Every once in a while, I like to search the web to get additional information about the Pettigrew family. Today, I found the Pettigrew Family Genealogy Site, containing detailed information which was apparently compiled by one Pat Fincher Pettigrew before she went on to be with the Lord.
The site features a Bible verse of the day. As it so happens, the verse for today was:
"Don't concern yourself about what you will eat or drink, and quit worrying about these things.... Rather, be concerned about his [the Father's] kingdom. Then these things will be provided for you." ... Luke 12:29
I was undoubtedly meant to see that verse. I'm hardly unfamiliar with the verse, of course. I've known the verse for most of my life. (Matthew has a verse which says pretty much the same thing.) But I have to confess, it touches on a personal weakness of mine.
Some folks have major trouble with sexual sin or addiction to drugs or alcohol. But personally, I find that trusting God to provide for my needs on a daily basis is something I still struggle with. It's my own personal version of "Fear Factor". When the money starts to run low (and it frequently does), I start seeing terrifying visions in which I am tossed out on my ear with no place to live but the mean streets of the city of Chicago.
Why does this frighten me? For numerous reasons, but probably the most powerful reason is that I am not content to merely survive. I have a vision of what God wants to do in my life, and I firmly believe that it is achievable, provided that I can manage to avoid events, such as eviction, which would set me back many years!
The scriptures affirm that a man's life does not consist of that man's possessions. Very true. But there are cases in which possessions are crucial if one is to achieve certain things.
For example, if I were to lose my computer and my access to the Internet, it would be significantly more difficult for me to set up the online ministry I'm trying to start at ArtisticChristians.com.
When it comes to my fears of living on the street, there is a basis for those fears. I have come very close to losing it all, in terms of my material possessions.
I've never actually lived on the street, per se, but I've been in several situations where I would have had to do so if it had not been for the charitable acts of my fellow Christians.
It also helped that I wasn't too proud to beg for help.
Now, a man has to do what a man has to do, and if begging for assistance is what one has to do in order to survive, then one begs for assistance. But begging is no fun, and that's a mild understatement. Begging is humiliating. The reason it's humiliating is, in part, because the people from whom one is forced to ask for help sometimes do their best to make sure that it's a humiliating experience.
Frequently, one finds that the generosity of others comes with strings attached. Usually, those strings are emotional. It seems that some people think that offering charitable assistance entitles them to denigrate the person they are helping in ways which bear little or no relation to the actual facts of the situation. The mere fact that one has been forced to beg for help is taken as de facto evidence that one's character is severely deficient.
One pastor who helped me out in the early nineties accused me of being "lazy". This, despite the fact that he knew that I had only recently lost my job, and despite his knowledge of the fact that I was devoting approximately 16 hours a day to that job at that time.
It was a job in a retail music store. It took me 2 hours to get there on the bus every morning, and another 2 hours to get home on the bus that night. I worked from 10:00 a.m. when the store opened to 10:00 p.m., which was an hour past the time when the store closed.
If that was "lazy", I couldn't help wondering just what I would have had to do in order to prove to this pastor that I was a hard and diligent worker. Devote all 24 hours of every day to my job? Funny, I didn't see him doing that with his own job!
Yes, I lost the music store job, but it had nothing to do with being "lazy". I just wasn't making enough sales, despite my best efforts. Anyone who has ever worked in sales knows that that is always a possibility. If folks are clueless regarding such matters (as this pastor apparently was), I would suggest that they read "Death of A Salesman", by Arthur Miller.
I was and am genuinely grateful for the temporary help that the aforementioned pastor extended to me for a period of time when I needed that help, but that was no excuse for the abusive things that he said to me in order to force me to leave and find housing elsewhere at a time when I still did not have adequate money with which to do so (thanks to the fact that I had recently been robbed while visiting the Oak Park YMCA in order to try to get a room).
That was hardly the only time that sort of thing had happened to me. Memories of incidents like that one still burn in my mind even to this day. Such memories make it hard for me to trust God to provide for me. Yes, I've survived, but I've had to go through some things no human being should ever have to go through in order to do so.
When it comes to the role Christians have played in dealing with my difficulties, it's kind of a "glass half full, glass half empty" kind of situation. On the one hand, I have always received the help I needed, more or less. And as I say, I am grateful for that fact. Christians certainly could have responded with total indifference to my needs. To their credit, they did not.
But helping a person means more than just providing for that person's material needs. It also means being sensitive to the fact that being forced to beg for help or forbearance is inherently stressful for most normal people. It means showing kindness and love to the people you help, knowing that that is how you would want to be treated if you ever found yourself in a similar situation. (It's called the Golden Rule. Look it up in the Bible. Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you.) I'm sorry to say that most of the Christians I've dealt with have fallen way short in that department.
Not that any of that excuses my failure to trust God for provision. I know, intellectually, that God can be trusted to provide for my needs. It's just that when the sheriff is banging on one's door at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, with the intent of serving one an eviction notice because one has fallen behind on one's rent, it's still difficult to incorporate that intellectual knowledge into the way one views the world. During such moments, the world seems like a cruel and hostile place, and God seems like he is pretty indifferent to the sufferings of those who have to experience that cruelty and hostility.
That visit from the sheriff that happened to me several years ago. I was already starting to sink into depression in response to my situation, and that visit from the sheriff made things even worse. Not long after that, I spent a miserable weekend at a local mental health hospital after trying to kill myself by swallowing more than an entire bottle of over-the-counter sleeping pills.
At the time when I took the pills, I was just sick and tired of dealing with the stress of life on this earth. I was sick and tired of being told that God loved me by people who demonstrated, through their indifference to the truth regarding my own situation, that they really didn't care whether I lived or died.
Yet, I attribute the fact that I am still alive today to God's miraculous intervention.
That night, I knelt beside my bed, in fear and trembling, not knowing what was coming next. I poured my heart out to God. I told God that I just couldn't deal with living in this world of pain any longer. I longed for genuine relief. I longed with all my heart to be joined with God in heaven.
I told God that I wanted to die, but I added that if God wanted me to live, if God had a higher purpose for me here which I couldn't yet see, I was willing to accept his will and to do my best to do his will.
The next morning, to my great surprise, I awoke to a new day. The effects of the pills could be clearly felt. I could barely move my limbs. For about a day or so, my legs would not even support the weight of my body. But I was alive.
I now realize that that was a test of my faith. I almost completely failed the test. If I had not prayed that prayer of submission, I think I might have failed that test, and I might not be typing these words today. But I had not abandoned my faith. I have not abandoned my faith. I will not abandon my faith!
I know in whom I have believed. When I committed my life to Jesus Christ at age 13, in 1969, I was putting my faith in Jesus Christ, not in that imperfect institution known as the Church. Yes, it's true, the Church is in some respects the Body of Christ. But the Church is comprised of weak and fallible sinners. They have been saved, but in terms of personal virtue, they have not yet arrived at their final destination. And when I say "they", perhaps I should include myself and change the pronoun to "we".
My faith in Christ is real, but it is not what it ought to be.
If my faith was what it ought to be, I would live a fearless life. I would remind myself that Jesus himself suffered greatly while he was here on this earth. The scriptures tell us that "foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to rest his head." For at least 3 years of his life, Jesus was a homeless man. I don't know how many of those nights he had to literally sleep under the stars, but it seems to be clear that when he was not doing so, he was staying with other people who chose to offer him lodging for the night. He was not living in any mansion. He was not staying at any 5 star hotel. He was taking whatever he could get.
As for false accusations, Jesus is no stranger to those, either. He did miracles, and how was he thanked? He was accused by some people (often the religious leaders of the day) of performing those miracles through the power of the Devil! Talk about ingratitude.
Jesus knows my grief and my pain, because he's been there.
I write the above words because once again, I am going through a time of trial in relation to my finances. I know that God will provide for me and I will survive, but it's still stressful, because I don't like having to ask for help, and it is likely that I will have to do so again in the very near future.
I pray that I will receive the mercy and help I need so that this time of trial will be as short as possible.
I further pray that such help will be extended to me in a more loving and generous spirit than I have received from some people who have claimed to speak in God's name.
Most of all, I pray that no matter how people respond and no matter what happens to me, I will never abandon my faith, and I will never forget that God loves me with a love so deep that it cannot be measured.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
From One Jerk To Another
Yesterday morning, I attended Willow Chicago (the downtown Chicago branch of Willow Creek Community Church) for the second time.
After the worship service, Willow Chicago held a fellowship reception in the Windsor Room at the nearby Congress Hotel, since their contract with The Auditorium (where their Sunday worship services are held) apparently doesn’t include access to meeting rooms for such events.
As I approached the Congress Hotel, I looked into the window of the hotel’s gift shop. I saw what appeared to be a line of humorous bumper stickers.
However, the captions on some of those bumper stickers would not necessarily strike everyone as amusing. For example, the first bumper sticker I noticed had the following caption:
“Jesus Loves You. Everyone else thinks you’re a jerk.”
Alright, I made part of that up. “Jerk” wasn’t actually the word the bumper sticker used. It actually used a harsher word which rhymes with the phrase “brass pole” and which could be roughly paraphrased as “anal aperture”. But this is a family-friendly Christian blog, so I thought I’d try to keep things “clean” for the sake of the many Christians who think that certain words should be completely off limits.
I thought it was a bit ironic that I saw that message when I was on the way to a church event being held in that same hotel.
Putting aside the issue of the bumper sticker’s mild profanity, and putting aside the fact that it was obviously an attempt at humor on the part of the writer, I thought it was an interesting message which raised equally interesting questions.
In essence, the message on the bumper sticker seemed to imply that Jesus loves jerks because he is too naïve to recognize a jerk when he sees one. It implied that loving a person and recognizing that the person is a jerk are mutually exclusive.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody knows us better than God. If any of us really are jerks, you can be sure that God knows that better than anyone else.
I have been known, from time to time, to characterize some particularly unkind people (including some of my fellow Christians) as jerks. I’ve even used the other word that was actually on that bumper sticker, when people have really made me angry by treating me badly.
However, in my more reflective moments, I suspect that God thinks that we’re all jerks, not just some of us.
Admittedly, some of us are bigger jerks than others, but the Bible makes it clear: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
We have all acted in self-centered ways from time to time. Intentionally or unintentionally, most of us have hurt one another on occasions. And even if some of us as individuals have not ever hurt other people, we have certainly hurt God when we have insulted God by implying by word or deed that we were better qualified than God to know how we ought to live our lives.
The Bible talks about two kinds of righteousness. One kind of righteousness is what might be described as “relative righteousness”. To be relatively righteous is to be more righteous than most other people. Job, for example, met that criterion. That’s why the Bible described Job as a “righteous man”.
Provided that it is tempered by humility, relative righteousness has value. It’s good to strive to be a relatively righteous person. In fact, God expects us to do so.
However, there’s also another kind of righteousness: Perfect or absolute righteousness. We ought to strive for that higher level of righteousness as well, but the Bible makes it clear that no one other than Christ has ever lived a perfectly righteous life here on earth. Compared with the perfect righteousness of Christ, our relative righteousness begins to look pretty sad and pathetic.
A lot of people think that because they’re relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, that means that they are qualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. Not long ago, I spoke with someone I care for deeply. He said that he knew he was going to go to heaven because he’d been a relatively good person who had “never murdered anybody”.
Such a statement is common in our society, but it shows a real lack of understanding, for two reasons. First, it implies that all one has to do in order to qualify for entry into heaven is to abstain from the most grievious sins such as murder. Second, it implies that murderers and others who have committed the worst sins have no hope of entering the kingdom of God. Neither one of those things is true.
God doesn't merely want us to be relatively righteous people. God’s standards are uncompromising. God requires perfection. Anything less than perfection makes a person unqualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. In terms of salvation, the extent to which you miss the mark is irrelevant. If you miss it by even a little bit, you’ve missed it.
It’s like being a deer hunter. You can miss the deer by an inch or a mile. Either way, you go home hungry, and the deer lives to see another day. What good is it that you almost hit the deer you were shooting at? When you're hungry for venison, "almost" doesn't cut it.
When it comes to pleasing God, we’ve all missed the mark. Some by a little, some by a lot, but we’ve all missed it. We all have a spiritual hunger that cannot be satisfied on the basis of our own inadequate efforts.
