I know, before being told, that treatment of such a topic for such a small essay as will follow is being way too presumptuous. I was taught in graduate school that one must always delimit. But I believe that sometimes one needs to be jolted into consideration of ideas beyond the prosaic before being forced into the mold of delimitation. True, you can’t eat an elephant at a sitting; you have to take one bite at a time over time; but also true, you have to have the elephant to eat it. Good advice that I have tried to integrate into my life is that we must ever keep in mind the ‘big picture’ and not continually get “caught up in the thick of thin things.”
So, ahead with boldness. Consider the task of civilizing man. Not mankind. Just man—I’m talking about the gender ‘man,’ ‘maleness,’ much more so than ‘woman.’ But first, a little background:
I was, and still am—at least in my own mind—a teacher. For much of my life I taught mostly boys. I taught physical education—at least that is what the curriculum guide called it. But I knew that what I really was trying to teach was the whole boy—his mind and heart and spirit—as well as his physical body. I never did teach just ‘football,’ or ‘basketball,’ or ‘gymnastics’ or even physical fitness; these were simply the means, the media, the activities, through which I tried to teach the more important aspects of self-discipline, hard work, respect for self and others, rules on the field and in life; in short, I endeavored to teach character. I knew that boys would need it if they ever hoped to be successful with women, with their future vocation, with society and their place in the world, with themselves, and ultimately with God.
Therefore, here are just a few provocative ideas to get you started regarding man vis-a-vis women and man’s need for civilization. I will simply throw them out with no attempt at closure or even persuasion. That is up to you.
• I believe that the gender ‘man’ thinks fundamentally differently than the gender ‘woman’. Thinkers and writers have explored these differences from the beginning of mankind upon this earth. One example that explores this idea is a book popular probably thirty years ago: Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus (by John Gray, Ph.D). Men view things differently than do women. The earliest example is the response difference between a man—Adam—and his wife—Eve: Adam’s response to his Maker—‘I, me’—as contrasted to Eve’s—‘we, our’. Adam needed Eve to be his ‘help meet,’ meaning his finisher, to help him be fulfilled and complete. They were commanded to be ‘one.’ Adam was to provide and to protect; Eve was to refine and give life. Both were to work together in love.
• Men are inherently more violent than are women. Look at their recreations. Moreover, the proportion of men in prison to women in prison is remarkable. Why is that? I have read the review and heard an interview with author Scott Spencer about his new book, Man in the Woods which apparently addresses this assertion in a very insightful way. I look forward to reading the book.
• The ‘natural man’ (not necessarily, in my own mind, the ‘natural woman’) is an ‘enemy to God.’ I agree with this scriptural concept of indicting fallen ‘mankind,’ but ‘how so’ might this particularly be with the gender man? Could there be a gender difference?
• Governments are needed primarily to keep men in line. Therefore women as well as men are needed in government; their perspective is needed. I’m much in favor of women being men's counselors but not necessarily their head.
“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man.”
(Alexander Pope)
“Trust not yourself, but your defects to know, make use of every friend and every foe.”
(Alexander Pope)
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Footprints
“He who would leave footprints on the sands of time should wear his work shoes.” (LeGrand Richards)
I had this thought in my lexicon years before I had ever thought to do a weblog or leave some kind of memoir to my children or to my eternal record which I believe will be noted in each person’s heavenly ‘Book of Life.’ It was reinforced when I was courting my wife Cheryl. She sent me a card addressed to Wims. Queried as to what this (hopefully) endearing moniker meant she said, “It means that you have an invitation to Walk In My Soul.” Her soul. It implied to me that I, of course, had an obligation to walk carefully for the soul of another is sacred ground. I would have to walk carefully around the flowers she had planted and nurtured in the garden she had planted in the decades of her life before me. I have learned that you don’t want to clumsily leave footprints in the wrong places.
I have now done well over one hundred little essays in Omnium-Gatherum-Millerum. A few, I hope, have left footprints or a trail that others may choose to follow. Further, I hope that some of these essays, the deeply felt and well-crafted ones, have left the reader with a letter or two of my spiritual signature—a quality of my personality that remains, influenced by the giants in my life who have left deep footprints in my own soul and a path for me to follow. Following in their footsteps I hope that I may leave something that resonates with my readers that may give voice to some of the inchoate thoughts that they may have had.
