New Supreme Court Nominee today.
I wrote, in another forum, my thoughts last Thursday, the day that Miers stepped down from the nomination to the Supreme Court. Here's what I said:
I gotta say, privately I have been wondering for over a week whether this might not all have been intentional--including this latest "un-nomination" (resignation doesn't sound right, does it?)
The reason I have thought this is because the nomination really made so little sense.
Regardless of the qualifications of the woman, she was Bush's personal counsel...and on the heels of the uproar surrounding the former director of FEMA and accusations of cronyism, this nomination made my head spin. "WHAT ON EARTH WERE YOU THINKING?!?!", I yelled to the radio/TV. It plays to obviously into the hands of the critics...so I am just hoping that the next nomination will reveal a little bit of deliberate planning behind this whole mess. I cannot say exactly what that might be...but it seems like such an obvious mistake that I am just hoping there's some design behind it all...making the next nomination easier to get through, or something like that.
As for Miers herself, I have no problem with her...she may have done just fine as a Judge. The biggest problem that I saw was the incredibly bad timing of nominating a personal friend to the position of S.C. judge even as you're being criticized for choosing friends over qualified people for important positions. If she had a public record to back her up, it might have been different...but it was all private and confidential...so it just couldn't have been worse timing. I am sure she'll be fine...it remains to be seen if Bush will make a choice that shows he wasn't oblivious to the criticism he's received in the last two months.
Well, based on the sound of Bush's new nomination, I think I was right. He's very experienced. He's just also very conservative and, clearly, male. But if you wanted one who might not have been as conservative and female, Bush offered Miers, and nobody wanted her. I think this was all one big plan to get Alito (or someone like him) into the position of having a huge surge of support from the Conservatives, and make the left look stupid. I think its working too. We'll see, of course...but I know that those Conservatives out there who have been urging our leaders to stand firmly and proudly as conservatives are happy. I'm one of them. Its a good day!
Happy Halloween!
Monday, October 31, 2005
Got-cha
New Supreme Court Nominee today.
I wrote, in another forum, my thoughts last Thursday, the day that Miers stepped down from the nomination to the Supreme Court. Here's what I said:
I gotta say, privately I have been wondering for over a week whether this might not all have been intentional--including this latest "un-nomination" (resignation doesn't sound right, does it?)
The reason I have thought this is because the nomination really made so little sense.
Regardless of the qualifications of the woman, she was Bush's personal counsel...and on the heels of the uproar surrounding the former director of FEMA and accusations of cronyism, this nomination made my head spin. "WHAT ON EARTH WERE YOU THINKING?!?!", I yelled to the radio/TV. It plays to obviously into the hands of the critics...so I am just hoping that the next nomination will reveal a little bit of deliberate planning behind this whole mess. I cannot say exactly what that might be...but it seems like such an obvious mistake that I am just hoping there's some design behind it all...making the next nomination easier to get through, or something like that.
As for Miers herself, I have no problem with her...she may have done just fine as a Judge. The biggest problem that I saw was the incredibly bad timing of nominating a personal friend to the position of S.C. judge even as you're being criticized for choosing friends over qualified people for important positions. If she had a public record to back her up, it might have been different...but it was all private and confidential...so it just couldn't have been worse timing. I am sure she'll be fine...it remains to be seen if Bush will make a choice that shows he wasn't oblivious to the criticism he's received in the last two months.
Well, based on the sound of Bush's new nomination, I think I was right. He's very experienced. He's just also very conservative and, clearly, male. But if you wanted one who might not have been as conservative and female, Bush offered Miers, and nobody wanted her. I think this was all one big plan to get Alito (or someone like him) into the position of having a huge surge of support from the Conservatives, and make the left look stupid. I think its working too. We'll see, of course...but I know that those Conservatives out there who have been urging our leaders to stand firmly and proudly as conservatives are happy. I'm one of them. Its a good day!
Happy Halloween!
I wrote, in another forum, my thoughts last Thursday, the day that Miers stepped down from the nomination to the Supreme Court. Here's what I said:
I gotta say, privately I have been wondering for over a week whether this might not all have been intentional--including this latest "un-nomination" (resignation doesn't sound right, does it?)
