Showing posts with label rambling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rambling. Show all posts
Friday, August 21, 2009
This day in history
Banastre Tarleton was born today.
Two notes about Francis Marion.
I really dislike the Disney show.
Here in Georgia folks are prone to claiming descent from a Cherokee princess. In South Carolina the same sort make the same claim about Francis Marion. The Cherokee had no royalty, so they didn't have princesses. Francis Marion had no known descendants. Oddly enough, neither did Banastre Tarleton.
On a side note, several people on a mailing list I read were claiming some sort of connection with William Porcher DuBose. What made that amusing was how tenuous and strained their reaching became. I went to high school and college with Dede Dubose, who happens to be his granddaughter. Her brother Billy graduated from Sewanee in 1977 and lives in South Carolina.
That's a legitimate connection, if you will.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Millions for Lawsuits, Not One Penny for Jesus
The recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church did many things. Bottled water is now officially a Bad Thing, for example. One of the more important things it did was eliminate, completely, evangelism from the national budget. Now it's quite possible to argue that was a good thing, given the current nature of Episcopal theology. But, were I a member of the Episcopal Church I would be worried. Evangelism is how churches grow. The money, effort and staffing spent evangelising is an investment in the future.
Certainly, individual dioceses and parishes will spend money on evangelism. Some of them even have officially designated evangelists on staff. But where an organization spends money is clear sign of what its priorities are. What are the Episcopal Church's priorities? Well the only items to see increases in funds were those included under the heading of Presiding Bishop's office. This includes $3 million for litigation and $1 million for disciplining bishops (and possibly other clergy). That's a staggering sum.
Currently, the official position of the Episcopal Church is that only individuals may leave. Diocese, parishes and such may not leave. Also, all property belongs to the national church. The national church has resolutely resisted any attempts by churches to exit with their property.
The problem is, that even if you happen to agree with 815, what argument can be made against allowing a church to buy its own property? In the vast majority of cases of a congregational split, the remnant congregation has been folded. Selling vacant churches is almost always problematic. I'm told St James, Newport is on the waterfront, which makes it extremely valuable, but most of the dissident churches have not been so blessed.
The litigation has been justified as a 'stewardship issue'. I'm just not buying it. Then again neither are the churches in question. A good and wise steward would seek to extract the maximum value for the property. Disregarding any prohibitions against litigation and being totally worldly, the good steward would assess each case on its facts, and litigate when the cast of the suit was well below the value of the property. He would also negotiate whenever possible to get the greatest value for property.
Outside of Central Florida, we haven't seen this. And again, I have to ask: Why?
What, exactly are the priorities of the Episcopal Church?
All signs point to an organization that is trying to stay on an even keel while the ship sinks. The officers and crew seem to just want to stay afloat until they retire. Any thoughts of repairing the damage have been officially cast aside.
Certainly, individual dioceses and parishes will spend money on evangelism. Some of them even have officially designated evangelists on staff. But where an organization spends money is clear sign of what its priorities are. What are the Episcopal Church's priorities? Well the only items to see increases in funds were those included under the heading of Presiding Bishop's office. This includes $3 million for litigation and $1 million for disciplining bishops (and possibly other clergy). That's a staggering sum.
Currently, the official position of the Episcopal Church is that only individuals may leave. Diocese, parishes and such may not leave. Also, all property belongs to the national church. The national church has resolutely resisted any attempts by churches to exit with their property.
The problem is, that even if you happen to agree with 815, what argument can be made against allowing a church to buy its own property? In the vast majority of cases of a congregational split, the remnant congregation has been folded. Selling vacant churches is almost always problematic. I'm told St James, Newport is on the waterfront, which makes it extremely valuable, but most of the dissident churches have not been so blessed.
The litigation has been justified as a 'stewardship issue'. I'm just not buying it. Then again neither are the churches in question. A good and wise steward would seek to extract the maximum value for the property. Disregarding any prohibitions against litigation and being totally worldly, the good steward would assess each case on its facts, and litigate when the cast of the suit was well below the value of the property. He would also negotiate whenever possible to get the greatest value for property.
Outside of Central Florida, we haven't seen this. And again, I have to ask: Why?
What, exactly are the priorities of the Episcopal Church?
All signs point to an organization that is trying to stay on an even keel while the ship sinks. The officers and crew seem to just want to stay afloat until they retire. Any thoughts of repairing the damage have been officially cast aside.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Book Bashing
I recently learned of a writer through a rather circuitous route. His name is 'Mike Homfray'. I disagree rather vehemently with just about everything he believes in. So I'm not linking to his blog, or his various comments throughout the Web. However, he's written a book. Like all authors he links to his book on his blog. Also like any author, he wants people to buy his book.
The name of his book is Provincial Queens: The Gay and Lesbian Community in the North-West of England. I have little to no interest in that subject. All I could make out on his blog, was the cover, which is Pepto-Bismol pink and I could not read the title, so I clicked on it, which pushed me through to the publisher's site.
Here's the meat of this story. The price of the book (full retail) in England is 34 pounds. The price in the U S is $85.95. The book is 271 pages long and is a paperback. The cost at Amazon is the same in pounds, but if you order in the US, it is $67.95. The publisher is a known semi-vanity press (that is they generally require a partial payment from the author towards publishing costs, anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 pounds).
Now there is every reason to want to get published. Some authors think their book will be the next best-seller and are in it for the dough. That's not likely the case here. Some authors write as part of the publish or perish process in academia. To a certain extent, I suspect that may be the case here. An awful lot of academics are in the position of needing a book or scholarly paper to put on the old curriculum vitae. Peter Lang does publish some scholarly works that are cited from time to time in their fields. They publish a great many more that are not.
Most authors want to be published because they wish to communicate their ideas, their story or their thoughts and feelings. Unfortunately, publishing a seventy dollar paperback is not likely the way to achieve that.
There are an awful lot of vanity presses out there. If anything the Internet has helped that market to blossom. Printing on demand has dramatically reduced the cost of book production. Many books are now available in formats that didn't exist until recently, such as Kindle or PDF.