What I do not want is the indictment that Tennyson (in a poem in the ‘Memoir’) gave to
“Your doctors, and your proctors, and your deans…
Against you, you that do profess to teach
And teach us nothing, feeding not the heart.”
A writer is identified in quality (and sometimes quantity) by his recurrent motifs. Like, I suppose, everybody, I seem to come back to familiar themes or more accurately variations upon a theme. Sometimes I come back too often, my wife tells me, especially to favorite stories or experiences or scriptures in my teaching. Of course she is probably right. But the fact remains that a speech, a sermon, an essay, a Sunday school lesson, even a conversation is usually forgotten, but what remains is the tone, the mood, the atmosphere, the feeling that is engendered or stirred up. The theme of my life—my values and aim—are hopefully emerging in these offerings, and I hope the good kernel that ‘feeds the heart’ comes to fruition and then the reader may blow the chaff away with a breath of charity.
So, I suppose I am all of a piece. As a daughter-in-law once said to me after reading something I had written, “That is so YOU.” I didn’t ask whether she felt it to be good; I hope it was. But some things you don’t ask.
I had this thought in my lexicon years before I had ever thought to do a weblog or leave some kind of memoir to my children or to my eternal record which I believe will be noted in each person’s heavenly ‘Book of Life.’ It was reinforced when I was courting my wife Cheryl. She sent me a card addressed to Wims. Queried as to what this (hopefully) endearing moniker meant she said, “It means that you have an invitation to Walk In My Soul.” Her soul. It implied to me that I, of course, had an obligation to walk carefully for the soul of another is sacred ground. I would have to walk carefully around the flowers she had planted and nurtured in the garden she had planted in the decades of her life before me. I have learned that you don’t want to clumsily leave footprints in the wrong places.
I have now done well over one hundred little essays in Omnium-Gatherum-Millerum. A few, I hope, have left footprints or a trail that others may choose to follow. Further, I hope that some of these essays, the deeply felt and well-crafted ones, have left the reader with a letter or two of my spiritual signature—a quality of my personality that remains, influenced by the giants in my life who have left deep footprints in my own soul and a path for me to follow. Following in their footsteps I hope that I may leave something that resonates with my readers that may give voice to some of the inchoate thoughts that they may have had.
What I do not want is the indictment that Tennyson (in a poem in the ‘Memoir’) gave to
“Your doctors, and your proctors, and your deans…
Against you, you that do profess to teach
And teach us nothing, feeding not the heart.”
A writer is identified in quality (and sometimes quantity) by his recurrent motifs. Like, I suppose, everybody, I seem to come back to familiar themes or more accurately variations upon a theme. Sometimes I come back too often, my wife tells me, especially to favorite stories or experiences or scriptures in my teaching. Of course she is probably right. But the fact remains that a speech, a sermon, an essay, a Sunday school lesson, even a conversation is usually forgotten, but what remains is the tone, the mood, the atmosphere, the feeling that is engendered or stirred up. The theme of my life—my values and aim—are hopefully emerging in these offerings, and I hope the good kernel that ‘feeds the heart’ comes to fruition and then the reader may blow the chaff away with a breath of charity.
So, I suppose I am all of a piece. As a daughter-in-law once said to me after reading something I had written, “That is so YOU.” I didn’t ask whether she felt it to be good; I hope it was. But some things you don’t ask.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Rats
I think, for the third and final time, that I’ve got rid of the rats in our attic. But I have come to the age, and prudence, and maybe some old rat, dictates that it might be better for me to say, ‘We shall see.’
I have had a running battle for many years with the rats. I have taken out a few by poison; two by a .22 rifle used at night with a flashlight; six by an electronic device; and a couple by conventional trap baited with blood. Our cat has caught one or two and lost a fight to one last year. A few months ago I was driven to discharge four shells from my 12 gauge double barrel into their tree nest outside our bedroom window and that helped for a month or so. I know they are still out there but at least they are not in here.
