Sunday, June 19, 2016

A Passion for the Impossible

I am slowly reading Miriam Huffman Rockness' amazing biography of Lilias Trotter.  She and her colleagues were pioneer missionaries to Northern Africa in late Victorian and Edwardian England times.  I am about two-thirds through. 

I will quote a section from Ms. Trotter's diary about translation problems.  It seems appropriate in light of middle Eastern persecutions. 

There are side touches too that bring Him near-yesterday "Fear not little flock" came in the chapter that we were working on--& we were getting at the right word for "little flock"--"Would that expression--jelieb--I think it was--mean such a little flock that it would not be worth the shepherd's care?" asked M. Summers.  "No, if it were a very little flock the shepherd care for it all the more," answered Hadj Brahaim--and up shot the echo in thanksgiving to the great Shepherd who has such a very little flock in these Moslem Lands--He "are for it all the more." (29 March 1908)

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Broadchurch

I am not one to encourage people to watch television, and especially not to binge-watch.  Life is too precious to spend anything but exhausted downtime in front of the television.  TV for me is a wind-down when my mind has been totally engaged for ten hours straight and it needs a break.  However, in some cases, what I am watching is still intellectually engaging and at the same time emotionally powerful.

Such was the case with a British show my husband got me watching on Netflix.  From the very beginning I was hooked, and that is saying something.  I have finished the first two seasons and I recommend it highly.  I will admit David Tennant's Scottish accent gets pretty dicey sometimes, but other than that, it almost seems like the show was made for Americans.

I did figure out the killer, well, the first one in the story, ahead of time, but that didn't keep me from continuing the watching.  It is interesting that an Anglican priest is one of the main, sympathetic characters and the title is Broadchurch.  I have read there is an American version called Gracepoint and it is identical, including David Tennant.  No need to watch that, though.

I had my favorite moments, notably when Detective Miller reconciles with her teenage son by taking a stand rather than pleading with him.  The boy's reaction is priceless.  The actress who plays the mother of the victim is wonderful, too.  The theme is relationships and what it takes to have them and what happens when they go wrong. 

Friday, June 17, 2016

Everyone and their opinions

My son often says about our dog, She has an opinion about everything.  Pit bulls are strong-willed and bossy, read that as they can be a nuisance, and Nala likes attention and will make sure she gets it.

However, people have opinions about everything and social media and the Internet makes it possible for everyone to broadcast their opinions 60/24/7/365.  Not only in print, but in videos.

Nowhere has this been seen so much as since the Orlando mass murders.  Christians especially have taken to the cyberworld to express something.

These expressions almost always contain 1.  condolences,  2.  expressions of how horrific this is, 3. a search for meaning/call to spiritual renewal/prayer, 4. some reference to the cause--innate human sinfulness or an ideology, 5. sometimes a political reference that guns by themselves are not the culprit, and usually 6. a veiled, implicit, minute reference that despite our empathy and horror and prayers, we still have a difference of conviction about the "lifestyle" of most of the victims.

This is a rhetorical analysis of "condolence as apologetic." I am not sure how I feel about expressing condolences and stating political opinions.  Even more, I am not sure why we have to express condolences this way period.  The people who would read it are not the people (family members, friends of the victims) who would need it.  I am reading the condolences and I don't know any of these people.

I was with colleagues last night and confessed that I could not get my head around that kind of mass killing and was more aware, emotionally, of the child attacked by the alligator at Disney (now, I have an opinion about that, but I will spare you.)  That probably sounded heartless but it was only honest coming from a mom. My son said he felt numb to it, and I said that it would be different if you knew one of the victims.

So here I am expressing an opinion about the wisdom of people expressing an opinion.  Weep with those who weep, we are commanded in Scripture.  These are the children of people my age, over half of whom, according to NPR, were of Puerto Rican heritage. Weep with them, pray for them, but let's not use this opportunity for political advantage.  The politics you have with you always, to paraphrase our Lord.

