Observations from the Side Aisle

It's a sad day

2009-07-15T10:01:00.000-07:00

It would seem that political correctness and social justice are more important to "The Episcopal Church" than maintaining continuity with an historic faith the Anglican Communion has attempted to follow for nigh onto 2000 years. I suggest it will get worse before it gets better; and where we, as a Diocese, end up yet remains to be seen. From my point of view the "liberal wing" of "the Church" has won out.

Fortunately, the apparent intent of D025 is strictly in regard to same sex relationships; however, down what path will our Church go trod? Surely the desire to recognize the needs of all God's children is paramount; but at what cost to the greater good? At times isn't a call to repentance and change also a part of the equation?

I've long felt that I am a Texan (a citizen of that great Republic, not the State). Likewise, I've long said I'm Anglican first and foremost; and will remain so, but where does that mean I find myself? If I've learned one thing from EFM, it is that when politics are allowed to be mixed with matters of faith, politics wins out and the faithful are the lesser for its inteference.

'Tis a sad day, my brothers & sisters.

Homesick for Heaven

2009-05-28T08:22:00.000-07:00

Just finished reading an autobiography titled "My Years with Bob Wills" by Al Stricklin and found reference to an old Gospel song Bob Wills and his Playboys performed called: "There is No Disappointment in Heaven". I didn't recognize the piece (and I know quite a bit about both Bob Wills music and southern gospel). Seeing as how Bob had recorded it and I wasn't familiar with it; curiosity got the best of me, so I went and “Googled” it on the net. Doing so, and reading the lyrics, one particular phrase really resonated, that of being "homesick for Heaven."

I've always been intrigued by things that can't possibly make sense but do anyhow. This phrase fit that notion to a "tee". On one hand how can a person be homesick for something they've never known or experienced yet on the other yearn so much for what they know it MUST be, that they truly are homesick to get there?

An Holy Message

2009-03-24T14:41:00.000-07:00

Heard a super Sermon this past Sunday, listen to it here.

The Lectionary readings were:

Numbers 21:4-9
Psalms 107:1-3, 17-22
Ephesians 2:1-10
John 3: 14-21

Before the Priest began speaking I was struck with a thought from the Numbers reading (the one about the Israelites questioning Moses as a result of their impatience in the wilderness, God punishing their impatience sending poisonous serpents among them, Moses praying for forgiveness, God directing him to make a bronze serpent, erecting it upon a pole and thereafter any who were bitten could look upon the pole and live.) Since I had recently finished an EFM chapter on suffering, including references to Job, it’s not surprising that the thought came to mind: “He didn’t make it easy, but He did provide the way.”

During Andrea’s message I took a completely new outlook on the second half of John 3:16. You see, I’ve long thought the first half of the verse is far and away the most salient. “For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son,”. End of story, finis, nothing else need be said.

But… suppose in interpreting the second half of the verse (“that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”), we assume the “Him” refers to God (in total) and not only His manifestation as The Christ as commonly interpreted? I am not a bible scholar and while I’ve read multiple translations they have all been in English. If you asked me to read: “See Spot, see Spot run.” in Greek I’d be up a creek with no Indian outboard. I wasn’t even part of the Greek system in college a few (many) years back, so I don’t propose any level of knowledge in translation. However, following my train of thought could seem to give the passage a whole new meaning regarding inclusiveness.

Quien sabe?

Uncommon ground

2009-03-17T12:35:00.000-07:00

I’ve got this “coffee table” book called “The Amazing Faith of Texas” by Roy Spence that I peruse from time to time. Subtitled Common Ground on Higher Ground it’s a compendium of photos of Texans from a wide array of faith backgrounds across our entire state along with comments about their faith. Sometimes even in relation to their love of Texas. I reopened it at lunch time again today and felt compelled to share.

You see, I feel it’s difficult to live in God’s Country and not be in relationship with him; lots of us down here feel that same way. This book illuminates some of their thoughts with a bit of further explanation as to why they are so dearly held.

The author defines our common ground in three categories. I’ve chosen a few of my favorite quotes from each to share:

Common Ground found in Faith

“Faith is like riding in a car with Ray Charles driving. If you can’t ride in a car with Ray Charles driving, man, you ain’t got faith” – Pastor Rudy Rasmus (Methodist)
“Don’t mix your thoughts with your heart. Because your heart is always right.” – Louis Beareagle (Shaman)
“We Texans never give up. Neither does God. Could it be that God is a Texan?” – Lynn Kindler (Seeker, believer)
“God is beyond our capacity to define.” – Rabbi Samuel Karff (Wise man, Kind man)

Common Ground found in the Golden Rule

“I say Allah, you say God. It’s the same.” – Jilan Bruce (Muslim)
“We have been put here by God, and we have an innate knowledge about how we should live.” – Garland Robertson (Mennonite, Peace Activist)

and, Common Ground found in Values.

“Your faith should be able to withstand the heaviest tearing apart you can do with it.” – Jimmie Dale Gilmore (Singer, Buddhist)
“Charity is giving up your tortilla, Honey, when it’s the only one.” – Lydia Hernandez (Presbyterian)
“I kneel, you stand. I fold my hands, you put them out. We’re doing the same thing.” – Bianca Aguilar (Catholic)
“Forgiveness is God’s way of teaching you love.” – Aniela Maree Costello (Mother, Baha’i)

Pax, y'all.

Jacksie today

2009-03-11T08:36:00.000-07:00

This year's EFM (Yr 4) has seemed to be overly endowed with modern and postmodern existential psychological B. S. understandings of God, attempting to define that which I see as indefinable and to quantify that which can't be understood. Somewhere along the journey to Faith I believe one must accept the Mystery as God's design.

Unfortunately, I happened to read an op ed piece immediately following my finishing up some more of Sewanee's dreck and was just tired of hearing and reading it. So, here’s my take.

The author calls Lewis a sophist (by modern definition and as used, sophism is "a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone"). To be kind to the author, he’s full of crap, even though he tried to downplay his disdain by saying: "he fooled himself first".

He went on to say: "What's palpably ridiculous are his warmed-over medieval arguments for the objective truth of Christian doctrine. One was that Christ had to be "either a God or a devil" - or self-delusive megalomaniac, as we'd now say. While sniping at the imperfections of scientific Biblical scholarship, Lewis shut his eyes to the painstaking work of two centuries that convincingly discerned different voices, sources, periods, influences on Biblical text. There's also no recognition in his work that people from different eras might perceive and express truth differently -- i.e., that someone in an earlier era who claimed to deliver God's words directly might be neither a fraud nor God's stenographer." More CRAP! God has been debated for nigh onto 3500 years and just because someone of presumed knowledge and position offers up ideas contrary to the generally accepted wisdom of those preceding them doesn't validate their position. One can certainly examine thoughts that precede their own and form judgments based upon their own understanding; however, that does not invalidate the understanding of the multitude of prior generations. Else why bother to read and study the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Paul's correspondences, much less the writings of St Augustine and other early Church Fathers. We are the product of our prior knowledge.