However, heaven would be a mighty empty place if God had not made any provisions for sinners to enter heaven. That’s why Jesus died on the cross for us. He knew that on some level, we were all rebellious jerks who didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Yet, Jesus inexplicably loved us anyway. That’s why it’s called “amazing grace”!
Jesus wants to spend eternity with us, despite our obvious and not so obvious flaws. Because Jesus was the only perfect person to ever live, Jesus was the only one qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on our behalf. He had no obligation to do so, but he did so anyway.
None of this ought to be used, as some immature Christians do, as an excuse to act like jerks. God’s grace and mercy can cover and forgive a multitude of sins, but we still have a moral obligation to make a conscientious effort to avoid sin. We still have an obligation to hold one another accountable for sins we may commit.
As much as possible, I try not to act like a jerk. Relative to a lot of other people, I think that I’ve done a pretty good job of living a morally admirable life.
Nevertheless, nobody but God is more aware of my shortcomings than I am. Consequently, I’m indescribably glad and grateful that Jesus has loved and forgiven me even when I have miserably failed to meet God’s standards.
Regarding what other people think of me or don’t think of me, I do want others to think well of me, but there is a sense in which it really doesn’t matter what other people think about me, just as there is a sense in which it doesn’t really matter what I think about others or about you.
Your judgments are impure. My judgments are impure. God’s judgments are perfect and unimpeachable.
In the final analysis (which is coming sooner than you may think), what God thinks about me and you is the only thing that really matters.
Don’t be caught unprepared for Judgment Day. Instead, I would suggest that you pray the following prayer, or something similar to it:
Dear God,
I’ve known a lot of jerks in my life. Sadly, I have to admit that I have sometimes been one of them. I have chosen my own way and not yours. I have rejected your wisdom and counsel. I have hurt you, and it's quite likely that I have hurt others. I have strayed from the path that leads to eternal life.
Please forgive me. Please set my feet back onto the righteous path once again. Please help me to help others so that they, too, can receive the glorious forgiveness you have generously offered to all who will humbly ask for forgiveness.
I thank you that you sent your son Jesus to die on my behalf. I thank you that you can be trusted to honor this request for forgiveness. I praise and glorify your holy name, for you alone are worthy of such praise.
In Jesus’ Blessed Name,
Amen
If you’ve just prayed the above prayer for the first time, or if you’ve just prayed something similar (possibly because the above prayer was not tailored perfectly to your own situation), please write to me and let me know that you’ve decided to follow Christ.
It would really make my day to know that I helped to play a role in leading you to make the most important decision that you will ever make.
Sincerely,
Mark Pettigrew
mark_w_pettigrew[at]hotmail[dot]com
After the worship service, Willow Chicago held a fellowship reception in the Windsor Room at the nearby Congress Hotel, since their contract with The Auditorium (where their Sunday worship services are held) apparently doesn’t include access to meeting rooms for such events.
As I approached the Congress Hotel, I looked into the window of the hotel’s gift shop. I saw what appeared to be a line of humorous bumper stickers.
However, the captions on some of those bumper stickers would not necessarily strike everyone as amusing. For example, the first bumper sticker I noticed had the following caption:
“Jesus Loves You. Everyone else thinks you’re a jerk.”
Alright, I made part of that up. “Jerk” wasn’t actually the word the bumper sticker used. It actually used a harsher word which rhymes with the phrase “brass pole” and which could be roughly paraphrased as “anal aperture”. But this is a family-friendly Christian blog, so I thought I’d try to keep things “clean” for the sake of the many Christians who think that certain words should be completely off limits.
I thought it was a bit ironic that I saw that message when I was on the way to a church event being held in that same hotel.
Putting aside the issue of the bumper sticker’s mild profanity, and putting aside the fact that it was obviously an attempt at humor on the part of the writer, I thought it was an interesting message which raised equally interesting questions.
In essence, the message on the bumper sticker seemed to imply that Jesus loves jerks because he is too naïve to recognize a jerk when he sees one. It implied that loving a person and recognizing that the person is a jerk are mutually exclusive.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody knows us better than God. If any of us really are jerks, you can be sure that God knows that better than anyone else.
I have been known, from time to time, to characterize some particularly unkind people (including some of my fellow Christians) as jerks. I’ve even used the other word that was actually on that bumper sticker, when people have really made me angry by treating me badly.
However, in my more reflective moments, I suspect that God thinks that we’re all jerks, not just some of us.
Admittedly, some of us are bigger jerks than others, but the Bible makes it clear: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
We have all acted in self-centered ways from time to time. Intentionally or unintentionally, most of us have hurt one another on occasions. And even if some of us as individuals have not ever hurt other people, we have certainly hurt God when we have insulted God by implying by word or deed that we were better qualified than God to know how we ought to live our lives.
The Bible talks about two kinds of righteousness. One kind of righteousness is what might be described as “relative righteousness”. To be relatively righteous is to be more righteous than most other people. Job, for example, met that criterion. That’s why the Bible described Job as a “righteous man”.
Provided that it is tempered by humility, relative righteousness has value. It’s good to strive to be a relatively righteous person. In fact, God expects us to do so.
However, there’s also another kind of righteousness: Perfect or absolute righteousness. We ought to strive for that higher level of righteousness as well, but the Bible makes it clear that no one other than Christ has ever lived a perfectly righteous life here on earth. Compared with the perfect righteousness of Christ, our relative righteousness begins to look pretty sad and pathetic.
A lot of people think that because they’re relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, that means that they are qualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. Not long ago, I spoke with someone I care for deeply. He said that he knew he was going to go to heaven because he’d been a relatively good person who had “never murdered anybody”.
Such a statement is common in our society, but it shows a real lack of understanding, for two reasons. First, it implies that all one has to do in order to qualify for entry into heaven is to abstain from the most grievious sins such as murder. Second, it implies that murderers and others who have committed the worst sins have no hope of entering the kingdom of God. Neither one of those things is true.
God doesn't merely want us to be relatively righteous people. God’s standards are uncompromising. God requires perfection. Anything less than perfection makes a person unqualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. In terms of salvation, the extent to which you miss the mark is irrelevant. If you miss it by even a little bit, you’ve missed it.
It’s like being a deer hunter. You can miss the deer by an inch or a mile. Either way, you go home hungry, and the deer lives to see another day. What good is it that you almost hit the deer you were shooting at? When you're hungry for venison, "almost" doesn't cut it.
When it comes to pleasing God, we’ve all missed the mark. Some by a little, some by a lot, but we’ve all missed it. We all have a spiritual hunger that cannot be satisfied on the basis of our own inadequate efforts.
However, heaven would be a mighty empty place if God had not made any provisions for sinners to enter heaven. That’s why Jesus died on the cross for us. He knew that on some level, we were all rebellious jerks who didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Yet, Jesus inexplicably loved us anyway. That’s why it’s called “amazing grace”!
Jesus wants to spend eternity with us, despite our obvious and not so obvious flaws. Because Jesus was the only perfect person to ever live, Jesus was the only one qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on our behalf. He had no obligation to do so, but he did so anyway.
None of this ought to be used, as some immature Christians do, as an excuse to act like jerks. God’s grace and mercy can cover and forgive a multitude of sins, but we still have a moral obligation to make a conscientious effort to avoid sin. We still have an obligation to hold one another accountable for sins we may commit.
As much as possible, I try not to act like a jerk. Relative to a lot of other people, I think that I’ve done a pretty good job of living a morally admirable life.
Nevertheless, nobody but God is more aware of my shortcomings than I am. Consequently, I’m indescribably glad and grateful that Jesus has loved and forgiven me even when I have miserably failed to meet God’s standards.
Regarding what other people think of me or don’t think of me, I do want others to think well of me, but there is a sense in which it really doesn’t matter what other people think about me, just as there is a sense in which it doesn’t really matter what I think about others or about you.
Your judgments are impure. My judgments are impure. God’s judgments are perfect and unimpeachable.
In the final analysis (which is coming sooner than you may think), what God thinks about me and you is the only thing that really matters.
Don’t be caught unprepared for Judgment Day. Instead, I would suggest that you pray the following prayer, or something similar to it:
Dear God,
I’ve known a lot of jerks in my life. Sadly, I have to admit that I have sometimes been one of them. I have chosen my own way and not yours. I have rejected your wisdom and counsel. I have hurt you, and it's quite likely that I have hurt others. I have strayed from the path that leads to eternal life.
Please forgive me. Please set my feet back onto the righteous path once again. Please help me to help others so that they, too, can receive the glorious forgiveness you have generously offered to all who will humbly ask for forgiveness.
I thank you that you sent your son Jesus to die on my behalf. I thank you that you can be trusted to honor this request for forgiveness. I praise and glorify your holy name, for you alone are worthy of such praise.
In Jesus’ Blessed Name,
Amen
If you’ve just prayed the above prayer for the first time, or if you’ve just prayed something similar (possibly because the above prayer was not tailored perfectly to your own situation), please write to me and let me know that you’ve decided to follow Christ.
It would really make my day to know that I helped to play a role in leading you to make the most important decision that you will ever make.
Sincerely,
Mark Pettigrew
mark_w_pettigrew[at]hotmail[dot]com
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
My Joke Of The Day
QUESTION
What do you get when you cross a godly liberator with a Native American from the frozen north?
ANSWER
EskiMoses
Feel free to use the above joke in any and all comedy routines, if you're performing for a classroom of six year olds and you want to tell a joke with a slightly Biblical flavor.
Corny jokes, unfortunately, aren't considered to be "cool" or "hip" or whatever the latest term is for people who have tragically outgrown the simple joys of childhood. Consequently, I wouldn't advise using the above joke in your routine if you're appearing at a typical comedy nightclub in any major city.
In fact, if you're a committed Christian, you might want to avoid doing any comedy routines at such places at all. Most of the "comedians" at such clubs seem to think that the quintessential act of cleverness is to use as much profanity as possible, along with a lot of "jokes" that ridicule conservative Christians and/or Republicans.
Whatever happened to people like Jonathan Winters? Jonathan Winters was hilarious, and he managed to make people laugh without ever doing much of anything which would have made him unwelcome at a church picnic.
Steven Wright is another comedian I like. His dry sense of humor revolves heavily around playing with the English language in clever and unexpected ways. If he has any animus towards Christians or political conservatives, I haven't yet heard him tell a joke which revealed those feelings.
Carrot Top is pretty funny, too, and his use of special humorous props is generally very clever.
In troubled times, humor is sometimes one of the few things we can rely on to help us to grin and bear it. Comedy can be a ministry of sorts, whether it has an overtly religious flavor or not.
But comedy also has a dark side. The idea that nothing should be sacred seems to be all too prevalent among professional jokesters.
God will have the last laugh. I pray that more and more comedians will learn to temper their humor with a recognition of that fact.
What do you get when you cross a godly liberator with a Native American from the frozen north?
ANSWER
EskiMoses
Feel free to use the above joke in any and all comedy routines, if you're performing for a classroom of six year olds and you want to tell a joke with a slightly Biblical flavor.
Corny jokes, unfortunately, aren't considered to be "cool" or "hip" or whatever the latest term is for people who have tragically outgrown the simple joys of childhood. Consequently, I wouldn't advise using the above joke in your routine if you're appearing at a typical comedy nightclub in any major city.
In fact, if you're a committed Christian, you might want to avoid doing any comedy routines at such places at all. Most of the "comedians" at such clubs seem to think that the quintessential act of cleverness is to use as much profanity as possible, along with a lot of "jokes" that ridicule conservative Christians and/or Republicans.
Whatever happened to people like Jonathan Winters? Jonathan Winters was hilarious, and he managed to make people laugh without ever doing much of anything which would have made him unwelcome at a church picnic.
Steven Wright is another comedian I like. His dry sense of humor revolves heavily around playing with the English language in clever and unexpected ways. If he has any animus towards Christians or political conservatives, I haven't yet heard him tell a joke which revealed those feelings.
Carrot Top is pretty funny, too, and his use of special humorous props is generally very clever.
In troubled times, humor is sometimes one of the few things we can rely on to help us to grin and bear it. Comedy can be a ministry of sorts, whether it has an overtly religious flavor or not.
But comedy also has a dark side. The idea that nothing should be sacred seems to be all too prevalent among professional jokesters.
