The Locomotive Begins to Move

I have thought about an appropriate image for the status of General Convention at this stage.  It occurs to me a fitting analogy would be that of a steam locomotive.  While some of the internal mechanisms are functioning (and generating energy), the locomotive itself takes a while to gain steam and speed.  That seems to be an accurate metaphor for General Convention. 

Committees are functioning; holding hearings and considering resolutions.  The list of resolutions coming from the legislative committees will expand considerably over the next two or three days, and the work of the House of Deputies and House of Bishops will grow quickly.  Throw into that mix the fact that we will be focusing on the election of the 27^th Presiding Bishop in the next two days. 

Today was fairly inconsequential, save the Convention Eucharist, which was held this morning.  The Presiding Bishop was the preacher and celebrant.  It was wonderful to worship – observing the Nativity of John the Baptist – with 2,000 fellow Episcopalians.   

I cannot speak to what the House of Bishops did today; you would need to consult Bishop Seage’s blog on that matter.  However, the House of Deputies spent the afternoon largely discussing the revised Rules of Order, significantly rewritten from previous conventions.  We ultimately approved those Rules of Order without any amendments from the floor, but it was not a simple process.  The only other official legislative action we took was approving a letter of condolence to Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in light of the tragic events there last week. 

Tomorrow (Friday) will feature a joint session of the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies, at which the names of the four candidates for Presiding Bishop will be placed in nomination.  Those four candidates include the following Bishops:  Tom Breidenthal of Southern Ohio; Michael Curry of North Carolina; Ian Douglas of Connecticut; and Dabney Smith of Southwest Florida.  After the nominations, the remainder of the joint session will be spent in a discussion of the proposals revolving around the restructuring of the Episcopal Church. 

But that is tomorrow.  Tonight, the Governance and Structure Committee (of which I am a member) spent 105 minutes hearing testimony, concerning various proposals before the committee.  Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and Presiding Bishop-nominee Ian Douglas were among the witnesses.  Some of the testimony had to do with the structuring of the Episcopal Church Center staff.  Some had to do with Continuing Commissions, Agencies, and Boards.  Other testimony focused on the proposed transformation of General Convention into a unicameral body, as opposed to the current bicameral legislative body. 

The testimony the committee heard tonight was substantive and, I suspect, will be very helpful to the Governance and Structure Committee as we move toward grappling with some 40 resolutions before it.  Some of those resolutions conflict with one another, and the committee will need to discern a path forward. 

The committee meets again at 7:30 a.m. tomorrow.  We will begin making recommendations on resolutions to be sent to the floor. 

The election of the new Presiding Bishop will take place during the late morning and early afternoon of Saturday.  Once the Bishops have chosen a Presiding Bishop, it will be the responsibility of the House of Deputies to ratify (or not) the election. 

Please keep the General Convention and the Mississippi Deputation in your prayers.

Orientation and Introductions

The focus of much of the 78^th General Convention today was on orientation and the introduction of the four nominees for Presiding Bishop – the election for which will be Saturday.

Legislative committees met early this morning, with my subcommittee (Subcommittee 1 of the Governance and Structure Committee) paying close attention to the resolutions restructuring the General Convention and Continuing Commissions, Agencies and Boards (interim bodies which continue to work outside of General Convention).  There was little consensus in the subcommittee, and our hope was for much meaningful testimony at tonight’s hearings on those issues.

The General Convention came together for the first time as a joint session, at which we heard Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and President of the House of Deputies Gay Jennings make their opening comments.  That session – about an hour in length – preceded the two houses going into separate orientation sessions.  It was in this orientation that we were briefed on the high technology which will be used for voting and dissemination of information at this Convention.

The Mississippi Deputation met for lunch –as is our practice – to discuss issues coming before committees and General Convention.  It was in this meeting that we began discussing the idea of submitting a resolution discouraging the display of the Confederate Battle Flag in public, governmental, and church arenas.  Two deputies offered to draft the resolution.

This afternoon, there was another joint session of the House of Bishops and House of Deputies.  The session provided a public forum for the four nominees for Presiding Bishop – Tom Breidenthal of Southern Ohio; Michael Curry of North Carolina; Ian Douglas of Connecticut; and Dabney Smith of Southwest Florida.  The two-and-a-half hour session included videos by the nominees, statements by the nominees, and responses to multiple questions from Deputies and Bishops.