And yes, I know that the title is not really grammatically correct.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Apologizing? Seriously?

People keep asking or demanding the Donald Trump apologize for his (cough, cough, I'll refrain from adjectives) statements.

Ok, number 1, he hasn't really done so yet.  This is the guy who says he has nothing to ask forgiveness for.

Number 2, at this point, he couldn't be much more outrageous or say anything worse that would disqualify him from having the whatever to be the president.

Number 3, to ask him to apologize is saying, "Maybe he really didn't mean it."  Good grief, of course he means it!  It may not make sense and it may be totally unacceptable, but he means it!

Someone wrote on a comments board, "We have 330 million people in this country, and this is what we end up with to choose between for president?"  That just about wraps it up.  Only the most outrageous and unlikable are eligible, I guess.

P.S. Please don't take my Trump comments as endorsement of anyone else!

Southern Baptists by a Southern Baptist

http://www.bpnews.net/47015/baptists-reflections-of-the-stats-guy

This link takes you to an opinion piece by Ed Stetzer, who is leaving Lifeway (interestingly, at the same time one of his associates is, possibly, to become our pastor) for Wheaton College.  I like Ed and read him a lot.

If people are leaving because of externals and not doctrine, that means we can do something about it.
We can stop treating women as less than.

We can turn away from the Republican party as a group (but not individuals if that is one's bent, which for 90% probably will be but we won't be broadbrushed as in their pocket).

We can focus on missions and ministry rather than buildings.  Seriously.

We can have shorter sermons (when did sermons start being 50 minutes long?)

We can stop blowing smoke in worship services (and I mean literally blowing smoke. Good grief, it's not a night club.)

But those who would say, become more accepting of the culture, well, I have to say that needs nuance.  It is only when we are clearly distinct from anti-God cultural norms when we provide hope.

A few thoughts about blogging

Since my last post was about our narcissism as distinct from God's receiving of glorification and praise, I think I should say a few things about this blog.

I've been blogging here for ten years and have 1528 posts.  So it wasn't a fad.  Some days I post five or six times; other times I go for weeks, fasting or looking for something worth writing about.  My two most popular posts are the review on Twelve Angry Men and my posts on Kallman's.  Apparently is someone "googles" (which we all do habitually and I am trying to "yahoo" some) "famous people with Kallman's" they get me, although I didn't know I was famous.  Would rather not be, actually, although I would like to have my novels recognized.

Blogging is an outlet, and I admit that I prefer to give more substantial posts here rather than writing quickies on Twitter and Facebook, where I believe reasoned discourse is impossible due to the brevity.  The medium is, was, and always shall be the message, or greatly influenced by it.   I do admit some of posts are just rants and opinion pieces, but I mainly try to share resources about various topics.

So far, though, I haven't hit the big time, probably because (a) I don't post photos much and (b) I have too many themes.  I appreciate anyone who reads me, though.

Mistaking God for a Human

A couple of random quotations from the radio this week and my thoughts.

"God was being sarcastic with Job in chapters 38-41."  I think because our irony so often becomes sarcasm out of our need for self-glorification, we take God's use of irony and hard questions of Job as sarcasm.  Since I cannot think of any time when sarcasm (as distinct from irony or satire) is not used out of a desire to make ourselves look superior and the other look inferior, which are sinful motives, my syllogism concludes that God does not use sarcasm.  Sarcasm is beneath God.  It's like God saying "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" to someone.

We often say that everything exists for the glory of God, which could sound like God is incapable of being satisfied in that regard, that He is always craving glory and praise and has some deficit.  I think we should watch our language more. God does not need our glorification.  The whole universe is doing that, including the beings in heaven, and that is because the world is designed to do that and only when God is being glorified is "all right with the world."  Having a theo-centric view of the universe doesn't make God a narcissist.

In both cases, and I'm sure more, we are mistaking God for a human.  He could not be God if that were so.