God will have the last laugh. I pray that more and more comedians will learn to temper their humor with a recognition of that fact.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
With Friends Like These
When I voted for President Bush during the 2000 election and the 2004 election, I did so in large part because he had paid lip service to the pro-life movement, whereas both Al Gore and John Kerry had openly paid homage to the abortion industry. To some extent, I knew that Bush's claims amounted to lip service, but I felt that even lip service was better than no service at all.
I passionately felt and still feel that abortion was and is the most important issue facing our nation. It wasn't that I didn't care about other issues. But public acceptance of an act which takes roughly a million innocent American human lives every year (and which took up to 1.5 million lives a year for many years) has got to qualify as a major national crisis.
It was clear, even during the 2000 election, that Bush was hardly the dream candidate I might have wished for. He seemed to want to take little baby steps in terms of moving the nation in a direction consistent with complete respect for all phases of human life. I would have much preferred an articulate and passionate pro-life spokesperson such as Alan Keyes, because Keyes really seemed to care about the unborn victims of abortion. But baby steps are better than no steps at all, and thanks to the inequitable way in which national primaries are held, I never got the chance to vote for Keyes when he was a candidate for President. So I took what I could get.
Sadly, with very few exceptions, Bush has consistently put the pro-life issue on the back burner in terms of his priorities. In that respect, he is not noticeably different from his father.
I realize that the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq were both important in Bush's mind, but even if he was right about both issues (and that's highly debatable in the case of Iraq), the fact of the matter is that the total number of people killed by both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein combined are miniscule compared with the numbers of people legally killed every year by abortionists in the United States during the past 30 plus years.
Considering the extent to which the abortion issue and the pro-life vote played a major role in putting Bush in office and keeping him there, the fact that Bush has done so little to advance the pro-life cause seems like a betrayal to me. In my opinion, the significant political losses Republicans experienced in 2006 are due not only to Bush's mishandling of the war in Iraq, but also to the fact that most pro-life Republicans found it very hard to get excited about a political party which had promised much but delivered very little (despite its simultaneous control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency) in terms of saving unborn children.
One of the saddest ironies when it comes to the abortion issue is the extent to which Republicans, who are often characterized as defenders of the unborn, have played a role in terms of aiding and abetting the defenders of legal abortion time and time again.
After all, it was Nixon, not Kennedy or Johnson, who appointed Harry Blackmun, the Chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.
Later, when Nixon resigned amidst the scandal of Watergate, his successor Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. According to this article, Stevens "joined a 2000 decision called Stenberg v. Carhart in which the court struck down a Nebraska law banning so-called 'partial-birth' abortions."
With "friends" like Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, the pro-life movement needed no enemies. (Admittedly, there was no pro-life movement when Nixon first came into power. It was partially on account of Nixon's appointment of Harry Blackmun that such a movement became necessary.)
Gerald Ford took office a year after Roe v. Wade was made into law. If Ford had had any pro-life principles at all, he would have expended a considerable amount of effort making sure that the next judicial appointment went to a man who recognized the stupidity of the Roe v. Wade decision. Say what you will about Nixon, but at least he can be excused to some extent by the possibility that he may not have realized that Harry Blackmun would vote to overturn the abortion laws of most of the states in the union. Gerald Ford had no such excuse.
Instead of doing his best to appoint a judge who would have helped to overthrow Roe v. Wade, Ford turned the entire appointment process over to Attorney General Edward Levi, whose primary criterion when selecting Stevens seems to have been that the two men were buddies from Chicago, where Stevens was serving as a federal appeals court judge and where Levi had been the president of the University of Chicago. (Those who now blame Donald Rumsfeld for much that has gone wrong in Iraq should also pause to consider that Rumsfeld's suggestions to Ford regarding Edward Levi played a significant role in Ford's choice of Levi and in Levi's subsequent choice of John Paul Stevens. It would appear that conservatives and liberals both have good reason to dislike Mr. Rumsfeld.)
Ford's choice of Levi was based on his desire for a person who was "nonpolitical". Apparently, he got what he wanted, in spades. Levi apparently cared more about personal friendships than he did about political principles, despite the fact that it was his job to insure that justice was done throughout the land. It isn't clear from what I've read whether Levi was pro-life himself or not, but if he was pro-life, then he was incompetent. He put his personal friendship with John Paul Stevens ahead of his job responsibilities.
According to MSNBC writer Tom Curry, Ford's most "profound" legacy was his appointment of John Paul Stevens. If appointing a man who helped to protect the status quo in terms of Roe v. Wade is Curry's idea of profundity, then Curry deserves to be in the pro-life hall of shame, along with Gerald Ford and our ostensibly pro-life president George W. Bush.
What does George W. Bush think of Gerald Ford? According to this article, Bush says Ford was a "great American". I beg to differ. Ford's legacy was to help insure that a bad judicial decision would remain in force for many years to come. And the fact that George W. Bush does not recognize that fact speaks volumes, it seems to me, about his level of intelligence and competence.
Am I sorry that I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004? No. As bad as he was and is, his opponents were many times worse. But I may begin to obstain from the voting process altogether if the Republican party cannot begin to get its act together and elect principled Presidential candidates who can be counted on to represent the values of the numerous pro-life people like myself who, more often than not, have played a decisive role in putting them into office.
I am beginning to agree with those who use terms such as "Republicrats" to suggest that there isn't a very significant difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party anymore. This was made especially apparent during the 2006 gubernatorial race in Illinois.
Rod Blagojevitch had made some reprehensible decisions while in office, such as his executive order forcing pharmacists to violate their own consciences, by dispensing what they regarded as pharmaceutical abortifacients, in order to keep their jobs. (So much for "choice". Apparently, pharmacists ought not to have freedom of choice regarding whether or not their hands are stained with innocent blood.)
Nevertheless, Blagojevitch won, because his opponent, Judy Baar Topinka, and her running mate, Joe Birkett, were indistinguishable from the Democrats in terms of their positions on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.
Birkett, who had previously claimed to be pro-life, based his unprincipled alliance with Topinka on his belief that she was the only Republican who could beat Blagojevitch. I thought at the time that that was a major miscalculation on his part, and the election results would seem to bear that out.
Joe seemed oblivious to the fact that the only way to beat an incumbent politician is to offer voters a significantly better alternative and then to appeal to one's political base in order to insure that people who recognize the superiority of that alternative come out to vote. Topinka lost because she was basically Blagojevitch in a skirt, notwithstanding her specious claims that she was a Republican.
Ironically, now that Birkett's 2006 running mate has lost, Birkett is trying to regain credibility with pro-life Republicans by claiming to back certain marginally pro-life measures pertaining to parental consent. Here's what I'd say to Joe if I saw him face to face:
"Sorry, Joe, but conservative voters such as myself aren't buying it. We don't easily get amnesia. We won't forget you unprincipled alliance with Topinka in 2006 for a long, long time to come. By all means, do the right thing and vote in support of pro-life legislation. But don't expect it to do you any good in the next election. That ship has sailed. You had a chance to do the right thing when it would have counted the most, but you blew it, buddy."
What happened in Illinois was heartbreaking, but hardly unique. More often than not, the small difference which does exist between the two major political parties these days is a matter of rhetoric, not a matter of substantive action.
Which is worse? To proclaim that one is pro-abortion and then to demonstrate that that is indeed the case, or to proclaim that one is pro-life and then do nothing to change the status quo regarding legal abortion?
Say what you will about the Democrats, but at least they are honest about their pathetic and immoral indifference to the intrinsic value of human life. That doesn't make me any more likely to vote for them, but it does make me feel that I have been cheated out of the opportunity to vote for candidates who share my own priorities, not just in word but in deed.
UPDATE: It bears mentioning that when it comes to the 2008 presidential elections, there are some big differences between John McCain (who has said clearly that human life begins at conception) and Barack Obama (who not only claimed that answering such a question was "above (his) pay grade," but also opposed Illinois laws designed to prevent infanticide). For me, the choice is clear. Even though I'm not convinced that the pro-life agenda is at the top of McCain's list of priorities, it is at least on that list. Barack Obama's election would be a huge setback for the pro-life cause.
I passionately felt and still feel that abortion was and is the most important issue facing our nation. It wasn't that I didn't care about other issues. But public acceptance of an act which takes roughly a million innocent American human lives every year (and which took up to 1.5 million lives a year for many years) has got to qualify as a major national crisis.
It was clear, even during the 2000 election, that Bush was hardly the dream candidate I might have wished for. He seemed to want to take little baby steps in terms of moving the nation in a direction consistent with complete respect for all phases of human life. I would have much preferred an articulate and passionate pro-life spokesperson such as Alan Keyes, because Keyes really seemed to care about the unborn victims of abortion. But baby steps are better than no steps at all, and thanks to the inequitable way in which national primaries are held, I never got the chance to vote for Keyes when he was a candidate for President. So I took what I could get.
Sadly, with very few exceptions, Bush has consistently put the pro-life issue on the back burner in terms of his priorities. In that respect, he is not noticeably different from his father.
I realize that the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq were both important in Bush's mind, but even if he was right about both issues (and that's highly debatable in the case of Iraq), the fact of the matter is that the total number of people killed by both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein combined are miniscule compared with the numbers of people legally killed every year by abortionists in the United States during the past 30 plus years.
Considering the extent to which the abortion issue and the pro-life vote played a major role in putting Bush in office and keeping him there, the fact that Bush has done so little to advance the pro-life cause seems like a betrayal to me. In my opinion, the significant political losses Republicans experienced in 2006 are due not only to Bush's mishandling of the war in Iraq, but also to the fact that most pro-life Republicans found it very hard to get excited about a political party which had promised much but delivered very little (despite its simultaneous control of the Senate, the House and the Presidency) in terms of saving unborn children.
One of the saddest ironies when it comes to the abortion issue is the extent to which Republicans, who are often characterized as defenders of the unborn, have played a role in terms of aiding and abetting the defenders of legal abortion time and time again.
After all, it was Nixon, not Kennedy or Johnson, who appointed Harry Blackmun, the Chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.
Later, when Nixon resigned amidst the scandal of Watergate, his successor Gerald Ford appointed Justice John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. According to this article, Stevens "joined a 2000 decision called Stenberg v. Carhart in which the court struck down a Nebraska law banning so-called 'partial-birth' abortions."
With "friends" like Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, the pro-life movement needed no enemies. (Admittedly, there was no pro-life movement when Nixon first came into power. It was partially on account of Nixon's appointment of Harry Blackmun that such a movement became necessary.)
Gerald Ford took office a year after Roe v. Wade was made into law. If Ford had had any pro-life principles at all, he would have expended a considerable amount of effort making sure that the next judicial appointment went to a man who recognized the stupidity of the Roe v. Wade decision. Say what you will about Nixon, but at least he can be excused to some extent by the possibility that he may not have realized that Harry Blackmun would vote to overturn the abortion laws of most of the states in the union. Gerald Ford had no such excuse.
Instead of doing his best to appoint a judge who would have helped to overthrow Roe v. Wade, Ford turned the entire appointment process over to Attorney General Edward Levi, whose primary criterion when selecting Stevens seems to have been that the two men were buddies from Chicago, where Stevens was serving as a federal appeals court judge and where Levi had been the president of the University of Chicago. (Those who now blame Donald Rumsfeld for much that has gone wrong in Iraq should also pause to consider that Rumsfeld's suggestions to Ford regarding Edward Levi played a significant role in Ford's choice of Levi and in Levi's subsequent choice of John Paul Stevens. It would appear that conservatives and liberals both have good reason to dislike Mr. Rumsfeld.)
Ford's choice of Levi was based on his desire for a person who was "nonpolitical". Apparently, he got what he wanted, in spades. Levi apparently cared more about personal friendships than he did about political principles, despite the fact that it was his job to insure that justice was done throughout the land. It isn't clear from what I've read whether Levi was pro-life himself or not, but if he was pro-life, then he was incompetent. He put his personal friendship with John Paul Stevens ahead of his job responsibilities.
According to MSNBC writer Tom Curry, Ford's most "profound" legacy was his appointment of John Paul Stevens. If appointing a man who helped to protect the status quo in terms of Roe v. Wade is Curry's idea of profundity, then Curry deserves to be in the pro-life hall of shame, along with Gerald Ford and our ostensibly pro-life president George W. Bush.
What does George W. Bush think of Gerald Ford? According to this article, Bush says Ford was a "great American". I beg to differ. Ford's legacy was to help insure that a bad judicial decision would remain in force for many years to come. And the fact that George W. Bush does not recognize that fact speaks volumes, it seems to me, about his level of intelligence and competence.
