Magic and Innocence

Every good Christian knows the story of the Nativity.  It starts with Mary being visited by the archangel Gabriel (a feast we celebrate way back on March 25^th called The Annunciation) and ends with the Adoration of the Magi on Epiphany (January 6th).  Just how much do we know about these Magi?  There are numerous traditions, but strictly speaking the Bible only mentions them in one chapter, Matthew 2.  It does not mention where they were from, how many of them there were, or what happened to them after escaping King Herod, though it does support the idea that they arrived when Jesus was 2 years old. Tradition fills in the other details.

The term “magi” comes from the Greek word μάγος which means “magician” but was also the term used for Zoroastrian priests, who were renown for their study of the stars.  Western tradition gives them names: Caspar, an Indian who offered frankincense; Melchior, a Persian and the eldest of the group who brought gold; and Balthazar, the Arab who brought myrrh.  The three gifts also have meaning, with gold representing Christ the King, frankincense representing Christ the Divine, and myrrh representing Christ the Man.  Of course, why stop at only three magi?  The Eastern Orthodox church includes twelve!

These details and others aside, the Feast of Epiphany celebrates the revelation of Jesus as God, as shown at the visitation of the Magi, as well as at the Baptism of Jesus and his first miracle at the wedding of Cana.  But back in Jesus’ time, this was not a time for celebration or reflection.  After the magi left Bethlehem by a different route, an angel told Mary and Joseph to flee to Egypt.  When Herod realized the magi would not be returning to tell him where to find the infant king, he slew all the boys in and around Bethlehem that were 2-years-old and under.  It wasn’t until Herod died that the holy family returned.  This part of the Nativity narrative is too often left out, but remains a haunting melody in Coventry Carol, a lullaby to the innocents slain.

Though the wise men could see that Herod’s intentions were evil, I do not think that they suspected just how far he would go to kill a potential rival, even a child.  It is a sobering reminder that even our best plans can have unintended consequences for others.

Lentbook

Today is the beginning of the Lenten Season, lasting 47 days until Easter.  Christians are asked to give up something for Lent or take something new on.  It is a time of reflection and redemption, so it makes sense to voluntarily surrender a vice or a pleasure.  For me, I'm giving up Facebook.

That's right, I will only be on Facebook on Sundays (which are always a celebration of Christ's resurrection, and as such are not considered part of Lent).  Even then, I will only be on long enough to keep my notifications under control.  I have found myself spending too much time on Facebook and not enough writing or doing other things I need to do.  Who knows, maybe this will become a thing and Facebook will disappear from my life.

Yeah, right.

In other news, I am almost done editing chapter 32 (of 35).  Then I will start revisions based on what my critiquing group has mentioned and send the draft out to a select few individuals to proof-read for me.  I fully expect to edit more, but my goal is to start sending this thing off to agents and publishers by summer.  It's been a long struggle, so I am looking forward to seeing it end and starting a new chapter in my life.  One may be Chicken Soup for the Soul, which seems to have an eternal "looking for writers" thing going on.  I also have a sequel I want to write as well as a personal story I feel very compelled to put down on paper.

So, without further ado, I'm off to finish Chapter 32 and start on Chapter 33.

Genesis the Parable

I have a problem; I'll admit it.  From time to time, I get in debates over religion, often with atheists.  One of my best friends is an agnostic atheist (that is, he does not think there is a God, but is open to the possibility), and we would get in great conversations for hours on end.  But online it is a different beast.  The conversations are usually the same, with the same rebuttals and half-truths, the same misinformation, and the same lack of education on both sides of the argument.

Here I shall produce a defense and explanation of science.  Skip it if you like.

I am not anti-atheist.  Belief in God comes down to one thing and one thing only: faith.  Not blind faith, not faith in place of logic, just faith.  When people try to use science to argue against a religion, it never works.  Science is the pursuit of knowledge using deduction and induction by forming hypotheses to explain an observed phenomenon (or "law"), which is then verified by testing.  In other words, scientists see something, they ask why that thing is, and they test their hypothesis.  Others test it as well.  When several hypotheses all support the same principal and this principal has been tested thousands upon thousands of times (and passed each test), then it becomes a Theory (an accepted reason for certain observations - not to be confused with hypothesis).  Theories are about as close to the truth as us humans can discern; there is very little room for error.  When a theory is disproven by even one test (which is rare indeed), and they verify that this test was valid and not an error, then the theory has to be revised or altogether scrapped for a new Theory, one that still stands up to the hypotheses and tests that have been thrown at the old one.

Here I shall explain and defend religion.  Again, skip it if you like.