The Mississippi Deputation met again at 5:00 p.m., and finalized a draft of the proposed Confederate Battle Flag resolution.  The entire deputation – Deputies and Alternates – agreed to sponsor the resolution.  It will be submitted tomorrow, with the deadline for submission of resolutions being at 5:00 p.m.

Tonight was set aside for various hearings.  My committee heard testimony – of marginal use – on the subject of restructuring General Convention and Continuing Commissions, Agencies and Boards.  There seemed to be a failure to communicate the hearing’s schedule, and so there was a significant absence of informed testimony.  The committee agreed to hear testimony on the same resolutions at a later meeting.

With all the technology we are using at this Convention, some breakdown in communication is to be expected.  That appears to be the case this evening.

I am told there was a large turnout for hearings on the Task Force for the Study of Marriage tonight.  I do not have first-hand information on that hearing, so I cannot write about what was said there.  I will, I am sure, have ample opportunity to comment on that legislation in the days ahead.

We have learned late tonight of the untimely death of David Jones, husband of Peggy Jones, Bishop Seage’s assistant.  Our hearts go out to Peggy and her family.  They are in our prayers.

An Analogy That Falls Short

The 78^th General Convention began to get under way in Salt Lake City today.  Legislative committees held their initial meetings and began taking steps toward affirming, amending, or rejecting various resolutions coming before them.  These resolutions may adopt positions of the Episcopal Church, amend canons, or amend the constitution. The first two types of resolutions require action of only one General Convention, while a constitutional amendment requires the approval of two General Conventions.

Literally hundreds of resolutions will be reviewed by the 22 legislative committees.  My legislative committee – Governance and Structure – already has 40 resolutions before it.  That is three days before the deadline for submission of all resolutions.  So, more are to be expected!

A primer of General Convention procedure might be helpful.  I will also add an editorial comment.

It has been noted that the General Convention, which has its roots in 1789, is similar in structure to the Congress of the United States.  There are two houses, the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.  The House of Deputies (analogous to the House of Representatives) actually predates the House of Bishops (analogous to the Senate), because the original General Convention came before there were Bishops in the American Church.

The House of Deputies is comprised of one-half laity and one-half clergy.  Each diocese is allowed four lay deputies and four clergy deputies (whether priests or deacons).  There are 110 jurisdictions in the Episcopal Church, making the House of Deputies’ membership 880 at full participation.  Dioceses and jurisdictions (a jurisdiction would be exemplified a non-geographic entity, such as Navajoland) are also allowed to elect four lay and four clergy alternates.  Mississippi elects a full slate of deputies and alternates for each General Convention, though not all dioceses or jurisdictions do so.

The House of Bishops is populated by all Bishops in the Episcopal Church, no matter their status.  Diocesan Bishops, Bishops Coadjutor, Bishops Suffragan, Assisting Bishops, and resigned (the preferred term instead of retired) Bishops all have voice and vote in the House of Bishops.  All Bishops present on Saturday will be eligible to vote in the election of the new Presiding Bishop.

Resolutions which are to be considered by General Convention first face the scrutiny of the legislative committees.  Different resolutions go to different committees, depending on the subject matter.  When those resolutions are acted on by their legislative committees, they are placed on the agenda for either the House of Bishops or the House of Deputies (the house of first consideration depends on which committee they come from; some go to the House of Bishops first, some got to the House of Deputies).

The resolution is then considered by the house of original action. When a resolution is approved by the house of original action, it must then go to the other house for action (Resolutions approved by the Deputies goes to the Bishops and vice-versa).  The other house may approve the resolution as passed by the other house, amend the resolution, or vote to kill the resolution.  If it is approved as passed by the other house, it is considered adopted by Convention.  If it is amended, it must go back to the originating house for consideration of the amendments.

In order for a resolution to be adopted by General Convention, it must be approved by both houses in the same form. Otherwise, it is not adopted – no matter how far it gets, without agreement.

There are various rules of the House of Deputies which make enactment more complex, such as voting by orders, or voting by roll call, or a recorded vote by orders.  That is going a bit into the weeds.