Am I sorry that I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004? No. As bad as he was and is, his opponents were many times worse. But I may begin to obstain from the voting process altogether if the Republican party cannot begin to get its act together and elect principled Presidential candidates who can be counted on to represent the values of the numerous pro-life people like myself who, more often than not, have played a decisive role in putting them into office.
I am beginning to agree with those who use terms such as "Republicrats" to suggest that there isn't a very significant difference between the Republican party and the Democratic party anymore. This was made especially apparent during the 2006 gubernatorial race in Illinois.
Rod Blagojevitch had made some reprehensible decisions while in office, such as his executive order forcing pharmacists to violate their own consciences, by dispensing what they regarded as pharmaceutical abortifacients, in order to keep their jobs. (So much for "choice". Apparently, pharmacists ought not to have freedom of choice regarding whether or not their hands are stained with innocent blood.)
Nevertheless, Blagojevitch won, because his opponent, Judy Baar Topinka, and her running mate, Joe Birkett, were indistinguishable from the Democrats in terms of their positions on the issues of abortion and gay marriage.
Birkett, who had previously claimed to be pro-life, based his unprincipled alliance with Topinka on his belief that she was the only Republican who could beat Blagojevitch. I thought at the time that that was a major miscalculation on his part, and the election results would seem to bear that out.
Joe seemed oblivious to the fact that the only way to beat an incumbent politician is to offer voters a significantly better alternative and then to appeal to one's political base in order to insure that people who recognize the superiority of that alternative come out to vote. Topinka lost because she was basically Blagojevitch in a skirt, notwithstanding her specious claims that she was a Republican.
Ironically, now that Birkett's 2006 running mate has lost, Birkett is trying to regain credibility with pro-life Republicans by claiming to back certain marginally pro-life measures pertaining to parental consent. Here's what I'd say to Joe if I saw him face to face:
"Sorry, Joe, but conservative voters such as myself aren't buying it. We don't easily get amnesia. We won't forget you unprincipled alliance with Topinka in 2006 for a long, long time to come. By all means, do the right thing and vote in support of pro-life legislation. But don't expect it to do you any good in the next election. That ship has sailed. You had a chance to do the right thing when it would have counted the most, but you blew it, buddy."
What happened in Illinois was heartbreaking, but hardly unique. More often than not, the small difference which does exist between the two major political parties these days is a matter of rhetoric, not a matter of substantive action.
Which is worse? To proclaim that one is pro-abortion and then to demonstrate that that is indeed the case, or to proclaim that one is pro-life and then do nothing to change the status quo regarding legal abortion?
Say what you will about the Democrats, but at least they are honest about their pathetic and immoral indifference to the intrinsic value of human life. That doesn't make me any more likely to vote for them, but it does make me feel that I have been cheated out of the opportunity to vote for candidates who share my own priorities, not just in word but in deed.
UPDATE: It bears mentioning that when it comes to the 2008 presidential elections, there are some big differences between John McCain (who has said clearly that human life begins at conception) and Barack Obama (who not only claimed that answering such a question was "above (his) pay grade," but also opposed Illinois laws designed to prevent infanticide). For me, the choice is clear. Even though I'm not convinced that the pro-life agenda is at the top of McCain's list of priorities, it is at least on that list. Barack Obama's election would be a huge setback for the pro-life cause.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Thoughts About Internet Explorer 7
I just finished downloading version 7 of Internet Explorer 7. I've only used it for a very short period of time, but so far, I very much like what I see.
The ability to use multiple tabs in order to access multiple web pages and sites simultaneously, without the need to constantly use Alt-Tab to switch back and forth between different web pages, should be extremely useful, particularly when creating blog posts, since it will make it far easier to switch between the editing window and the actual blog page in order to insure that the changes I've made have been successfully posted to the actual blog.
With IE 6, another option when searching for particular web pages which were open in multiple windows was to locate a particular window via the Taskbar at the bottom of the screen. But that was sometimes a pain in the behind, especially if there were a number of other programs running as well. This way, regardless of how many other programs are running, Internet Explorer 7 only occupies one button on the Taskbar. Nice!
I also like the new QuickTabs feature, which should be particularly helpful when two or more of the tabs start with text which is identical. (Some long text descriptions of web pages are truncated on the tabs themselves.) QuickTabs actually gives you visual representations of each of the open web pages (but only after each page has finished loading). It will be interesting to see how many web pages can be displayed by the QuickTabs screen at once.
There's also a Tab List which makes it easy to see a complete list of all open web pages, without the need to view the QuickTabs screen. And it doesn't seem to truncate text, as far as I can tell.
They've also added a new way of accessing Internet Explorer Favorites, known as the Favorites Center. I particularly like the fact that one can "pin" the Favorites Center to a particular view, folder and subfolder. If one is engaged in a complex project which requires that one return to the same folder and/or subfolder again and again, that feature ought to save a lot of time.
One neat thing is that in addition to saving individual web pages as Internet Explorer Favorites, one can now save entire Tab Groups as Favorites. That should be really useful.
Because I have a dialup connection, I sometimes find that it's necessary for me to open a second window in Internet Explorer just so that I can periodically pop over to that other window in order to click a link or request a new web page so as to keep my service provider from disconnecting me while I'm in the process of writing or editing a long blog post. The new features in IE 7 should make it easier for me to do that.
Interestingly, it is still possible to open a new iteration of Internet Explorer, by clicking Ctrl-N. When doing so, the new iteration only opens with the tab which was active at the time, not with all of the tabs which were active.
Some of the features which were previously only available via the Menu Bar are now available via other options as well. So there's less need to display the Menu Bar, which is nice because hiding the Menu Bar frees up space at the top of the screen so that one can see more of the actual web page. But one can still view the Menu Bar, if desired.
One thing that annoyed me about previous versions of Internet Explorer was that the system didn't automatically alphabetize one's Internet Explorer Favorites or the Internet Explorer Favorites folders or subfolders. One had to alphabetize each one manually by grabbing it and dragging it into the proper position. I was hoping that the new update would offer a simple button one could click in order to alphabetize all current entries, but as far as I can see, they have not done so. Oh, well. Maybe they'll offer that feature in Internet Explorer 8.
Alphabetizing all of one's Favorites might not seem like a big deal if one only has a few entries, but I have tons of entries in my Favorites folder and related subfolders. When they aren't alphabetized, it can take forever to find what one is looking for, which partially defeats the purpose of storing things as "favorites" in the first place. So I regularly go in and drag things around in order to minimize the problem by trying to alphabetize the folders and subfolders. But that's time-consuming, and my Favorites folder is never completely alphabetized.
Despite that omission, however, it seems to me that the changes they've made have greatly improved the program. Microsoft has made major strides towards making Explorer 7 more like Mozilla Firefox.
I did download Firefox, but even though I liked the tabbed interface offered by that program, I noticed that there were instances in which Internet Explorer displayed certain web pages I had created properly and Firefox did not. Internet Explorer 7 seems to have the best of both worlds. I'm not quite ready to uninstall Firefox yet, but I have a feeling that I may be doing so in the near future. If I don't uninstall it, it will only be because I need to periodically check pages I have designed and uploaded in order to see how they look to people who prefer to use Firefox.
Now here's a cool feature I just discovered. Internet Explorer now allows one to zoom in on actual web pages, just like Microsoft Word does!
In the past, changing the text size (Smallest, Smaller, Medium, Larger or Largest) was about the only way to deal with situations where the text was too small to be read comfortably.
The problem was that that option didn't work if the web designer has used CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) to specify the actual size of the text. The Text Size feature could only scale text up or down if that text was standard HTML, not if it was CSS. It should also go without saying that the Text Size command was useless for scaling graphics up or down, which was a problem in cases where web designers had chosen to display text information, using small and hard-to-read fonts, in the form of graphics.
Now one can zoom in on the entire web page, in the following percentages: 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, 200% or 400%. Also in custom percentages. One can zoom in or out using keyboard shortcuts, too. (Specifically, the plus and minus keys, combined the Ctrl key.) In addition to making it a lot easier to read text on certain web pages, that should also make it easier to capture graphic images in the form of screen shots, without being limited to just one size.
Of course, zooming in and/or out doesn't change the resolution of a graphic image on the page. So if you zoom in on a graphic image to an extreme degree, the image may look very pixellated, since you are effectively lowering the resolution on the screen. That would be true in virtually any program capable of displaying a raster graphics image such as a photo.
Also, zooming in often means that you need to use the horizontal scroll bar to see the entire web page, even though that scroll bar wasn't visible or necessary when viewing the web page at 100%.
Zooming in can sometimes have interesting results when that option is exercised while looking at a page with multiple frames. Portions of sections can seem to disappear! But they're there, you just have to scroll up and/or down to see them.
Microsoft has also added a number of features, such as the ability to synchronize with RSS feeds directly from Internet Explorer without the need for third party solutions. That's particularly useful when subscribing to blogs and podcasts.
There are new features designed to flag potential or known "phishing" sites and other sites which might compromise the security of one's computer.
Time will tell if I will continue to be as enthusiastic about this new browser as I currently am, but so far, things are looking good.
The ability to use multiple tabs in order to access multiple web pages and sites simultaneously, without the need to constantly use Alt-Tab to switch back and forth between different web pages, should be extremely useful, particularly when creating blog posts, since it will make it far easier to switch between the editing window and the actual blog page in order to insure that the changes I've made have been successfully posted to the actual blog.
With IE 6, another option when searching for particular web pages which were open in multiple windows was to locate a particular window via the Taskbar at the bottom of the screen. But that was sometimes a pain in the behind, especially if there were a number of other programs running as well. This way, regardless of how many other programs are running, Internet Explorer 7 only occupies one button on the Taskbar. Nice!
I also like the new QuickTabs feature, which should be particularly helpful when two or more of the tabs start with text which is identical. (Some long text descriptions of web pages are truncated on the tabs themselves.) QuickTabs actually gives you visual representations of each of the open web pages (but only after each page has finished loading). It will be interesting to see how many web pages can be displayed by the QuickTabs screen at once.
There's also a Tab List which makes it easy to see a complete list of all open web pages, without the need to view the QuickTabs screen. And it doesn't seem to truncate text, as far as I can tell.
They've also added a new way of accessing Internet Explorer Favorites, known as the Favorites Center. I particularly like the fact that one can "pin" the Favorites Center to a particular view, folder and subfolder. If one is engaged in a complex project which requires that one return to the same folder and/or subfolder again and again, that feature ought to save a lot of time.
One neat thing is that in addition to saving individual web pages as Internet Explorer Favorites, one can now save entire Tab Groups as Favorites. That should be really useful.
Because I have a dialup connection, I sometimes find that it's necessary for me to open a second window in Internet Explorer just so that I can periodically pop over to that other window in order to click a link or request a new web page so as to keep my service provider from disconnecting me while I'm in the process of writing or editing a long blog post. The new features in IE 7 should make it easier for me to do that.
Interestingly, it is still possible to open a new iteration of Internet Explorer, by clicking Ctrl-N. When doing so, the new iteration only opens with the tab which was active at the time, not with all of the tabs which were active.
Some of the features which were previously only available via the Menu Bar are now available via other options as well. So there's less need to display the Menu Bar, which is nice because hiding the Menu Bar frees up space at the top of the screen so that one can see more of the actual web page. But one can still view the Menu Bar, if desired.
One thing that annoyed me about previous versions of Internet Explorer was that the system didn't automatically alphabetize one's Internet Explorer Favorites or the Internet Explorer Favorites folders or subfolders. One had to alphabetize each one manually by grabbing it and dragging it into the proper position. I was hoping that the new update would offer a simple button one could click in order to alphabetize all current entries, but as far as I can see, they have not done so. Oh, well. Maybe they'll offer that feature in Internet Explorer 8.
Alphabetizing all of one's Favorites might not seem like a big deal if one only has a few entries, but I have tons of entries in my Favorites folder and related subfolders. When they aren't alphabetized, it can take forever to find what one is looking for, which partially defeats the purpose of storing things as "favorites" in the first place. So I regularly go in and drag things around in order to minimize the problem by trying to alphabetize the folders and subfolders. But that's time-consuming, and my Favorites folder is never completely alphabetized.