This reminds me of a Robert Browning poem, ‘The Pied Piper of Hamelin,’ 1842):
‘Rats!
They fought the dogs and killed the cats.
And bit the babies in the cradles,
And ate the cheeses out of the vats,
And licked the soup from the cook’ own ladles,
Split open the kegs of salted sprats,
Made nests inside men’s Sunday hats,
And even spoiled the women’s chats
By drowning their speaking
With shrieking and squeaking
In fifty different sharps and flats.’
So, while enjoying my respite from the rats, I will conclude by quoting another of Robert Browning’s wonderful poems: (‘Pippa Passes’, 1841)
‘The year’s at the spring,
And day’s at the morn;
Morning’s at seven;
The hill-side’s dew-pearl’d;
The lark’s on the wing;
The snail’s on the thorn;
God’s in His heaven –
All’s right with the world!’
I have had a running battle for many years with the rats. I have taken out a few by poison; two by a .22 rifle used at night with a flashlight; six by an electronic device; and a couple by conventional trap baited with blood. Our cat has caught one or two and lost a fight to one last year. A few months ago I was driven to discharge four shells from my 12 gauge double barrel into their tree nest outside our bedroom window and that helped for a month or so. I know they are still out there but at least they are not in here.
This reminds me of a Robert Browning poem, ‘The Pied Piper of Hamelin,’ 1842):
‘Rats!
They fought the dogs and killed the cats.
And bit the babies in the cradles,
And ate the cheeses out of the vats,
And licked the soup from the cook’ own ladles,
Split open the kegs of salted sprats,
Made nests inside men’s Sunday hats,
And even spoiled the women’s chats
By drowning their speaking
With shrieking and squeaking
In fifty different sharps and flats.’
So, while enjoying my respite from the rats, I will conclude by quoting another of Robert Browning’s wonderful poems: (‘Pippa Passes’, 1841)
‘The year’s at the spring,
And day’s at the morn;
Morning’s at seven;
The hill-side’s dew-pearl’d;
The lark’s on the wing;
The snail’s on the thorn;
God’s in His heaven –
All’s right with the world!’
Monday, October 17, 2011
Holier Than Thou
As a presidential candidate debate watcher and then as a brief follow-up political analysis watcher (I can endure only so much) I have been disgusted by the negative, close-minded and prejudicial attitude of numerous commentators—and some candidates—who seem to glory in ‘drawing blood’ from those who would be public servants for our country.
Interestingly, it is frequently the candidate who distances himself/herself most markedly from the pack by taking a strong moral stance who becomes the target for the critics. It seems that if a candidate is ‘too good’ that he/she is set up for the ‘slings and arrows’ of those who would want to see them brought down. It seems especially galling if the candidate appears to be what the critic labels ‘holier than thou.’ They can then dismiss the candidate as being unqualified simply by virtue of the label they affix. I guess, by their twisted logic, they feel that to be ‘holy’ is worse than being ‘base.’ They imply that you can’t take such a candidate seriously; they are not ‘one of us.’
True.
The way I view this is that a really good person is a reproach to the critic who himself probably has behaviors or tendencies that he tries to impute to others. In school it was the kids who were often in trouble or who were low-achievers who labeled the higher achievers as ‘goody-two-shoes.’ Jesus identified such persons as liars and hypocrites, whited sepulchers.
My wife pointed out that it seems to be the same type of behavior exhibited by lobsters that are thrown into a pot of water; the ones who have the skill or dexterity to start to climb out of the hot water are dragged back down in by the others below them.
As for me, I welcome being in the company of one ‘holier than me,’ or more skilled, or more erudite, or more charitable, or any number of virtues. These are the people, the noble and great ones, who inspire me to want to do better.
I’ll vote for this kind of candidate.
Interestingly, it is frequently the candidate who distances himself/herself most markedly from the pack by taking a strong moral stance who becomes the target for the critics. It seems that if a candidate is ‘too good’ that he/she is set up for the ‘slings and arrows’ of those who would want to see them brought down. It seems especially galling if the candidate appears to be what the critic labels ‘holier than thou.’ They can then dismiss the candidate as being unqualified simply by virtue of the label they affix. I guess, by their twisted logic, they feel that to be ‘holy’ is worse than being ‘base.’ They imply that you can’t take such a candidate seriously; they are not ‘one of us.’
