Arthur’s obituary in The Bay Area Reporter as follows:
“He was a complex and creative person," Mitulski, now pastor at New Spirit Community Church in Berkeley, said. "As he aged he seemed to me to embrace positions that seemed counter to his early days as a social and political radical with deeply spiritual roots. Though I was puzzled and even disappointed by his apparent animosity toward the homeless, for example, I admire his contribution to our movement, especially during the early years."
As a person with whom Arthur was at periods virtually obsessed (the police had to forcibly remove him from my retirement celebration from MCC San Francisco) I tried to make this statement a thoughtful, judicious summary of his life and politics. I truly believe he was gifted, as I said, and I also believe he was truly clinically and seriously mentally ill, which I did not say. But I think many people share this assessment. Is this appropriate for a tribute? By no means. But if this archive wants to be seen as a potentially credible source for historical research, I think to overlook it is a disservice.