The next paragraph states: "Then there's the cultural chauvinism in his claims that other religious traditions foreshadowed or provided latter-day distortions of Christianity ..." And the absurd argument that God would create the physical laws of the universe in part to get our attention by His deliberate breaking of them through miracles. And his over-correction of what he called (this may be a paraphrase) our era's chronological snobbery -- an assumption that new ideas are inherently superior to old ones. Lewis, making the opposite error, refused to acknowledge any lasting advances in political ethics or developments in our understanding of human rights." Regarding the bolded sentence, I see its snobbery and assumptions of superiority referred to day in and day out. "Because I have scientifically examined all the evidence and proof available, I conclude that: 1). The facts are ..., and 2). I'm right and you're wrong because I'm more educated than you are."

Going into politics he says: "He's one of your conservatives of doubt -- dubious about the efficacy of human attempts to permanently improve human life. He's a democrat (small d, believer in democracy) by default, of the Churchillian school that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the alternatives. His own formulation was that democracy is necessary because human corruption means that no individual or small group can be trusted with power." Before the development of an agrarian society when there only existed nomadic tribes, that tribal socialistic society worked (I would suppose) though there's no evidence to confirm or deny it. With the development of that agrarian society and all else that's followed, mankind has always striven for equality and freedom. However, in the words of Orwell (I might be paraphrasing): "Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others." I agree with each accusation he makes towards Lewis' thought process but fear he's trying to accuse Lewis of being wrong in his thoughts, though I consider him right. Mankind's propensity to serving self does mean that no individuals or small groups can be trusted with power. Witness Washington for the past 80 years or so. Both parties want to do, not what is best for the country, but what, and only what, best enables them to maintain their power and position and the public be damned. I'm speaking of both Democrats and Republicans. A BU History Prof. I know made the comment: "The last politician who went to Washington to accomplish what he set out to do and left was Reagan." I think he's probably right.

The next paragraph adds: "What Lewis lacked was any sense that participating in political life is part of what makes us fully human -- and the corollary, that a people's meaningful participation in politics could permanently advance human welfare. Strange, for a man steeped in Greek literature -- no sense that man is a political animal. He charmingly wrote, "I myself am not fit to run a henhouse." Well, neither am I. But that doesn't mean I have no role or responsibility in governance, and that if all were well I'd live like one of Lewis's Narnian badgers, in peaceful quietism. And while you, Andrew, are a very political animal, you share Lewis' unduly limited sense of what government and politics can accomplish. I recognize, with Obama, that Reagan had a lasting insight, and that the lasting pressure he put on liberalism not to bloat government, not to intrude it into every aspect of our lives, not to let it suck any more resources out of the private sector than it needs to perform its functions at maximum efficiency, is salutary. But to go from there to an assumption that government can't improve on its furtherance of commonwealth, that it can't fairly counteract rising income inequality or spread the most fundamental risks, like illness or destitution in old age, more effectively than it does now, is defeatist." Well, strip my gears and color me a defeatist. I firmly believe that government CAN'T improve on its furtherance of commonwealth, fairly counteract rising income inequality or spread the most fundamental risks, more effectively than it does now. Two hundred and thirty three years ago (give or take) the Founding Fathers created a Republic called the United States of America (note, I said Republic, not Democracy; though we could be called a representative democracy). At that time the government's main focus was joining together for the protection of the individual states. They did a good job of that; however, much the same as any other form of government, once someone attempted to determine how someone else should live, what they should have, etc., they began making a bigger mess of things than existed before they got involved in imposing their will on others. Income redistribution doesn't work real well because what happens is that without incentive there is no justification for labor. Go read Atlas Shrugged.

I was also put off by his mention of Phillip Pullman (an avowed atheist with a self spoken agenda to move children away from faith towards atheism). I’ve read his Trilogy and have fully observed and understood, the contempt he has towards faith in general and Christianity in particular. He also harbors an intense dislike - bordering on hatred - for C. S. Lewis and his works, and in fact produced his Trilogy solely in response to and rebuttal of the Narnia Chronicles.

The article ends with: "But I'd be lying if he didn't occasionally give me hope that politics can actually make our lives a little better." Politics in general and government in particular has never made things better for its subjects. I challenge you to name one political system that made things better for its citizens and that worked. If you could, wouldn't that be the model for today's more progressive governments?

So, I suppose my ultimate comment is don't worry so much and get to know God yourself. Don't trust what someone else tells you He/She is, learn for yourself. And don't expect for government to make thing better for you, it won't and can't. Don't become overly skeptical of everyone but don't trust, on blind faith, what people tell you either; for you will only be disappointed and disillusioned. Vote your conscience, but from a position of understanding and not trust, for only The Father is deserving of that.

Over and over and over again...

2009-03-04T13:20:00.000-08:00

Sometimes messages are repeated over, and over, and over. This week’s EFM Lesson was that way. The crux of which was one of suffering and how we relate it to our understanding of God.

For unspecified reasons, I identified with this lesson and spent quite a bit more time on it than normal. I looked at the Holocaust from a Jewish perspective, read a little about Rambam, got into theodicy, and looked into evil. Even went back and reread Job, one of my favorite books of the Bible; along with Isaiah, Wisdom and the Gospels. The commentary for Sunday’s reading in my 2009 Lenten Meditations by ERD asked the question “… is God present in the terrible things, too?” Then I got an email from one of our group members this morning addressing the concept once more (an article from Slate by its editor David Plotz).

During Lent our Parish joins with 4 other Downtown Churches (Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist & Presbyterian) for ecumenical weekly Lenten Worship. A pastor from another denomination preaches at the host Church on a rotating basis and members of all 5 congregations join and listen together. It makes for some interesting messages. This noon we were host Parish and addressed by one of my favorites, the Pastor of First Presbyterian. He’s about my age and can throw a “hand grenade” better that even I (and that’s high praise indeed – just ask any of our EFM Group members).

Seems Jimmy spoke, yet again, on this week’s lesson. More references to the Book of Job, and more other thoughts than I could handle in a 12 minute homily. Two of his more salient ones were:

“Good Friday Prayers are as important as those of praise.”
And “You can’t get to the prayer: ‘Into Thy hands I commend my Spirit.’ without first crying: ‘Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani’.”