True.
The way I view this is that a really good person is a reproach to the critic who himself probably has behaviors or tendencies that he tries to impute to others. In school it was the kids who were often in trouble or who were low-achievers who labeled the higher achievers as ‘goody-two-shoes.’ Jesus identified such persons as liars and hypocrites, whited sepulchers.
My wife pointed out that it seems to be the same type of behavior exhibited by lobsters that are thrown into a pot of water; the ones who have the skill or dexterity to start to climb out of the hot water are dragged back down in by the others below them.
As for me, I welcome being in the company of one ‘holier than me,’ or more skilled, or more erudite, or more charitable, or any number of virtues. These are the people, the noble and great ones, who inspire me to want to do better.
I’ll vote for this kind of candidate.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Science and Religion
I recently came upon this interesting testimony from an internationally known scientist.
Testimony of John S. Lewis, professor emeritus in chemistry and professor of Planetary Sciences at MIT (from website, Mormon Scholars Testify):
“I was also familiar with the literature of [contemporary traditional Christianity’s] “scientific creationism,” which I found to be appallingly bad, full of glaring factual blunders and astonishing lapses of logic. I found their personal interpretations of scripture to be indefensible in the face of overwhelming evidence. Their mindset seemed to be that science was the opposite of religion; that their interpretations of scripture were right and anyone who disagreed with them must be evil, intent on destroying religion.”
“But the geological record is as much the work of God as the scriptures are. They together constitute two independent witnesses, satisfying the Old Testament requirement that two or more independent witnesses are required to attest to truth. That the two witnesses, science and scripture, should see different things is no surprise. After all, your own two eyes see different scenes; each eye sees things the other does not see, but by combining the witness of your two eyes you can see in depth, something neither eye can do alone. To assume that one witness is correct and the other is lying is to lose all perspective. It is to become half-blind. As the Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin expressed it, ‘Science and religion are two complementary faces of one and the same underlying reality.’ ”
“I see no conflict between science and religion. I see many conflicts between the misunderstandings of science and the flawed interpretation of scripture of men who lack both scientific knowledge and guidance by the Holy Spirit. I invite any person who desires to strengthen his understanding and testimony of creation to study both the scientific and scriptural evidence prayerfully, with the goal of learning and understanding. Properly understood, this study will provide you with a rich and deep perspective.”
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with its long tradition of free inquiry and of individuals prayerfully testing every point of doctrine for themselves, is fully compatible with the scientific method.”
~~~~~~~~
It is the doctrine of my Church, and my own personal conviction, that there is no conflict between true religion (divinely revealed truths) and true science (a method or approach that gathers facts and tests hypotheses with an object of trying to determine utility and expand knowledge) and that one need not be afraid of the other. Both have—or should have—a common objective of determining truth. The problem is where one accepts unproven scientific theories or inferences as ultimate facts and unwittingly builds or promotes a life built on a foundation of sand.
Testimony of John S. Lewis, professor emeritus in chemistry and professor of Planetary Sciences at MIT (from website, Mormon Scholars Testify):
“I was also familiar with the literature of [contemporary traditional Christianity’s] “scientific creationism,” which I found to be appallingly bad, full of glaring factual blunders and astonishing lapses of logic. I found their personal interpretations of scripture to be indefensible in the face of overwhelming evidence. Their mindset seemed to be that science was the opposite of religion; that their interpretations of scripture were right and anyone who disagreed with them must be evil, intent on destroying religion.”
“But the geological record is as much the work of God as the scriptures are. They together constitute two independent witnesses, satisfying the Old Testament requirement that two or more independent witnesses are required to attest to truth. That the two witnesses, science and scripture, should see different things is no surprise. After all, your own two eyes see different scenes; each eye sees things the other does not see, but by combining the witness of your two eyes you can see in depth, something neither eye can do alone. To assume that one witness is correct and the other is lying is to lose all perspective. It is to become half-blind. As the Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin expressed it, ‘Science and religion are two complementary faces of one and the same underlying reality.’ ”
“I see no conflict between science and religion. I see many conflicts between the misunderstandings of science and the flawed interpretation of scripture of men who lack both scientific knowledge and guidance by the Holy Spirit. I invite any person who desires to strengthen his understanding and testimony of creation to study both the scientific and scriptural evidence prayerfully, with the goal of learning and understanding. Properly understood, this study will provide you with a rich and deep perspective.”