One of the more interesting new vanity presses is Lulu.com (disclaimer: I have no affiliation with them. I just love the name). To publish a dust jacketed hardcover book with 271 pages it costs $25. That's it. You can write the book, have them print off a copy and have the smallest print run imaginable for $25. Mr Homfray's book, in the manner and style that Lang printed it would cost about half that. There are other publishers with similar services. Now Lulu.com has little to no academic status, but if your desire is to get your ideas out there then Lulu or their competitors are the ways to go.
If we assume a 100% mark up between cost of publishing to selling price, then you would sell it for $25. That would be a perfect bound trade paperback of moderate length. Lang sells it for $42 more. My question is whether the rather dubious academic prestige of being published by Lang is worth $42. For some, it obviously is. But it seems a rather steep price to pay for someone on the bottom rungs of academia to climb another step on the tenure track.
All of which makes me wonder how long the Peter Langs of this world will last.
The name of his book is Provincial Queens: The Gay and Lesbian Community in the North-West of England. I have little to no interest in that subject. All I could make out on his blog, was the cover, which is Pepto-Bismol pink and I could not read the title, so I clicked on it, which pushed me through to the publisher's site.
Here's the meat of this story. The price of the book (full retail) in England is 34 pounds. The price in the U S is $85.95. The book is 271 pages long and is a paperback. The cost at Amazon is the same in pounds, but if you order in the US, it is $67.95. The publisher is a known semi-vanity press (that is they generally require a partial payment from the author towards publishing costs, anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 pounds).
Now there is every reason to want to get published. Some authors think their book will be the next best-seller and are in it for the dough. That's not likely the case here. Some authors write as part of the publish or perish process in academia. To a certain extent, I suspect that may be the case here. An awful lot of academics are in the position of needing a book or scholarly paper to put on the old curriculum vitae. Peter Lang does publish some scholarly works that are cited from time to time in their fields. They publish a great many more that are not.
Most authors want to be published because they wish to communicate their ideas, their story or their thoughts and feelings. Unfortunately, publishing a seventy dollar paperback is not likely the way to achieve that.
There are an awful lot of vanity presses out there. If anything the Internet has helped that market to blossom. Printing on demand has dramatically reduced the cost of book production. Many books are now available in formats that didn't exist until recently, such as Kindle or PDF.
One of the more interesting new vanity presses is Lulu.com (disclaimer: I have no affiliation with them. I just love the name). To publish a dust jacketed hardcover book with 271 pages it costs $25. That's it. You can write the book, have them print off a copy and have the smallest print run imaginable for $25. Mr Homfray's book, in the manner and style that Lang printed it would cost about half that. There are other publishers with similar services. Now Lulu.com has little to no academic status, but if your desire is to get your ideas out there then Lulu or their competitors are the ways to go.
If we assume a 100% mark up between cost of publishing to selling price, then you would sell it for $25. That would be a perfect bound trade paperback of moderate length. Lang sells it for $42 more. My question is whether the rather dubious academic prestige of being published by Lang is worth $42. For some, it obviously is. But it seems a rather steep price to pay for someone on the bottom rungs of academia to climb another step on the tenure track.
All of which makes me wonder how long the Peter Langs of this world will last.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Blog Stats
Earlier this week, I passed 50,000 page loads.
This is staggering and humbling. I'm just a guy at his computer rambling on about this and that.
Thanks for reading me.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Size Matters
Atlanta's name chef, Richard Blais, has opened a burger joint, Flip. Sally and I ate there recently and enjoyed the food (although we did look askance at the desserts. A Krispy Kreme shake seems like such a bad idea on so many different levels).
Some controversy has emerged over the size of Mr. Blais' burgers. The burgers at Flip are about 3 to 3&1/2 ounces cooked, which works out to a 1/4 pound uncooked. They are extraordinarily tasty. Some persons are complaining that the burgers are too small and are comparing them to Krystals, which is both unkind and inaccurate.
When did 1/2 pound burgers become standard? Are we so gorged on the standard Applebees/ Good Fridays/ Chilis fare that we have lost sight of what size a burger ought to be? A standard McDonalds hamburger patty is 1/10th of a pound uncooked. The Quarter Pounder is, oddly enough, 1/4 of a pound uncooked. With Mickey D's meat there is of course much shrinkage after cooking.
My major problem with eating out is the portion size. I've found that I'm really not very hungry at night. When I'm presented with the normal portions found in a restaurant, I almost always have to take some or most of it home for leftovers. This is especially problematic with the freezer bag/microwave restaurants as the food typically isn't that wonderful when originally served.
Restaurants like to serve large portions as their patrons perceive it as good value. The major expense in running a restaurant is not food cost, but labour. Since it takes almost the same effort to nuke a one pound meal as a one half pound meal, the can afford to 'give away' the extra food.
The result of all this has been that as we eat out more, we've been eating a lot more out, and we're, at least i'm, getting fatter.
One possible result of this recession is that we may eat out less. I hope so. I hate buying new belts.
Some controversy has emerged over the size of Mr. Blais' burgers. The burgers at Flip are about 3 to 3&1/2 ounces cooked, which works out to a 1/4 pound uncooked. They are extraordinarily tasty. Some persons are complaining that the burgers are too small and are comparing them to Krystals, which is both unkind and inaccurate.
When did 1/2 pound burgers become standard? Are we so gorged on the standard Applebees/ Good Fridays/ Chilis fare that we have lost sight of what size a burger ought to be? A standard McDonalds hamburger patty is 1/10th of a pound uncooked. The Quarter Pounder is, oddly enough, 1/4 of a pound uncooked. With Mickey D's meat there is of course much shrinkage after cooking.
My major problem with eating out is the portion size. I've found that I'm really not very hungry at night. When I'm presented with the normal portions found in a restaurant, I almost always have to take some or most of it home for leftovers. This is especially problematic with the freezer bag/microwave restaurants as the food typically isn't that wonderful when originally served.
Restaurants like to serve large portions as their patrons perceive it as good value. The major expense in running a restaurant is not food cost, but labour. Since it takes almost the same effort to nuke a one pound meal as a one half pound meal, the can afford to 'give away' the extra food.
The result of all this has been that as we eat out more, we've been eating a lot more out, and we're, at least i'm, getting fatter.
One possible result of this recession is that we may eat out less. I hope so. I hate buying new belts.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The State I'm In
Here in Georgia the sale of liquor, beer and wine in bottles is strictly prohibited on Sundays. You can still buy a glass of wine or a martini to go with your meal but you're out of luck if you want a six pack of Bud for the game.