My editorial comment: This model does mimic the United States Congress.  That appeals to some and not to others. However, the analogy to the United States Government ends there.  It ends there because there is no “balance of power” or “checks and balances.” 

There is no Executive Branch or Judicial Branch which serve as a counterbalance to General Convention.  Our polity has not provided such a balance.  That leaves many issues of enforcement and interpretation up in their air.  How will the resolutions be enforced?  Who will enforce them? How will they be interpreted? Who will interpret them? 

Valid questions which need to be addressed. 

Issues which will be on the forefront of this General Convention: 

The election of the 27^th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church

The report of the Task Force for the Study of Marriage and associated resolutions

The report of the Task Force for the Reimagining of the Episcopal Church and associated resolutions

More tomorrow.  Please keep the General Convention and the Mississippi Deputation in your prayers.    

The Day Before: The 78th General Convention

The work of the 78^th General Convention begins tomorrow (Tuesday), as registration takes place, deputies are certified, and convention legislative committees begin their work.  The convention hits full-stride on Wednesday with the Presiding Bishop and President of the House Deputies making presentations to a combined meeting of the two houses – the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.  Orientation follows their addresses to convention. 

On Wednesday afternoon, the four nominees for Presiding Bishop will be officially presented to a joint session.  Those nominees include Thomas Breidenthal, Bishop of Southern Ohio; Michael Curry, Bishop of North Carolina; Ian Douglas, Bishop of Connecticut; and Dabney Smith, Bishop of Southwest Florida.  The election of the next Presiding Bishop will be on Saturday, June 27.  Many observers expect Michael Curry to be elected. 

Each day’s schedule typically begins with legislative committees meeting early in the morning, followed by a Convention Eucharist.  Once the convention gets to its regular schedule, the Eucharist is followed by legislative sessions in the morning and afternoon, with evenings reserved largely for additional committee meetings. 

The Mississippi deputation meets each day over lunch to discuss developments in committees and the two houses. 

The Diocese of Mississippi is represented by the following deputies and alternates: 

Clergy Deputies

The Reverend Canon David Johnson, Diocesan Staff

The Reverend Paul Stephens, All Saints’, Tupelo
The Reverend Elizabeth Wheatley-Jones, All Saints’, Grenada
The Reverend Betsy Baumgarten, St. Patrick’s, Long Beach

Lay Deputies

Canon Kathryn Weathersby McCormick, Diocesan Staff and St. Andrew’s, Jackson

Dr. Anita P. George, Resurrection, Starkville
Dr. Ed Sisson, St. Peter’s, Oxford
Margaret McLarty, St. Andrew’s, Jackson

Clergy Alternates

The Reverend Margaret Ayers, St. James’, Port Gibson

The Reverend Ann Benton Fraser, St. Paul’s, Corinth
The Reverend Beth Palmer, Holy Trinity, Vicksburg
The Reverend David Knight, St. Paul’s, Delray Beach, Florida (canonically resident in Mississippi)

Lay Alternates

Lee Davis Thames, Esq., Holy Trinity, Vicksburg

Bobbie Marascalco, Holy Trinity, Vicksburg
Alice Perry, St. James’, Jackson
Danny Ray Meadors, St. Patrick’s, Long Beach

Bishop Seage, of course, is a member of the House of Bishops.

Several deputies serve on convention legislative committees.  The appointments include the following:

Kathryn McCormick, Pension Fund

David Johnson, Governance and Structure
Anita George, Social Justice & United States Policy
Ed Sisson, World Mission

Bishop Seage serves on the Dispatch of Business Committee.

Lee Davis Thames is serving as an advisor to the Social Justice & International Policy Committee.

David Knight served on the interim Task Force on the Study of Marriage – a group which is making significant recommendations to General Convention.

Bishop Duncan Gray, III, now serving in the Diocese of Louisiana, served on the Joint Nominating Committee for the Election of the Presiding Bishop.

Anita George is a member of the church’s Executive Council, the “vestry” of the Episcopal Church.

Kathryn McCormick serves as a Trustee of the Church Pension Fund.