Despite that omission, however, it seems to me that the changes they've made have greatly improved the program. Microsoft has made major strides towards making Explorer 7 more like Mozilla Firefox.
I did download Firefox, but even though I liked the tabbed interface offered by that program, I noticed that there were instances in which Internet Explorer displayed certain web pages I had created properly and Firefox did not. Internet Explorer 7 seems to have the best of both worlds. I'm not quite ready to uninstall Firefox yet, but I have a feeling that I may be doing so in the near future. If I don't uninstall it, it will only be because I need to periodically check pages I have designed and uploaded in order to see how they look to people who prefer to use Firefox.
Now here's a cool feature I just discovered. Internet Explorer now allows one to zoom in on actual web pages, just like Microsoft Word does!
In the past, changing the text size (Smallest, Smaller, Medium, Larger or Largest) was about the only way to deal with situations where the text was too small to be read comfortably.
The problem was that that option didn't work if the web designer has used CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) to specify the actual size of the text. The Text Size feature could only scale text up or down if that text was standard HTML, not if it was CSS. It should also go without saying that the Text Size command was useless for scaling graphics up or down, which was a problem in cases where web designers had chosen to display text information, using small and hard-to-read fonts, in the form of graphics.
Now one can zoom in on the entire web page, in the following percentages: 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%, 150%, 200% or 400%. Also in custom percentages. One can zoom in or out using keyboard shortcuts, too. (Specifically, the plus and minus keys, combined the Ctrl key.) In addition to making it a lot easier to read text on certain web pages, that should also make it easier to capture graphic images in the form of screen shots, without being limited to just one size.
Of course, zooming in and/or out doesn't change the resolution of a graphic image on the page. So if you zoom in on a graphic image to an extreme degree, the image may look very pixellated, since you are effectively lowering the resolution on the screen. That would be true in virtually any program capable of displaying a raster graphics image such as a photo.
Also, zooming in often means that you need to use the horizontal scroll bar to see the entire web page, even though that scroll bar wasn't visible or necessary when viewing the web page at 100%.
Zooming in can sometimes have interesting results when that option is exercised while looking at a page with multiple frames. Portions of sections can seem to disappear! But they're there, you just have to scroll up and/or down to see them.
Microsoft has also added a number of features, such as the ability to synchronize with RSS feeds directly from Internet Explorer without the need for third party solutions. That's particularly useful when subscribing to blogs and podcasts.
There are new features designed to flag potential or known "phishing" sites and other sites which might compromise the security of one's computer.
Time will tell if I will continue to be as enthusiastic about this new browser as I currently am, but so far, things are looking good.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
The Tomb
Not long ago, I wrote a number of poems, most of which pertained to my faith in Christ in some way. I thought I would share another one of those poems with you. This particular poem might seem more appropriate for Easter than for the Christmas season, but if there had been no Easter, Christmas would have no significance.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Tomb
© Mark W. Pettigrew
“Why are you crying?”
they said to the woman.
“He is not here any longer.”
“What do you mean?”
she replied with a start,
wishing her faith could be stronger.
Turning, she saw Him,
and soon realized
she beheld Jesus, her Master.
When it dawned on her
that Jesus had risen, her
heart beat faster and faster.
Oh, how magnificent,
oh, how divine!
Mary knew joy beyond measure.
Quickly, she ran to tell
all the disciples
of her amazing new treasure.
they said to the woman.
“He is not here any longer.”
“What do you mean?”
she replied with a start,
wishing her faith could be stronger.
Turning, she saw Him,
and soon realized
she beheld Jesus, her Master.
When it dawned on her
that Jesus had risen, her
heart beat faster and faster.
Oh, how magnificent,
oh, how divine!
Mary knew joy beyond measure.
Quickly, she ran to tell
all the disciples
of her amazing new treasure.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Mirror
Not long ago, I wrote a number of poems, most of which pertained to my faith in Christ in some way. I thought I would share one of those poems with you.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Mirror
© Mark W. Pettigrew
What do you see when you look in the mirror?
What do you see in your face?
Do you see charity, love and compassion?
Do you see mercy and grace?
Is there the Spirit of God in your visage?
Is there the passion for truth?
Do you still hurt for the ones who are hurting?
Have you the faith of your youth?
Time takes a toll on the face of a person.
That’s something you can’t control.
Sadly, some people let time do its damage
deep in the innermost soul.
If you see envy and malice and hate,
If you see things you abhor.
Come back to Jesus, it isn’t too late.
He will your spirit restore.
What do you see in your face?
Do you see charity, love and compassion?
Do you see mercy and grace?
Is there the Spirit of God in your visage?
Is there the passion for truth?
Do you still hurt for the ones who are hurting?
Have you the faith of your youth?
Time takes a toll on the face of a person.
That’s something you can’t control.
Sadly, some people let time do its damage
deep in the innermost soul.
If you see envy and malice and hate,
If you see things you abhor.
Come back to Jesus, it isn’t too late.
He will your spirit restore.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Friday, November 24, 2006
I Hear The Whistle Blowing
Being stuck in a job where one is belittled and threatened with job loss on a regular basis is a really unpleasant experience. It's like being tied to the train tracks in the path of an oncoming train. One can hear that whistle blowing as the train gets nearer and nearer, but one has no ability to stop the train or avoid the collision. All one can do is hope that the train is further away than it sounds.
As comparisons go, I think that's a pretty good comparison. But it isn't really fully adequate.
When being hit by a real train, it's reasonable to suppose that one's moment of actual pain would be mercifully brief, provided that it was a direct hit. One might suppose that death would be instant, and that one wouldn't be alive long enough to really experience any pain. It seems reasonable to assume that the anticipation and the fear would be the worst part of the experience.
With a job loss, there is nothing particularly merciful or brief about it. Instead of bringing relief, the actual moment in which one is told that one has been fired merely initiates a long process in which one repeatedly does one's best to smile and act as optimistic as possible during job interviews, even though one is dying inside. It doesn't help that one is expected to refrain from criticizing one's former employers, even in situations where one was often treated with little or no consideration and respect.
It gets harder to stay optimistic the longer the job search process takes. And the older one gets, the longer the job search process seems to take. During that time, funds shrink (even if one is fortunate enough to qualify for unemployment insurance), and one's self esteem and hope for the future diminish with every incident in which one has to plead for one's landlord to be patient and to abstain from evicting one from one's home long enough for one to secure another job and get back on one's feet again.
During times of unemployment, one basically is not allowed to have a real life. Every moment spent in some endeavor other than looking for work is filled with guilt. That includes time spent sleeping. Yet, sleep offers the only relief from the constant awareness of one's predicament. With no job to go to, it's very hard to get motivated to make do with five or six hours of sleep when one's body really needs eight hours or more.
Somehow, it seems that one always gets a job at the end of the process, but the road leading to that event is often long, twisted and rocky. What makes it worse is that one is often forced at the end of the road to take yet another mindnumbingly boring job which is not much better (if any) from one's previous job.
How does one get into such a position? It's easy. No dastardly villain is necessary. All it takes is to be poor and powerless, lacking adequate resources with which to pursue the type of job for which one is really suited. Which, in my cases, is no job at all. For most of my life, I have tried to fit into a variety of job situations, but in most of those jobs, to a greater or lesser degree, I have felt like the proverbial square peg in a round hole.
I am not by any means averse to hard work. But what I long for is a "job" in which the work, no matter how hard, is so enjoyable that it doesn't really feel like work. I know that I have many viable, marketable skills. There are people in this world who are able to support themselves doing things they love. There are people who say hello to the boss every morning when they look into the mirror. Why can't I be one of those people?
Sometimes, talent can be a blessing. Sometimes, though, it can feel like a curse. It would be easy in some ways for me to resign myself to mind numbing work where job security was a distant illusion and the pay was just barely enough to pay the bills, if I had no other conceivable options, and if I didn't know that I had abundant untapped potential. But that's not the case. I long to work in a field which makes the most of my abilities as a musician, writer, artist, photographer and more. I am daily working on personal goals with that objective in mind. But every time I seem to make some progress, it seems that I suffer a financial setback which causes me to lose ground. To say that it's frustrating is an extreme understatement.
I was once accused by a pastor of being "lazy". This, despite the fact that I had only been unemployed (after being fired for failing to meet a sales quota) for a very short time.
Prior to that, the aforementioned pastor knew good and well that I'd been working 12 hours a day at a job that barely paid minimum wage. I'd spent another 4 hours a day commuting. (It was a 2 hour bus ride to and from work.) All told, I'd been spending 16 hours a day either working or riding to and from work. How that qualified as "lazy" was a mystery to me. Apparently, this particular pastor wasn't satisfied that I was spending virtually all of my waking hours in work related activities. He thought I ought to be giving up my sleep as well.
In situations like that, one begins to feel like an orange being squeezed by a huge vise, long after all of the juice is all gone.
But don't dare complain in a situation like that. Oh, no! You'll likely be accused of "whining" by people (including some so-called Christian leaders) whose personal dictionaries do not include words like "compassion" and "empathy". They'll accuse you of holding a "pity party". They'll let you know that they have no interest in your problems or your life. And then they'll expect you to joyfully put money in their collection plates. Just don't count on getting any of it back during times of crisis.
Of course, there will be exceptions. You will occasionally get lucky, or blessed, and find someone who actually practices what he or she preaches. Someone who knows that when a person is down and out, that person needs a helping hand, not a kick in the teeth. But that will be the exception, not the rule. Or at least, it has been for me.
Getting older stinks in some ways. The hair thins and then disappears. The teeth and other parts of the body begin to show their age, especially if one cannot afford regular medical or dental care. Stairs that used to be easy to climb become difficult to climb. The names of old friends increasingly show up in the obituaries.
If one has little or nothing in the form of a financial "nest egg", as is often the case when one is living from one paycheck to the next, then growing old can also be cause for fear. What if the "inevitable" job at the end of the job search process stops being so inevitable? What if one's landlord runs out of patience altogether? What if no one wants to hire one because one has accrued so many bad experiences that it's harder to get a good job reference than it is to pull the teeth of a saltwater crocodile? For these and other reasons, growing old leaves a lot to be desired.
But old age can also be a blessing, if one believes that an eternity in heaven awaits those who continue to do their best to serve and obey God in spite of this massive pile of dung known as life on earth.
Every passing day brings a person of faith one step closer to the arrival of another kind of train. Curtis Mayfield once sang the following song:
People get ready, there's a train a-comin'.
You don't need no baggage, you just get on board.
All you need is faith to hear the diesels hummin'
Don't need no ticket, you just thank the Lord.
I once attended a philosophy discussion group at a local secular bookstore. I may have been the only Christian in attendance. Each time they met, they would write down interesting questions they wanted to discuss. Then those questions would be read aloud, and the group would vote for the topic they wished to discuss. At the meeting I attended, someone asked, "Will science ever discover a cure for death? Would that be a desirable thing?"
What a question! That's like asking a person sentenced to prison for life whether or not that person would like to stay in that prison forever. When it was my turn to speak, I said that an eternity here on earth would be a curse, not a blessing, unless solutions could be found to all of the other problems which make life on earth such a miserable experience at times. And I did not believe that such a thing was possible, because we lived in a fallen world which was irreparably tainted with selfishness and sin.
Yes, life here on earth can sometimes be enjoyable, but even those who are relatively blessed in this life are constantly being reminded of just how far this life falls short of what it was meant to be. In this world, there are the "haves" and the "have nots". If you're a "have not", you have numerous problems to deal with, and many of those problems (although not all by any means) are related to financial needs. But being a "have" isn't necessarily much better. If you're a "have", you can't pick up a newspaper or turn on the television news without being reminded that others are suffering. How can you respond to such knowledge? You can either suffer with and for people who suffer, or you can ignore their pleas for help until your soul becomes dead and you become a hollow wraith instead of a man or a woman.
In terms of real pleasure, both of those alternatives leave a lot to be desired. Most people minimize the discomfort by trying to find a balance between those two extremes, but that isn't easy. It shouldn't be necssary. In heaven, it won't be necessary.
In the short term, I hear a train whistle. It tells me that I may not be at my current job much longer. It tells me that leaving that job may be an involuntary experience on my part. I'm not looking forward to the arrival of that train. I hope that I'm mistaken about the inevitability of its arrival.
But that other train? That's a different story. I'm waiting for a train which is bound for glory. The sound of that train whistle is sweet music in my ears. All of the hypocritical preachers and uncompassionate bosses in the world cannot diminish my faith in the Lord who commands that train. I know in whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to keep my soul until that day.