Normally that isn't a problem. Neither Sally nor I are real drinkers so we don't really miss not being able to buy on the Baptist Sabbath.
However, it now is. My father's 80th birthday is January 6th. All of his progeny, friends and relations are gathering the weekend after New Years to celebrate. My extraordinarily capable baby sister is coordinating the party preparations and she assigned us the task of getting the champagne.
The only problem with that is that I have no actual knowledge of champagne. My goal is to get enough for the crowd with a little left over. The champagne needs to be drinkable (no sparkling Thunderbird in other words) and cheap.
Yesterday we were in a large discount store late in the day and we noticed they had three different sparkling wines: Asti, Korbel and 'some other brand'. I had heard of the first two and know them to be okay in quality. The price on the third was ideal. I jotted down the price and sizing information on all three, did some more shopping, then went home. When I looked the 'some other brand' up on the web I found that it was considered to be the best of three. So it is easily the best value for the money. It may be sparkling vinegar, but based upon price, bottle size and reputation, it is my platonic ideal of champagne.
But I can not buy it because of my home state's stupid liquor laws. Which means I have to wait until after I finish work on Monday to score the bargain of the year.
All of which explains why I am not sharing the name of the store or the name of the wine with the entire Internet community. I'm not naming names, but some of you would scurry down to the store and scarf it up before I can get there.
Normally that isn't a problem. Neither Sally nor I are real drinkers so we don't really miss not being able to buy on the Baptist Sabbath.
However, it now is. My father's 80th birthday is January 6th. All of his progeny, friends and relations are gathering the weekend after New Years to celebrate. My extraordinarily capable baby sister is coordinating the party preparations and she assigned us the task of getting the champagne.
The only problem with that is that I have no actual knowledge of champagne. My goal is to get enough for the crowd with a little left over. The champagne needs to be drinkable (no sparkling Thunderbird in other words) and cheap.
Yesterday we were in a large discount store late in the day and we noticed they had three different sparkling wines: Asti, Korbel and 'some other brand'. I had heard of the first two and know them to be okay in quality. The price on the third was ideal. I jotted down the price and sizing information on all three, did some more shopping, then went home. When I looked the 'some other brand' up on the web I found that it was considered to be the best of three. So it is easily the best value for the money. It may be sparkling vinegar, but based upon price, bottle size and reputation, it is my platonic ideal of champagne.
But I can not buy it because of my home state's stupid liquor laws. Which means I have to wait until after I finish work on Monday to score the bargain of the year.
All of which explains why I am not sharing the name of the store or the name of the wine with the entire Internet community. I'm not naming names, but some of you would scurry down to the store and scarf it up before I can get there.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Lovely Word
My favourite word is 'love'. But one of my top ten faves is 'hope'. Recently, I had an exchange with Dean Munday of Nashotah House on his blog. A concern of many among the conservative Episcopalians has been the complacency with which the leadership of the Episcopal Church regards the decline in membership. Both average Sunday attendance and actual membership have decreased since the mid-sixties. There have been a few years in that period where the trend has leveled or reversed, but overall the trend has been down.
The word from our leadership has been that this is a natural result from our demographics and the trend is shared amongst most mainline Protestant denominations. All of which is true. What has been missing is any sense of urgency as well as any sense that this is serious and worth devoting energy and resources to reversing.
I read the House of Bishops and Deputies Mailing List at least twice a week. One senior clergyman reports on church defections and other demographic catastrophes from time to time. The responses to his posts have been largely vitriolic, condemning him for presuming to mention bad news. I have been and remain somewhat perplexed by these responses.
I am not the most optimistic person on the planet. My wife has repeatedly said that my brother got double the normal dose of optimism and I received double the normal dose of pessimism. She is probably right. I rarely think things will end well. Reality is messy, and the world is full of pain.
However, in the end, all will indeed be well. At the core of the Gospel is that lovely word 'hope'. Our hope is in Jesus, and He has said that we are known to God and loved by Him and that we have a home with Him at the end.
I think Dean Munday hit the nail on the head when he wrote “I would argue that this aspect of the European mentality is characteristic of American liberals as well. And that is hardly surprising, since once you have given up the assumptions of historic Christianity about the Gospel, sin and redemption, the nature and destiny of the human soul, etc., a kind of resignation about one's own decline and death or the destruction of human institutions takes over. “
So what we are seeing is a church that shows that it has abandoned the Gospel by its lack of hope. Is it little surprise that it also shows very little love either? A church without hope is a church that will not feel the need to evangelize. If there is no Good News, then there is no need to share Good News. What is left is a need to make the best of our time here on earth before we totter to our graves and the final oblivion.
This has produced some good results. The Episcopal Church really did well in promoting civil rights in the fifties and sixties. But it also has left us with a church unpinned by any constraints. As well as a church complacent in its own righteousness and purpose, because if there is no hope, then there really isn't any God. All that is left is social action as defined by a relativistic human scale.
As for me, as pessimistic as I am, and I am pessimistic, I cling to the hope we have been given by our Creator and is best exemplified by His Passion and Resurrection. That hope is well worth sharing.
The word from our leadership has been that this is a natural result from our demographics and the trend is shared amongst most mainline Protestant denominations. All of which is true. What has been missing is any sense of urgency as well as any sense that this is serious and worth devoting energy and resources to reversing.
I read the House of Bishops and Deputies Mailing List at least twice a week. One senior clergyman reports on church defections and other demographic catastrophes from time to time. The responses to his posts have been largely vitriolic, condemning him for presuming to mention bad news. I have been and remain somewhat perplexed by these responses.
I am not the most optimistic person on the planet. My wife has repeatedly said that my brother got double the normal dose of optimism and I received double the normal dose of pessimism. She is probably right. I rarely think things will end well. Reality is messy, and the world is full of pain.
However, in the end, all will indeed be well. At the core of the Gospel is that lovely word 'hope'. Our hope is in Jesus, and He has said that we are known to God and loved by Him and that we have a home with Him at the end.