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with its long tradition of free inquiry and of individuals prayerfully testing every point of doctrine for themselves, is fully compatible with the scientific method.”
~~~~~~~~
It is the doctrine of my Church, and my own personal conviction, that there is no conflict between true religion (divinely revealed truths) and true science (a method or approach that gathers facts and tests hypotheses with an object of trying to determine utility and expand knowledge) and that one need not be afraid of the other. Both have—or should have—a common objective of determining truth. The problem is where one accepts unproven scientific theories or inferences as ultimate facts and unwittingly builds or promotes a life built on a foundation of sand.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Texting
I don’t text.
I do, however, try to keep up somewhat with what is happening in my world.
I sometimes read the weblog of FOCUS ON THE FAMILY and came upon an article, a few weeks ago, ‘Texting Lingo Every Parent Needs to Know’. The article really opened my eyes – especially the 156 comments that were posted in response.
I guess I have truly lagged in this area of electronic communication. If you are a parent of a child I would guess between the ages of about 8 and 40 I suppose you have to deal with this issue of texting either to monitor it or to know that it is happening and is probably out of your control. The Pew Research group apparently recently concluded that “most teens prefer texting to talking—with a third of them sending over 100 messages a day.” I have concluded that this is a very big deal for parents to add to their plate.
After sampling a number of the comments that educated me to what is going on (some very negative things) I selected a few of the parents’ comments that might help some of my readers who have children:
I keep coming back to this . . . my children need technology in the culture they have been born into. They have to develop discernment and discipline in order to live with these tools and be able to still have righteous and pure lives. They won't be under my roof for forever and will need to be able to stand firm wherever they may be. So . . . that is where my efforts need to be concentrated. Standing firm on one's convictions has never been easy. But way too many times, young people get a free pass from their parents and other adults in their lives excusing their immaturity and poor choices as "Kids will be kids", "That's teenagers for you." Yep - when the bar is placed that low - it sure will be.
We've decided as a family to avoid the entire texting craze...while we have cell phones, none of us text (including mom and dad). Our kids are proud to tell people, "We don't text...we prefer real conversation." They've seen how it has affected teen relationships and how much they hate it when friends are so busy texting people who aren't there, that they miss out on face-to-face conversation with the people who ARE there. We aren't anti-technology, just anti-texting. It seems to be a fad that has been detrimental to grammar and spelling, and detrimental to relationships, so we've chosen to be counter-cultural and say "no".
Texting and text lingo is just another advance in real-time communication. This type of tech talk will not going away any time soon; it will most certainly develop into something even faster and more efficient over time. We believe it's a perfectly acceptable form of communication when used responsibly. For my husband and I, it saves us a tremendous amount of time as we converse with others on business issues or send quick notes back and forth. No face time has been lost because of it and we are much more productive as it eliminates the time we have to spend hanging on the phone having empty conversations. As far as children are concerned - it should be monitored like television shows, computer usage, language, or anything else. There must be boundaries, expectations, and accountability.
I simply cannot devote half of my day everyday to look over their shoulders and follow-up after them on every forum, website, or texting conversation they have encountered. I do try to do some of it each day though - at least they know that I do care and will be watching them somehow, somewhere! But they also know that God sees them 24/7 - no hiding anything there!