The reason I have thought this is because the nomination really made so little sense.
Regardless of the qualifications of the woman, she was Bush's personal counsel...and on the heels of the uproar surrounding the former director of FEMA and accusations of cronyism, this nomination made my head spin. "WHAT ON EARTH WERE YOU THINKING?!?!", I yelled to the radio/TV. It plays to obviously into the hands of the critics...so I am just hoping that the next nomination will reveal a little bit of deliberate planning behind this whole mess. I cannot say exactly what that might be...but it seems like such an obvious mistake that I am just hoping there's some design behind it all...making the next nomination easier to get through, or something like that.
As for Miers herself, I have no problem with her...she may have done just fine as a Judge. The biggest problem that I saw was the incredibly bad timing of nominating a personal friend to the position of S.C. judge even as you're being criticized for choosing friends over qualified people for important positions. If she had a public record to back her up, it might have been different...but it was all private and confidential...so it just couldn't have been worse timing. I am sure she'll be fine...it remains to be seen if Bush will make a choice that shows he wasn't oblivious to the criticism he's received in the last two months.
Well, based on the sound of Bush's new nomination, I think I was right. He's very experienced. He's just also very conservative and, clearly, male. But if you wanted one who might not have been as conservative and female, Bush offered Miers, and nobody wanted her. I think this was all one big plan to get Alito (or someone like him) into the position of having a huge surge of support from the Conservatives, and make the left look stupid. I think its working too. We'll see, of course...but I know that those Conservatives out there who have been urging our leaders to stand firmly and proudly as conservatives are happy. I'm one of them. Its a good day!
Happy Halloween!
Thursday, October 27, 2005
2000 (aka Why We're Losing)
The insurgents in Iraq grow stronger every day, thanks to the help of the people who are supposed to be fighting against them. Every day, instead of standing up and declaring an end to the tolerance of violence, announcing the end of the assistance that the terrorists have grown to rely on, there are people who publically say they want a different world but refuse to act.
Are these the Iraqis? No.
These are the American Progressives, the Lefties, the Liberals, the Dems and the Left Independents. These are the people who do not rejoice over a triumphant election (in the face of seemingly overwhelming adversity, by the by) but instead horrifically glory in the deaths of 2000 men and women. "Its too much!" We have, apparently, zero staying power. Apparently, establishing a working democracy is only worthwhile if it can be done without the cost of lives or resources--regardless of the reasons that might seem to justify extra effort on our part.
But, of course, the elections in Iraq were a success. With 5 Sunni provinces there was all the opportunity in the world to prevent the Iraqi constitution from being ratified. All that was required was 4 provinces that voted against it, and it would have failed. Oddly, even though (apparently) the nationals hate us and the freedom we bring, only 2 of the 5 voted against the constitution, and it was ratified.
But this would be encouraging, this would be good news. Fortunately, the 2000th man died in Iraq, so we need not become distracted with the possibility that our efforts are paying off. Its sick. The insurgents DO have inside help...its called the American Left.
Are these the Iraqis? No.
These are the American Progressives, the Lefties, the Liberals, the Dems and the Left Independents. These are the people who do not rejoice over a triumphant election (in the face of seemingly overwhelming adversity, by the by) but instead horrifically glory in the deaths of 2000 men and women. "Its too much!" We have, apparently, zero staying power. Apparently, establishing a working democracy is only worthwhile if it can be done without the cost of lives or resources--regardless of the reasons that might seem to justify extra effort on our part.
But, of course, the elections in Iraq were a success. With 5 Sunni provinces there was all the opportunity in the world to prevent the Iraqi constitution from being ratified. All that was required was 4 provinces that voted against it, and it would have failed. Oddly, even though (apparently) the nationals hate us and the freedom we bring, only 2 of the 5 voted against the constitution, and it was ratified.
But this would be encouraging, this would be good news. Fortunately, the 2000th man died in Iraq, so we need not become distracted with the possibility that our efforts are paying off. Its sick. The insurgents DO have inside help...its called the American Left.