I think Dean Munday hit the nail on the head when he wrote “I would argue that this aspect of the European mentality is characteristic of American liberals as well. And that is hardly surprising, since once you have given up the assumptions of historic Christianity about the Gospel, sin and redemption, the nature and destiny of the human soul, etc., a kind of resignation about one's own decline and death or the destruction of human institutions takes over. “
So what we are seeing is a church that shows that it has abandoned the Gospel by its lack of hope. Is it little surprise that it also shows very little love either? A church without hope is a church that will not feel the need to evangelize. If there is no Good News, then there is no need to share Good News. What is left is a need to make the best of our time here on earth before we totter to our graves and the final oblivion.
This has produced some good results. The Episcopal Church really did well in promoting civil rights in the fifties and sixties. But it also has left us with a church unpinned by any constraints. As well as a church complacent in its own righteousness and purpose, because if there is no hope, then there really isn't any God. All that is left is social action as defined by a relativistic human scale.
As for me, as pessimistic as I am, and I am pessimistic, I cling to the hope we have been given by our Creator and is best exemplified by His Passion and Resurrection. That hope is well worth sharing.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Class in Embalming
The children of God having left, the remaining Episcopalians in San Joaquin have been asked to help those in other breakaway dioceses remain Episcopalian. I assume that there will be seminars in how to ditch those pesky Standing Committees, how to pry largesse out of 815, how to have some level of input as to who your new bishop will be, basic lawsuit filing, and of course the ever popular labyrinth design workshop.
For a denomination that prides itself on dialog, the Episcopal Church resorts to scorched earth tactics in lieu of negotiation entirely too much. Our leadership not only can no longer use the language of Christianity, it can not act Christ-like either.
I am very much in favour of those who wish to stay Episcopalian staying Episcopalian. I am also in favour of those who wish to leave, being allowed to leave. And I am keenly aware of the fact that there are only a limited number of churches that I have ever contributed money to and that under any sense of fairness I would ever presume to feel that I have some sense of ownership. Anglo-Catholic I may be, but I didn't build those buildings, I didn't work in them, raise children in them or get buried near them. I have no right to have a voice in their disposal.
I wish like heck that those who have no direct interest in the building (I am looking at you Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori) would keep their big fat flapping mouths shut and mind their own business. If you feel you have a steward's obligation towards the properties, then may I ask what efforts you have ever put towards their construction and maintenance? As to the funds you have direct and overt authority over, is handing them to Goodwin-Procter really the highest and best use for them? I assume you learned at your recent poverty summit that there are still poor people in America.
Some factual background information:
The reconstituted Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin consists of six parishes (churches that are self supporting) and ten missions, one of which has its own building.
For a denomination that prides itself on dialog, the Episcopal Church resorts to scorched earth tactics in lieu of negotiation entirely too much. Our leadership not only can no longer use the language of Christianity, it can not act Christ-like either.
I am very much in favour of those who wish to stay Episcopalian staying Episcopalian. I am also in favour of those who wish to leave, being allowed to leave. And I am keenly aware of the fact that there are only a limited number of churches that I have ever contributed money to and that under any sense of fairness I would ever presume to feel that I have some sense of ownership. Anglo-Catholic I may be, but I didn't build those buildings, I didn't work in them, raise children in them or get buried near them. I have no right to have a voice in their disposal.
I wish like heck that those who have no direct interest in the building (I am looking at you Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori) would keep their big fat flapping mouths shut and mind their own business. If you feel you have a steward's obligation towards the properties, then may I ask what efforts you have ever put towards their construction and maintenance? As to the funds you have direct and overt authority over, is handing them to Goodwin-Procter really the highest and best use for them? I assume you learned at your recent poverty summit that there are still poor people in America.
Some factual background information:
The reconstituted Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin consists of six parishes (churches that are self supporting) and ten missions, one of which has its own building.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Moving
We had dinner last night with my brother and his wife. They confirmed that they are likely leaving Atlanta by mid-summer. My sister and her family are moving out of their apartment into a new house this weekend. Sally and I are staying right where we are.
I'm probably moving as well though. I do not know where, but I think that I can no longer be a part of an organization that revels in injustice. I do not think I will be an Episcopalian for much longer.
The Episcopal Church has been moving in the wrong direction for decades. I have fought the changes with every fibre of my being. I have participated in church politics, I have done committees, written letters, politicked, campaigned, you name it. Some time back I burnt out and almost ceased being a Christian, let alone an Episcopalian.
The argument I hear from my reappraising mother and moderate father is that I ought to remain. That doctrinal disagreements are no reason to leave. That it is possible to reform from within. They are correct. 2008 is by no means the worst year in the history of Christianity. Arguably, that honour belongs to 1378, when there were two Popes serving at the same time.
However, there is more to membership than working from within. We are more than Episcopalians. We are also Christians. And the second is much more important than the former.
For some time, the label Episcopalian has been hindering my Christian witness. That is unacceptable. Given the lack of commitment of my church to mercy, charity, grace or even justice at the present time, I can not see that remaining will constitute anything other than an endorsement of my church's actions.
I think I will stay to see what happens to Bishop Duncan. That will be the final straw, the last ditch, the line that must not be crossed. If the Episcopal Church behaves as I believe it will, then the following things will happen.
I have been donating anonymously to my alma mater. That will cease. I have given money to my home church. That will stop. All of my time and energy that I have spent protesting, corresponding and communicating with anyone who will listen about the current state of affairs in the Episcopal Church will be spent on finding a new home for my wife and myself.
I don't expect to hear anything from the institutional loyalists other than 'don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out'. But....
How many people have to leave before our leadership acknowledges that there is a problem? How small can the Episcopal Church get and remain viable? If there is no physical resurrection, no life after death, no real theology or ethics or even morality other than “God won't fix in a box” then what reason is there for the Episcopal Church?
The Baptists have better sermons, the Methodists have much better music, the Catholics have better liturgy, the Orthodox have greater solemnity, and the Presbyterians just know what's going to happen. And all of them have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. So why be an Episcopalian? What do we have to offer that is valuable?
That's the core of the current crisis. Because if you do not believe that Jesus is God and that you are a sinner and therefore separated from God. And do not believe that God loves you and died for you and rose again triumphant over death. Then you have no reason to live as a Christian. Because you are not one.
Your god may not fit in a box. But mine doesn't either. And mine is much more powerful and active than yours is. My God died for you. Your god can not even live, much less act. My God acts on a minute by minute basis in the world. He performs miracles with astonishing regularity. Your god is limited. Your god is dead. Nietzsche said so and he was right.