Several members of the deputation are posting blogs or to their Twitter feeds.  They include the following:

Bishop Seage              Twitter           @rtrevdeadhead        

                                    Blog                http://rtrevdeadhead.com/                  

David Johnson           Blog                http://canondioms.blogspot.com/

Betsy Baumgarten     Blog                http://everydayconsecration.blogspot.com/

David Knight             Twitter            @itinerantpriest
                                     Blog                http://itinerantpriest.org

Ann Phelps                Blog                http://standrewscathedral.org/on-the-ground-at-general-convention-2015/

Ann is a lay person from St. Andrew’s Cathedral who will be attending General Convention, but is not a deputy or alternate.

I hope to post to this blog each evening. Please keep the convention in your prayers.

 

Reason for Skepticism on the Sawdust (or Catfish) Trail

Years of observation of the political system have made me very skeptical of overt religiosity by political leaders – or anyone for that fact.  Excessive outward piety is a sign of a potential fraud, opportunist, or huckster.  Sinclair Lewis’ Elmer Gantry seared that skepticism into my spirit.

Having observed political leaders, sometimes close-at-hand, has informed and reinforced that skepticism.  I remember all-too-well Richard Nixon’s close and manipulative relationship with the iconic Billy Graham (once even borrowing a 20-spot from Graham to place in the offering plate at Graham’s crusade in Knoxville, Tennessee).  The tapes of Graham’s conversations with Nixon in the Oval Office were not flattering to either of the men, and Graham has appropriately apologized for his part in those conversations.

Other, more graphic, tapes show how cynical Nixon’s use of the great evangelist was.

We have seen over the years the use and manipulation of the political system by those who would wear their piety outwardly and prominently.  We do not have to go back very far in Mississippi’s history to see how we have been led down the primrose path by politicians who said one thing publicly and acted another way in private.  In fact, some of the evidence is very recent.

Oliver Wentzell, the late, long-time owner of a Mobile seafood restaurant which bears his name, supposedly ran for sheriff of Mobile County, Alabama.  He is reputed to have said, “I’ll stand for whatever the public will fall for.”  If that story is not true, it still bears a lot of truth.

I have watched – in my travels up and down Highway 49 – as a spectacularly tall metal cross has been erected adjacent to an all-you-can-eat catfish restaurant (What is one of the seven deadly sins?).  It is like others I have seen elsewhere – like at the Interstate 55 Winona exit.  I find it to be gaudy and a bit pretentious, but it was the dedication ceremony of that cross which really raised questions for me.

The Clarion-Ledger’s account of that dedication may be found here: http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/04/03/catfish-house-dedicates-cross/25271221/. I was struck by several quotations from that story.  Here are a few:

Governor Phil Bryant: "Ladies and gentlemen the old rugged cross stands here today, a bright shining emblem of the salvation that has been eternal and with God's blessing it will remain so."

U. S. Congressman Gregg Harper: "As the souls that are driving by right now, I dare say that there are more who do not know Jesus Christ than do know Jesus Christ and we need to remember to pray for those. And, I think this cross is an incredible reminder of the love that we have.”

Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves was there, too, but apparently not as quotable.

Perhaps most telling were some of the comments from the restaurant’s owner:  "Ain't it an awesome thing… that we have a governor, a lieutenant governor and congressman that still stand on the values that this country was founded over 200 years ago on?"

"If everybody was like this, this country wouldn't be going to hell like it is. Period. I'm not going to sugar coat it," he said.

I am reminded of the questions and controversy which arose after some similar, ill-advised comments by then-Senator Trent Lott, at the birthday of then-Senator Strom Thurmond (see comments above).

I thought another quotation was interesting, as well – also from the owner: "You're gonna get people coming against you of course, your atheists, your critics, they're out there. But, when you take a stand for Christ, he'll take a stand for you," he said.

I am aware of what Jesus said about practicing piety in public.  I am aware of his castigation of those who wore their religion very prominently and publicly. I am aware of his concern for the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the least of these. 

Questions I would pose to Congressman Harper, who spoke those words, and to those who listened:  What does it mean to know Christ?  How can we ascertain that those who embrace this tall, outward symbol in Florence, Mississippi are more faithful than those who find it a bit tacky and the political leaders’ words to prompt skepticism?

I am conscious of the facts that we live in a state which has the lowest level of education of any state, the lowest per capita income, and the highest level of obesity. Our political system is still energized by the third rail of politics (race) and, largely because of that residual animus, our Legislature has refused to enact expansions of Medicaid – which would help those about whom Jesus was most concerned.