Educated Soldiers
I was driving past the Marine base on my way to San Diego about a week ago. I was thinking about why there are some soldiers today that are criticizing the gov't the way only hippies used too. And then I realized...most of the problems in our nation come from the intellecual class--the academic elite, who have cut themselves off from the mainstream to such a point that their education no longer means anything, they're just stupid.
We have a considerable amount of educated soliders today serving. Now, that is not a bad thing--certainly the men and women that serve our nation in defense deserve educations. But it does seem wrong, sickly ironic even, that several of the institutes that give these men and women educations essentially hate the occupation that these men and women hold.
There is something seriously and gravely wrong with our education systyem...not just the K-12 stuff either. The average higher education is more indoctrinating than almost any church or even political rally. Its disturbing. And, it'll destroy our ability to defend ourselves, because with liberal centers educating the officers that lead the armies of our nation...how can we expect to have the spines necessary to get the job done?
We have a considerable amount of educated soliders today serving. Now, that is not a bad thing--certainly the men and women that serve our nation in defense deserve educations. But it does seem wrong, sickly ironic even, that several of the institutes that give these men and women educations essentially hate the occupation that these men and women hold.
There is something seriously and gravely wrong with our education systyem...not just the K-12 stuff either. The average higher education is more indoctrinating than almost any church or even political rally. Its disturbing. And, it'll destroy our ability to defend ourselves, because with liberal centers educating the officers that lead the armies of our nation...how can we expect to have the spines necessary to get the job done?
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Pre-emptive Politics
The Dems like a pre-emptive strike for their campaigns it seems; at least, that is, when it comes to public appearances.
There have been plenty of instances in the past few weeks where one could point out this trend. Asking Judge Roberts how he would rule on any case regarding a certain subject, as if a judge should know without context what his ruling will always be. They are already gearing up with the same sort of questions for Miers because her personal opinions, supposedly, shed light on whether or not she can sit objectively on the bench. Cases concerning Rove V Wade haven't even come up yet, and the Lefties are already gearing up for war as if "women's rights" are about to be stripped in broad daylight from our system.
Here's the latest--not as sexy as, say, the nominations for the S.C., but yet another example of the pre-emptive politics is this nice little article. The (dis)honorable Sen Barbara Boxer questioning Condi on when we'll get to come home from Iraq. Apparently the last hundred times weren't enough...we'll pre-emptively ask if we any estimation on when the operation will be concluded, even though the mission isn't done and we all know its not done. Its the same as asking a judge to rule on a case that hasn't been filed yet...you just don't do it. Its not merely foolish...its irresponsible. Unlike politicians, who are used to tell everyone specifically what they'll "accomplish" during their time in power, neither the military nor the Justice system works like that.
Its a case by case basis, which doesn't really gel well with the careers of politicians who prefer to make specific promises (which they generally don't keep). Can you picture it?
"Ah yes, Senator, yes; we can tell now, today, this very instant, what it will take and how much longer we can expect to endure before the fight is over for freedom in a country that doesn't understand the principle."
They call Iraq a mistake, the new Vietnam, etc...all the while doing everything they can to ensure that they are self-fulfilling prophets. They ask these questions and then release soundbytes of the discontent they insist is overwhelming the comman man.
Well, this comman man is tired of it. Stop asking stupid questions and then accusing others of idiocy. Start asking important questions, if you still know how too, and then maybe you'll actually matter in the grand scheme of our nation's policies.
There have been plenty of instances in the past few weeks where one could point out this trend. Asking Judge Roberts how he would rule on any case regarding a certain subject, as if a judge should know without context what his ruling will always be. They are already gearing up with the same sort of questions for Miers because her personal opinions, supposedly, shed light on whether or not she can sit objectively on the bench. Cases concerning Rove V Wade haven't even come up yet, and the Lefties are already gearing up for war as if "women's rights" are about to be stripped in broad daylight from our system.