I no longer wish to bear the responsibility of the acts of the godless. I can no longer worship in a place of disbelief. It's time to worship the Lord amongst my fellow believers.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Fisking a Satanist
I reproduce here, in full, a rather silly rant from StandFirm.
It has been a while since I've applied the dual headlights of reason and reality to the darkness so let's fisk it, shall we?
"Hi there. My name is Sam, and I’m the young man in the photo above holding the sign with the “implications involving violence, death, and genocide.” You can no doubt imagine my amusement upon checking my email this morning and discovering that overnight I had become a posterboy for hatred of christianity. I feel that this would be a good place to expand upon the sentiments expressed in my sign."
Well, I took the liberty of checking our pal Sam out. Here is what he has over on LiveJournal:
"White male. 23 years of age. Oakland. California. Satanist. Anarchist. Libertine. Drugs & alcohol. BFA in Painting. Drives a pickup.
Working knowledge of:
Painting. Drawing. Printmaking. Black & white / digital photography. Glassblowing. Casting. Welding. Blacksmithing. Aikido. Capoiera. Bass. Guitar. Flute. Clarinet. Piano. The occult."
In other words Sam is your basic West Coast Arts guy. He went the occult route rather than the hippy dippy route but it all seems rather standard. He does play an awful lot of instruments, so I admit to being a tad jealous.
Let's read on.
"I feel that the christian faith is the most contemptable collection of delusions to have ever besmirched the Earth."
Well, feelings are of course paramount in this world of ours. I feel I ought to be richer than Bill Gates, but wishing hasn't made it so. The first sentence is rather bold but very subjective.
"For centuries your churches have supressed free thought, burned people at the stake, perpetuated genocide against indiginous peoples, amassed incredible fortunes at sword-point, molested children, etc, etc, ad infinitum."
Golly. Well, for starters, the church has been around for millenia. So whatever naughtiness we've been up to, we've been doing it for longer than mere centuries. Secondly, I would have thought a Satanist would approve of such activities. So is all this simple jealousy? I'm not really aware of any religious based genocide against indigenous peoples by the church nor do I believe that the church has ever perpetuated it. Perhaps Sam means perpetrated? Irregardless the track record of the Church is rather good as regards to the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. The Dominicans and especially Franciscans worked tirelessly to restrain the Conquistadores. I do admit that there have been some very egregious Christian leaders, including some Popes. On the balance though, all of the denominations have established churches, hospitals, schools and colleges, fed the hungry, housed the homeless and clothed the naked. We have been about this work for the aforementioned millenia.
"All in the service of a ludicrous imaginary being who exemplifies all that is most base and vile in the reactionary mindset."
A Satanist is claiming the Christian God is imaginary? My brain hurts. Is Sam an agent provocateur for the Excedrin company? In specific, this sentence is yet more hyperbole with no fact or justification.
"You claim to love your enemies while torturing them into renouncing their natural convictions."
Ah yes, that would explain the racks and iron maidens over at the Methodist church.
"More people have suffered as a result of your “love” then any other genocidal movement in the history of the world."
This gets oft repeated, but it is demonstrably false. In order of homicides, the most murderous ideologies ever are:
1. Communism, far and away. If you separate it by country, then it gets the four of the top five slots.
2. Nazism
3. Islam (check out the death toll in the India-Pakistan split, for example)
4. Non-Communist Socialism
5. Fascism
The Twentieth Century has much to answer for. Christianity does not even come close. I would note that all of the top five ideologies are vocally anti-Christian. Looks like Sam is in good company, then.
"You describe all that is good and natural in this world as a sin, and hold the false docrine of eternal salvation like a carrot before a donkey as you perpetuate your infamous crimes."
I rather like classical music, and I'm fairly certain that doing so is not sinful. I like puppies and kittens. That isn't a sin either. I'm afraid I'm a bit clueless as to what 'good and natural' things he thinks I think are sinful. As for eternal salvation, he can always wait and see whether it is false or not. I'm absolutely positive I have not committed any crimes in recent memory. So I am not perpetuating anything. If anyone is perpetuating crimes, I blame Greg Griffiths. :)
"Any person with two grains of logic can see that your doctrines are the silliest of falsehoods."
If only Sam had two grains of logic. Actually I thought logic was measured by the premise and the conclusion, rather than a volumetric or weight measurement. Silly me.
"This is why you have earned my contempt; because you despoil the earth by your very presence upon it. Lucifer is the bringer of enlightenment, and the day is dawning when the youth of America shall follow the example set by their Norwegian comerades in their battle against your false doctrine of death worship. The night sky shell be set alight by the blazing of your sanctuaries, and, hopefully, your immortal souls can be released from the bondage of this wicked Earth which you hate so much, in the form of the martyrdom you relish, and you can go to meet your maker in a more timely manner then you would be otherwise inclined to take."
I don't think I worship death, quite the opposite. Apparently Lucifer is also bringing in the day of purple prose as well. I would remind Sam that murder, the actual physical kind, remains a crime in all fifty states. While I am perfectly willing to die for my faith, precipitating that end on his part would likely result in either a long prison term or execution in my home state. Just FYI.
So, upon review, what Sam has said here is a lot of hyperbole, some verifiably false assertions and a fair amount of mis-spelled venom.
Sam will be in my prayers.
Dear christians,
Hi there. My name is Sam, and I’m the young man in the photo above holding the sign with the “implications involving violence, death, and genocide.” You can no doubt imagine my amusement upon checking my email this morning and discovering that overnight I had become a posterboy for hatred of christianity. I feel that this would be a good place to expand upon the sentiments expressed in my sign.
I feel that the christian faith is the most contemptable collection of delusions to have ever besmirched the Earth. For centuries your churches have supressed free thought, burned people at the stake, perpetuated genocide against indiginous peoples, amassed incredible fortunes at sword-point, molested children, etc, etc, ad infinitum. All in the service of a ludicrous imaginary being who exemplifies all that is most base and vile in the reactionary mindset. You claim to love your enemies while torturing them into renouncing their natural convictions. More people have suffered as a result of your “love” then any other genocidal movement in the history of the world. You describe all that is good and natural in this world as a sin, and hold the false docrine of eternal salvation like a carrot before a donkey as you perpetuate your infamous crimes. Any person with two grains of logic can see that your doctrines are the silliest of falsehoods. This is why you have earned my contempt; because you despoil the earth by your very presence upon it. Lucifer is the bringer of enlightenment, and the day is dawning when the youth of America shall follow the example set by their Norwegian comerades in their battle against your false doctrine of death worship. The night sky shell be set alight by the blazing of your sanctuaries, and, hopefully, your immortal souls can be released from the bondage of this wicked Earth which you hate so much, in the form of the martyrdom you relish, and you can go to meet your maker in a more timely manner then you would be otherwise inclined to take.