As comparisons go, I think that's a pretty good comparison. But it isn't really fully adequate.
When being hit by a real train, it's reasonable to suppose that one's moment of actual pain would be mercifully brief, provided that it was a direct hit. One might suppose that death would be instant, and that one wouldn't be alive long enough to really experience any pain. It seems reasonable to assume that the anticipation and the fear would be the worst part of the experience.
With a job loss, there is nothing particularly merciful or brief about it. Instead of bringing relief, the actual moment in which one is told that one has been fired merely initiates a long process in which one repeatedly does one's best to smile and act as optimistic as possible during job interviews, even though one is dying inside. It doesn't help that one is expected to refrain from criticizing one's former employers, even in situations where one was often treated with little or no consideration and respect.
It gets harder to stay optimistic the longer the job search process takes. And the older one gets, the longer the job search process seems to take. During that time, funds shrink (even if one is fortunate enough to qualify for unemployment insurance), and one's self esteem and hope for the future diminish with every incident in which one has to plead for one's landlord to be patient and to abstain from evicting one from one's home long enough for one to secure another job and get back on one's feet again.
During times of unemployment, one basically is not allowed to have a real life. Every moment spent in some endeavor other than looking for work is filled with guilt. That includes time spent sleeping. Yet, sleep offers the only relief from the constant awareness of one's predicament. With no job to go to, it's very hard to get motivated to make do with five or six hours of sleep when one's body really needs eight hours or more.
Somehow, it seems that one always gets a job at the end of the process, but the road leading to that event is often long, twisted and rocky. What makes it worse is that one is often forced at the end of the road to take yet another mindnumbingly boring job which is not much better (if any) from one's previous job.
How does one get into such a position? It's easy. No dastardly villain is necessary. All it takes is to be poor and powerless, lacking adequate resources with which to pursue the type of job for which one is really suited. Which, in my cases, is no job at all. For most of my life, I have tried to fit into a variety of job situations, but in most of those jobs, to a greater or lesser degree, I have felt like the proverbial square peg in a round hole.
I am not by any means averse to hard work. But what I long for is a "job" in which the work, no matter how hard, is so enjoyable that it doesn't really feel like work. I know that I have many viable, marketable skills. There are people in this world who are able to support themselves doing things they love. There are people who say hello to the boss every morning when they look into the mirror. Why can't I be one of those people?
Sometimes, talent can be a blessing. Sometimes, though, it can feel like a curse. It would be easy in some ways for me to resign myself to mind numbing work where job security was a distant illusion and the pay was just barely enough to pay the bills, if I had no other conceivable options, and if I didn't know that I had abundant untapped potential. But that's not the case. I long to work in a field which makes the most of my abilities as a musician, writer, artist, photographer and more. I am daily working on personal goals with that objective in mind. But every time I seem to make some progress, it seems that I suffer a financial setback which causes me to lose ground. To say that it's frustrating is an extreme understatement.
I was once accused by a pastor of being "lazy". This, despite the fact that I had only been unemployed (after being fired for failing to meet a sales quota) for a very short time.
Prior to that, the aforementioned pastor knew good and well that I'd been working 12 hours a day at a job that barely paid minimum wage. I'd spent another 4 hours a day commuting. (It was a 2 hour bus ride to and from work.) All told, I'd been spending 16 hours a day either working or riding to and from work. How that qualified as "lazy" was a mystery to me. Apparently, this particular pastor wasn't satisfied that I was spending virtually all of my waking hours in work related activities. He thought I ought to be giving up my sleep as well.
In situations like that, one begins to feel like an orange being squeezed by a huge vise, long after all of the juice is all gone.
But don't dare complain in a situation like that. Oh, no! You'll likely be accused of "whining" by people (including some so-called Christian leaders) whose personal dictionaries do not include words like "compassion" and "empathy". They'll accuse you of holding a "pity party". They'll let you know that they have no interest in your problems or your life. And then they'll expect you to joyfully put money in their collection plates. Just don't count on getting any of it back during times of crisis.
Of course, there will be exceptions. You will occasionally get lucky, or blessed, and find someone who actually practices what he or she preaches. Someone who knows that when a person is down and out, that person needs a helping hand, not a kick in the teeth. But that will be the exception, not the rule. Or at least, it has been for me.
Getting older stinks in some ways. The hair thins and then disappears. The teeth and other parts of the body begin to show their age, especially if one cannot afford regular medical or dental care. Stairs that used to be easy to climb become difficult to climb. The names of old friends increasingly show up in the obituaries.
If one has little or nothing in the form of a financial "nest egg", as is often the case when one is living from one paycheck to the next, then growing old can also be cause for fear. What if the "inevitable" job at the end of the job search process stops being so inevitable? What if one's landlord runs out of patience altogether? What if no one wants to hire one because one has accrued so many bad experiences that it's harder to get a good job reference than it is to pull the teeth of a saltwater crocodile? For these and other reasons, growing old leaves a lot to be desired.
But old age can also be a blessing, if one believes that an eternity in heaven awaits those who continue to do their best to serve and obey God in spite of this massive pile of dung known as life on earth.
Every passing day brings a person of faith one step closer to the arrival of another kind of train. Curtis Mayfield once sang the following song:
People get ready, there's a train a-comin'.
You don't need no baggage, you just get on board.
All you need is faith to hear the diesels hummin'
Don't need no ticket, you just thank the Lord.
I once attended a philosophy discussion group at a local secular bookstore. I may have been the only Christian in attendance. Each time they met, they would write down interesting questions they wanted to discuss. Then those questions would be read aloud, and the group would vote for the topic they wished to discuss. At the meeting I attended, someone asked, "Will science ever discover a cure for death? Would that be a desirable thing?"
What a question! That's like asking a person sentenced to prison for life whether or not that person would like to stay in that prison forever. When it was my turn to speak, I said that an eternity here on earth would be a curse, not a blessing, unless solutions could be found to all of the other problems which make life on earth such a miserable experience at times. And I did not believe that such a thing was possible, because we lived in a fallen world which was irreparably tainted with selfishness and sin.
Yes, life here on earth can sometimes be enjoyable, but even those who are relatively blessed in this life are constantly being reminded of just how far this life falls short of what it was meant to be. In this world, there are the "haves" and the "have nots". If you're a "have not", you have numerous problems to deal with, and many of those problems (although not all by any means) are related to financial needs. But being a "have" isn't necessarily much better. If you're a "have", you can't pick up a newspaper or turn on the television news without being reminded that others are suffering. How can you respond to such knowledge? You can either suffer with and for people who suffer, or you can ignore their pleas for help until your soul becomes dead and you become a hollow wraith instead of a man or a woman.
In terms of real pleasure, both of those alternatives leave a lot to be desired. Most people minimize the discomfort by trying to find a balance between those two extremes, but that isn't easy. It shouldn't be necssary. In heaven, it won't be necessary.
In the short term, I hear a train whistle. It tells me that I may not be at my current job much longer. It tells me that leaving that job may be an involuntary experience on my part. I'm not looking forward to the arrival of that train. I hope that I'm mistaken about the inevitability of its arrival.
But that other train? That's a different story. I'm waiting for a train which is bound for glory. The sound of that train whistle is sweet music in my ears. All of the hypocritical preachers and uncompassionate bosses in the world cannot diminish my faith in the Lord who commands that train. I know in whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to keep my soul until that day.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Name It, Claim It and Blame It
Before You Read This Post!
On 11/24/2006, I appended this post with a badly needed correction to inaccurate information which I inadvertently passed on to my readers. I debated whether or not to delete or substantially revise the post itself, but I decided instead to add the correction at the end of the post, while leaving the original post intact. That made more sense, because I wanted to post an apology, and the apology wouldn't have made much sense to first time readers unless they knew what I was apologizing for.
To read that correction right away, click this link.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A Very Long Night
Obeying the Lord is mandatory for Christians who are serious about their faith, but it isn’t always easy.
On Saturday night, I got a phone call from a close friend I had known for many years. I won’t divulge his identity in this article, because it’s important for me to preserve my friend’s anonymity. I value his friendship, and I don’t want to lose that friendship by betraying a confidence. Therefore, just so that I won’t have to keep saying “my friend” over and over again, I may occasionally refer to my friend as “Al”.
When the two of us were much younger, my friend and I shared a mutual love for God and a commitment to godly living. Al once attended church regularly, as did I. But Al later made some bad choices and started using various illegal drugs, in addition to alcohol. Over a period of time, during which we seldom saw one another, Al became a full blown alcoholic and he lost faith in the Lord --- not necessarily in that order.
I do not normally choose alcoholics and drug addicts as close friends, simply because that is not the lifestyle I choose to lead. But Al and I had been friends long before he became an alcoholic. A friendship which cannot endure and survive such a test was never much of a friendship to begin with.
God places people in our paths for a reason. Sometimes relationships with other people are roughly symmetrical, with both parties giving and receiving in equal measure. But that isn’t always the case. There are times when God places people into our lives so that we can shine the light of Christ into their lives, to the best of our admittedly limited abilities. We dare not shirk that responsibility or take it lightly.
I knew about Al’s alcohol problem, and I knew that he had struggled with his faith in recent years, even to the point that he had decided that he wasn’t a Christian after all. That made me very sad, because I knew that he was an intelligent man with a lot of potential.
After Al was released last year from an extensive alcohol rehabilitation program, I told my friend that he should feel free to call me and talk with me if and when he was tempted to relapse and return to the bottle. My resources were limited, but I would do what I could do to help him fight the temptations which face virtually every recovering alcoholic.
On Saturday night, he took me up on my offer. He had relapsed, and he was in the process of trying to “detox” himself. That didn’t seem very bright to me, especially since he told me that his approach was to drink a little bit more hard liquor during the process! However, I knew that the role I ought to play was not to condemn my friend, but to simply love him through the power of the Holy Spirit to the best of my ability. Besides, I’d never personally been through detox, so for all I knew, the approach he was taking was the correct one to take, even though it sounded counterintuitive to me.
At times, Al’s speech was clear and coherent, and we talked about various memories which we shared. At other times, my friend’s speech became incoherent and disjointed. And there were times during the evening when he was clearly in serious physical agony.
Even though I hadn’t ever had an experience quite like this one, I wasn’t completely unprepared. At the age of 13, I’d worked briefly as a counsellor at a Teen Challenge center in St. Louis. I had a pretty good idea what kind of behavior to expect from alcoholics.
Al and I were on the phone for about five or six hours, and maybe more. For some reason, though, it didn’t wear on me the way it might have done normally. Eventually, I got tired and ended the conversation so that I could get some sleep, but that wasn’t until around 3:00 in the morning on Sunday. I feel that God endowed me with the energy and strength to deal with the situation in a manner which exhibited grace, patience and godly love. While I did occasionally offer what I believed to be good advice, a substantial part of the evening required that I make a strong effort to be a good listener.
Slain in The Spirit
Liquor has many drawbacks, but it can also loosen people up enough that they will talk about things they might not have discussed otherwise. So I learned some things I hadn’t previously known about my friend Al. In particular, I learned more about what had caused him to veer away from his previous course and to make self-destructive lifestyle choices.
One story, in particular, stood out in my mind. That story made me angry, and my anger was not directed at my alcoholic friend.
Al told me about attending a church service in our home town in Missouri. At this service, numerous people were going forward to the altar and getting “slain in the spirit”.
Those who have attended such services or seen them on television may have some vague idea of what I’m talking about. For those who have not, getting “slain in the spirit” essentially involves having a pastor (or another Christian leader) lay hands on one’s forehead. The pastor prays and lightly thumps one on the forehead with the palm of his hand, at which point the power of God ostensibly becomes so strong in one’s body that one loses muscular control and falls to the ground without being pushed. At that point, the Holy Spirit then ostensibly fills one with a new sense of the presence of God, causing one to become invigorated and ready to do spiritual battle with Satan, the enemy of our souls.
This has become standard practice in some charismatic churches, to the extent that there are people standing nearby in anticipation of the need to help people to fall safely so that they will not hurt themselves. They even have cloths which are available specifically so that they can drape them over women’s legs, in order to preserve their modesty when they are lying prostate on the ground. (This, of course, assumes that they're wearing dresses, not pants. In most charismatic churches these days, that isn't necessarily the case. Charismatics are not like Fundamentalist Baptists when it comes to issues such as whether or not women should wear pants.)