Women in New Testament ministry

-->
I            I have posted below some verses from the New Testament about women ministering in the early Church.  Although Paul famously taught that women should be quiet in the church (service?), apparently they didn't take this to every level.  He commended plenty of women in the early church for their service and ministry.

What I also notice is that the phrase "men and women" often occurs, even when persecution, jail, and martyrdom is mentioned.  Why did the Jewish leaders want the women (and mothers of children) treated this way?  Why did the Romans later treat the women as badly as the men in the torture and killing?  If women are treated equally in martyrdom, why should they be unequal in other ways?
F
From a human perspective, these are logical arguments. I have mixed feelings about it.  When women are spoken to in an exhorting way in the New Testament, it is almost always about their "mouths"--gossip, strife, busybodying, etc.  That has not changed; some women like drama and stir it up with their talk.   Women when they are younger should probably focus on their children, but after a certain age women have great wisdom.  Why should a 60-year-old women be expected to follow the guidance of a 30-year-old pastor without question, just because he's a man?  I think women should be ordained and on staffs of churches.  However, I would still go by the tradition that the senior pastor be a man.  The church has become way too feminized already.

  Luke 8:1 1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
Acts 1:14 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
Acts 2 17-18 In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
Acts 8:30 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.
Acts 13:50 (In Pisidian Antioch) But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.  
Acts17:4 (In Thessalonica) Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.,
17:12 (In Berea) As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.
Acts 21:9  Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven. 9 He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I Cor 14:34.  Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. The one commandment that was apparently not taken everywhere.
I Tim. 2:9-10 modesty
I Tim 3:11 In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
2 Tim 3:6, (speaking of false teachers) They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
Titus 2:3-4 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
I Tim 5: Women are seen as providers of care and this was an important pat of being in the body.  It was not seen in a diminished function to be a caretaker. 
I Tim 2:11:  A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Romans 16:12 and other places: Paul mentions several women who apparently did ministry.  Priscilla, Euodia and Synteche, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Mary, Persis, Chloe, Junias, Nympha, Aphia, Phoebe, Lydia, Rufus’ mother, Nereus’ sister, Damaris, Tabitha, four daughters of Philip.  Claudia, Timothy’s mother and grandmother, Eunice and Lois.  Some are wealthy or high society women who could offer their homes for church meetings; some worked with their husbands in ministry. 
Take away:  Let no one despise your woman-ness—including yourself.

Thursday, June 09, 2016

Do We Own Dogs or Do They Own Us?

Dogs apparently begin to think they have rights to expect and get certain human behavior.

Last night was lovely so I decided to sit on the front porch and read (actually surf the Internet, but I was reading things).  I had walked Nala and we had eaten dinner.  All good.  But she was inside and kept barking and growling, low, at something outside, even though nothing was there.

My husband came to the front door.  "What does she keep growling at?"

Me:  "I don't know. There's no one out here."  Idea.  "Maybe she's growling at me being out here."

I came inside.  The growling and barking stopped.  She wanted me to go to my room and read or watch TV so she could sit with me by the bed.  She was quite happy when I did.

This is like the time she wanted water and carried the bowl in her mouth to the room I was in and set it down.  Or the time we were walking in the Chickamauga Battlefield and I got turned around as to where the car was parked.  I started going one way and she wouldn't go.  I let her lead and we went the opposite direction and were soon at the car.  HUMMMMM. 

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Osteopenia

I hope no one comes to this site looking for real information about this condition.  Please go to WebMd.  I was diagnosed with this the other day and read the websites.  The nurse midwife who I saw for my appointment this year (my sweet gynecologist has moved to Texas!) says I need a Vitamin D test and to take 500 milligrams of calcium 3 times a day.  I bought some chewable ones that taste like gumdrops; it is hard to believe they are doing any good.

I do not fit the profile, other than white:  I am not Asian, thin, nor have I smoked and drank in my life.  I only had one child, but I don't drink much milk.  It is more likely that the Kallman's and lack of hormones for all these years has contributed to it.

I think osteopenia is a term for "take more calcium so you won't get worse." 