Here's the latest--not as sexy as, say, the nominations for the S.C., but yet another example of the pre-emptive politics is this nice little article. The (dis)honorable Sen Barbara Boxer questioning Condi on when we'll get to come home from Iraq. Apparently the last hundred times weren't enough...we'll pre-emptively ask if we any estimation on when the operation will be concluded, even though the mission isn't done and we all know its not done. Its the same as asking a judge to rule on a case that hasn't been filed yet...you just don't do it. Its not merely foolish...its irresponsible. Unlike politicians, who are used to tell everyone specifically what they'll "accomplish" during their time in power, neither the military nor the Justice system works like that.
Its a case by case basis, which doesn't really gel well with the careers of politicians who prefer to make specific promises (which they generally don't keep). Can you picture it?
"Ah yes, Senator, yes; we can tell now, today, this very instant, what it will take and how much longer we can expect to endure before the fight is over for freedom in a country that doesn't understand the principle."
They call Iraq a mistake, the new Vietnam, etc...all the while doing everything they can to ensure that they are self-fulfilling prophets. They ask these questions and then release soundbytes of the discontent they insist is overwhelming the comman man.
Well, this comman man is tired of it. Stop asking stupid questions and then accusing others of idiocy. Start asking important questions, if you still know how too, and then maybe you'll actually matter in the grand scheme of our nation's policies.
Pumpkin Spice Latte
Treat yourself. Enjoy a Pumpkin Spice Latte and make yourself believe, if only for one moment, that its not actually nearing the end of October and still relatively 78 degrees outside.
Its actually quite good...and it you wait until dark it gets better.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Training...And Still MORE Training...
I have been on the receiving end of a lot of training in the last few weeks. Getting licensed to sell insurance, learning how to build a company, qualify people for mortgages, etc, for the financial world, and learning about the intricacies of coffee and the coffee culture in the other world. I have been tempted to suggest a meeting of the two very different worlds...I can only speculate, but I think there would be positive results.
Picture it: I would sit down to discuss the importance of financial planning and security for your loved ones, and then guide you through a sophisticated coffee tasting experience. How could I go wrong? You'd end up well protected AND pleasantly caffeinated.
A real winner, if ever there was one.
Picture it: I would sit down to discuss the importance of financial planning and security for your loved ones, and then guide you through a sophisticated coffee tasting experience. How could I go wrong? You'd end up well protected AND pleasantly caffeinated.
A real winner, if ever there was one.
Sue the Government!
Sure, they've ok'd billions of dollars in aid just to avoid looking like the weather is their fault...but sue FEMA, sue the Dept of Home Land Security, sue Congress, sue the President, and sue the Supreme Court! Sue 'em all! Yee-Haw!
Sigh. And sigh again.
For more, you could also read this transcript with commentary.
I would love it, I would sincerely crack up, should any lawyer actually have the nerve to take the case, if the government conceded and paid the class action lawsuit for, whatever, $100 million, and then retracted the earlier promise of aid for any groups that receive money from the law suit. Poetic justice...which we'll never see, but I can dream.
Sigh. And sigh again.
For more, you could also read this transcript with commentary.
I would love it, I would sincerely crack up, should any lawyer actually have the nerve to take the case, if the government conceded and paid the class action lawsuit for, whatever, $100 million, and then retracted the earlier promise of aid for any groups that receive money from the law suit. Poetic justice...which we'll never see, but I can dream.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Can they DO that?!?
The E.U wants to take the internet away from the U.S.
We made it, they use it, and now a majority of other nations apparently think that they can force us to give it up. This is big enough to make the suggestion of leaving the U.N. a truly legitimate proposition. What's next? Defense Secrets that we are "forced" to share because otherwise its just not fair?
I'm almost speechless...almost. It reminds me of the Godfather, when the other crime families inform Don Corleone at the council after Sonny gets shot up that in fact he doesn't get to keep his power to himself, but must share his political connections with the other families. Well, we all know what happened to the other crime families, right? Watch your back, E.U. The next time we go to a baptism, its all over.
Ridiculous.
The E.U wants to take the internet away from the U.S.
We made it, they use it, and now a majority of other nations apparently think that they can force us to give it up. This is big enough to make the suggestion of leaving the U.N. a truly legitimate proposition. What's next? Defense Secrets that we are "forced" to share because otherwise its just not fair?