Religion is rather like science, but with a major different.  Instead of attempting to discern the truth by using observed phenomena, it attempts to discern the truth using what we believe has been revealed to us by God (or gods, as the case my be) or through philosophy.  This is why science will never explain, prove, or disprove it.  We don't simply make things up.  The Christian Church has been molded by a series of great thinkers which are referred to as the Doctors of the Church.  The idea of the Holy Spirit took decades to arrive at and was not made dogma in its present form until the Council of Lyons in 1274.  Other great thinkers are not usually recognized as being theologians.  Descartes, the father of the Cartesian Coordinate System, came up with "I think, therefore I am."  Most people don't know how this works or what its purpose is.  Imagine you are in The Matrix.  How can you know that anything around you is real and not simply a fabrication?  Well, there's only one thing you can be sure of - that you are doubting.  Something that doubts is something that thinks.  And there has to be some thing that is thinking, thus the concept of you exists because you doubt, because you think.  But Descartes went on.  He used some philosophical concepts invented by the ancient Greeks, that there are two ways in which things exist: in thought, and in reality.  They Greeks called these "essence" and "existence" - WHAT something is and THAT something is.  For instance, my computer has the essence of a MacBook Pro.  It is real, thus is exists.  The computer of my dreams is Hal 9000 without the evil streak, but Hal 9000 doesn't exist.  It only exists as a thought.  So what if there is something whose essence IS existence?  The mere thought of that being necessitates its existence, and through that existence all other things exist. I think I've got that right.  But that's what Descartes argued, and I'm sure there are valid counter arguments.  Even Charles Darwin argued that evolution does not negate the existence of God.  My point is that many, many great thinkers have shaped religious beliefs.

Defense of theism aside, the crux of this post is an online debate (alright, an argument) I found myself embroiled in some time ago.  Someone was telling me that, as a Christian, I have to believe everything in the Bible as literal truth and that I am not allowed to believe in science or evolution.  I do hope you can see the irony of an atheist telling someone what he is allowed to believe.  I attempted to explain that many parts in the Bible are historical accounts, that many are laws for a specific civilization, and that many are in fact parables.  And here I wished to defend the idea that the Genesis account is, quite possibly, a metaphor or parable.  This is entirely MY interpretation.

First off, Jesus often spoke in parables.  The account of Job is from an impossible point of view.  And the entire book of The Revelation to John is riddled with symbolism and metaphor.  So it is certainly not unheard of.  Let's take part of Genesis.  Say, Adam and Eve.  Did God really make everything in 7 days?  I am not the first to believe that "days" may be a symbol for "stages."  God made Eve from Adam's rib - which could easily be a symbol for equality.  Not from Adam's foot, not from his tooth, but from his side, close to his heart. Then Adam and Eve were tempted by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and ejected from paradise when they gave in.  It may be that this is part of what makes us human, and that this act is what defines them as the first humans.  The first human, whoever he or she was, made the choice to learn actively, to use that knowledge to better himself.  This is the temptation, this is what made the first human unable to return to the bliss of ignorance.  Suddenly there are responsibilities, the knowledge of death, the understanding of consequences.


So there you have it.  Surprisingly, even the Catholic Church has admitted that evolution is real, and shown how it does not, in fact, interfere with the possibility of God.  This admission also means that the Catholic Church agrees that not all the of the Bible is to be taken literally.  So what is your take?

A short parable - work in progress

I decided I wanted to try to write a parable.  The only problem is, knowing how parables in the bible are written, I'm not sure what the moral should be.  So it is currently a work in progress.  It might worm its way into a novel of mine... it might not.  I don't know yet.  Tell me what you think.


Two vassals were summoned to meet their lord for the first time to see which of the two would be given a place in the lord's court.  The first vassal showed up to the lord's house wearing his best fineries, clothes which most men could not afford, to show how successful he had been in working the land that had been given to him.  The second vassal, however, gave away his clothes to the poor and arrived wearing only simple rags that were soiled by the long journey. The lord rebuked him, saying, "Why do you insult me by appearing before my court in such fashion?"  The second vassal said, "I do not mean insult, my lord.  I thought it would be better to give the fruit of my labors away to the people who live under your rule than to spend it on fine clothing."  The lord was pleased and turned away the first vassal, then gave his own coat to the second and invited him into his court.


Well, what do you think?  Of course, it could also be about a feud between the two vassals, or the lord may have ended up being one of the people the second vassal gave his belongings to.  Or perhaps the first vassal pleas his case, saying that he wanted to represent the wealth of the lord's land.  Any thoughts?

Kingdom of Love

It's that time, again.  Another religious post.  Again, if you do not care to read my religious post, feel free to skip on to Part 4 of The Dark Crystal, where we'll meet the antagonist.  I am also working on other short stories, so in a month or so those will return as well!  I am going to be submitting a piece to yet another Ultreia INK Write Night, so if you all think one of my short stories is outstanding (or at least better than the others), please leave a comment below and let me know!  Now onto the religious post!  I promise they will be short.

We had two sermons these past two weeks that got me thinking, and I just wanted to share my insights.  The first is about The Lord's Prayer.

Every good Christian should know at least some version of the Lord's Prayer.  All of them include (and are quite possibly the quintessential examples of) the 4 tenants of prayer: Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving, and Supplication (ACTS).  If you are not familiar with these terms, I will break them down.  Adoration is praising God ("hallowed be thy name!")  Contrition is expressing sorrow and asking forgiveness of sins ("forgive us our trespasses").  Thanksgiving is... well, giving thanks (OK, I'll admit, this one is hard to find in here, but it is feasible that "as we forgive those who trespass against us" is thanking God for that opportunity).  Supplication is asking God for things ("Give us this day our daily bread").  This is the one I grew up with:

Our father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.  Thy Kingdom come*, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread and forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.  For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever.  Amen.

You may remember this from Matthew 6:9-13 or Luke 11:2-4.  This version includes the added doxology at the end, though my days in Catholic school got me used to eliminating that final statement.  And I never did understand why there is such a fight over the use of "trespasses" or "debtors."  Personally, I think Luke's "sin" is best.