Another Generation Arose

I taught from the first two chapters of Judges this morning.  I had volunteered to teach my small study class before I realized it was about Judges, so I was challenged to find the meaning in it.  Since Romans 15:4 and I Corinthians 10 tells us there is value in the Old Testament narratives, I can't just pass over them, even though I have a note in my version of the Bible that the book of Judges is like a Quentin Tarantino movie.

Judges 2:10 was my message:  A generation arose that did not know the LORD.  As in Spanish, Hebrew made a distinction between intimate personal knowledge and just knowing what or how.  (Conocer vs. saber)  This know in 2:10 is intimate personal knowledge.  It was not a matter that the next generation was not told the stories of the past lives of the Jews; they did not share the faith and emotional experience of knowing God that Joshua and the elders had.

When we pass the baton on to the next generation, they must have seen the reality of God in our lives.  That we made choices that were hard for the sake of the gospel.  That we obeyed.  That we loved those who were hard to love.  That we were in the word.  That we prayed.

Instead of making mocking songs about millennials, we should recognize the pressures on them that tempt them from the gospel.  They have much more temptation on them than we want to admit, some of it our own making.

Watching old Hollywood movies and shaking my head at the "racism"

i can't resist it--Cleopatra is on TCM.  It's on so I can look at the spectacle, not listen to inane dialogue.  Cleo is being drawn into Rome on a "float" shaped like the Sphinx, and being pulled by hundreds of slaves/warriors.  Wow.  This was the most expensive movie up to this time, $44 million, I think I read. 

The entrance of Cleo, AKA Elizabeth Taylor (still beautiful but way too old for the part and starting to put on the pounds) was preceded by dancing by scores of Africans in provocative dress.  I couldn't help think of Beyonce.  Please don't take that wrong--the camera focused on one woman dancer who was doing some pretty Beyonce moves; I've seen enough video clips to know.  True native dancers would not have worn bathing suit style outfits that were salacious enough to titillate the crowd but not hackle the censors.  If such dancers had really preceded Cleo, they would have been naked or more covered. 

The bad side of watching TCM movies is that we come face to face with how, even in my childhood, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics were portrayed so, well, insensitively.  I am not sure it was racist, although it may seem so today.  It was just exploitative, I think.  The subtext is "we will use non-whites in ways that recognize they exist in society but rarely as human beings, only as roles."  Maids, porters, farm workers, Chinese restaurant servers, not schoolteachers, educated persons, business owners, even though there were many such immigrants and minorities. 

We watched Showboat the other night, the 1936 version, and that one is probably more sensitive than most--the African Americans actually have lines that move the plot along, but the "shiftless" male with the long-suffering domestic wife (in this case Paul Robeson and Hattie McDaniel) made me uncomfortable. I can only think of a few pre-1970s films where the black character is portrayed as a good family man with a photo of his family in his wallet like a white man would.  (Lifeboat by Alfred Hitchcock, one of his best).  Showboat is at its core about the divide between the races. 

Humor, Laughter, Satire and Good Taste

I have a colleague who is also a humor scholar (and has been a stand-up comedian and disc jockey) whose email signature bears the phrase:  "Laughter is not a luxury; it is a necessity." (Or something very similar to that). Since the book of Proverbs says a merry heart does good like medicine, I heartily agree with him.  I have a sense of humor about most things, love to laugh, like to post some silly things on Facebook, use humor a lot in my class.  Sometimes my humor is a little on the snarky side, like an incident today . . .

There are two Christian radio stations in our area that are right next to each other on the dial and share a great deal of programming.  One plays more contemporary music and the other probably thinks anything recorded after 1980 was of the devil, but there are times I like to listen to the "old-timey" station to hear old hymns.  My reaction is often, "I haven't heard that one in years," as was happening today.  One song that came on was "Jesus is Coming Again," which has the refrain, "Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon."  I told my husband I used to sing it (in fundamentalist Christian College which-shall-not-be-mentioned) "Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening and definitely imminent."  He said I was a smart butt.  Yes, I am sometimes.