To say that such events are spontaneous, therefore, would be completely inaccurate. Such events are highly structured and planned parts of certain worship services.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some churches started selling "modesty cloths" with the church logos imprinted on those cloths! Better yet, they could start renting space on those modesty cloths, the way NASCAR drivers usually do with their cars. (I'm just kidding, of course, but when I consider some of the scams that have been perpetrated in God's name on networks such as TBN, it seems to me that the idea isn't all that far-fetched.)
Now, I have long believed in the “gifts of the spirit” (including speaking in tongues and prophecy), as a result of exposure to the Assemblies of God church when I worked at Teen Challenge at the age of 13. At about 15 years of age, I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and became the first member of my immediate family to speak in tongues.
In other words, I am by no means hostile to the Pentecostal experience. But whereas there are extensive biblical references to speaking in tongues (particularly in I Corinthians), I have never been persuaded that the practice of being “slain in the Spirit” is biblical.
If being “slain in the Spirit” had been a structured and highly planned activity back in the early days of the church (as it clearly is now), don’t you think Paul or one of the other apostles would have given specific instructions about how to deal with the phenomenon, the way that Paul did with regard to speaking in tongues and uttering prophetic messages, in order to preserve order in the church? Yet, such instructions are noticeably missing from the scriptures. To my knowledge, there’s nothing in the Bible about a “modesty cloth” (or anything fitting that description) and nothing about the need to position people behind the people who come to the altar in order to catch them when they fall.
All of this suggests to me that the practice is a relatively recent development in the Christian church, and that it is therefore an invention of man (not entirely dissimilar to snake handling), not a divine work of God.
I’m not sure what accounts for the fact that some people lose muscular control during such events. My own inclination is to believe that it is a tribute to the power of suggestion (aided and abetted by the presence of a large group of people who all seem to be doing the same thing), and not to the power of the Holy Spirit.
It would be interesting to know how many Christians had been “slain in the spirit” during times when they were not surrounded by other Christians at church. I’m guessing that such events are extremely rare, if they ever occur at all.
Admittedly, the same could be said of prophecy (since a prophecy is only useful if there’s someone present to hear the prophecy), but unlike prophecy, it is difficult to see how lying prostrate on the ground helps anyone other than the person lying on the ground (and possibly a pickpocket lying next to that person!), even if the experience is biblically legitimate, which I strongly doubt.
Nevertheless, there was a time in his life when my friend Al was open to what God would do in his life. He had not diligently searched the scriptures to see whether or not the practice of being “slain in the Spirit” had a legitimate biblical foundation, but he’d been told by some Christians that getting “slain in the Spirit” was a wonderful experience. On the night in question, he saw scores of people going forward to the altar and having that experience. So after struggling with whether or not he ought to do so, he decided to go forward and give it a try.
Ministry and Presumptuousness
The guest speaker laid hands on my friend’s head, prayed for him, lightly thumped him on the forehead and then moved on to the next person to do the same thing. My friend then stood in anticipation, waiting for whatever might happen next. What happened next was pretty much nothing. Al continued to stand, and he did not feel any particular change which might have caused him to fall prostate on the ground.
Shortly thereafter, the guest speaker who had prayed for my friend returned and asked what had happened. “I’m not sure,” my disappointed friend replied. The guest speaker then replied, in a tone of voice which was dripping with condescension and self-righteousness, “It’s your PRIDE.”
In other words, if my friend wasn’t experiencing the same phenomenon as other people who had come forward, it was a sign that my friend lacked good moral character! How insulting and how presumptuous!
It didn’t seem to occur to the guest speaker that his willingness to judge Al without ever taking the time to get to know my friend might possibly be a sign that he was the one who had a serious problem with pride.
Hurtful Memories and Long Lasting Consequences
Even though my friend was drunk on Saturday night when I spoke with him, it became clear that this one hurtful incident, which took place years ago, had played a significant role in causing my friend to subsequently become disillusioned and bitter towards the church and towards God. That had led him to fall away from God and to seek to dull his pain by seeking refuge in a bottle of booze.
Of course, it would be specious and simplistic to say that that one incident was the only contributing factor, or that that Christian leader was ultimately to blame for Al’s alcoholism. We all have free will. My friend Al could have chosen to respond to that hurtful incident in a much different way.
Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that the aforementioned incident was a factor which contributed to the subsequent downward spiral in my friend’s life.
Some who are reading this might think that I'm naive in thinking that I ought to automatically accept the veracity of my friend's account of the previous incident. After all, people who have problems with substance abuse have been known to lie from time to time. So let me just say that I have several very good reasons to believe the story Al told to me.
First, I believe him because I've known him long enough to trust that he will tell me the truth about such things. Al has been unkind to me on a few occasions, but he's subsequently asked my forgiveness for having treated me that way. And to my knowledge, he's never deliberately lied to me.
Second, if my friend had been lying, I don't think his voice would have been as full of emotion as it was when he told me the story. It was very clear to me that even though it had been a number of years since that incident took place, my friend was still haunted by that incident.
Third, I believe him because I attended that same church. On a separate occasion, the pastor at that church treated me like dirt, in a slanderous manner which was very similar to the manner in which the guest speaker at that church treated my friend. Logically, people who are guilty of slandering their Christian brothers and sisters are a lot more likely to invite guest speakers who are similarly predisposed to such arrogant behavior.
Fourth, I believe that there's a direct and logical correlation between the doctrines preached by people in the "word of faith" movement (which I'll discuss in more detail later in this blog post) and the tendency of people who promote those doctrines to make unfounded and unjust accusations against other Christians.
A Case of Mistaken Identities
During our conversation Saturday night and Sunday morning, Al mentioned the name of the guest speaker who had presumptuously accused my friend of pride. He wasn’t quite sure what the man’s correct name was. At first he said he thought it was Ron or Rob Paisley. Then he corrected himself and said he thought the man’s surname might be Parsley.
I did some research online to see if I could figure out who this guy was. Initially, I thought Al might have been referring to Ross Parsley, the worship music leader who has now taken Ted Haggard’s place as interim pastor of New Life Church in Colorado. That would have been too bizarre, since I got an e-mail from Ross Parsley the very next day.
I was about to post this article, which contained numerous comments based on that erroneous assumption. Fortunately, I did some further research before posting the article. As a result, I learned (via www.breakthrough.net) that there was also a Pastor Rob Parsley who lived in Ohio.
The revelation that Rob Parsley had been mentored by Lester Sumrall confirmed my suspicion that it was Rob Parsley, not Ross Parsley, who had spoken so presumptuously to my friend on the day in question. (Lester Sumrall had been extremely influential over the pastor at the church where the incident took place. One online review of Sumrall’s book Faith Can Change Your World says that the book is “endorsed by leaders such as Kenneth Copeland, R.W. Schambach, Rod Parsley and Billy Joe Daugherty.” Coincidence? I think not. Rob Parsley is exactly the kind of person who would have been invited to speak at that particular church.)
If Rob Parsley had been as careful with his words that night as I was with my words when writing this blog post, my friend Al might have taken an entirely different turn in life.
Admittedly, I made a mistake once when researching this issue, so I could conceivably make such a mistake again. If I have inadvertently done so, I’ll be happy to apologize publicly to Rob Parsley on this blog site. In fact, I’m sending him a link to this blog article, because I think he ought to be aware of the article and the issue which surrounds the article.
Like I said, if Parsley is innocent of having driven my friend away from the church with his careless and mean-spirited words, then I’ll apologize to him for my unintentionally false accusation. However, if he did do what Al has accused him of doing, then he owes my friend a serious apology, at the very least. It wouldn't undo all the damage those words had done, but it might help to initiate a psychological and spiritual healing process Al clearly needs in his life.
UPDATE (11/24/2006): I keep my promise.
Heretical Teachings About Health and Wealth
When Al told me about his encounter with Rob Parsley years ago, it frankly did not surprise me. For a period of time, I had also attended the church where that incident took place.
The church advertised itself as a “word of faith” church, but it could just as easily have called itself a “name it and claim it church,” because that was basically the type of doctrine frequently promoted there. People such as Kenneth Copeland and Lester Sumrall were treated as if they were celebrities or prophets (or maybe a little bit of both) whenever they came to town and visited that church.
In my defense, I would point out that my primary reason for attending the church was that it was my mother’s church at the time. It was not long before I began to realize that there a number of things going on at that church which fell well short of the biblical model for what the local church ought to be like.
If one had to sum up the fundamental belief of most “name it and claim it” churches, it would be the idea that there are certain biblical principles which virtually guarantee physical health and material prosperity if those principles are followed.
Regarding miracles, such people often model their views on the views of Oral Roberts, who taught his viewers to “expect a miracle” (prior to making the presumptuous, bizarre and demonstrably false claim that God would kill him unless people sent him a certain amount of money by a certain date).
I know that there are some outstanding ministers of the gospel who went to Oral Roberts University. I don’t want to inadvertently paint every graduate of that school with a broad and slanderous brush. But I’m generally inclined to believe that such people are outstanding in spite of having attended that institution, not because they attended that institution.
I’ll be the first to admit that the “prosperity doctrine” is attractive on some level. I desire physical health and material wealth as much as the next guy. No one with any brains likes sickness or infirmity. No one with any brains or ambitions likes poverty.
But wanting something and believing that there is a guarantee that one will receive that thing in this life (if one lives one's life according to certain principles) are two very different things. The first is understandable. The second is idiotic.
I'd love to conduct a survey of people at various churches, concerning verifiable matters such as personal income and health issues. I'd be willing to bet that there would be as many poverty-stricken, sick people in the pews of the "health and wealth" churches as there are in any other churches. Not to mention a whole lot more secret guilt, since their pastors have taught them, by implication, that all of their financial and health-related problems are their fault.
Of course, there probably wouldn't be much point in such an exercise, because the purveyors of false doctrines would find some way to rationalize away the evidence by once again blaming the victims for their "lack of faith".
What we believe as Christians should be based on the word of God, solid evidence and sound reasoning --- not on wishful thinking.
That thing I find saddest about the "health and wealth" teachers is that their lies cause some people to question the idea that God ever heals or materially blesses anyone, when in fact, God does do both things from time to time, when it so pleases God to do so.
Some Thoughts About Miracles On Demand
Now, before Parsley and his fans start accusing me of being “one of them there heathen liberals,” let me make it clear that I fervently believe in miracles. I find it nonsensical to claim that miracles were available to Christians prior to the creation of the Bible, and then to claim (with scant scriptural evidence) that the well dried up subsequent to that time, to the extent that such miracles are no longer available to modern Christians.
However, I think it is absurd and completely unbiblical to claim that there is some kind of magic formula which guarantees that a faithful Christian will never experience poverty or sickness. I think it is equally absurd to claim that miracles should happen in the average believer’s life on a regular basis. These are the sort of claims typically made by con artists, not apostles or prophets.
What is a miracle, after all? A miracle is an event which falls outside the realm of normal everyday expectations, and which can withstand close scrutiny even from nonbelievers (if they will lay aside their prejudices), and which can only be attributed to the divine by anyone who is not in open rebellion against God. This may not be a perfect definition, but I think it’s pretty good.
Now, I know, there are ways to redefine the word “miracle” so that it seems as if virtually everyone is experiencing miracles on a regular basis. One can refer, for example, to “the miracle of birth” which occurs whenever a new baby is born. When one considers how utterly impossible it would be for any human to create a new human life without the involvement of God in the process, it is true that there is something mysterious and wondrous about every new baby who is born. Maybe even miraculous, in a limited sense.
To a man or woman who is struggling financially, it might seem “miraculous” when a check turns up in the mail, from an unknown or unanticipated donor, just in the nick of time. That, too, can often be attributed to the fact that God loves and cares for us.
Nevertheless, there are miracles and then there are miracles. If the only thing Jesus had ever done was to deliver a newborn baby and send money to someone who needed the money badly, it’s doubtful that people would have said, “Come see this Jesus! He is a worker of miracles!” After all, they could do those things themselves.
To qualify as a real miracle of biblical proportions, an event would have to be something which, if witnessed or experienced, would cause even a fervent non-believer to describe that event as a miracle. After all, when Jesus performed miracles, it was in front of skeptics and non-believers who were not predisposed by their upbringing to believe that Jesus was a miracle worker.
