Striving For Significance

 In the past couple of weeks or so, I have gotten into watching a favorite Christian comedian I have followed since the early 1990s, Mark Lowry.  Many who are Southern Gospel fans are familiar with Mark from the Gaither Homecoming shows, as in the late 1990s and early 2000s Mark and Gaither had established a hilarious comedy routine with Mark tormenting Gaither about his hair, etc., and it was frankly funny!  In an interview I watched later, Gaither mentioned that Mark had a sort of sanctified Don Rickles shtick he used, and he told Mark that if he had to pick on anyone, then Gaither would be his straight man - it was a formula that worked too.  When asked by people if Gaither got offended at Mark's ribbing, Mark replied, "he gives me a raise everytime I come up with something else!"  The close friendship Bill Gaither and Mark Lowry have had over the years is an amazing story in itself, and the joy the comedy they produced has made people laugh for almost 30 years now.  If I had one criticism of Lowry, it would be the Christmas song he wrote called "Mary Did You Know?" which does have some theological problems in all honesty.  But, Lowry is not a theologian, and nor do I think he claims to be, and a song like that should be taken with a grain of salt and it doesn't deter from the fact that Lowry is still a brilliant comedian and his work never ages. 

There are a couple of routines that I really found to be my favorites of Mark's comedy.  The first I will briefly mention, as it is perhaps one of my all-time favorite videos to watch.  In the clip, Gaither is performing a song composed by legendary Statesmen lead singer Jake Hess () entitled "I'm Gonna Keep On Singing."  At the time, both Mark and Hess were part of the Gaither Vocal Band lineup, and it was a winning formula in all honesty.  Bill is treating the song in the video like a live rehearsal, and he is giving the group instructions about singing the parts.  The first part is the first verse, and Gaither instructs Mark at the halfway point in the verse to insert an "OOOOOO," and upon receiving the instructions Gaither kicks off the song while sitting at the piano with his group behind him.  After the first four words, "It's as old as..." Mark with a silly face goes "OOOOO!"  He is reprimanded by Gaither who tells him that this was supposed to be at the middle of the verse, at which Lowry replies,  "I thought that was halfway through."  Toward the last verse of the song, there is a line about "I hear the little sparrow," and that too becomes a highlight - on queue, Guy Penrod, the other singer in the group, gives a warbling whistle - Gaither then continues the song and the whistle comes again, so it is done over.  At that point, Mark lets out a huge squawk, and Gaither is apparently perturbed (it is an act obviously, but it is funny!) and Mark's response is "Boy, that is a big bird that came through here - it almost landed in your nest!"  Every time I watch that, I am literally laughing so hard that I cannot contain myself.  After Gaither accusingly calls out Mark and Mark vehemently denies it, Mark then points an accusing finger at Jake Hess, and says "He did it!  You can be replaced - I can wear that wig!" and then he pulls out a wig that looks like Hess's hairdo and dons it and begins to imitate Hess's singing style, which gets a huge audience response and a good-natured laugh from Hess, who is about as amusing in that he is cracking up laughing during Penrod's sparrow calls.  In all honesty, I could watch that over and over, as it is just hilarious to watch and it is classic comedy at its finest.  While that is perhaps my favorite routine of Mark's and Gaither's, there is another one that got my attention too. 

There was a clip where the Gaither program was taped live in a major city, and it is close to Mark's birthday.  After an amusing monologue about the "joys" of "turning forty," which Mark says sounds like clabbered milk, he then gets off on a speech in which he says the first fifty years of his life were about success, but for the second fifty he is striving for significance - he then launches into an amusing song called "God Help the USA" which is his fictional run for President (this was taped after the 2000 election, so there are jokes about recounts in the song as well as putting Willy Nelson in charge of the IRS - that was brilliant, as at the time Willy was having a few issues of his own with unjust tax laws enacted under Clinton's administration).  While the song was amusing - especially the part about making Gospel music legend Vestal Goodman his running mate - that line "striving for significance" did hit a chord with me, and I wanted to reflect on that a little.  Despite the amusing comedic setting this was uttered in, there is a grain of wisdom in it too, and recently I related better to it myself.  

It has been almost 6 years since I hit my 50th birthday, and in all honesty what came after I turned 50 was perhaps some of the most challenging times of my life.  Barbara and I divorced, I lost both of my parents, I lost my home, I got a doctoral degree, and I started a new career as a teacher as well as moving to Baltimore.  Things have definitely got a little shaken up after I hit mid-century in my life, and even now I am still making a lot of adjustments to everything.  At 55 now, a lot of that dust is starting to settle thankfully, but I am still in the process of trying to make sense of some of it.  In many ways, like Mark Lowry I have achieved a level of success, but I also struggle with significance.  Am I significant enough, and do I really want to be?  Those are challenging questions to which no answer comes easily.  And, can significance be a thing to strive for, or is it just something bestowed once others notice?  There are people God places in our lives that we impact for sure, but for most of our lives we are not even aware we had that impact on them, and in many cases it is only recognized after we die.  It reminds me of the words of Shakespeare I had to memorize in my senior year of high school many moons ago in Julius Caesar when a monologue states "the evil men do lives after them, but the good is oft interred with their bones."  The truth in that is that often people remember more about what was wrong with you than what you accomplished, and in life that is even more so because even our families at times take us for granted and don't really see the hard work and other efforts we make to achieve our goals in life - I actually had relatives that mocked my doctoral degree, criticized the fact I successfully went to college and got a good education, and they even are dismissive with my other work too.  That is why I have finally come to a conclusion about that, and I will add that now.

I have talked about the fact that at times our families can be toxic, and what is really sad is that since I have moved to Baltimore, I have perhaps as many as twenty relatives living within 15 miles of me, yet I never see them, they don't talk to me, and they frankly don't care I even exist - oh, that is unless I can be useful to them.  When I first moved here as a matter of fact and was looking for a place to live, I wanted to reach out to my cousins about possibly subletting a room or something with them, and they just brushed me off and didn't even respond - the old axiom that "blood is thicker than water" is not applicable with relatives like that, because their blood is about as sterile as water when it comes to how they relate to other family members.  I have another cousin who lives back in my hometown who is a notorious gossip also - never hear much out of him either, but for some reason he likes to run his mouth to other family members about juicy details in my life that are none of his business.  I have found that I have little use for these "relatives," because although we may share a family tree, they don't treat me like family and frankly I am probably better off without them. This is why in recent years I have concluded that perhaps it is time to reshape my family legacy, and as mentioned earlier there are a couple of things I won't divulge at this point that are in the formative stages of doing just that.  While I cannot say a lot about that now, I can say that it will be something that writes a new chapter in our family history, and it will be a different chapter that will look radically different in generations to come while still maintaining the better aspects of my roots.  It sometimes becomes necessary to close an old chapter and then pick up the pen to write a new one, and that is what is happening now, with the past five years compelling me to do so in all honesty.  While this is still in the formative stages and I am not at liberty to say a lot about it yet, I can say that when the time comes to reveal things it will be a shock to many, but also it's a beautiful thing that I am happy with too.  Writing a new chapter in one's life is never an easy thing, and there is some shaking up that happens in the process, but the new chapter will be something much better.  And, that is where significance comes in.

So what does all that have to do with striving for significance?  Over the years, I have had things come a little later to me than they do for many people, and for some reason it is perfect timing.  It must be understood also that significance is seeded by success, but success is not something that has a blanket definition - what some view as a failure may be in reality the greatest success to the person whom it is bestowed upon.  Success is not about financial wealth necessarily either, as it more explicitly has to do with getting to the place one has worked toward in life.  In many ways, I can say I have success, although there is always room for improvement and new goals to achieve.  So, being success is not uniform and there are many forms of success even in our individual lives, what happens when we get there?  That is where significance comes in.  Significance is simply something that really stands out, and it marks a distinction between where you are vs. where someone else is.  What is significant to one person may not be for another, and that is why we don't need to try the "keep up with the Joneses" racket with others.  Their significance is not yours, and yours is not theirs.  And neither form of significance is negative - we achieve it for ourselves and can be satisfied to a degree, but we also should celebrate it when others achieve significance.  It is not a competition or race, as the life course we each walk upon has different rules tailored to our specific goals, individuality, etc.  This is why we don't strive to imitate others, because we have a unique vocation in life that sets us on a different course, and we need to follow that to achieve our own particular success.  Again, our measure of success is not necessarily relevant to anyone else, as there is no uniform rule for success.  This is why too in our overly-consumerized culture we perhaps have lost our way.  We look at movie stars whose images are as shallow as a puddle of puppy urine, and society dictates that we have to look a certain way, think a certain thought, or buy a certain product to achieve their definition of "success."  The only ones who get successful from that in all honesty are greedy corporate entities who profit from our collective insecurities about ourselves, and to be honest it is so convoluted that even if a turnaround happened in society now, it would take decades (if not centuries!) to untangle the mess it has caused.  While others can inspire us and motivate us, we should not emulate them - we are our own persons, and what we are supposed to do is not necessarily the same as them. Until that sinks in, we will continue to have an unbalanced society. 