My Franky planner quote for tomorrow says, "If we may believe our logicians, man is distinguished from all other creatures by the facility of laughter.  He has a heart capable of mirth, and naturally disposed to it."  This is obviously not from a contemporary writer, but one from the 18th century, Joseph Addison.

The Bible has a lot to say about laughter, and perhaps there are at least three kinds we can distinguish.  Mirth, convivial, cheerful laughter born from the common experiences of life; we are all human, we have frailties, somethings just don't go together, there's quirkiness in life; some people we love but accept their behaviors and see humor in them.  That is public laughter.  Then there is the laughter because otherwise you would cry; the laughter of a funeral, remembering the joys and happiness of living with the one who is gone.  That is private laughter.  Then there is the laughter of derision, mocking, the "I am better than you" laughter, the "you are stupid" laughter and "I feel superior because I can laugh at you."  True dislike or hatred might be involved.  This is private and should probably stay private but is often made public.

This is probably too simple a distinction,  perhaps not.  There is probably a fine line between all three categories, and in making these distinctions I am not saying that all humor and laughter based on the first is good and all based on the third is bad.  They are not.  Sometimes the derisive laughter has its place; we read "he who sits in the heaven shall laugh" at the rebellion of the nations.  This is a dismissive laughter at those who shake their fists at God, metaphorically and actually.

I have been thinking about these subjects because I have been thinking about satire.  I have posted before a link to the Babylon Bee, my new "check everyday" site, and get a kick out of it; some of their stories work better than others.  They have come under fire for the story about Jan Crouch's death, mocking a teacher of prosperity, name it/claim it theology for dying.  It has fake quotes by Osteen and Hinn; even Fox News had a story about the criticism it has gotten (another example of fake news; media stories about other media are really not news that affect anyone except employees in the media and scholars of it).

Are they wrong?  Well, one could argue that it is in bad taste, and I would agree, and they are off the hook for "lying" because everyone knows it's satire and therefore lying so it doesn't purport to be truthful, and one who lies and says he is lying isn't lying (right?).  Is satire even a viable Christian form of writing?  Well, it's as old as the Reformation; Martin Luther and John Bunyan certainly used it. 

Satire is not the same as purely derisive mockery humor because it is in the service of an idea, not just insulting someone.  Those who would use satire against health/wealth preachers are coming from the view that these are false, harmful, destructive teachers who hurt people and ruin lives.  To wonder, fictitiously, if a health/wealth preacher did not have enough faith because he/she died from an illness is doing the same thing that these preachers have done to others for years, directly and indirectly.  Most of us who have lived long enough have had friends who were dying of long, slow diseases who were asked, "Have you really prayed in faith for healing? Do you really trust God?  What sin is in your life?"  I think those suffering would rather be left alone than visited by such fiends, oops, "friends." 

Jesus stopped all this talk cold when he was asked in John 9, "Was this man born blind because of his own sin or his parents'?"  That question pretty much wraps up 1. genetics, 2.  parents' sin 3. the issue of kharma and 4. the "you are suffering for your own sin" trope.  Jesus said, "Neither" (and seems to be saying, at the same time, quit trying to simplify these issues to make yourself feel good about figuring it out).  "verse 3:  This happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.  4 As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.
5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”  Jesus might be saying, (I am not sure), stop trying to lay blame and help solve the problem, just like I am about to do.
 
If we believe that the teaching of prosperity gospel is anathema, can we stop at mocking the proponents of it?  Or, does mockery reduce the seriousness and flagrancy of the evil of the teaching?
 
I present this in a devil's advocate form; I personally don't think they should have posted that and am surprised it's still up there; at least they stand by their words.   I also am a free speech advocate, so I defend their right to put it up there even if I do think it's probably hurtful to the family to see their mother mocked.  The Bee itself posted a "news item" about a person who liked satire as long as it didn't touch on her own views.  It is very hard to draw the line between legitimate targets and what is not funny, ever.  I don't think rape, the Holocaust, abortion, abuse, human trafficking, murder, cancer, long-term suffering from disease, any of that is funny, mostly because I wouldn't want victims of these things to feel their experiences are demeaned by laughter.  Some disagree with me.  