I'm almost speechless...almost. It reminds me of the Godfather, when the other crime families inform Don Corleone at the council after Sonny gets shot up that in fact he doesn't get to keep his power to himself, but must share his political connections with the other families. Well, we all know what happened to the other crime families, right? Watch your back, E.U. The next time we go to a baptism, its all over.
Ridiculous.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Judge Robert's First Case
The first case brought before the new Chief Justice of these United States was to address the issue of "Death with Dignity". Oregon allows it, and some 200 + people have used the right to request assisted suicides to end their lives. And now the Supreme Court of the land is hearing a case, originally brought up by the previous AG (Ashcroft) against this ruling, which the people of Oregon voted to enforce.
There are several questions surrounding this issue. Does the Federal Government, particularly the Judicial Branch, have any say over issues that the states have voted on and decided for themselves? We bring everything back to the courts these days it seems. Eventually things will always end up at the S.C.'s bench and that's really not what the S.C. was intended for, but that's the environment we exist within. When in Rome.
So, as things are, the question cannot be whether or not the court should be hearing this case, since we settled that by twisting the purpose of the Judicial branch a while ago. The question, it seems to me, is what power does the government have over how we live (or end) our private lives? Is there a good reason the government should ban these practices? Is the argument that the drugs being used to induce death are not being used with their original intent the right way to go?
There are two different dissenters in this argument. One group says that in this instance, as in other instances, where there are "natural causes" in effect, the government needs to butt out--its only our personal choice how we adjust to the designs of nature and no government can decide that life is "sacred" at the expense of our rights to end that life, or that one attraction is right, another wrong, etc. Oddly, this side still wants government intervention when our private choices would have negative affects on minorities or what not and they insist that the government stand ready to give money to us to assist us in our private choices, but when it comes to medical marijuana, assisted suicides, homosexuality, etc--they feel its none of the government's business what we choose--they just want the benefits.
The other dissenters say that this doesn't merely apply to those effects of nature, but that the government should butt out entirely--that our private life is our private life and the government was never intended to mandate anything inside that shell of privacy. Well, at least they're consistent.
From what I can see, both of these groups of dissenters view life as strictly a physical thing, that the government is only in place to oversee a very narrow slice of the physical world, and therefore should keep its nose generally out of the non-physical world, and even out of certain parts of the physical world when it pertains to only us. They seem to think that we are islands, able to separate ourselves from impacting others if we so choose.
I think this is preposterous. But then, I think we have souls. I think that what we do, even when it "only effects ourselves" effects society at large, if not in physical terms, then in spiritual ones. I think this can be applied to a multitude of levels.
When we tell people that pain is a good enough excuse to commit suicide, that severe suffering is grounds for ending life, then how can we tell teenagers with rampant angst that they still have things worth living for? As far as they are concerned, life is over because of the pain that they feel after a break-up or whatever...why shouldn't they kill themselves?
If we say that certain things should be allowable because they only harm the users (pornography, certain drugs, etc) then why not allow all things? If we truly want to open our society up to accountability, then why don't we treat our citizens as if they're accountable?
Gambling should be legalized. Prostitution should be too-and while we're at it, ALL drugs. I've suggested this before and people have flinched, saying that there is a difference between porn, marijuana, assisted suicide and cocain, prostitution and gambling. Somehow I am not convinced. They tell me that with porn, with marijuana and assisted suicide we harm only ourselves, but with those other, more extreme vices we start harming others.
But we don't make all of our rules based upon the possibility of harm being done to others. What about other things that we allow in our society, like guns and alchohol? They certainly harm more than just the users--people get killed all the time by drunk drivers, and though I'm no gun control enthusiast, lets be honest--bad guys get guns and kill people with them. If we're out to protect our society, shouldn't we remove these threats? Or, if we're out to prove society can handle the choices for itself, then why do we still try to restrict the flow of certain vices? Let's at least try to be consistent. I think we need to say no--our society does NOT accept the premise that we as individuals can chose for ourselves what is the best good for ourselves with regard to life and death--at least, not to the point of helping us kill ourselves.