Yeah Lord, I hear You.
Redemption is easy, you only have to die.

With Child

2009-02-16T08:45:00.000-08:00

The daughter of a friend is “with child” and it turns out that her prognosis is extremely poor. Her unborn infant (a girl) carries an extra “X” chromosome and the diagnosis is: life for only 2-3 days after birth, if she carries to term. There are also risks to the mother if she continues with the pregnancy. We’re all praying for what’s best, that God’s will be done and for wisdom for the parents that they make wise decisions, though I’m certainly not sure what those decisions are.

Anyway, that got me to thinking about the greater issue. In terms of “Right to Life” and “Pro-Abortion”, I tend to vacillate with definite leanings towards the sanctity of life; though on the other hand I do recognize a woman’s right to choose. I suppose I just hope and pray that it’s the right choice.

Many years back when we were having our family, the wife became pregnant and as is more common than one would imagine, miscarried, 3 different times to be exact. Twice were relatively early 1st Trimester, one was not. While I know that the difficult miscarriage lingers with her and she still mourns the loss of that son on Easter Morning so long ago, I’m pretty sure she’s not forgotten those other miscarriages either and continues to mourn the loss of those children, too.

Ultimately, where I’m headed with this is a perceived disconnect in the thought process of far too many young people; “enlightened” young women in particular. It generally appears to me that when one “terminates a pregnancy” (i.e. aborts by medical action), it is looked upon as a birth control issue and the fetus is not considered an infant; yet were that same woman to miscarry (in a contemporaneous time frame) she would have just lost a child. I am also assuming it is not uncommon for miscarriages to happen to many women who have previously had abortions. As such, I don’t see how you can have it both ways for the nature of the being in the mother’s womb remains the same, given either result.

Ghosts of Christmas Past

2008-12-21T12:59:00.000-08:00

Was at the HEB the other evening waiting to check out. The store was uber crowded because it was cold with possible freezing precipitation in the forecast and down here if the weather even looks questionable everyone runs to the store to stock up on food enough to last them thru the next Ice Age.

There was a young man in line in front of me and we struck up a conversation. He had one item, I had four and the line was slloow. After going over every other topic, I asked him if he rodeoed. Us cowboys got an innate sense of each other. Just like in poker, rodeo cowboys got “tells”, too. He said he had, and I guessed (correctly) that he was a roper.

Having something in common with each other we opened up a little bit more and he ventured that his family used to have a Western Store out on the old highway. I asked him if it was Koonsman’s and he said: “Yes, it was.” His Grandad was Rudy Koonsman who died about 6 years back. He was wearing his Grandad’s ring. I remember Rudy well, used to buy clothes and hats from him, ran with his son Tommy Koonsman (a trick rider who with his mother Mary billed themselves as the Comanche Fireballs) and considered them friends. The young man was not 21 years old but said he wished he could have known his Uncle Tommy. You see, his Uncle Tommy died of cancer sometime in the late 60’s or early 70’s at a very young age, not more than his early twenties, long before this young man was born.

Later it got me to thinking about that time close to 40 years ago when I cowboyed and ran with others of the ilk. The next noonday I was at the Post Office and bumped into another friend, whose Dad also had a Western Store, where I could occasionally be found. We also talked about the good old days and people long since passed. The day after that a friend from High School & College who I hadn’t seen in ten or so years dropped by the office.

Don’t know exactly what I’m supposed to take from these "ghosts of yore"; but possibly, like the first apparition who visited Scrooge, that trip down memory lane was for me to recollect the carefree times of long ago and maybe realize not to take life too seriously. That’s a tough thing to accomplish. As time goes on, we get caught up in an accumulation of responsibility towards others and it’s hard to cut loose and be that carefree person we were created to be; comfortable being only ourselves, and going with the flow instead of molding ourselves into another’s perception of what we are supposed to be or even what we have caused ourselves to be turned into rather than who we were created to be.

I think it’s about time I slowly reread Charles Dickens immortal Christmas Carol.

Y’all have a Happy Holyday Season, ‘ya hear?

Thanksgiving

2008-11-24T15:06:00.000-08:00

Wife and I are going to NOLA for Thanksgiving with the kids. Son & Daughter from St. Louis will be there as well as the In-Laws from Houston. Looking forward to a wonderful time. Daughter just called from NOLA and asked if I'd saved a recipe from a previous dinner. Went to a file on the trusty old computer and there it was. While looking thru the "gazillions" of recipes stored there I found the following commentary about a Thanksgiving Dinner several years previous. Felt it was worth sharing.

"At Thanksgiving we take time to Give Thanks for the many blessings the Lord has bestowed upon us.

I was reading an article in a 'WINE' magazine a month or two ago, taking about Leah Chase and Thanksgiving with her family. She says, “it’s a big thing. The spread is just humongous. … “You sit down, and, my dear, you never leave.” I was struck by the attitude of which she spoke. Food & family. Is anything more important?

The story behind this year’s various dishes follows. Who knows, maybe there’s a tradition here somewhere.

Gumbo: for NOLA and the wonderful place she is; and for "The Club" and our memories of the Mixed Grill, eating their delicious Gumbo and raising our kids.

Proscuitto Wraps: for O & H and our friends Otto & Hilda who owned it for so many years. They probably taught me my first lessons (of many) what really GOOD food was about. They also had the “meat sticks” that a yellow dog loved almost as much as she loved us.

Banana Peppers: for SLS, who is the only person who eats more of them than I do.

Calmata Olives: for our Houston connection. First tried them at Antone’s out on North Main. It was our stop when leaving town after visiting Skip & Mary. We got their sandwiches and though we always tried to bring some home they got eaten up before the ride was over. In their own way they were as good as Central’s Muffuletta.

Baked Ham: for Paw. As much as y'all like my hams, his were even better. Lord, I still miss him and Maw.

Rib Roast: Beef, for Texas. May my family ever appreciate it for the place it is. I am an American, but I’m Texan first. If you don’t understand, you never will.

Mashed Taters: for Wm. ‘Nuff said.

Corn Maque Choux: again, for NOLA, and all the love and joy she’s given us.

Yeast Rolls: for Waco, Waco schools and remembering the delicious rolls they served us everyday. The fed us knowledge too. I don’t know that blessed is the right word, but the first rate education we received should count for something. Days before High School really weren’t all that bad.

Cheese Cake: Aunt Ruthie’s recipe. She and Uncle Chuck were my pods. Chuck died way too soon. Ruthie became Episcopalian way too late; but she was one. Surprised Daddy?, Episcopalians do get to Heaven too!

Pecan Pie: for Gran. Second only to Maw. You died too soon too! We miss you."