Saturday, June 04, 2016

Develop a relationship with Jesus

In the spirit of my last post, I would like to unpack this phrase.  What does it mean?  Who can develop a relationship with Jesus?  Why would you want to?  Jesus is in heaven, right?  What if he is not interested in developing a relationship with the person?  Doesn't he have a say in it?  What are the ground rules for such a thing?

Obviously I am pouring on the snark, so please don't stop reading.  I am not really so negative all the time.  But this phrase just bugs me, largely because I don't know who started it, what they meant theologically, or where it is in the Bible. 

To develop something means that the thing is already there.  If I develop land, the land is existent.  I building on it, bring in sewers, electrical wires, etc., but the land is there and, supposedly, I am increasing its value (to people and monetarily) through this work and investment. 

So maybe the person means to start a relationship, or to build on the relationship already there.  Not sure.  There has to be something before it can be developed.

So what kind of relationship do we have with Jesus?  I would say that we have many metaphors or pictures in the Bible that are given to help us understand the nature of the relationship.  They are not totally metaphors because they are theological true in some cases instead of just being word pictures for understanding, but I think the point is that those are the ground rules.  And all the metaphors or analogies or whatever you want to call it have one thing in common:  inequality, and thus inferiority on our parts, and thus subordination of will and purpose. 

A relationship with Jesus is one where we are unequally yoked with him.  He is doing the heavy lifiting, and we are submissive to his authority.  He is calling the shots.  He is the older brother, we are the younger siblings.  He is the shepherd.  He is the vine, the core part that brings the sustenance. He is the master/teacher, we are the learners. 

A relationship is not supposed to be onerous work.  If building a relationship with someone is unenjoyable tasks, what is the attraction?   I say this because the answer to developing a relationship is always prayer, Bible study, church attendance, giving, witnessing, all needful and of great importance.  But  where is the laughter and joy?  Where is the wonder?  Where is the thankfulness?  Where is the empathy for God?

The phrase puts us in the driver's seat, and I think that is why it bothers me, because we are so dependent on his grace.  


Bad Advice?

I walk my dog, Princess Poops-alot at a complex that includes a very large high school and somewhat smaller middle school.  Since school is out for the year, the marquis at the middle school has this message:
"Schools out.  Have a good summer.  Don't ever change.  Stay cool."

I don't think that's the best message to send the young people, and they hopefully will ignore it as they do so much else that gets put on school marquis.  Seriously, don't ever change--stay like a thirteen-year-old for the rest of your life (as if one could?)  "Be the best you you can be" would challenge them and still affirm them.

Stay cool?  Well, considering summers in my region, yes, that makes sense, but not cool in that other sense.  Young people are perplexed with being cool--how to do it, what it means, how to sustain it.  Arriving at coolness is a fruitless and futile errand.

In that vein, I recommend this for young parents:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/03/what-to-do-when-other-kids-think-your-son-is-oddball-or-queer.html?intcmp=hpff 

I like to think I was this kind of parent.

We here advice, witticisms, and observations every day that do not stand up to the light of inspection.  I love the "there are two types of people. . . " ones.   Those are usually off-base, although I like mine:  there are two types of people, those who think there are two types of people and those who don't.

In my declining years I am seeing the Goldilocks version has a lot of merit:  Two sides, and the middle way.  I think that is the essence of the Christian faith--the fine line, the narrow way we walk is the way between the extremes.  The way between legalism and license, reason and faith, love and judgment.

What quotes or truisms do you know that do not stand up to light of inspection?




What I Learned about Empathy Last Night

Last night in the English as Second Language that another teacher and I conduct at church, we had a class of six.  One Chinese young woman w...