Any rate, the point is to strive for significance, and to have an awareness of our own model of success instead of trying to play "monkey see monkey do" with others.  If we do that, we may be more fulfilled.  Thanks again for allowing me to share, and will see you next time. 

The Cardinal Sin of Micromanaging

 We all have things that get under our skin.  What may be a minor thing to some is a cardinal offense to others - that is just human nature.  And, one has to be honest with themselves - we all have these things, and we call them "pet peeves" or other names.   Some of us have more than others at times obviously, and I am no exception being a card-carrying member of the human race.  So, what are mine?  I am going to talk about one now. 

Many of us Gen-Xers have a culture we were part of, especially given many of us were young 20-something professionals in the 1990s.  In 1999, Mike Judge (who also created the sitcom King of the Hill) got into the movie business and created a cult classic called Office Space.  I have seen that movie several dozen times and it never gets old because I essentially lived that life back in the day.  The plot of the movie centered around a discontented white-collar software programmer named Peter Gibbons, and he was so burnt-out and disgusted with his life that he just "went through the motions" every day at his job.  Although he lived a comfortable life financially, as many young professionals our age did then, it was as if something were missing.  What exacerbated the problem even more was his boss, an overly-egotistical and micromanaging guy named Lumbergh.  Lumbergh's ominous greeting, "Hey Peter, whaatsss happening?" was such a bane to Peter's existence that every time he heard it he cringed.  Lumbergh was the epitome of everything we as a generation saw as evil about Corporate America and the office politics and other garbage that went with it. And, that is why Office Space was a big hit with many of our generation.   It represented our rejection of being made to fit in a predetermined "box" and it also gave us purpose as many of us also grew up during the mid-1980s, or the Reagan era, which led to two things.  First, we were the "latchkey kid" generation, in that a lot of times our parents were not as involved in our lives as perhaps they should have been, so we often had to grow up fast by learning life skills on the fly.  Second, the general economic prosperity of those years opened up doors to us - we saw the evils of communism before it fell, and most of us (liberal and conservative) wanted nothing to do with that system. We had new opportunities presented to us as well - we were the generation that saw the rise of the personal home computer, the cell phone, and the compact disc.  So, technology was very new to us but we overall embraced it.  It is because of those factors - learning to do things for ourselves as well as embracing new technologies - that made micromanagement a nasty, evil thing in our eyes.  And it is a huge reason why I, like so many others of my generation, have issues with it.  So, I now want to share my own personal experience recently with this. 

Since moving to the middle of Baltimore last November, I have had to make some adjustments - being a Gen-X Appalachian-American caused the challenges I faced to be something I had to take on out of principle, and take it on I did.  The landlord I have now - a bald but good-natured man who is close to my age - has some issues with micromanaging, and recently it came to a head with him.  Due to what happened a couple of weeks ago when a fentanyl-addled fool who had no business behind the wheel of a car hit our house, we have been seeing a lot more of our landlord over the past couple of weeks. Now, while I understand that a property owner does want his properties to be in good shape (I would too if I owned a property), there are also some boundaries that a person like him should not cross, and yet he did.  He started by rifling through our recycle bins (which is odd in itself) and then leveled a bunch of "do this" and "do that" concerning the way we live in our house we pay rent on.  It was not related to the structure of the house either, but was directed against us simply living life.  I finally had to put my foot down and tell him "enough," and although he acknowledged this, it will only be determined how much he took us seriously when he visits again.  So, let me give a couple of observations.

Micromanaging a person is one of the greatest violations to their personhood that there is.   It reduces a person to a means rather than an end, and it does not regard that a person is a full-grown intelligent human being capable of taking care of things themselves.  It also assumes that a person's God-given gift of life as an individual is something worthless to the micromanager, and that frankly is insulting.  Even God, who created the universe, doesn't micromanage - he gave us free will to decide for ourselves, and we choose to follow God although he desires we do so because he loves us and created us in the image he has of us. This is why a Catholic - especially a faithful Catholic - is committing sin when they try to micromanage another person.  We as human beings are not pets of others - we are persons who are subject to the rights and freedoms God gives us.  That is what persona est sui iuris is all about. My landlord needs to learn this lesson, as does every radical political hack who loves to emulate one of the most oppressive nations on earth, China.  If we don't respect the dignity of personhood in regard to others, then our faith lacks.  Enough said.

Any rate, this was my rant for the week, and just remember, if you have to deal with a person who gets his jollies off on micromanaging others, then know who you are in Christ.  You are an end unto yourself, not a mere means.  You are a whole unto yourself, and not a mere part.  And, as a human being you are entitled to certain universal rights under the natural law a supernatural God created.  When we realize this, it will be liberating. 

Thanks again, and will see you next time. 

Smooth Jazz is Not True Jazz

 This has been a week of celebrities dropping like flies - from rock and roll icon Ozzy Osbourne, to Malcolm Jamal Warner (who played Theo on the old Cosby Show) to wrestling legend Hulk Hogan, it just seems surreal that these individuals, who were practically household names in my younger years, are gone.  Yet another I found out about was "smooth jazz" pioneer Chuck Mangione, who passed away a couple of days ago.  While Mangione was a virtuoso flugelhorn and trumpet player, he was not a classic jazz musician in the mold of legends like Theolonius Monk, Duke Ellington, or Gerry Mulligan.  The music Mangione was noted for - which in itself was not unpleasant, but was just not true jazz - was a continuation of a form of instrumental music that started in the 1960s with people like Herb Alpert and would later evolve into what is called now "smooth jazz."  However, in comparison to hacks like Kenny G who came later, Mangione had a level of taste and sophistication that could be appreciated, as he was a talented musician.  May rest eternal come to him, and Light Perpetual shine upon him at his passing at the age of 84.  

I know of Chuck Mangione's music somewhat when I was younger, as my uncle Junior listened to a radio station of soft rock at night which often played other things too, including the one Mangione record I am familiar with, "Give It All You Got."  This hit the pop charts sometime around 1978 or 1979, and while not as well-known as his other famous recording, "Feels So Good," it was pretty well-known for its time.  Most of the junk that played on Junior's radio at night - his bedroom was next to ours, so you could hear his radio all over upstairs in my grandmother's house - was stuff I frankly hated.  However, for some reason, when Mangione's "Give It All You Got" came on, I sorta liked it, although I was not by any means a fan of what was essentially glorified Muzak.  It took a number of years before I even knew the name of that record, but I found out later what it was.  Mangione's record was an early foray into flirting with the sounds that would later be considered jazz, but once I was exposed to real jazz, Mangione fell by the wayside with me, and I don't frankly have any desire to like him anymore in all honesty.  When one tastes a filet mignon, you don't go back to eating hot dogs, in other words.  And, compared to classic stuff like Thelonius Monk, Gerry Mulligan, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, and Miles Davis, there is no comparison to the knock-off stuff Mangione played. So, the question arises - what is the difference between classic jazz and "smooth jazz?"  For starters, let's give a little music history of the latter.

Smooth jazz evolved out of what was called "light music" in the 1940s and 1950s, especially that played by large orchestras such as those of Mantovani and Andre Konstelanetz - in other words, it was sort of sterile background music that was at the time passed off as "classical."  By the early 1960s, it turned into the later recordings of Ray Conniff, as well as individuals such as Peter Nero, Ferrante and Teicher, and Bert Kaempfert.   This would later become what was known as "elevator music," or in more mass-produced forms by obscure ensembles, Muzak.  In the midst of this were a series of instrumentalists who capitalized on this genre, and after adapting pop rhythms and even cheap knockoffs of well-known songs, they consisted of individuals such as trumpeter Herb Alpert and his group called the Tijuana Brass.  While some music historians would dispute it, I would have to credit Herb Alpert with being the grandfather of what would become "smooth jazz," because it was a somewhat inferior imitation of the real stuff.  From Herb Alpert, and as the 1960s morphed into the 1970s, what became known as "smooth jazz" began to be picked up by performers such as Spiro Gyra, Al Jarreau (who frankly sucks as a musician), and of course on the better end, Chuck Mangione. From that, "smooth jazz" grew into a genre, and new and even less-impressive individuals like the notorious saxophonist Kenny G would come later.  So, in essence, "smooth jazz" has become Muzak with a backbeat in recent decades, and why on earth entire radio stations would be devoted to broadcasting it.  In recent years, "smooth jazz" has devolved further into what is essentially a more toned-down, instrumental form of R&B, and there is really no difference between "Soul" music and "Smooth Jazz" except the latter is more prominently instrumental.  And, true aficionados of classic jazz have nothing to do with this stuff called "smooth jazz," as they are different animals altogether.  There are some who try to link "smooth jazz" with jazz fusion made popular by individuals such as Freddy Hubbard in the early 1970s, but there is no comparison - even with the more rockish flavor of jazz fusion, it is still jazz, and even Freddy Hubbard's 1970 classic album Red Clay is still part of the classic jazz idiom and in no way is remotely similar to schlock like Kenny G. And, except for perhaps being both Black, "smooth jazz" artist Spyro Gyra has nothing in common with even the most outlandish jazzmen like Sun Ra - as eccentric and hard to figure out as Sun Ra can be sometimes, he is still definitely part of the jazz legacy. Spiro Gyra, on the other hand, is basically a failed soul singer who could not make it with the big dogs on Soul Train, so he rebranded himself to make a fast buck playing bland, boring, and frankly silly junk in the idiom of "smooth jazz."  So, what does this have to do with Chuck Mangione?  Let's circle back to that.