The government exists to rule man in the physical world, its true, but as our government governs we cannot pretend that we are merely physical creatures...and certainly no man is an island.
The first case brought before the new Chief Justice of these United States was to address the issue of "Death with Dignity". Oregon allows it, and some 200 + people have used the right to request assisted suicides to end their lives. And now the Supreme Court of the land is hearing a case, originally brought up by the previous AG (Ashcroft) against this ruling, which the people of Oregon voted to enforce.
There are several questions surrounding this issue. Does the Federal Government, particularly the Judicial Branch, have any say over issues that the states have voted on and decided for themselves? We bring everything back to the courts these days it seems. Eventually things will always end up at the S.C.'s bench and that's really not what the S.C. was intended for, but that's the environment we exist within. When in Rome.
So, as things are, the question cannot be whether or not the court should be hearing this case, since we settled that by twisting the purpose of the Judicial branch a while ago. The question, it seems to me, is what power does the government have over how we live (or end) our private lives? Is there a good reason the government should ban these practices? Is the argument that the drugs being used to induce death are not being used with their original intent the right way to go?
There are two different dissenters in this argument. One group says that in this instance, as in other instances, where there are "natural causes" in effect, the government needs to butt out--its only our personal choice how we adjust to the designs of nature and no government can decide that life is "sacred" at the expense of our rights to end that life, or that one attraction is right, another wrong, etc. Oddly, this side still wants government intervention when our private choices would have negative affects on minorities or what not and they insist that the government stand ready to give money to us to assist us in our private choices, but when it comes to medical marijuana, assisted suicides, homosexuality, etc--they feel its none of the government's business what we choose--they just want the benefits.
The other dissenters say that this doesn't merely apply to those effects of nature, but that the government should butt out entirely--that our private life is our private life and the government was never intended to mandate anything inside that shell of privacy. Well, at least they're consistent.
From what I can see, both of these groups of dissenters view life as strictly a physical thing, that the government is only in place to oversee a very narrow slice of the physical world, and therefore should keep its nose generally out of the non-physical world, and even out of certain parts of the physical world when it pertains to only us. They seem to think that we are islands, able to separate ourselves from impacting others if we so choose.
I think this is preposterous. But then, I think we have souls. I think that what we do, even when it "only effects ourselves" effects society at large, if not in physical terms, then in spiritual ones. I think this can be applied to a multitude of levels.
When we tell people that pain is a good enough excuse to commit suicide, that severe suffering is grounds for ending life, then how can we tell teenagers with rampant angst that they still have things worth living for? As far as they are concerned, life is over because of the pain that they feel after a break-up or whatever...why shouldn't they kill themselves?
If we say that certain things should be allowable because they only harm the users (pornography, certain drugs, etc) then why not allow all things? If we truly want to open our society up to accountability, then why don't we treat our citizens as if they're accountable?
Gambling should be legalized. Prostitution should be too-and while we're at it, ALL drugs. I've suggested this before and people have flinched, saying that there is a difference between porn, marijuana, assisted suicide and cocain, prostitution and gambling. Somehow I am not convinced. They tell me that with porn, with marijuana and assisted suicide we harm only ourselves, but with those other, more extreme vices we start harming others.
But we don't make all of our rules based upon the possibility of harm being done to others. What about other things that we allow in our society, like guns and alchohol? They certainly harm more than just the users--people get killed all the time by drunk drivers, and though I'm no gun control enthusiast, lets be honest--bad guys get guns and kill people with them. If we're out to protect our society, shouldn't we remove these threats? Or, if we're out to prove society can handle the choices for itself, then why do we still try to restrict the flow of certain vices? Let's at least try to be consistent. I think we need to say no--our society does NOT accept the premise that we as individuals can chose for ourselves what is the best good for ourselves with regard to life and death--at least, not to the point of helping us kill ourselves.
The government exists to rule man in the physical world, its true, but as our government governs we cannot pretend that we are merely physical creatures...and certainly no man is an island.