But I digress.  Time to explain that asterisk.  It really does bug me when I see one that has no accompanying explanation.

* Thy Kingdom Come.  This is often called the "Second Petition."  But what does this mean?  Are we asking God's Kingdom to come down to Earth, much like Zion in the Revelation to John?  Is it a plea to allow the peace and understanding of God to come into our daily lives?  Perhaps it is one of these, perhaps it is both.  Or perhaps this is not some passive thing.  In all my years, I've always assumed (and gotten the impression from others) that this is part of supplication, asking God for something.  But what if this is adoration?  What if I am proclaiming it, not as something I wish to ask of God, but as something I wish to announce to God!  "Thy Kingdom Come" is a call to action.  After all, this is the prayer Jesus gave us as an example of how we should pray to God.  We have also been told that faith without action is nothing.  So perhaps the same is true for prayer.  We shouldn't simply pray for God to make changes in our lives and then sit back and wait.  We need to then take the initiative and do it!  Increasingly, God's miracles, God's acts, are not things that happen to us, but things that we make happen, things that happen through us.


-----

This brings me to the second part of this post.  This week we had a guest lecturer, Rev. Scott Gunn of Forward Movement.  This is the group that makes Forward Day By Day, Lenten Madness (my money is on J.S. Bach, but I'm secretly hoping for St. John of the Cross), and countless other books and curricula for the Anglican Communion.  I liked listening to him a lot and I may see if I can write some of the meditations for Forward Day By Day, if they will let a talentless blogger with an audience of 60 in.

In his sermon today, he spoke of God's love bringing happiness.  And that, as per the norm, got me thinking.  First of all, I want to point out that there is a difference between "happiness" and "joy."  Joy is more a state of happiness, an everlasting happiness.  It is the opposite of despair, which is like a state of extreme sadness and despondency.  Happiness, that elusive emotion we all strive for, can come from many things, but most of those things boil down to some form of love.  This could be love of money or nice things (which would result in a shallow, short happiness), love of a friend (which would result in a much greater happiness), or even love of a spouse or child (which can lead to a deep, profound happiness).  But what happens when that love is taken away?  Things break.  People move away and die.  Are you really "loving" that person any longer if they are dead?  To love someone means you put their needs first, but dead people have no needs, beyond perhaps prayer.  I know this can be hard to understand or hear.  And on the other side, it is nearly impossible to feel and see the love of someone who is dead; they do not interact with us excepting in cases of rare miracles. The longer that person is gone, the more out of mind they will become, which is all part of the healing process.  They may always be a part of you and change who you are, but they are still gone.  So, in a sense, the happiness that comes from love is not permanent.

God's love, however, which is called "agape," is permanent.  It is knowing this love that can cause true Joy.  But how do we sense it or know it?  It's not like we can just walk up to God and get a hug, is it?  Well, there is something to be said about sharing a hug with a stranger, or even a friend.  It means even more to listen to someone in distress, to share a meal with a homeless man, to be a friend to those in jail who have no friends, or to give your coat to someone who has none.  To know God's love means to express it, to live it.  It is not the same as the other types of love, which can be appreciated without action on our part.  To appreciate agape (which, I'm sure many a theologian will tell me is actually impossible), we have to share our love with others.  For if God is love, then sharing love with all those around us is sharing God's love and sharing the joy that can come with it.

A bit of Mythology

It was brought to my attention that not everyone is familiar with Norse mythology.  In fact, some people have a hard time telling Thor apart from Zeus.  Since my last story was steeped in the lore that surrounds Odin, I thought that I should tell a little bit about the mythology that inspired the piece.

I am in no way a scholar.  In fact, I didn't grow up reading about Norse mythology.  I grew up reading about Greco-Roman mythology.  I'm much more comfortable writing a story about Janus, or Daedalus, or Prometheus than I am about the Norns, Baldr, or Gungnir.  However, I like to do my research.  I'm reading up on my norse mythology, and I've been developing a longer story that uses it heavily.  So, there are likely to be mistakes in what I will say, but if you are truly interested, you should check it out at the sources, such as The Prose Edda.

So, here is a brief history of the Norse so that you might understand my story a little better.

The Norse gods are usually referred to as AEsir and look very much like we do.  Alongside the AEsir, there are the Jotun, a race of giants (very much like the Titans of Greco-Roman myth).  There are other beings, like the disir (ghosts and spirits of fate), valkyrie (women who determine who dies in battle and which of those go to Valhalla, a form of Heaven), and the einherjar (the souls chosen to live in Valhalla).

The Norse have devised 9 worlds.  I do not know them all, however Asgard is the land of the AEsir, Midgard is Earth, the Jotun live in Jotunheim, and the souls that do not go to Valhalla dwell in Helheim.  The Rainbow Bridge, or Bifrost, connects Asgard and Midgard.  the World Tree, Yggdrasil, connects all the worlds.  At the base of the tree, the three Norns, or Fates, live.  They're pretty much the same as the Roman, Greek, and Shakespearean Fates.  They keep the tree healthy and are named Urdr, Verdandi, and Skuld.  (Any fans of Ah! My Goddess might recognize those names).