Our daughters have cellphones but like other parents, we let them know that they are a privilege to managed responsibly. We have set clear boundaries around how, when, and where, etc. For example, phones are not allowed at the dinner table. They must be left on the counter or in the other room. (Parents lead by example.) Phones are left on the kitchen counter at 9:00 pm on school nights, 10:00 pm otherwise. As parents, we must be given the passwords to their phones and they are aware that we may conduct random checks on them at any given time. One thing we do not allow is any picture-mail or pictures by texting. They understand that this is for their protection – we may trust them but not everyone who may send them a text message may be as responsible. All it takes is one wayward foolish teen to text/sext an unwanted picture and the one receiving is still held accountable and you can’t erase a picture in your head. Therefore, no picture-mail. If there are any concerns with how they communicate with us or others (ie: bad attitudes with us, family, teachers, or inappropriate texts w/friends), phone service is easily managed at the account level – where we can turn texting on/off, data on/off, manage allowable numbers or suspend service all together. We do not get into “tug of wars” with “hand me your phone”, etc. We just go to the internet and manage the account. Because they value their communication privileges, it is a rare occasion that we have to enforce the consequences and when we do, they respond with very sincere and quick repentance.
I'm just having to approach this all with faith. God loves my children, my children love God. They seek to follow Him each day as best they can. Because He loves them more than I ever could, I have to trust that he will convict them if they are going off-course and help them as they seek to get back onto the path of righteousness.
I do, however, try to keep up somewhat with what is happening in my world.
I sometimes read the weblog of FOCUS ON THE FAMILY and came upon an article, a few weeks ago, ‘Texting Lingo Every Parent Needs to Know’. The article really opened my eyes – especially the 156 comments that were posted in response.
I guess I have truly lagged in this area of electronic communication. If you are a parent of a child I would guess between the ages of about 8 and 40 I suppose you have to deal with this issue of texting either to monitor it or to know that it is happening and is probably out of your control. The Pew Research group apparently recently concluded that “most teens prefer texting to talking—with a third of them sending over 100 messages a day.” I have concluded that this is a very big deal for parents to add to their plate.
After sampling a number of the comments that educated me to what is going on (some very negative things) I selected a few of the parents’ comments that might help some of my readers who have children:
I keep coming back to this . . . my children need technology in the culture they have been born into. They have to develop discernment and discipline in order to live with these tools and be able to still have righteous and pure lives. They won't be under my roof for forever and will need to be able to stand firm wherever they may be. So . . . that is where my efforts need to be concentrated. Standing firm on one's convictions has never been easy. But way too many times, young people get a free pass from their parents and other adults in their lives excusing their immaturity and poor choices as "Kids will be kids", "That's teenagers for you." Yep - when the bar is placed that low - it sure will be.
We've decided as a family to avoid the entire texting craze...while we have cell phones, none of us text (including mom and dad). Our kids are proud to tell people, "We don't text...we prefer real conversation." They've seen how it has affected teen relationships and how much they hate it when friends are so busy texting people who aren't there, that they miss out on face-to-face conversation with the people who ARE there. We aren't anti-technology, just anti-texting. It seems to be a fad that has been detrimental to grammar and spelling, and detrimental to relationships, so we've chosen to be counter-cultural and say "no".
Texting and text lingo is just another advance in real-time communication. This type of tech talk will not going away any time soon; it will most certainly develop into something even faster and more efficient over time. We believe it's a perfectly acceptable form of communication when used responsibly. For my husband and I, it saves us a tremendous amount of time as we converse with others on business issues or send quick notes back and forth. No face time has been lost because of it and we are much more productive as it eliminates the time we have to spend hanging on the phone having empty conversations. As far as children are concerned - it should be monitored like television shows, computer usage, language, or anything else. There must be boundaries, expectations, and accountability.
I simply cannot devote half of my day everyday to look over their shoulders and follow-up after them on every forum, website, or texting conversation they have encountered. I do try to do some of it each day though - at least they know that I do care and will be watching them somehow, somewhere! But they also know that God sees them 24/7 - no hiding anything there!