If you wish to share your thoughts with me, please feel free to visit my blog at:
http://pfirsich666.livejournal.com/
Hail Satan!
Rev. Coyotel Samuel Maxwell
It has been a while since I've applied the dual headlights of reason and reality to the darkness so let's fisk it, shall we?
"Hi there. My name is Sam, and I’m the young man in the photo above holding the sign with the “implications involving violence, death, and genocide.” You can no doubt imagine my amusement upon checking my email this morning and discovering that overnight I had become a posterboy for hatred of christianity. I feel that this would be a good place to expand upon the sentiments expressed in my sign."
Well, I took the liberty of checking our pal Sam out. Here is what he has over on LiveJournal:
"White male. 23 years of age. Oakland. California. Satanist. Anarchist. Libertine. Drugs & alcohol. BFA in Painting. Drives a pickup.
Working knowledge of:
Painting. Drawing. Printmaking. Black & white / digital photography. Glassblowing. Casting. Welding. Blacksmithing. Aikido. Capoiera. Bass. Guitar. Flute. Clarinet. Piano. The occult."
In other words Sam is your basic West Coast Arts guy. He went the occult route rather than the hippy dippy route but it all seems rather standard. He does play an awful lot of instruments, so I admit to being a tad jealous.
Let's read on.
"I feel that the christian faith is the most contemptable collection of delusions to have ever besmirched the Earth."
Well, feelings are of course paramount in this world of ours. I feel I ought to be richer than Bill Gates, but wishing hasn't made it so. The first sentence is rather bold but very subjective.
"For centuries your churches have supressed free thought, burned people at the stake, perpetuated genocide against indiginous peoples, amassed incredible fortunes at sword-point, molested children, etc, etc, ad infinitum."
Golly. Well, for starters, the church has been around for millenia. So whatever naughtiness we've been up to, we've been doing it for longer than mere centuries. Secondly, I would have thought a Satanist would approve of such activities. So is all this simple jealousy? I'm not really aware of any religious based genocide against indigenous peoples by the church nor do I believe that the church has ever perpetuated it. Perhaps Sam means perpetrated? Irregardless the track record of the Church is rather good as regards to the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. The Dominicans and especially Franciscans worked tirelessly to restrain the Conquistadores. I do admit that there have been some very egregious Christian leaders, including some Popes. On the balance though, all of the denominations have established churches, hospitals, schools and colleges, fed the hungry, housed the homeless and clothed the naked. We have been about this work for the aforementioned millenia.
"All in the service of a ludicrous imaginary being who exemplifies all that is most base and vile in the reactionary mindset."
A Satanist is claiming the Christian God is imaginary? My brain hurts. Is Sam an agent provocateur for the Excedrin company? In specific, this sentence is yet more hyperbole with no fact or justification.
"You claim to love your enemies while torturing them into renouncing their natural convictions."
Ah yes, that would explain the racks and iron maidens over at the Methodist church.
"More people have suffered as a result of your “love” then any other genocidal movement in the history of the world."
This gets oft repeated, but it is demonstrably false. In order of homicides, the most murderous ideologies ever are:
1. Communism, far and away. If you separate it by country, then it gets the four of the top five slots.
2. Nazism
3. Islam (check out the death toll in the India-Pakistan split, for example)
4. Non-Communist Socialism
5. Fascism
The Twentieth Century has much to answer for. Christianity does not even come close. I would note that all of the top five ideologies are vocally anti-Christian. Looks like Sam is in good company, then.
"You describe all that is good and natural in this world as a sin, and hold the false docrine of eternal salvation like a carrot before a donkey as you perpetuate your infamous crimes."
I rather like classical music, and I'm fairly certain that doing so is not sinful. I like puppies and kittens. That isn't a sin either. I'm afraid I'm a bit clueless as to what 'good and natural' things he thinks I think are sinful. As for eternal salvation, he can always wait and see whether it is false or not. I'm absolutely positive I have not committed any crimes in recent memory. So I am not perpetuating anything. If anyone is perpetuating crimes, I blame Greg Griffiths. :)
"Any person with two grains of logic can see that your doctrines are the silliest of falsehoods."
If only Sam had two grains of logic. Actually I thought logic was measured by the premise and the conclusion, rather than a volumetric or weight measurement. Silly me.
"This is why you have earned my contempt; because you despoil the earth by your very presence upon it. Lucifer is the bringer of enlightenment, and the day is dawning when the youth of America shall follow the example set by their Norwegian comerades in their battle against your false doctrine of death worship. The night sky shell be set alight by the blazing of your sanctuaries, and, hopefully, your immortal souls can be released from the bondage of this wicked Earth which you hate so much, in the form of the martyrdom you relish, and you can go to meet your maker in a more timely manner then you would be otherwise inclined to take."
I don't think I worship death, quite the opposite. Apparently Lucifer is also bringing in the day of purple prose as well. I would remind Sam that murder, the actual physical kind, remains a crime in all fifty states. While I am perfectly willing to die for my faith, precipitating that end on his part would likely result in either a long prison term or execution in my home state. Just FYI.
So, upon review, what Sam has said here is a lot of hyperbole, some verifiably false assertions and a fair amount of mis-spelled venom.
Sam will be in my prayers.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Despair
One of the tenets of the Catholic faith is that suicide is a mortal sin. It typically comes from a feeling of despair, a loss of hope. It is also preceded by a feeling of isolation and unconnectedness. I personally think it can be the act of a selfish coward. There are exceptions. I would find it very hard to condemn someone who took their own life due to the ceaseless pain of a terminal illness. I still think that would be wrong, but I understand and empathize.