Despite being identified with the sterile, soulless "smooth jazz" idiom, one thing that stood out about Chuck Mangione is that he is actually a top-notch musician.  The difference with Mangione was that he started his career playing with one of the most stellar jazz legends, drummer Art Blakey.  Therefore, unlike so many of these "smooth jazz" hacks, Mangione at least had a background in real jazz.  So, what in hell happened then?  I think the question can be answered by one word - money!  My guess about this is that Mangione clearly had the talent, but let some tone-deaf record producer talking him into selling out, much in the same way many pop musicians have done in the past 50 or so years.  Had Mangione stuck with classic jazz instead of "going commercial," I think he would have had the potential of being a legend ranked with Louis Armstrong, Bix Beiderbecke, Dizzy Gillespie, Harry James, and other true jazzmen.  The more music becomes synonymous with money, the more integrity it loses.  That is what makes Chuck Mangione a tragedy in American music history.  The potential for being a jazz legend was reduced to just being nostalgic background music now at the local Walmart (this was spoofed by Mike Judge in his hit animated series King of the Hill, as the faux sophisticate Peggy Hill thought Chuck Mangione was high-class music - I mean, her character was so bad that she even butchered the Spanish language by uttering "poor favor" at Mexican-Americans!).  So sad!

Admittedly, it seems as if Mangione did try to summon his classic jazz roots in recordings like "Give it All You Got," as that recording became the theme song of the 1980 Winter Olympics, which also may explain its huge popularity later.  The recording does have a decent level of sophistication, and the potential is there for it to have possibly become a classic recording had it not become overly commercialized.  Oddly, it was a sell-out like Mangione who became the music icon, while his mentor, Art Blakey, was a true legend who is only remembered by dedicated classic jazz fans like myself.  But, that is the world we live in - we sell out to things that look so polished and shiny that often we overlook the real treasures in front of us.  We are built on a society that worships outer qualities but ignores or belittles more internal, lasting qualities.  So, instead of paying a few dollars more for authentic craftsmanship even when we look for items to buy, we settle for inferior shiny, plastic junk that is made in China by slave labor for pennies on the dollar.  There is a more subtle reason for this which makes even more sense though, so let me spell it out.

Cheap junk can be mass-produced, quickly sold, and is marketed widely to appeal to our desire for "convenience."  However, we find out soon that the cheap junk doesn't last long, and needs to be replaced within sometimes a matter of months.  This is by design, as the more of a product a greedy corporate oligarch can sell, the richer they get, so who gives a damn about quality?  The word is quantity, and as a Baptist minister named Marshall Maglothin said many years ago in a sermon, we are a society built on the "Nine M's of Yuppieism" - money, microwaves, minivans, and more, more, more for me, me, me.  Another Baptist minister I remember from my college days, Dr. Jerry Spencer, expressed this sentiment in a humorous but highly accurate quote - "It's a day of sex thrills, pep pills, crooked deals,  and you can't tell the Jacks from the Jills!"  The idea of both of these quotes is this - we live in a society that compromises greed for grace, and common sense for convenience.  The music industry these days is rife with this garbage, which is why in the past 40 years or so much contemporary music is bad - it is tasteless, useless, artificial, and frankly garbage, and that includes the junk called "smooth jazz."  Even some of my friends that like rock music notice it - they lament the fact that Ozzy Osbourne died not just because he was a pretty decent person (and surprisingly he really was in real life) but because that is what they say was "real rock" - they view Taylor Swift with the same degree of disdain that many of us jazz fans view Kenny G, and for the same reason.  I see it also with many friends and relatives who love classic country music too - they hate Garth Brooks because he is no Hank Williams Sr. or Johnny Cash.  People who have an ear and genuine taste for a certain genre of music tend to know the difference between cheap knockoffs and genuine talent, and for many of us who collect records, it is even more evident - modern music of all genres has lost something, namely its soul. The sad fact is that artists like Chuck Mangione were immensely talented, and had they valued their talent more than their bank accounts, it would have made a difference.  Chuck Mangione - God rest his soul and comfort his family as he was a fellow human being - was a musical sellout, and while technically not near as bad as his successors such as Kenny G, it is still tragic.  So, while we mourn his loss as sign of human decency, his music was a disappointment. 

I have went off on this soapbox before, and hope I did not repeat a lot of my long-held sentiments here.  However, if Western Civilization is to thrive, we need to respect our roots and not sell them out to the highest bidder for wealth and fame.  Thank you for allowing me to share with you again today. 

Mid-Summer Musings

 I am not writing about anything in particular this week, as a lot has been going on as far as house repairs, doing some online certification coursework, and catching up on some other things that desperately needed done and I can finally get to them.  So, rather than focusing on a weighty topic this time, I am just going to observe and improvise what needs to be said. 

I was thinking about summers in the past.  There were times when summers were the best part of the year, and other times I was glad when they were over.  Thinking back over many years, there are some things about summers that are worth reminiscing and reflecting about.  I am going back to summers in Kirby, when I was in my late childhood years and early teens, and a couple of things really stick out.  I have talked about some of this before, but there are stories still worth telling.  So, let's begin.

Since I was very young, I learned the fine art of wildcrafting, and during my summers in Kirby I had lots of opportunities to do so.  In the large field, for instance, behind the Grassy Lick School where I had gone to in my 5th and 6th grade years, there were berries.  The field stretched like what seemed eternity behind the school as it approached Grassy Lick Run in the background, and along the creek banks were tangles of briars and brambles, among which a lot of wild raspberries, blackberries, and dewberries grew.  I would harvest a lot of those then, and the berries were often utilized later in small pies a crazy neighbor lady named Goldie would bake for me.  In the grass in the field bordering the path that led down to where the back of our house was, there were also an abundance of wild strawberries growing.  A wild strawberry is technically not a strawberry but is what are called mock strawberries or snakeberries.  They looked like a dead ringer for a strawberry but with minor differences - for one, the taste was somewhat bland and required more sugar if you cooked with them, and also unlike actual strawberry plants, snakeberries have yellow flowers.  I didn't care, because as long as they were edible and didn't kill me, I was OK with harvesting them.  Now, thinking about it, I may have a new recipe to add to my kitchen blog - snakeberry pie!  Although I didn't know the difference between the two (turns out both actually grew in the area, and I may have harvested both together), they were still fun to pick and they did taste kind of good in those mini pies Goldie would make me.  Years later, in Hagerstown, we ended up having a yard full of snakeberries as well there too, and being old habits die hard for me, I picked some and even cooked a little with them too.  You don't see as much of this in Baltimore now, although I have noticed some growing in yards along with my favorite wild garlic I found - there was even a small patch of the latter in the school flowerbed where I teach, and our principal told me to help myself. However, as an adult now, some of the old mystery has gone now with gathering this stuff, although I still enjoy it.  That was a joy of summer I always looked forward to.  

In addition to foraging wild berries, I did sometimes try to take a crack at gardening as well.  With that, I had minimal success - I did manage to grow some small melons and even a small onion patch on occasion, but it was modest efforts.  In my teen years when I lived over on Salt Lick Road just south of Terra Alta, I took real pride in cultivating a small garden just above the back of the house on a slope overlooking the spring.  I remember prepping that soil with removing rocks, and then mixing horse manure from Earl Masters' old barn on the property to make it more fertile.  Then, I planted both onions and potatoes.  However, during that year I decided to spend a couple of weeks with my dad in Georgia for the summer, and I asked Mom to look after it while I was gone.  Mom never took anything I did seriously, and when I got back the poor plot was overgrown with weeds and I got very little harvest out of it.  I was frankly ready to hang my mother for letting that happen.  But, my teenage years would prove to be some of my best summer memories regardless, so we'll talk about that some now.

As a teenager, I was somewhat isolated - we lived a few miles outside town in the country, so basically my entire social life centered around three things: summer parades with the high school band, church activities, and then a couple of weeks visiting Dad.  In the interim, I kept occupied with other things, such as cooking - I was experimenting with a lot of recipes, especially involving a stew I made - as well as working on my music collection and other things.  I am trying to recall a bit of what I did when I made that stew then, and best I recall it sounded like this:

I would take a pound of lean stew beef, and begin boiling it in a pot of water infused sometimes with chicken or beef stock/flavor cubes.  Then I would add a spice concoction - salt, black pepper, Italian seasoning, cayenne pepper, chili powder, parsley, celery flakes, and on occasion wild garlic I harvested - and I would let that stuff cook until it reduced to a gravy.  No one really liked it that much except me, and it was spicy - I cannot fathom the amount of spice I used in those early days, but I recall things being hot!  In the ensuing years as I got more culinary experience and was exposed to new ways of cooking stuff, I would get better, and that stew I used to make ended up just going by the wayside.  It was so easy though that to this day if I wanted to play around with it I could probably recreate it, but I doubt I would have the fortitude to eat that anymore now. I also experimented with other things too - I made homemade bagels, pizzas, and other things as well. Today I still make some of those, but not in the way I did then.  Again, as I learned things my culinary skills were refined, and today I can cook more like a gourmet.  Any rate, cooking and hunting wild plants and fruits were two of my summer passions.

