Here's an excerpt of a letter from the archbishop of our province in the Charismatic Episcopal Church, Chuck Jones. The archbishop is a man of faith that I respect greatly, a bearer of God's grace and mercy. He's also a generally cool guy. ;) It prompted a response as I read it, so I thought that I'd post it here.
From Archbishop Chuck Jones, SE Province, CEC:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Grace and peace,
God is releasing a spirit of repentance on His Church. As we have been saying it is a time of deep cleaning, filling, and healing. What's confusing some people is that it doesn't sound like repentance. There seems to be so much laughter and joy and not enough weeping.
What we have to remember is that true repentance thrusts us into the effervescent river of righteousness where joy and freedom overwhelms us. Of course there is heartbreak and weeping as you face your sin.
Fallen self is a horrific thing to be staring back at you, but this isn't a facing sin and self so you can have another round of guilt, shame, and self-hatred. This is facing something not for the purpose of morbid introspection, but release and liberation. So even in the initial stages of repentance there is a glorious relief in the heartbreak and weeping that gives birth to a full blown celebration that the truly liberated can't contain. The religious spirit says these people look too happy to be repentant. " Where is the sorrow"?
Trust me; sorrow came. It happened during the night, but now morning has come and JOY is our mantle. The joy that only released captives can express. Come join THE PARTY OF THE REPENTANT. Ask Jesus to pierce your heart with His sword and watch what healing flows out of the wounds caused by your loving Bridegroom-Friend.
"ALWAYS"
In Christ, +Chuck
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WOW! Bishop Chuck's letter was really pointed and I think a real revelation for the church. It seems, initially, like fairly common sense. However, there rose up in my heart something that wanted to rail against that. It said, "but I have to continue to feel bad about my sin . . . it was such a bad sin." But my spirit, having taken in the Bishop's exhortation, responded immediately, "no that's just your wanting to hold on to the memory of the sin (as it has been forgiven) to be able to pull it out periodically to wallow in self pity." This also circumvents repentance; if you feel you haven't been forgiven, then it's less of a burden to commit the sin again.
Many might say that the Bishop's message is cheap grace, but joy has to be the end result of the grace of forgiveness. If it isn't, why in the world would an unbeliever want to turn to this faith. It is like the comment Fr. Mike has shared about the French girl who said that she didn't want to go to church because everyone she saw coming out of the church always looked sad. It seems to me for repentance to be effective, to paraphrase the comedian Gallagher, you gotta' wanna. You're more likely to "wanna" if your experience with repentance is a pleasant one.
I recall when I was a kid attending the Catholic church that I hated going to confession. Aside from the fact that I had basically two sins, bugging my sister and disobeying my parents, I just didn't get the whole penance thing. The idea of saying 18 hail marys and 5 our fathers, just didn't equate with the point of not sinning again. It seems that God's way would be more oriented to positive reinforcement until the point of apostasy, as in many old testament stories. But Jesus didn't have Zaccheus perform penance. Zaccheus was met by Jesus' mercy to want to be with him, which elicited a repentant act on his part (returning all he had taken and then some). The response to his repentance was the Lord's presence. To nutshell: there was Jesus' invitation, He wanted to be with him; Zaccheus' repentance; Jesus' presence. Zaccheus did what might be termed penance: he offered to repay 4 times what he cheated someone out of. But that was a spontaneous expression born out of the Joy of his repentance and Jesus' presence.
This is a pretty big departure from the paradigm that I grew up with and have practiced. I expect that I'm not alone in that. What do you think?
Peter
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Rant: CNN article regarding MDI air powered cars
This is a response that I submitted to the CNN Sound Off regarding this article (with a couple of additions):
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/air.car/index.html
The gist of my rant stems from the way I see the media often portraying, through experts, attempts of alternate fuel inventors as not quite good enough. The media seems to have a schizophrenic view on this. They want to side with Saint AlGore, yet any attempts to actually do something are often met with skepticism, and at times derision. Go figure.
Peter
Let the rant begin +++++++++++++
So the "expert" from Cornell says: ". . . there haven't been any lightweight, 100-plus mpg cars to pass crash tests. . ." Correct me if I'm wrong, buuut NO ONE HAS FREAKIN' DESIGNED A LIGHTWEIGHT, 100+ mpg CAR YET!!!????!!!!!! Geez, where'd they get this guy?