Pride is considered by Dante to be the worst of sins, but I have always found despair the most dangerous. All of the actions I truly regret, the ones I still wince at even today, were brought about by despair.
I think John Bunyan well knew the soul destroying qualities of despair. The most engaging portion of "Pilgrims Progress" is when Christian is in the castle of the Giant Despair. The image of Christian locked in the dungeon has rung true for me since I first read it more than three decades ago. What also hits very powerfully home is that the entire time that he is in the vile cell, he has the key to his release. He is just so distracted by his plight that he forgets about it.
Most of us get locked in the downward spiral of depression and despair from time to time. Some of us it hits worse than others. But unless your life is one of endless sunshine and twittering birds, you have been depressed.
Some people have predispositions to the state. Others grow depressed due to external circumstances. True love leaves, your business fails, a parent dies, or any number of other reasons. Depression's companions are usually failure, exhaustion and isolation. It can be very hard to fight it off. It is always hard when depressed or despairing to think that one will get out of it. I have learned never to try to cheer up a sad friend with "Things will get better". They won't necessarily get better. Oddly enough the single best remedy I know is a Monty Python song. Laughter can truly be the best medicine. Music, especially the blues or country music, can be a genuine Godsend.
But even deeper, as Christians, we must have faith. Life can truly suck. There is a good chance that our lives will, in fact, never get better. Life is often a slow, long, painful trek to the grave. But that is not the end of it for us as Christians. That is the hope that we must cling to. Our life is a gift, not only to ourselves, but also to those we come into contact with. That is why the sense of isolation that accompanies depression is so lethal. We forget our duties and responsibilities to others and grow self centered.
Society is prone to telling us that we can do it all, we can have it all, we do not need anyone. There are any number of books available on the subject at any given time. Reality knocks a good bit of that nonsense out of us relatively early. We need each other. As Christians we are called to model the good life, the life lived well for the rest of fallen humanity. That is why it is vitally important that we not treat the gift of life lightly.
It is not in being jolly and perky that we win souls to Christ. It is in enduring through pain, in remaining hopeful against horrible odds that the love of God shines through. We often fail at that. I know that I do. But our fellowship with other redeemed sinners can literally be the difference between life and death.
Being a Christian does not mean that you will not be cast into the dungeon of Despair. It does mean that you have the key to leaving, assuming that you remember it. Sometimes we need to remind each other of that.
/rambling
Pride is considered by Dante to be the worst of sins, but I have always found despair the most dangerous. All of the actions I truly regret, the ones I still wince at even today, were brought about by despair.
I think John Bunyan well knew the soul destroying qualities of despair. The most engaging portion of "Pilgrims Progress" is when Christian is in the castle of the Giant Despair. The image of Christian locked in the dungeon has rung true for me since I first read it more than three decades ago. What also hits very powerfully home is that the entire time that he is in the vile cell, he has the key to his release. He is just so distracted by his plight that he forgets about it.
Most of us get locked in the downward spiral of depression and despair from time to time. Some of us it hits worse than others. But unless your life is one of endless sunshine and twittering birds, you have been depressed.
Some people have predispositions to the state. Others grow depressed due to external circumstances. True love leaves, your business fails, a parent dies, or any number of other reasons. Depression's companions are usually failure, exhaustion and isolation. It can be very hard to fight it off. It is always hard when depressed or despairing to think that one will get out of it. I have learned never to try to cheer up a sad friend with "Things will get better". They won't necessarily get better. Oddly enough the single best remedy I know is a Monty Python song. Laughter can truly be the best medicine. Music, especially the blues or country music, can be a genuine Godsend.
But even deeper, as Christians, we must have faith. Life can truly suck. There is a good chance that our lives will, in fact, never get better. Life is often a slow, long, painful trek to the grave. But that is not the end of it for us as Christians. That is the hope that we must cling to. Our life is a gift, not only to ourselves, but also to those we come into contact with. That is why the sense of isolation that accompanies depression is so lethal. We forget our duties and responsibilities to others and grow self centered.
Society is prone to telling us that we can do it all, we can have it all, we do not need anyone. There are any number of books available on the subject at any given time. Reality knocks a good bit of that nonsense out of us relatively early. We need each other. As Christians we are called to model the good life, the life lived well for the rest of fallen humanity. That is why it is vitally important that we not treat the gift of life lightly.
It is not in being jolly and perky that we win souls to Christ. It is in enduring through pain, in remaining hopeful against horrible odds that the love of God shines through. We often fail at that. I know that I do. But our fellowship with other redeemed sinners can literally be the difference between life and death.
Being a Christian does not mean that you will not be cast into the dungeon of Despair. It does mean that you have the key to leaving, assuming that you remember it. Sometimes we need to remind each other of that.
/rambling
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Abomination!
I love invective. When I was in college I learned an awful lot of vulgar Latin (which I have since forgotten) just by reading diatribes by William of Ockham against the pope. Luther later cribbed a lot of the choicer phrases and translated them into German. One of the founders of Anglicanism, Thomas Cranmer, was an excellent writer of invective. When I was an acolyte, I'd amuse myself by reading and rereading the Thirty Nine Articles. Article XXII has always been especial favourite of mine:
That's the work of someone who knows how to say what they mean.
Jesus wasn't too shabby either:
Back when I was in college and was up late studying, I'd head to the commons room and watch Dr. Gene Scott. I was never really sure what he was going on about, but it was fun listening to him rant.
On the modern front, perhaps the best writer of invective today is probably Ann Coulter. If you read her and ignore the issues (which can be hard for some people), you'll find she is rather good at what she does.
What sad is how few of our leaders can use invective. The common reason given for so not doing is that they are too mature. I think that's nonsense. It's not that they will not, it is because they can not.
/rant.
"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
That's the work of someone who knows how to say what they mean.
Jesus wasn't too shabby either:
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
Back when I was in college and was up late studying, I'd head to the commons room and watch Dr. Gene Scott. I was never really sure what he was going on about, but it was fun listening to him rant.
On the modern front, perhaps the best writer of invective today is probably Ann Coulter. If you read her and ignore the issues (which can be hard for some people), you'll find she is rather good at what she does.
What sad is how few of our leaders can use invective. The common reason given for so not doing is that they are too mature. I think that's nonsense. It's not that they will not, it is because they can not.