There is not a whole lot more to say today, but you get the idea that summers have changed for me over the years.  I do wish I could return at times to simpler days like those, as there are many fond memories, but it isn't going to happen.  In my late 50s now, it is an adventure to just shop at the local Italian market I like visiting now.  Thanks again for letting me share, and will be back soon. 

Crashing the Home

 Things happen, and that's life.   However, yesterday an unprecedented thing occurred at the house that really caused a bit of a shift, even in a literal sense.  Let me tell the story.

Yesterday was a normal Monday - we ate an early dinner, and I had a class project to work on while Barbara was working from home.  At around 4 PM, there was a huge crash that rocked the house.  Thinking something crashed, I came out of my room exclaiming "what the hell was that??"  Barbara then said, "Something just hit the house!"  When she looked out the window, she saw a small gold sedan driving off, and the neighbors were gathering.  When we went to go outside, we noticed the foyer floor had partially collapsed, and that the front door was a bit challenging to open.  Upon opening the door, we were both shocked to see a huge hole where the basement windows used to be, and Barbara's car was cracked up as it had been pushed into a neighbor's car.  A couple of our neighbors, including a middle-aged eccentric White guy with close-cropped blonde hair who lives next door, pointed to the gold car parked around the corner and a cop parked in the middle of the street.  This is where it got interesting. 

Upon stepping out, there was quite a crowd on our normally quiet street, and as crazy as it sounds, at about the same time the car hit our house, a cop was turning onto our street - that was providential, in all honesty.  Turns out the driver was possibly under the influence of something - both fentanyl and crack are epidemic in this area of the city - and he tried to give a flimsy excuse about his foot getting stuck under his brake pedal.  When I talked to one of the cops later - a young guy who was very pleasant and also ready to assist - he suspected the same thing, although he didn't say it on record because understandably he couldn't without proof.  Many of our neighbors had a similar thought about it, and one - an older Black lady named Mary who lives a couple of doors up - caught everything on her doorbell cam. She gladly shared it with our landlord, Andy, as well as with the cops.  Later, when Barbara called the police precinct to get a copy of the police report for her insurance, she was told by a person there that the car was registered to a woman, yet a man was driving.  During the time of the incident though, we had a couple of cops, several firemen, some workers from the BGE (the Baltimore city gas and electric office), and a building inspector immediately getting to work securing the front of the house. The BGE guys thankfully stuck around all night, and this morning they managed to clean up the mess in no time and secured the front of the house for our safety.  The gas line was turned off, and probably that was for the best as it could have been a potential hazard for our whole block. As of now, we still don't have the gas back on yet, but that will probably happen in the next day or so.  The past 29 hours though were perhaps the most intense we have had in a while. 

The building inspector, a down-to-earth guy whose name I believe was Drake, gave the all-clear for us to stay in the house.  He noted that although the car had hit the house with some force, the infrastructure of the house was not compromised and he said no immediate concern was evident.  However, he did recommend that perhaps some work would need to be done on the front exterior wall at some point, and our landlord has his property insurance appraiser coming to assess what has to be done and he will take care of that - thank God for Andy, our landlord!  Andy is a great guy, and compared to our previous place, he is a real blessing.  I will talk more about that in a few moments.

These are photos of the damage to the front of our home

The building inspector took me on a walking tour to see the damage prior to Andy arriving, and he explained in detail what happened as far as the damage.  While for a time I was thinking Baltimore had a sloppy infrastructure, the workers that responded to our situation helped restore faith that there were dedicated public servants still in this city.  The level of professionalism shown by all who responded, as well as the really strong support of our neighbors, really touched me and I have to say I appreciated them all.  And, it also alleviated a lot of potential stress. 

The following day, Andy our landlord came to take care of his aspect of the business, and he did us a huge service by cleaning out some junk that was left out there by a previous housemate who lived here, and he was also very excited about some of the things we are doing to improve the place, such as renovating the steps and organizing the kitchen with new shelving and a few things.  For the first time in a long time, I am feeling like this place is becoming a home. In some aspects, the incident of the car crashing into the front of the house may have been providential in itself, although it still does not excuse the intoxicated fool who did it - he will get his in due time as well.  

I know that this place where we live now is not a forever home - not even close in all honesty.  I think our landlord Andy understands that too, but he is working with us and I think for the first time in a while we can make this work.  It is a place for recovery, opening a new chapter in life, and getting life back on track.  I am starting to rebuild a lot too, and with a renewed teaching contract at the high school I work at, things are looking promising for the first time in a long time.  There are still challenges, and I have even had a few attacks on my work, but God brought me here for a reason so that is what matters when it is all said and done.

I am still not completely sure about a lot of things, but I am in a better place than I was just 10 months ago.  Even a catastrophe such as a car crashing into the front of the house can be turned into a good thing, and there is a lesson in this. What we often see as a tragedy, God sees as an opportunity.  The craziness of the past year, for instance, has led to some good things.  It is therefore still true, the old axiom that "when life hands you lemons you make lemonade."  And, while the recipe is not complete yet, the lemonade in the end will be sweeter.  Thanks for letting me share this week. 

Decommissioning the Missionaries

 When I was a young undergraduate student at a Pentecostal college in Florida, it was a different world then.  In some ways it was more sound, simpler, and it was honestly not necessarily bad.  In those years, I myself was a Pentecostal, and as part of my story now I want to share a couple of things I learned that would eventually place me on the road to being a devout Catholic. 

Back in the early 1990s, many Evangelicals still were looking for converts (they don't do so as much today), and of course that led to some rather crazy things.  For one thing, a technique that was pushed that I never completely understood or agreed with was popular then, and that was this whole idea of door-to-door evangelism.  Essentially, I learned later that while some of my classmates were sincere about their faith, they were taught to share it wrong.  There were groups of students who knocked on doors, handed out religious tracts on street corners to prostitutes and homeless derelicts, and many of them also tried to use rock music and sterile things aimed to evangelize kids to increase numbers.  This was called "soul winning," and to be honest it was not really all that effective.  Some of us - not just me - felt awkward about even doing this stuff, because it seemed like we were more like vacuum salesmen than future ministers.  It turns out that a lot of it was a numbers game - churches wanted those impressive numbers to show how "on fire" they were, and for those who didn't get the numbers, they were looked at as being either spiritually weak or needing revival.  In the ensuing decades, most mainstream Evangelicals began to abandon those practices, taking a more nuanced approach to gaining converts, and to be honest it actually helped them.  There are still some holdouts - many extreme Fundamentalists for instance - who swear by those worthless "soul winning" programs, but for the most part it was seen as a fruitless endeavor.  As a result, many of those Evangelical denominations are now in decline or they have plateaued, but to their credit they are focusing more on things that really matter, such as apologetics and discipling the people they actually have (that latter thing was something sorely neglected during the mass-conversion days - they were after numbers but not truly seeking to transform souls).  I have been wanting to tackle this for a long time, and now as a Catholic I can without apology.  So, let's begin. 

I recall during my junior year as an undergrad at a very prestigious Pentecostal university where I would graduate from that there was this focus on "missions."  I was a Missions major myself then, but in all honesty I found many of their efforts futile.  I remember one time for instance during a chapel service when the Intercultural Ministries group I used to be part of staged this really dumb presentation.  They marched out holding up signs of groups they wanted to "evangelize," and perhaps two of the most offensive I saw were "Byzantine Catholic" and "Coptic."  They were encouraging sheep-stealing to pump numbers!  I visited some of these with them when I was part of the Intercultural Ministries team, and I even rose to the rank of assistant leader of the team.  However, my focus when I went to another Christian church of some nature was to dialogue, not to convert - to me, these people were already Christians.  So, when we visited a Coptic or an Eastern-Rite Catholic parish for instance, I would wear my clerics as a licensed member of my Pentecostal denomination.   As a result, I made actual friends, and the people were more receptive to me.  I also participated in their Masses and liturgies as well (at least as much as I could, because being non-Catholic then I was not able to partake of Sacraments or anything like that).  This got me some angry reactions from some of the more staunch of my classmates, but others actually would look at me and marvel as to ask "how did you do that?"   My answer was always the same - these people who graciously let us visit and attend their liturgies were not some bunch of heathens, but they were our brothers and sisters in Christ and I saw them as such.  We did visit non-Christian religious groups too though - I recall going to a synagogue, a mosque, and a Buddhist temple for instance.  Some of the more overzealous classmates tried to convert these people in their own temples!  I never did - I was there to observe, dialogue, and learn about who they were, although I disagreed fundamentally with their belief systems.  That likewise gained me some respect too.  I even remember one time they had a group of students visiting an Episcopal church as a potential "mission field," and there are a couple of things to say about that.  For one, I of all people am not a fan of ECUSA, as that body has essentially apostatized from its original faith - the ones who preserved the Anglican tradition better were the Anglican Catholic Church I was once involved with, which was definitely Christian.  Secondly, although a very liberal denomination, Episcopalians still at least had a veneer of Christianity, and in all honesty back in that day many of the local Episcopal parishes were still quite sound and they had good pastors - one was a bit hyper-charismatic, but I was used to that then too. Therefore, I always wondered why on earth our "Intercultural Ministries" group was trying to sheep-steal from other churches they saw as different from them?  That conviction is one reason why I eventually dropped out of it.  By the time I was in my senior year of undergrad work, I had already converted to a conservative form of high-Church Anglicanism and was no longer Pentecostal, the fruit of a long journey via my work with the Convergence Movement then.  I graduated from that Pentecostal college an Anglican, and just over 4 years later I was received into the Catholic Church. Stuff like this is what led me on my journey, but there's more. 