A discussion on education

2008-10-31T07:24:00.000-07:00

Received a link to a news article from a British paper The Guardian. It was sent to all my EFM group and generated some valid discussion. One of the members of the group is an ex-pat Brit who now holds American Citizenship.

The link to the article is here. Comments generated have been edited to insure confidentiality but only to that extent.

1st reply after viewing the clip:
This is drivel. The sorry state of public education in the US is directly tied to the rise in teachers unions and the degradation of personal responsibility and we all know exactly who supports the unions (Democrats) and we all know who supports government taking the place of individual responsibility (Democrats and Republicans alike).

Everybody in the education system bitches about the NCLB Act and I am sure there are lots of problems with it but its main purpose is to install some accountability in a system that has virtually none (with the exception of those school systems and/or individual schools that have parents that still believe in personal responsibility and will spend the time and effort to make sure their schools succeed). Add to this, that to climb the ladder in school system administration, higher and higher degrees in Education is the only way to move up. This is madness since it means teachers that could get Masters in one of the sciences or mathematics, etc. don’t because it doesn’t give them any hope of succeeding within the management structure.

I am not sure it’s possible to overhaul the US public school system but one thing is for sure, until it happens, this will simply get worse. By the way, if you listen to many of the Democratic leaders besides Obama, their grammar is completely suspect (try listening to a speech by John Murtha if you want to confirm this).

2nd reply:
We fix a lot of things in this country with focus and attention. See the US military, post Vietnam. Should we write off a corner stone of our country because of unions? That's drivel. I guess we can continue to build private schools for the rich, jails for the rest, and enrich other countries with our jobs

3rd reply:
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss real issues of social consciousness with people whom I know and trust and can know personal perspective. The writer's perspective is not known to me and therefore comments regarding his thesis may be a little off base as we have learned from our EFM studies. I do know, however, the time period and culture about which he writes and, therefore feel comfortable in commenting for the sake of discussion with my friends and possibly making some small impact in our community about this important issue. Education, whether of adults or children, shapes a community for generations and is a process that is both institutionalized and individualized. Although there is diversity in the education in the United States, most aspects of this discussion, and, indeed, the greatest result of "education" in the US is a product of our institutional learning or lack thereof. Although there of some aspects which I must agree with this author sadly, most of his thesis I believe misses the mark. What I can agree with him about is the trend in the past generation and possibly current generation in degradation of importance and respect for education and the expression of education in articulated speech. The pop culture does not give positive attributes to the sophisticated thinker, writer, or speaker and punishes those who appear so in the public community--not only politics but also our judicial system and entertainment industry. I cannot understand why that is so and would disagree with this writer in his postulated motives. Certainly, it is not a phenomenon peculiar to the South as he asserts. The further assertions that Christian fundamentalism and social engineering drive misinformation and ignorance in our schools may have some acknowledgment, but far greater is the fact that our public educational system reflects our bottom-heavy social structure rife with racial prejudice, violence, absence of discipline often coincident with absent parents, poverty, diffusion of accountability, and crippling effect of community unproductive attitudes sustained by entitlement programs. Certainly centralized rather than locally controlled education is NOT the answer since centralization further promotes service to the lowest common denominator and diffuses accountability further. Centralization is clumsier and less responsive and less aware than local control, but there must be empowerment over a broad reach of communities which is greater than the regionalized wealth and there must be an impassioned, educated, and accountable local mechanism. To that end, I heartily endorse you ….(person) and ….(other person) attending and speaking up for education at the next school board meeting. When you and other parents take control of local school boards and become involved in your community in other ways addressing the other social ills regarding equal employment opportunity, support for the core family in parental responsibilities and meeting basic human needs in nutrition, housing, clothing and spiritual direction; restoration of at the neighborhood level of a violence-free and property-respecting community; then indeed we will ALL be closer to the kingdom of God.

4th reply:
I would agree. Involvement is vital but the even greater over riding problem is the bottom heavy-ness as you describe it. In ….(city), for example, the problem is not the schools teachers curriculum or administration. It is the generational poverty we have. The value of education is not valued.

5th reply:
I agree with you that lots of things have been fixed over the years with focus and attention. However, focus and attention in itself is worth little without a clear, realistic plan and the determination to carry it out (see W & Donald Rumsfeld and their failed (no)plan for governing Iraq after the war) and most importantly the willingness to change the plan if it’s not working. Most of these requirements for success are lacking when it comes to public education. I think you and I should attend the next ….(local school) Board meeting. I bet we can decide pretty quickly if ….(school board) is on the way up or the way down by simply listening to what they say (up I hope – and yes I voted for the bond election so we can build new PUBLIC schools that hopefully will help cure this problem ).