The AEsir are ruled by Odin, a one-eyed, bearded old man.  Odin is usually accompanied by 2 wolves, 2 ravens (Hugin and Munin who represent Odin's thought and memory),  an 8-legged horse named Sleipnir, and his spear Gungnir (which never misses its target).  Every day, he sends out Hugin and Munin to Midgard, to be his eyes and ears to the world (which is helpful, since he's only got one eye), and they report back to him at night.  Odin's son is Thor, who wields the hammer Mjolnir (associated with thunder, could level mountains).  He also adopted Loki, who is a Jotun and a troublemaker.  Loki tends to alternate between being nice and helpful to the AEsir and being a pain.  Loki is also a shapeshifter, father of Fenrir (a giant wolf), father to Jormungandr (The Midgard Serpent who can wrap the world in its coils), and mother to Sleipnir.

The end of the world will happen at a place called Ragnarok.  Essentially, Loki insulted the AEsir (by getting one of them killed), so his sons were imprisoned or killed and he was tied, by one of his son's entrails, to a rock in a mountain where a serpent pours poison on him day and night.  Loki's wife, Sigyn, tries to keep the poison off of him, but when she fails Loki causes earthquakes.  After a while, it is prophesied that he will escape, free his kin, and declare war on Asgard.  The nice thing about the Norse is that we already know who will kill whom.


So, this was a brief crash course into Norse Mythology.  I hope you enjoyed it!  If you follow Marvel comics, you are likely familiar with many of the characters and situations.  I'm always surprised at how much they include and how detailed they are (I'm not saying they're completely accurate, but they are far more accurate than I would have thought for a comic book).  Indeed, if you watch The Avengers (now on Blu-Ray), watch Odin closely (as played by Anthony Hopkins).  Sharp-eyed observers may just spy Hugin and Munin.

Spirit

It has been a while since I've made a religious post, but as a religious person I feel I should be able to write about my faith on my blog.  This post is also about grammar and etymology, so I'm pretty certain I just lost the rest of my audience.  C'est le vie.  I completely understand if you do not wish to read on, and I am in no way evangelizing.  If you do read on, I hope this piece helps you in your own spiritual journey, whatever that may be.  (Also, my religious posts will likely remain rare.)

If you are a Christian, you (with a few exceptions) should believe in the Holy Trinity.  The Holy Trinity states that there are three distinct persons in one God.  This is one of the Mysteries of Faith, because we do not completely understand it.  But there are some interesting doctrines and dogmas that may shed some light on the relationships between the three.

Today in church our priest was talking about the stewardship committee, which has decided to address stewardship in terms of Imagination, Inspiration, and Ignition.  Imagine what we can do together.  What inspires you?  What is it that gets you going, that you are passionate about?  Each of these words, Imagine, Inspire, and Ignite, has an interesting root, but "inspire" is the one that interested me the most.  Spirare is latin for "to breathe," so inspiring is breathing into, as in breathing life into.  Other interesting words that share this root?  Conspire (to breathe together), expire (to breathe out), perspire (to breathe through), aspire (to breathe on or after).  It's a pretty awesome word.  In a sense, breath is life.

Two other words share this root.  The first is "spirit."  Now, I've heard it told that the Holy Spirit is the love that the Father and the Son share for each other.  It is the Holy Spirit that breathed life onto the Earth and inspired the Apostles at Pentecost (thus mirroring God giving Moses the 10 Commandments, as they are both celebrated on the same day and both celebrate the new life of their religions).  Catching any themes here?  In 325, the Council of Nicaea had to combat a growing number of doubters, gnostics, blasphemers, and sacrileges.  To do this, they created the Nicene Creed, which sums up the core beliefs of the Christian Faith.  And in this, they claim that God the Father is the Creator, that God the Son is Begotten (not made) of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit (the giver of life) Proceeds from the Father and the Son.  "Begotten" and "Proceeds" are very specific terms, chosen to show that the Son and Holy Spirit were in the beginning with the Father, that they are not dependent on the others, that they are not created.  There is another word that they use to describe the relationship between the Holy Spirit and his counterparts.

Spiration.  Spiration is defined as the action of breathing, that necessary thing to life.  It is also defined as both the act of God in breathing life into others and the manner in which the Holy Spirit is related to the Father and Son.  So you could say that The Holy Spirit is the breath between the Father and Son, the life between them.  Their conspiring.  So, put together, the Holy Spirit is the breath and life between the Father and Son, and the love shared between them.  Love and life and breath all together.  This may  give you a glimpse into what God means.

The Holy Spirit is not as venerated, it seems, as the Father and Son.  After all, the Father is the one who created all things, rained down fire and brimstone, and gave us the 10 Commandments.  The Son is the one who gave us new life, who raised himself from the dead, and who opened the Gates of Heaven.  The Spirit...  put tongues of fire on the heads of the Apostles, but that is about it.  It seems the Spirit isn't very active, or at least he is subtle in his actions, so there's less to attribute to him (even though it could be argued that we are currently living in the time of the Holy Spirit).  Sure, April is the month dedicated to him, and 1998 was  an entire year dedicated to him, but I feel the Holy Spirit is underrated.  He is the breath that stokes the fires of our hearts and minds, who tempers our thoughts and wills, and who inspires us to do God's work.

So, I urge you to think on this, pray, and take a moment to Breathe.