One cannot help but notice that genuine miracles are recorded throughout the Bible. But it should be equally obvious that such miracles were relatively rare, in terms of the frequency with which they occurred during Old Testament times. The Bible spans many centuries, so it doesn’t take much in the way of brains to figure out that the number of miracles which occurred on an annual basis was pretty small indeed, even in the house of Israel. The miracles which were recorded were recorded precisely because they were so unusual. Most individuals whose stories were told in the Old Testament were blessed indeed if they witnessed one or two genuine miracles in their entire lifetimes.
Even if one is talking about Jesus himself, miracles only occurred with great regularity during the last three years or so of Jesus’ life. In other words, roughly 9% or 10% of the 33 years he was here on this earth. Maybe a little bit more, if one accepts the legitimacy of apocryphal stories pertaining to Jesus’ childhood (but I don’t).
If miracles happened on an everyday basis, to the extent that one could expect them to occur (as Oral Roberts claimed), then no one would call them miracles in the first place. People would describe them, instead, as natural laws of science. It’s precisely because they are extremely rare that we call them miracles.
Therefore, it is ridiculous to lie to people by teaching them that they can produce miracles at the drop of a hat and on a regular basis, merely my mustering up enough faith and getting rid of all of their pride.
By the way, anyone who’s ever watched Kenneth Copeland and other men like Copeland strutting around the stage on TV like overgrown peacocks in business suits understands what I mean when I say that these are the last people on earth who should be accusing anyone of the sin of pride! As an artist, I have a pretty good imagination, yet I have great difficulty imagining Jesus acting in a manner similar to what I have seen from these so-called "men of God".
The Reason for Miracles
When Jesus performed miracles, the objective was not to forever eliminate all unpleasant things from the lives of those who believed in Jesus. The objective was to fulfill prophecy and to demonstrate that Jesus’ claims about himself were therefore credible.
Jesus’ earthly miracles were temporary in nature. Jesus did indeed raise Lazarus from the dead, but Lazarus eventually died again. That ought to be obvious. Otherwise, Lazarus would still be walking the earth today. So what happened? Did Lazarus eventually fail to meet God’s standards, at which point God decided to punish Lazarus by allowing him to die once again? That seems highly unlikely, given the fact that the scriptures make no mention of such an incident.
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead for the sake of the people who witnessed that miracle, not for Lazarus’ sake. Lazarus probably would have preferred to go straight to heaven, rather than being asked to spend more time in this demonstrably imperfect and fallen world. One might even argue that Jesus wept, in part, because he knew that he was asking an awful lot of Lazarus when he raised Lazarus from the dead.
Eternal life is only a blessing if one is allowed to live in a world which is free from the pain caused by human sin. Jesus didn’t raise Lazarus from the dead so that Lazarus could live on earth forever. That would have been cruel, and Jesus was not cruel. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead to demonstrate that Jesus had power over life and death. Such a demonstration made Jesus’ other unverifiable claims much more credible.
If Jesus could bring the dead to life, then Jesus also could logically be trusted to create a new heaven and a new earth in which eternal life would not be a recipe for misery.
However, we do not yet live in such a world, which is why even Saint Paul was torn between life in this world and eternal life in the next world.
The life of Saint Paul offers one good reason to question the wisdom and validity of the “name it and claim it” doctrine.
If following godly principles guaranteed lives of material prosperity, as men like Kenneth Copeland have taught, then it would logically follow that Saint Paul was an utter failure. Ditto for the other Christian martyrs.
Paul certainly did not die a wealthy man. On the contrary, he died in prison. The prisons back in those days were even less pleasant than the ones we have now. There were no televisions or fitness facilities or conjugal visits.
As for physical health, no one knows exactly what Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was, but it’s clear that he was not protected from pain or suffering. Even if the word “thorn” is used metaphorically (which seems likely, since Paul could have easily removed a real thorn), it’s still a pretty pointed metaphor.
Why does the Christian church still honor and respect apostles and Christian martyrs such as Saint Paul, even though such people were often “losers” in the eyes of the world? Because Christians who have not been seduced by the prosperity doctrine understand that a man can be spiritually poor even though he is materially rich, and vice versa.
Contrary to what the “name it and claim it” people would imply, living a life of obedience to God does not mean that we Christians will be insulated from the pain of life on this earth if only we will consistently follow a certain formula. Jesus told us that we could often expect to suffer just as Jesus suffered, on account of our decision to follow him.
Obviously, no one wants to suffer for Christ, but we have to be willing to do so if necessary. Those whose faith is based solely on what God can do for them in this life have built their houses on shifting sand. They have no idea whatsoever of what it means to “die to self”.
There is a sense in which Jesus’ miracles were merely conversation starters designed to help open blind eyes to who Jesus was. Jesus specifically warned against those who regularly sought after “signs and wonders” as an end in themselves. Such a warning might be particularly appropriate in some of today’s personality-driven charismatic churches.
There is a sense in which the “name it and claim it” theology is an insult against God, since it diminishes God’s sovereignty and the notion that God’s ways are sometimes beyond our comprehension. God is not some type of cosmic vending machine, where one puts in one’s money and a miracle pops out. God chooses who to bless and who not to bless. He has the right to do that.
The reasons for God’s choices about such matters are not always immediately obvious to us. While it is true that there is sometimes a correlation between God’s blessings and the choices which have been made by those who are blessed, it is also true that there are people in this world who have been temporarily deprived of such blessings even though they have lived righteous lives (and in some cases, because they have lived righteous lives), just as it is true that there are people in this world who have been temporarily blessed even though they’ve spent most of their lives disobeying God and thumbing their noses at God’s commandments.
People who claim that they’ve figured out a way to manipulate God into doing what they want God to do are in serious need of humility. God is not subject to any laws, natural or otherwise.
When people believe that the blessings they have received from God are the results of their own formulas and systems and schemes, rather than the manifestations of God’s undeserved grace towards them, the end result is that they lack gratitude for the blessings they have received from God, since they think (at least on a subconscious level) that they have somehow earned those blessings.
Simple Minded Doctrines and the Diminution of Compassion
In the book of Job, it was revealed in the very first chapter that Job’s afflictions were not punishments in response to Job’s lack of righteousness. On the contrary, they were actually an expression of God’s confidence in Job. The Devil claimed that Job’s faith would dissolve the minute things turned sour for him. God tested Job in order to demonstrate to the Devil that the Devil was wrong about Job.
Yet, when Job was in the midst of his afflictions, Job’s fair weather friends turned on him, blaming Job for his own troubles and afflictions. Job’s accusers presumptuously and simplistically assumed that there was only one possible explanation for Job’s troubles. Consequently, they abandoned Job when he needed good and faithful friends the most.
When people teach that success is virtually guaranteed to people who follow certain principles with pure hearts, it has the unfortunate effect of causing Christians to deliberately or unintentionally slander people who usually deserve a lot better.
As a result, such a teaching often leads Christians to abdicate their biblical responsibilities to show compassion for one another and for the lost. If you’re struggling financially or if you’re sick or if you don’t get “slain in the spirit” when everyone else in the room seems to be experiencing that highly questionable phenomenon, then the unspoken implication is that it must be your fault. It logically follows, in the minds of simple-minded and arrogant people, that other Christians are relieved of the responsibility to give you any help or show you any kindness.
Whereas the book of James teaches that faith without works is dead, and that it is spiritually useless to wish a man or woman well if one is not willing to take practical action to help that man or woman, these wolves in sheep’s clothing teach a completely different doctrine. They teach that if one is experiencing an unmet need, the existence of that need is an indictment of one’s own faith, not an indictment of the faith of those who have selfishly refused to extend a helping hand in one’s time of need! To say that that is a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ is to put things mildly.
The Root of The Problem
The older I get, the more I realize that people ultimately get the leaders they deserve. Whether one is talking about men such as Ted Haggard or men such as Rob Parsley, there are obvious reasons why charlatans tend to abound in certain churches.
Put simply, the people at such churches value all the wrong things. They tend to value flash and style over substance and character. Transparency is something such people discourage from their leaders, so leaders who are painfully honest about their struggles and shortcomings are likely to be given the boot (if they are ever hired at all), while people who incessantly wear artificial smiles which would have embarrassed the Cheshire cat from “Alice in Wonderland” are seen as spiritual giants worthy of being put on pedestals.
Ironically, I have noticed that churches which are particularly successful seem to be particularly susceptible to this type of thing. Success is desirable, but we need to be aware that it can also be a breeding ground for sinful pride.
As a musician and artist, I think that we ought to strive for excellence in everything we do. That includes the presentations we make in our churches. Therefore, I am glad that production values have improved greatly in recent years, in terms of our worship services and other Christian events. But I am also aware of the considerable dangers which can be the result of putting all of our emphasis on showmanship. Unless showmanship is accompanied by depth of character and the fruits of the Holy Spirit, it is worthless in terms of building the kingdom of God.
The fruits of the Holy Spirit pertain to how we treat one another, not to whether or not we can put on an impressive show. If being a good Christian has become synonymous with “putting on a good show,” then the church is in serious trouble in the United States.
A strong dose of humility is desperately needed among many of our most successful pastors and evangelists today. Many of those leaders have lost perspective. They need to step away from their high salaries and go back to square one by choosing self-sacrificial lives of service to poor inner city churches and prisons and other places where success is not measured in superficial things such as dollars and cents or church attendance. God is unimpressed by such things.
There’s nothing inherently godly about drawing a huge crowd. Rock bands which regularly spit in the face of God often draw huge crowds.
What God cares about the most is people and their welfare. Caring for people means taking the time to get to know people as individuals (the way that Jesus did with the “woman at the well” from Samaria), rather than leveling instant and ignorant judgments against them.
Did Rob Parsley ever stop to consider the potential hurt his words might cause when he spoke to my friend Al years ago? Highly unlikely. Instead, Rob Parsley treated Al is if Al was expendable, even though Al was clearly receptive to what God might do in his life.
That’s about as smart as catching a boatload of fish and then tossing many of those fish back into the sea because some of them are less than perfect. All of us are less than perfect, but we still matter to God.
There should be no “catch and release” program in the kingdom of God. Jesus tells us that we are to be “fishers of men.” If God has brought a particular “fish” into your net and your boat, it’s for a very good reason. Your responsibility, therefore, is to figure out what that reason is and then to act accordingly.
Some of the ugliest fish, such as the “monk fish”, make for mighty good eating. So it’s stupid to judge real or metaphorical fish solely on the basis of first impressions.
(Not that my friend Al is physically ugly. Far from it. He looks a lot better than I do, when he's sober. But it seems clear to me that Rob Parsley was judging my friend on the basis of first impressions, since he certainly did not take the time to get to know my friend before issuing his judgmental proclamation to the effect that Al was full of "pride" for no better reason than the fact that Al didn't drop to the carpet on command.)
To declare a person to be unworthy of one’s attention, when claiming to minister to the lost and needy, is to essentially tell the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit is incompetent, since that person would not have been there in the first place if the Holy Spirit had not drawn that person there.
In God’s kingdom, no one should be considered expendable. Even in cases where people’s own moral failures can be legitimately blamed for the difficulties they have experienced in life, and even in cases where the likelihood of success when dealing with such people seems slim, that does not negate our Christian responsibilities to help such people and treat them with kindness, just as we would wish for them to treat us.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I indicated in the original blog post here that I was willing to publicly apologize to Rob Parsley if it turned out that I'd accused him unfairly. After speaking with Al again, shortly after I'd sent him a link to this blog post via e-mail, Al apologized to me for leaving me with the erroneous impression that Parsley had been the person who had accused him of pride. As it turns out, the accuser was a member of the church in which that meeting took place. It was not Rob Parsley who presumptuously judged my friend's heart without taking time to get to know my friend. Rob was the person who had laid hands on my friend and prayed for him, but someone else came along in his wake and said the thing which deeply hurt my friend.
The bottom line here is that the incident did take place, but I identified the wrong person as the culprit, despite my best and most conscientious effort not to do so. Therefore, I wish to publicly apologize to Rob Parsley for any harm I may have caused to him by impugning him in the context of this public blog.
If only the pastor of that church had been equally willing to apologize to me for slandering my name and harming my good reputation back in the late 80's, a couple of years before I moved to Chicago! But that's a subject best left for another blog.
Return to the Top of the Page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)