6th reply:
I have spent the last 20 years of my life dealing with public education, and certainly I agree with it being in a sorry state. In looking for causes, I can agree that teacher’s unions must carry their share, even though IMHO they have failed their members in some very important aspects. Lack of personal responsibility, as ….(person) points out, is another factor though I am not sure whether this is a cause or a symptom of an underlying causes.
From my brushes with public education, I have concluded the following:
• • Since the 1960’s in this country we have created (unintentionally, I am sure) a permanent underclass marked by entitlement. This social engineering has had devastating effects, including the destruction of traditional family systems, respect for law, and completely distorted values and priorities.
• • By throwing money rather than good thinking at educational problems, we have created an environment in which education is something we do to students, rather than make available to them. In this environment, students (and their parents) rapidly arrive at the conclusion that if a student fails, it is the school’s fault rather than the student.
• • Well-intentioned sub-divisions within schools—i.e. vocational education—have allowed schools to dump students into academic curricula that assume that they cannot learn so rigorous academics are not offered. This has the effect of allowing teachers to conclude that all students are incapable of learning, and has created a massive negative stigma towards those students not in an academically rigorous curriculum.
• • Some of the side effects of social engineering have created living nightmares for teachers, which result in a huge teacher drop-out rate within the first two years of starting to teach. They are subjected to physical and verbal abuse, they are faced with latch-key students who were unable to sleep, let alone study, the night before because of their horrible home environment of drugs, violence and abuse. I assure you that none of this is exaggerated. While ….(local city) has plenty of this, our urban areas reek of it. Talk to teachers, as I do, and ask yourself if theirs is a life that you could stand. Many are highly dedicated but find themselves under stress on all sides. Faced with being asked to test students at every turn rather than teach, many wonderful teachers are getting out as soon as they can, and I don’t blame them. For support on this, talk to any of the teachers at ….(private) Day School who have been in the public schools. Many take a lesser salary to be at ….(private Day school) rather than face the current school conditions.
• • For many reasons, many teachers in classrooms are not qualified. For example, I hear estimates that at least 30% of math teachers nationwide do not have math or teaching qualifications. They teach under waiver. State after state is offering a bounty to qualified teachers if they will move to that state to teach. Some are advertising internationally. You cannot teach what you don’t know.
• • The ethnic mix of our student population has shifted radically over the last 40 years. Interestingly, almost all subgroups of the student cohort—i.e. black females, Hispanic males, etc.—have made progress on standardized tests, but the aggregate average has deteriorated. White and oriental students are scoring as well or better than they ever have; there are just fewer of them compared to minorities, who start way behind whites in performance.
• • Lack of education used not to matter a whole lot. In 1950, 85% of American jobs required basic arithmetic, a 5th-grade reading level, and the ability to drive a car. Now most of these low-level jobs have been exported to where they can be done cheaper. The 85% number had shrunk to less than 15% by 1990. The vast majority of today’s jobs requires higher math and communication skills, along with computer and improved social abilities. Schools simply have not kept up with the needs of employers. At the same time, many students and their parents (who do not involve themselves directly in education reform) continue to be in love with the fantasy of going to college, only to run into the wall when they “graduate” from high school, finding that they have neither the abilities to get into university nor the skills to get a good job.
• • The Guardian is a lousy newspaper, and has been ever since it quit being the Manchester Guardian. I found George Monbiot’s article to be further evidence of this. He is ignorant of our political system. He has no first hand knowledge of our educational system. He believes he is capable of passing judgment on people he has never met, who reside on a different continent, and who have the effrontery to hold different political views than he. Clearly he has no religious bone in his body and little knowledge of religious matters. What more need I say?
• • Like ….(person), I am not sure that the current educational system can be fixed. Perhaps if we eliminated education as a fundamental right and made it a privilege, we would see some change. Perhaps if we gave teachers and schools authority to rescind the privilege, that would help. Perhaps if we denied unqualified teachers access to classrooms—no matter what the consequences might be, that would help. Perhaps if we gave parents and students choice to leave bad schools for better ones, that would help. Perhaps if we had a national consensus of what should be taught and when, that would help students who move from one school to another from falling off the cliff. Perhaps if we forced the different levels of education to work together for the betterment of students, where all levels took responsibility for the success of students at every level, that would bring about change. Perhaps if sports was part of the curriculum for ALL students, and not just a chosen few, we could address obesity and other problems. Perhaps if we valued academics and technical skills as highly as we do sports, things would change. But then again, pigs might fly!

My political screed

2008-10-15T08:41:00.000-07:00

In an email from a loved one the other day I was asked:
“The more angry mobs and outcries I see at McCain (and especially Palin) stump speeches and town halls, the more I have come to believe this is not just your typical presidential race. And I am not talking about the candidates honesty here. I think all distort the truth to their benefit (even the "holy one", Obama). However, I do think the Republican Party is walking a very fine line between appropriate and truly harmful behavior. And with people hurting and scared about their future more than normal, I fear they are quickly achieving an unwanted result--that being a angerously divided country. They are succeeding in making up to one half of the ountry, were Obama to win, believe that their President is something akin to an Arab terrorist. Again, not playing politics, I think the coverage I have seen over multiple networks have accurately captured the sentiments of many. What I wonder is just how much I should worry about my fears becoming reality. Specifically, when we look back to times of integration and the Vietnam War (both of which you were witness to in some capacity), is this one of those times? Should we fear the irrational response of an extremist against our president (yes I am referring to Kennedy, but also to Reagan, who was shot at shortly after a period of discontent) or a statesman (like MLK, though I don't know your opinion of him). I hope you can shed some light on how closely you feel this period in our Country's history resembles the others I have mentioned, and what may or may affect whether we reach one of those times.”

Considering the email over a period of a couple of days, I replied:
“I have to preface this reply with the comment: ‘It is my considered opinion that if Obama wins this election it will be as a result of the Mainstream Media's concerted efforts to cause it to occur. I don't know when I've seen more one sided coverage of an election. It seems to me that Obama and Biden are being held to a far different standard than that of McCain & Palin by the MSM, strictly due to the MSM's liberal agenda.’

Now, on to your question. Politics do seem progressively more volatile than in years past. Eisenhower vs. Stevenson (I believe) was very low key. That was followed by Kennedy vs. Nixon and that race wasn't volatile either. The biggest issue of that election seemed to be Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith. Some believe that LBJ was at least complicit in JFK's Assassination, others see it as the Cubans as a result of his botched Bay of Pigs invasion, still others the "Mob" because of Bobby Kennedy's efforts to renege on a campaign promise to them for their support and yet others as the CIA, who he "crapped" on. I won't ever know, but I will die believing that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT a "lone gunman" who shot the sitting President. Nor was it by disgruntled American citizens. Kennedy's assassination was about POWER, plain and simple. LBJ then ran against Goldwater (a Republican from Arizona who I supported) and defeated him. He (LBJ) later halfheartedly took most of the steps in Vietnam that Goldwater said needed to occur and that LBJ promised wouldn't, following his (LBJ’s) using of Goldwater's comments to scare the country from electing him. He also created the "Great Society" which I feel is a root cause of the current black impoverishment and decline of black society (and society in general). Exclusive of segration (which HAD to end) black society was much more mainstream in the 50's & 60's than it is now, the hatred of blacks towards whites didn't seem to be what it is today. Supporting and enabling a class of society to be poor has encouraged that class to remain so. Crime rates back then weren't near as high, single parent families weren't as prevalent, discipline was far better, etc., etc., etc.

The mid-sixties were a time of quantum change. The first "boomers" reached 18 in 1964 and their parents, who had endured the great depression, WWII, the Korean conflict and "the specter of the bomb" wanted a better life for them. To a point children weren't very rebellious towards their parents and were looking for a cause. They found it in Vietnam War protest & drugs, i.e. "peace, love, dope". Shortly before this was forced integration which was divisive (to be kind) in the deep South. That coincidentally is what cost Martin Luther King his life. He was a great statesman; however, a recollection of him in that period was his failure, much the same as the liberal Muslims of today, to preach directly against the violent proponents of his/their cause. None the less, there have always been and will always be bitter people, and he was shot by one. For the most part it's my opinion that the young people of the era were who drove most of the unrest of the time, looking for change, BTW. The Sixties were an ugly time with close to anarchy in some cities and campuses. But we did get change, though not for the better to my way of thinking. It is also my belief that most of the news media is now liberal and has come of age since the Sixties; hence, they are "pushing" their agenda of the Sixties yet again.