That's like saying that a car designed by a mushroom cheese burger has never passed a crash test.
We are in desperate need of a change of paradigm. The "experts" keep saying stuff like, "No one's really proven a six-seater passenger car [can get] any better than 75 miles to the gallon." If this is the case, where's my 6 seater that gets 75mpg! The expert also says that "He noted such dramatic fuel efficiency is associated with tiny experimental cars, not bigger mainstream ones."
Maybe the problem is that the idea that is currently "mainstream", i.e. we need big cars that are able to carry lots of folks and stuff, but generally don't, needs to fundamentally change. I drive 5 miles to work, one way, every day. I usually ride a motorcycle at 40mpg. Even if the air powered car only got 80mpg (equivalent) that's double what I'm getting now, and each mile would cost less since it's based on electricity instead of gas, as well as domestically produced.
The flip side of the problem is that the greenies are slamming the use of grid electricity as a viable domestic fuel. OK, if I'm shifting my "carbon footprint" (which is a flawed idea to begin with but I'll stick with it) from my car to a power plant we still have a net gain by not importing oil. Take into account that a significant portion of our power where I live is generated by a hydro plant just up river, then we're in even better shape. As our "experts" continue on this subject: "it's hard to believe the car would be that much more efficient than an electric vehicle"; so what! We don't currently have production electric cars either, so again the expert brings up a wonderfully moot point. What do you suppose his view on electric cars or electric car conversions is? I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't be very positive....I could be wrong, but I'm going on the quotes from this article.
The greenies can't have it both ways. Either you work with the folks trying to develop alternatives or you don't. You can't dictate what those alternatives will be. Fully sustainable energy is an admirable goal; one that we should continue to pursue. But it ain't here yet: solar is still too inefficient and expensive, wind is location anchored, as is wave power. There are some great advances being made in these technologies, but in the mean time we have to generate energy somehow. I think our first priority needs to be less beholden to other nations. Of course, there is the option of nuclear power electric generation, but let's not throw the greenies into complete apoplexy.
We are in need of a new normal. New technology and practices don't happen because someone sticks with what has worked in the past. So I say: Keep it up MDI, TATA and ZPM!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/air.car/index.html
The gist of my rant stems from the way I see the media often portraying, through experts, attempts of alternate fuel inventors as not quite good enough. The media seems to have a schizophrenic view on this. They want to side with Saint AlGore, yet any attempts to actually do something are often met with skepticism, and at times derision. Go figure.
Peter
Let the rant begin +++++++++++++
So the "expert" from Cornell says: ". . . there haven't been any lightweight, 100-plus mpg cars to pass crash tests. . ." Correct me if I'm wrong, buuut NO ONE HAS FREAKIN' DESIGNED A LIGHTWEIGHT, 100+ mpg CAR YET!!!????!!!!!! Geez, where'd they get this guy?
That's like saying that a car designed by a mushroom cheese burger has never passed a crash test.
We are in desperate need of a change of paradigm. The "experts" keep saying stuff like, "No one's really proven a six-seater passenger car [can get] any better than 75 miles to the gallon." If this is the case, where's my 6 seater that gets 75mpg! The expert also says that "He noted such dramatic fuel efficiency is associated with tiny experimental cars, not bigger mainstream ones."
Maybe the problem is that the idea that is currently "mainstream", i.e. we need big cars that are able to carry lots of folks and stuff, but generally don't, needs to fundamentally change. I drive 5 miles to work, one way, every day. I usually ride a motorcycle at 40mpg. Even if the air powered car only got 80mpg (equivalent) that's double what I'm getting now, and each mile would cost less since it's based on electricity instead of gas, as well as domestically produced.
The flip side of the problem is that the greenies are slamming the use of grid electricity as a viable domestic fuel. OK, if I'm shifting my "carbon footprint" (which is a flawed idea to begin with but I'll stick with it) from my car to a power plant we still have a net gain by not importing oil. Take into account that a significant portion of our power where I live is generated by a hydro plant just up river, then we're in even better shape. As our "experts" continue on this subject: "it's hard to believe the car would be that much more efficient than an electric vehicle"; so what! We don't currently have production electric cars either, so again the expert brings up a wonderfully moot point. What do you suppose his view on electric cars or electric car conversions is? I'd hazard a guess that it wouldn't be very positive....I could be wrong, but I'm going on the quotes from this article.