Our daughters have cellphones but like other parents, we let them know that they are a privilege to managed responsibly. We have set clear boundaries around how, when, and where, etc. For example, phones are not allowed at the dinner table. They must be left on the counter or in the other room. (Parents lead by example.) Phones are left on the kitchen counter at 9:00 pm on school nights, 10:00 pm otherwise. As parents, we must be given the passwords to their phones and they are aware that we may conduct random checks on them at any given time. One thing we do not allow is any picture-mail or pictures by texting. They understand that this is for their protection – we may trust them but not everyone who may send them a text message may be as responsible. All it takes is one wayward foolish teen to text/sext an unwanted picture and the one receiving is still held accountable and you can’t erase a picture in your head. Therefore, no picture-mail. If there are any concerns with how they communicate with us or others (ie: bad attitudes with us, family, teachers, or inappropriate texts w/friends), phone service is easily managed at the account level – where we can turn texting on/off, data on/off, manage allowable numbers or suspend service all together. We do not get into “tug of wars” with “hand me your phone”, etc. We just go to the internet and manage the account. Because they value their communication privileges, it is a rare occasion that we have to enforce the consequences and when we do, they respond with very sincere and quick repentance.
I'm just having to approach this all with faith. God loves my children, my children love God. They seek to follow Him each day as best they can. Because He loves them more than I ever could, I have to trust that he will convict them if they are going off-course and help them as they seek to get back onto the path of righteousness.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
A Coat of Many Colors
One of the few regrets in my life is my inability to stay in touch with people who crossed paths with me in former days and who have influenced my life. I have been told that if I would ‘get with it’ and use social media such as Facebook maybe I wouldn’t feel this way. I’m not convinced. The few times I’ve done this all I’ve seen are some shallow, inane comments made by or about people that do not inform me about who the person really is; in fact, usually a distortion is suggested. I really doubt that many people, who have any self-esteem at all, want others to judge them by what they often so thoughtlessly post.
I came across this verse once:
New friends I cherish
And treasure their worth.
But old friends to me
Are the salt of the earth.
Unfortunately, so unfortunately, people come and people go. They drift in and out of your life almost like characters in a favorite book. When you finally close the cover, the characters have told their story and you open another book with another set of characters, then you find yourself focusing on the new ones, not the ones from the past. But your old friends have a way of staying in your memory, frozen as they once were.
New acquaintances are more immediate, their issues more compelling, and the others start to slip away. You say it won’t happen, but it does. When you do make contact with a friend from the past you always see how they changed; and they see how we have changed. I’m sure we surprise each other. Your memory doesn’t quite jibe with the new reality. More often than not you end up more nostalgic than before. The Barbara Streisand song, “The Way We Were” (at least the title), captures this nostalgia for me.
Though our old acquaintances (and we) have changed, we can and should still appreciate the part they played in the development of who we are. John Ruskin said, “Every good life leaves behind the fiber of it interwoven forever in the work of the world.” The fabric of my life has in it the fibers of many weavers of whom I am grateful. Indeed, I am a coat of many colors.
Maybe Thomas Wolfe was right: ‘you can’t go home again.’ If you do, you won’t find any of your old friends there, at least not as we remember them. Certainly, none of us is ‘the way we were. ’ Except for superficialitys I would say thank goodness.
I came across this verse once:
New friends I cherish
And treasure their worth.
But old friends to me
Are the salt of the earth.
Unfortunately, so unfortunately, people come and people go. They drift in and out of your life almost like characters in a favorite book. When you finally close the cover, the characters have told their story and you open another book with another set of characters, then you find yourself focusing on the new ones, not the ones from the past. But your old friends have a way of staying in your memory, frozen as they once were.
New acquaintances are more immediate, their issues more compelling, and the others start to slip away. You say it won’t happen, but it does. When you do make contact with a friend from the past you always see how they changed; and they see how we have changed. I’m sure we surprise each other. Your memory doesn’t quite jibe with the new reality. More often than not you end up more nostalgic than before. The Barbara Streisand song, “The Way We Were” (at least the title), captures this nostalgia for me.
Though our old acquaintances (and we) have changed, we can and should still appreciate the part they played in the development of who we are. John Ruskin said, “Every good life leaves behind the fiber of it interwoven forever in the work of the world.” The fabric of my life has in it the fibers of many weavers of whom I am grateful. Indeed, I am a coat of many colors.
Maybe Thomas Wolfe was right: ‘you can’t go home again.’ If you do, you won’t find any of your old friends there, at least not as we remember them. Certainly, none of us is ‘the way we were. ’ Except for superficialitys I would say thank goodness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)