Following LBJ's decision not to run for a second term Nixon ran against Humphrey (I believe). He (Nixon) was elected, ended the war in Vietnam and withdrew. The Vietnamese War was poorly run and the people of the US (much the same as they did towards the end of WW II) grew tired of it. I feel it was in part caused by the one sided reporting of the news media. It also seems the US people have never been much on inconvenience and with biased reporting, grew tired of the investment, real or presumed. Anyway, Nixon had Watergate his second term, he resigned and Jerry Ford took over as Pres. He was a good man and the country was relatively quiet once again until Carter came along. Ford had an assassination attempt on him while President. The Ford Carter race was not terribly divisive, Carter was elected and became arguably the WORST person ever to serve. He was dumped after one term, beaten by Reagan. Again a relatively quiet race and time in history. Reagan, who I believe to be one of our BEST Presidents, unified the Country, brought back a pride in America and ended the Cold War. Reagan was also shot while in office, by a nut case, not really over politics. He was followed by one term of Bush Sr. who was then defeated by Bill Clinton. Without going into my beliefs about the Clinton White House, I concede that the economy flourished and most people were happy to some extent though more conservative folks quickly became disenchanted with the Clintons liberalism and social agenda. This is where it seems that a more vocal conservative base began being heard. Newt Gingerich's conservative "Contract with America" won the House of Reps. away from the Dems. and the fight was joined. From that point forward it seems to have become a case of one upsmanship between the two parties with the American people being the losers. Definitely, progressively more volatile from that point forward. Following the Clintons was Bush II, who WON Florida by all accounts but the Dems. were "pissed" and the war was on for good. It was time to "get even" for all the conservatives actions towards the Clintons. Bush II has not been a good President but I believe there are some things he's gotten a "bum rap" for. As such, we've become a Nation of "gotchas" and it became the Dems' turn to do the gettin'.

Really there seem to be two battles going on simultaneously, that between the two parties (Dems. and Reps. - each one as bad as the other) for POWER and control as well as that between the liberals and conservatives for the direction that America will pursue in the future. The battles have been "pitched", and each side is absolutely vilified by the other. Common sense, as well as any middle ground, has been lost along the way and I fear that the America I was taught to love and honor has long since been set aside.

So in answer, Yes, America is a dangerously divided country, driven to that division by the powers that be to secure their power. Is it akin to those other times, No, I don't believe so; I fear the issues are far more reaching. It is my considered opinion that the U.S. is already Socialist and the true question becomes to what degree will we be so? You know me well enough that you don't need my opinion on Socialism, in any form. I am a Federalist and a Libertarian.

In closing, I commend you to three books. Animal Farm and 1984, both by George Orwell and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. In them I fear I see the direction our Nation is taking and believe that soon the question on thinking peoples minds will be: ‘Where is John Galt?’ Before it comes to that you can/will color us gone.”

Love always,

Much as I hate to credit

2008-09-30T13:56:00.000-07:00

Much as I hate to credit Rush Limbaugh:

He was speaking of “Change” on a recent program and posed the question: “What kind of change do we want?”

As a matter of personal opinion I want:
1). A better enforcement of laws on the books regarding illegal aliens and those who hire them.
2). Less intrusion of the Federal Government within matters of State Government.
3). Less intrusion of the Federal Government with regard to personal liberty.
4). Less intrusion of the Federal Government, period, with regard to any issue not specifically authorized them by the Constitution of the United States of America.
5). Better protection of our borders.
6). Out of the Iraqi war when it is reasonable to withdraw without sacrificing the investment we have put forth to date.
7). A stronger military, so we are in a better position to defend our national interests, should further needs arise.
8). More effective use of tax dollars sent to the Federal Government and less waste and pork.
9). A better social security system for ensuing generations without taking away the benefits I’ve spent the last 44 years contributing towards and relying upon to be available.
10). Medicare “ditto” with the exception that I’ve only been contributing for 42 years. Actually, I’d like to see available medical care to all without destroying what is arguably the best care available in the world or one’s choice as to how to receive it. Or being taxed out the wazoo to pay for it.
11). Elimination of programs that reward people who use welfare to provide for their livelihood rather than using them to provide interim support until they can get back on their feet and again become contributing members of society.
12). All those/my freedoms guaranteed me by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America.
13). Protection of my interests (as an American Citizen) before my government involves itself (by funding or actions) in the interests of other countries.
14). The ability to drill for oil offshore or in ANWAR, to establish “wind farms” where most effective, to construct “pocket” nuclear power plants without gross government interference, etc.; all in an effort to reduce dependency on imported energy sources.
15). Federal judges to rule on the laws of our land as written and to not attempt “interpret” them in light of current thoughts or social mores. For judges to quit legislating and stare adjudicating, as is their charge.
16). Stricter non-selective enforcement for any and all those who break the laws or subvert them to further their own interests.
17). A better public education system that brings discipline back into the classroom, that allows teachers to teach and that holds them accountable for the quality of their instruction.
18). No more racism from any culture or community.All Americans are equal one to another, but no one should be “more” equal by virtue of past discrimination.

I could probably go on & on with this, but what’s the use. Guess you know how I’m going to vote this November.

A groaner

2008-07-27T12:42:00.000-07:00

At EFM last year we had several discussions about N. T. Wright or John Shelby Spong's "take" on any given theological position. As anyone who has read them both knows, their positions are almost diametrically opposed.

Anyway, I've just finished reading N. T. Wright's Judas and the Gospel of Jesus and at Church this a.m. ran into all three of the upcoming year four students in our EFM Class. I was so taken with the book's applicability to upcoming studies and its tying of years three and four together, I had to tell all that they really ought to read it before beginning year four. One of the three said that though he had read Wright he much perferred Spong, to which I had to reply: "Well, I guess you're either Wright or Spong."

Don't be groaning too loud, now.

Go in Peace, Peter

2008-07-03T07:16:00.000-07:00

Just caught up with the doings in Jerusalem by our brothers and sisters of the Global South, and am deeply saddened. You can read reports here and here.

I've for some time felt that P. Akinola (am hesitant to pay respect to his title) is a most dangerous person within our Anglican Communion. Reports from recent meetings and their "Jerusalem Declaration" go far to reinforce my thoughts. It seems "Lord Peter" is finally effecting what he's desired for some time, a split within the historic faith and a shot at being named archbishop of his own fiefdom.

I hope I've found God's peace and grace and am of the opinion that is the message, and the only message of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Love God and love your neighbor, as I love you." All else is "buttons". And, that's a hard message to follow.