On occasion, in our Missions classes on campus our main professor, a very jolly and energetic Assemblies of God missionary who had served many years in Zimbabwe and who also had a genuine spirit of Christ, would invite speakers to class.  Some were missionaries, others worked with different focus groups, and some were even nationals who for some reason or another were converted by the denomination this college was affilliated with.  One of those people really got my knickers in a bunch one time when he visited, as the guy was frankly a moron.  This man claimed to be a "missionary to the Amish and Mennonites" for heaven's sake!  He was based in Ohio, had no heritage in those movements, and lest one forgets, these Anabaptist groups are the ones that many Pentecostals and Baptists alike claim as their spiritual ancestors.  Yet, this ding-a-ling, who for some reason obtained ministry credentials from the same denomination which our university belonged to, felt like all the Amish were "going to hell" and he felt a "burden" to save them - this was common language used by people like this, especially if they had some sort of vendetta against a group of people or another religious tradition. Normally, I listened to these people respectfully when they came to class, and at times I even showed an avid interest in them, but for some reason this guy rubbed me wrong - his spirit was not genuine, and he seemed to have some kind of axe to grind.  He put me in mind of another professor we had that year whom I will talk about briefly next, as another Catholic apologist named Tim Staples had a similar encounter with this guy. 

Dr. Andres Carrodeguas - a native of Cuba, a former Catholic priest in Spain at one point, and although a brilliant man, there was always something a little off about the guy.  Oh, he was friendly enough, but in his class a lecture could easily go off into some anti-Catholic rant.  This guy originally worked with Jimmy Swaggart (also known for rabid and ignorant anti-Catholicism) and he was the guy responsible for translating some of Swaggart's religious writings into Spanish. Dr. Carrodeguas served as what was called a "Missionary in Residence" during my junior year, and naturally I took one of his classes as part of my required coursework for the program I was in.  Initially, I didn't have much of an opinion about the guy - he was somewhat quiet on campus, and he did have a polite smile and cordial greeting when you would pass him in the hall. But, underneath, he was a bitter, hate-filled man who despised even the word "Catholic," and given the opportunity he would launch into a tyrade at the drop of a hat. The back story on him was that he was indeed a Catholic priest at one time - I think he was either Benedictine or Jesuit, I can't recall - and a combination of two things caused him to leave the Church. The first I am somewhat empathetic about, as he talked about some Catholic religious orders incorporating things like New Age spirituality and religious syncretism, as well as espousing Liberation Theology, into their practices.  This really shook him (and understandably so) and I feel for his experience in that regard - I have seen some of that nonsense masquerading as "Catholic" too but it is not true Catholic faith, I will tell you that right now.  His disenchantment with that sort of stuff was justified, but instead of trying to understand that those things were a poor example of true Catholic faith, he began to reject everything Catholic and I understand he even may have been in touch with the con man from the Chick comics, Alberto Rivera.  Instead of transforming him, this new hatred of everything Catholic turned him into a very bitter man who rejected even God's grace, and he became basically a very hyper-fundamentalist version of Pentecostal, which may also have led to his work with Jimmy Swaggart, as a charlatan like Swaggart would eat up that garbage like a maggot in a rotting carcass. That hatred even extended to other Christians who he felt "looked Catholic," including Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and even staunch evangelical Reformed ministers like Dr. D. James Kennedy.  The "testimonies" of other anti-Catholic Fundamentalists like him were abundant and resonated ad nauseum from pulpits, religious TV, and even the occasional chapel service.  However, I don't think that was the only reason Carrodeguas left the priesthood - it was odd that less than a year after he left the priesthood officially he actually was married.  Maybe I am reading too much into that, I don't know, but it was somewhat odd that he would renounce the Church and then end up married a short time later - what was that story??  We will never fully know what really makes men like Carrodeguas tick, but I recall when I was listening to Tim Staples one time about his encounter with Carrodeguas back when the latter was still an instructor at Jimmy Swaggart's Bible school in Louisiana.  Tim, who had been raised a Baptist and later was part of the same Pentecostal denomination my college was affiliated with, had a rather tense encounter himself with our man Carrodeguas when he came to the decision to become Catholic while a student still at Swaggart's college.  Upon hearing of Tim's embrace of the Catholic faith, the powers-that-be at JSBC decided to sic Carrodeguas on him, and his account of that meeting will make the hair stand up on your arms.  Carrodeguas actually started to move to the boundary of violence with Tim, and when finally deciding it was a lost cause, he condemned Tim to hell (a classic arbiter of salvation move) and then snapped "You didn't become Catholic - you are Catholic!"  Tim actually saw that outburst - which was meant in a malicious way by Carrodeguas - as a compliment.  To Tim (and I know the feeling myself) this was a badge of honor meant as an insult.  Today, Carrodeguas is retired and in Florida I believe still, but he pops up on social media every so often.  In his final months at the college I was at, he was censured a couple of times by the department chair who thought he was going too far, as the college I went to was very much Pentecostal but not as Fundamentalist-leaning as Swaggart's school in Louisiana was.  Many of the other professors there were actually cordial with Catholics, as some had known many during the years of the Charismatic Renewal, and others were ecumenically active and were on practically a first-name basis with a couple of local priests. So, although Carrodeguas found some fertile ground for his vitriol among the students, he was becoming a bit of a thorn in the side to the school administration, as they tended to be more nuanced about ecumenical relations and frankly Carrodeguas was a spectacle to them.  In time I made my pilgrimage to Rome too, and I actually wrote Tim about my story - I never heard anything from him about it, but hopefully he read it and maybe I can meet him someday and discuss in person.  In summary here with this part of my discussion, anti-Catholicism is not about evangelism, as a deeper agenda often underlies it, and people who act like "soul winners" in reality despise Catholics - to them, a Catholic is a hell-bound sinner who worships the Pope and Mary (neither of which any Catholic I know of does, and I definitely have never done that as a Catholic myself), and thus is an object of ridicule and contempt, all in the name of  "reaching them for Jesus" of course.  Problem is, many Catholics who get hit with that sort of hatred from somebody will rightly have nothing to do with that person, because they know the intent and it isn't anything about loving them or saving their soul - it is about a personal vendetta a Fundie has against anyone they view as different from them.  And, that leads me into some closing thoughts.

Much of what went on years ago in Evangelicalism in the name of "soul winning" and "witnessing" was never about transforming someone's life - it was about one of two things.  First, it was to curry favor with their religious group, as the more "souls" they "saved" made the church look good and also was like a sales award.  Secondly, some who engage in those activities were not doing so out of love - as a matter of fact some individuals had an axe to grind and they wanted to take it out on any Catholic or anyone else whom they deemed somehow "reprehensible."  I talked a couple of weeks ago about another view of hell that no one ever thinks of, and I want to remind people the purpose of hell again.  Hell is not someplace God is itching to throw us into - as a matter of fact, he doesn't want to, and he never will.  Hell is a place we send ourselves to, as it essentially is willful separation from God.  The imagery of the lake of fire is scary enough, but the real terror of hell is the isolation the person who goes there will feel one day.  Many supposedly religious people are in danger of this, in that they willfully exclude people who don't think and believe exactly like them, and in doing so they think they have superseded the Holy Spirit.  In time, even the person of Christ will end up falling short for them, although they will never come out and say so.  Therefore, if they do not repent and transform before they die one day, God is going to give them exactly what they want - total separation.  They may even at first think that they have made it to "heaven" as it may even look beautiful to them, but then reality will set in, and the fire will be the eternal loneliness and isolation they will have for all eternity.  So no, while the debate over whether or not hell is a literal lake of fire is a valid debate and people do so now, hell is still real, it is eternal, and the worst part of it is not some white-hot magma-like lake somewhere - the worst part of hell is complete separation from God, and the torment of the soul which will result from that.  Many overly-zealous Fundamentalists need to have a reality check about this, because if they don't grow up and have true transformation through supernatural grace, they will face a grim future in a place they really don't want to be but that they asked for. This is somewhat of a revolutionary way to view hell, but in all honesty that is what the Church has taught about it for centuries - we focus on the fire, but perhaps we need to think of what sent us there, and it may not even be a heinous sin.  Hatred and exclusion of others in this life because we had a conflated view of ourselves is the thing that will send us there probably the quickest, as it is God giving us what we hollered about.  This is why he says in Scripture that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom.  He was not just talking about apostate Episcopalians either; this applies to religious Fundamentalists too.  Let this sink in as you rethink what you have been taught about the reality of hell.