I am a Christian.  I am proud to be one.  My life has been touched – repeatedly – and transformed by the presence of the living Christ moving in my life.  But I refuse to join this bandwagon. Call me what you will. The life I find compelling is not one of prideful piety, but the one of quiet, generous, humble, and gracious faith.

Howard K. Smith, the longtime ABC newscaster, said one time, “When someone says they’re just a country lawyer, you better check for your wallet.”  The same could be applied in this case.

 + + +

A great column on this subject may be found at the following link:  http://www.deepsouthdaily.com/2015/04/in-mississippi-the-tower-of-babel-rises.html

 

 

 

 

The Lenses Through Which We See

 

I was struck today by a portion of the second lesson – 1 Corinthians 2:1-16.  The words are some of Paul’s most familiar, but they struck home with new force today: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”  He continues: “And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.”

Paul was no dummy.  A Hellenistic Jew, he was well aware of the popular thought and philosophies which permeated the first century Mediterranean world.  He was trained as a Pharisee and knew the Law through-and-through.  Yet, it was none of that which was primary in his mind.  Something else served as the lenses through which he saw the world surrounding him.

 

+ + +

Many of us wear glasses.  They are necessary for us to see clearly.  I cannot read the text messages on my cell phone without them.  Those glasses – those optical lenses – are one of my favorite metaphors for faith.  Faith is the lens through which we Christians see the world.  Those lenses are not rose-colored, but they do show us different dimensions of our existence.

Perhaps the most profound for Christians is the experience of standing at the grave of a loved one.  Our burial liturgy includes these words, as we face a casket, a vault, a hole in the ground, and a mound of dirt off to the side: “All of us go down  to the dust; yet even at the grave we make our song: Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia.”

That is a remarkably counter-intuitive perspective. Our lenses of faith cause us to perceive things differently.  That is the nature of faith.

 But there is more.  And there was much more for Paul.

 

+ + +

 Paul had been well-educated as a boy and young man. In spite of all that he had learned, and in spite of his broad education, there were a different set of lenses through which he interpreted the world.  For him, the cross of Jesus Christ defined the world in an entirely different way.  “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” The life, suffering and death of Jesus Christ – the one he had encountered in a blinding light on the road to Damascus – changed everything for him.

For Paul, the world was different.  God’s self-offering and incarnation – his emptying of self – redefined human existence and our relationship to the Divine and one another.  Paul recognized that neither he, Apollos, Cephas nor anyone else mattered at all in light of God’s self-offering and sacrificial love in Jesus Christ.  Nothing else matters.  No categories could define us any more (slave or free, Jew or Greek, sinner or righteous). We were all beloved children of God. In fact, we all are beloved children of God.

Paul’s theology springs from the deep well of awareness of God’s love that is represented in the life and death of Jesus.  His being grasped by that recognition – literally knocked off his horse by it – radically changed the way he viewed the world and the people he encountered.

Would that we could adopt that way of seeing the world as fully as Paul.  But we do so episodically, fragmentally, sporadically. We see through a glass darkly.

In retrospect, I see how my vision has been altered – even if only occasionally.  I recently was filling my car at a convenience store near my home.  As I pumped the gas, I saw a street person approaching down the street, showing all the signs of being someone looking for a handout.  As I went into the store to retrieve my receipt, I noticed he was standing off to the side of the store, staying out of the watchful gaze of the store clerk.

As I walked out of the store, I heard him say, “Excuse me, sir.” His voice was faint, and my back was to him.  I kept walking, got in my car, and drove quickly off toward my home, a couple of blocks away.

There was something that would not let go of me, though.  Was this merely a street person, wanting a handout? An inconsequential bit of human debris who should be ignored?  Or was he something else? Was he a fellow child of God, for whom Jesus had given his life?  Was he someone who is loved and cherished by the One we do not fully know, even as I am loved and cherished?

The lenses which my faith had given me would not allow me to just delete the memory of this person from my mind.  After a few minutes at home, I gathered some money, got back in the car and drove back up to the convenience store.  After a couple of passes, I saw him standing where he had been earlier.