For quite some time now, Akinola has exhibited far too much judgment and desire for power within his realm; and offered far too little peace, grace and forgiveness towards those with whom he disagrees. Over and over, from he and his followers, we have seen a distinct lack of charity to the detriment of those with whom they are in disagreement. IMHO that's what we are constantly warned against in the Book that Peter A. and his troop espouse to "uphold". His pronouncements are not the message of my Anglican faith, nor my understanding of the catholic faith for that matter.

However, if I learned little else in last year's EFM class; it's that these "turf wars" have existed since our beginnings. Man is called to establish his relationship with the Father based upon his limited knowledge of Him. Then I suppose the question becomes: "What is Peter and his follower's knowledge?" Not mine for sure and hopefully not that of many others.

We have long been counseled to beware of false prophets. Is Akinola a false prophet; quien sabe, who knows? In any case, my being afraid of having to make hard decisions, it appears that by Divine Providence, direction continues to be given. Thanks be to God.

The Hippie Dippy Weatherman

2008-06-23T08:59:00.000-07:00

Just saw that George Carlin died. I've enjoyed him since the 60's and though his later style was a tad crude, to be sure, he was funny; and had a great run making people laugh. I've got to believe God has a sense of humor; else wise, why do we have platypus'.

RIP George

Under the Baobab tree

2008-06-09T06:44:00.000-07:00

Just finished rewatching Evan Almighty last night with continued enjoyment. It’s become a semi-favorite because of the profound theological thoughts I see therein.

My most inspirational comes right at the end of the picture when Evan, having returned to his normal demeanor, is having one final conversation with God, beneath what I see as a Baobab tree. I know it’s not really, but I’m projecting symbolism. In that conversation Evan tells God: “I fought You every step of the way.” To which God replies: “Yes, but you obeyed Me.”

“I fought You.” “But you obeyed.” Powerful thoughts, particularly in terms of the Old Testament. No wonder I’m so taken with the Book of Job.

Princes, Kings and Queens

2008-05-19T09:00:00.000-07:00

Our Order of Worship from Sunday just passed had a profound quote, worth sharing:

“Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, since you cannot make yourself as you wish to be.”
Thomas A’Kempis

And, yesterday afternoon, as C. S. Lewis (esp. Narnia) fans, we had to go see Prince Caspian. Very enjoyable, though from recollection it doesn't follow the book as well as the first. I'm rereading it to confirm those thoughts. Reviews called it "darker" in tone and more violent than the The Lion, Witch & Wardrobe. Didn't see that. There was, however, severe underlighting at the very first part of the movie that made the beginning hard to visualize; and some of the dialogue, overridden by the sound track, seemed a bit difficult to follow.

But, all this was made up for in the scene where Caspian was urged by Nikabrik to bring back the White Witch. Without revealing a lot of what happens, the immagery following Edmund's rescue of Peter and Caspian, while keeping the White Witch at bay, is majestic beyond description. That moment, for followers of Narnia, is worth the price of admission unto itself.

So, where do I stand on the film? If you're a Narnian at heart you'll love it. Great filmmaking? Probably not. A good afternoon's entertainment for the family? Absolutely!

A question

2008-05-10T08:56:00.000-07:00

Exerpted from todays news:

Myanmar's military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week's devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

"We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region," said Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country. "It is not going to areas where it is most in need," he said in London.

The junta has refused to grant access to foreign experts, saying it will only accept donations from foreign charities and governments, and then will deliver the aid on its own.

So rather than an observation today, I offer earnest questions:

What is the Christian response to this tragedy?

Should we provide means for the "Herodians" to further their power and position, knowing that almost all aid and comfort sent will not be provided to those most needy or rather withhold aid because of the same knowledge; or even work counter to the current administration and their directives in an effort to provide sustenence and care for the least of these, by force if necessary, knowingly circumventing the government and furthering the civil unrest?

Truly, I don't know.

You only have to die

2008-05-05T07:16:00.000-07:00

Went to see John, His Story at the theater last Saturday night. It was performed by Jeanette Clift George’s A D Players from Houston and was uber well done; her take on The Gospel of John in one act. Part of it really got me to thinking “outside the box”, as I am wont to do from time to time. In the 3rd chapter of John, Christ says: “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” I understand that conventional wisdom says this speaks to Baptism and is in fact the basis for that Sacrament.

A while back I also started a post on Robert Farrar Capon's Kingdom, Grace and Judgement that I never got around to finishing. I was struck by Capon’s thoughts regarding salvation. He emphasizes, more than once, the point that: "Death is absolutely all of the Resurrection we can now know. The rest is faith."

Which put into my head the song lyric: "You only have to die." Took me a good half hour to recall where that music was from. I kept thinking of a James Bond movie, but finally realized it's in Jesus Christ, Superstar, one of my favorite musicals. I continue to be awed by the profundity of Rice and Weber's music and lyrics, as I am likewise by Fr. Capon's theology.

I think where I'm going with this is that we are frequently blind to the true teachings of grace. No one, I repeat NO ONE, is going to make it:
1.) on their own works. It doesn't matter how good we are, we are all still sinful.
and
2.) without dying, accepting death, our actual physical death, in this world.
Both of those statements seem to be absolute truth.

What Capon was emphasizing is not live for today because tomorrow you have as good a shot as anyone at justification; but rather, that God found His creation so wonderful that He was willing to undertake the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. For in truth, only He was capable of meeting the requirement of a perfect sacrifice.

Which finally brings me back to “being born again.” What do you suppose was John’s thought regarding that particular passage? An injunction to practice Baptism or rather possibly that only by the acceptance of physical death as we know it are we able to be born again into new life.

Quien sabe? “You only have to die.”

A God Moment

2008-04-14T14:49:00.000-07:00

I just experienced a God moment.

Wife & I went down to Houston Saturday to visit the son (who's a 1st year Law Student). Friday he completed and turned in the Appellate Brief for one of his classes which constitutes about 75% of the Semester's grade in that particular class. Following all that work he finally had part of a day he and the daughter-in-law could share with us. In Law School you really do work pretty hard and personal time is at a premium. We all enjoyed a nice dinner as well as brunch the next morning before returning home. It was quality time.

While driving home from the visit I was listening to a Johnny Russell CD (Greatest Hits) that has one of my favorite tunes on it - Catfish John. I made comment to the wife that probably one reason the song meant so much to me was that one of my friend Roscoe Johnson's nicknames was "Catfish." Rocky was well about 45 years older than I, a black man, and he and his wife "Lil" baby sat me as a child. He worked at our family business for 'nigh onto 35 years. "I was proud to be his friend." He died a bunch of years back and I was the sole white person at his well attended funeral. He and his wife had no natural children but adopted a baby girl (Roxanne) much later in life. She was the absolute apple of his eye and did my wife and I the great honor of inviting us to the renewal of her Wedding Vows several years back, long after both her parents had passed on.