The greenies can't have it both ways. Either you work with the folks trying to develop alternatives or you don't. You can't dictate what those alternatives will be. Fully sustainable energy is an admirable goal; one that we should continue to pursue. But it ain't here yet: solar is still too inefficient and expensive, wind is location anchored, as is wave power. There are some great advances being made in these technologies, but in the mean time we have to generate energy somehow. I think our first priority needs to be less beholden to other nations. Of course, there is the option of nuclear power electric generation, but let's not throw the greenies into complete apoplexy.
We are in need of a new normal. New technology and practices don't happen because someone sticks with what has worked in the past. So I say: Keep it up MDI, TATA and ZPM!
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Post-op Week Update
Well, the week is finally over. Last weekend was absolutely rife with medical attention for us and other family. The past week was a time of recuperation. Suffice it to say, I'm glad a new week is starting! Everyone is doing fine.
This week will begin the Lenten season, so we'll be hosting our church's Fat Tuesday pancake meal. We're looking forward to that and sharing the time with folks in our house. I look forward to seeing what might come of this season. It seems that the last couple of years was a good time. I had fasted from caffeine and refined sugars, to the effect of losing some weight....somehow I always managed to find it again. ;)
This year we're not just fasting. We're changing the way we eat altogether and the way we look at the consuming of food. Trying to put it back into the proper place of supplying the energy and health for our bodies. This will be quite a paradigm shift for me; I really dig eating good food! However, I think that the Lord will meet us as we strive to simplify our lives in this and some other ways. Lent just seems an appropriate time to make a change this significant.
Of course, the time of Lent isn't just for fasting for a time. It also is an opportunity to examine ourselves against the word and teaching of the Bible, and to adjust our lives to become more aligned with it. One thing I've decided is to speak when I would have otherwise not done so. My life has been marked by the times of my muteness. Times when I should have said something, good or bad, yet for whatever reason didn't. These are the times when praise was due someone but I "could get to it later," yet didn't. These are the times when confrontation was in order, yet I stuffed the emotion, only to have it blow up at a later, unrelated time.
Speaking of changing food consuming practices, we're reading a book The Millionaire Next Door. This speaks to our financial life in the same way we're addressing our "food life." It will be an interesting journey and I hope to share a bit of how things go. But probably only when they go well, knowing me. :)
Whether anyone reads this or not, I'll update periodically anyhow, for therapeutic reasons.
Later -- Peter
This week will begin the Lenten season, so we'll be hosting our church's Fat Tuesday pancake meal. We're looking forward to that and sharing the time with folks in our house. I look forward to seeing what might come of this season. It seems that the last couple of years was a good time. I had fasted from caffeine and refined sugars, to the effect of losing some weight....somehow I always managed to find it again. ;)
This year we're not just fasting. We're changing the way we eat altogether and the way we look at the consuming of food. Trying to put it back into the proper place of supplying the energy and health for our bodies. This will be quite a paradigm shift for me; I really dig eating good food! However, I think that the Lord will meet us as we strive to simplify our lives in this and some other ways. Lent just seems an appropriate time to make a change this significant.
Of course, the time of Lent isn't just for fasting for a time. It also is an opportunity to examine ourselves against the word and teaching of the Bible, and to adjust our lives to become more aligned with it. One thing I've decided is to speak when I would have otherwise not done so. My life has been marked by the times of my muteness. Times when I should have said something, good or bad, yet for whatever reason didn't. These are the times when praise was due someone but I "could get to it later," yet didn't. These are the times when confrontation was in order, yet I stuffed the emotion, only to have it blow up at a later, unrelated time.
Speaking of changing food consuming practices, we're reading a book The Millionaire Next Door. This speaks to our financial life in the same way we're addressing our "food life." It will be an interesting journey and I hope to share a bit of how things go. But probably only when they go well, knowing me. :)
Whether anyone reads this or not, I'll update periodically anyhow, for therapeutic reasons.
Later -- Peter
Saturday, January 19, 2008
A couple more snow pics
This was pretty much the extent of the snow. I took these just before it stopped snowing. Oh well, so much for a winter wonderland. ;)
A bit more explaination
Hi folks,
This will have photos and off-the-cuff comments. I just want to provide a point of contact since we're so bad at getting around to sending letters, photos, etc. I hope that you will enjoy was you see and read. You should be able to comment, if you care to, on any particular post; so, please do.
Enjoy,
Peter
Multimedia message
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)