Three Jobs
I am working three jobs! I have officially been hired to work at Starbucks for 32 hours a week. This means I will be dividing my time between jobs at the Gorman Learning Center, Primerica and Starbucks.
It feels good to be busy. Too busy to blog much...hardly a serious dilemma!
Coming soon...a rant on the problems of the financial world and praise of the wonders of term insurance, Primerica, and companies that understand the right way to do business. Branching out from the political, but I have some thoughts which, time allowing, I will be sharing soon.
I am working three jobs! I have officially been hired to work at Starbucks for 32 hours a week. This means I will be dividing my time between jobs at the Gorman Learning Center, Primerica and Starbucks.
It feels good to be busy. Too busy to blog much...hardly a serious dilemma!
Coming soon...a rant on the problems of the financial world and praise of the wonders of term insurance, Primerica, and companies that understand the right way to do business. Branching out from the political, but I have some thoughts which, time allowing, I will be sharing soon.
Church Question
We are in the middle of a transition. I recently (read, within the past 5 months) realized that indeed, I did long to do things with ministry in my life. Missionary work, or pastoral, I am not yet entirely sure, but I know that I don't want to go to church merely to be fed. Well, that means I need to be able to serve in the church that we would be working with, right? Hence the problem.
We have attended since before our wedding the Anglican church of the Blessed Sacrament in Placentia, and now we are leaving. I love the liturgy. I love the creeds. I love the reverance. I just don't believe in the Sacraments the way that they do. My son will NOT be baptized before he knows what it means. I believe pretty much the opposite of the Anglicans when it comes to those two issues...I see communion as merely a symbol (an important one, but a symbol nonetheless) and baptism as something that actually signifies something which the baptized must understand and "mean" in order for it to actually be a baptism.
However, I am having a hard time with being content in the regular evangelical churches we have attended during this time of transition--because I miss the worship of the communial reading of the creeds, the congregation reading the Psalms together, the beautiful hymns...honestly I often feel as if I were a member of the audience not a participating member of the worshipping congregation when we are at the evangelical churches.
I was talking with a friend who attends a Lutheran church (i.e. high church too), and he asked me if perhaps there was a reason that evangelical churches lack the beauty of the liturgy? I admitted that very likely there was a connection between the beauty that comes from the liturgy and the presence of the belief that high churches hold with regard to the sacraments. So here's the question...is that actually so? Is there no hope of finding the beauty without the sacraments? Must I accept the idea of real presence to find the beauty of worshipping as the Anglican's do throughout the rest of their service?
This is a hard time.
We are in the middle of a transition. I recently (read, within the past 5 months) realized that indeed, I did long to do things with ministry in my life. Missionary work, or pastoral, I am not yet entirely sure, but I know that I don't want to go to church merely to be fed. Well, that means I need to be able to serve in the church that we would be working with, right? Hence the problem.
We have attended since before our wedding the Anglican church of the Blessed Sacrament in Placentia, and now we are leaving. I love the liturgy. I love the creeds. I love the reverance. I just don't believe in the Sacraments the way that they do. My son will NOT be baptized before he knows what it means. I believe pretty much the opposite of the Anglicans when it comes to those two issues...I see communion as merely a symbol (an important one, but a symbol nonetheless) and baptism as something that actually signifies something which the baptized must understand and "mean" in order for it to actually be a baptism.
However, I am having a hard time with being content in the regular evangelical churches we have attended during this time of transition--because I miss the worship of the communial reading of the creeds, the congregation reading the Psalms together, the beautiful hymns...honestly I often feel as if I were a member of the audience not a participating member of the worshipping congregation when we are at the evangelical churches.
I was talking with a friend who attends a Lutheran church (i.e. high church too), and he asked me if perhaps there was a reason that evangelical churches lack the beauty of the liturgy? I admitted that very likely there was a connection between the beauty that comes from the liturgy and the presence of the belief that high churches hold with regard to the sacraments. So here's the question...is that actually so? Is there no hope of finding the beauty without the sacraments? Must I accept the idea of real presence to find the beauty of worshipping as the Anglican's do throughout the rest of their service?
This is a hard time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