The Revelation to John

The main reason why my story, Murphy's Law, hasn't updated in nearly a year is because I am currently working on a novel.  It is something I've been working on for about 2 years now and I am getting very close to the end of the rough draft.  Now, when I write, I tend to plot out every plot point ahead of time, work out all the details so that I do not inadvertently miss something vital.  I know that not all writers do this.  But even though I draw out story arcs, write outlines, map out my Action/Reaction (Scene/Sequel to some), and keep extensive notes for that which I must change or be aware of during revisions, I still end up going off track from time to time.

During one of these little unscripted adventures, I realized that I had a potential sequel.  Already, a sequel, and I haven't finished the first book.  I'm not sure how many sequels I can pump out of this thing, or want to, but the more I thought about this sequel, the more I want to write it as well.  It's not well-developed yet, but I have plans.  And knowing these plans allows me to integrate what happens in this sequel into the first book, so that, although they could be seen as stand-alones, they tell one story.

I will try not to spoil anything.  However, in my preliminary research for the second book, I re-read all of The Revelation to John (also known as The Book of Revelation.  Singular.) and began to take notes.  And I noticed something... unusual.

Ask anyone what "Revelation" is about, and they will tell you that it's about the end of the world.  A select few might mention the four horsemen of the apocalypse, or the seven seals, or even the Beast and his number.  Only those who have actually read it will tell you that it also involves a 1500-mile-long-1500-mile-wide-1500-mile-high city of Jerusalem descending from the clouds in all its glory and splendor.

Some of this is true.  There is the city of Jerusalem with golden streets.  Some of this is half-true.  There are actually 2 Beasts.  Along with the Seven Seals, there are also Seven Trumpets and Seven Bowls.  And if you count the horsemen, it can be argued that there are in fact 5, and pestilence is not one of them.  But one wide-believed aspect of Revelation is not true at all.

Nowhere in the Book of Revelation does it mention the end of the world.

The Revelation to John starts with St. John writing to the seven "churches" of the early Christian world, and these messages are very specific.  He then jumps straight away into his Revelation, with no real introduction other than "After this, I looked..."  It is quite conceivable that the entirety of Revelation was a warning to early churches steeped in thick metaphor and symbolism, the meaning of which has been utterly lost over time.  In this case, Revelation bears nearly no importance to the modern world at all.  If it had any, we've forgotten how to decipher it.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that this is not the situation.  It is still quite possible that some of the events of Revelation already happened, and that they are very out of order.  There is the story of the Fall of the Angels right there in Revelation 12.  He was defeated by St. Michael, the Archangel, and 1/3 of the angels were thrown down the Earth with him.  This is after the 7 Seals have been opened, and after all 7 trumpets have been blown.  Does this mean that all which was written before this point happened in our distant past?  Has "the Dragon" not fallen yet?  Or is it out of order?  

Again, let us assume that it is in order, and that things have not happened yet.  What is it that Revelation actually tells us?  That lots of people die?  Well, yes.  But lots of people (more than the 144,000... much more) don't die, and in fact are revered.  Revelation is not telling us about the end of the world.  It is telling us about the Beginning.  The Beginning of something wonderful and holy and inclusive and nonjudgemental and beautiful.  The last chapter, 22, begins with the River of Life flowing through the great city, with a Tree of Life on either side bearing a different fruit for each month.  The leaves of the trees heal nations and nothing accursed can exist there.  Then Jesus, the Spirit, the Bride, and all who reside there, welcome you, the reader, to join them there and take the water of life as a gift.

Revelation is about hope and life.  So, how is it that it has come to be known by the opposite?

BSA

As many of you know, the Boy Scouts of America has been addressing the matter of allowing openly gay scouts and leaders into their ranks.  Under current regulations, it is not permitted, and a scout or leader will be removed from the program for being openly gay.  This has been a controversial topic for many reasons - so controversial, in fact, that the BSA postponed its decision until May.

Some of you may support the current regulations.  I, however, strongly oppose them.  But before you bash the BSA for being bigoted, allow me to open your eyes a little to their dilemma.  The BSA usually works through "chartered" organizations.  That is, a troop is chartered to an organization, such as a church or school.  The troop meets there, it gets money from there, and can even get its scoutmaster from it.  Of course, just because a troop meets and is chartered by, say, a mormon or baptist church does not mean that the scouts or leaders have to be mormon or baptist or even religious.  But if the BSA decides to allow openly gay scouts and leaders into their ranks, many of these groups will turn the BSA away, and those troops will be left without a charter.  With nowhere to meet, what will happen to them?  With no money, how will they survive?  So the issue of whether or not the BSA allows gays to join them is not so cut-and-dry as many people believe.

Well, today I received an email from the BSA asking for my opinion through a lengthy survey because I am an Assistant Scoutmaster and Eagle Scout.  I most certainly let them know my mind, and I wish to share it with you.

Of course, like an idiot, I copied the thing I wrote and forgot to paste it before copying something else. So I will have to paraphrase what I sent.

The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does not adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?