Now, that does not mean that we are so open that we have no ground to stand on either - that type of Christianity is sterile and dead in all honesty, and many who embrace that would be better off as atheists in all honesty.  There is a Tradition, a set body of teaching, and universal law that sets boundaries regarding morality and ethics, and we need to be mindful of that too. Those standards are non-negotiable in all honesty.  However in living out the belief we have, we must also remember that the best witness is a real witness - if you spout a bunch of religious jargon to people, then you are putting yourself under a microscope.  But, if you quietly live out your faith with both conviction as well as making living your faith as natural as breathing or eating, people will notice.  Actions often speak louder than words, and it is possible to be very conservative religiously while having just that quiet witness of living your life - people will eventually come to you then, and you don't have to wave a huge Dake's Bible around and hand out religious tracts trying to get people "saved."  You won't need to in all honesty.  The best testimonies I know as a matter of fact are not testimonies full of religious jargon uttered in a sanctimonious tone - rather, they are testimonies of people being real, quietly living out their faith, and then when they are approached about it they can tell their story to inspire others.  That is the true act of evangelization. 

I am sure I probably rambled too long, but some things have to be said, and I felt seriously that this was one of them.  Thanks for bearing with me, and will see you next time. 

Going In Circles??

 I have been very prolific writing obviously this summer, as there is much to say.  I am catching up on some programs I wanted to watch, as they relate to the whole idea of origins, and I wanted to revisit a couple of things. We will launch into that now.

In the early 2000s, a mockumentary program called The Future is Wild was aired on Discovery, and I found it quite interesting.  To give a synopsis of the series, it envisions a world at 5 million, 100 million, and 200 million years in the future, and it is of course based on evolutionary biology.  To be honest, it is good science fiction, and I have watched it now several times.  But, here's the big mistake it makes - it is basing its premise on evolutionary biology, and when watching the series it becomes glaring at how inconsistent it is.  So, first let us talk about evolutionary biology.

According to the traditional Darwinian scheme of evolution, life evolves from lower forms to higher forms.  The problem with The Future is Wild is that it is not consistent with that narrative.  For one thing, it seems to have a more cyclical view of time rather than a linear view, and that basically says that evolution keeps repeating like a karmic cycle over and over.  For instance, at the 5 million year mark, the earth is supposedly in another ice age, just like it supposedly entered 5 million years ago.  However, this time instead of mammoths and other creatures, the primary species are a wolverine on steroids called a "snow stalker," a large killer bird that looks eerily similar to the ancient terror bird called a "Carakiller," and HUGE aquatic birds (that are kind of cute honestly) that supplant extinct whales called "Gannettwhales."   Other creatures in this time period include an underground flightless quail called a "Spink," and odd-looking armored rodents called "Rattlebacks."  I want to first address the names they use - nothing overly creative, and it is just odd and very funny.  Granted, the "spinks" and the other critters can be kind of cute, but it ain't gonna happen despite what some "expert" who has been puffing on too much medical marijuana says.  Another aspect of this 5 million year timeline is that the last primates - a species of South American monkey called a "Babukari" - are monkeys!  I mean, in all seriousness, if evolution were so dependable shouldn't a scenario more like a real-life Planet of the Apes be playing out instead of monkeys getting hunted by 7-foot killer birds??  Seriously, if apes are still evolving, then chimps and gorillas should develop cognitive skills at that point, correct?  The creators of the program say that there was a mass extinction that killed off everything else, and these represent more "resilient" species that survived and evolved.  But, it gets stranger as the show goes on, because you will never believe what will develop superior intelligence, and we'll get to that here in a bit. 

At 100 million years, all of the ice caps have melted, and there are tepid warm seas that are only a dozen yards deep, and in them are these monster jellyfish colonies called "Ocean Phantoms," which prey on a 400-lb sea slug called a "Reef Glider."  Then, there is the Bengal Swamp, upon which roam huge 120-ton tortoises called "Toratons" and also have land-dwelling octopi called "Swampus."  In the rivers a huge electric catfish called a "Lurkfish" fries its victims with electrical charges before it eats them (in this case, it seems to have an affinity for "swampus" flesh - the catfish likes calamari on the menu apparently!).  Then, this is where the last of the mammals supposedly end their legacy too - the last living mammal is a hamster-sized critter called a "Poggle" that is farmed by monster spiders as a food source - yeah, OK!  As you can see, these "experts" had a lot of time on their hands, and when you watch the extended British version of the show, they have these scientists they consult, including a weird guy who looks like a rogue Mennonite by the name of Dr. Bruce Tiffney, and when I researched him come to find out he is more noted for a Gandalfesque wizard hat he likes to wear rather than publishing peer-reviewed work.  The caliber of "experts" they chose for this was astounding, and not in a good way - this show is definitely not meant to be taken seriously as some sort of scientific gospel, but it is creative science fiction.  But, hold onto your Tiffney wizard hats, because it gets even more bizarre as time progresses!

At the 200 million year mark, the earth is one huge continent surrounded by a huge ocean, and while most of the planet is a baking, dry desert, the coastal areas tend to be rain forests, and this is where it gets even more interesting.   For one thing, now that all the birds are dead the fish are flying in the sky, but wait till you hear what the most intelligent creature in that time period is - a squid!  These producers of this series must really have a calamari fetish, because the future rain forest has two species of land-loving squid roaming it.  The first is a six-ton monster called a "Megasquid," which looks like an eight-legged love child of an elephant and a shitaki mushroom.  The second is a little creature that lives in the trees called a "Squibbon," which supposedly is slated to evolve into the next intelligent life on earth. So, in the eyes of these experts, squid will take over the planet in 200 million years!  If I were them, I would use a less-spicy marinara sauce with my calamari when going to Olive Garden, because these guys are having some odd dreams.  

So, apes evolved into humans, yet apes are going to be facing extinction in 5 million years due to being the top menu items for giant killer birds in the Amazon?  And, mammals will die out in 100 million years, with the last one being a cute hamster being herded by huge spiders?  And, squid then become sentient beings in 200 million years?  Someone really got a few things mixed up in that story in all honesty, and thankfully God has already revealed to us his plan, and it doesn't have a thing to do with us being replaced by squid.  The circle-back mentality of the evolutionists who came up with this puts me in mind of Biden's former press secretary Jen Psaki.  It shows that evolution is inconsistent with origins, and that these guys who promote it cannot even get on the same page.  That being said, let's consider something else I watched in another documentary.

The topic of this one is a creature called an entelodont.  An entelodont was a carnivorous prehistoric pig that terrorized much of the world in the period called the Oligocene, but in recent years evolutionary biology is so flawed that it cannot decide what in hell an entelodont was, so now they have it descended from whales instead of being a prehistoric pig.  To be honest, many of these creatures they kept saying existed millions and millions of years ago keep turning up in human memory somehow, and that is what probably drives some of these self-proclaimed "experts" nuts.  For instance, as I may have mentioned before, the entelodont matches a creature in Greek mythology called the Erymanthian boar, and as for dragons, they are now known by another name - dinosaurs.  Too many accurate depictions of ancient art portraying different species of dinosaurs exist to not think they are older, but they seem to be a more recent phenomenon.  This is where evolutionary biology needs to be rejected for a more theological/philosophical-based approach called euhemerism.  A euhemerist is a person who sees in myths and legends some reality, and as a Christian euhemerist, I would view many legends and myths in the following way - a core truth somewhere lies at the base of the myth, and much of the embellishment over the years has corrupted the truth to the point that when the Enlightenment came, it rejected mythology because the embellishments were all they saw and not the core conviction that inspired the myth.  This is what I believe is the case with ancient creatures such as dinosaurs, entelodonts, and dare I say it, even Jonah's giant fish - who can deny that the possibility exists, for instance, that the fish that swallowed Jonah could have been a megalodon or something?  And, that leads me to some conclusions I have come to which make both the Bible make more sense as well as unraveling some of the inconsistency of Darwinian evolution. 

In reading the Bible, there are passages we often dismiss as being mere allegory when they may actually be an eyewitness account.  Jonah's story is obviously one of those - the well-worn identification of "Jonah and the Whale" is something we have heard countless times, and some things about it never made sense until you start looking at it from a more euhemerist perspective.  The Biblical account specifically says "fish" and not whale, for one thing, and even translators schooled in ancient Biblical languages see it.  Ancient people were not as stupid as we sometimes think they were either - I think a cursory look from an ancient man at a whale would make it evident to him that it is not just a fish, and they knew the difference.   We are sometimes arrogant in our lens of history in that we assume that man was somehow stupider in ancient times than we are now, but in reality, man has always had the same intelligence but maybe hadn't been able to dissect information like we did, but it does not mean they were stupid or lacked something.  Ancient man described what he saw based on how he could express it, and that is why if he were to come across a sauropod dinosaur or even a monster like T-Rex, it would be easy to conclude that such a creature fit the description of a dragon or other beast.  Man also could always tell the difference between a shark and a whale too, and I am sure early man understood the shark as a fish and not anything else.  Therefore, if the biggest fish that ever existed could swallow a man like a sesame seed, who is to say that Jonah didn't encounter something like a megalodon?  When we start reading Scripture like that, it starts to make sense.  And, the post-Flood change in the atmosphere - less oxygen - would have also resulted in reduced lifespans for people and reduced sizes of animals to conserve oxygen.  Basic biology and physics explain the Flood perfectly then, as well as its effects years later.  A lot more could be said about this, but you get the idea.  In other words, true science confirms true Revelation, just like the "Two Books" idea of both Aquinas and Bonaventure confirm. 