Anyway, listening to the music driving back got me to reminiscing about Rocky and Roxanne. I've not had contact with Roxie (or her husband) since that Vow Renewal. But back to my God Moment. I answered the phone here at the office this afternoon and Roxie's husband was on the line, looking to find an item needed for the place where he now works. I was blown away. Having not seen, spoken of or even thought about them for several years until driving home yesterday while listening to a piece music, I get a phone call today.

All I can say is: "Thank You, Lord, for the personal contact." And Rocky: "Keep a Jax cold for us to share when we next meet up."

John 19:25-27

2008-03-28T12:01:00.000-07:00

Is a part of the Lectionary we read this Palm Sunday past. From the NIV:

“25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son,’ 27and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.”

Ever the skeptic, it intrigued me. Conventional wisdom says that Christ was referring to John (The Beloved) when speaking to His Mother saying “here is your Son.”, and to John when saying “Here is your Mother.” However, everything pointing to John being there seems to hinge upon the pronoun “his” in the passage: “this disciple took her into his home.”

I can find no other reference to the Apostles being at the Crucifixion and have always recognized Mary of Magdalene as a Disciple (note that I didn’t say Apostle). Searching out the Synoptics, I can’t find any passages to contradict John’s description of those near the Cross. Figured out where I’m headed with this, yet?

Here then, is my heresy. What’s to say that Christ wasn’t speaking to John but to Mary Magdalene when He said: “Here is your Mother.”? The earlier part of the passage can certainly be interpreted as Christ speaking to His Mother in regard to His condition, saying behold, “here is your Son”; rather than instructing Her the Disciple is to be taken as Her son.

Obviously as a disciple Mary was loved by Christ, and is shown to be one of His favorites. I don’t believe that could be argued either. But for the pronoun “His”, there seems only circumstantial support and tradition for Jesus’ speaking to John. I’m not smart enough to translate from the original Greek and even were I so, after 2.67 years of EFM I might be tempted to question the possibility of a recension or redaction somewhere along the line.

The question then becomes: “Where does that leave me?” Truly, I don’t know. What I do know; however, is that Christ was crucified for the redemption of God’s creation. In that simple statement I find the salvation of this world, myself included. And that’s really all that matters, isn’t it? So, I guess I’ll just go home and reread The DiVinci Code.

Location, Location, Location

2008-03-24T08:54:00.000-07:00

For as long as I can remember and probably as long as I’ve been Episcopalian, I’ve always sat on the Gospel side of center, at the side aisle, about a third of the way back from the crossing in whatever Church I was attending or visiting. Habits certainly die hard, don’t they?

We have long been members of the old downtown Parish here. Our Church was organized in 1868 and we’ve been in our current location and structure since 1879. That’s only 32 years after Texas Independence and three years after the end of the War of Northern Aggression. Over the years, our historic structure has had several additions since it was first built. It so happens that the extension of the Nave which occurred some many, many years back begins about a row or possibly two in front of where we sit. You can see the joint where the original flooring stopped and where the “new” flooring begins. There’s a seam across its entire width.

While attending Maundy Thursday Services last week, following Communion, during the Stripping of the Altar, my mind wandered a bit. In EFM we’re working on all the different Reformations in Europe in the 16th Century. This, in turn, caused me to consider that much like our house of Worship, I’m somewhere between the past and today: trying to remain faithful to our tradition and yet be cognizant of modern knowledge and reason. And no, I didn’t forget culture, it was omitted for purpose.

That faithfulness presents a hard line to walk, but then that’s probably why I embrace Anglicanism. The Elizabethan Settlement (aka the Via Media or “Middle Way”) seems a successful attempt at bridging differences in the practice of faith while remaining true to fundamental principles of Christianity. Would that we were so fortunate as to have that wisdom and guidance today we would be much the better for it.

Chocolate Eggs and Jesus Risen!

2008-03-24T08:26:00.000-07:00

Y'all all have a Happy Eastertide

So I was bored

2008-03-08T12:12:00.000-08:00

So I was bored and took yet another test which told me what I already knew about myself, or at least the way I see myself. Every time I try one of these evaluations I hope to gain some new insight but all I really receive is affirmation. Here it is for your reading pleasure:

Your score on this personality test was 45%

Others see you as sensible, cautious, careful & practical. They see you as clever, gifted, or talented, but modest not a person who makes friends too quickly or easily, but someone who's extremely loyal to friends you do make and who expect the same loyalty in return. Those who really get to know you realize it takes a lot to shake your trust in your friends, but equally that it takes you a longer time to get over if that trust is ever broken.

Personality Quiz
Take More Quizzes

Old Dogs and Children

2008-02-26T14:40:00.000-08:00

Two of my better friends each lost their dog just this past week. Those losses brought back memories and reopened wounds that had long since scabbed over. One died in her Mom & Dad's arms at home of old age while the other; old likewise, was with those who loved her but at the Vet's having to be put down. It was hard for each of them to say goodbye, as it was hard for me to drop each of them a note of condolence and offer what thoughts as I might. At various times I have been in each of their shoes myself.

Over a year ago Barbaro was put down and I referred to it in a post. People are either animal people or they're not. I am.

I've always found compassion and love in animals while it has not often been so in people. That's probably why I identified with my friends' loss and why it was so important yet difficult to say the right thing. But, I'm fairly certain each appreciated my comments. To often we hear: "It was just a pet, get over it." But only from one who has not been in relation with one of God's creatures.

I feel compelled to post the words of George McDonald, the Scottish poet, writer and Christian minister:

"I know of no reason why I should not look for the animals to rise again, in the same sense in which I hope myself to rise again--which is, to reappear, clothed with another and better form of life than before. If the Father will raise His children, why should He not also raise those whom He has taught His little ones to love? "Love is the one bond of the universe, the heart of God, the life of His children: if animals can be loved, they are lovable; if they can love, they are yet more plainly lovable: love is eternal; how then should its object perish? Must the love live on forever without its object? Or, worse still, must the love die with its object, and be eternal no more than it? "Is not our love to the animals a precious variety of love? And if God gave the creatures to us, that a new phase of love might be born in us toward another kind of life from the same fountain, why should the new life be more perishing than the new love? "Can you imagine that, if, hereafter, one of God's little ones were to ask Him to give again one of the earth's old loves--kitten, or pony, or squirrel, or dog, which He had taken from him, the Father would say no? If the thing was so good that God made it for and gave it to the child at first who never asked for it, why should He not give it again to the child who prays for it because the Father had made him love it? What a child may ask for, the Father will keep ready."

Now, y'all go home, hug your pets a little tighter and give them a treat. They deserve it.