The answer:
First of all, it is every American's right to be gay or straight, and in most cases discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is against the law.  Secondly, a scout is brave.  It is one of the twelve tenants of the Scout Law.  What kind of message does it send to scouts and the nation if the BSA itself cannot stand up against bigotry and do what is right, regardless of the threats it faces?  How can the BSA reprimand a scout who bravely declares he is gay without becoming hypocritical?  Those who oppose gay rights are ruled by fear and ignorance.  They believe that being gay necessitates that you are also a pervert and a pedophile, but that is not the case.  These ideals stand in direct opposition to what Scouting stands for.  Finally, history has shown that the oppressed are usually right.  Today's youth overwhelmingly support gay rights.  Does the BSA wish to stand in the way of progress and promote bigoted ideals, or does it want to lead the next generation of leaders through its own example? If the BSA refuses to allow equal rights within its ranks, it will either revisit this decision in coming years or be doomed to extinction.

The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?

The answer:
I am in full support of allowing openly gay scouts and leaders into the organization.  It is a good and right thing to do.  However, I am concerned on two fronts. The first is that charters will threaten to separate themselves from the BSA and the BSA will cave in.  The second is that at some point, one openly gay leader or scout WILL harass a scout and the media will blow it out of proportion.  It will ignore the many straight leaders or already harass boys, and the BSA will rethink its policy based on this fear-mongering.



Do I know what is best for Scouting in general?  No, of course not.  I do not know what kind of threats the BSA has received or will receive because of this potential policy.  If most of the charters leave the scouts hanging with nowhere to go, it would essentially end the scouting movement in America and prove that the USA has a *very* long way to go.  On the other hand, if it doesn't adopt this policy, more and more young adults will steer clear of the organization (because they support gay rights), and when they have kids they will keep them out of scouting.  Without any scouts or leaders, the BSA will fail.  However, I believe that the BSA needs to take a chance and show its youth that we do not negotiate with bullies, even if those bullies have positions of authority over us.

Applebee's and the Stiffed Waiter

If you have been on the internet at all in the past week, you have doubtless heard of the now infamous waiter who got stiffed by a pastor while working at Applebee's.  There has been a lot of misinformation, but I have taken particular interest in this matter because 1) I am a Christian, 2) I have waited tables for nearly a decade, and 3) I hate being misrepresented.  So, allow me to put in my two cents.  First, however, the facts as I have discovered them.

A waiter was working at Applebee's a week ago when a regular church group came in.  This church group consisted of 15-20 people, including the Pastor, a woman named Alois Bell.  They ran up a bill in excess of $200.  Now, most people know that restaurants generally include an 18% gratuity when working with table of 8 or more.  The waiter theorizes that in order to get around this, the pastor split the bill into many smaller tabs and picked them all up herself.  If you've worked in the restaurant business, you'll know that this does not work.  In order to do this, you would all have needed to be at different tables.  When he waiter got the receipt back, the 18% gratuity had been scribbled out, there was a "0" under "additional tips" and a note was scrawled over it saying, "I give God 10%, why do you get 18?".  The pastor then signed her name and it seems went back to add the word "Pastor" above her name, as if to point out her own humble religious background (note the sarcasm).

The waiter showed this to a colleague of his, one Chelsea Welch, who then went to Reddit and posted it on an atheist forum as a reason she is an atheist.  From here, it exploded, and since Chelsea neglected to block out the easily legible signature, Alois Bell was inundated with negative comments, emails, etc. Her friend found out about it, showed Alois what was going on online, and in the spirit of Christianity (again, sarcasm; I use it frequently) called the Applebee's up and demanded that they fire the waiter, the colleague, and the entire managing staff.  Applebee's responded by firing Ms Welch.  They claim that she violated their customer's right to privacy by posting that picture online without blocking out the signature.  After that happened, there was another huge backlash against Pastor Alois Bell.  She later "apologized" by saying that she was not acting like she normally would have.

Then came the PR Nightmare for Applebee's.  Apparently, they had violated other customers' information themselves on their own website, and hastily removed these pictures in the wake of this disaster.  They then shot themselves in the foot by belittling their customers (although I have a feeling their PR staff had no idea that they were doing this) and not listening to what was being said.  There is now a campaign to get Chelsea hired again.

Now for my two cents.

I'll start with Atheism.  I have no problem with it.  I live in a country where we have a freedom to believe whatever we want, even if that means not believing in God.  One of my best friends is an atheist (or agnostic, he's not sure which), who regularly gets into intelligent debates with me over religion.  Neither of us has ever gained ground on the other, and for a simple reason.  You will never prove, nor disprove, the existence of God.  I said it.  It comes down to faith and faith alone.  Sure, you may disagree with various religious institutions, or specific religions or religious practices, but you can never disprove nor prove the actual existence of God (though, I must say, I've heard much stronger cases for the existence of God than against it.  Then again, I might be a bit biased).  So, it irks me to no end when I see someone who claims to be a pastor, a shepherd of God, an example of the faith, blatantly straying from the principals of that faith.  And it is even worse when that bad example is used as an argument against the entire religion or against God himself.  It is patently ridiculous.  I can guarantee you that I am far more upset about this pastor (and have every right to be) than any atheist, because that pastor is a travesty to everything I believe in.  If I voted for Candidate A and he wins, I feel I have more reason to be upset if Candidate A does something stupid than if I had voted for Candidate B.  The same thing works here.
What is worse is the ignorance.  It is rampant and I fear it is intended.  People WANT to be ignorant so they can continue in their own beliefs, however misinformed they are.  This is not what Jesus taught or how He wants us to behave.  Matthew 7:15 puts it quite clearly.  "Watch out for false prophets.  They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."  It is our call as Christians to defend our faith against those who would lead us astray, and far too often Christians do not even try to do so.  If you are a Christian (or really of any faith, including atheism), you need to seriously consider what your personal beliefs truly are, then inform yourself about what your religion actually believes and what your pastor/priest/etc. is saying.  It may very well be that you don't agree.  And you should read the Bible, and then study it, so that you know what it really says and what it really means.  If you are going to try to attack the faith, any faith, first you should learn what the faith really is about, then you should see how it has been attacked before and where these attacks have failed.  Chances are you have nothing new to add to the thousands of years of intelligent nay-sayers.