I drove up beside him, rolled down my window and said, “I was here just a minute ago.  I want you to have this.” I gave him a small wad of cash.  He smiled and said, “God bless you.”  Fellow children of God had connected very briefly, for just a moment.

Sadly, that was a unique experience for me.  It stands out because it is different from my usual behavior. I still see the world in a blurred way – without the clarity that Paul so clearly articulated.  I am still becoming.

 I realize it now. The lenses through which Paul viewed the world – Jesus Christ and him crucified – do not allow us to see the world as we might normally see it.  His sight was forever changed.  I hope to gain that vision bit-by-bit.

Waterbugs Skittering

 

Bishop John Maury Allin, sixth Bishop of Mississippi and 23^rd Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, is reputed to have said on his retirement, “I have spent my life helping people become Episcopalians.  Now I want to help people become Christians.”

As I relaxed on the beach at Fort Morgan, Alabama, during our family’s annual Christmas vacation, I had time to reflect on this journey of faith and this peculiar vocation. The silence was a wonderful opportunity for such contemplation.

My thoughts turned toward an aspect of Bishop Allin’s reputed comments.  Has my ministry been one of helping people become Christians?  Or has it been something else?

There is an important distinction to be made:  I am not talking about the factuality of a person being a Christian; that is accomplished, we believe, in the sacrament of Holy Baptism (justification). What I am concerned about is the manifestation of that justification in one’s life, i.e. the progressive sanctification. How does the Christian faith make any difference in a person’s life?

Likewise, I wonder about how our congregations manifest the faith which is embraced in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, the recitation of the Nicene Creed, the renewal of baptismal vows, and the repeating of the Apostles’ Creed.  How are our congregations any different from any other community-building organization.

What difference does our embracing of Christianity make?

I’m not even sure that I have been focused on helping people become genuine Episcopalians.  And I seriously doubt that I have prompted many people to enter deeply into the Christian life. What I have offered, I think, is a variety of cultural Christianity which has more to do with reflecting the cultural mores of a slice of Middle America.  Our self-definition has been according to criteria such not a Baptist or not a Catholic or not a fundamentalist rather than the transformation of a life into a committed Christian.

I pondered what Christianity means in this culture.  I want to be clear:  The brand of cultural Christianity I’ve been hawking is not the only form of cultural Christianity being pedaled in this society.  Many of those I have encountered – I want to be sure to include myself in this – have taken an eye off the ball in terms of authentic Christianity.  I have encountered true saints of deep and profound faith, but they are rare.  Many others want to be true, deep, and authentic Christians, but they either are unaware of how to live that life, or they are afraid of what it would require (That call by Jesus to “take up your cross and follow me” is pretty daunting).

Will Campbell, the iconic and irenic figure of the 1960s, once spoke of the Eucharist being obscene.  His perspective was that the church spends massive amounts of money on providing all the accoutrements of liturgy (silver, fine linens, beautiful vestments) while the world not far from our sacred buildings is characterized by chaos, poverty, crime, abuse, racism, suffering, loneliness, grief, hunger, and other signs of a fallen creation.

In my silence and solitude, I reflected on Christianity and the world around us.  My vision turned toward the Mississippi Delta, where poverty, brokenness, illiteracy, illness, broken families, and hopelessness abound. What is the significant impact of the church there? How are our churches – and our individual members – represented there? What difference do we make?

My thoughts turned toward Uganda, the Sudan, and other places of extreme poverty, hunger and suffering throughout the world.  The images of starving children came to mind.  Bloated bellies were haunting me in my world of plenty.  The violence so endemic to those circumstances – brother oppressing brother – came to my consciousness.

 It occurred to me:  So much of what the church is and does, especially on a local level, is like a waterbug skittering along the surface of a pond. There may be turmoil, turbulence, and chaos beneath that surface, but the waterbug is blissfully unaware.  He just skitters along, not concerned what the world beneath is like.

This whole reflection may be seen as a paean to some idealized Christianity.  As such, it may not reflect reality (it most certainly does not) and may deny the limits of human nature and ability to respond meaningfully to a significantly broken world.

But I think that is the nature of Christianity.  It calls for the transformation of human limitations and the healing of a broken world.  And here is the hard part:  that expectation is there regardless of the price to be paid.

How will my life and journey change, in light of this reflection?  I do not know… yet.