In closing, this would merit more discussion, and you will see it once I revise my Genesis study into its own book.  Years of studying these types of things has brought me to a place both scientifically and theologically.  From a scientific perspective, the overwhelming evidence is that patterns in nature point to a design, an order, and that would be called Intelligent Design, or ID.  From a theological perspective, one looks at the Genesis account, and it plainly says GOD created everything, so this is a theological position called Biblical Creationism.   The two are not mutually exclusive, but rather complimentary.  And, it really makes the circular karmic cycle of Darwinian evolution look more silly.  Thanks for allowing me to share, and looking forward to visiting again soon. 

Object of Worship

 I wanted to reflect on something interesting today, as I was reading our parish bulletin I got yesterday at Mass and it inspired something.  I often get these little sparks of inspiration by bulletins or homilies at Mass, and this one is no exception.  If your parish is like the one I attend, it is standard that the parish priest does a short reflection at the beginning of the bulletin for parishioners to sort of ruminate on.  Many parishioners won't read it of course, and in many cases bulletins end up in the trash can after Mass, but I have kept every bulletin since I first became a Christian in 1986, and that is almost 40 years worth of bulletins I have in several GBC-bound volumes.  I consider church bulletins a documentation of personal history, and like calendars, my journal books, and other things, I save them because they may come in handy one day.   And, unlike many parishioners in a typical parish, I do read mine and glean what I can.  The reason Fr. Michael's reflection got my attention this week though is that he confirmed something I have said many times over the years, and that is why I want to expand on his thoughts and add some of my own. 

Fr. Michael noted the writings of a major figure of American Catholic history, Archbishop Charles Chaput, the former Archbishop of Philadelphia.  Archbishop Chaput was a very orthodox and insightful writer whose material I am quite familiar with, and the fact our parish priest utilized him in this reflection also reaffirms the fact that we are going to a sound, orthodox parish too.  There are two points Fr. Michael summarized from his reading of Archbishop Chaput, and they are this:

1. Idolatry is the oldest and most persistent sin of humanity

2. There is no such thing as an actual "unbeliever," in that the person who claims this is a particular kind of believer in something.

A third point made is this:

3. Despite man's many futile attempts over the centuries, man is not a god, and no window-dressing of ideology will make him one.

The reason this is important has to do with an assertion I made some time back, and that is that there is no such thing as a true atheist.  Man has a capacity to worship, and something has to be the object of that worship, even if it self.  It is a desire God has placed into mankind to draw him closer to him, but sin and concupiscence have corrupted that to the degree that man denies the true God and wants to find a substitute, which is always inferior.  A substitute object of worship, even if it is the self, is idolatry, which is why it is the oldest and most persistent sin.  That was what the lie of the serpent in the Garden was about in Genesis 3 - trying to usurp the rightful place of a true God with an inferior substitution.  So, what does this look like then?  Let me give a short illustration.

When many people think of idolatry, they think of a statue of some grotesque deity that sits prominently in a temple that you pray and sacrifice to.  But, is it though?  The focus of idolatry doesn't have to be a literal idol, but it can be something else that grabs one's attention.  For some, it is mind-altering addictions, for others it is money and success.  For still others, it is their own reflection in the mirror.  For others still, it is a misguided passion for something - a sport, a hobby, or anything else that a person devotes a huge portion of their money, attention, and other resources to.  In Fr. Michael's reflection, he deals with another more insidious type of idolatry, one that is not seen as much, and based on his reading of Archbishop Chaput's writings, he identifies this as the heresy of gnosticism.  

Gnosticism is perhaps the world's oldest heresy, and it is also one of the most insidious ones too.  There are even instances when it gets intermingled with Christian theology.  At the core of this doctrine is the idea that there is a special, privileged "knowledge" that promises to create a new man, a utopian society, and self-sustaining, self-redemptive humankind.  It is the oldest lie in the book in all honesty, as it goes back to the serpent's lie in Genesis 3 - "Oh, just eat this and you will become God!"  Gnosticism can be religious in nature, or it can be window-dressed in secularism, but it is still what it is at its core - a deception.  Manifestations of it range from strains of it being wrapped in religious language all the way to commercial jingles, but it is all about the same thing.  Let me take a couple of religious examples that have infected Christianity for centuries, and then I want to briefly address their secular equivalents. 

There are two polarizing forms of gnosticism that manifest in Christianity at times, and both of them are equally bad.   One comes from Fundamentalism, and it is one I dealt with a couple of weeks back.  This says that we are the "chosen people," and only through reciting our formulae, believing our way, and doing what we say will you get true salvation.  It excludes anyone who doesn't follow the script, and as I said earlier, the end result for someone who holds this view is complete isolation in a hell of their own making that God allows them to have.  This type of Christianized gnosticism entails a language - annoying phrases like "in the natural" and a denial of the created order as God's gift to mankind, usually wrapped in some sanctimonious Elizabethan English phraseology, characterize such gnosticism.  It is in contradiction to what God said himself about creation, and it also violates what God was trying to teach Peter in Acts 10 with the descending sheet - "do not call unclean what I have cleansed."  People who hold to such convictions are generally wrapped up in a form of "humble pride," in that they think they are the "spiritual elite" and that everyone else is lost and hellbound because they don't believe exactly the same thing.  They have made themselves a god in their own eyes and in doing so, they slap the true God in the face.  This type of Fundamentalist gnosticism is an egregious sin and should be soundly rejected by any orthodox Christian, because it is not truly Christian.  

A second type of Christianized gnosticism comes from your typical televangelist who teaches this whole "word of faith" nonsense, also called "name it and claim it."  They too claim some "special revelation" and use the trappings of wealth to embody it as evidence that it is true.  In reality though, what this does is deny that there was a Fall, and the reality of sin and death after that fall.  It says that if someone is poor, has an illness (I have even heard people who have just a cold condemned as a matter of fact), or if any other challenge in life happens, then that person must not be a "true believer" and therefore lacks faith.  This is a cruel and narcissistic spirituality that denies reality, shatters empathy, and strikes at the core of Jesus's own teachings.  And, what is sad is that it is not just outright "word of faith" proponents that talk like this, but it has infected Evangelicalism on a wider scale.  To give an example, let me tell you about what happened to me once.  As you all may know, I faced a serious set of challenges last year that really almost caused me to lose everything.  At the time, I worked as a freelance paralegal for a guy who professed Christianity, but his true colors came out when someone was faced with a challenge.  Although this guy did end up lending me some funds that helped, he did so in a condescending, cold manner that did not reflect true Christianity - he mocked my doctoral degree (which I had just earned) and said that I didn't need to rely on anyone because a "real man" deals with things themselves and doesn't seek help.  Honestly, I never saw anything about that in the Gospels, but this is where unfortunately Evangelicalism meets an extreme form of "Christian nationalism" and the result is not pretty. Although a person like this prays and "acts spiritual," at their core they are secularist and view the world through a quasi-gnostic lens that strips them of any compassion and empathy.  Fact is, sometimes we face challenges in life, and while it is good to have a fighting spirit to overcome those, at the same time it is not a bad thing to ask for help when we need to, because we are still limited in our capacity as human beings and none of us has all the answers to everything.  In all honesty, because this particular employer chose to kick me while I was down, I no longer work with or associate with him, and I am hoping he is somehow dealt with by the Holy Spirit to change his attitude because based on his own story he should know better.  This guy was in prison, and he forgets if it wasn't for the compassion and encouragement of others, he may not be where he is today either.  Attitudes like this are one reason I am not an Evangelical Protestant myself anymore, as the glaring inconsistencies of a lot of so-called Christians were just a little much to deal with.  It is also one reason why over the years I have stressed the importance of the personal testimony and to never forget where one comes from, because it gives true humility and always reminds us that had it not been for the grace of God working in us, our lives may have ended up a lot different.  And, that is also the message we should witness to the struggling, and unless we do, we miss a vital part of our Christianity. 

The late Orthodox theologian Fr. Alexander Schmemann once said that "secularism is the absence of man as a worshipping being."  I understand what he said, but that isn't the full picture - I would say that secularism is the misplacing of true worship, as it makes something inferior and subject to decay the focus of worship instead of God.  And, it does so in that quasi-gnostic way that Fr. Michael points out - it often entails some "secrets to success" and "privileged information" that the one who possesses it thinks they have special status for possessing.  There are no true "secrets to success," but rather success is based on two things - commitment and perseverance.  The third factor - total submission to God - is what makes both of these possible.  As the late Catholic theologian Romano Guardini notes, the whole "gateway petition" to the prayer Jesus taught us, the Our Father, is four words "Thy will be done."  There is no secret here and no magic elixir - rely on God, and use what abilities he gave us, and success happens.  What will this success look like?  It is different for everyone.  It may not entail great wealth, or an exalted position of power - as a matter of fact, success for some may be just coming to terms with something that makes their life fuller.  Again, there is no mystery, no secret, and no formula - it is spelled out plainly and given freely in the words of Holy Scripture.  God created us all as unique individuals, and following his will for our lives is what is key.  And, our destiny and objectives are not going to be identical to others, nor should be try to measure up to a bar set for someone else.  Rather, we use some of their stories to maybe inspire us to reach the place God wants us to be in.  