Now that I have that over and done with, on to the main course.  First, I would like to point out that the pastor did indeed pay the 18% gratuity.  Although she scribbled it out, if you know anything about waiting ables, you'll know that said gratuity was included in the total.  Applebee's was actually being a bit underhanded by listing what the gratuity was after posting the total on the receipt (and not the bill), because most people will just add that in not thinking, thus giving the waiter a 26% tip.  Dick move there, Applebee's.  So, although she intended to pay a 0% tip, she still ended up paying the 18% that was included.  I also feel I should inform you, my readers (all... 20 or so of you), of how tipping works in America.

When you are served in a restaurant in America, you are expected to tip.  The waiter makes between $2.13 and $2.15 an hour, which is just barely enough to cover taxes.  Usually waiters don't even see this money, because by law they are required to declare their tips so they can be taxed.  In practice, they declare 10%-15% of their sales, and they still won't see more than a buck or two out of their "paycheck."  I have known waiters who did not even bother picking up their checks - it wouldn't have been worth the gas to take them to the bank.  Now don't get me wrong, waiters can make a lot of money, depending on where they work, if they are good, and which shifts they take.  The standard tip in America is 15%.  People say this changes, but it is a lie.  It is a percentage, so it does not need to change.  Learn math, people.  A good tip is 20%.  Anything higher is indicative of exemplary service.  10% is an insulting tip, an indicator that you did not do your job well.  Anything lower is just a slap in the face.  If you tend to tip low, or not at all, remember that servers (as well as pizza delivery boys, but I won't go into that fiasco) remember and talk.  Don't be surprised if your food takes a lot longer to get to your table the next time you go out.

Waiters work HARD.  It takes about 6 months of working every day to really get into the swing of things.  I remember when it happened to me.  I was the only waiter and we only had the head cook.  Some local event ended and what was supposed to be a slow night became about 10 tables in the course of 15 minutes.  After handling that, I could do anything.  It takes multi-tasking, memorizing ingredients in food, memorizing the menu, being quick on your feet for hours, having good customer service skills, being observant, and doing it all with a smile.  You may have to clean, bus tables, serve customers, expo, make desserts (almost all desserts are made by your waiter), handle problem customers, and make sure the kitchen staff gets the order right.  So if you think your waiter is lazy and looking for a quick buck, think again.

A word to Pastor Alois Bell.  You are called to act as God's representative here on Earth.  Calling to complain and demanding that people are fired is not the right course of action for someone of God.  You may be perfectly within your rights as an American citizen to do so, but you aren't just a citizen, you are a pastor and an example to your community.  Pettiness should be below you.  Jesus taught us to forgive, to turn the other cheek.  Instead of demanding her resignation, you had a chance to make a real impact against that girl and the atheist community that read her post.  If you had instead apologized and given her a huge tip, she just may have thought twice about what she said about theists.  And much more importantly, it would have shone in Christ's eyes as a wonderful act of contrition.  But do not think that it is too late.  Please, Pastor Bell, you can still do the right thing.  Give the girl money to help pay for her bills.  Find her a job.  Don't be sorry because you got caught (and your apology screams of such guilt).  If you are truly sorry, back it up with actions and not just hollow words.

And now a word to Applebee's.  First of all, there have been a lot of people attacking Applebee's for firing Chelsea.  Frankly, they did not have a choice.  It was the right thing to do.  She did indeed violate the terms of her employment and was caught doing so.  I do not fault Applebee's at all for firing Chelsea.  Sure, they could have ignored it as I'm sure businesses do frequently, but once it went viral online, ignoring it would have been a message to other employees that they could post their customers' information without fear of penalty.  And after getting a call from Pastor Bell, their feet were to the fire and they simply had to act.
The problem is not the fact that they fired Chelsea or why they fired her.  It is their attempt at Public Relations afterwards.  Several times on their facebook page, they claimed that people "do not have all the information."  Now, I'm sure that many people didn't, but Applebee's should not assume this and use it as a defense.  Besides, this is the internet.  Find or MAKE a site that HAS all the information and guide people to it.  If only there was a way to link to another site...  They did a poor job at damage control, to say the least.  There shouldn't even have been any damage control to do!  Here is how they Applebee's should have handled it.
There should have been a special page on their website, one that looks like company letterhead.  It should state something similar to this:

We here at Applebee's take our customers' rights very seriously.  After learning that a customer's signature was posted online freely for the world to see, we were forced to take action and terminate the employee responsible.  We are very sorry to see Ms Welch go, but we cannot allow such blatant violation of our employment agreement to go unpunished.  It has also come to our attention that we have erred in the past, and we apologize for it.  Never again will we allow a customer's information to be shared without that customer's express written permission first.  We have always strived to be a part of your community, and hope to serve our communities for many years to come.