/rant.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Elephant in the Room
I just finished reading the convention program for the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina. I grew up in North Carolina and attended two churches there as a child (St. John's, Charlotte and St. Francis, Greensboro). My parents were very active laymen until they retired and moved to my mother's hometown in South Carolina. I have a connection with North Carolina.
I noticed several things. First, the diocese now has three bishops. This is two more than they needed when I was growing up there. Second, diocesan contributions from parishes are now mandatory. Third, plate and pledge income is up. Fourth, North Carolina is now apparently a “mission oriented diocese”.
What really struck me was what I did not see: Any discussion of the systemic decline in membership and average Sunday attendance (ASA) for the diocese and the national church. North Carolina's ASA is down around 7% for the past five years.
The official church line is that numbers do not matter. The only growth that truly matters is individual growth. And that is true, so far as it goes. But if what you are doing is worthwhile, then you will wish to share it, to get others to participate in your activity, be it bridge tournaments, baseball games, helping children or feeding the hungry. That is human nature. And if what you are doing is meaningful, then others will want to join in. That is also human nature.
The resistance to discussing the elephant in the room stems, I think, from the recognition that the Episcopal Church no longer has any meaning. We are a church of familiar faces, whose only remaining function is to be a circle of mutual admiration and self-love. We make all the right noises about serving others, about doing good. But in the end notice how little of the church's work at the diocesan or national level is about volunteers helping others and how much of it consists of paying someone to do something.
In the past the Episcopal Church was seen, rightly or wrongly, as being all about sin and guilt. The 1928 BCP is replete with phrases such as “have mercy upon us, miserable offenders”. The Episcopal Church has backed away from that in the past thirty or so years. The word from our clergy is that sin is largely irrelevant. That God loves us regardless. That we have nothing to feel guilty about, and nothing to worry about. We're good, right?
It's true that God loves us unconditionally. But it is not true that we love God in the same manner. We separate ourselves from God on a regular, almost minute by minute basis. And if we do not repent, that separation will continue and even grow. A church that does not believe in sin will also not believe in repentance and will thus offer no counsel on how to get closer to God.
As its members have withdrawn from God, so has the Episcopal Church. It no longer repents of current actions of intolerance, or bigotry or injustice, but instead repents of actions that none of its current members had any part in. Such repentance reaps its own reward in acclaim in the press, but accomplishes nothing.
The Episcopal Church seems to exist to make its members feel good about themselves. It no longer seems willing to help us be better than we were before. If I have a blister on my foot, telling me that I'm a nice guy really isn't helpful. Pricking the blister with a needle and then applying a bandage is what is needed. So too with sin.
“We don't evangelize”, I've often heard said. In the past we didn't need to yell from the street corners, because everyone knew what the church stood for: Well mannered and well meaning Christianity. Now we do yell from street corners and it doesn't help, because everyone knows what we stand for: A certain radical political progressivism coupled with a worship of the United Nations as well as certain totalitarian regimes. And no one needs to go to church to participate in those causes.
The main sin of the Episcopal Church is not lust, homosexual or heterosexual. It is pride. It is our stubborn refusal to admit that there is anything wrong. And there is something wrong. Our leadership says that there is something worthwhile about being an Episcopalian. And some of our members are buying the company line. But no one else is. That is the elephant in the room. As long as we refuse to admit our sin, we can not and will not do anything about it.
We have become a church without sin. We are also a church without God. And we are rapidly becoming a church without members. And our leadership does not or will not see a connection between those three statements.
We are a proud church, and no matter what happens that condition is not likely to continue. Either, as a church, we repent and humble ourselves before an almighty God, or we won't be a church and so will no longer be proud.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
I am Second
My entire life, I've never felt that I was number one at anything. I was the third boy in my family. In school, although I was tall, I was never the tallest. Even though I'm strong, I was never the strongest, and so it has gone.
I was a poor student until my senior year of high school. I tested into a bunch of AP classes and was not bored senseless for the first time in twelve years. I made straight A's that year. *On a side note my sister started high school the following year and spent three years hearing how wonderful a student I had been. The teachers conveniently forgot my less than stellar other two years. Sorry sis.*
So when I arrived at college, I was feeling pretty good about myself, standing in my very first registration line. I struck up a conversation with the fellow standing in front of me. And within five minutes I knew I wasn't going to be 'Mr Hot Stuff' at college. Steve was and is one of smartest guys I've ever met. And to add insult to injury, he's a really nice, decent fellow.
This all came home to me when I had breakfast with a friend of mine. When we met, we were both starting out as attorneys. Now he is a newly minted curate and I'm still an attorney, still working in the same dull field I started in.
And I'm content. Because when I first met my friend, some twenty years ago, I immediately thought he ought to be a priest. And I've known since I was eighteen that I have no call to be one. Being number two, or three, or fifteen, or what have you, has taught me the value of humility. I still have prideful moments. I still would love to shine in some way. But I do shine when I allow myself to see it. As my wife puts it, I am her favourite husband. And that means a great deal.
Most importantly, God knows me. He knows me and He still loves me. So, I'm a winner after all and always.
I was a poor student until my senior year of high school. I tested into a bunch of AP classes and was not bored senseless for the first time in twelve years. I made straight A's that year. *On a side note my sister started high school the following year and spent three years hearing how wonderful a student I had been. The teachers conveniently forgot my less than stellar other two years. Sorry sis.*
So when I arrived at college, I was feeling pretty good about myself, standing in my very first registration line. I struck up a conversation with the fellow standing in front of me. And within five minutes I knew I wasn't going to be 'Mr Hot Stuff' at college. Steve was and is one of smartest guys I've ever met. And to add insult to injury, he's a really nice, decent fellow.
This all came home to me when I had breakfast with a friend of mine. When we met, we were both starting out as attorneys. Now he is a newly minted curate and I'm still an attorney, still working in the same dull field I started in.
And I'm content. Because when I first met my friend, some twenty years ago, I immediately thought he ought to be a priest. And I've known since I was eighteen that I have no call to be one. Being number two, or three, or fifteen, or what have you, has taught me the value of humility. I still have prideful moments. I still would love to shine in some way. But I do shine when I allow myself to see it. As my wife puts it, I am her favourite husband. And that means a great deal.
Most importantly, God knows me. He knows me and He still loves me. So, I'm a winner after all and always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