Looking at it from that perspective, let's go back to "object of worship."  It is so easy in our own lives to get so caught up in agendas and the demands of life that we become slaves to routine and often do so at the expense of our devotion to God.  Being successful in life is not a bad thing at all, and it is something worthy to strive for.  But, when the object of our success is not God and is focused on something else, it becomes an object of worship, an idol.  It is this we need to guard against, because in the pursuit of worldly success we need to remember that this is not our "forever home," and once we die that success will have completed its cycle.  It won't mean a lot once we are lying in a casket or a cremation urn somewhere, and although in itself this type of success is not necessarily a bad thing, it is how we prioritize it that makes the difference. We are not God - God is God, and like Fr. Michael says, no secret knowledge will change that.  Man was created as a worshipping being, but it is the focus of our worship that matters, not the fact we do worship.  A true atheist, as noted earlier, doesn't exist - an atheist is ultimately a worshipper of self if anything, because they become the ultimate authority they answer to.  So, despite how much someone who claims to be atheist says they don't believe in God, our question is "what god don't you believe in?"  The person calling themselves atheist therefore is either by definition non-Christian or possibly even passionately anti-Christian, but they don't deny a "god" per se - they just worship either one of their own making, or themselves.  For a self-proclaimed atheist to claim otherwise would be fooling themselves. 

Thank you for allowing me to share today, and looking forward to sharing more with you again soon. 

Reflection on Family

 I am wanting to begin to talk about a proverbial elephant in the room which has been there for some time, and there are many complexities and levels to it that make it somewhat challenging to talk about.  The issue of course is family, specifically my family.  The idea here is not to be accusative toward anyone or to even disparage any members of my own family, but I want to just address a few things that need to be clarified.  

To begin with, a few points need to be established.  First, criticism of family attitudes and family members by no means indicates hatred or rejection, but at times they may become serious enough to merit discussion.  Second, no one is perfect, and as we live in a fallen world, mistakes happen and you try to deal with them and move on.  Third, the present-day society we live in is so atomized that often close family ties we had in the past no longer exist, and with many older members dying off, it means that some younger family members don't know each other as well as they should.  That is tragic also.  Finally, the passing of older family members may be a mixed blessing.  On one hand, their demise means a connection to the legacy is gone now, and it also may indicate that some valuable family stories may be lost for eternity if they are not recorded in some fashion.  On the other hand though, some older generations tended to harbor some bad things that maybe their descendants don't reflect or share, and perhaps a lot of the tension and division in many families may be due to the actions of those older members.  Given that is the case, the smart thing is to to do the old "digest the meat and spit out the gristle" approach to their legacies.  I am going to try to navigate this with the delicacy of a surgeon's scalpel, but for some of my relatives who read this, it may not be pleasant, yet it needs to be said. 

I feel that the last point - the legacies of deceased older family members - needs to be addressed first.  Over the years in our own family (especially on my mother's side), there has been a drifting apart in our relationships.  At the present time for instance, where I live in Baltimore I perhaps may have a dozen to 20 blood relatives within 15 miles of where I am sitting at home right now, but I neither hear nor see anything of any of them.  Some of these are cousins I haven't even seen since I was a kid myself - almost 50 years! - yet they are within a few miles of me.  Then, with a few of them, when I do actually talk to them on social media or something, they make some nasty jokes and inappropriate chatter that I cannot really understand - some of these people haven't seen me in 50 years, yet they make comments like that?  I have come to the conclusion that limited communication with some of those people may be in my best interest, because they have made it clear that they don't really value me as a family member, and do not have a desire to do so.  Therefore, in those cases it is better to just get on with my own life and let them get on with theirs.  If they want to visit or talk, I conclude, they know where I am.  

One other thing my mother's family has been particularly problematic with is for some reason they like to lay blame for whatever beef they had with my mother on my shoulders.  In all honesty, I have little to do with it, and whatever issues they had with Mom or anyone else they should have addressed with her instead of projecting it on me.  One thing they always love to do as a matter of fact is quite egregious to me, and it's taking a lot to even talk about it here.  In her younger years, Mom liked to drink, and she used to do so quite frequently.  Unfortunately, that gave her a reputation with some in the family.  However, that was 40 years ago, and they failed to understand what Mom was like in her later years.  Mom was by no means perfect, but I knew her better than a lot of her critics among family.  Beginning about 40 years ago, Mom began to get focus in her life as she took on a role as a live-in caregiver for elderly folks, and not only did she find it rewarding but she also gained a great degree of personal growth from it.  And, in all honesty, the families of the people she cared for ended up being more like family to me personally than my blood relatives did - I am still on good terms with many of them today, and I have a lot of fond memories of them.  In the years that followed, Mom ended up working very successfully as a CNA once she moved to Florida, and even after she retired in her early 60s, she continued to keep a more disciplined life than she used to.  Even as her health declined, I was there 3 years ago before she passed and witnessed her coming to terms with things in her life and making peace for herself, and in all honesty I was quite proud of her for doing so.  The last 10 years or so of her life, as a matter of fact, were spent staying with me, and I took care of her when no one else would.  During that ten years, Mom and I talked a lot about many things, and I have fond memories of sitting over coffee and just talking with her - there are days now I miss those moments.  When Mom finally succumbed to heart disease in March 2022, she was I believe in a good place, and the closure I got from that was that I was there when no one else was for her.  I got a lot of flak from other judgmental relatives for that over the years, but you know something, I don't regret a thing.  Everyone needs someone with them, and Mom had me and I was happy to be there for her.  She was able to leave this life with a good home, and I made sure she was put to rest in the way she would have wanted.  And, any imperfections she had, in my opinion, died with her.  I had some rather mean-spirited relatives of hers saying stupid things when she passed, including those stupid family rumors that she drank herself to death, etc.  Many of these people did not know her, and they had no right to really say anything.  But, their reckoning is coming too one day, and God help them when it does. 

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for other relatives.  I had another relative pass away earlier last year, and a distant cousin who I never met in person acted very judgmental about it.  This particular relative is into family history, and they contacted me years ago based on that.  However, over the years they have also become sort of critical and condescending when I interact with them on social media, and despite never even meeting me in person, this individual all of a sudden has an opinion about me.  Having practiced as a paralegal as well as having a Ph.D. now, both of those have taught me a couple of things about how information is communicated.  For one, research and due diligence needs to be exercised before coming to any conclusion.  A good paralegal for instance who knows how to research the facts of a case can make or break an attorney's presentation of the case.  Also, from my doctoral education I learned that primary sources are key to establishing sound theses, and without the primary source material one cannot exercise good scholarship. Some family members would do well to exercise similar techniques when they open their mouths to repeat gossip and hearsay. I love how some relatives - these being 4th and 5th cousins - like making snap judgments about me and others without knowing a damn thing about anything.  The relative in question was noted in life for being a pathological liar, and they had this distant cousin fooled for many years with their interpretation of things, and the distant cousin was frankly too lazy to do due diligence and get the whole story.  To this day, that same cousin seems to be in judgment of me, and as far as I am concerned, let them - the truth will always prevail anyway, and in time the cousin will see how stupid they really were when it hits them full-on like an oncoming freight train.  It may not even happen in my lifetime or theirs, but at some point provided the Second Coming doesn't happen soon someone will uncover the truth about things.  That is a consolation that helps me to navigate these complex cloverleafs of family gossip and hearsay. 

That pretty much summarizes the issue as far as that is concerned, and again, much of this rests more with my mother's side of the family than my dad's side.  Although over the years Dad and I didn't have the greatest relationship, his family has nonetheless been quite loving and good to me, and they do not have as much of the crazy family drama and atomization that my mom's folks do. This doesn't mean they are perfect or anything, but overall my experiences with them have been good.  In recent years I have gotten very close to a number of family on Dad's side, and it has been really a blessing to finally get to know them.  Ironically, due to the fact that Mom had custody of me when I was a kid, I never got to know then many of my relatives on Dad's side like I wanted to as I never was around them as much.  Yet, throughout much of my childhood I was around many of my cousins, aunts, and uncles on my mother's side, and now they are the ones who are atomized more.  As I grow older myself though, I am starting to realize something, and that is what I wanted to talk about now.

My family dynamic has changed in recent years in some unusual ways.  For instance, despite Barbara and I being divorced, she is more like family to me still than many of my own blood relatives.  Also, in due time I may have the chance to sort of refine my own legacy and write a new chapter, as there is something that I will share at some point that may make that possible.  There have been instances in life where a family legacy is preserved not by continuing old chapters, but by starting new ones.  It may mean the family dynamic changes, and that is OK.  Not everything can be as it was, and in some cases it is better to let some things die and be buried.  A new chapter, I feel, is now being written in my own life personally, and it is just in the opening paragraphs at this point.  Letting God direct it as it unfolds is integral, and in time I will share a few things which are part of that new chapter as right now is not the time to do so.

Thank you for allowing me to share today, and I will be talking more soon.