This should then have been signed by Julia Stewart, CEO of DineEquity Inc (their parent company) and Mike Archer, the President of the company.  When it comes to social media, they should not get into semantic fights with people posting comments.  They should not belittle the intelligence of their customers.  They SHOULD have put up a similar apology, or a link to the apology, possibly included a printable coupon (a good one, not just some appetizer with purchase of meal... make it a free appetizer just for coming in!) as their way of showing that they care about their community, and then let it go.  Haters will hate, fans will be fans.  Keep the response simple, professional, and official at all times.  Do not delete or move posts or comments, do not comment at 4 in the morning (anywhere here in America, keep it during business hours), and do not comment on anyone else's comments!  I would not be at all surprised if Applebee's sees a huge hit in their profits this quarter.

All in all, this simple little act, something that happens hundreds of times every day (yes, we waiters get stiffed all-too-frequently), got blown out of proportions because of several bad mistakes by many people.  The waiter should not have allowed the receipt to be photographed, Chelsea should not have posted it online, Paster Bell should not have called to get her fired (or made such inflammatory comments in the first place), and Applebee's should have acted more professionally than it did.  Frankly, I hope some aspiring, intelligent professor sees this entire fiasco and uses it as a life lesson in how to live in the modern world.  And I hope you all do, too.

Lenten Service

It seems things have not been cooperating. But I will not let this defeat me.

My writing group did indeed meet last Thursday... but not to read. It seems the bookstore we have been frequenting for the past 17 years is closing due to financial difficulties. This is a real shame as I had just discovered the place and was looking forward to spending much time there. It was also so close to work. So last week was just that... our last week. At least, at that location. No one read or critiqued, instead they collaborated over a new spot. They have chosen as a temporary location a coffee shop nearby.

So no one read, and it wasn't much time for me to finish my paper (excuse, I know...). I wish to finish it by the next meeting.

Unfortunately, the next meeting is during Shrove Tuesday, what some of you know as "Mardi Gras." Mardi Gras is simply a celebration in which we use up all the goods, fun, and food (fattening foods, thus the name Fat Tuesday and its connection to pancake suppers) that we will be missing for the next 40 days of Lent. In the Episcopal Church, little celebration is had other than a pancake supper and some fellowship. Apparently some people celebrate it for 2 weeks or even since January 6th (Epiphany), ending it on Shrove Tuesday. In America it seems to have lost its meaning completely. Most Americans, even die-hard Christians (and Catholics, who really should know better) have never even HEARD of Lent, or may dimly be aware of it as Ash Wednesday (the day following Shrove Tuesday) is usually heralded by a few people with dark ashen crosses on their foreheads.

Allow me to elucidate. Easter is celebrated every year on the Sunday following the first full moon after the Spring Equinox. A few years ago, this was very, very early (I believe March 23 or 24), and it is pretty early this year as well, but it also means that Easter doesn't fall on a specific day. The week leading up to Easter is Holy Week, starting with Palm Sunday (the day Jesus was brought into Jerusalem on a donkey, named for the leaves laid on his path). Next is Fig Monday (named for the withering of a fig tree that bore no fruit), Holy Tuesday, Spy Wednesday (when Judas conspired with and was paid by the Pharisees to kill Jesus), Maundy Thursday (celebrated by a washing of the feet service; I have no clue where the name came from), Good Friday (when Jesus died on the cross), and finally Holy Saturday. The 40 days prior to Easter comprise a season of the Church called "Lent" which is a time of reflection, fasting, and sacrifice. Traditionally, Christians do not eat meat on Fridays (which is, in my opinion, not even CLOSE to a sacrifice). Often they give something up, like chocolate or spending money on shoes. It is also permitted to do a service in lieu of giving something up. Last year I followed the guidelines of Ramadan by not eating from sun-up to sun-down. This year I think a service to others is in order. Giving up chocolate or TV never seemed like it sparked a true devotion to God, no self-reflection. Sundays are an exception in Lent, as the church recognizes all Sundays as a celebration of Christ (something most people don't realize or forget).

Lent begins on Ash Wednesday, which is when good Anglican, Episcopal, and Catholic boys and girls go to service to receive a cross on the forehead made form the ashes of last year's palm branches. These ashes symbolize that we are dust and to dust we shall return. This mentality may also have inspired some of the more macabre celebrations on Carnival (Mardi Gras) such as skeletons. The time between Ash Wednesday and January 6th is called Epiphany, named after the Feast of the Epiphany on January 6 which is 13 days after Christmas (YES there are indeed 12 days in the Christmas season). Epiphany marks, supposedly, the day the Wise Men arrived in Bethlehem. Either that or it marks Jesus revealing himself as both God and man. I was always confused on that point. Gospel readings for that day tend to switch between the account of the Magi, the Baptism, and the Wedding at Canae.

I hope you all enjoyed your little lesson. What does all this have to do with me writing?

Nothing. Not really. In some small sense it was an attempt for me to actually write something longer than a paragraph. It may not be a well-written, well-composed, or well-organized creation, but it is there nonetheless. It ALSO means that I may be at a pancake supper during our meeting time. So I will write the rest of this short story as if I was going to read it to people, then I will move on to bigger and better things, maybe use it as a backup or just try to get it published. We will see.